PDF 4520k
Středa, 13. prosince 2017 - Štrasburk Revidované vydání
1. Zahájení zasedání
 2. Rozpravy o případech porušování lidských práv, demokracie a právního státu (oznámení předložených návrhů usnesení): viz zápis
 3. Akty v přenesené pravomoci (čl. 105 odst. 6 jednacího řádu): viz zápis
 4. Prováděcí opatření (článek 106 jednacího řádu): viz zápis
 5. Převod prostředků: viz zápis
 6. Předložení dokumentů: viz zápis
 7. Jednání předcházející prvnímu čtení v Parlamentu (schválení) (článek 69c jednacího řádu)
 8. Příprava zasedání Evropské rady ve dnech 14.–15. prosince 2017 - Současný stav jednání se Spojeným královstvím (rozprava)
 9. Předání Sacharovovy ceny (slavnostní zasedání)
 10. Pokračování denního zasedání
 11. Prohlášení předsednictví
 12. Přivítání
 13. Hlasování
  13.1. Současný stav jednání se Spojeným královstvím (B8-0676/2017, B8-0677/2017) (hlasování)
  13.2. Námitka vůči prováděcímu aktu: Použití kyseliny fosforečné, fosforečnanů, di-, tri- a polyfosforečnanů (E 338–452) ve zmrazených masných homolích pro vertikální grilování (B8-0666/2017) (hlasování)
  13.3. Návrh doporučení v návaznosti na vyšetřování praní peněz, vyhýbání se daňovým povinnostem a daňových úniků (B8-0660/2017) (hlasování)
  13.4. Výroční zpráva o provádění společné bezpečnostní a obranné politiky (A8-0351/2017 - Michael Gahler) (hlasování)
  13.5. Výroční zpráva o provádění společné zahraniční a bezpečnostní politiky (A8-0350/2017 - David McAllister) (hlasování)
  13.6. Výroční zpráva o lidských právech a demokracii ve světě v roce 2016 a politika EU v této oblasti (A8-0365/2017 - Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl) (hlasování)
  13.7. Hongkong 20 let po předání (A8-0382/2017 - Alyn Smith) (hlasování)
 14. Vysvětlení hlasování
  14.1. Současný stav jednání se Spojeným královstvím (B8-0676/2017, B8-0677/2017)
 15. Opravy hlasování a sdělení o úmyslu hlasovat: viz zápis
 16. Pokračování denního zasedání
 17. Schválení zápisu z předchozího zasedání: viz zápis
 18. Rozšíření a posílení schengenského prostoru: Bulharsko, Rumunsko a Chorvatsko (rozprava na aktuální téma)
 19. Provádění sociálního pilíře (rozprava)
 20. Agenda 2030 a zpráva Eurostatu o „Monitorování pokroku při dosahování cílů udržitelného rozvoje v EU“ (rozprava)
 21. Mechanismus civilní ochrany EU s vlastní operační kapacitou (rozprava)
 22. Celounijní zákaz nacistických a fašistických symbolů a hesel (rozprava)
 23. Vyšetřovací pravomoc Evropského parlamentu (rozprava)
 24. Uplatňování směrnice o boji proti pohlavnímu zneužívání a pohlavnímu vykořisťování dětí a proti dětské pornografii (rozprava)
 25. Pořad jednání příštího zasedání: viz zápis
 26. Ukončení zasedání



1. Zahájení zasedání
Videozáznamy vystoupení

(La seduta è aperta alle 9.05)


2. Rozpravy o případech porušování lidských práv, demokracie a právního státu (oznámení předložených návrhů usnesení): viz zápis

3. Akty v přenesené pravomoci (čl. 105 odst. 6 jednacího řádu): viz zápis

4. Prováděcí opatření (článek 106 jednacího řádu): viz zápis

5. Převod prostředků: viz zápis

6. Předložení dokumentů: viz zápis

7. Jednání předcházející prvnímu čtení v Parlamentu (schválení) (článek 69c jednacího řádu)

8. Příprava zasedání Evropské rady ve dnech 14.–15. prosince 2017 - Současný stav jednání se Spojeným královstvím (rozprava)
Videozáznamy vystoupení

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca, in discussione congiunta, le dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione

– sulla preparazione del Consiglio europeo del 14 e 15 dicembre (2017/2858(RSP)), e

– sullo Stato di avanzamento dei negoziati con il Regno Unito (2017/2964(RSP)).

Prima di dare la parola a Matti Maasikas, voglio informarvi che domani di fronte al Consiglio europeo, per quanto riguarda la riforma Dublino, intendo difendere le prerogative del Parlamento, il potere di codecisione e anche nel rispetto dei trattati, la possibilità di decidere a maggioranza qualificata. Visto che il Parlamento ha deciso in tal senso nella sua proposta, credo sia giusto procedere nella direzione prevista dal trattato.

Iniziamo allora il dibattito. Il primo intervento è quello di Matti Maasikas a nome del Consiglio.


  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, tomorrow and on Friday, leaders will meet in Brussels for a series of key debates in four different forms. In keeping with the spirit of the leaders’ agenda, presented by President Tusk, they are determined to engage more directly on politically sensitive issues. Brexit discussions will undoubtedly get the most visibility, and I will get to that in a moment, but there will be other important discussions for future work at the EU level that I will start with.

The formal meeting of the European Council will be dedicated to security and defence, the social dimension, education and culture. As you know, leaders keep a close eye on developments in the field of defence to make sure that political ambition is turned into concrete action. This approach has yielded results. It is fair to say that we have made more progress in the last 12 months than in the last 10 years. The most visible example is the launching of the permanent structured enhanced cooperation (PESCO) and leaders will mark the occasion when they meet tomorrow.

Against the background of the recently agreed new proposals for further joint work, leaders will exchange views on EU-NATO cooperation with NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg. They will also use the occasion to review other work strands including the European Defence Fund and its European Defence Industrial Development Programme. The adoption of the programme regulation by the co-legislators is now a matter of priority. The Council’s mandate has just been adopted, on 12 December. Leaders will then turn to the social dimension of the EU as well as education and culture. Leaders will adopt forward-looking conclusions in all three topics, building on last month’s fruitful discussions in Gothenburg.

The debate taking place over the dinner at 28 will be informal as per the leaders’ agenda working method. President Tusk considers that a serious political discussion is needed to pave the way forward on the external and the internal dimension of migration. It will be important to look at what has and what has not worked over the past two years and draw the necessary lessons for establishing an effective and sustainable migration policy. There will be no written output from the debate because the aim of the discussion is first and foremost to foster a shared understanding of the main issues ahead, as a basis for further work in the first half of 2018.

On Friday morning, the heads of the 25 Member States who have ratified the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance, joined by the Czech Republic and Croatia as observers, will discuss the future of the Economic and Monetary Union and the Banking Union. The Presidents of the Eurogroup, the Commission and the European Central Bank will take part as well. The aim of the leaders’ discussion will be to scope the priority issues on which work should proceed rapidly and to give a tasking to the Eurogroup and Ecofin to follow this up. To facilitate an open and political exchange of views, there will be no written statement afterwards.

Now I turn to the state of play of negotiations with the UK. After breakfast on Friday, the European Council will meet in its Article 50 format, that is at 27. We are getting very close to sufficient progress on the three Phase 1 issues, thanks to intensive work in the past month. At the October European Council, our assessment was that sufficient progress had not been achieved and it was too early to move to Phase 2. Now, I believe that we are there. The UK’s new improved offer which Prime Minister May presented last week looks like a solid agreement, and accordingly our chief negotiator Michel Barnier has presented a positive assessment for Friday’s European Council. I would like to use this opportunity to thank the European Parliament for your work that has helped us to reach this point.

This is a significant move from the UK, which I expect the EU 27 leaders to welcome. On Friday, the European Council, at 27, will adopt the guidelines with a view to possible transitional arrangements and on the framework for the future relationship. This, however, does not mean that we have finished with Phase 1 issues. There is still a lot to do, and any further progress in the next phase depends on full respect of the agreements described in the joint report of the negotiators.


  Presidente. – Prima di dare la parola al primo Vicepresidente Timmermans, a nome della Commissione europea, volevo informarvi che il Presidente Juncker mi ha chiamato dicendo che non poteva essere presente oggi perché impegnato in trattative per preparare il Consiglio di domani, soprattutto per quanto riguarda la questione Brexit.

Ora la parola al Vicepresidente Timmermans.


  Frans Timmermans, premier vice-président de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, on a bien vu, au fil de cette année, qu’en Europe, il faut travailler sans relâche et investir dans la volonté quotidienne d’avancer et de faire mieux ensemble. Mais les résultats sont là: le socle européen des droits sociaux, la coopération structurée permanente, une meilleure gestion européenne de la migration, des accords commerciaux avec le Canada et le Japon, et aussi la conclusion de la première phase des négociations sur le Brexit.

Il était encore inimaginable, il y a trois ans, que les trois institutions européennes et les vingt-huit États membres proclament ensemble un socle européen des droits sociaux lors du premier sommet social organisé par l’Europe depuis ces vingt dernières années. Je me souviens aussi des regards perplexes lorsque la Commission a proposé de réveiller la belle endormie du traité de Lisbonne, la coopération structurée permanente, et que les États membres coopèrent davantage sur des projets communs en matière de défense. Personne n’y croyait alors.

Aujourd’hui, pas moins de vingt-cinq États membres se sont engagés dans cette voie. Les premiers projets qui feront vivre cette nouvelle coopération, en matière de cyberdéfense, de commandement médical ou de logistique commune, ont dès à présent été identifiés. La Commission a proposé un Fonds européen de défense pour donner un sérieux coup de boost aux investissements de recherche et de développement commun en matière de défense. Je suis heureux qu’hier, juste à temps pour le Conseil européen, les États membres soient parvenus à un accord, à une approche générale, sur cette proposition.

La Commission compte maintenant sur le soutien de ce Parlement et nous invitons les États membres à présenter des projets pour que nous puissions démarrer les financements dès le début de 2019. Ce sont des idées que Jean—Claude Juncker et sa Commission défendaient depuis des années, mais ces idées sont maintenant finalement en bonne voie de concrétisation.

L’avenir de notre Union, c’est aussi celui de la zone euro. Les deux vont ensemble, ce sont deux réalités indissociables.

Natürlich verleihen uns auch der robuste Aufschwung und die niedrige Arbeitslosigkeit Wind in den Segeln. Deshalb ist es unser Auftrag, Europas Zukunft und damit auch die des Euro selbst in die Hand zu nehmen. Das heißt konkret: Wir müssen die wirtschaftliche Schönwetterlage nutzen, um unsere Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion stärker, effizienter und handlungsfähiger zu machen.

Die Kommission hat deshalb in der vergangenen Woche einen Fahrplan vorgelegt. Dieser Fahrplan enthält die wichtigen Etappen zur Vertiefung der Bankenunion, der Kapitalmarktunion und der Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion. Von ersten Entscheidungen im Juni bis hin nach Sibiu (Rumänien). Dort werden wir bei einem Gipfel vor den Europawahlen 2019 wichtige Entscheidungen zur Zukunft Europas treffen.

Der Fahrplan soll dafür sorgen, dass der Euro weiterhin sein Stabilitätsversprechen einhält, und gleichzeitig die Länder unserer Union enger vereinen. So gewinnen alle Mitglieder Stärke und Handlungsfähigkeit. Um das zu erreichen, müssen wir dringend die Bankenunion vollenden und Fortschritte dabei machen, Risiken parallel einzudämmen und zu teilen.

Entgegen anderen Behauptungen haben wir bereits viel getan, um Risiken zu reduzieren. So haben die Banken in der EU ihre Kapitalquote seit der Krise fast verdoppelt, und der Anteil notleidender Kredite geht ebenfalls kontinuierlich zurück. Die Kommission hat vor einem Jahr weitere Maßnahmen vorgelegt, um Bankrisiken zu reduzieren, und ich hoffe, dass dieses Haus und die Mitgliedstaaten zügig zustimmen.

Mit dem Paket der vergangenen Woche haben wir außerdem vorgeschlagen, den back stop für den einheitlichen Abwicklungsmechanismus einsatzbereit zu machen. Etwas, worauf sich die Mitgliedstaaten übrigens im Prinzip schon 2013 geeinigt hatten.

Wie viele von ihnen bin auch ich uch davon überzeugt, dass ein gemeinsamer Währungsraum im Laufe der Zeit auch ein gemeinsames Einlagensicherungssystem haben muss. Genauso dringlich ist es, dass wir die Kapitalmarktunion vollenden, denn gut integrierte Kapitalmärkte stellen nicht nur sicher, dass Risiken über private Finanzkanäle geteilt werden, sondern sie sind auch einer der effizientesten Wege, Fortschritte bei der Risikoeindämmung zu machen.

Mit den Initiativen zur Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion wollen wir auch bereits existierende Strukturen stärken und nicht neue Strukturen schaffen. Hier geht es nicht um einen Machtkampf, sondern um mehr europäische Effizienz. Indem wir etwa den Europäischen Stabilitätsmechanismus schrittweise zu einem Europäischen Währungsfonds ausbauen, werden wir Europäer selbst handlungsfähiger.

Wir helfen uns auch selbst, wenn wir die Mitgliedstaaten bei den notwendigen Reformen unterstützen. So stellt die Kommission eigens Strukturreformspezialisten zur Verfügung, um Verbesserungen auf dem Arbeitsmarkt, im Gesundheits- und im sozialen Bereich oder beim Management öffentlicher Haushalte umzusetzen.

Dieses Haus hat schon lange gefordert, dass wir den Fiskalpakt in EU-Recht überführen. Wenn wir das nun tun, werden wir ein besonderes Augenmerk darauf legen, nationale Haushaltsverantwortung und Solidarität miteinander in Einklang zu bringen. Je robuster und erfolgreicher unsere gemeinsame Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion ist, desto mehr Schutz und Chancen, Arbeitsplätze und Wachstum schafft sie für die Menschen.

Deshalb setze ich in dieser Frage ganz besonders auf Ihre Unterstützung. Sie sind das Parlament der Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion.

The next year will be critical in shaping our future. This is why I am delighted that President Juncker, together with President Tajani and Prime Minister Ratas, will tomorrow sign the new Joint Declaration on Legislative Priorities for 2018. The Joint Declaration will help focus all our minds on the issues where we can make the biggest difference and show real results to citizens, ahead of the European elections.

Nowhere is this more important than in migration, an issue on the Leaders’ Agenda this week. We need a comprehensive European approach, including much more than just border management and support to Africa, but also solidarity within the European Union and preserving the Schengen Area of free movement. I firmly disagree with the statement that relocation as an emergency response has been ineffective. Over 32 000 people have been relocated. That is over 90% of all those eligible. Migration is an issue that will stay with us for generations, and we have to be ready for a possible next crisis. So let me be clear: all building blocks of our comprehensive approach are needed. Take one brick out and the whole edifice crumbles. Temporary internal borders may become permanent, with lasting damage also to the internal market. This Parliament has adopted its position on the Dublin reform. It is now time for leaders to unblock the stalemate in Council and strike the right balance between solidarity and responsibility.


Let the Treaty lead. What is up to co-legislators should be left in the hands of co-legislators, and not ‘returned’ to Member States. We will either find a European solution to the migration challenge, or there will be no solution.


Only by getting the reform of the Dublin Regulation done will we be able to get back to Schengen. This cannot be left on the shoulders of a few Member States. Every single Member State will have to do its measure and show solidarity to the Union as a whole. We must also urgently improve the conditions of migrants in detention camps in Libya. At the African Union—EU Summit in Abidjan, leaders agreed to work in concert with the United Nations to save and protect lives of migrants and refugees along the routes and, in particular, inside Libya.

I want to briefly mention the successful conclusion of the final discussions of the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement. Last Friday, the negotiators concluded the talks for the biggest bilateral trade agreement ever negotiated by the European Union. The Economic Partnership Agreement will remove most of the EUR 1 billion of duties paid annually by EU companies exporting to Japan. It will also open up the Japanese market of 127 million consumers to key EU agricultural exports. It will increase EU export opportunities in a range of other sectors. With this partnership, Europe and Japan send a powerful message in defence of open, fair and rules-based trade. Now let us do the necessary to submit the agreement for approval to you, the European Parliament, and to the EU Member States, so that our companies and citizens can start exploiting its full potential before the end of the mandate of this Commission.

Mr President, with your permission I would now like to pass the floor to Michel Barnier to enlighten us on the Article 50 negotiations.



  Michel Barnier, négociateur en chef pour le Brexit. – Monsieur le Président, merci aussi à Frans Timmermans et à vous-même de m’autoriser à m’exprimer au début de votre assemblée plénière sur cette négociation extraordinaire et extraordinairement difficile et complexe avec le Royaume-Uni et à évoquer le premier résultat auquel nous sommes parvenus ensemble vendredi dernier.

C’est une étape importante, il y en aura beaucoup d’autres à franchir, mais cet accord est important parce qu’avec ce rapport conjoint et détaillé (96 paragraphes, 15 pages), nous traitons en amont des sujets difficiles de la séparation que le Royaume-Uni a voulue. Si le Conseil européen le souhaite, en tenant compte de votre propre résolution, cette première étape nous permettra d’envisager la suite des négociations de manière plus sereine.

Nous affirmons aussi la stabilité de notre continent. Dans un monde – nous le savons tous – incertain, notre Union doit être capable de trouver avec le Royaume-Uni des solutions rationnelles et doit pouvoir ensuite, ou en même temps, se concentrer et concentrer son énergie sur toutes les initiatives et tous les défis que nous avons à affronter ensemble et que Frans Timmermans vient d’évoquer au nom de la Commission européenne.

Nous passons aussi un message de confiance à beaucoup de gens, à beaucoup d’acteurs, à beaucoup de citoyens qui sont inquiets, parfois même angoissés, à la suite de la décision du Royaume—Uni de quitter l’Union européenne. Dans cette négociation – je l’ai déjà dit souvent parmi vous –, notre état d’esprit n’a jamais été de faire des concessions mutuelles. Il ne s’agissait pas de faire des concessions sur les droits des citoyens. Il ne s’agissait pas de faire des concessions sur le processus de paix et la stabilité en Irlande, ni même de faire des concessions à l’égard des milliers de porteurs de projets qui sont financés par les politiques et par le budget européen. Je sais que cette ligne a toujours été partagée par le Parlement et aussi par le Conseil.

L’accord qui a été trouvé vendredi doit beaucoup – je veux le dire, Matti – à la coopération permanente avec le Conseil, avec les États membres. Cet accord doit beaucoup à votre soutien permanent et exigeant, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés. Je voudrais, Monsieur le Président Tajani, vous en remercier et remercier sincèrement à ce stade – nous ne sommes pas au bout de la route – votre coordinateur Guy Verhofstadt, les membres du groupe de pilotage sur le Brexit, que vous avez créé, Elmar Brok, Roberto Gualtieri, Danuta Maria Hübner, Gabriele Zimmer et Philippe Lamberts, les présidents de vos groupes politiques et également les présidents des commissions, avec lesquels je continuerai de travailler.

Je voudrais évoquer les points principaux de notre accord. Je rappelle aussi que l’objectif que votre assemblée et le Conseil européen m’avaient fixé était à ce stade, sur une base objective, d’obtenir des progrès suffisants. «Des progrès suffisants», cela ne veut pas dire 100 %, mais de vrais progrès suffisants, c’est-à-dire des progrès suffisamment précis qui engagent et forment une base solide pour la poursuite de nos négociations. C’est cette appréciation positive que – Frans Timmermans pourrait le dire mieux que moi – la Commission européenne et son président, Jean-Claude Juncker, ont portée sur ce rapport conjoint.

Les engagements politiques qui ont été pris au plus haut niveau vendredi et que nous avons traduits de manière très précise dans le rapport conjoint me paraissent – je le dis en toute responsabilité – remplir ces conditions. Je veux être très clair sur ce point, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés: jamais je n’aurais présenté ce rapport conjoint dans ma responsabilité de négociateur s’il n’était pas l’occasion d’acter et de prendre acte, avec le Royaume-Uni, de vrais progrès pour sécuriser les droits des citoyens, pour sécuriser les porteurs de projets financés par le budget européen et pour sécuriser le processus de paix en Irlande et les conditions de la coopération Nord-Sud.

Nous n’accepterons aucun retour en arrière par rapport à ce rapport conjoint. Ces progrès sont actés et devront être rapidement traduits dans un accord de retrait juridiquement contraignant sur chacun de nos trois sujets et sur quelques autres aussi qui restent à négocier ou à clarifier. C’est l’une des conditions pour la bonne poursuite des négociations.

Au début de ce débat en plénière, je voudrais insister essentiellement sur le sujet qui a été notre priorité commune depuis le début: les droits des citoyens. Quatre millions et demi de citoyens européens, que vous représentez, ont décidé de vivre de l’autre côté de la Manche ou chez nous sur la base du droit de l’Union, qui permet la libre circulation des personnes. Notre rapport conjoint préserve leurs droits. Il garantit que tous les citoyens européens arrivés au Royaume-Uni et tous les citoyens britanniques arrivés dans l’Union avant la date du retrait britannique pourront continuer à vivre comme aujourd’hui avec des garanties appliquées sans discrimination pour la nationalité et pour la durée de leur vie.

Cela veut dire, par exemple, qu’un citoyen du continent ou du Royaume-Uni qui a choisi de vivre d’un côté ou de l’autre de la Manche pourra continuer à y résider après le Brexit. Ce droit de résidence sera même étendu par rapport au droit existant. Si ce citoyen décide de revenir dans son pays et, donc, s’absente du Royaume-Uni ou d’un autre pays, il pourra revenir et retrouver ses droits après une période d’absence d’un maximum de cinq ans, contre deux années seulement aujourd’hui.

Une étudiante britannique dans l’un des pays de l’Union ne subira pas les effets du Brexit. Elle pourra continuer ses études, payer les mêmes droits d’inscription que les citoyens du pays où elle étudie et même y travailler après ses études. Cela vaut évidemment pour tous les étudiants européens au Royaume-Uni. Des infirmières ou des médecins en fonction avant le Brexit pourront continuer à travailler dans leur pays d’accueil. Leurs qualifications professionnelles resteront reconnues, tout comme ce sera le cas des autres professions.

Les membres de la famille conserveront leur droit à rejoindre leurs proches dans le futur, après le Brexit, au Royaume-Uni ou dans l’Union. Tous les enfants seront protégés, même ceux qui naîtront après le Brexit. Les citoyens garderont leurs droits aux soins de santé, à la retraite, aux autres prestations de sécurité sociale, même s’ils quittent leur pays d’accueil pour un autre pays de l’Union. Cela vaut aussi pour un point qui était en débat jusqu’au dernier moment: la portabilité des droits aux allocations familiales.

Je veux être aussi clair sur la mise en œuvre de ces droits. L’accord de retrait primera sur le droit national, qu’il soit britannique, français, slovaque ou maltais. Les garanties qu’il comportera seront directement invocables par les citoyens concernés pendant toute leur vie. Il n’y aura enfin aucune ambiguïté sur l’interprétation de ces droits d’un côté ou de l’autre de la Manche. La jurisprudence actuelle de la Cour de justice fera partie de l’accord et la jurisprudence future qu’il faudra construire s’appliquera. Les tribunaux britanniques devront la prendre dûment en compte – c’est ce qui est écrit dans le rapport – pendant toute la durée de la vie des citoyens concernés également. Enfin, les autorités britanniques ont prévu de créer une autorité indépendante qui pourra être saisie par les citoyens européens au Royaume—Uni, comme d’ailleurs les citoyens britanniques peuvent saisir de leurs droits la Commission européenne. Cette autorité indépendante sera détaillée dans son fonctionnement dans la suite de l’accord de retrait.

Alors, Mesdames et Messieurs, il y a un autre problème s’agissant de tous les citoyens européens – 3 millions et demi de personnes – qui vivent actuellement et travaillent au Royaume-Uni, qui concerne la procédure d’enregistrement que le Royaume-Uni a exigée pour les citoyens européens sur son territoire. Il me semble – je sais la sensibilité et l’attention que vous portez à ce point – qu’il s’agit d’une démarche administrative qui sera pratique et nécessaire pour faciliter l’exercice effectif des droits. Mais nous avons obtenu – et cela est inscrit dans le rapport joint – que cette condition de cette démarche administrative soit transcrite dans l’accord de retrait avec les garanties nécessaires. Il s’agit bien d’un enregistrement ou de démarches administratives pour ces citoyens avec un pays qui deviendra un pays tiers, le 29 mars 2019 à minuit ou à 23 heures, heure de Londres.

Ce que nous avons prévu dans ce rapport conjoint, c’est que la procédure que le Royaume-Uni mettra en place devra être simple d’utilisation, fondée sur des critères objectifs, accompagnée des mêmes garanties procédurales qu’aujourd’hui, notamment en termes de recours. Les citoyens européens qui sont déjà résidents permanents au Royaume-Uni obtiendront ce statut spécial gratuitement. Pour le reste, les coûts ne devraient pas excéder ceux imposés aux citoyens britanniques pour la délivrance de documents similaires, autour de 70 livres sterling. Mais je veux répéter que les conditions de cette procédure administrative – que les autorités britanniques ont exigée – seront précisées. Vous pourrez vérifier leur simplicité dans l’accord de retrait lui-même, qui vous sera soumis pour ratification.

Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, nous ne sommes pas au bout de la route ni sur les droits des citoyens – je viens de le dire – ni sur les autres sujets du retrait ordonné, nous resterons donc vigilants. Theresa May s’est engagée au nom de tout le gouvernement britannique. Il nous revient désormais de décider si ce résultat est un progrès suffisant pour ouvrir, dans certaines conditions, la deuxième phase des négociations. Si votre résolution va dans ce sens et si le Conseil européen constate également vendredi un progrès suffisant, j’engagerai, en votre nom, les travaux de rédaction formelle de l’accord de retrait – et nous pouvons le faire assez vite sur la base de ce rapport conjoint, notamment.

Nous poursuivrons les négociations sur tous les sujets où il nous faut encore clarifier, approfondir, négocier la gouvernance de l’accord futur, différents sujets comme les indications géographiques, la question des données et puis l’Irlande qui fera l’objet d’une voie de négociation spécifique. Nous devons trouver pour l’Irlande, ensemble, chacun dans sa responsabilité, des solutions spécifiques pour répondre à une situation unique sur l’île.

En fonction des décisions du Conseil européen, nous avancerons également dans la définition d’une période de transition qui sera courte et encadrée pendant laquelle nous maintiendrons, avec les politiques européennes, l’ensemble de l’architecture de régulation, de supervision et, évidemment, le rôle de la Cour de justice.

Enfin, nous poursuivrons – si vous le voulez – notre préparation interne à 27, avec vous aussi, sur la relation future; nous avons à nous mettre d’accord entre nous sur le cadre de cette relation future. Mais, d’ores et déjà – je le dis clairement et tranquillement –, il y a des points qui ne seront pas négociables: ni l’intégrité du marché unique, ni les quatre libertés qui sont indissociables et sont la fondation du marché unique, ni l’autonomie de décision de l’Union, que le Royaume-Uni a choisi de quitter.

Le Royaume—Uni deviendra un pays tiers, le 29 mars 2019. Nous pensons qu’un étroit partenariat dans le futur doit rester notre horizon commun. Nous savons où nous sommes aujourd’hui et nous savons où nous pourrons aller. Je vous propose aujourd’hui de reconnaître que cette étape est importante. Il nous reste beaucoup d’autres étapes pour aboutir à un retrait ordonné du Royaume-Uni, qui vaut beaucoup mieux qu’un retrait désordonné.

Je vous remercie, à ce stade, Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, pour l’avenir aussi, de votre soutien et de votre confiance, mais aussi de votre vigilance sur le déroulement futur des négociations.


  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, a few days ago, the Mail on Sunday published an opinion poll: 50% of British people are in favour of a new referendum.


The British people realise now that Brexit means losing many things but not gaining anything. Let me mention just one example, which was an interesting one: the debate in recent days in Britain about the decision of the Commission that British cities can no longer be European Capitals of Culture.


A very easy message that you can understand, the British will lose a lot. And on the other hand, the European Member States understand that sticking together makes all of us much stronger.


I want to use Ireland as an example of this. Whereas the United Kingdom could easily set the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, the recent negotiations have clearly demonstrated that Ireland is today much stronger because it belongs to the European Union.

(Heckling and applause)

We are all Irish: that is the main message, and we Europeans have secured Irish interests in the negotiations in the last few weeks.

I want to underline two concrete points: one is that in this first phase, the idea was to create trust between Great Britain and the European Union. I have to say that the recent statement by David Davis about what this outcome now means practically was not helpful in securing this trust-building approach, so we ask the British Prime Minister to clarify by Thursday that the outcome of the first phase is binding on both sides, and is a basis for future talks in the second phase.

For the second phase we have a key role to play. We finally decide about the withdrawal treaty and for my group, one thing is clear: we can only accept a kind of transitional period if we have a sufficient outcome from the second phase. Without a withdrawal treaty there will be no transitional period – that must be clear for next year, 2018.

Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, ich möchte noch auf ein zweites Thema eingehen, weil wir uns heute in der Dezembersitzung befinden. Wenn wir die Menschen von Europa überzeugen wollen, müssen wir über unsere Erfolge reden, wie es auch Frans Timmermans heute gemacht hat.

Im Jahr 2017, in diesem abgelaufenen Jahr, haben wird insgesamt 74 Legislativakte auf den Weg gebracht. Wir sind beim Pariser Klimaabkommen, beim wirtschaftlichen Aufschwung für Europa, bei CETA vorangekommen, und bei anderen internationalen Handelsabkommen haben wir gezeigt, dass wir Brücken bauen und nicht Brücken abreißen wollen. Bei der Verteidigung sind historische Schritte gemacht worden. Bei der Zusammenarbeit im Verteidigungsbereich und auch bei der Sozialunion gibt es Fortschritte zu vermelden.

Wir liefern in der Sache. Das ist die wichtigste Botschaft an die Bürger. Wenn wir sie von Europa überzeugen wollen, brauchen wir keine Theoriedebatten – wir brauchen Lösungen in der Sache. Da sind wir in den letzten Monaten sehr stark vorangekommen.

Für 2018 möchte ich deutlich machen, dass ein Hauptthema die Frage der Grenzsicherung ist. Wir müssen den Bürgern in Europa deutlich machen, dass es uns gelingt, unseren eigenen Kontinent zu sichern, vor allem, wenn es um die illegale Migration geht.

Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Der European Way of Life ist eines der Themen, das meine Fraktion stark umtreibt. Es gilt ihn zu definieren und zu beschützen, und das gerade in unsicheren Zeiten. Lassen Sie mich deswegen heute als dritten Gedanken einen sehr grundsätzlichen Gedanken einbringen, nämlich dass ich gerade jetzt in der Weihnachtszeit darauf verweisen will, dass unser Kontinent christliche Wurzeln hat. 75 % aller EU- Bürger sind Christen. Meine Fraktion ist stolz auf dieses christliche Erbe, das Europa in unseren Kirchen, aber auch in unseren Traditionen und im täglichen Leben lebt.

Wenn wir heute auf die Grundstruktur unseres Kontinents blicken, auf die Ideen der Solidarität, auf die Ideen der Subsidiarität, auf die Ideen der Toleranz im Umgang miteinander, dann sind viele dieser Grundwerte nicht denkbar ohne die christlich-jüdischen Wurzeln unseres Kontinents.

Diese Fundamente sollten wir uns bewusst machen. Auch Nicht- Christen, auch Menschen, die den Glauben ablehnen, werden in den nächsten Tagen froh sein, dass Europa stillsteht, dass wir auf diesem Kontinent einmal zur Ruhe kommen. Das Erbe, dass Weihnachten in ganz Europa praktiziert wird, führt dazu, dass unser Leben und auch unser Jahresablauf Struktur hat.

Deswegen möchte ich zum Schluss zum Ausdruck bringen, dass diese Werte für uns als Fraktion wichtig sind, dass uns die Grundlage dieses Kontinents immer wieder bewusst sein sollte und dass wir auch stolz darauf sein dürfen.



  Gianni Pittella, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, a proposito di tradizioni cristiane, ricordo che oggi è il giorno di Santa Lucia, protettrice della vista, che aiuti i nostri governi a vedere l'urgenza delle decisioni.

Sento dire che bisogna aspettare la formazione di un governo in Germania: oggi la Germania, ieri erano le elezioni in Francia, domani quelle in Italia. Siamo di fronte alla dittatura dell'immediato, e la dittatura dell'immediato allontana la visione di un'Europa più forte, dotata di una vera governance dell'area euro, di un ministero del Tesoro e delle Finanze, di una capacità di gestione dei flussi migratori e dei richiedenti asilo.

Questa volta la Commissione ha messo sul tavolo una proposta concreta. Noi avremmo voluto che fosse più ambiziosa. Mi riferisco alla proposta sull'Unione economica e monetaria: pensiamo ad esempio che la logica del fiscal compact vada ribaltata e non semplicemente addolcita, però la proposta c'è e presenta anche novità positive, come l'istituzione di un fondo monetario europeo che possa aiutare gli Stati in difficoltà.

Ma tutto ciò deve tradursi in decisioni concrete, e queste decisioni sono ferme perché il Consiglio deve attendere. Io dico al Presidente Tusk: si vada avanti, non alzi la bandiera come sta facendo, ad esempio, sulle quote obbligatorie dei rifugiati, cerchi di convincere gli Stati membri, perché questo è il suo ruolo, non quello di alzare la bandiera in segno di rassegnazione. Bisogna procedere: istituiamo un vero e proprio ministero delle Finanze, che non sia solo il guardiano dei conti, ma che possa appoggiarsi su una linea di bilancio e aiutare la convergenza tra economie diverse, e che sia responsabile di fronte a questo Parlamento.

Sulla Brexit: abbiamo fatto un buon lavoro, grazie ai negoziatori del Parlamento, allo steering group – non li cito tutti ma li conosciamo bene – grazie alla Commissione europea, grazie all'amico capo negoziatore Michel Barnier. Ora, non smarriamo il momentum, e mi rivolgo al Governo britannico: basta con le dichiarazioni improvvide, come quella di David Davis, che ha definito questo accordo un semplice statement of intent. Dobbiamo pensare che questo valga anche per il confine irlandese? In questo caso il primo ministro May dovrebbe spiegarlo ai suoi alleati di governo.

Questo accordo, come è stato ricordato da Barnier, contiene molti passi in avanti positivi, abbiamo protetto i diritti dei cittadini britannici ed europei e delle loro famiglie, e in un momento in cui molti additano l'Europa come matrigna, l'Europa ha dimostrato di essere una madre che assicura diritti ed opportunità. E le stesse ansie dei cittadini della Repubblica d'Irlanda e dell'Irlanda del Nord fanno riemergere il ruolo di un'Unione che smorza i conflitti e porta pace, e anche sui timori dei sindacati e dei lavoratori, sui rischi di dumping sociale ed ambientale, l'Unione europea con il negoziato ha ricordato che l'Europa, l'Unione europea, resta una forza che protegge.

Infine, voglio concludere parlando della dichiarazione congiunta delle tre istituzioni. Come ha ricordato il vicepresidente Timmermans, vi sono elementi positivi in questa dichiarazione, anche prodotti dalla nostra iniziativa di Socialisti e Democratici. Ma non possiamo non ribadire la nostra insoddisfazione su altri punti che mancano: le questioni sociali, la governance economica e le risorse proprie. E so bene che questa responsabilità non appartiene tanto al Parlamento, quanto al Consiglio, ancora una volta il Consiglio che frena su queste cose. E a maggior ragione queste priorità che mancano devono essere parte di una forte iniziativa politica, nelle prossime settimane e nei prossimi mesi, di tutto il Parlamento europeo.


  Syed Kamall, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, after last week’s talks, we are finally looking to the future and no longer just looking back at the past. This is a positive step for all of those involved. I know that there will be people on both sides of the English Channel who may not have got everything that they wanted. For some, what was agreed was too much. For others, it will never be enough. But for so many of us in this Chamber, who know the everyday realities of trying to find a deal, we know that where there is compromise, there are concessions.

I believe that the important progress that we saw last week was made when both sides sought to avoid a no-deal situation, when both sides understood the need for flexibility, and when both sides focused on building a better future rather than looking back at the past. I am aware that within this House there were a large number of people that hoped for a different result to the June 2016 referendum in the United Kingdom, including from my own political group and from my own country of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Amongst those people are friendships I value and opinions I greatly respect, but my message to them is simple: Brexit will not change our common interests in trading with each other and with the rest of the world, in sharing intelligence to tackle terrorism and crime, in cooperating on security issues to keep our citizens safe.

I was in Latvia a few weeks ago as they celebrated the 98th anniversary of the British Navy helping the Latvians to defeat the Bermont West Russian army. The Latvian politicians I spoke to stressed the importance of looking to the future and continued military cooperation with the UK through NATO, a future where the UK continues to work with individual European nations as well as continuing to work with the European Union as a whole. A future where the ECR Group, and the Members sat behind me, will continue to be a voice for a reformed Europe, a voice for those who believe in free enterprise, free and fair trade and competition, a voice for those who believe in the freedom of the individual, personal responsibility and greater democratic accountability, a voice for those who believe in respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small.

I hope that, last week, the British Prime Minister and Donald Tusk laid the first foundations for the journey ahead. A future where the EU signs a mutually-beneficial trade agreement with the UK, as one of the world’s largest economies, but where we both make the case for open and free trade. A future which reduces the burdens on businesses, allowing them to create jobs, growth and prosperity in all our countries. A future where both the EU and the UK cooperate where we have common challenges to build a better future for all our citizens.

I just wonder whether I could end on a personal note, in response to Manfred’s comments. Manfred, as a Muslim, I fully understand the Christian roots of Europe. But you must not confuse that with Europe being synonymous with Christendom. When I see the lack of diversity in European institutions, you have a long way to go to make those who are not standard white Christian European feel comfortable in Europe. You need to do more work, and do not allow Brexit to blind you to that.


  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all, when I hear Mr Kamall, I ask myself if he simply wants to continue full cooperation inside the European Union, in which case why for hell does he want to leave? I do not understand it. Mr Kamall, you criticise the European Union and then you say you want to continue (a), (b), (c), (d), up to (z). We will see.

I want to come back to other unfortunate statements, such as that of the Brexit negotiator, Mr Davis who called – as I think Gianni has already said – the agreement a statement of intent. I spoke to him yesterday on the phone, and he assured me that it is absolutely not his intention, nor the intention of the UK Government, to backtrack on their commitments. I take note of that and I think the best way, Michel, to secure this is, in the coming weeks, to transpose all these commitments into the legal text of a withdrawal agreement. That is the best way to do it – not in the coming months but in the coming weeks, when we start the second phase of the negotiations. Talking about this withdrawal agreement, dear colleagues, especially on citizens’ rights, there are three outstanding issues, I think, that need to be solved in the withdrawal agreement.

First of all, there is the fact that residing citizens’ rights should also be granted to future partners. There is no reason why future partners of European citizens should not have the same rights as the rights that we have defined here.

Second, we also want full protection for UK citizens living in Europe. From the beginning, it has been Parliament’s point of view that if a UK citizen living on the continent has the right of residence or a work permit in one country, our opinion is that this permit and this right of residence is in fact valid in all 27 Member States. That is our view and I have to tell you that I sometimes have the impression that we care more about this than the whole British Government at the moment. It is our task, as the European Parliament, to defend these citizens, be they European citizens living in Britain or UK citizens living on the continent.

Thirdly, if you allow me, dear colleagues, the concrete procedure. I think that Michel Barnier has done a great job. All rights are protected now. This is very clear. All benefits also. The word ‘settled’ has been skipped because we are not settlers. Europeans living in in Britain are not settlers. That is very clear. That word has been skipped but there is a problem with the procedure, and we need to solve it. The problem is that, apparently, nobody seems to trust the Home Office. In every letter that I receive from Britain and from EU citizens, they are saying that all their rights are protected, but be aware that it is a procedure in which an enormous administrative burden was created, and where the burden of proof is on the back of the citizens instead of on the Home Office. I think we need to take that into account. I think that this Parliament can never give the green light to the final agreement if, in the withdrawal agreement, we do not have a simple procedure, a declaration, one form per family, cost-free, and where the burden of proof is on the Home Office and not on the back of our citizens. It is not our citizens who decided for Brexit, yet they will have the negative consequences of a burdensome procedure that is introduced here. In our view, this is part and parcel of citizens’ rights because citizens’ rights are worth nothing if they are drowned in a sea of red tape and if they are bogged down in rules and regulations. To make it more understandable, we will never allow a situation where, for example, a European banker living in the City who has enough money to pay a very important lawyer can make it, and a Polish plumber or a Romanian doctor cannot make it. That we will not allow. There has to be a proportionate approach in this.

We will all be very keen, as Michel Barnier knows, on the issue of Ireland. Ireland cannot become the collateral damage of Brexit. We will always show solidarity and be fully behind Ireland in these negotiations.

Finally, talking about solidarity – because being behind all our Member States and behind Ireland is a question of solidarity – I have to tell you that I was completely shocked yesterday by the paper issued by President Tusk, and I say this to the representative of the Council. He issued a statement and a paper in which he mainly says that the EU has only to assist the Member States, and that the Member States are responsible for the migration crisis. Echoing what Mr Timmermans said, I think the solution can only in fact come from the European Union. There will be no solution for the migration crisis if it is not a European solution. I mean a European Border and Coastguard to manage the outside borders, a European asylum package and not the Dublin approach, with the negation in fact of such a European approach, and also a European economic migration policy. Let us make the European Blue Card the sole system of economic migration inside the European Union. That is what we need, instead of a paper coming from Mr Tusk, who is undermining, in fact, the whole approach by the European Commission and, at the same time, the whole approach of our rapporteur here in Parliament, Ms Cecilia Wikström, who has worked hard to have an agreement here in this House. Let us go forward with European solutions and the European Council has to show that it is on the same level as Parliament and Commission in this fight.


  Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! An erster Stelle möchte ich genau hier anknüpfen. Auch ich halte den bekanntgewordenen Brief des Präsidenten Tusk an die Regierungschefs für sehr fatal. Anstatt über die Verteilung zu reden und das als das Hauptproblem der europäischen Flüchtlingspolitik zu kritisieren, sollte darüber nachgedacht werden, dass die EU ihre Politik gegenüber Staaten wie Libyen und anderen ändern muss, damit nicht Menschen, die auf der Flucht sind, letztendlich in Haftlager gesperrt werden. Das wäre ein anderer Ansatz, darüber sollte nachgedacht werden.

Aber zu dem Hauptpunkt, der uns heute hier beschäftigt: Das ist die Frage der Zwischenbilanz der Brexit-Verhandlungen. Ich möchte noch mal klarstellen: Es handelt sich hierbei um eine politische Bewertung. Das heißt, es gibt eigentlich nichts, was uns von vornherein in die Lage versetzen sollte zu sagen: Genau das ist jetzt ein für allemal beschlossen, und das wird jetzt der Ausgangspunkt sein. Es muss der Hintergrund sein dafür, dass wir das alles in Gesetzestexte umsetzen und dass wir auch die Belastbarkeit dessen, was jetzt vereinbart worden ist, prüfen.

Wir haben Zweifel daran. Wir haben Zweifel am Verhalten der britischen Regierung in den letzten Wochen. Das hat nicht dazu beigetragen, Vertrauen zu stärken. Eine Regierung, die von mehreren Seiten getrieben wird, die sich der DUP fast ergibt – einer Partei, die das Good Friday Agreement in Nordirland niemals richtig anerkannt hat, die sich gegen Rechte wendet und die bereit ist, Rechte von Bürgern in Nordirland zu reduzieren, um ihren Einfluss geltend zu machen. Das kann es nicht sein! Deshalb wird unsere Rolle hier im Parlament auch entscheidend sein. Wir werden klar sagen: Auf der Basis unserer Entschließung vom April 2017 werden wir die Ergebnisse letztendlich im Herbst des kommenden Jahres bewerten und entscheiden, ob wir einem withdrawal agreement unter diesen Bedingungen dann zustimmen können.

Worin sehen wir dringenden Handlungsbedarf? Zunächst bei den Bürgerrechten. Hier ist vieles schon angesprochen worden, ich möchte das nur kurz erwähnen. Uns geht es natürlich um die Frage der Familienzusammenführung, die Betrachtung der Familie als Familie und nicht herausgelöst einiger weniger. Uns geht es um die Zukunft der Kinder, uns geht es auch um die Zukunft möglicher neuer Paare, es geht uns darum, dass die Rechte der Familie insgesamt geschützt sind. Wir wollen die volle Anerkennung der Berufsqualifikationen. Wir wollen natürlich auch das Recht von Menschen sichern, Zugang zu den Gesundheitssystemen, zum Bildungssystem, praktisch zum öffentlichen Dienst in jeder Beziehung auch in Großbritannien zu haben. Wir wollen den Export von erworbenen Ansprüchen, dass der auch weiterbesteht und nicht reduziert wird. Und wir wollen natürlich, dass es eine direkte Wirksamkeit auch des withdrawal agreement für die betroffenen Bürger und Bürgerinnen gibt mit der Interpretation des EuGH. Hier haben wir Zweifel, ob die vorgesehenen acht Jahre wirklich ausreichen. Wir würden vorschlagen, dass es für den Fall, dass die britische Regierung nicht in der Lage ist, ein eigenständiges Gremium aufzubauen, eine Weiterführung, eine Verlängerung des Zeitraums der Wirksamkeit des Europäischen Gerichtshofs gibt.

Wir wollen, dass die Freizügigkeit der britischen Bürger innerhalb der Europäischen Union zwischen den 27 Mitgliedstaaten gewahrt bleibt, sie darf nicht eingeschränkt werden. Und wir wollen natürlich auch, dass der new settled status mit allen Rechten und den Maßstäben verbunden ist, die vom EU-Recht abgeleitet sind und für Bürgerinnen und Bürger gelten. Das ist uns wichtig.

Einen Punkt möchte ich noch dazu sagen: Uns geht es auch darum, im Blick zu behalten, dass der Brexit, die Frage der Bindung der Rechtsprechung des EuGH an die britischen Gerichte und auch ein mögliches, offensichtlich ja vorgesehenes Freihandelsabkommen die Rechte der Beschäftigten auch in Großbritannien einschränken wird. Hier geht es nicht nur um zukünftige Rechte, hier geht es vor allem auch um existierende Standards, die die britischen Beschäftigten bereits erworben haben. Hier sind wir als Parlament auch in der Verantwortung, genau darauf zu gucken und nicht einfach nur wegzuschauen und zu sagen: Das ist jetzt eure Sache, wie ihr damit umgeht.

Nordirland, Irland: Wir haben hier die volle Verpflichtung, und dazu haben wir uns als Parlament bekannt, uns voll und ganz zum Good Friday Agreement, zum Vertrag von 1998, zu bekennen. Es ist für uns wichtig, dabei nicht nur zu schauen, was dort im Einzelnen geregelt wird an Strukturentscheidungen, sondern auch zu gucken, welche Rechte dort festgeschrieben sind. Es geht uns darum – das ist nach wie vor die Forderung auch meiner Fraktion –, dass keine Minderung der Rechte, die für die Iren auf beiden Seiten – innerhalb der Republik Irland und in Nordirland – aufgrund des EU-Rechts bisher gegolten haben, erfolgen darf. Darauf werden wir bestehen. Daran werden wir auch viele Dinge messen. Und ich möchte hier noch mal deutlich sagen: Wir als Parlament sollten uns in die Pflicht nehmen, den EU-Bürgerinnen und –Bürgern im Vereinigten Königreich, den Menschen in Nordirland und Irland und auch für die UK-Bürgerinnen und —Bürgern, die in der EU leben, gegenüber die Verpflichtung zu übernehmen, dass wir für ihre Rechte kämpfen werden, dass wir der Garant für ihre Rechte sind.


  Ska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, until some days ago I was quite optimistic about this Council: there might actually be some steps ahead, there were some positive developments and I thought that doesn’t happen so often, so I was quite optimistic. On Brexit there was a sort of agreement, even some hiccups, but there was a step forward. On the eurozone there was some movement, and even on migration there were some steps in the right direction – looking at the Commission, for example, and ECJ court cases... But that didn’t last so long.

On Brexit, even though we had an agreement, it was then put into question in London, and that of course raises a lot of questions about any sort of agreement that we make here, that you are making with your counterparts. I would also say this especially concerns the future relationship, because you cannot trust one another if you are not sure that whatever you agree is actually going to hold, so this is going to put a major strain on any future relations.

I would also add that this is not just for the European Union, because if the UK wants to be a global player and find their new friends elsewhere, then that is going to be just as tricky, or even more tricky because while we have a long relationship, others might find it even more bewildering if there is this untrustworthiness on the other side. So I hope this can be clarified. We will make a very clear deal, legally binding and everything, but I hope that this will not happen again in the future.

On Northern Ireland, as colleagues have mentioned, this is of course a crucial issue that really goes into the question of peace and living together. This is something that will remain as the main concern of our group, but I am sure for other colleagues as well. There we still have a square to circle: we all agree there should not be a hard border and whatever, so that’s nice... but we don’t say yet how we are going to do that. We cannot have our cake and eat it, we need to find a solution here. And I join with colleagues in saying that we must ensure there is no restriction on the rights of Irish citizens and of people on both sides of the border in Ireland, we must ensure that their rights will be safeguarded. But there is no solution yet.

I hope we will have a proposal soon, but for us this remains the main issue along with the rights of citizens. Of course, there as well we have made some important progress, but there are also important problems – the rights of future partners and spouses, for example. Already now we hear stories of major hiccups with administration, where residency permits are not being granted as they should be. This is something that urgently needs to be addressed.

On migration, as has already been mentioned, I did find the letter of Tusk extremely irritating because basically, just when the Commission stands up for solidarity, goes to the ECJ, and has been bringing infringement procedures, now basically the Council and Tusk come and shoot the Commission in the back. That is not a nice way to proceed and I think Mr Tusk, and I think the entirety of the Member States, will have to answer some questions here. How should it be understood when Tusk calls solidarity ‘ineffective’? How should this be understood by the Commission, which was standing firm by this Parliament? We actually have the same parties here in this House as in the governments in the Member States. We are not a detached, totally different galaxy. We are the same political groups, the same parties, but we have managed to find an agreement in the European Parliament on the Dublin reform and on the future asylum system. Sure, it wasn’t easy, but we managed to put forward an ambitious proposal, but apparently this is ‘ineffective’, this is irrelevant for Mr Tusk – I do find this really irritating. What about the Member States who have been calling for many years for more solidarity? What about Italy? What about Greece? In the past it was Malta and Spain, and it could be Poland tomorrow, as well. There is no guarantee that any Member State will be spared, so to say. So I am wondering whose president Mr Tusk is trying to be here, and I hope that this will not be reflected in the leaders’ meeting, and I hope indeed that the other co-legislator will make progress here because we in Parliament have been ready for a long time.

I hope too that the Heads of State and Government will have a look at what EU Member States have contributed to the misery that we see in Libya and also what they are going to do in order to alleviate that misery. I think that proposing just 1 000 resettlement places for the whole European Union, well that is really a meagre number so I hope that the Member States will add on a little there.


  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I don’t think I have ever heard so little criticism of the United Kingdom in this Chamber in all my life, and I guess it doesn’t really take much working out why, does it? Mr Barnier said earlier that there were key areas upon which he wasn’t prepared to make many concessions. Well, you didn’t need to, sir, because you were up against Theresa May, and she was all for making as many concessions as she possibly could, including agreeing a ludicrous bill of up to 40 billion sterling for us to have the right to leave, a continued role for the European Court of Justice and, in line with that, family reunions that mean, frankly, that open-door immigration from the European Union is going to continue for years to come, and – almost bizarrely – a commitment for ongoing regulatory alignment. It is as if, even though we are leaving, effectively the British Government wants to keep us in some form of single market relationship, so I am not surprised that you are all very pleased with her. Theresa the Appeaser has given in on virtually everything.

But as an observation in an exercise of power, it’s fascinating. Whether we like or dislike the European Union, we cannot deny the power that it has got, because you managed to make a British Prime Minister leave Downing Street in the middle of the night and fly to Brussels to forge an agreement with unelected bureaucrats based in Brussels. It’s a form of ritual humiliation, which she was prepared to put herself through. She has danced to your tune all the way through this – you must be very, very pleased indeed.

And now we enter into what perhaps may be the biggest deception yet, played on the British public. She is seeking a transition phase, and there are one or two comments here about whether the Brits will get that phase. Of course they will, because we are volunteering to go on paying the membership fee, to accepting all the existing rules and all the new rules. We will effectively, once transition is granted, have left the European Union at the end of March 2019 in name only, and if that transition phase lasts up until the next general election, there is a real possibility that a new incoming British Government/coalition could sign us up to a single market and the Customs Union forever.

So I do understand why many in this place feel encouraged by the performance of our Prime Minister and, I can assure you, millions who voted for Brexit are increasingly feeling frustrated and perhaps even now moving to the point of anger. It’s the same story across the whole of the West: the aspirations of the people and the aspirations of our political leaders and class are in a very, very different place. I fear Brexit at some point in the future may need to be re—fought all over again.


  Marcel de Graaff, on behalf of the ENF Group. – Mr President, with regards to Brexit, I stress the sovereignty of the UK. This implies no jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, no restrictions on free trade agreements, application of UK law with regard to EU citizens, and these are to us the central elements of any acceptable deal.

Having said that, migration is again an important topic of the European Council meeting, and rightly so. Mass migration still threatens the survival of our civilisation, our security and our culture. These illiterate illegal fortune-seekers believe in the barbarism of Sharia, Hadith and Quran. They come to the EU and still come in hundreds of thousands to benefit from our prosperity, and they do not contribute a single bit to our societies. They take without giving and if necessary by force. This has to stop. So I praise the governments of the Visegrád countries who stand for their own traditions, for their people and culture; they lead the resistance against Juncker and Timmermans, they are the ones guiding Europe.

This is how you deal with illegal migrants: first, no admissions, and next no incentives, and that is: no housing, no social benefits, no family reunion and no endless legal procedures. I also praise the courageous Libyan coastguard who set sail against aggressive human traffickers and rogue NGOs while risking their own lives. The coastguard of a country that was destroyed by France, the EU and the US, now protects the EU borders. The EU cannot show more clearly that it is utterly bankrupt.

Schengen has to end now and national borders must close now. Finally, the migrants who are already here must be returned straight away. Do not tolerate them, do not pay them off, do not send them back, but round them up and bring them back. So listen, Mr Juncker and Mr Timmermans, this is how you do it.


  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, the Phase 1 agreement reached between the United Kingdom and the European Union is another step forward in the process of exiting the European Union. As a result of the strengthening of the text, there are clear statements that Northern Ireland will leave the single market and Customs Union along with the rest of the United Kingdom. There will be no special status. Northern Ireland’s businesses will have unfettered access to the United Kingdom single market; there will be no internal trade borders within the United Kingdom.

We share the goal of ensuring that there is no hard border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It is our view that these issues can only be fully resolved in Phase 2 of the negotiations. However, the union that matters economically to Northern Ireland is the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where trade is worth six times more than trade with the Irish Republic. Let us be absolutely clear, Northern Ireland’s constitutional and economic stability will not be damaged by EU bullying in the Brexit negotiations. It is important that we now move on to the next stage of the negotiations. We should not miss the opportunity for a new relationship based on shared democratic values, trade and security. This would be for the betterment of all those we represent in this House.





  Elmar Brok (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Ratspräsident, Herr Vizepräsident der Kommission, lieber Michel Barnier, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Dass der Rat sich nicht nur mit dem Brexit beschäftigt, sondern einen wesentlichen Schritt zur Schaffung der Europäischen Verteidigungsunion macht, dass Vorschläge für eine solidarische, eine konditionierte und eine die EU stärkende Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion diskutiert werden, dass die Frage eines sozialen Pfeilers diskutiert und hier Fortschritte erzielt werden – das alles zeigt, dass die Europäische Union vorangeht und nicht nur auf den Brexit wartet.

Aber beim Brexit müssen wir deutlich sagen, dass hier eine Vereinbarung getroffen wurde, die ich als bindend betrachte. Wenn ich heute hier vom britischen Kollegen höre, das gilt alles so nicht, dann muss ich für uns klar sagen, in unseren Beziehungen ist allein die Haltung der Regierung verbindlich, und die Regierung hat ein klares commitment gemacht und dieses commitment muss in den Ausstiegsvertrag hinein. Dieser Ausstiegsvertrag ist Bedingung dafür, dass eine Übergangsregelung kommt oder dass überhaupt ein Handelsvertrag abgeschlossen werden kann.

Deswegen bitte ich, hier nicht herumzuspielen. Wenn Herr Farage dann sagt, das seien alles ungewählte Leute gewesen – die einzige Partei im ganzen Land, die ungewählt ist, ist die Partei von Farage. Die hat keinen Sitz im nationalen Parlament, sie soll also hier nicht über nationale Legitimation reden. Herr Juncker ist vom Europäischen Parlament gewählt, das von europäischen Völkern gewählt worden ist.

Ich glaube, dass wir deutlich machen müssen, dass in unserer Beziehung Vertrauen da sein muss. Bei dieser Vereinbarung ist Vertrauen entstanden. Dieses soll nicht zerstört werden. Dieses Vertrauen ist notwendig, damit wir am Ende des Tages wirklich einen Vertrag hinbekommen, der für beide Seiten Nutzen mit sich bringt. Deswegen ist es notwendig, dass am Anfang dieser Verhandlungen das Vertrauen auch eingehalten wird und nicht wieder durch interne Diskussionen in Großbritannien zerstört wird.

Die Europäische Union ist stark, weil sie einig war, und deswegen wird sie auch in den nächsten Monaten einig sein. Das ist die Bedingung für den Erfolg der Verhandlungen.


  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – Madam President, the progress achieved in the negotiations is an important success for Europe, and I would like to congratulate Michel Barnier and his team.

We consider this a sufficient basis for moving on to the second phase. At the same time, we underline that any positive development of the discussion on the future relationship and the transition requires that the commitments defined in the joint report be translated fully and in a timely manner into the draft withdrawal agreement. This includes on Ireland, where full regulatory alignment means full regulatory alignment, and our final consent vote is conditional upon this.

I’m confident that this drafting exercise –and we will be vigilant on that – will ensure the goal that this Parliament has committed to achieve: the full safeguard of the rights of the four and a half million citizens affected by Brexit, and the full protection of the life choices that they have made. We are glad to see that, despite some propaganda by some Brexiteers, the joint report clearly states that all the rights established by EU law and interpreted by the Court of Justice shall have direct legal effect through the withdrawal agreement, and that any inconsistent or incompatible rule or national rule set out in the national legislation will be disapplied.

And we are proud to have contributed, together with the Commission, to broadening the personal scope not only to all family members, but also to all future children. All this is very far from the original UK proposal of ‘settled status’, but this should not be seen as the success of one part over the other, but rather as a common success for all our citizens and for all our common European principles.

In order to be consistent with these principles we will insist that the withdrawal agreement should cover both future spouses and the rights of UK citizens to move freely across the EU, and we will be extremely vigilant in order to ensure a really simple and friendly administrative process that doesn’t have to be declaratory in nature.


  Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Madam President, I noticed a lot of Schadenfreude here this morning. Mr Weber was apparently enjoying the fact that there are a lot of negative economic effects for the British economy. I would like to remind all of us here that Europe is suffering at least as much as Britain is. I must remind Mr Timmermans of the fact that to map out a future trade deal with Canada or Japan is one thing, but to map out a trade deal with a country with which we have had relations for more than 40 years is quite another. There are a lot of logistical and sophisticated supply chains which are at danger.

I am obsessed with the disappointment that we are not losing only a good trading partner potentially, but we are losing 73 people in this Parliament who have always been advocates of freedom, of autonomy and of competitiveness. President Tusk last month said the following: there will either be a deal, there will be no deal, or there will be no Brexit. He is right. We have to stop two trains running on the same track against each other, because this is going to be a real catastrophe. Brexit is a lose-lose situation for both, for Britain and for the EU.

That is why I believe that it must be Brussels, it must be Mr Tusk himself, who should try to offer Britain a new deal – a new deal which avoids Brexit. It is my strong opinion that Europe will never be a complete Europe, will never be a competitive Europe, without Great Britain.

(Interjection from the floor: ‘Europe is finished’)


  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – Madam President, I actually think Europe is not finished, but very much alive. I would like to thank Mr Barnier for his efforts, and indeed progress has been made but, in my view, not sufficient progress and that is why I will not support paragraph 2 of the resolution. However, I will endorse the resolution as a whole, as it is imperative that we avoid a cliff-edge scenario and I believe that Parliament’s conditions for consent are crystal clear.

The three key issues must be addressed. First of all, it must be clear that citizens in the UK do not have to apply for a status but must register or declare, that is key. Secondly, citizens should retain the right to bring cases before the ECJ and thirdly, Brits in the EU 27 must retain the right to free movement because, Mr Barnier, British citizens today are still EU citizens. We represent their interests as well and we have to secure their future, too.

Finally, Ms May has promised to create a hostile environment and she has succeeded wonderfully well. Every day we get messages from people in the UK facing harassment, hatred and violence – and we are hearing the noises from that side of the House. Over 5 000 Europeans have been deported from the UK this year; the UK Government has a responsibility to create a welcoming and safe climate for people who have contributed to British society for many years.


  David Coburn (EFDD). – Madam President, on a point of order, we are not having any blue cards. This is a denial of democracy. They are trying to close down debate. They do not want debate. Their staff are trying to stop us having our say. This Parliament is not democratic. It is a farce.


  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, the British Government has done it again. They have pulled off a spectacular piece of theatre over the last week or so. No sooner did they get the Irish Government and the Commission to acclaim sufficient progress, than they immediately started to rubbish the joint report they solemnly signed. ‘Only a statement of intent’, says David Davis; ‘we’re coming to a gentlemen’s agreement’, says David Davis, who thinks nothing of misleading his own parliament. But it is no surprise. It is the way they do things. They create drama through late night and last minute negotiations. They flush out the bottom line of those they are negotiating with; they make promises necessary to get others to move things forward and then they start to negotiate compromises downwards. They use ambiguity to confuse and disorientate their opponents, and then, when they don’t like what the final compromise is, they simply ignore it and don’t implement it.

No one knows them better than us. The British Government has been making promises to Irish people for years, and then refusing to fulfil them. Even today, they are negating the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, and that is an international agreement lodged at the United Nations. They are opposing rights that they signed up to, and they are aligned with the most reactionary political party in Ireland, the DUP, to describe and describe their policy in Ireland.

So let us be clear. The resolution says that it must be fully enforceable with regard to Ireland, so when the joint resolution is turned into legal action there can be no more ambiguity, no more contradictions, no more taking the British Government at their word. Their word counts for little, as they care little about their word.


  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, we have said from the very start that people must be at the heart of this process. I must protect the best interests of all my constituents in Wales, including those who have chosen to make Wales their home and have contributed so much to our country. I also have to protect the interests of those who have chosen to make their home in other EU countries and it is unacceptable that people are still uncertain and anxious about their futures. The negotiations need to move forward, but not at the expense of citizens’ rights. So agreeing progress cannot mean that all issues are resolved or closed; they are clearly not and they need to remain a priority. This is not the final vote on this. There is a lot still to be done. Looking to the future for Wales and building our economy, maintaining access to the single market is critical to protect jobs and our agricultural industry and that is what I will continue to do.


  Rolandas Paksas (EFDD). – Taip jau atsitiko, kad keletą pastarųjų kartų man pradėjus kalbėti ponas Junkeris kažkodėl palikdavo salę. Norėjosi tikėti, kad bent ponas Frans Timmermans pasiliks salėje ir išklausys ne tik daugumos, bet ir mano nuomonę. Deja ir tai neįvyko. Bet kokiu atveju mano klausimas, Europos institucijų vadovai, visiems jums.

Ar pritariate buvusio Europos Parlamento pirmininko Martino Šulco planams iki 2025 m. įkurti Jungtines Europos Valstijas? Jei taip, tai ar tose valstijose matote lygiateises, savarankiškas valstybės? O gal matote vienodą piliečių pensijų ir minimalų atlyginimą, jų dydį, pavyzdžiui, Vokietijoje ir Lietuvoje? Ar dabartinis devizas „Suvienijusi įvairovę“ Jums pradeda trukdyti? Gal planuojamas naujas – „Viena sąjunga, viena valstybė, viena tvarka“? Ir kaip tas valstijas kursime? Kaip naujo tipo demokratiją lazdomis Katalonijoje? Tuo senuoju keliu, kaip visuomet buvo kuriama imperija – prievarta, rimbu, karais, krauju? Negi šiuos atributus, kolegos, siūlysite padėti ant derybų stalo Vadovų Taryboje?


  Janice Atkinson (ENF). – Madam President, I can’t believe that the Conservative Party, after all the years of wrangling over the EU, is now caving in to Brussels. Why are we letting the odious Guy Verhofstadt dictate terms? He is only interested in one thing and that is himself. As the EU moves to a united states of Europe, we should be looking to our oldest friend, our ally, the United States of America.

I was in Washington last week and I spoke personally to Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of State for Trade, who said to me: ‘Don’t take the poison pill that Brussels will offer you if you want to deal with us’. I agreed with him. Then he said: ‘otherwise they’ll send in the EU army’. He thought he was joking; I said: ‘that will probably happen’. Yes, and there is clapping in there for that. Yeah. Against the Democrats.

At a time when we should be valuing our friendship with the US above all friendships, you are taking the poison pill. Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, instead of looking forward to a low-tax, low-regulation economy, co-signed a letter with other EU Finance Ministers to denounce Mr Trump’s tax reforms. How dare he? As a Remainer, he is totally trying to sabotage a US deal.

In a few years’ time, over 90% of world trade will be outside of the EU. Why is Ms May shackling us to this failing block? Yes, business does need certainty and that is why we should just walk away and move to WTO rules. Voters want an end to immigration. This deal doesn’t do it. Voters want an end to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, but Mrs May has signalled another eight years. This is unacceptable. Let’s walk away. Thank you for your time, Mr Barnier, but it ain’t working.


  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, we are used to Ms Atkinson’s nonsense, but she really has crossed the line this morning. She referred to Mr Verhofstadt, our negotiator, as ‘odious’. I see she is nodding, so I would urge her to apologise for that and retract that comment. Mr Verhofstadt is not of my political family, he is not of my political group, but your comments today, Ms Atkinson, are way beyond the line. We are used to your nonsense, but personal abuse has no place in this Chamber. I urge you to retract that comment.


(Interjection from Janice Atkinson)


  La Présidente. – Madame Atkinson, il n’y a pas de «carton bleu». Madame, de toute façon, vous n’avez pas le micro et donc cela ne sert à rien.


  Diane James (NI). – Madam President, well, how do I follow that? But I am going to try. The EU objectives throughout the negotiations have been very clear: first, make the United Kingdom look as weak as possible internationally, and second, extract as much money as you possibly can from us. So Mr Barnier, you have done a very good job, you certainly achieved that, and I take no pleasure in giving you that compliment.

There has been gloating in the Chamber this morning. There have also been lots of misleading statements. But I am going to ignore those and I am going to point out that the European Union would not be where it is now but for the United Kingdom joining in 1973 and contributing to the finance and international presence that you now have. So stop moaning about it and give us some recognition – if you don’t mind – for what we have contributed.

But the big fudge this morning, the stuff that you don’t want to hear, the emperor’s new clothes, if you like, is the fact that the migration story is not a positive one. The economic mess that is still there in the background in terms of the European Union hasn’t gone away. So please, wake up, take a reality check, stop just focusing on Brexit in this Chamber, and get on with doing the job you were elected to do. Ms Anderson, can I just remind you of one thing: I would like to see your MPs take their places in Westminster – that would be helpful.


  Daniel Caspary (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! 2017 war auch ein gutes Jahr für Europa: Statt 1,5 Millionen Flüchtlingen im Jahr 2015 sind gerade noch 150 000 über den Seeweg nach Europa gekommen. Wir haben heute wieder mehr sozialversicherungspflichtig Beschäftigte als vor Beginn der Krise. Wir haben mit der PESCO einen ersten wesentlichen Schritt in Richtung Verteidigungsunion geschafft. Ja, es gibt immer noch viele Dinge, die schlecht laufen und die wir besser machen müssen. Aber wir sollten uns auch trauen, auf gemeinsame Erfolge unserer Politik in der Öffentlichkeit hinzuweisen.

2018 wird das Jahr der Vertiefung der Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion werden. Ich wünsche mir einen aufgewerteten EU-Haushalt für Investitionen mit europäischem Mehrwert. Ich wünsche mir einen Wirtschafts- und Währungskommissar mit neuen Kompetenzen. Ich wünsche mir eine Stärkung des Konditionalprinzips mit einer verbesserten Berücksichtigung der länderspezifischen Empfehlungen. Ich wünsche mir eine realistischere Bewertung von Staatsanleihen. Ich wünsche mir einen europäischen Währungsfonds, der dann entsprechend auch Schlagkraft entfalten kann. Ich wünsche mir eine Weiterentwicklung des Kohäsionsfonds und der bestehenden Zahlungsbilanzfazilität für Nicht-Euro-Staaten, damit wir wirklich Zukunftssicherung und Krisenvorbeugung gemeinsam vorantreiben können.

Gianni Pittella hat Santa Lucia angesprochen als Schutzpatronin für klare Sicht. Wir haben am 1. Januar das Hochfest der Gottesmutter Maria. Sie ist die Schutzpatronin der Verirrten und Verfahrenen. Und wenn ich mir die Vielen anschaue, die hier im Parlament ständig nur motzen, desorientiert rummaulen oder auch beim Brexit Realitäten nicht zur Kenntnis nehmen wollen, dann kann ich nur bitten: Heilige Lucia und heilige Maria, bitte helft den im Nebel tappenden Verirrten und Verfahrenen, damit 2018 auch für sie ein gutes Jahr wird!


  Richard Corbett (S&D). – Madam President, in moving to the second phase of the Brexit talks, some might hope that the UK Government will be better prepared for this than it was for the first, but probably not. It has just admitted that there has not yet been a discussion in government on what final outcome it actually wants.

It has also done no impact assessments on what would it would cost to leave the Customs Union, nor on what it would cost British industry, agriculture or finance to leave the European Union. Even phase one is put into question. According to the Daily Telegraph, ministers only accepted the deal because they were told that points in it were ‘meaningless, not binding or simply included to secure Ireland’s approval’. Ministers have even said that the concept of keeping legislation aligned has no meaning in law. Despite agreeing on the outstanding budgetary commitments, Britain said it might not honour them.

(Interjection from Mr Coburn: ‘Good!’)

Despite Theresa May at last conceding that EU citizens in Britain and vice versa have rights, the deal still leaves them facing uncertainty, whereas the deal on Ireland specifies that it ‘must be upheld in all circumstances, irrespective of any future agreement’. No such promise is given here to citizens, leaving them in limbo until the uncertain final agreement, unsure of their future status, unable to plan their future. Let’s move on to the second phase, but do not pretend that the first phase issues are settled.


  Roberts Zīle (ECR). – Priekšsēdētājas kundze! Prieks redzēt M. Barnier kungu kā vienīgo no atbildīgajām personām joprojām šeit.

Vispirms par Brexit jautājumu. Laiks rādīs, vai bija pareiza taktika sadalīt sarunas divās fāzēs vai nē. Mani izbrīna arī tas, ka šeit lielu sašutumu izraisīja David Davis teiktais par to, ka “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. Šī frāze ir pazīstama visu triju institūciju pārstāvjiem sarunās, tas nav nekas jauns, un es domāju, ka sašutums ir mazliet ar viltus pieskaņu. Protams, man arī ir prieks dzirdēt dažu grupu līderus, kuri ļoti rūpējas par rumāņu un poļu santehniķu likteņiem Lielbritānijā, tajā pašā laikā ar viesstrādnieku likumdošanu mēģinot viņus izspiest no Eiropas Savienības tirgus vairākos sektoros, ko mēs darām arī ar mobilitātes pakotni attiecībā šoferiem.

Runājot par ekonomisko sadarbību ar Lielbritāniju, otrajā fāzē, manuprāt, ārkārtīgi svarīgi Padomē ir uzklausīt arī mazāko dalībvalstu ekonomiskās intereses Lielbritānijā, sadarbībā ar Lielbritāniju. Vienkārši nevar būt situācija, ka par viņu interesēm tiek pateikts “tas ir antieiropeiski, tāpēc jūs intereses mēs neņemsim vērā otrajā sarunu fāzē”.

Šis jēdziens “antieiropeisks” manu sašutumu izraisa arī attiecībā uz D. Tusk kunga kritizēšanu no Eiropas komisāra puses, kuram neviens nav devis mandātu noteikt, kāds viedoklis ir antieiropeisks un kāds ir eiropeisks. Ko tad izdarīja Padomes prezidents D. Tusk kungs attiecībā uz migrācijas politikas jautājumu? Viņš vienkārši pateica, ka kvotu sistēma migrācijas politikā ir neefektīva. Un vai tad viņa ir efektīva? Igaunijas valstī, tāpat kā manā valstī, Latvijā, brīvprātīgo kvotu ietvaros ir ienākuši daudzi simti nosūtītu migrantu, kuri — Latvijas gadījumā — praktiski visi ir atstājuši šo valsti ar dokumentiem vai bez dokumentiem, un viņi visbiežāk atrodas Vācijā, tāpēc es vēlreiz atkārtoju — mēs esam demokrātiska sistēma, neatļausimies piedēvēt, ka tikai kāds no darbiniekiem Komisijā var spriest par to, kas ir antieiropeiski un kas nē.


  Catherine Bearder (ALDE). – Madam President, Ms May said one of her first goals is to ensure that citizens can carry on living as before. Others promised the same – those Brexiteers who led us to believe they had thought this all through and had a plan. Well, that proved to be a lie, just like the one on the bus. The Home Office letters to EU citizens have threatened deportation. Brits in other countries have not received assurances that they can retain all the freedoms they now have. Is it any wonder that people still feel anxious and terrified about their futures? I am furious for those who are left behind in limbo, and this agreement kicks many issues into the long grass. This House is the voice of European citizens. They trust us to make the right call on this. We cannot and we will not turn our backs on them. I certainly will not.

But time is running out. We must get on with dealing with trade, the environment, science, digital, security, fishing, agriculture, and all the rest. But there were three issues to solve before the next phase – not two and a half, but three. For too many people, the future is still unclear. This Parliament must continue to demand action on our citizens’ rights.


  Barbara Spinelli (GUE/NGL). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nelle sue linee guida il Consiglio ha promesso garanzie reciproche, effettive, eseguibili, non discriminatorie e globali sui diritti dei cittadini. Nonostante i progressi compiuti, l'accordo preliminare tra negoziatori non rispecchia ancora tali caratteri: la sua globalità è tuttora compromessa dall'assenza di cruciali diritti come la tutela dei familiari futuri e la libera circolazione nell'Unione.

Le attuali caratteristiche del settled status contrastano con i principi di non discriminazione e reciprocità a danno dei cittadini europei nel Regno Unito. L'apertura mostrata dalla Commissione a possibili strumenti analoghi negli Stati membri rischia di minare lo stesso diritto europeo. Anche la reciprocità e l'effettività dei diritti sono a rischio, se il ruolo della Corte di giustizia non si fa più preciso.

Passi in avanti importanti sono stati fatti, tuttavia la seconda fase negoziale dovrà servire a colmare le tante lacune ancora esistenti sull'Irlanda del Nord e sulla tutela del full set of rights derivante dal diritto europeo. Non si tratta solo di certezza giuridica, ma di tenere fede alla promessa per cui nulla cambierà nelle vite di milioni di cittadini.


  Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Brexit is the zombie that staggers on, dragging distress and disappointment in its wake. The resolution we are debating today makes it clear that Brexit means losses on both sides, but there is a stark contrast in the way the two sides are approaching the negotiations. The EU side have a clear and consistent position, and they have sheltered the EU citizens who are their responsibility, protecting their rights to travel and work and ensuring that the UK pays for the projects they depend on that we have already committed to in this budget period. By contrast, the UK negotiators have not been able to agree a position, a state of unpreparedness reinforced by the Chancellor’s admission this week that the cabinet has not even debated what they hope to achieve and by David Davis’s shenanigans. To constituents who feel let down by the negotiations, it is important to recall that we can still step back. This is why the Green Party is demanding a final say and a democratic choice between the deal as negotiated – with all the trade-offs and disappointments – and continued membership of the European Union.


  Gerard Batten (EFDD). – Madam President, on 23 June 2016, the British people voted by a clear majority to leave the European Union. That decision was not conditional on any withdrawal agreement or any other factor. Eighteen months later, we still have not left and the leaving process is in a shambles.

Mrs May is a Remainer; she leads a party and a parliament that, sadly, is made up of a majority of Remainers. They simply do not want to leave. What Mrs May and the European Union intend is one of two outcomes: either to achieve a deal whereby we leave in name, but not in reality; or to delay the whole leaving process until the next general election, when the referendum result can be set aside. Either way, the result of the referendum is being betrayed.

Her Majesty’s Government should not be asking the European Union how it can leave; it should be telling the European Union how it is going to leave. It will never be too late for a patriotic government and parliament to take control and make Brexit happen.


  Gerolf Annemans (ENF). – Ik zou mij willen richten tot onze Britse collega's, want los van de afloop van de brexit, doet zich een belangrijk en interessant psychologisch fenomeen voor. Dat is namelijk dat hier in dit Huis, aan de kant van degenen die in de Europese Unie achterblijven, zich een soort van acceleratieneiging voordoet bij de voorstanders van de Europese Unie, bij de EU-federalisten. Die zijn allemaal in een kramp geschoten alsof ze door de duivel achterna gezeten worden. Dat is door niemand beter geïllustreerd dan door onze collega Belet van de EPP-fractie, die in een druk bekeken televisie-uitzending vorige week zei: "Ik ben blij dat ze weg zijn want ze waren sowieso een pain in the ass". Daarmee maakt hij het verklaarbaar waarom mensen als Schultz, Macron en anderen nu volop op het gaspedaal drukken. We moeten beseffen, vrienden die hier achterblijven, EU-critici: we gaan die Britten missen. I wish them all the best but will miss them.


  Steven Woolfe (NI). – Madam President, 537 days ago the majority of British people voted to leave the EU, but for 537 days we have listened to a rump of Remainers moan, whinge and cry about losing their beloved EU. For 537 days we have watched a cabal of political elitists wage an anti-democratic campaign in the UK to delay, damage and deny Brexit.

But at Christmas time we are reminded that three wise men brought gifts to Jesus for a brighter future and, in that spirit, I offer three gifts to those Remainers in this Chamber and beyond: the gifts of hearing, hope and a heart. Hearing, so that the voice of those people who believe leaving the EU will make their lives better, brighter and freer is at long last heard by you. Hope, so that someday you accept the result and start to move on. Finally, a heart, because those who you have abused by calling old, stupid and ignorant for voting to leave believe you do not have one. Happy Christmas and a joyous Brexit New Year.


  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Madam President, last week the British Prime Minister managed to avoid a ‘no deal’ scenario but the risk remains and there is still a long way. We are at the beginning of an arduous, complex, intensive process of drafting the withdrawal agreement with a number of issues of relevance remaining outstanding. We also have ahead transition negotiations and the future relationship is still to be identified. The most difficult is yet to come.

The transition period raises many legal issues which will have to be considered with the highest caution. It will have to provide for connection with the future framework, foreseeable at that time, and the talks on transition will precede the negotiations on the future relationship, so there is no reason to call transition an implementation phase. But transition is not only about bridging with the future framework; it has its own challenges. It is true that there is no time to negotiate a bespoke transition agreement, so its major part will be the prolongation of the acquis, but it only looks simple.

We have to bear in mind that the EU acquis is strongly interdependent in a legally and politically complex way and this is a challenge in itself, but there will also be parts of the transition deal going beyond prolongation of the acquis, and this will require in my view a strong credible joint oversight mechanism with a strong role for the European Commission on our side.


  Maria João Rodrigues (S&D). –Madam President, this is certainly the time for ambitious European solutions, but this is not the case for the joint declaration to be signed tomorrow by the three institutions. It lacks this kind of ambition – to start with, on the way to deliver the European Social Pillar, because we want to update social standards for all citizens, starting with young people, in all Member States.

For this, we need to have more powerful instruments to support convergence: real convergence, economic and social convergence. Take the reform package for Economic and Monetary Union: we welcome the fact that important movements will take place to introduce more democracy when it comes to the accountability of the European Stability Mechanism.

But let me be clear: if you want to have upward convergence, reforms are needed, but these are not enough; we need to have a stronger priority for investment, and this investment priority remains too weak in the integrated Fiscal Compact, too weak in the instrument to support convergence, too weak even in the so-called instrument to protect investment. The only way to have stronger priority for investment is to have an upcoming Community budget with new own resources supporting stronger future—oriented investment. We need to get these, and we count on the Estonian Presidency to deliver on this.


  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – Ik hoop nog steeds dat de brexit niet doorgaat. De brexit is schadelijk, politiek en economisch, voor beide partijen. Het politieke zwaartepunt in de Europese Unie verschuift dan richting het zuiden en we zien nu al welke wilde wensen voor nog meer Europa mijnheer Macron verkondigt. De brexit is economisch schadelijk omdat het bruto binnenlands product van het Verenigd Koninkrijk stevige klappen gaat krijgen, maar ook dat van de Europese Unie en helaas ook dat van mijn land.

Voor nu: snel door naar de tweede onderhandelingsfase. Beslist geen vechtscheiding, maar goede en redelijke afspraken. Ook na 2019 moet we verder leven en werken met elkaar. We moeten het politieke en economische gat dat door dit vertrek ontstaat, zo klein houden als mogelijk is. Dat is in het belang van het Verenigd Koninkrijk en in het belang van de Europese Unie.

Ten slotte, in 2016 stemden miljoenen Britten voor de brexit. Die uitslag is niet alleen te wijten aan de tabloids of aan UKIP. Er ligt een sentiment onder dat we ook in mijn land tegenkomen. Deze week bleek uit een rapport van het Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau dat de steun voor de Europese Unie in Nederland is gedaald van 75 naar 58%. Dit schreeuwt om bezinning, niet om de vlucht naar voren voor nog meer EU.


  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, today’s debate is helping to provide some clarity. Mr Barnier, you were clear. You said there would be no going back and that last week’s agreement will be translated into a legal text. Mr Verhofstadt strengthened this by suggesting it should be done in the coming weeks, not months. With regard to the second strand, Mr Barnier, regarding Northern Ireland, again you were clear. You said we need a specific solution for a unique situation, and I agree. While the issue of no hardening of the Irish border and the upholding of the Good Friday Agreement are crucial, the agreement on citizens’ rights is of fundamental importance to all EU citizens, and to Irish citizens living and/or working in the UK, those who have lived there, and to all cross—border workers. But we need trust to continue these negotiations in good faith. Yes, we all recognise what political grandstanding is, but this process is way too important to be derailed by those who simply like the sound of their own voices.


  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, o acordo de saída do Reino Unido com a União Europeia não deve pôr em causa, de forma nenhuma, os direitos dos trabalhadores nem outros direitos sociais de que os cidadãos dos Estados-Membros da União Europeia gozam no Reino Unido, incluindo o direito de residência, o direito a um tratamento não discriminatório, o direito de acesso aos serviços públicos, de saúde e de educação, a portabilidade dos benefícios e direitos em termos de segurança social, o direito à reunificação familiar, o reconhecimento mútuo de qualificações académicas e profissionais, entre outros exemplos, algo que não está adquirido no estádio atual das negociações nem está explícito na proposta de resolução conjunta.

Qualquer eventual futuro acordo entre a União Europeia e o Reino Unido deve ter em conta os interesses e as especificidades dos diferentes Estados-Membros. Além disso, este acordo não deve, não pode, afastar o direito de cada Estado-Membro de estabelecer com o Reino Unido relações nos mais diversos domínios baseadas nos interesses e no benefício mútuo dos respetivos povos.


  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I will be supporting the resolution this afternoon in the votes, and I do so with a sense of real sadness and more than a little anger, both personally and on behalf of the people that I represent. Scotland did not want this; Scotland voted against this; this is not in Scotland’s name. But we do need – and I say it through gritted teeth – to move onto phase two of the negotiations, because for too many people in the UK Brexit remains white noise: a false equivalence aided by an industrial—scale spin machine telling us that somehow we will have our cake and eat it; that it’ll be alright on the night, because we’re special, we’re British. People need to see the detail, the line—by—line, the policy—by—policy, the nitty—gritty. People need to see what they’re going to lose for a Brexit to become real. And in phase two, the promises of the shysters and charlatans who have so disgraced themselves even in their conduct today in this debate will be shown for what they are: a cruel deception of the people they claim to serve. This is the end of the beginning of this Brexit negotiation. I look forward to phase two, where we will hold them to account.



  David Coburn (EFDD). – Madam President, Mr Smith is not being factual. 40% of Scots voted against the European Union. That’s a substantial minority of which I am a representative. He is misleading the House by suggesting that Scots do not want to be in Britain or do not want to leave the European Union. That is an absolute travesty.


  Patrick O’Flynn (EFDD). – Madam President, in my country Manchester United fans still talk about the Holy Trinity of Best, Law and Charlton. In the EU we have the rather less holy trinity of Juncker, Schulz and Verhofstadt, each supporting the creation of a federal superstate. Mr Verhofstadt believes the nations of Europe are dwarves that cannot prosper independently. In his State of the Union speech Mr Juncker unveiled a raft of new integrationist plans, and Mr Schulz left this place to go around Germany stirring up apathy about a United States of Europe.

If that’s what you want, then fair enough, but do not affect to be surprised that the British people won’t go there. Even a moment’s reflection on our history and indeed our geography should tell you that. So you should let us leave the EU with good will. Instead, many of you seek to punish us and it is that spirit of pettiness that will in the end destroy all your grand plans.


  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Messieurs du Conseil et de la Commission, deux visions de la sécurité/défense s’opposent. Celle du général De Gaulle et du chancelier Adenauer, une Europe indépendante de l’OTAN mais partenaire, comme le concevait le traité de l’Élysée du 22 janvier 1963, avant son passage au Bundestag le 16 mai, avant son addendum resituant ce traité d’indépendance dans la dépendance transatlantique; et puis, celle de l’Américain Jean Monnet, voulant faire justement de l’Europe de la défense une annexe des États-Unis. Les chanceliers Erhard et Kiesinger avaient tant à se faire pardonner sur leur passé, qu’ils la soutinrent contre Adenauer. Merkel aussi.

Depuis Adenauer, on ne peut plus parler de couple franco-allemand, car nous voyons, nous, Français patriotes dans l’Europe de la défense, une dynamique d’indépendance et les autres, dont l’Allemagne, un cas de dépendance dans la mutualisation.

En sécurité/défense nous devons construire cette vision gaulléenne de l’indépendance européenne avec les États-Unis au sein des Nations unies, dans un monde désormais multipolaire, sinon l’Europe de la défense sera un échec.


  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Notujemy dzisiaj postęp w dwóch ważnych dziedzinach: obronność: ustanowienie stałej współpracy strukturalnej PESCO, współpracy przemysłów obronnych, oraz przełom w negocjacjach z Wielką Brytanią – gratulacje dla Michela Barniera i jego zespołu.

Moich kilka zdań o sprawie, o której się dzisiaj nie mówiło, ale która znajdzie się na agendzie szczytu grudniowego: europejski filar praw socjalnych proklamowany w Goeteborgu 17 listopada. Ja mam dzisiaj wrażenie, że fizyczne poczucie bezpieczeństwa związane z zagrożeniami terrorystycznymi, szczelnością granic i migracją będzie ważniejszym polem bitwy z populizmem niż bezpieczeństwo socjalne, bo po prostu gospodarka ma się lepiej. I jeżeli ten filar socjalny będzie budowany z poszanowaniem zasady pomocniczości i proporcjonalności, nie będzie mnożył obietnic, których się nie da wypełnić na poziomie unijnym, to w porządku. Na przykład, jeżeli to będzie wzmocnienie programu Erasmus+, współpracy uczelni, uznawania kwalifikacji, wszystkiego, co służy mobilności na rynku, bo tej mobilności na wspólnym rynku jest ciągle za mało.

Ale są powody, dla których hasło „filar socjalny” budzi czujność wielu krajów, przede wszystkim na wschodzie. Wtedy, kiedy pojawia się w jego towarzystwie hasło dumpingu socjalnego i rodzą się twarde regulacje, wtedy wraca trochę takie wspomnienie polskiego hydraulika, Polish plumber, który wylansowany został jako główne zagrożenie w czasie referendum francuskiego. Teraz okazuje się, że kierowcy tirów ze wschodu czy z Hiszpanii, czy też pracownicy budowlani kradną dream jobs bogatszym krajom, co jest przecież nieprawdą. Tak, że ostrzegam, że tego typu regulacje, które mogą rodzić szarą strefę, są również amunicją dla populizmu. Polityczny impact assessment jest niezbędny przy tworzeniu filaru socjalnego.


  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Wieder einmal wird sich ein Gipfel mit der causa prima Europas beschäftigen, der Flüchtlings- und Migrationspolitik, und wieder einmal – diese Prognose ist keineswegs gewagt – wird wenig dabei herauskommen.

Dabei wären die Voraussetzungen günstig wie nie. Das Europäische Parlament hat in seiner letzten Sitzung einen ausgewogenen Mandatsentwurf für die Reform des Dublin-Systems beschlossen, auf dessen Basis umgehend die dauernd verschleppte Neuausrichtung angegangen werden könnte. Es braucht eigentlich nur den Mut, endlich die Verhandlungen aufzunehmen. Vielleicht geschieht ein Weihnachtswunder.

Zumindest ein Problem ließe sich kurzfristig angehen: Wie jedes Jahr sitzen auch heuer wieder zigtausende Flüchtlinge in winteruntauglichen Quartieren fest, frieren und werden zu Opfern krimineller Schlepper. Es wäre mein Weihnachtswunsch, dass die Mitgliedstaaten endlich ihren Verpflichtungen nachkommen, die sie gegenüber dem UNHCR eingegangen sind.


  James Nicholson (ECR). – Madam President, I welcome the fact that we have now the opportunity to move on from phase one. While we should not underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead, we now have a real opportunity to agree a deep and comprehensive deal between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

It has always been the case that the best way to find solutions to the question of the border between the United Kingdom and the European Union is to discuss the trade and customs arrangements. None of us want to return to the borders of the past, but equally I cannot tolerate or accept anything that would create an internal UK east-west border. The United Kingdom is by far Northern Ireland’s most important single market, and that must not be jeopardised – and that, Mr Barnier, I believe is the challenge we have to achieve.

The UK and the EU now have an opportunity to agree on a deal that works for all parties that can only be achieved if we work together and with cool heads. Let us move on from the grandstanding and the megaphone diplomacy in some parts of this debate. It is time for that, it is for sure not for the future.


  Franck Proust (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, la semaine dernière, c’est un compromis salutaire qui a été présenté par l’Union européenne et le Royaume-Uni. Cette première étape dans les négociations n’est pas une fin en soi, c’est une clarification, mais beaucoup reste à faire.

Je salue le travail effectué par la Commission sous la responsabilité de Michel Barnier. Malgré une impréparation initiale manifeste et un manque de clarté régulier des dirigeants britanniques, notre négociateur a su maintenir un cap, imposer un calendrier et défendre nos lignes rouges, et je voudrais dire à ce stade ou lui redire toute notre gratitude et notre reconnaissance.

Des garanties sont aujourd’hui sur la table: préserver les droits des citoyens européens au Royaume-Uni et ceux des Britanniques dans l’Union européenne, règlement complet des engagements financiers du Royaume-Uni et aucune frontière dure entre l’Irlande et l’Irlande du Nord. Il n’y a jamais de bon divorce, certes, mais voyons l’aspect positif: le choix souverain du peuple britannique a servi d’électrochoc pour renforcer l’unité au sein de l’Union européenne, et c’est en étant unis que nous devrons faire de la deuxième phase des négociations une étape au service des intérêts européens.

En matière de commerce, par exemple, nous devons être vigilants. Dans des secteurs stratégiques, à l’heure où les Britanniques devront nécessairement reconstruire leur attractivité commerciale auprès du monde entier, le Royaume-Uni ne devra pas servir de cheval de Troie aux investissements étrangers.

Alors, de notre côté, maintenons nos efforts. Le rapport que je porte au Parlement pour une meilleure surveillance des investissements étrangers viendra ici compléter le travail effectué pour réformer notre méthodologie antidumping et pour moderniser nos instruments de défense commerciale. Dans cette négociation inédite, parce que le chemin est encore long, ne baissons pas la garde et continuons à défendre les intérêts des Européens avec pragmatisme et détermination.


  Elena Valenciano (S&D). – Señora presidenta, quiero referirme al inaceptable documento sobre migración que ha presentado el presidente Donald Tusk para su debate en el Consejo. En mi país hay un dicho que dice: «Ojos que no ven, corazón que no siente». Pero con este documento el señor Tusk parece demostrar que hay corazones que no sienten aunque vean en directo el sufrimiento humano. Tampoco escucha, porque no ha escuchado a este Parlamento, ni está escuchando los esfuerzos que está haciendo la Comisión.

El Consejo parece insistir en un camino sobre migración y refugio probadamente equivocado que consiste en alejar, en hacer fronteras más grandes, en impedir cada vez de manera más acuciante las vías legales para la migración. Un camino probadamente erróneo. Esto es lo que el presidente Tusk presenta en su documento. Y así están ustedes liquidando el prestigio de la Unión Europea y sus valores. Y luego se extrañan de que los populismos antieuropeos estén ganando la batalla.


  Esteban González Pons (PPE). – Señora presidenta. Felicidades, señor Barnier, por su trabajo y felicidades por estar llevando a cabo la negociación más transparente de la historia. Por fin nos hemos puesto de acuerdo en divorciarnos. Ahora tenemos que hablar sobre cómo será la relación abierta que queremos mantener en el futuro. Hemos acordado que los derechos de los ciudadanos están protegidos por la ley y que nuestra ley se incorporará directamente al Derecho británico y, para garantizarlo, que durante ocho años el Tribunal Europeo podrá pronunciarse creando jurisprudencia.

Hemos acordado que la factura del acuerdo será razonable y cumplirá tres reglas: que nadie tendrá que pagar más de lo que está pagando; que se cumplirán los compromisos adquiridos; y que el Reino Unido no pagará más que si fuera un miembro de la Unión Europea.

Sobre Irlanda del Norte nos comprometemos, aunque no haya frontera dura, a respetar los Acuerdos de Viernes Santo, la integridad territorial del Reino Unido y la integridad del mercado único. Es muy difícil y aquí vamos a tener que emplearnos a fondo porque todos vamos a apoyar la posición del Gobierno irlandés hasta el final, hasta que esta declaración sea posible.

Durante el periodo transitorio el Reino Unido seguirá siendo parte de la unión aduanera y del mercado único, respetando las cuatro libertades, pero ya no podrá participar en la elección ni en las decisiones de la Unión Europea. ¿Qué queda entonces por hacer? Lo más difícil: cerrar los detalles técnicos de este acuerdo político; determinar la duración y el alcance del periodo transitorio y empezar a negociar un acuerdo comercial. Este acuerdo no es el final de nada, es simplemente el principio de todo. Este es un acuerdo político, con muchos cabos sueltos desde el punto de vista técnico que el señor Barnier ahora tendrá que negociar y tendrá que atar. Hemos hecho lo más fácil. Señor Barnier, ahora para usted viene lo más difícil porque, como siempre, el éxito será que alcancemos un brexit que no parezca un brexit.


  Mercedes Bresso (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, anch'io voglio congratularmi con il nostro negoziatore Michel Barnier per l'ottimo risultato. Vorrei però tornare ad altre questioni che sono state trattate. In particolare, al Consiglio dovrebbe venire approvato definitivamente il primo pacchetto sulla dimensione sociale dell'Unione europea, l'istruzione e la cultura, a seguito dell'incontro di Göteborg, e vorrei apprezzare questo anche se siamo ancora lontani da quello che noi vorremmo.

In secondo luogo, apprezziamo anche il fatto che sia stato fatto un grosso pacchetto di proposte sulla zona euro: va bene che il Parlamento sia il Parlamento della zona euro, anche questo ci fa piacere sentirlo dire, ma ricordiamo che continua a esistere una questione democratica su tutte queste vicende, più la questione della difesa, la cooperazione sulla difesa, la questione democratica, è il ruolo del Parlamento nella maggior parte di tali questioni che non è alla pari con quello del Consiglio.


  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, ba mhaith liom ar dtús buíochas rialtas na hÉireann a chur in iúl do gach uile dhuine san Aontas a chabhraigh linn. Go háirithe, an dá Uachtarán, Tusk agus Juncker, an tUasal Barnier, Guy Verhofstadt, Manfred Weber agus gach uile dhuine. Mar a dúirt Donald Tusk, ní neart go cur le chéile agus thaispeánamar é sin.

The Irish Government, and indeed all of the Irish people, are very happy at the practical and sensible agreement announced last Friday, with the protection of the Good Friday Agreement, in all its parts, the preservation of the Common Travel Area and, above all, no hard border and full regulatory alignment to make that happen, which can be worked out in Phase 2.

Also, something which has not been mentioned enough is the willingness of the European Union to continue Peace (Programme for Peace and Reconciliation) and Interreg funding into the future, post-Brexit. And mentioning Peace, we do not want a hard border because there has been too much blood spilled in Ireland over the border, with a bloody civil war and 20 years of terror. Nobody wants to go back to that, and thanks to Mr Barnier, the Irish Government and, indeed, Theresa May, that will not happen.

Finally, I would like to say also to Theresa May that we appreciate her efforts in difficult circumstances to progress matters. Hopefully, she will get the backing of all her colleagues because this is not a time for disunity. We in Ireland are totally united, the European Union is totally united, and those in the United Kingdom have to stand behind Theresa May. It is not helpful when people make statements that commitments are only statements of intent. A commitment is a commitment, a guarantee is a guarantee, and nothing else. Finally, I would tell her that there is an old Irish phrase also which says ‘is binn béal ina thost’: ‘sweet is the mouth that is silent’. She may, in her wisdom, teach some of her colleagues that old adage.


  Jens Geier (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich beglückwünsche Sie, Herr Barnier, zu dem Ergebnis der Verhandlungen, das Sie uns vorgelegt haben. Als stellvertretender Vorsitzender des Haushaltsausschusses galt meine Sorge besonders den Folgen des Brexit für den europäischen Haushalt, für den das Vereinigte Königreich weitreichende Verpflichtungen eingegangen ist. Das Ergebnis garantiert, dass wir den mittelfristigen Finanzrahmen so zu Ende führen können, wie er geplant war. Es garantiert, dass das Vereinigte Königreich sich weiter an den Pensionsleistungen von EU-Beamtinnen und —Beamten beteiligt, die auch dem Vereinigten Königreich gedient haben, solange es Mitglied der Europäischen Union war, und nicht wenige von ihnen sind ja auch Bürgerinnen und Bürger des Vereinigten Königreichs. Das bedeutet aber auch, dass Albernheiten über Grundstücke und Weinflaschen, die wir von der Insel gehört haben, beendet worden sind.

Ich bin überzeugt, dass Großbritannien schwächer ist ohne die EU und dass die EU schwächer ist ohne Großbritannien. Vor diesem Hintergrund freue ich mich, dass der Artikel 73 des gemeinsamen Berichts erwähnt, dass Großbritannien die weitere Teilnahme an EU-Politiken prüft. Das ist vernünftig, und das sollten wir machen, vorbehaltlich weiterer Beiträge in den EU-Haushalt.


  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, em primeiro lugar eu queria, relativamente ao Conselho, exprimir a minha mais veemente repulsa pela forma como o Presidente Tusk apresentou a questão dos refugiados. Acho que é inaceitável para uma comunidade de direito que defende os direitos humanos, que é, sem dúvida, uma referência para os direitos fundamentais, que se trate a questão dos refugiados desta maneira e, portanto, isso é deplorável e deve ser afastado. Estamos ao lado da Comissão e do Presidente Juncker nesta matéria.

Queria depois cumprimentar Michel Barnier pelos resultados obtidos, pelo empenho, pela determinação, pela forma como tem defendido os direitos dos cidadãos europeus, incluindo de todos os cidadãos britânicos que estão no continente e que estão também nas ilhas britânicas. E finalmente, tinha uma mensagem para o ministro do Brexit, Sr. David Davis: once upon a time, even gentlemen’s agreements were binding. Esta é a mensagem que queria deixar. Até um acordo de cavalheiros é vinculativo, que fará uma negociação entre instituições como o Governo da Grã—Bretanha e a Comissão Europeia e o Conselho Europeu!


  Seb Dance (S&D). – Madam President, I’m grateful to Mr Verhofstadt for his clarification that the phase one agreement will be put into a legal text, this is very important news, particularly for citizens who need the assurances going forward.

But let’s be clear about the situation that we find ourselves in. The reason that the fantasists opposite have been able to claim, as they often do, that this is a betrayal, is because the government’s own rhetoric is wildly different from the reality that we face. You cannot have a hard border in Ireland and preserve the peace process. You cannot have a hard border in the Irish Sea and preserve the four nations and the integrity of the United Kingdom. This is integral to Brexit, and in the ‘full alignment’ that was agreed under phase one it will of course mean the following: the decisions on Britain’s trade and economic policy will be made in this House and in the European institutions, where we currently have a voice but where we will have none because of Brexit. And it’s up to the proponents opposite to explain to their constituents how that is taking back control. It is not taking back control, it is ceding it.


  György Schöpflin (PPE). – Madam President, when the history of Brexit comes to be written, one aspect of it is bound to play a prominent role: the quality of the communication between London and Brussels, especially in the media. ‘Communication’ may be the wrong word; ‘miscommunication’ might be better. The Council mandate of 29 April is crystal clear on what the EU expected from the United Kingdom. Yet, the British media have treated the negotiations as if they had never read the Council’s mandate. Who knows, maybe there is no ‘as if’ about it – certainly, much of the British media comment has reflected a very different mindset about Brexit: one in which the EU’s position has played next to no role. It’s bizarre. The UK is constantly trumpeting diversity and multiculturalism. Evidently, the EU, Brussels, the European Parliament and the 27 are not a part of this diversity.


  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Gospođo predsjednice, Brexit će dominirati ovotjednim sastankom, tj. je li postignut dovoljan napredak za prelazak u drugu fazu. Zajednička izjava konačno je dogovorena prošli tjedan, ulozi su se povećali, ali povećala se i cijena razlaza. Nadam se bržem napretku u drugoj fazi u kojoj ćemo morati definirati buduće odnose Europske unije i Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva.

Kao hrvatski zastupnik posebno pozdravljam odredbu kojom će hrvatski građani biti jednako tretirani kao ostali građani Unije jer za njih još uvijek vrijedi privremeno ograničenje pristupa tržištu rada. Podržavam i povijesno važno jačanje zajedničke obrambene suradnje, za koje se odlučilo čak 25 članica.

Dobro je što je predsjednik Tusk pozvao na sastanak na vrhu država europodručja sve članice, s obzirom na važnost dnevnog reda. Ali to nisu jedine teme od značaja za budućnost Europske unije. Drago mi je da su socijalna pitanja, kultura i obrazovanje također našli svoje mjesto na agendi.


  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, Evropská rada by měla podpořit vyjednávání o brexitu tak, jak zde bylo předloženo, zejména co se týká jistot občanů, kterým po vystoupení Velké Británie hrozí nejistota. Zatímco Spojené království není jednotné, Evropská unie má pozici jednotnou. V tom je naše síla i výhoda při jednání. Uvítala bych, kdyby Evropská rada vzala na vědomí stanovisko svého předsedy Tuska k řešení migrační krize. Řekl jen to, co si myslí. Chtěla jsem vyzvat pan Timmermanse, který zde řekl, že členské státy musí hledat rovnováhu mezi solidaritou a bezpečností. Pane Timmermansi, řekl jste, že zajištění hranice a boj proti pašerákům musí být naší prioritou. Je to i můj názor. Členské státy musí být a také jsou solidární, ale mají také svou odpovědnost. Toto řešení musí být společné a zároveň musí respektovat situaci a postoj jednotlivých členských států. Podle mne pan Tusk řekl to samé, my nemůžeme ignorovat subsidiaritu.


  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le négociateur, Monsieur Barnier, merci d’avoir introduit – pourrait-on dire? – «le loup dans la bergerie». En tout cas, le mot «marché intérieur» au paragraphe 49 de ce long rapport conjoint qui – je crois – est un fil conducteur sur lequel nous allons pouvoir construire beaucoup pour l’avenir des relations entre l’Union européenne et le Royaume-Uni.

Mais il y a d’autres sujets à l’ordre du jour du Conseil européen et je m’étonne de ne pas voir la Commission à son siège. J’aurais voulu l’inviter à insister sur l’importance, évidemment, des réformes de l’Union économique et monétaire, même en l’absence d’un gouvernement allemand en dehors d’un gouvernement faisant fonction. En effet, il y a dans les propositions des éléments sur lesquels nous avons besoin d’avancer, et notamment l’idée d’un filet de sécurité pour le fonds de résolution, car c’est un point qui sinon risque de bloquer beaucoup d’avancées dont nous avons besoin, quel que soit le calendrier électoral des uns et des autres.


  Esther de Lange (PPE). – Madam President, at many British tables, I think, Christmas lunch 2017 will still be surrounded by uncertainty. First and foremost, for European citizens and their families, and indeed, as many colleagues have said, more guarantees are needed here.

But also economically, as the BBC reported that this same Christmas lunch will this year be 20% more expensive due to Brexit-induced inflation and price volatility. Yes, let us talk about trade, as that is also in the interests of our producers, our farmers, and our fishermen. But let us be clear: access to the single market is not free. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

Finally, now that I am in the Christmas spirit anyway, let me warn this House against false prophets, like the Brexit prophet Nigel Farage, who, through nonsense, lies, and videotape, got his Brexit and then ran away. He talks about unelected bureaucrats but he betrayed his voters and, indeed, now he is absent. He had his videotape, he will post his speech on all the social media. But let us promise our voters and our citizens one thing: the work in this House will have to be done by serious and maybe less flamboyant politicians, and that is us. So when we reconvene after Christmas, let us get to work in the interests of the European citizens and also the Brits.


  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, da un po' di tempo accadono cose curiose in questi dibattiti: il Consiglio si presenta quasi sempre reticente, la Commissione invece fa spesso discorsi altisonanti – ancora oggi, penso a Dublino – riceve l'applauso, ma sempre più sembrano discorsi di chi grida alla luna.

Il Consiglio di domani e dopo, oltre a Brexit, dovrebbe affrontare questioni importanti: la proclamazione del pilastro sociale, si è messa molta enfasi su Göteborg, ma il rischio è che rimanga sulla carta, se non sarà accompagnata da politiche coerenti a livello europeo e soprattutto da regole e risorse che non vedo ancora.

Secondo: immigrazione e Dublino. Mentre l'orizzonte libico rischia di oscurarsi ancora di più, il Presidente del Consiglio dichiara fallita la politica migratoria europea. Non capisco con quale credibilità il Consiglio spiegherà ai cittadini europei e penserà di presentare un bilancio del suo lavoro che mi sembra, allo stato attuale, molto ma molto fallimentare.


  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Madam President, thank you very much, and thanks to Mr Barnier for having achieved sufficient progress in the negotiations. Now we need to go on further with the aim of a friendly Brexit negotiated with the Government of the United Kingdom, not undermined by the political forces here who are not even represented in the British Parliament. They are not only trying to undermine the negotiations; they are undermining the United Kingdom’s potential in the future.

Second, when the EU gets smaller, we need to get taller; we need to develop new trade relations in order to support not only economic development, but also strengthen a liberal world order. We need to ensure that we can have the strength in developing the European Union, not just by discussing form, but by securing that we have the right policies that can make our Union strong.



  Petra Kammerevert (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich will an dieser Stelle auf die Bildungspolitik eingehen, die viel mehr Beachtung verdient als ihr bisher zuteilwurde. Zum Göteborg-Gipfel hat die Kommission dankenswerterweise die Schaffung eines Europäischen Bildungsraums bis 2025 vorgeschlagen. Nun müssen diesen wohlgesetzten Worten entsprechende Taten folgen. Bei allem Respekt vor den Zuständigkeiten der Mitgliedstaaten: Was spricht dagegen, dass die Mitgliedstaaten endlich gemeinsame, ehrgeizige und verbindliche Bildungsziele verabreden und das notwendige Geld in die Hand nehmen: zum Spracherwerb, zum lebenslangen Lernen, zu modernen Schlüsselkompetenzen einschließlich digitaler Fähigkeiten? Die Ziele müssen dann engmaschig evaluiert werden. Bildung ist Zukunft, und Investitionen in Bildung sind Investitionen in die Zukunft von Menschen. Es ist höchste Zeit, dass wir das in unserem gemeinsamen politischen Handeln auch anerkennen.

Das Europäische Parlament und die Kommission werden sich gemeinsam auf den Weg machen, bis 2025 einen Europäischen Bildungsraum zu schaffen, und ich fordere die Mitgliedstaaten dringlich auf, ihren Teil zum Gelingen dieses Projekt beizutragen.


  Viviane Reding, (PPE). – Madam President, after 18 months of political denial, the UK has finally accepted the three divorce conditions and now everybody knows what Brexit really means. Brexiteers promised GBP 350 million a week to their citizens; instead, they have to pay billions of euro. They promised economic benefits; instead, the pound and British growth are at their lowest point. They promised sovereignty; instead, the government is at the mercy of the DUP at home, and of trade partners abroad. They promised global Britain; instead, they got a lonely Britain. They promised to take back control; instead, they are spinning out of control.

I am saddened that the British people have fallen victim to political crooks and that the result is a divided and weakened UK. Fortunately, the European family is united after the Brexit wake-up call and, fortunately, the citizens’ problems found a positive solution in the first part of these negotiations. Thank you, Michel Barnier.


  Silvia Costa (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nel ringraziare Timmermans e Barnier, una riflessione: la Brexit è stata anche una drammatica occasione per milioni di giovani e di studenti europei e britannici, per riscoprire il valore e i vantaggi della comune cittadinanza europea e del progetto europeo. È perciò importante che l'accordo UE-UK preveda tra i diritti dei cittadini una specifica tutela dei giovani, degli studenti e di quelli impegnati in programmi europei.

Anche la sfida dell'immigrazione ci impone un rilancio della solidarietà europea, e il superamento di Dublino, con la voce stonata di Tusk, ma anche l'apertura di vie legali e nuove relazioni euromediterranee in cui i giovani africani dovranno avere un ruolo di protagonisti.

Così come chiediamo al Consiglio di adottare formalmente le concrete proposte del social summit di Göteborg, in particolare, finalmente anche, educazione e cultura per ampliare la possibilità dei giovani europei di studiare in un altro paese, creare network di università con corsi in almeno due lingue, riconoscimento di diplomi, adozione di una mia proposta, che è diventata proposta del Parlamento, della European Student Card, e un Erasmus per giovani artisti dopo il 2020, nonché l'accesso delle imprese culturali e creative all'EFSI.


  Tanja Fajon (S&D). – Danes, na pragu novega leta in novih načrtov, je čas za pozitivno energijo in optimizem. Zato govorim s polno mero vere v našo Evropsko unijo in z željo, da bi se zaupanje vanjo utrdilo tudi pri naših državljanih.


Ti si danes želijo predvsem več Evrope na področju varnosti – bodisi fizične bodisi ekonomske in socialne. Zagotavljanje varnosti je vse tesneje povezano s politikami na področjih, ki so trenutno v pristojnosti držav članic (socialo, zdravstvo, mislim). Po drugi strani pa z upravljanjem z migracijami. Oboje je posledica spreminjajoče se demografske podobe in iskanje skupnih evropskih rešitev bo v prihodnjih letih ključnega pomena.


Varne se lahko počutimo samo v okolju, ki spoštuje demokratična pravila, ima posluh za posameznike in ki je solidarno. In to je naš največji izziv – ohraniti pri življenju temeljne vrednote in skladno z njimi živeti. In če boste, dragi voditelji, upoštevali to vodilo, ga bomo upoštevali tudi mi, da bo prihodnje leto dobro.



Interventions à la demande


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, I shall try and set a good example. I want to say thank you to Michel Barnier, not from me, but from the people I represent, from those people who live in Donegal, in Louth, in Cavan, in Monaghan, in Leitrim, the counties that border Northern Ireland, but also to the people of Armagh, Fermanagh, Tyrone and Derry, who link up with my constituents socially, from a business point of view, who see no invisible border, and want no visible border. Through his patience and determination, Mr Barnier has secured for them a future of which they were very fearful.

Sometimes in this House those who grandstand, arrive and make great speeches, walk out and ignore the realities of what we are talking about here today. What happens will impact on people on the ground, and I hope that going into Christmas we have given them more reassurances, not just around the Ireland issue, but on citizens’ rights and financial commitments. It took your courage and determination, Michel. Have a good Christmas. You did hard work.


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, el Consejo de diciembre viene con una agenda muy cargada: la negociación del brexit, la cooperación estructurada en materia de defensa, que ha sido calificada de «Bella Durmiente», lo que obligaría a calificar de «Cenicienta» a la agenda social, largamente postergada en el manejo de la crisis y de la que se habló en Gotemburgo, pero que todavía está pendiente de realizaciones prácticas en materia de empleo digno, protección social y relanzamiento de oportunidades para los jóvenes, incluido el programa Erasmus, promovido por el recordado comisario español Manuel Marín, recientemente fallecido.

Pero en lo que resulta inaceptable el balance del Consejo y tiene que ser cambiado de raíz es en materia migratoria, porque el Consejo continúa contaminado con una mirada negativa que vincula cualquier cooperación exterior, incluso la ayuda humanitaria, al retorno de los inmigrantes, a los que se ve siempre como una amenaza. Hace falta crear vías legales, promover visados humanitarios y corredores humanitarios, particularmente en el norte de África.

Y es la única oportunidad de restablecer la libre circulación de personas en el acervo de Schengen, lo más precioso y preciado para los ciudadanos europeos.


  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο δεν μπορεί πλέον να κλείνει τα μάτια στο μεταναστευτικό και να μετατρέπει την Ελλάδα και την Ιταλία σε αποθήκες ψυχών. Πρέπει να αντιληφθεί ο κ. Tusk ότι δεν πρόκειται να περάσουν οι μεθοδεύσεις του για κατάργηση των υποχρεωτικών ποσοστώσεων κατανομής προσφύγων στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Επιπλέον, το Δουβλίνο III πρέπει να καταργηθεί και να αντικατασταθεί με ρυθμίσεις που θα ενισχύουν την αλληλεγγύη και δεν θα μετατρέπουν τα κράτη πρώτης εισόδου σε αποδιοπομπαίους τράγους. Η δομή και λειτουργία της Οικονομικής και Νομισματικής Ένωσης πρέπει να αλλάξει, μιας και έχει γεμίσει την ευρωζώνη με στρατιές φτωχών και ανέργων. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα πρέπει να μετατραπεί σε ύστατο δανειστή. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Σύστημα Τραπεζών να αποκεντρωθεί και να επιτραπεί η ανάκτηση της εθνικής νομισματικής κυριαρχίας, με το δικαίωμα στις εθνικές κεντρικές τράπεζες να κόβουν χρήμα μέχρι του ποσοστού συμμετοχής τους στο μετοχικό κεφάλαιο της ΕΚΤ. Επιπλέον, απαιτείται η κατάργηση του δρακόντειου συμφώνου σταθερότητας και η ενίσχυση της κοινωνικής Ευρώπης.


  Pavel Telička (ALDE). – Madam President, I am missing Mr Farage. I wanted to express my appreciation for the most pro-EU speech he has ever made in this House. I very much appreciate it – in fact, he praised the European Union!

Two remarks. First, as concerns Mr Barnier and the negotiations, congratulations. But there is really one issue that I would ask you to take into account, from the EP resolution, and that is the status of citizens because still, from a procedural point of view, there is insecurity for EU citizens. I think it should be pure registration with the burden of proof residing with the United Kingdom.

The second remark I would make is on the euro. I really would appreciate it if the summit could take an important step towards better governance in the euro area. You might ask why a Czech is placing such emphasis on this. Well, I would like to show the Czech citizens and Czech politicians for once that they cannot use the excuse of bad governance in the euro area, so we could have a serious debate on the introduction of the euro in the Czech Republic.


  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το έγγραφο Tusk για το προσφυγικό είναι απαράδεκτο, προκλητικό και αντιευρωπαϊκό. Διχαστικές δεν είναι οι υποχρεωτικές ποσοστώσεις, αλλά το ίδιο το έγγραφο. Κύριε Maasikas, θα ήθελα να μεταφέρετε στον απόντα σήμερα Πρόεδρο του Συμβουλίου ότι όταν διάβασα αυτό το κείμενο νόμισα ότι το υπογράφει ο κ. Κατσίνσκι ή ο κ. Όρμπαν, όχι ο πρόεδρος του Συμβουλίου. Η Επιτροπή με τη στήριξη του Κοινοβουλίου έχει προσφύγει στο Ευρωπαϊκό Δικαστήριο εναντίον των ευρωπαϊκών κυβερνήσεων που αρνούνται να υλοποιήσουν τις υποχρεώσεις τους και είναι ντροπή για την Ευρώπη ο Πρόεδρος του Συμβουλίου να μαχαιρώνει στην πλάτη την Επιτροπή.

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και η Επιτροπή, κύριε Maasikas, περιμένουν και από το Συμβούλιο και από τη Σύνοδο Κορυφής να κάνει αυτό που πρέπει, διότι δεν μπορεί η Ελλάδα και η Ιταλία να σηκώνουν μόνες τους με ελλιπή ευρωπαϊκή αλληλεγγύη το βάρος του προσφυγικού.


  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η ολοκλήρωση της πρώτης φάσεως των διαπραγματεύσεων για το Brexit επιβεβαίωσε μια μεγάλη αλήθεια: ότι όταν στον βάλτο τσακώνονται τα βουβάλια την πληρώνουν τα βατράχια. Τα βατράχια στην προκειμένη περίπτωση είναι οι υπήκοοι των χωρών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως που έχουν σπουδάσει, ζουν με τις οικογένειές τους και εργάζονται στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο. Με τα μέχρι τώρα δεδομένα οι άνθρωποι αυτοί έχουν κάθε λόγο να ανησυχούν για το αν και κατά πόσον θα κατοχυρωθούν τα δικαιώματά τους αυτά ή όχι. Βεβαίως, ακούσαμε σήμερα τον κ. Barnier να λέει ότι τα δικαιώματα αυτά θα κατοχυρωθούν διά βίου, ουδείς όμως μπορεί να τους διαβεβαιώσει ότι αυτό θα συμβεί.

Μας ανησυχεί το γεγονός ότι έχει μειωθεί ο ρόλος του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου και γι’ αυτόν ακριβώς τον λόγο δεν μπορούμε να γνωρίζουμε αν μια μελλοντική κυβέρνηση θα καταργήσει ή θα περιορίσει τα δικαιώματα αυτά. Οφείλει λοιπόν η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να υποστηρίξει κατά τρόπο που δεν επιδέχεται αμφισβήτηση τα δικαιώματα των ανθρώπων αυτών. Θα είναι τραγικό να φτάσουν σε σημείο να ζητούν άδεια ακόμη και να μείνουν στα σπίτια τους.


  Milan Zver (PPE). – Tri stvari, brexit, rad bi se zahvalil gospodu Bernierju za odlično vodenje celotnega pogajalskega procesa, predvsem pa za to, da je postavil ljudi in njihove pravice in svoboščine pred interesi struktur koristi posameznih držav in podobno.

Drugič, migracije, voditelji se bodo dotaknili tudi tega perečega vprašanja. Opozoril bi zlasti na pismo predsednika Evropskega sveta Donalda Tuska, kjer govori, da obvezne kvote niso najboljša rešitev, zato ker delijo evropsko javnost, in se zavzema za bolj spodbudne oblike reševanja tega problema.

In tretjič, PESCO, nobena evropska skupna politika doslej še ni imela tako velike podpore kot ustvarjanje obrambne in varnostne unije, zato sem zelo vesel, da se bodo voditelji dotaknili tudi tega vprašanja.


  Jean-Paul Denanot (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, oui, je peux effectivement prendre acte des déclarations optimistes de M. Timmermans sur l’avenir de l’Union européenne, mais malheureusement les belles et bonnes déclarations et intentions se heurtent à la question budgétaire. Comment mettre en place toutes ces nouvelles politiques sans financement supplémentaire? Nous ne pouvons accepter que ce soient les politiques structurelles de l’Union européenne qui en fassent les frais.

Sur le Brexit, je voudrais à la fois féliciter et remercier M. Barnier et tous les négociateurs de ne pas avoir cédé sur les lignes rouges que le Parlement européen avait fixées. Je comprends bien que le chemin soit encore long pour traduire juridiquement ce premier résultat.

Il y a un point sur lequel je m’interroge particulièrement: celui de la frontière irlandaise. Je ne vois pas encore bien comment les choses peuvent se passer et quelle solution sera retenue au final. Ce que je souhaite en tout cas, c’est qu’elle ne menace ni la paix ni l’avenir, car je pense que, tôt ou tard, n’en déplaise à M. Farage, le Royaume-Uni refrappera à la porte de l’Union européenne.


  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! To była dzisiaj naprawdę pasjonująca debata, która zapowiada bardzo ciekawą Radę Europejską od jutra, dlatego że wszyscy mogliśmy się przekonać jak szybko spadają gwiazdy w Unii Europejskiej. Te wszystkie ataki na przewodniczącego Rady Europejskiej tylko dlatego, że powiedział parę rzeczy oczywistych, że system przymusowej dyslokacji nie działa, pokazują jak łatwo jest zostać wrogiem Unii Europejskiej. Jak łatwo jest powiedzieć o kimś – tylko dlatego, że powie coś oczywistego – że zaprzecza całej integracji. Swoją drogą dziwię się przyjaciołom politycznym pana Tuska, że nie występują w jego obronie.

Teraz przejdźmy do rzeczy. Pomijając już system przymusowej dyslokacji migrantów, który rzeczywiście nie działa, prawo azylowe musi pozostać domeną państw, bo na przykład nikt nie ma prawa stwierdzić za zainteresowane państwo, że działacz Bractwa Muzułmańskiego z Egiptu jest uchodźcą politycznym, któremu należy udzielić azylu.


  Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, there are undoubted positives that have come out of the phase 1 negotiations when it comes to Ireland. Commitments to no border, regulatory alignment and citizens’ rights are all positive. Your statement, Mr Barnier, that there will be no going back is definitely a positive. But there is one thing that will drive this back, and that is triumphalism on either side. In particular, for people like Manfred Weber, I fear that his dislike of the UK is what drives him rather than his love for Ireland. I think it is love for Ireland that should drive it instead, because this is very important to us. When we talk about ties with Great Britain I don’t think people understand here how important it is. It isn’t about dependence, it is about co-dependence.

I am a Flanagan. My wife is a Kelly. There were 20 members of my mother’s and my wife’s mother’s two families, and 19 out of the 20 went to work in London. Three of my six siblings were born in London. We need each other. We depend on each other. We work together. Manfred remember that with your triumphalism. It doesn’t help.


  Brian Hayes (PPE). – Madam President, I rise to thank the 26 Member States of the European Union, Michel Barnier and his team and all of the institutions for their support for Ireland over the course of this negotiation. This has been a successful negotiation where we have stayed clear and we have come together, and we are stronger together. On the behalf of my constituents in Ireland we thank you for that solidarity and that support.

The clear message from this debate, as demonstrated by Mr Barnier, is that there is no going back on the commitments that have been entered into by the EU and the United Kingdom; no going back on the clear commitments for Ireland; no going back on the clear two other priority issues for EU citizens’ rights and the question of finance. We have a duty now to reposition this debate, to go forward together. We need a new relationship with the United Kingdom based on mutual respect, based on cooperation. Just as Europe has stayed loyal to Ireland, so too will Ireland stay loyal on the question of the integrity of the single market.


  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il primo accordo raggiunto sulla Brexit conferma che l'uscita dall'Unione non è poi un così grande affare.

La crisi economica del 2008, da cui tutta l'Europa stenta ancora a riprendersi, è stata la scintilla per addossare all'Unione europea le responsabilità di tutto, anche di colpe non proprie. Della crisi economica, ma anche di qualche inadeguatezza dell'Unione europea, ha approfittato chi, non avendo mai avuto un ruolo di responsabilità, ha potuto far credere ad un elettorato insoddisfatto che riacquistando la propria sovranità la Gran Bretagna avrebbe potuto scegliere da sé il proprio destino, anche in un mondo globalizzato.

Ma i fatti vanno in un'altra direzione: con la sua scelta, la Gran Bretagna ha compiuto un salto nell'ignoto, lontano da ogni progetto politico di lungo tempo. Tuttavia, l'Unione è un progetto che unisce, non che divide. Dobbiamo lasciare aperto uno spiraglio per quando i britannici vorranno tornare indietro. Ci accorgeremo che questo periodo sarà passato quando i populisti cominceranno a litigare tra di loro, come già il collega Farage ha iniziato a fare con la premier britannica May.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, vreau să spun acum, la bilanț, că cred că avem rezultate și nu trebuie să le ignorăm. Trebuie să ne uităm mai mult spre problemele care ne unesc decât spre cele care ne dezbină, dar, în același timp, cred că trebuie să ne gândim și la lucrurile care nu ne-au reușit, iar Brexit-ul, plecarea Marii Britanii, este un lucru care nu ne-a reușit. Felicit negociatorii, și din partea Parlamentului, și din partea Comisiei. Cred că au punctat extraordinar de bine și astăzi că trebuie să gândim acest Brexit gândindu-ne la cetățean, să nu existe o sarcină suplimentară și să nu existe discriminarea cetățenilor europeni. Și eu am concetățeni acolo și cred că, instituțional, Marea Britanie trebuie să preia această sarcină.

În același timp, cred că trebuie să ne gândim cum facem anul viitor și Consiliul trebuie să se gândească cum facem să creștem coeziunea socială - până la urmă obiectivul nostru important -, cum putem să ajutăm mai mult agricultorii europeni, micile întreprinderi, cum putem să sprijinim cetățenii. Asta este politica europeană.


  Κώστας Μαυρίδης (S&D). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Barnier, έχω ένα πολύ συγκεκριμένο ερώτημα: Στην Κύπρο υπάρχουν μεγάλες στρατιωτικές ζώνες που ανήκουν και ελέγχονται από τη Μεγάλη Βρετανία και στις οποίες διαβιούν χιλιάδες ευρωπαίοι πολίτες, είτε κύπριοι ευρωπαίοι πολίτες είτε και από άλλα κράτη μέλη. Θα ήθελα να γνωρίζω ποιο είναι το μέλλον αυτών των ευρωπαίων πολιτών, ποιο είναι το καθεστώς υπό το οποίο θα συνεχίσουν να διαβιούν και ποια θα είναι τα δικαιώματα και οι υποχρεώσεις τους. Επειδή όμως σε λίγο θα έχουμε και το βραβείο Ζαχάρωφ, αυτό μου δίνει μια ευκαιρία να αναφερθώ σε ένα μνημείο ανθρώπινης αξιοπρέπειας –και δεν θέλω διόλου να μειώσω εκείνους που θα βραβεύσουμε σήμερα. Από τις τουρκικές φυλακές ένας άνθρωπος φυλακισμένος στέλνει ένα μήνυμα που πρέπει να ακούσουμε όλοι είναι ο Ντεμιρτάς, ο οποίος σε δήλωσή του καταλήγει με το εξής: Στο καθεστώς Ερντογάν δεν απαντάς στις ερωτήσεις, γιατί δεν υπάρχει δικαιοσύνη στην Τουρκία.


(Fin des interventions à la demande)


  Michel Barnier, négociateur en chef pour le Brexit. – Madame la Présidente, je vais donc essayer d’être précis et rapide à la fois, d’abord pour dire à tous ceux d’entre vous qui se sont exprimés sur d’autres questions que le Brexit, qu’il s’agisse de l’économie, de l’immigration, de l’éducation, de la question sociale ou économique, que je transmettrai évidemment vos remarques au président Juncker et au premier vice-président Timmermans, qui regrette de ne pas pouvoir être là.

Télégraphiquement, Manfred Weber a parlé, tout à l’heure, de la transition. Je veux confirmer que la seule base juridique pour une éventuelle transition est l’article 50. Il n’y a pas de transition s’il n’y a pas d’accord sur l’article 50, un accord de retrait. Je voudrais remercier aussi Esteban Gonzáles Pons d’avoir utilisé le mot «transparence». C’est une clé dans la confiance entre nous, avec le Conseil aussi, et nous continuerons, en liaison avec Guy Verhofstadt et les membres du groupe de pilotage du Parlement sur le Brexit, à pratiquer ces dialogues de confiance permanents.

Sur l’Irlande, Seán Kelly, Mairead McGuinness et d’autres parlementaires ont rappelé la sensibilité de cette question. Je continuerai à être le négociateur du gouvernement irlandais comme celui des vingt-six autres gouvernements et – si vous le voulez bien – à vos côtés. L’unité des vingt-sept dans les mois passés et pour les mois à venir est tout à fait fondamentale.

J’ai écouté avec beaucoup d’attention Mme in’t Veld, Mme Keller, M. Kelly, qui a, tout à l’heure, évoqué les droits des citoyens, comme Roberto Gualtieri et Guy Verhofstadt l’ont fait aussi avec beaucoup de force. Deux points sur cette question: d’abord la libre circulation, à l’avenir, fera partie, Madame in’t Veld, de la future étape dans la phase deux, mais je n’oublie pas cette question.

Le point très important sur les procédures, qui est un point sensible: nous avons mis dans le rapport conjoint des conditions très précises, cosignées par les deux parties, et je m’attacherai – vous pouvez en être sûrs – à ce que ces conditions soient transcrites dans le traité lui-même du retrait, pour que ces procédures soient simples et les moins bureaucratiques possibles. Nous ne sommes pas au bout sur cette question et la question ne sera fermée que dans l’accord de retrait. Donc, de ce point de vue-là, la vigilance du Parlement européen est juste et justifiée.

Monsieur Mavrides, juste un mot sur Chypre: nous aurons besoin de trouver des solutions spécifiques pour préserver la situation actuelle des citoyens concernés par la vie autour des deux bases militaires de Chypre. Je le dis juste en passant.

Gianni Pittella, Guy Verhostadt et, naturellement, Elmar Brok ont évoqué la force de ce rapport conjoint. C’est un travail sérieux que nous avons fait ensemble, méthodique, précis. Il sera la base de ce que nous allons transférer et transcrire dans le droit, à travers un projet de traité. Je dis à Guy Verhostadt que mon intention est de mettre sur votre table, avant la fin janvier, ce projet de traité appuyé – pour l’essentiel – sur le contenu de ce rapport conjoint. Comme l’a dit Elmar Brok, c’est une question de confiance. Le mot «confiance» est beaucoup plus qu’un mot, à ce stade, entre les Britanniques et nous, parce qu’on ne peut pas bâtir une future relation en matière de défense, de sécurité, de coopération judiciaire, pour l’université, pour le commerce évidemment, sans avoir la confiance.

Just one word about the context of these negotiations: they are difficult, and they are tough, very tough, because the issues are extremely complicated and because the consequences of the Brexit are very serious. I personally want to say, in response to a Member of the House of Commons, that Prime Minister Theresa May is courageous and respectable. I certainly respect her.

Je voudrais dire maintenant, comme Syed Kamall, Gabriele Zimmer et Manfred Weber ont évoqué la future relation, qu’il y a, avec cet accord sur le rapport conjoint, un pas important qui est fait dans la direction d’un retrait ordonné – et c’est la condition, ce retrait ordonné –, à travers un traité qui vous sera soumis, et vous aurez le dernier mot – pour bâtir une relation future.

De ce point de vue-là, je voudrais juste insister sur un point sur lequel nous reviendrons. C’est la première fois dans l’histoire des négociations commerciales européennes – et nous aurons à bâtir un accord de libre-échange avec le Royaume-Uni –, que nous allons devoir, dans une relation commerciale négociée, travailler à maîtriser la divergence plutôt qu’à encourager la convergence. Nous allons devoir maîtriser la divergence réglementaire, éviter qu’elle ne devienne un outil de dumping contre nous, plutôt que d’encourager la convergence, comme nous le faisons habituellement. C’est un point très important qui touche au mode de vie, qu’évoquait tout à l’heure Manfred Weber, et également aux conditions de concurrence équitables.

Voilà c’est un fil conducteur, Madame Berès, en effet, que ce rapport conjoint, dans la direction d’un accord, comme l’a dit également très bien Danuta Maria Hübner.

Maria João Rodrigues, tout à l’heure, comme Daniel Caspary et d’autres, ont évoqué les réformes dont l’Europe a besoin. Le président Timmermans en a parlé. Je pense, je redis que l’avenir de l’Europe, qui est fait de ces réformes, de ce volontarisme, est bien plus important que le Brexit. C’est aussi pourquoi, je pense qu’il fallait stabiliser cette négociation, pour que l’énergie, votre énergie et l’énergie des Européens soient consacrées à cet agenda de réformes.

Je vous remercie beaucoup, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, de l’appréciation que vous avez portée sur notre travail. Je partagerai cette appréciation sans aucune autosatisfaction et encore moins avec triomphalisme. Ce n’est vraiment pas l’état d’esprit qui est le mien. Je partagerai cette appréciation avec toute mon équipe, les services de la Commission, avec l’équipe du Parlement, l’équipe du Conseil, qui le méritent.

Si je peux me permettre de conclure en anglais:

Let us keep calm and continue.


  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, I would like to thank Members for all their comments made during this discussion this morning. I will convey them to the President of the European Council.

One observation from me, though. During the last 18 months we have successfully avoided Brexit negotiations – so skilfully conducted by Michel Barnier – overshadowing the EU’s other daily work for our citizens’, for our businesses’ sake. That is good. And when I hear this discussion this morning in this House, I notice a slight a similarity with a wider topic, that of migration, to be discussed by our leaders later this week. It is clear to everybody that solutions to the migration crisis can only be comprehensive. There can only be European solutions, and this is the spirit of leaders’ discussions this week as is clear from the letter of President Tusk, if you read it in full. So let us not let this one line in President Tusk’s letter overshadow the wide content of leaders’ discussions or prejudge its results. Let it not overshadow all the Union’s achievements in the field of defence, social, education, culture, digital, etc., that will be on the European Council agenda later this week.


  La Présidente. – J’ai reçu, conformément à l’article 123, paragraphe 2, du règlement, deux propositions de résolution.

Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu dans quelques minutes.

Déclarations écrites (article 162)


  Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D), por escrito. – La carta sobre migración que ha enviado el presidente Donald Tusk a los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno para su debate en el próximo Consejo Europeo resulta inaceptable. El señor Tusk parece demostrar que hay corazones que no sienten aunque vean en directo el sufrimiento humano. Tampoco escucha, porque no ha escuchado a este Parlamento, ni está escuchando los esfuerzos que está haciendo la Comisión. El Consejo Europeo parece insistir en un camino sobre migración y refugio probadamente equivocado que consiste en alejar, en hacer fronteras más grandes, en impedir cada vez de manera más acuciante las vías legales para la migración. Un camino probadamente erróneo. Esto es lo que el presidente Tusk presenta en su carta. La propuesta resulta antieuropea porque quebranta uno de los principales pilares del proyecto europeo: la solidaridad. De esta manera, el presidente del Consejo Europeo está liquidando el prestigio de la Unión Europea y sus valores. No debe sorprendernos que los populismos antieuropeos estén ganando la batalla.


  Monika Beňová (S&D), písomne. – Pokrok v prvej fáze sa po mnohých kolách rokovaní podarilo dosiahnuť až uplynulý týždeň. Britská strana konečne prejavila ochotu do budúcnosti garantovať práva občanov EÚ žijúcich na jej území, ako aj ich rodinných príslušníkov. Rovnaké záruky budú platiť aj pre Britov v krajinách EÚ. Takýto nediskriminačný prístup bol jednou z podmienok posunu rokovaní do druhej fázy. Ďalšie sa týkali najmä hraníc s Írskom a finančných záväzkov Veľkej Británie, ktoré si napriek svojmu odchodu bude musieť naozaj dôsledne splniť. Definitívny prechod do druhej fázy rozhovorov by mali na konci tohto týždňa odsúhlasiť vedúci predstavitelia členských štátov na rokovaní Európskej rady v Bruseli. Podstatné je, aby sa britskí politici aj v ďalšom období prestali hrať na hrdinov a vyvarovali sa arogantných návrhov, ktorými chceli európskych občanov na svojom území postihovať a vytvárať z nich ľudí druhej kategórie.


  Soledad Cabezón Ruiz (S&D), por escrito. – La carta sobre migración que ha enviado el presidente Donald Tusk a los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno para su debate en el próximo Consejo Europeo resulta inaceptable. El señor Tusk parece demostrar que hay corazones que no sienten aunque vean en directo el sufrimiento humano. Tampoco escucha, porque no ha escuchado a este Parlamento, ni está escuchando los esfuerzos que está haciendo la Comisión. El Consejo Europeo parece insistir en un camino sobre migración y refugio probadamente equivocado que consiste en alejar, en hacer fronteras más grandes, en impedir cada vez de manera más acuciante las vías legales para la migración. Un camino probadamente erróneo. Esto es lo que el presidente Tusk presenta en su carta. La propuesta resulta antieuropea porque quebranta uno de los principales pilares del proyecto europeo: la solidaridad. De esta manera, el presidente del Consejo Europeo está liquidando el prestigio de la Unión Europea y sus valores. No debe sorprendernos que los populismos antieuropeos estén ganando la batalla.


  Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE), schriftlich. – Ich unterstütze den Entschließungsantrag. Es wurde in den letzten Wochen ein Fortschritt in den für uns wichtigen Fragen der Situation der Unionsbürger, der irisch-irischen Grenze und der Frage der finanziellen Verpflichtungen erreicht. Jetzt gilt es, sich an diese Absprachen zu halten und die Vertrauensbasis für die sich jetzt anschließenden Verhandlungen über die zukünftigen Beziehungen der EU und des Vereinigten Königreichs nicht zu demolieren.


  Iratxe García Pérez (S&D), por escrito. – La carta sobre migración que ha enviado el presidente Donald Tusk a los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno para su debate en el próximo Consejo Europeo resulta inaceptable. El señor Tusk parece demostrar que hay corazones que no sienten aunque vean en directo el sufrimiento humano. Tampoco escucha, porque no ha escuchado a este Parlamento, ni está escuchando los esfuerzos que está haciendo la Comisión. El Consejo Europeo parece insistir en un camino sobre migración y refugio probadamente equivocado que consiste en alejar, en hacer fronteras más grandes, en impedir cada vez de manera más acuciante las vías legales para la migración. Un camino probadamente erróneo. Esto es lo que el presidente Tusk presenta en su carta. La propuesta resulta antieuropea porque quebranta uno de los principales pilares del proyecto europeo: la solidaridad. De esta manera, el presidente del Consejo Europeo está liquidando el prestigio de la Unión Europea y sus valores. No debe sorprendernos que los populismos antieuropeos estén ganando la batalla.


  Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D), por escrito. – La carta sobre migración que ha enviado el presidente Donald Tusk a los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno para su debate en el próximo Consejo Europeo resulta inaceptable. El señor Tusk parece demostrar que hay corazones que no sienten aunque vean en directo el sufrimiento humano. Tampoco escucha, porque no ha escuchado a este Parlamento, ni está escuchando los esfuerzos que está haciendo la Comisión. El Consejo Europeo parece insistir en un camino sobre migración y refugio probadamente equivocado que consiste en alejar, en hacer fronteras más grandes, en impedir cada vez de manera más acuciante las vías legales para la migración. Un camino probadamente erróneo. Esto es lo que el presidente Tusk presenta en su carta. La propuesta resulta antieuropea porque quebranta uno de los principales pilares del proyecto europeo: la solidaridad. De esta manera, el presidente del Consejo Europeo está liquidando el prestigio de la Unión Europea y sus valores. No debe sorprendernos que los populismos antieuropeos estén ganando la batalla.


  Agnes Jongerius (S&D), schriftelijk. –De afgelopen maanden heb ik veel berichten ontvangen van zowel Britse burgers die op het vasteland wonen als Europeanen die gehuisvest zijn in het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Vaak gaat het om gezinnen met meerdere nationaliteiten. Het is niet voor niets dat vier van de vijf punten uit de resolutie die nu voorligt, gaan over de rechten van burgers. Ondanks dat May heeft gezegd dat de rechten van beide groepen hetzelfde blijven nadat het Verenigd Koninkrijk de EU heeft verlaten, begrijp ik hun zorgen. Immers, er zijn nog geen harde garanties. Maar daarmee houden mijn zorgen niet op. Hoe staat het immers bijvoorbeeld met de sociale rechten van onze burgers? Dit onderwerp lijkt ondergesneeuwd te worden, maar met de onlangs afgekondigde sociale pijler is het des te belangrijker. Deze pijler is mede namens het VK ondertekend. Het kan niet zo zijn dat de uitkomst van de onderhandelingen betekent dat de sociale bescherming, zowel in het Verenigd Koninkrijk als de Europese Unie, wordt uitgehold. Sterker nog: concurrentie inzake sociale bescherming is gewoon onacceptabel.


  Csaba Molnár (S&D), írásban. – Jean Claude Juncker nemrégiben bejelentette, hogy az Európai Unió komoly forrásokkal segítené az eurót bevezetni kívánó tagállamokat. Persze, ehhez akarni is kell a közös valutát. A mostani uniós kezdeményezés történelmi lehetőség Magyarországnak. Európa pénzt adna arra, hogy modernizáljuk a magyar gazdaságot és az otthoni életszínvonalat a nyugatihoz közelítsük. További uniós forrásokhoz férhetnénk hozzá és a magyar gazdaságot az eurózóna teljes tűzereje védené. Mindezt ingyen, nem a mi verejtékünkkel.

Ehhez csak egy dologra van szükség: az euró melletti elköteleződésre. A 2004-ben csatlakozott 10 tagállamból már hét bevezette az eurót, a többiek pedig tervezik, nemrégiben a bolgárok és a csehek kértek megfigyelői státuszt. A jelenlegi magyar kormány azonban nem tervezi a közös valuta bevezetését. Ez komoly hiba. Az euró bevezetése pedig csak előnyökkel járna.

Az euróval csökkenne az államadósság, megszűnne az árfolyamkockázat, amely segítené a devizahiteleseket. Az euró bevezetésével a magyar megtakarításokat az EU védené, nem pedig a gyenge magyar betétalap, amely egy kisebb vidéki takarékszövetkezet csődjét is nehezen bírja. Ha lenne euró, a magyarok éveken belül uniós munkanélküli segélyt kaphatnának. Az euró bevezetése a magyar emberek érdeke. Most még pénzt is kapunk érte. Nem érdemes elszalasztani.


  Péter Niedermüller (S&D), írásban. – Súlyos aggodalommal figyelem azokat a folyamatokat, amelyek az utóbbi időben az Európai Tanácsban elindultak. Miközben a Bizottság és a Parlament jelentős erőfeszítéseket tesz annak érdekében, hogy a jelenlegi kihívásoknak megfelelő közös európai menekültügyi rendszert hozzon létre, úgy tűnik, hogy az Európai Tanácsot továbbra is a napi politikai szempontok és az olcsó taktikázás jellemzi.

Ennek a felelőtlen időhúzásnak hosszabb távon Európa polgárai lesznek a vesztesei, és a szélsőjobboldali pártok a nyertesei. Különösen aggasztónak tartom Tusk elnök úr legutóbbi nyilatkozatát, amelyben megkérdőjelezi a közös európai menekültügyi politika lényeges elemeit. Súlyos hiba, ha az Európai Tanács, vagy annak az elnöke enged néhány, szélsőjobboldali kalandorok által vezetett kormány zsarolásának, és hátat fordít az Európai Unió alapértékeinek.

A politikai haszon megszerzése érdekében gátlástalanul uszító politikusoknak tett engedmények nem egységet teremtenek, hanem éppen ellenkezőleg, aláássák az Európai Unió egységének erkölcsi és jogi alapjait. A további halogatás, a szolidaritás elvének megtagadása, elvtelen kompromisszumok keresése, a legitim döntések utólagos megkérdőjelezése csak zűrzavarhoz és az európai intézményekbe vetett bizalom gyengüléséhez vezet. Európa polgárai azt várják, hogy az uniós intézmények megoldást találjanak a problémákra és határozottan utasítsák vissza az európai alapértékeket aláásó demagógiát.


  Evelyn Regner (S&D), schriftlich. – Aus der ersten Verhandlungsrunde haben wir ein paar wichtige Eckpunkte mitnehmen können. Ich erwarte mir aber noch mehr Präzision der wichtigsten Eckpunkte: die Rechte der EU-Bürgerinnen und —Bürger im UK und umgekehrt, die Übernahme der Kosten des Brexit und die nordirische Grenze. Weiters muss alles unternommen werden, um zu verhindern, dass das UK sich nach dem Brexit mit Steuergoodies als Finanzschauplatz profiliert und zu einer neuen Steueroase wird. Fakt ist, dass das UK weiterhin ein starker wirtschaftlicher Partner der Europäischen Union sein wird. Wie genau diese Partnerschaft aussehen wird, muss noch in den nächsten Verhandlungsrunden geklärt werden. Die EU-Mitgliedstaaten und auch wir im EU-Parlament müssen weiterhin unseren Standpunkt geschlossen und nachdrücklich vertreten. Eines ist klar: Die Menschen stehen im Mittelpunkt, für die wir einen klaren Rechtsrahmen und faire Bedingungen schaffen müssen. Es gibt noch viel zu tun!


  Ivan Štefanec (PPE), písomne. – Mimoriadne vítam, že aj predseda Európskej rady Donald Tusk verejne vyhlásil, že povinné kvóty na migrantov sa ukázali ako neefektívne a v praxi nevykonateľné. Musíme spoločne hľadať iné riešenia, ktoré budú založené na dodržiavaní existujúcich pravidiel. Rovnako je dôležitá aj prísna ochrana hraníc, na ktorej sa musia podieľať všetky členské štáty. S posilňovaním európskej bezpečnosti úzko súvisí aj stratégia PESCO, do ktorej Slovensko vstúpilo. Keďže PESCO predpokladá čiastočnú unifikáciu vybavenia ozbrojených síl členských štátov, nie je mi jasné, prečo Slovenská republika ide predlžovať životnosť ruských supersonických bojových lietadiel Mig-29, namiesto nákupu nových strojov. Túto dichotómiu by mal Robert Fico spolu s ministrom obrany naši partnerom vysvetliť. Pri príprave rokovaniach o brexite sa budú vlády členských štátov konečne môcť oprieť o konkrétne návrh z britskej strany. Očakávam, že stanovisko Európskej rady bude rovnaké ako stanovisko Európskeho parlamentu, teda, že prioritou je zachovanie práv našich občanov, ktorí vo Veľkej Británii žijú.


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), írásban. – Mostani plenáris vitánk napirendje is tükrözi: az EU állam- és kormányfői eheti ülésüket újfent túlnyomórészt a Brexit- tárgyalásokkal kapcsolatos uniós érdekek és tárgyalási pozíciók egyeztetésének kell, hogy szenteljék. Minden ilyen alkalommal fontosnak tartom emlékeztetni arra, hogy az európai építkezést feleslegesen akadályozó, minden szereplő számára káros helyzetet egy brit jobboldali kormány felelőtlen politikai taktikázása és az Európa-ellenes, populista, nacionalista demagógia idézte elő.

Ezt szerintem a tárgyalási folyamat során végig fontos tanulságként kell szem előtt tartanunk, miközben a brit fél a saját maga által előidézett probléma kezelésén, az EU tárgyalói pedig az európai polgároknak okozott károk korlátozásán fáradoznak. Ebben a helyzetben önmagában üdvözlöm, hogy a tárgyalások mostani szakaszában végre megszületett a továbblépéshez szükséges elvi egyetértés három lényeges keretfeltétel tekintetében.

Az Európai Parlamentnek kiemelt feladata lesz annak szavatolásában, hogy e megállapodásokat teljes egészében, jóhiszeműen ültessék át a majdani végleges megállapodásba, s hogy állampolgáraink polgári és szociális jogai – akár a tagállamokban, akár a brit szigeteken élnek és dolgoznak – csorbítatlanul érvényesüljenek az elfogadott átmeneti időszakban és a Brexit után is. Magyar képviselőként külön figyelek rá, hogy sajnálatosan számos érintett honfitársamat - akik zöme fiatal szakemberként éppen az autoriter Orbán-rezsim gazdasági korlátai és politikai kényszerei elől keres menedéket Nagy-Britanniában – valamint családjukat ne érhesse további joghátrány.


  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE), na piśmie. – Tym razem kolejna runda negocjacji pomiędzy Komisją Europejską a Wielką Brytanią zakończyła się sukcesem, umiarkowanym i późnym, ale to dobrze, że w tym roku. Komisja oświadczyła, że „wystarczający postęp” został osiągnięty i w dzisiejszej rezolucji Parlament Europejski rekomenduje Radzie przejście do drugiego etapu rozmów na temat przyszłej umowy o partnerstwie.

Rezolucja PE zwraca uwagę na liczne aspekty, które powinny zostać uwzględnione w drugiej turze negocjacji, dotyczące głównie praw obywatelskich i przyszłej umowy handlowej, ale także przyszłej współpracy w zakresie polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa.

Z punktu widzenia grupy monitorującej negocjacje w obszarze kultury, której przewodniczę, ważny pozostaje również udział Wielkiej Brytanii we flagowym programie UE Erasmus+. Wielka Brytania przyjmuje rocznie 200 000 studentów z państw członkowskich UE, co stanowi 28% wszystkich studentów biorących udział w wymianach i jest najchętniej wybieranym kierunkiem. Ponadto studenci, którzy rozpoczną naukę przed dniem wyjścia Wielkiej Brytanii muszą mieć pewność, że będą mogli ukończyć kurs na tych samych warunkach, na jakich go rozpoczęli, oraz że nadal będą mieli dostęp do wsparcia finansowego na takich samych warunkach.

Kolejna, szczególnie ważna, ponieważ dotyczy tysięcy młodych osób, pozostaje kwestia uznawalności wykształcenia. Studenci muszą mieć pewność, że uzyskane kwalifikacje zostaną uznane zarówno w UE, jak i w Zjednoczonym Królestwie.


  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D), por escrito. – A melhor evolução para as negociações entre a União Europeia (UE) e o Reino Unido (RU) seria aquela que pudesse conduzir à permanência do RU na UE. Existe, no entanto, um mandato democrático do eleitorado britânico para a negociação da saída, que deve ser respeitado enquanto for essa a vontade expressa desse eleitorado ou de quem o representa. Neste quadro, a resolução conjunta do Parlamento Europeu sobre o processo negocial para a saída do RU da UE, afirma uma linha sensata de negociação, defende os interesses da UE e os direitos dos seus cidadãos no processo de saída e avança, desde já, as linhas gerais de um referencial para a cooperação futura que poderá minimizar os danos da saída e preservar um bom relacionamento entre os povos. A resolução em debate constitui, por isso, um bom texto de compromisso, que reitera as linhas vermelhas definidas para a negociação definidas pelo Parlamento Europeu, identifica pontos a salvaguardar no processo negocial no campo dos direitos, da questão da Irlanda e da compensação financeira e delimita o futuro quadro potencial de associação entre a UE e o RU enquanto país externo à União.


(La séance est suspendue quelques instants)




9. Předání Sacharovovy ceny (slavnostní zasedání)
Videozáznamy vystoupení

El Presidente – Señorías, señoras y señores. Es un honor recibir, en nombre del Parlamento Europeo, a los ganadores del Premio Sájarov 2017.

(La Asamblea, puesta en pie, recibe con aplausos a los galardonados.)

Quisiera empezar saludando a los finalistas de este año. La señora Aura Lolita Chávez Ixcaquic, líder indígena guatemalteca que ha dedicado su vida a la defensa de los territorios indígenas y las comunidades marginadas.


El compromiso del Parlamento Europeo con la protección de grupos étnicos en condiciones de vulnerabilidad y los derechos de los pueblos indígenas es imprescindible. Por tanto, pedimos al Gobierno de Guatemala que asegure la protección de la señora Chávez, exiliada en España, y del pueblo maya en su conjunto.


Quiero saludar también la presencia de Bethlehem Isaak. Usted ha venido a Estrasburgo para representar a su padre, Dawit Isaak, que no puede estar presente ya que sigue en prisión. Se decidió nombrar finalista al escritor sueco- eritreo, encarcelado en 2001 en Eritrea sin haber sido sometido a juicio, porque ejerció su derecho a la libertad de expresión en un país donde no hay prensa libre.


El Parlamento Europeo pide a las autoridades de Eritrea que lo liberen y que pongan fin a la persecución sistemática de la libertad de expresión pacífica.

Bienvenidos al Parlamento Europeo y gracias por estar con nosotros hoy.


Señorías, señoras y señores, ahora vamos a ver una pequeña película sobre el galardonado este año, la oposición democrática de Venezuela.

(Se proyecta el vídeo.)

El Premio Sájarov a la libertad de conciencia representa un momento muy importante para nosotros. Ponemos de lado las divisiones políticas para juntarnos en la prioridad fundamental de este Parlamento: la promoción de los derechos humanos. Desde los primeros ganadores, este galardón es un homenaje a personas u organizaciones que han dedicado sus vidas o acciones a la defensa de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales.

Se ha convertido en la máxima distinción de la Unión Europea para los defensores de los derechos humanos. Con esta ceremonia cada año mandamos un mensaje fuerte al mundo. Pero a veces no es suficiente. Los galardonados siguen en situación de peligro.

Quiero recordar a algunos de ellos: Hu Jia, activista chino; Raif Badawi, bloguero de Arabia Saudí; Razan Zaitouneh, activista de la Primavera Árabe. Se han convertido en símbolo e inspiración para aquellos que luchan en favor de los derechos fundamentales.

Este año el Premio Sájarov ha sido concedido a la oposición democrática de Venezuela, en particular a la Asamblea Nacional, presidida por Julio Borges, y a los presos políticos de la lista del Foro Penal Venezolano representados por Leopoldo López, Antonio Ledezma, Daniel Ceballos, Yon Goicoechea, Lorent Saleh, Alfredo Ramos y Andrea González.

Pero, como hemos visto en estas imágenes, más allá de la oposición democrática, el premio es para todos los venezolanos del mundo.


Saludo a una parte de la diáspora de este país aquí presente.


Es la primera vez que una institución, la Asamblea Nacional venezolana, gana este galardón. Como todos los parlamentos del mundo, incluso el nuestro, es el símbolo de la democracia y de la diversidad de opinión.

Presidente Borges, el Parlamento Europeo siempre reconocerá a la Asamblea Nacional, democráticamente elegida por el pueblo de Venezuela. Al ortorgar este premio defendemos las constituciones, las instituciones, la separación de poderes. Esta es la base de la democracia, así como la libertad de expresión.

Hoy tenemos con nosotros a representantes de algunos de los presos políticos. Saludo su presencia, así como la de Antonio Ledezma, sentado a mi lado.


Pero no hay que olvidar a los demás. Según el Foro Penal, son casi trescientos. Este premio es igualmente para ellos. A este propósito, voy a mandar una carta para todos los presos de Venezuela. Más allá de los presos, no olvidemos a las ciento treinta personas asesinadas, muchas de ellas jóvenes, en las protestas callejeras de este año en favor de la libertad.

El Parlamento Europeo, en diversas resoluciones, ha condenado siempre la represión brutal ejercida por las fuerzas de seguridad venezolanas contra los manifestantes pacíficos. La situación de los derechos humanos se deteriora cada día más en este país. El pasado fin de semana el presidente Maduro decidió de manera arbitraria y antidemocrática prohibir a los principales partidos de la oposición presentarse a los comicios presidenciales.

Esta situación no puede seguir así. Por este motivo, se ha decidido entregar el Premio Sájarov a la oposición democrática de Venezuela.


Queremos que el país regrese a la democracia, a la dignidad, a la libertad. El objetivo es solucionar la crisis económica y humanitaria a la cual se enfrenta el pueblo de Venezuela y que tiene repercusiones regionales con flujos de refugiados importantes; favorecer el regreso a la libertad de expresión para las personas y los medios de comunicación; liberar a los presos políticos arrestados de manera arbitraria e injustificada y encarcelados sin juicio; hacer que la diáspora se pueda beneficiar de sus pensiones; volver a elecciones libres, con la participación de todos, para que el pueblo pueda decidir su futuro.

El Parlamento Europeo está dispuesto a ayudar con una misión de observación electoral junto a otros actores internacionales. Este es nuestro deseo y esperamos que el Premio Sájarov contribuya a esto.

Concluyo. Es un placer y un honor entregar a la oposición democrática de Venezuela el Premio Sájarov a la libertad de conciencia 2017.

Presidente Borges, señor Ledezma, tienen ustedes la palabra.



  Julio Borges, representante de la oposición democrática de Venezuela galardonada con el Premio Sájarov 2017. – Señor presidente del Parlamento Europeo, Antonio Tajani, honorables miembros del Parlamento Europeo, respetables asistentes e invitados, delegación de Venezuela que nos acompaña a recibir este premio el día de hoy, amigas y amigos.

Sin duda, no es fácil hablar cuando se tienen los labios tan cerca del corazón como en este momento, pero quiero transmitirles a todos ustedes que, desde que unos navegantes llegaron a suelo americano hace siglos, Europa y Venezuela han tenido una relación de ida y de vuelta.

Aunque algunos pretendan cambiar la historia, estamos hermanados desde entonces.

Hoy a los venezolanos nos toca agradecer a Europa, ¡a ustedes!, que nos hayan tendido una mano amiga en las que, sin duda, son las horas más oscuras de nuestra historia republicana como nación. Esa es la misma mano que los venezolanos ofrecimos en el siglo XX a miles y miles de europeos que emigraron con las cicatrices de la guerra en sus almas y en sus cuerpos. Entre ellos, mis propios padres y mis abuelos.

Algunos han retornado a sus lugares de origen, expulsados por los devastadores efectos del llamado «socialismo del siglo XXI» que se ha pretendido instaurar en mi país. Y, tristemente, los jóvenes venezolanos también han dejado atrás su tierra con la esperanza de encontrar en Europa, y en otros rincones del mundo, el futuro y la oportunidad que el Gobierno de Venezuela les ha arrebatado.

Este viaje de ida y de vuelta, esta historia común entre América y Europa nos ha traído hasta acá. El Parlamento Europeo hoy reconoce la valiente e incansable lucha de la oposición del pueblo venezolano al otorgarle el Premio Sájarov a la oposición democráticamente representada en la Asamblea Nacional ―la cual tengo el honor de presidir— y a todos los presos políticos que hay en mi país.

Quisiera, por favor, que les diéramos un aplauso a quienes nos acompañan: Antonieta y Leopoldo López, padres de mi amigo personal Leopoldo López; Antonio Ledezma, quien tuvo que huir de Venezuela, de la prisión injusta a la cual fue sometido; Patricia de Ceballos, esposa de Daniel Ceballos, quien lleva casi cuatro años privado de libertad; además de los familiares y representantes de Lorent Saleh, su madre, Yamile; José Ignacio Guédez, representante del alcalde Alfredo Ramos, y Alejandra González, hermana de Andrea González, presa desde hace tres años y ciudadana española, además; igualmente, a Yon Goicoechea y a los miles y miles de exiliados de Venezuela.


Recibimos esta distinción con profundo agradecimiento. La acoge todo el país. La hace suya Venezuela entera y unida. Es un reconocimiento para la madre que se priva de alimentos para salvar a sus hijos; para el niño que hurga en la basura intentando saciar el hambre; para el abuelo que muere de mengua por la escasez de medicamentos. Lo recibe también ese joven que hoy ha emigrado desesperado por buscar oportunidades en otras latitudes. Recibe también este premio el maestro que vence la ceguera ideológica y se aferra a la tarea de formar hombres y mujeres libres para Venezuela. Lo reciben quienes luchan por los derechos humanos en Venezuela. Lo reciben los periodistas venezolanos, que se arriesgan toda la vida para mostrar la realidad que pretende ser silenciada. Esta distinción también atraviesa los barrotes de los calabozos en los que están detenidos injustamente más de trescientos cincuenta jóvenes venezolanos. Ellos y su lucha también están reconocidos y están presentes con nosotros el día de hoy.


Pero, de manera especial, el Premio Sájarov honra la memoria de ciento cincuenta y siete venezolanos asesinados por la represión brutal del gobierno durante las protestas pacíficas que realizamos durante este año 2017.

Cuando Andréi Sájarov fue reconocido con el Premio Nobel de la Paz en 1975 no pudo recibirlo personalmente. Se encontraba a las afueras de un tribunal lituano, esperando la injusta sentencia que marcaría la vida de su amigo, el científico Serghey Kovalyev. En el discurso de aceptación del Premio Nobel, que leyó su esposa, estaban los nombres de más de un centenar de presos políticos y exiliados. Su esposa pidió disculpas por los que no recordó, pero aseguró algo importante. Ella dijo: «Cada nombre, mencionado o no, representa un destino humano concreto, duro y heroico, de años de sufrimiento, años de lucha por la dignidad humana». Estas palabras, sin duda, remueven hoy el alma de cada venezolano y resumen la persistencia de la lucha que tenemos y tendremos hasta lograr la victoria democrática en el país.


Estoy convencido de que nuestro noble desafío no le es ajeno a Europa. A ustedes, honorables eurodiputados, no les resulta extraña la pelea que estamos dando en Venezuela contra la dominación y el miedo. En pleno siglo XXI, los venezolanos resistimos y nos enfrentamos a un Estado totalitario, una segunda Cuba pero con las reservas de petróleo, gas y oro más grandes de Occidente. Puedo asegurar que nosotros, al igual que ustedes hace décadas, estamos determinados a persistir y a vencer esa perversa pretensión de colonizar la conciencia de cada venezolano.

El régimen ha secuestrado la democracia en mi país. Instauró el hambre para administrar la miseria. Destruyó el sistema de salud para gestionar la muerte. Expropió miles de empresas para repartir miseria. Adoctrinó las aulas para ofrecer ignorancia.

A diferencia de la socialdemocracia, el socialismo del siglo XXI es una versión renovada e igual de traumática que el socialismo real que ustedes padecieron durante décadas. Y aunque esté condenado al fracaso, se ha constituido en el mayor obstáculo para la paz, el progreso y los derechos humanos en Venezuela.


La imposición de este sistema en nuestra nación ha causado destrucción y miseria sin precedentes. Por favor, escuchen con atención lo siguiente. Tras haber vivido la mayor bonanza petrolera de su historia durante los últimos años, la economía venezolana acaba de entrar en un traumático proceso de hiperinflación: este año el costo de los alimentos llegará al 2 000 %. Dicho de otra forma, en Venezuela basta que transcurran unas horas para registrar la inflación que los países europeos acumulan en varios años. El hambre se instauró como sistema político en Venezuela. El 75 % de los venezolanos ha perdido diez kilos, por persona, en los últimos meses y, por si fuera poco, los estudios oficiales demuestran que cuatro de cada diez niños sufren algún tipo de desnutrición. La muerte también avanza en las farmacias: de cada diez medicamentos nueve no se consiguen y las personas con enfermedades crónicas están sentenciadas a muerte.

La tragedia es evidente y dolorosa. Solo la soberbia de quienes conciben el poder como una forma de dominación desconoce esta realidad y la subestima, hasta el punto de cerrar las puertas a muchos países como ustedes, que generosamente nos han ofrecido alivio.

Hoy quiero reiterarlo frente a Europa: la apertura de la cooperación humanitaria de alimentos y medicinas es urgente para Venezuela. Es una exigencia que clama al cielo y que hemos presentando en todas las instancias nacionales e internacionales. Y, de manera increíble, el Gobierno de Nicolás Maduro se niega a la cooperación de medicinas y alimentos para el pueblo.

Más temprano que tarde la larga lucha por la dignidad referida por Sájarov dará sus frutos y nos permitirá reconquistar la libertad. Nos aferramos también a lo que decía nuestro Rómulo Gallegos, gran libertario y presidente de Venezuela. «El mal es temporal» —decía Gallegos—, «pero la verdad y la justicia imperan siempre».

Lejos de lo que desean quienes pretenden dominarnos, quienes estamos acá y quienes estamos en Venezuela sufriendo no estamos llenos de odio. Y por ello, quiero compartir con ustedes lo que considero uno de nuestros grandes triunfos: no guardamos rencor a quienes han hecho tanto daño a Venezuela. Casi a diario nos empujan a odiarlos, pero no han logrado hacerlo ni lo vamos a hacer. Pero tampoco perdemos la esperanza ni dejaremos de luchar hasta que veamos una Venezuela libre y de todos los venezolanos.


La situación de nuestra Venezuela es difícil. Nos urge concretar un cambio político hacia la democracia para enfrentar esta terrible crisis humanitaria creada por el régimen que les acabo de describir. No hemos dejado de levantar nuestra voz pese al efecto distorsionante de la censura y la propaganda. Nos mantenemos firmes en todos los espacios y en todos los terrenos posibles. Por eso, acudimos a la comunidad internacional, a ustedes, al mundo libre, para invocar los principios de justicia social internacional y encontrar caminos que contribuyan al rescate democrático de mi país. Por eso luchamos en las calles, en la Asamblea, en el campo internacional, protestando pacíficamente por recuperar la democracia en Venezuela.

En nuestra memoria aún están nítidas las imágenes de la brutal represión que las fuerzas de seguridad del Estado desplegaron contra ciudadanos desarmados. Muchos de ellos jóvenes, que hoy están presos y que no superan los veinte años. Las armas de la República se dedicaron a enlutar a ciento cincuenta y siete hogares venezolanos. Esas armas no deben usarse para resolver lo que podemos dirimir a través de la palabra y el voto, que es el vehículo para que millones de venezolanos se puedan expresar.

El voto ejercido en libertad es una declaración de independencia. Por eso, estamos obligados a rescatarlo. En los próximos meses debe haber una elección presidencial en Venezuela y le pedimos a Europa y al mundo libre que pongan toda su atención en estos comicios. Tenemos el desafío de recobrar condiciones electorales que permitan a los venezolanos expresarse libremente en las urnas, sin chantajes, sin presiones de ninguna índole, sin represión, y que su voluntad sea respetada. Es una lucha que nos convoca a todos y exige lo mejor de todos nosotros.

Por eso, tomamos con alegría las palabras del presidente Antonio Tajani y pedimos formalmente que una misión electoral del Parlamento Europeo acompañe estas elecciones que deben darse en Venezuela, para que sean unas elecciones libres y pueda haber una transición democrática en mi país.

Honorables eurodiputados, son tiempos difíciles, pero vemos el futuro con esperanza. Anhelo el momento en que se abran las celdas, regresen los exiliados y nos abracemos todos los venezolanos, lloremos de alegría y trabajemos juntos para que se respete la Constitución, tengamos Estado de Derecho y una democracia plena de oportunidades.

Amigos de Europa, se acerca la Navidad y muchos hogares venezolanos recibirán al Salvador en medio de graves carencias materiales, sin nada que comer. Seguramente, con la misma humildad, fe y amor que María Santísima y su esposo San José lo hicieron hace más de dos mil años en Belén. En nombre de ellos, de quienes más sufren, de quienes merecen un futuro de oportunidades en Venezuela, recibo con humildad este premio, que se ha conferido a nuestro indomable amor por la paz, la democracia, la justicia, el progreso y los derechos humanos.

En nombre del pueblo venezolano, ¡muchas gracias a todos ustedes!



  Antonio Ledezma, representante de la oposición democrática de Venezuela galardonada con el Premio Sájarov 2017. – Señor presidente Tajani, honorables integrantes del Parlamento Europeo. Debería estar empinado en esta tribuna ante ustedes con una sonrisa dibujada en mi rostro, pero ni siquiera tengo fuerzas para simularla y, parafraseando a Sájarov, repito como él las palabras que pronunciaron los labios de su abnegada e incondicional esposa cuando, en el momento de recibir el Premio Nobel en 1965 —como nos recordó nuestro compañero Julio Borges—, dijo, en nombre de su marido, «que no podía estar contento y feliz recibiendo ese premio sabiendo que en su patria había presos de conciencia».

Pues bien, no puedo estar feliz ni contento recibiendo este premio sabiendo que en las mazmorras de Venezuela permanecen privados injustamente de su libertad más de trescientos presos políticos.

Sájarov, tú que estás presente espiritualmente en este sagrado recinto, permíteme saludarte y agradecerte en nombre de la humanidad tu vida consagrada a la defensa de la paz, del progreso y de los derechos humanos de los seres que pueblan esta tierra y ratificar, en nombre de la ciudadanía venezolana que hoy, por supuesto, se engalana orgullosamente con esta distinción, que lo recibimos con la humildad que ha caracterizado a nuestro pueblo, pero también con la gallardía y el coraje que ha puesto en la vitrina de nuestro país como ejemplo de lucha tenaz ese pueblo en cuyo nombre recibimos este laurel.

Este premio lo queremos convertir en flores. Que este trofeo lo convirtamos en flores para llevarlo a la tumba de Franklin Brito. Un hombre cuyos días postreros los vivió en un catre, donde murió protagonizando una huelga de hambre, defendiendo la tierra que le había sido usurpada.

Y en la cara y en el rostro y en el nombre de Franklin Brito veo a los campesinos, a los agricultores, a los ganaderos venezolanos que han sufrido los embates del autoritarismo porque sus predios, sus fincas, su propiedad privada han sido una y otra vez invadidos.

Este trofeo lo convertimos en flores para llevarlo a las tumbas de más de 350 000 venezolanos cuyos hogares están enlutados. Venezolanos como los que el año pasado, más de 29 000 ciudadanos, perdieron la vida a manos del hampa en un país donde ha desaparecido el Estado de Derecho y no funciona el imperio de la ley sino el capricho de gobernantes que han pulverizado las reglas del juego destinadas a garantizar la convivencia en una sociedad de espíritu democrático como es la venezolana.

Este premio estará en las tumbas de los jóvenes escuderos que —como decía Julio— derramaron su sangre en las calles de Caracas y de todos los pueblos del país para dibujar nuestro mapa sentimental. Jóvenes que no llegaban a coronar los veinte años de edad; que lucharon por una democracia que no llegaron a conocer. Para esos jóvenes invoco en este recinto una oración póstuma como un homenaje a quienes supieron defender los ideales que no se pactan y que no jugaron con la conciencia de un pueblo que hoy recibe orgulloso este laurel para continuar luchando por la libertad y la democracia venezolana que fue cátedra para América Latina.


Este es un homenaje para los niños que en Venezuela mueren de hambre. Este es un homenaje para los seres humanos que han dejado de existir simplemente porque no tienen a la mano un medicamento. Y esto ocurre en un país inmensamente rico. Ha hablado Julio Borges de la Venezuela pujante en cuyas entrañas está la reserva petrolera más grande del mundo.

Pero resulta que un país cuyo Gobierno ha administrado en los últimos años más de 1 500 millones de millones de dólares, importe diez veces superior al presupuesto asignado a la Unión Europea, hoy exhibe —como vimos en las imágenes que se proyectaron hace algunos minutos— a seres humanos rebuscando en la basura para poder sobrevivir.

Es un pueblo que lucha por su supervivencia. Y para poder ser libres tenemos que tener libertad. Y es la voz de esos presos políticos en cuyo nombre me envió Leopoldo López esta frase o este pensamiento que quiero compartir con ustedes. Dice Leopoldo: «La libertad para quienes viven en democracias saludables es muchas veces un abstracto. Para quienes carecemos de ella es tan vital como el oxígeno. Le pedimos a Europa que se mantenga firme en su compromiso para lograr la libertad de más de trescientos presos y de treinta millones de venezolanos que hoy no respiramos libertad».


Esta es la reflexión de todos los presos políticos. Es la reflexión de un pueblo que quiere resolver sus dificultades por la vía cívica y democrática. Por eso, propusimos el año pasado un referéndum constitucional. Un camino cívico, democrático, legal, para dirimir nuestras diferencias. No estamos buscando a Dios por los rincones. No estamos atizando el fuego en los cuarteles o en las guarniciones. Porque, a diferencia de los que hoy ostentan irregularmente el poder en Venezuela, que gobiernan sobre fusiles o sobre bayonetas, pisoteando la Constitución y las leyes de la República, nosotros queremos paz.

Aquí no venimos a buscar venganza sino justicia. Aquí venimos libres de odios y de rencores, porque esos son sentimientos que enferman el espíritu y pervierten el alma. Queremos que Venezuela recupere su libertad y su convivencia. Y hemos querido plantear caminos electorales que el mismo régimen obtura, porque Venezuela está en manos, y lo digo con pesar, de facinerosos que han convertido nuestro Estado en un Estado fallido.

Nos avergüenza que hoy se hable de Venezuela porque hay funcionarios de alto nivel que están relacionados con el narcotráfico. Y lo ha dicho la oficina de Viena que controla las operaciones de narcóticos en este continente: que más del 60 % de la cocaína que ingresa Europa proviene de territorio venezolano. Y los que no están relacionados con el narcotráfico tienen vínculos con el terrorismo internacional. Y los que no están relacionados con el terrorismo o con el narcotráfico están empastelados con escándalos o hechos de corrupción. Más de 600 000 millones de dólares que les han sido birlados a las finanzas públicas están depositados en paraísos fiscales del mundo. Y esa es la paradoja de un país inmensamente rico, con un pueblo sufriendo dentro y con un peregrinaje de más de dos millones de ciudadanos de Venezuela que hoy padecen entre pecho y espalda el dolor de patria ausente.

Por eso, amigas y amigos, este premio nos refuerza. Este premio nos da más energía para seguir luchando por los valores y principios de la democracia que ustedes comparten. Para decirle al mundo que nunca más sufran los pueblos de dictaduras. Que nunca más se hable de torturados o de presos políticos en pueblos que se han vestido de democracia. Que nunca más se hable de divisiones o de fracturas sentimentales. Que abramos camino a la concordia.

Y con palabras del maestro Gallego me despido diciéndoles a ustedes: «Hoy más que nunca estamos convencidos de que tanto más se pertenece uno a sí mismo cuanto más tenga su voluntad y su vida toda puesta al servicio de un ideal colectivo.».

¡Viva Venezuela! ¡Viva la democracia! ¡Viva la libertad del mundo!



(La seduta è sospesa alle 12.55)


10. Pokračování denního zasedání
Videozáznamy vystoupení

(La seduta è ripresa alle 12.58)


  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, je prends la parole pour déplorer le fait que le groupe communiste n’a pas participé à la cérémonie. Ce non—respect des droits de l’homme est une honte.


  James Carver (EFDD). – Mr President, I wonder whether you would join me in sending congratulations and good wishes to the new Somaliland President, who will be sworn into office tomorrow. I think we should also send congratulations to the opposition party both for the manner in which the election campaign was conducted, and for the peaceful aftermath and transition. Once again, Somaliland has demonstrated to the world its commitment to democracy and the rule of law, and surely now deserves to be admitted as a fully-fledged recognised state.


11. Prohlášení předsednictví
Videozáznamy vystoupení

  Presidente. – Prima del voto, desidero esprimere la mia preoccupazione per il ricercatore e professore dell'Università libera di Bruxelles, Ahmadreza Djalali, condannato a morte dalle autorità iraniane con l'accusa di spionaggio. La mia lettera al Presidente Rouhani, con la quale chiedevo il rilascio di Djalali e un giusto processo, non ha finora avuto risposta. Adesso c'è il rischio serio che Djalali possa essere giustiziato. Rinnovo a nome di tutti quanti voi, credo, il mio appello all'autorità di Teheran a non eseguire la sentenza. A nome del Parlamento esprimo la più ferma condanna della pena di morte in qualsiasi circostanza contraria ai valori fondamentali dell'Unione europea.


  Cécile Kashetu Kyenge (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, volevo ricordare la terribile situazione che, in questo momento, la mia regione Emilia Romagna sta passando a causa del maltempo. L'esondazione dei fiumi sta colpendo tutta l'Europa e sicuramente anche questa volta il Parlamento sarà vicino alle molte zone colpite e alle popolazioni che stanno subendo le cause del maltempo.


  Presidente. – Grazie, mi associo, non solo come italiano, ma anche come Presidente del Parlamento, alla Sua preoccupazione, alla vicinanza a tutte le popolazioni europee colpite in queste settimane dal maltempo.

La scorsa settimana è venuto a mancare l'ultimo re di Romania, Michele I, e voglio ricordare il suo ruolo fondamentale nel 1944 per portare il suo paese nel campo alleato, voglio così esprimere la nostra vicinanza al popolo e al parlamento rumeno per la scomparsa di questa figura che rappresenta una parte importante della storia della Romania e del nostro continente.


  Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei informare l'Aula del fatto che mi sono recata ad Ankara la scorsa settimana per assistere al processo dei due copresidenti dell'HDP e che a una delegazione composta da diversi parlamentari nazionali, nonché da una parlamentare europea, è stato vietato l'accesso in Aula dalla polizia turca. Credo che questo debba essere preso in considerazione dall'Aula nel momento in cui si discutono i rapporti tra Unione europea e Turchia.


  Presidente. – Grazie per l'informazione onorevole Forenza, Lei sa quanto quest'Aula sia sensibile ai problemi legati alla difesa della democrazia e della libertà in tutti i paesi, ma in modo particolare anche in Turchia.


12. Přivítání
Videozáznamy vystoupení

   Chers collègues, j’ai le plaisir de vous informer que, dans le cadre de la rencontre de la commission parlementaire mixte Union européenne-Tunisie, une délégation tunisienne, présidée par S.E. M. Mohamed Fadhel Ben Omrane, effectue aujourd’hui une visite au Parlement européen. Je souhaite très chaleureusement la bienvenue à M. Ben Omrane et aux membres de sa délégation et je tiens à souligner l’importance que nous attachons à cette visite.


13. Hlasování
Videozáznamy vystoupení

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

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


13.1. Současný stav jednání se Spojeným královstvím (B8-0676/2017, B8-0677/2017) (hlasování)



13.2. Námitka vůči prováděcímu aktu: Použití kyseliny fosforečné, fosforečnanů, di-, tri- a polyfosforečnanů (E 338–452) ve zmrazených masných homolích pro vertikální grilování (B8-0666/2017) (hlasování)

13.3. Návrh doporučení v návaznosti na vyšetřování praní peněz, vyhýbání se daňovým povinnostem a daňových úniků (B8-0660/2017) (hlasování)

– Przed rozpoczęciem głosowania:


  Jeppe Kofod, rapporteur. – Mr President, I just want to thank all of my colleagues in this Parliament. We are now reaching a milestone in the fight against money laundering, tax evasion and tax avoidance with the adoption of these recommendations against these phenomena. I want to thank my co-rapporteur Petr Ježek and the rest of the Committee of Inquiry into Money laundering, Tax avoidance and Tax evasion for one and a half years’ hard work on this issue.

We have a chance now to see whether it is not only talk but also action in the fight against tax evasion and money laundering. We need to put an end to the race to the bottom on corporate taxation and regulation in Europe. We need to put an end to the situation where the super rich, global corrupt elite are above the tax law and above the law as such.

This is a chance in this Parliament to show that we are on the side of the citizens, and I hope you will all vote for these recommendations and give a strong signal to Europe and to the rest of the world.



– Po zakończeniu głosowania nad ust. 51:


  Rainer Wieland (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte darauf hinweisen, dass bei der Überprüfung, die Sie vorher zu Paragraf 45 durchgeführt haben, auf dem Bildschirm zunächst Antrag 6 abgebildet war und erst nachher 45. Ich will jetzt nicht die Abstimmung neu aufrufen, aber bei solch engen Abstimmungen sollte sehr sorgfältig abgebildet sein, über was abgestimmt wird.


  Przewodniczący. – Rozumiem, że jest to prośba do pracowników technicznych naszej obsługi. Tam była przez dwie sekundy, jak się dowiedziałem od sekretariatu, inna informacja, a więc bardzo prosimy, żeby rzeczywiście dłużej to utrzymywać.

– Po zakończeniu głosowania nad ust. 139:


  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, s veškerou úctou k Vašemu řízení bych Vás chtěl poprosit: Nešlo by to, prosím, trochu urychlit?


  President. – I’ll do my best.


13.4. Výroční zpráva o provádění společné bezpečnostní a obranné politiky (A8-0351/2017 - Michael Gahler) (hlasování)

13.5. Výroční zpráva o provádění společné zahraniční a bezpečnostní politiky (A8-0350/2017 - David McAllister) (hlasování)

13.6. Výroční zpráva o lidských právech a demokracii ve světě v roce 2016 a politika EU v této oblasti (A8-0365/2017 - Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl) (hlasování)

13.7. Hongkong 20 let po předání (A8-0382/2017 - Alyn Smith) (hlasování)

  Przewodniczący. – Niniejszym zamykam głosowanie.


14. Vysvětlení hlasování
Videozáznamy vystoupení

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia są wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania.


14.1. Současný stav jednání se Spojeným královstvím (B8-0676/2017, B8-0677/2017)
Videozáznamy vystoupení

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania


  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, yesterday a spokesman for the European Commission said that the phase one agreement between the UK and the rest of the European Union was not legally binding. It was, as he put it, a gentleman’s agreement. But when the UK’s Brexit Secretary, David Davis, said exactly the same thing, this House exploded in one of those moments of gibbering rage that we occasionally get, even putting an attack on him into the resolution on which we have just voted.

It is a pity because we ought to be approaching these talks in a spirit of seeking mutually beneficial outcomes. You rarely hear a speech by the British Prime Minister in which she does not look forward to a warm and close partnership with the EU and wish our neighbours every success. That is, of course, a great interest of ours. We want the EU 27 to be stable and prosperous, but it would be a very sad thing if that lack of reciprocal goodwill were to lead to a suboptimal outcome. Your prosperity will matter to the UK in all situations. We want to have wealthy customers next door. Presumably the same logic applies both ways round.


  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Mr President, I welcome the results of the negotiations on Brexit, simply because we need clarity on this. However, we still don’t know what it means. Will the commitments made on Northern Ireland be upheld in practice? Will Northern Ireland become collateral damage in the Brexit negotiations? Will my son be able to reside, educate himself and get a good career in the UK if he marries somebody from Northern Ireland?

The signals from the British Government have been clearly confusing. Mr Davis said yesterday that the agreement is not a legally enforceable thing. Sorry, but what does that mean? We need time to stop this confusion: the UK Government must stick to its commitments and translate them into legally binding text. We are worried about peace in Northern Ireland and that must be valued higher than the internal power struggle in the British Government.


  Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Pane předsedající, já jsem tuto zprávu nepodpořil, zdržel jsem se a hned vám vysvětlím proč. Nejde jenom o to, že Evropský parlament se už podruhé v krátké době zabývá tímto tématem, a mně to připadá poněkud nadbytečné. Ale z celé řady těch pozměňovacích návrhů mám pocit, že ani tak nejsou vedeny dobrou vůlí věci pomoci, jako spíš zlou vůlí věc komplikovat. Říkám to s plnou odpovědností jako člen tohoto sboru. Já se skutečně domnívám, že v některých případech tady vítězí ideologie nad rozumným přístupem, nad věcným přístupem.

Ono to koneckonců začalo už nominováním pana Verhofstadta hlavním vyjednavačem za Evropský parlament, protože to je osoba, která rozhodně není politicky neutrální. Já se velmi obávám, že v závěrečných fázích toho vyjednávání tady budou pokusy Evropského parlamentu do toho ještě, jak říkáme v České republice, nasypat písek. Varuji před tím a zprávy tohoto typu já podpořit opravdu nemohu.


  Момчил Неков (S&D). – Г-н Председател, изключително важно е бързо да бъдат изградени стабилни отношения с Обединеното кралство в момента, в който държавата вече не е член на Европейския съюз. Това е в интерес на всички европейски граждани, сред които са и българите, живеещи във Великобритания.

Изключително необходимо е постигането на споразумение за бъдещите отношения и гладкото му влизане в сила на 30 март 2019 г. Включването на член 59 към общия доклад, изготвен на 8 декември, съобразно който Великобритания ще допринася и участва в изпълнението на годишните бюджети на Европейския съюз за 2019 г. и 2020 г., е положителен знак. Това дава спокойствие на европейските граждани, сред които са и европейските производители и земеделци, че няма да има прекъсване и сътресение във вече поетите ангажименти и плащания в рамките на тази многогодишна финансова рамка.

Без споразумение редица европейски производствени сектори ще усетят силен икономически натиск, който произтича както от международните споразумения с вносна квота към Европейския съюз, така и от вътрешното свръхпроизводство и стоки, планувани за Великобритания, за които ще трябва да търсят нови пазари в рамките на Европейския съюз.


  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem podpořil tuto zprávu. Považuji za správné, že Evropský parlament se kontinuálně zabývá otázkou brexitu, protože jsme klíčovým orgánem pro rozhodování o konečném uspořádání vztahů mezi Evropskou unií a Velkou Británií.

Patřím k těm, kteří prosazují pragmatismus při dojednávání budoucích vztahů s Velkou Británií a odstranění ideologických nálepek a osobních antipatií. Jsem rád, že to vypadá tak, že první fáze brexitu snad je domluvena, to znamená věci, které se týkaly občanů Evropské unie ve Velké Británii a závazků Velké Británie vůči Evropské unii. Teď nastává doba pro to, abychom řešili naše budoucí vztahy. Osobně podporuji co nejlepší spolupráci, protože podle mého názoru je výhodná pro evropský obchod. Jsem z České republiky, pro český byznys je důležité vyvážet dále do Velké Británie a jakékoliv překážky bych já osobně nepodpořil.


  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome the EU-UK deal as a good basis to move ahead. As the clock is ticking, it is important to break the deadlock. Congratulations and full support to the EU negotiator Michel Barnier. An agreement is an agreement. The commitment must now be cast in stone, but polarisation and lack of clarity in the UK is hampering the process. We need to know what Downing Street wants.

It is most important that EU citizens’ right to live, study, work and unite with their families in the UK must be turned into law after Brexit. I also fully support Irish people in ensuring continued free movement between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I just do not see how to avoid a hard border when the UK leaves the single market. The Treaty principles are non-negotiable. The internal market with its freedom is indivisible. The time has come to tell the truth about the consequences of leaving the single market. Even the best free-trade agreement is a setback compared to single market benefits. There is no soft Brexit, and I conclude: only damage control. Now negotiations should proceed with calm, focusing on the long-term interests of the people of the UK and of the EU.


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, it is rather with more relief than pleasure that we can say sufficient progress has been made on the Brexit negotiations. I fully supported this resolution, because it means we can move forward and in the new year we will face discussions on the transition phase and on a future partnership with the United Kingdom.

As has been said here in this House, we all want a good relationship going into the future with our UK neighbours and partners, but I will repeat my concerns around the ultimate solution to the Irish border question. Today, the United Kingdom is part of the single market and customs union and the situation on the border is invisible, as we want it to continue. It would be the best solution to the conundrum if the United Kingdom would remain in the single market and the customs union, although we know that if that is not the case they will still have to come forward with very unique solutions to solve this conundrum.


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Úr! Szavazatommal sajnos nem támogattam a brexit- tárgyalások helyzetét értékelő, és az európai uniós pozíciókkal kapcsolatos jelenlegi parlamenti álláspontot rögzítő jelentés elfogadását. A brexit kérdéskörének megítélésében mindenkor kiindulópontnak tekintem, hogy ezt az európai építkezést feleslegesen akadályozó, minden szereplő számára káros helyzetet, egy brit jobboldali kormány felelőtlen politikai taktikázása idézte elő.

Ebben a helyzetben önmagában üdvözlöm, hogy a jelentés szerint a tárgyalások mostani szakaszának végére megszületett a továbblépéshez szükséges elvi egyetértés, három lényeges keretfeltétel. Tehát az állampolgárok kölcsönös jogállása, a pénzügyi rendezés, valamint az északír határ tekintetében, és ez a következő Európai Tanács jóváhagyására vár. Konkrétumok, kellő mennyiségű konkrétumok hiányában azonban mindezt nem tartom elégségesnek.


  Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Mr President, I supported the resolution today and I was happy to do so. I am pleased that we have reached a point where we can now say, as a Parliament, that sufficient progress has been made in Phase 1 and we can move on to Phase 2. I want to thank Michel Barnier in particular and his team, and Mr Verhofstadt and his team here in the Parliament, for their particular attention to the Irish question, the Good Friday Agreement, the need to ensure that no border would be put in place on the island of Ireland. That was very important and the efforts that they made to understand that issue are to be commended and are well-recognised where I come from; we thank them for that.

What has been stated now is that the status quo will remain on the island of Ireland, that the freedom of the movement that is there between two communities will continue, that trade will continue unimpeded, and that this is very important and will remain for the future agreement, whatever that may be, between the United Kingdom and the European Union.


  Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, after six months of negotiations, the British have finally put their signature to something that recognises that different arrangements need to be put in place for the north of Ireland – a form of special status, if you like – but they are already going back on it. I am pleased that this resolution calls them out on that, but we need to be very vigilant – that is the European Parliament, the EU negotiators and the Irish Government. We all need to make sure that there is no going back on the commitments of last week’s communiqué.

The north of our country cannot be pushed back or placed under the yoke of British self—interest once more. This resolution gives us the means to ensure that this does not happen. It gives us the means to protect the Good Friday Agreement, including trade and open borders, as well as rights and equality. We are not there yet; we have not achieved the full outworkings of ensuring that all of Ireland remains together within all the EU frameworks yet. The agreement provides the scope to achieve that. We must redouble our efforts if we are going to get to that essential position.


  Przewodniczący. – Panie i panowie, mamy godz. 14.38 i 49 sekund, o godz. 14.45 będziemy musieli udostępnić salę. Przykro mi to powiedzieć, ale niestety nie będę w stanie pozwolić wypowiedzieć się mówcom w punkcie drugim. Po prostu nie starczy nam czasu.


  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η μόνη ασφαλής διαπίστωση των διαπραγματεύσεων που αφορούν στην αποχώρηση του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου από την Ένωση όσο και το πλαίσιο των μελλοντικών σχέσεων αμφότερων είναι πως η διεθνής πολιτική ασκείται κυνικά και ετεροβαρώς πέρα από τις πραγματικές ανάγκες και προκλήσεις των πολιτών αλλά αντιθέτως προτάσσοντας το ιδιοτελές όφελος ορισμένων κρατών. Ειδικά στα θέματα του προϋπολογισμού, η Γερμανία, η Αυστρία, η Ολλανδία, η Σουηδία και η Δανία το γνωρίζουν καλώς, καθώς μειώνουν τις καθαρές συνεισφορές τους με ad hoc συμφωνίες πέρα από τα ισχύοντα.

Το σταυροδρόμι είναι προφανές: Η Ένωση είτε θα συνεχίσει τη νυν τιμωρητική επιβολή με αυθαίρετα και μονομερή κριτήρια μέχρι τον πλήρη εκφυλισμό της είτε θα εφαρμόσει τις συνθήκες περί αναλογικής επικούρησης των κρατών μελών στα πλαίσια της συνεργασίας και της αλληλεγγύης. Καταψηφίζω την πρόταση ψηφίσματος, καθόσον προβάλλει τα προβλήματα και τις υπαρξιακές ανησυχίες της Ένωσης στις επιλογές που καλείται να διαχειριστεί το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο, αγνοώντας το παράδοξο της υπονόμευσης κυρίαρχων αποφάσεων μιας δημοκρατικά εκλεγμένης κυβέρνησης από διορισμένους τεχνοκράτες.


  Morten Messerschmidt (ECR). – Hr. formand! Jeg synes, det efterhånden står stadig klarere, at for EU er Brexit i virkeligheden en kærkommen lejlighed til, at der er fokus på noget andet end alle de institutionelle problemer, som EU selv har: med den ikke-bevogtede grænse, med illegal indvandring, med euroen, der ikke fungerer, og den dermed følgende økonomiske recession især i Sydeuropa. Alle de problemer, som indtil Brexit optog europæerne, der i dag mest af alt ser på forhandlingerne mellem EU og Storbritannien.

Men der er grund til at minde Kommissionen og alle andre herinde om, at Brexit om kort tid er en realitet. Storbritannien skal nok klare sig. Vi taler om et af de mest centralt placerede og historisk stærkeste lande i verdenshistorien. Det store spørgsmål er, hvordan EU vil klare sig, når disen letter, og man stadig sidder med alle de problemer, som i øjeblikket er skjult af forhandlingerne, men som borgerne bekymrer sig om. Det vil være sandhedens øjeblik for EU.


  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ponad 3 miliony obywateli Unii Europejskiej mieszkających w Wielkiej Brytanii śledziło z ogromnym zainteresowaniem i zaniepokojeniem negocjacje pomiędzy Komisją Europejską a Zjednoczonym Królestwem w sprawie ich praw oraz praw członków ich rodzin po brexicie. Wydaje się, że postęp w tym zakresie został poczyniony, ale obywatele Unii wciąż czują się zagrożeni.

Niestety władze Wielkiej Brytanii wydają się podchodzić do porozumienia z rezerwą, dlatego Parlament Europejski musi jasno podkreślić, że respektowanie wszystkich uzgodnień jest kluczowe. Obywatele Unii powinni zachować wszelkie przysługujące im prawa i fakt ten powinien podlegać ochronie Europejskiego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości.

W rezolucji Parlament Europejski wzywa Wielką Brytanię, by nabyte prawa dotyczyły nie tylko obywateli Unii Europejskiej już mieszkających w Wielkiej Brytanii i obecnych ich partnerów, ale też i przyszłości. Bardzo ważne jest, by została zawarta darmowa procedura deklaracyjna dla obywateli Unii Europejskiej, którzy chcieliby dochodzić swych praw, na przykład jeden wspólny formularz dla całej rodziny. To są warunki konieczne, dlatego też z ogromnym przekonaniem poparłam rezolucję Parlamentu w tej kwestii.


  John Howarth (S&D). – Mr President, I voted for the resolution on the Brexit negotiations with a heavy heart, in the knowledge that it is the wrong solution for the United Kingdom. But the question before this House is whether or not the negotiations have made sufficient progress, and unlike October – when there was no joint agreement to vote on – it is clear that progress has been made, but sufficient progress means just that: not a conclusion.

While I welcome what has been achieved on citizens’ rights, not least for the unborn grandchildren that I may have, who won’t be English or German or Scottish or Irish or even Geordie or Schwaben in their identity; they will be European. We have made a start for those people, but there is much more to be done. And to those who write to me constantly on this issue, I say: don’t give up. Lobby your MPs at Westminster, and make sure that you have a meaningful vote and they have a meaningful vote on the final deal.


  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem toto usnesení podpořil. Musím říci, že rozhodnutí britských voličů jsem vnímal jako velmi nešťastné pro budoucnost našeho společného kontinentu. Nicméně je nutno jej respektovat. Pro mě je důležité, že Evropský parlament se touto situací opakovaně zabývá. My musíme dávat na vědomí, jaká je pozice Evropského parlamentu, protože on je v závěru toho procesu nepřehlasovatelný. Takže na rozdíl od svého ctěného kolegy pana Zahradila si myslím, že je důležité, abychom se tím intenzivně zabývali.

Z toho důvodu také vítám dohodu, která byla učiněna, protože dává alespoň jakýsi základ do té nejistoty, ve které jsme se doposud ocitali. Vlastně kdo nehlasoval pro tu zprávu, tak do jisté míry přispívá dále k té nejistotě. Já jsem se nechtěl do tohoto zástupu zařadit, a proto jsem ji podpořil, i když se mi na těch parametrech té dohody také něco nelíbí. Ale pokud se nedobereme k nějaké dohodě konečné, tak to bude opravdu velká katastrofa.


  Przewodniczący. – Niniejszym zamykam wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania.

(Wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania będą kontynuowane na jutrzejszym posiedzeniu plenarnym w czwartek 14 grudnia 2017 r.)


15. Opravy hlasování a sdělení o úmyslu hlasovat: viz zápis
Videozáznamy vystoupení

(Posiedzenie zostało zawieszone o godz. 14.45)




16. Pokračování denního zasedání
Videozáznamy vystoupení

(La sesión se reanuda a las 15.16 horas.)


  El Presidente. – Les pido disculpas por el retraso en la reanudación de la sesión, pero lo cierto es que, en primer lugar, terminamos tarde el turno de votaciones y, en segundo lugar, yo he tenido que atender, a petición del presidente Tajani, un compromiso que me ha impedido llegar antes.


17. Schválení zápisu z předchozího zasedání: viz zápis
Videozáznamy vystoupení

18. Rozšíření a posílení schengenského prostoru: Bulharsko, Rumunsko a Chorvatsko (rozprava na aktuální téma)
Videozáznamy vystoupení

  El Presidente. – El punto siguiente en el orden del día es el debate de actualidad (artículo 153 bis del Reglamento interno) sobre ampliación y fortalecimiento del espacio Schengen: Bulgaria, Rumanía y Croacia (2017/3009(RSP)).

Informo a sus señorías de que no se aplicarán a este debate ni el procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra, es decir, «catch the eye», ni el de la «tarjeta azul».


  Gianni Pittella, autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'area Schengen, come molti sanno in quest'Aula, è la più grande area di libera circolazione nel mondo ed è una delle più grandi conquiste dell'Unione europea. Un'area Schengen più forte – sono convinto che il Commissario Avramopoulos condivida questa affermazione – un'area Schengen più forte e più unita migliora la sicurezza e la fiducia nell'Unione europea.

Se vogliamo rafforzare la protezione delle nostre frontiere esterne, spesso qui, in quest'Aula, si dice che dobbiamo rafforzare la protezione delle frontiere esterne. Bene, se vogliamo davvero rafforzare la protezione delle frontiere esterne, allora dobbiamo allargare senza esitazioni l'area Schengen alla Romania, alla Bulgaria e alla Croazia, quando la Croazia sarà pronta.

Il nostro gruppo ha chiesto, d'intesa con tutta la famiglia socialista, con il presidente del Partito Socialista Europeo Sergej Stanišev, tutta la famiglia socialista, e il gruppo parlamentare dei Socialisti e Democratici, hanno chiesto questo dibattito prioritario perché consideriamo che sia un'ingiustizia escludere la Romania e la Bulgaria dall'area Schengen e, quando sarà pronta, la Croazia. Non ci possono essere, nell'Unione europea, Stati di serie A e Stati di serie B.

Ai nostri concittadini bulgari, rumeni e croati abbiamo sempre detto una cosa semplice: chi rispetta i criteri di Schengen ha diritto ad aderire allo spazio Schengen. E il Presidente Juncker – lo potrà confermare il Commissario – ha riconosciuto già alla Bulgaria e alla Romania il rispetto dei criteri. Quindi non è un'invenzione o una richiesta di un gruppo parlamentare, c'è un riconoscimento da parte della Commissione europea. E la Croazia è sulla strada giusta.

Ora, non si può dire da parte del Consiglio – e mi dispiace rivolgermi sempre al Consiglio, ho anche un po', diciamo, di tristezza nel polemizzare, purtroppo ve lo meritate, non è una mia cattiva volontà, è che voi non decidete, e io per forza con voi me la devo prendere, se voi decideste, sarei ben felice di dire: grazie al Consiglio degli Stati membri. Fatelo, e avrete l'apprezzamento e il ringraziamento dei Socialisti e Democratici. Fatelo sullo spazio Schengen! Non esitate ancora, fatelo nell'interesse dell'Europa, è fondamentale per la sicurezza dell'Unione europea, che Romania e Bulgaria, e poi la Croazia siano parte dello spazio Schengen, e quindi alla Presidenza bulgara – ho visto la ministra, che ho ospitato nel nostro gruppo ieri e che saluto affettuosamente – dico alla Presidenza bulgara: avrà tutto il nostro sostegno per far sì che il Consiglio mantenga gli impegni presi e integri questi paesi nello spazio Schengen.


  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I want to thank you most cordially for the chance to take part in this topical debate which is very close to my heart, on a case on which I have, in my national capacity in the Council, intervened repeatedly in the direction that Mr Pittella just indicated.

Ten years ago, on 6 December 2007, the Council decided to lift internal border controls for nine Member States that had joined the Union in 2004. The decision, which applied as of December 2007, marked a significant step forward for the benefit of people travelling in the enlarged Schengen area with no internal border controls. In recent years we have been faced with migratory pressures and terrorist threats to an extent not seen before. This has put the Schengen area under heavy pressure, but we have not remained idle. Many steps have been taken to sustain the full and proper functioning of Schengen, and many proposals are in the pipeline.

At the Justice and Home Affairs Council in October this year, ministers had an extensive exchange of views on Schengen, particularly on the proposed Schengen border, the Borders Code Amendments, in relation to temporary internal border controls. While progress has been made on a number of files, a number of questions remain outstanding, with internal border controls in place in six countries in the Schengen area. It is therefore necessary for us to further intensify our work to get back to normal operation of Schengen, including viable alternatives to internal border controls.

Against this background, the Presidency organised an informal debate between the Ministers of the Interior at last week’s Justice and Home Affairs Council on 7 and 8 December. Ministers had a good and constructive debate, and even if there are diverging views on some issues, there is a general consensus that we must do our utmost to reinstall and strengthen our trust in Schengen.

Ministers took stock of measures already taken, such as the entry/exit system. We looked at measures currently discussed, such as the EU Travel Information and Authorisation System, the Schengen Information System proposals and the proposal for amending the Schengen Borders Control. And, in direct relation to the issue discussed in our debate today, Ministers also reflected on how we can move forward on the pending full application of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania. Both countries have fulfilled all the necessary conditions and have made significant efforts to guarantee the security of the EU’s external borders. However, the decision to fully apply the Schengen acquis for the two countries, for which we need unanimity, is still outstanding.

The improved situation regarding migratory pressures, and expected early agreement on a number of the measures currently under discussion, could perhaps change the situation. The Presidency on 7 December was happy to conclude the discussion, concluding that we have to continue working hard in the coming months on strengthening the Schengen area, including via enlargement.

As for Croatia, it is still in the process of being evaluated in the run-up to full application of the Schengen acquis. The Council has already adopted several implementing decisions setting out recommendations to address the deficiencies identified with a view to Croatia fulfilling the conditions necessary for the application of the Schengen acquis. A small number of issues remain to be evaluated and we are looking forward to receiving the Commission’s proposal for implementing decisions thereon in the near future.


  Dimitris Avramopoulos, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to start by expressing my thanks for adding this very important debate to the agenda and, in particular to thank Mr Gianni Pittella for this initiative. I know that this was – and remains – a priority for all political groups. Only some days ago we also had a fruitful and frank discussion in the Justice and Home Affairs Council with the Ministers of the Interior.

Let me start by highlighting the following. No matter how much work we collectively do in the three institutions, in the end, we will be judged by our success or failure only on three or four topics. Schengen is one of them. For our citizens, it is the symbol of the European Union itself. It is the most tangible example of European integration. It represents all the rights and benefits of being European, as it is closely connected to the freedom of movement and the notion of European citizenship. You all know my personal commitment to safeguarding and upholding Schengen since the very first moment I took office. We said in the past that a unified Schengen is a stronger Schengen. We are convinced that Bulgaria, Romania and also Croatia, as soon as it is ready, should fully join the Schengen family. This will enlarge the area of free movement and make the Schengen tools perform better and thus increase security.

For a long time the Commission’s position is that Bulgaria and Romania already fulfil the necessary conditions. They were positively assessed between 2009 and 2011. As you know, it is now for the Council to decide on the lifting of internal border controls with Bulgaria and Romania unanimously, and it is high time that this happened. Our discussion with the Interior Ministers last week left me optimistic that there is agreement that this issue must now again be seriously considered. As far as Croatia is concerned, we are working closely with the authorities to identify the areas where improvements are still necessary in order to positively conclude all the Schengen evaluations as soon as possible. This will allow us in the Commission to complete the first stage and conclude that Croatia is also ready to join Schengen. Then it will again be for the Council to decide.

The Schengen evaluations in 2016 and 2017 verify the necessary conditions for the application of all relevant parts of the acquis. In some areas, Croatia meets the necessary conditions for joining Schengen. In other areas, further improvement is required, and we stand by the Croatian authorities to continue with the same commitment. A full implementation of the Schengen acquis will also allow the drawing of full benefits from systems such as a Schengen Information System and the Visa Information System in relations between Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and the other Schengen states.

It would also allow them to implement the Entry—Exit System in the most efficient way, without installing it in border sections which would become internal borders after their accession to Schengen. The implementation of the EES will be a particular challenge for Croatia given its long land border. Here the European Union is willing to provide support.

Finally, the setting up of the ADS will strengthen the management of the external borders and therefore Schengen. Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia are playing their equal part in protecting the European Union’s external borders. Fully joining Schengen is not only politically fair, but it is also needed from a security point of view, because the internal security of one Member State is the internal security of all and the security of all our citizens. I hope that we can welcome these Member States to Schengen soon following a positive decision by the Council.

As I said before, from the moment that I took office, I have been advocating that we need a strong and unified Schengen. Today I would like to commend and to praise the authorities of the three countries for their commitment. We are running the last mile. Let us run it all together. Today the Parliament and the Commission, tomorrow the Council. I hope your message will be heard by the Council, Mr Pittella.


  Esteban González Pons, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, the Schengen area is one of the greatest achievements of the European project. It is a dream come true. After World War II, few people could imagine that one day Europe would be united and living in peace. Seventy-two years after, borders between European countries do not exist any more. They exist only on maps and in the heads of those who want to destroy the Union.

Four hundred million nationals of more than 25 different states travelling free with no passport check, with no border controls and within a single country: this is what Europeans have accomplished, and we have to be very proud of it. But Schengen will not be completed until all members who want to be part of it have the chance to join.

My Group has a clear position on this: any Member State that fulfils the membership criteria should join Schengen, and the truth is that Bulgaria and Romania fulfil these criteria. Already in 2011 this House adopted the Coelho report confirming that Romania and Bulgaria were sufficiently well prepared, and regarding Croatia, even if they have not yet fulfilled all the conditions, they are making great progress.

In this situation, trying to politicise this debate with different issues is a huge mistake. First, because these three countries are not in the same situation, and second, because accession to Schengen cannot be mixed with the cooperation and verification mechanism. The decision on accession to Schengen must be based on technical criteria, and a delay based on political reasons is simply unacceptable. There are no first-class and second-class countries. We are all European countries and we all deserve the best. That is why we stand today with our Romanian, Croatian and Bulgarian colleagues. This is what we can all call solidarity, and the day we stop showing solidarity among us is the day we will lose the right to call ourselves Europeans. We ask the Council to please do all that they can.


  Sergei Stanishev, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, let me first thank Mr Pittella for raising this debate and bringing it to the plenary of the European Parliament; it is extremely important. As was already said, it is difficult to imagine the European Union today without Schengen. This is a very tangible expression of our solidarity and of the freedom and unity of European citizens, and it brings a lot of economic benefits – but not for all Europeans. For six years now, Bulgaria and Romania have fulfilled the criteria for membership, and what is happening is a double standard and treating the two countries in a discriminatory way. It should be stopped, because it may look as though this is an issue only for Bulgaria and Romania, but it affects very fundamental issues and principles of the European Union.

First, it is about credibility if we as a Union follow our own rules. We do not. Second, the economic benefits will bring benefits to all citizens of the European Union. Thirdly, it is about security. Instead of wasting money for internal controls, we should strengthen through resources and enough financing the external borders of the Union. This is what is needed; this is what is effective. We often complain that anti-European forces, populists, are using arguments against the European Union. This is one of the cases, because it shows injustice to too many European citizens, and now the European Council has to do its job, which is not performed – an injustice has to be stopped. This should be a very clear message from the European Parliament today.


  Helga Stevens, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Toen Roemenië en Bulgarije lid werden van de Unie in 2007 stond hun rechtsstelsel nog niet op punt. Zij moesten een inhaalbeweging maken en noodzakelijke hervormingen doorvoeren. Ook de bestrijding van corruptie en georganiseerde misdaad moest worden opgevoerd. De Commissie volgt sindsdien de situatie op via het mechanisme voor samenwerking en toetsing, kortweg CVM genaamd. Onlangs heb ik samen met mijn ECR-collega Macovei de recente ontwikkelingen in Roemenië nog aangeklaagd. De overheid had ordonnanties uitgevaardigd om fiscale misdrijven door de vingers te zien en politieonderzoeken en rechtszaken te dwarsbomen, dit alles om corrupte machtshebbers aan de macht te houden. Ik vroeg de Europese Commissie de zaak op te volgen. In het CVM-rapport van dit jaar werd Roemenië daar dan ook op afgerekend.

Als wij beoordelen of deze drie EU-lidstaten in aanmerking komen, moeten wij de CVM-rapporten van november 2017 centraal stellen. Zo ook de bepalingen inzake georganiseerde criminaliteit. Het Schengengebied kent immers geen interne grenzen. Het is dus van fundamenteel belang om te vermijden dat wij op die manier criminaliteit importeren naar onze contreien. Er valt echter weinig vooruitgang te noteren. Ja, er zijn positieve ontwikkelingen, maar onvoldoende. Daarom is mijn delegatie, N-VA, tegen de toetreding van Bulgarije, Roemenië en Kroatië tot het Schengengebied. Er moeten echt meer inspanningen worden geleverd vooraleer politiek groen licht kan worden gegeven.


  Cecilia Wikström, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, securing a common area of free movement for people within the Schengen area is one of the biggest achievements of the European project, as it brings people together, makes life simpler for businesses and builds a sense of belonging together. During the last few years, this historical achievement has been put under threat. Under pressure caused by the collapse of the asylum system in 2015 and the unwillingness of certain Member States to address the obvious flaws in the Dublin regulation, we have seen a domino effect in play among Member States as they start to reintroduce border controls.

The Schengen area also faces another fundamental challenge, namely the discrimination against Bulgaria and Romania. Both of these EU countries have for a long time now fulfilled all the criteria for joining the Schengen area but are still being refused access by other Member States of this Union, and for political reasons alone. This is unacceptable and has to come to an end. We cannot, on the one hand, criticise certain Member States for not respecting due process and then ignore ourselves the rules that we have set up for accession to the Schengen zone!

I am proud that this Parliament always fights for the Union and for the rights of its citizens. Today, I would like to reach out to Romanian and Bulgarian citizens and say that you enjoy the same rights and the same values as any other European citizen! Member States need to show respect for common agreements, allow for the full integration of these two countries into the Schengen area without any further delay, and allow the full integration of Croatia as well, as soon as it meets the criteria.


  Κωνσταντίνα Κούνεβα, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, καλωσορίζουμε στη ζώνη Σένγκεν τις τρεις χώρες. Χαίρομαι ιδιαίτερα, γιατί, εκλέγομαι στην Ελλάδα, αλλά γεννήθηκα και μεγάλωσα στα σύνορα Βουλγαρίας–Ρουμανίας. Πιστεύω στη Σένγκεν. Όμως η Επιτροπή και το Συμβούλιο την πιστεύουν; Γιατί εδώ και δύο χρόνια τη μετατρέπουν σε σκουπίδι. Πώς; Παρατείνοντας τους συνοριακούς ελέγχους που επιβλήθηκαν από κάποια κράτη για να φράξουν τον δρόμο στους πρόσφυγες. Οι Έλληνες αναρωτιούνται: Γιατί όταν φτάνουν στη Γερμανία, στη Γαλλία ή στο Βέλγιο υποβάλλονται σε προσβλητικούς ελέγχους; Μήπως τελικά η Ελλάδα αποκλείστηκε από τη Σένγκεν και δεν το ξέρουμε;

Και κάτι ακόμα: Ευτυχώς που η Επιτροπή και ο Επίτροπος Αβραμόπουλος απέρριψαν το σχέδιό τους. Είναι όμως ειλικρινείς; Γιατί –ας μη γελιόμαστε– οι προτάσεις της Επιτροπής για αλλαγές στη Σένγκεν, που παρατείνουν μέχρι και δύο χρόνια τους ελέγχους στα σύνορα, είναι σαν να λένε «μπράβο» στα κράτη που αρνήθηκαν την αλληλεγγύη στην προσφυγική τραγωδία, κι έτσι μπορεί να εγκλωβιστούν χιλιάδες πρόσφυγες στην Ελλάδα και στην Ιταλία. Ρωτάω την Επιτροπή, το Συμβούλιο και όλους εσάς, συνάδελφοι: Αυτό θέλει η Ευρώπη; Αυτή είναι η Σένγκεν;


  Ska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I think Schengen is one of the most fundamental expressions of the European idea, the idea to cross borders, to overcome borders, overcome differences that divide us and to grow together. That is the European ideal, and that is being expressed by Schengen. Every Member State has the right, but even the obligation, to join Schengen as soon as it fulfils the criteria for the common membership. And those conditions, those criteria, are very clear. They are crystal clear and the procedures should not be changed in the middle of the process.

Precisely because Schengen is so important, it is such an important right for all European citizens, it cannot be withheld from particular Member States and from their citizens. It is a right, and we cannot allow second-class citizens to be established. Another rightful expectation of citizens is that the rule of law be upheld. If we are looking now at Romania, this does not seem to be totally guaranteed. We are very worried about the proposed changes to the justice laws that are currently being discussed and debated in the Romanian parliament, and EU citizens in Romania are expecting Europe to do something about it. I think we absolutely have to do something, and I want to thank those people in Romania who go out on the street and demonstrate for their rights, for democracy, and are telling all of us, all the time reminding us, that democracy is more than going to vote once in a while, it is more than having the rule of the majority. It tells us that there is also the responsibility of the majority for all citizens. We stand with you. But it is very clear that Schengen is also and especially for those people – they are European citizens, they need to be allowed to travel freely like everyone. I am also very proud that the European Parliament has been very clear on this all the time and now it is time for the Council to act, and I hope it will do this very soon.


  Margot Parker, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, at a time when the Schengen area is under considerable strain from mass movement of illegal migration, I find it remarkable that a debate on expanding the Schengen area has been considered. For as we all know, and yet many choose to deny, having no border checks at the internal borders helps to facilitate the free movement of terrorists and the free movement of weapons. It assists criminal gangs by allowing them to easily transport illegal drugs. It also plays a significant role in facilitating human trafficking across the EU.

Citizens in our own countries ask our governments to commit to some core responsibilities. One of the most important of these is to ask that our people can feel safe. I would ask you to consider this, because it is something that is very seriously at risk here and people constantly ask us about safety and governments keeping the people safe.


  Laurenţiu Rebega, în numele grupului ENF. – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, dragi colegi, aș vrea întâi să îi răspund doamnei Keller, care, în plenul Parlamentului European, îndeamnă lumea la demonstrații de stradă, îndeamnă lumea din Parlamentul European să dărâme guverne care au fost alese democratic – și vorbim de democrație.

Dragi colegi, democrația este respectarea votului. În România, perspectiva aderării la spațiul Schengen a devenit un fel de discuție despre sexul îngerilor, domnule Președinte, domnilor colegi – adică, pe cât de savantă, pe atât de a inutilă. Toți politicienii promit în campania electorală că îi vor convinge pe europeni să primească România în Schengen, dar nici cetățenii și nici politicienii înșiși nu mai cred așa ceva.

Cu câteva luni în urmă, președintele Macron a venit la București și, de acolo, a plecat la Sofia, pentru a ne convinge să sprijinim poziția Franței cu privire la Directiva privind detașarea lucrătorilor. Când a fost întrebat de spațiul Schengen, ne-a tăiat-o scurt: Schengen trebuie reformat și, abia după aceea, vorbim de aderarea României și a Bulgariei.

Am înțeles foarte bine reținerea țărilor occidentale privind aderarea României și a Bulgariei la Schengen în 2007. Am înțeles-o și în 2010. Am putut accepta acest lucru în 2012. În tot acest timp, eforturile de securizare a frontierei au costat mulți, foarte mulți bani. În 2015 însă, invazia refugiaților nu s-a făcut prin România și nici prin Bulgaria, dragi colegi. Este clar că păstrarea acestor țări în afara Schengen are un alt motiv.

Pot înțelege și acest motiv: anume că unele țări sau unii politicieni din Occident consideră că Uniunea trebuie să aibă două viteze. Îl pot înțelege și pe președintele Macron, care sugerează că ar vrea renegocierea acordului Schengen. Ceea ce nu pot înțelege este ipocrizia și prietenii falși.

Este ok ca națiunile să dorească să își controleze frontierele. Este ok să avem o Uniune cu două sau mai multe viteze. Dar nu este ok ca țările mari sau puternice să împiedice țările mai mici sau mai slabe să adopte aceleași măsuri protecționiste ca și cele mari.

Susțin din toate puterile competiția și sunt convins că egalitarismul inhibă dorința și capacitatea de a progresa. Prin urmare, nu militez pentru omogenitatea Europei, dar vreau să se asigure o egalitate de șanse și o independență reală a statelor membre. Dacă statele mari și puternice vor să împiedice, prin piedici artificiale, țările mai mici să facă progrese, atunci Uniunea Europeană va înceta să mai existe.

Reformarea spațiului Schengen poate fi un proiect interesant, dar aceasta presupune cu necesitate și începutul unei reforme profunde a întregii Uniuni Europene. Din 1957 până la Maastricht, Comunitatea Europeană s-a dezvoltat prin adăugiri succesive, care au fost posibile pentru că numărul de state membre era mic. Acum însă, nu se mai poate cu peticeala! Trebuie o reformă adevărată a Uniunii Europene, dragi colegi.


  Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, όχι εξαίρεση αλλά υλοποίηση της Σένγκεν αποτελούν οι πρόσθετοι έλεγχοι αυτές τις μέρες σε έλληνες επιβάτες, όπως και οι σύγχρονες ηλεκτρονικές μέθοδοι λήψης βιομετρικών στοιχείων, παρακολούθησης, φακελώματος των λαών της Ευρώπης, προσφύγων και μεταναστών, με συνοριοφυλακή και το απαράδεκτο Δουβλίνο. Σένγκεν σημαίνει λαοί δεμένοι χειροπόδαρα, αφού ελευθέρας να μετακινηθεί έχει μόνο το κεφάλαιο και οι πάμφθηνοι εργάτες χωρίς δικαιώματα για τα συμφέροντα των επιχειρηματικών ομίλων. Αυτό είναι το ευρωπαϊκό κεκτημένο σας, που επεκτείνεται τώρα και στα Βαλκάνια. Η επιστολή Tusk δεν συνιστά κάποια παραφωνία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, αλλά επιβεβαίωση της πολιτικής της, της συμφωνίας Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-Τουρκίας, που εγκλωβίζει πρόσφυγες και μετανάστες σε άθλιες συνθήκες τύπου Μόριας στην Ελλάδα και στην Ιταλία. Τεράστια ευθύνη φέρει και η ελληνική κυβέρνηση, που δεν εγγυάται, λέει, τις ζωές των προσφυγών από την άλλη όμως παρέχει εγγυήσεις για fast track απελάσεις πίσω στην κόλαση του ιμπεριαλιστικού πολέμου, που αυτή και οι σύμμαχοί της πριμοδοτούν και του παρέχουν διευκολύνσεις. Αλληλεγγύη των λαών, για να φτάσουν οι πρόσφυγες στον προορισμό τους, ενάντια σε ιμπεριαλιστικούς πολέμους, Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, ΝΑΤΟ, κυβερνήσεις και εκμετάλλευση!


  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – Domnule președinte, România a securizat frontierele și și-a îndeplinit angajamentul luat prin tratatul de aderare. A cheltuit peste un miliard de euro din bani proprii și din facilitatea Schengen, sub conducerea unui concert franco-german. Frontiera românească este mult mai securizată decât alte frontiere externe ca, de exemplu, a Franței, în sud, pe Marea Mediterană.

Din păcate, acest lucru s-a întâmplat în 2011. Îndeplineam toate condițiile. Nu am fost acceptați în Schengen și nici ulterior. Motivele invocate sunt motive pur populiste sau de natură națională, din cauza alegerilor naționale: fiecare stat a vrut să arate votanților ce eforturi face pentru un subiect care nu exista.

Eu cred că această situație trebuie abordată diferit. Faptul că în România există, eu știu, evenimente politice care nu sunt în conformitate cu normele europene este adevărat. Și acuma sunt astfel de lucruri: legile justiției sunt atacate în Parlament. Aceste lucruri trebuie tratate separat și cer Comisiei să facă acest lucru. Dar Schengen trebuie tratat, de asemenea, separat.

Eu cred că aderarea pe aeroporturi e un lucru de bun simț în acest moment. Consiliul ar trebui să facă acest lucru fără întârziere și, ulterior, și pe frontierele terestre.


  Tanja Fajon (S&D). – Mr President, in my Group we remain strongly committed to the full and immediate accession of Romania and Bulgaria in the Schengen area. We demand it now! If we say we are a community of values and based on the rule of law, we should act like one. It is quite unacceptable that, despite the required conditions being fulfilled, the decision on accession has not yet been made.

Fragmenting, or creating a second-class Schengen, with the solutions found in the entry/exit system for example, is putting the integrity of freedom of movement at risk. Such political games by the Council erode the trust of our citizens in the European project, which we are so desperately trying to protect from collapsing.

I would also like to welcome Croatia as soon as it meets the criteria. Have we really forgotten that Schengen is one of the greatest achievements of the European integration? We are tired of hypocrisy: promising restoration and full functioning of the Schengen area by the end of 2016 failed miserably. On the contrary, the Commission further proposed the extension of internal border controls beyond the current legal basis this year, while admitting that the conditions are not fulfilled.

If you do not to reverse the course of action soon, I am seriously afraid that Schengen as we know it will be a thing of the past, and there is no European Union without Schengen.


  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, eu sunt unul dintre cei mai mari susținători ai intrării României în Schengen. Dar eu muncesc pentru asta și nu vin cu vorbe goale, așa cum fac colegii socialiști din PSD și din ALDE, care sunt la guvernare și care spun că vor România în Schengen dar, în realitate, fac totul ca să împiedice acest lucru.

O să vă dau câteva exemple: în acest moment, în Parlamentul României se votează modificarea legilor justiției în procedură de urgență – practic, în secret, fără dezbatere. Lumea se uită la televizor și vede la televizor ce se modifică și toate astea pentru a subjuga politic justiția, a nu mai avea stat de drept – apropo de statul de drept, care trebuie să ne unească – și pentru a crea mecanisme de anchetare, de amenințare și de șantajare a judecătorilor și procurorilor. De ce? Ca să scape politicienii din ALDE și PSD aflați la guvernare.

Dacă faci asemenea lucruri și susții că vrei să intri în Schengen, atunci îți pui o întrebare: chiar vrei să intri în Schengen sau doar vii și vorbești în plenul Parlamentului și spui că vrei să intri în Schengen?

Da, eu vreau să intru în Schengen și de asta nici nu leg MCV-ul de Schengen, pentru că MCV-ul este una. Comisia niciodată nu a cerut această legătură, și el trebuie să se oprească atunci când toate sunt îndeplinite. Orice se întâmplă azi în România, pe justiție, este contrar MCV-ului.

Da, să intrăm în Schengen, dar lucrați pentru asta, dragi colegi socialiști și din ALDE.


  Филиз Хюсменова (ALDE). – Г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, вече шест години напомняме, че България и Румъния изпълниха критериите за Шенгенското пространство. Недопускането ни в Шенген е нарушение на европейското право. Аргументите „против“ са само политически. Е тогава и контрааргументите да са такива. Парадоксално е, аргументът да е, че двете страни са под мониторинг и не установяват законност. А отговорът да е същият – нарушение на правовия ред.

Парадокс е 3 264 километра граници на Съюза да се охраняват без претенции към България и Румъния, а да им се отказва достъп до Шенген. Парадокс е да се търсят съмишленици за бъдещето, а да се прилага друг стандарт към България, която е лоялен партньор, с много добра бюджетна дисциплина и с трайна посока към силна интеграция. Парадоксално е, че въпреки отхвърлянето българските граждани са сред най-големите привърженици на Съюза, но е и вяра, че политическите аргументи ще отстъпят.


  Bodil Valero (Verts/ALE). – Herr talman! Schengensamarbetet är en av de fördelar EU:s invånare uppskattar allra mest med EU. Det har gett betydande fördelar för såväl EU-medborgare som näringsliv, och gör det möjligt för över 400 miljoner européer från 26 europeiska länder att resa utan pass.

I samband med flyktingsituationen 2015 sattes det på hårt prov då flera medlemsländer återinförde gränskontroller, bland annat mitt eget, Sverige. När kontrollerna infördes 2016 fick det långtgående ekonomiska konsekvenser när pendlingstiden ökade och antalet resenärer mellan Sverige och Danmark minskade med 15 procent. Det kostade regionen 152 miljoner men bara 78 personer av de cirka tre miljoner personer som kontrollerades var flyktingar.

Tanken är ju att alla medlemsstater ska ansluta sig till Schengensamarbetet så snart villkoren är uppfyllda. Men vi kan inte hitta på nya krav för anslutande länder än de som redan finns i existerande regelverk. Både Rumänien och Bulgarien har ju sedan 2011 uppfyllt förutsättningarna för att gå med i samarbetet och bör få bli fullvärdiga medlemmar så snart som möjligt utan att blockeras av andra medlemsländer i rådet. Detsamma gäller naturligtvis Kroatien när de tekniska kriterierna är uppfyllda.


  Auke Zijlstra (ENF). – Schengen was in eerste instantie een heel sympathiek verdrag want waarom zouden we elkaar niet vertrouwen, nietwaar? Maar ondertussen is de bevolking in West-Europa van samenstelling veranderd en zijn terroristische dreigingen aan de orde van de dag. De fout die hier met opzet, ook in dit debat, in het Europees Parlement, continu gemaakt wordt is het verwarren van het vrij verkeer van personen met het paspoortvrij reizen. Maar gelukkig heeft ook de Commissie in antwoord op vragen van mij nu toegegeven dat deze twee zaken niets met elkaar te maken hebben.

Praktisch gezien is Schengen allang overleden. De rouwadvertentie heeft alleen nog niet in de krant gestaan. Een groeiend aantal lidstaten, waaronder Duitsland en Frankrijk, verlengt de grenscontroles ieder half jaar opnieuw. En die soevereiniteit, die bevalt eigenlijk wel. Laten we erkennen dat Schengen uit een ander tijdperk stamt en niet meer toepasbaar is heden ten dage.


  Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η ένταξη της Βουλγαρίας, της Ρουμανίας και της Κροατίας στον χώρο Σένγκεν έχει καθυστερήσει αδικαιολόγητα. Από τη στιγμή που αυτές επιθυμούν να ενταχθούν και πληρούν τα κριτήρια, μόνο προκαταλήψεις τις έχουν κρατήσει εκτός εδώ και μερικά χρόνια. Το πρόβλημα δεν εντοπίζεται στον αριθμό των κρατών που θα ανήκουν στη Σένγκεν αλλά στις ίδιες τις προβλέψεις της συνθήκης αυτής και κυρίως τον τρόπο εφαρμογής τους. Τη στιγμή που μιλάμε, πολλές ευρωπαϊκές χώρες έχουν προσωρινά αναστείλει την εφαρμογή της Σένγκεν για τις προερχόμενες από την Ελλάδα πτήσεις, με πρόφαση την πιθανή είσοδο λαθρομεταναστών. Η γερμανική κυβέρνηση διά της καγκελαρίου Μέρκελ ήταν που κάλεσε εξαρχής τους λαθρομετανάστες στην Ευρώπη, αλλά πλέον μετά την πολιτική ζημιά που υπέστη το κόμμα της αποφάσισε να προβεί σε αυτή την κίνηση μικροπολιτικής, που απευθύνεται κυρίως στο εσωτερικό της ακροατήριο. Σε κάθε περίπτωση όμως αυτό αποδεικνύει τα κενά της συνθήκης αυτής.

Η πρότασή μας είναι η πλήρης επαναφορά όλων των συνοριακών ελέγχων, χωρίς αυτό να σημαίνει πως περιορίζεται η διέλευση των ανθρώπων· απλά θα ελέγχεται. Μέχρι στιγμής άλλωστε τα μεγαλύτερα οφέλη από την ανεξέλεγκτη κυκλοφορία ατόμων εντός της Ένωσης τα έχουν αποκομίσει διάφοροι εγκληματίες, λαθρέμποροι, έμποροι ναρκωτικών και διακινητές ανθρώπων.


  Асим Адемов (PPE). – Г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, при приемането на България и Румъния в ЕС през 2007 г., Европейският съюз е поел ангажимент двете страни да бъдат приети за пълноправни членове на Шенген, когато са готови. От няколко години вече те са готови. Това е потвърдено както от правителствата на двете страни, така и от Европейския парламент и Европейската комисия.

Въпреки това сме свидетели на многократното отлагане на решението за присъединяване на България и Румъния в Шенген. Обективно погледнато не е справедливо да се прилагат такива двойни стандарти към България и Румъния. Не е справедливо да не се признават усилията и резултатите на двете страни. Не е справедливо да не се признава фактът, че при сполетялата ни бежанската криза България е с най-добри резултати.

Отдавна България е доказала, че генерира сигурност и стабилност в един много проблемен и сложен регион. България доказа, че е надеждна външна граница на Европейския съюз. България има тежката отговорност за опазването на външната ни граница с Турция и тя се справя отлично с това. България не заплашва сигурността на Европа.

Съветът трябва незабавно да вземе решение за присъединяването на България и Румъния към Шенгенското пространство. Ние трябва заедно и обединени да се изправим срещу заплахите в едно сплотено Шенгенско пространство. Бъдещето на Европейския съюз зависи от това доколко страните ще бъдат единни и солидарни една с друга. Именно тази солидарност изисква България и Румъния да бъдат приети незабавно в Шенген, а Хърватия – когато изпълни условията.


  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, domnule ministru Maasikas, vă spun din start că nu îmi propun astăzi să îi învăț pe colegii de la ECR și cu atât mai puțin pe doamna Macovei despre ce înseamnă Schengen. Ar fi o pierdere de timp.

România și Bulgaria sunt două țări profund europene, cu contribuții majore în cadrul Frontex, recunoscute ca atare, și contribuie considerabil la asigurarea controlului și securității frontierelor externe ale Uniunii Europene, fiind angajate, în același timp, cu onestitate și loialitate la construcția viitorului Uniunii Europene.

Rapoarte succesive ale Parlamentului European și evaluări succesive ale Comisiei Europene după 2011 au confirmat îndeplinirea tuturor – repet, tuturor – standardelor tehnice prevăzute în procesul de aderare. Opoziția unor state membre se bazează mai degrabă pe rațiuni politice și economice, devenind deja o formă vădită de discriminare, care continuă sa afecteze, inclusiv economic, negativ cele două state.

Parlamentul European trebuie să ceară astăzi Consiliului să dea în sfârșit curs propunerii Comisiei de acum două luni de zile, pentru primirea deîndată a României și Bulgariei în spațiul Schengen, fiind convins că valorile solidarității între statele membre și excluderea standardelor duble nu sunt doar sloganuri bune pentru campania electorală.

Închei cu încrederea și speranța că partenerii europeni ai României și Bulgariei și ai Croației vor dezgheța acest dosar, astfel încât cele două țări, România și Bulgaria, să devină cât mai repede membre ale spațiului Schengen, iar Croația să adere atunci când condițiile sunt îndeplinite.


  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, уважаеми г-н Комисар, уважаема г-жо министър Павлова, уважаеми колеги, нека да си кажем нещата честно: причината България, Румъния и Хърватска да не са в това пространство е само единствено политическа. Техническите критерии отдавна са изпълнени, но три държави в Европейския съюз се съобразяват със своите вътрешнополитически проблеми, правят отстъпки пред партии, които са меко казано антиевропейски и евроскептични, и заради вътрешните си проблеми пречат на присъединяването на нашите държави към това пространство.

И тук съм съгласен с колегата Хюсменова: това е нарушаване на европейското право, това е несправедливо и това е двоен стандарт. Чух преди малко от колега, че проблем било престъпността. Колеги, къде се намира квартал „Моленбек“, известен с това, че в него има незаконно оръжие повече отколкото цялата белгийска армия, че е средище на трафик, на наркотици, на насилствен трафик на хора, на жени? Ами не се намира нито в България, нито в Румъния. Намира се в Кралство Белгия.

Къде се намират проблемите, които са в Холандия? Защото за тези държави говорим. Да ги кажем. Държавите, които пречат, са тези, уважаеми колеги. Затова говорим ли тук да изключим тези държави от Шенген? Май не. Крайно време е да се сложи край на лицемерието и двойния стандарт, уважаеми колеги, и да се спазва европейското право. България и Румъния трябва да са част от Шенген, а също и Хърватска, защото ние пазим външните граници на Европейския съюз.


  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, vreau să vă asigur că și pentru cetățenii români și bulgari spațiul Schengen este un simbol. Ceea ce nu înțeleg cetățenii noștri este de ce permitem unor state membre, cu așa zise democrații consolidate, să își bată joc de simbolurile Uniunii Europene. Dacă toți privilegiem libertatea de mișcare, dacă toți dorim mai multă Europă, de ce acceptăm ca unii să nu respecte tratatele europene și introducem condiții parazitare și precare în tratate care nu prevăd astfel de condiții.

Domnule președinte, noi suntem convinși că am îndeplinit criteriile, dar începem să fim din ce în ce mai convinși că se formează un dublu limbaj, un fariseism european pe care cetățenii noștri nu-l acceptă. Suntem cetățeni europeni, suntem cetățeni cu drepturi egale, dorim mai multă Europă, dorim mai multă încredere în Europa și trebuie ca cei care au creat această Uniune să înțeleagă că de încredere depinde totul, nu de jocuri politice partizane ieftine. Dacă Franța, dacă Olanda, dacă Austria, dacă Germania, doresc mai multă Europă, vor trebui să voteze la Consiliul European pentru spațiul Schengen. Așa vor dovedi că au încredere în ceea ce spun în discursurile lor publice și că nu folosesc un dublu limbaj, antamat politic în relațiile cu alte țări.

România nu este o colonie, România nu este un stat periferic, România este stat membru al Uniunii Europene, are o limbă care este limbă a Uniunii Europene și, pentru asta, cetățenii români cer respectul acelora care au uitat să ni-l acorde de prea multă vreme.


  Mara Bizzotto (ENF). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi in quest'Aula discutiamo se ampliare e rafforzare Schengen, se permettere quindi la libera circolazione delle persone all'interno dell'Unione europea senza nessun tipo di controlli ai confini.

Io dico invece chiaramente che i controlli ai confini vanno fatti, anzi dico di più: le frontiere vanno chiuse, perché in questi anni a circolare liberamente in Europa sono stati i terroristi islamici. O vi siete dimenticati degli attentati di Parigi, Bruxelles, Nizza, Londra, Barcellona? Vi siete dimenticati delle centinaia di persone morte a causa del fanatismo assassino, a causa del terrorismo islamico?

Questo ragazzo è Luca Russo, anzi era Luca Russo. Aveva 25 anni, era un ingegnere, viveva a Bassano del Grappa, a pochi chilometri da casa mia. Il 17 agosto era a Barcellona assieme alla sua fidanzata Marta. Marta è tornata ferita, lui è morto.

La famiglia di Luca Russo mi ha pregato di non dimenticare mai questo ragazzo. Gli amici di Luca Russo mi hanno chiesto di fare di tutto per bloccare questi bastardi! Di intervenire per fermare questo terrorismo islamico. Questa supplica la rivolgo a voi: dobbiamo fermare questi terroristi, dobbiamo fermare il terrorismo islamico, l'invasione, gli immigrati che stanno arrivando. Dobbiamo controllare i confini.

Schengen va sospeso, dovete ripensare Schengen, dobbiamo bloccare i confini, dobbiamo fermare questa invasione. Non bastano più i minuti di silenzio, non bastano più le manifestazioni: serve un ripensamento di Schengen.


  Željana Zovko (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, niz aktualnih zbivanja i sigurnosnih izazova, izbjeglička i migracijska kriza s kojom se Republika Hrvatska suočila krajem 2015. godine, kada je kroz državu prošlo više od pola milijuna izbjeglica, učinila je sigurnost granica jednim od glavnih prioriteta Vlade Republike Hrvatske.

Od tog razdoblja do danas učinjeno je mnogo. Pripremajući se za punopravno članstvo u schengenskom prostoru, Hrvatska je iskoristila skoro sva sredstva schengenskog instrumenta: nabavila je brodove, helikoptere za nadzor granica, izgradila novu i obnovila postojeće granične policijske postaje i time pridonijela u nastojanjima pune primjene schengenske pravne stečevine. Smatram kako bi se posebna pažnja trebala posvetiti jačanju vanjskih granica Europske unije, koje su ujedno i naše nacionalne granice, posebice ako uzmemo u obzir da Hrvatska ima najdužu vanjsku granicu s Europskom unijom.

Sve navedeno ukazuje na nužnost što skorijeg uključenja Republike Hrvatske u schengenski prostor. Nadam se da će Hrvatska što prije ispuniti tehničke kriterije i očekujem u 2019. godini da bude punopravna članica Schengena.


  Claude Moraes (S&D). – Mr President, when the Commissioner spoke, it was a detailed explanation of why the full integration of Romania and Bulgaria must happen now. At the heart of that, he said that Schengen was precious to the whole idea of the European Union. I have never heard, in all the years that I have been here, a stronger case made for anything about the central cause of this European Union. Let us also be clear about this institution, the European Parliament, for anyone who is in any doubt.

Since 2011, for six long years, the European Parliament in its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), has had unambiguous majority debates, well—examined, detailed debates, making one conclusion, namely that second class status for Romania and Bulgaria is not an option. They must be fully integrated into Schengen. We have supported the measures to grant Romania and Bulgaria access to the Entry-Exit System, the Visa Information System. We have even talked about visa-free travel to the US. We are doing this and being proactive in this cause, not just because we believe it, but because we have examined the case for these countries. This is a case not just for justice but for practicality. This is not just a case for the politics, but for understanding what it means for Romania and Bulgaria to be full members.

Then I refer again to the Commission and I ask the Council on this: this has not been a static process. In all of these six years, we have been strengthening the external border: Entry-Exit System, external border controls, the border agency, one of the fastest files ever created in this Parliament. All these measures and the hard work that has gone on with all of the issues of privacy and individual liberties that we had to tackle was to safeguard the external border. With all of this, we can surely ask that today there is an unambiguous and clear demand that two countries have justice and are fully integrated Member States of the European Union. Schengen is precious, all the measures are coming to make it, and I echo what the Commissioner said: together, all of us together, will make this happen.


  El Presidente. – Observo algunas peticiones de uso de la tarjeta azul. La cuestión es que en debates de esta naturaleza el Reglamento no contempla ni el uso del procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul» ni tampoco el de «catch the eye». Al principio del debate lo señalé, pero observo que hay quienes lo solicitan. Es una cuestión puramente reglamentaria, no es arbitrario, no es un capricho de quien en este momento está presidiendo el Pleno, simplemente me ajusto al Reglamento. Gracias por su comprensión.


  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedniče, veliki migracijski pritisci i teroristička prijetnja ostavili su traga na Schengenu koji nije ni predviđen za okolnosti koje trenutno vladaju u Europi i njezinom neposrednom susjedstvu.

Dokazane slabosti, međutim, nisu razlog za odbacivanje Schengena, već pravi poticaj za njegovo unaprjeđenje. Ono što schengenski prostor predstavlja od prvog svog dana – prostor povjerenja, sigurnosti i mira, danas nam je u Europi potrebnije nego ikad u posljednjih dvadeset godina.

No, cijeli je koncept prilično obesmišljen ako u njega nisu uključene sve države s vanjskim granicama. Naravno, postoje vrlo objektivni kriteriji koje trebaju ispuniti, ali sad kad nam je taj cilj nadohvat ruke trebali bismo pogurati Hrvatsku, Bugarsku i Rumunjsku da što prije uđu u Schengen.

Zato s ovog mjesta još jednom pozivam sve koji sudjeluju ili doprinose u procesu odlučivanja da maksimalno ubrzaju pristupanje ovih triju država schengenskom prostoru.


  Jozo Radoš (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, gospodine povjereniče, gospodine ministre, želim zahvaliti kolegama iz S&D-a na ovoj vrlo aktualnoj temi koju su pokrenuli.

S povećanjem sigurnosnih ugroza povećava se i potreba za stvaranjem jedinstvenog europskog prostora sigurnosti odnosno uključenja svih zemalja Europske unije u schengenski prostor. Razbijeni schengenski prostor ne samo da otežava kontrolu vanjskih granica i sigurnost nego i komunikaciju, slobodno kretanje ljudi, roba, kapitala i usluga i time slabi gospodarsku snagu Europske unije, a pogotovo stvarajući neravnopravnost među državama članicama i među građanima Europske unije.

Stoga, pozdravljam najavljeni ulazak Rumunjske i Bugarske u schengenski prostor, kao i moje zemlje Hrvatske čim ispuni uvjete. Drago mi je da su i ministar i povjerenik rekli da je Hrvatskoj preostalo vrlo malo kriterija koje treba ispuniti da bi postala članica schengenskog prostora i kao što se protivim svim nejednakostima i nejednakom tretmanu Bugarske i Rumunjske prilikom njihovog ulaska u schengenski prostor tako očekujem da će odluka o ulasku Hrvatske biti donesena temeljem kriterija, temeljem tehničke i upravne sposobnosti, a nikako temeljem političkih kriterija, zahtjeva i uvjeta.


  Franz Obermayr (ENF). – Herr Präsident! Es ist schon einigermaßen verwirrend, wenn der Präsident der Kommission, Herr Juncker, den jüngsten Bericht seiner eigenen Behörde betreffend Rumänien und Bulgarien offensichtlich ignoriert.

Denn in dem Bericht wird ja klar festgehalten, dass weder die Reform der Justiz noch die Bekämpfung der Korruption und der organisierten Kriminalität zufriedenstellend ist. Nun will Herr Juncker beide Länder so schnell wie möglich in den Schengen-Raum aufnehmen, in der Schengen-Informationssystem einbinden – sie sollen die europäische Außengrenze sichern.

Natürlich wäre es wünschenswert, wenn die europäische Außengrenze etwas weiter südöstlich gesichert und geschützt würde. Aber es müssen auch die Rahmenbedingungen dafür passen, und der Bericht der Kommission spricht ja eindeutig dagegen. Wie eine verlässliche Grenzsicherung bei Korruption in der Polizei und auch in der Justiz gehen soll, entzieht sich meiner Kenntnis, aber vielleicht hat hier Herr Juncker eine passende Antwort.

Eines ist allerdings klar: Schengen, das ist heute schon mehrmals festgestellt worden, muss überarbeitet werden, Schengen ist reformbedürftig. Und klar ist auch: Mit dem Schnellschuss einer Erweiterung, bei der die Rahmenbedingungen noch nicht passen, wird Europa nicht sicherer, die Grenzen werden nicht sicherer! Und ob Sie es hören wollen oder nicht, unsere Bürger in Europa sehen es genauso.


  Jaromír Štětina (PPE). – Pane předsedající, minulý týden jsme měli slavit v České republice desetileté výročí od vstupu do schengenského prostoru. Oslavy však byly téměř nepostřehnutelné. Jedinečná myšlenka, díky které se mohou lidé volně a bez kontrol pohybovat napříč Evropskou unií, je dnes mnohými z nás považována za samozřejmou.

Česká republika je navíc ekonomicky takřka závislá na bezproblémovém fungování pohybu zboží. O to víc je překvapivé, že schengenský prostor nedokážeme ocenit. Mnozí politici se v souvislosti s migrační a bezpečnostní politikou nerozpakují schengenský prostor zneužít ke svým populistickým hrám. Schengenský prostor je podrobován zásadní zkoušce ve svém fungování. Jen pro představu, zrušení schengenského prostoru by podle studie Evropského parlamentu přišlo na sto až dvě stě třicet miliard EUR během deseti let. Schengenský prostor byl od začátku koncipován jako organismus, který zahrnuje prvky svobody a bezpečnosti.

Svoboda volného pohybu bez vnitřních hranic je od počátku této myšlenky vyvažována. Vyvažována nejenom důležitou ochranou vnějších hranic, ale i systémem řady dalších navazujících předpisů. Za poslední dva roky právě bezpečnostní aspekt schengenského prostoru výrazně posílil. Posílily pravomoci Frontexu, ke zkvalitnění kontroly na hranicích jsme schválili zavedení systému vstupu/výstupu (EES) a řadu dalších předpisů.

Těším se na nové členy schengenského prostoru. Bulharsko a Rumunsko a Chorvatsko musí být do schengenského prostoru přijata okamžitě po splnění všech závazných kritérií.


  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Gospodine predsjedniče, prije svega želim zahvaliti Gianniju Pittelli i svojoj grupi, na čiji prijedlog danas raspravljamo o proširenju Schengena. Rasprava, posve opravdano, pored Bugarske i Rumunjske, uključuje i Hrvatsku. Hvala i povjereniku Avramopoulosu na jasnim i ohrabrujućim stajalištima Komisije.

Čak milijardu i dvjesto pedeset milijuna putovanja zabilježi se godišnje na schengenskom prostoru. O gospodarskim, političkim i integrativnim učincima tog velikog dostignuća Europske unije ne treba previše govoriti. Pravila pristupanja su jasna – to je opsežan popis tehničkih kriterija koje zemlja treba ispuniti prije pristupanja. Međutim, na kraju je potreban ključni – politički – pristanak svih članica Europske unije.

Važno je nastaviti s provedbom schengenske stečevine. To jača stupanj povjerenja među članicama schengenskog prostora. Jednako tako, treba imati povjerenja i prema članicama koje već dugo intenzivno rade na ispunjavanju svih kriterija.

Ističem kako je Hrvatska od pristupanja Schengenskom informativnom sustavu u samo 4 mjeseca obavila 75 milijuna kontrola i identificirala preko 4000 prekršaja. Dokaz da već obavljene pripreme donose rezultate. Osim toga, Hrvatska od svih članica ima najdužu vanjsku kopnenu granicu Europske unije. Želimo doprinijeti boljoj sigurnosti našeg dijela vanjskih granica Europske unije. Želimo unutarnje granice Europske unije bez bodljikave žice koja nas danas dijeli od naših susjeda.

Na Hrvatskoj je da ispuni sve kriterije za pristupanje Schengenu, što očekujemo do kraja sljedeće godine. Na Vijeću je potom da uvaži sve što je napravljeno. Kredibilitet Europske unije jasno će se potvrđivati na ovom pitanju.


  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, Κύριε Αβραμόπουλε, ενώ η Βουλγαρία, η Ρουμανία και η Κροατία γίνονται μέλη της Σένγκεν, οι Έλληνες επιβάτες αεροπορικών πτήσεων από την Ελλάδα υποβάλλονται σε παράνομους ελέγχους στα γερμανικά και βελγικά αεροδρόμια. Την επιβολή γερμανικής καραντίνας κατά των ελλήνων επιβατών είχα καταγγείλει σ’ αυτήν εδώ την αίθουσα στις 15 Νοεμβρίου. Παρά ταύτα οι παράνομοι έλεγχοι των ελλήνων επιβατών όχι μόνο συνεχίζονται στα γερμανικά αεροδρόμια, αλλά επεκτάθηκαν και στο αεροδρόμιο των Βρυξελλών στις 4 Δεκεμβρίου, ζήτημα για το οποίο σάς υπέβαλα, κύριε Αβραμόπουλε, κατεπείγουσα γραπτή ερώτηση και αναμένω την απάντησή σας.

Επιπλέον, εδώ στο αεροδρόμιο του Στρασβούργου, όλοι οι επιβάτες Σένγκεν, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των ευρωβουλευτών, υποβάλλονται κατά την άφιξη και αναχώρησή τους σε διαβατηριακούς ελέγχους. Έτσι, ενώ η Γερμανία, το Βέλγιο, η Γαλλία και η Αυστρία δεν εφαρμόζουν τη Σένγκεν, τελικά αυτή εφαρμόζεται απ’ την Ελλάδα, με αποτέλεσμα η πατρίδα μας να έχει μετατραπεί σε μαγνήτη για τους χιλιάδες πρόσφυγες και παράνομους μετανάστες. Ενόψει όλων αυτών η Ελλάδα οφείλει εδώ και τώρα να αποχωρήσει από τη Σένγκεν. Το έχω ξαναπεί σ’ αυτήν εδώ την αίθουσα.


  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Domnul președinte, zilele astea se fac șapte ani de când avea loc ultima evaluare tehnică a dosarului României privitor la Schengen. Din vara lui 2011, Comisia și Parlamentul consideră că România e gata să între în zona de circulație liberă.

Tot de atunci, câteva guverne europene s-au opus acestei intrări. Argumentul a fost că securitatea zonei Schengen e afectată de felul defectuos în care funcționează statul de drept din România. Mecanismul de Cooperare și Verificare a devenit astfel cheia care trebuia să deschidă poarta Shengen. În ultimii cinci ani, guvernele de la București au avut trei atitudini referitoare la MCV.

Prima a fost subminarea directă a justiției, inclusiv a celei constituționale. Guvernul Ponta și majoritatea PSD-PNL au aruncat România, în vara lui 2012, într-o criză instituțională foarte gravă, adăugând noi criterii de îndeplinit în dosarul MCV. Ulterior, supărați că europenii așteptau o justiție independentă, premierul Ponta și ministru de externe Corlățean au zis că nu-i mai interesează Schengen-ul.

A doua atitudinea, a fost efortul de a îmbunătăți funcționarea justiției. E perioada scurtă, din păcate, în care premier a fost Dacian Cioloș.

În fine, de la începutul anului, asaltul împotriva domniei legii a fost reluat de guvernele Grindeanu și Tudose. Majoritatea PSD-ALDE vrea limitarea independenței magistraților și protejarea corupților. În ianuarie au folosit o ordonanță de urgență adoptată la miezul nopții. De câteva săptămâni au la îndemână o mașină de vot, bine unsă de corupți, de veleitari sau de deputați incompatibili. Cum criticii de acum 6 ani din alte state membre nu și-au schimbat opinia despre relația Schengen-MCV, câtă vreme nu va fi dreptate în România, nu va fi nici libertate deplină de mișcare pentru români.


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisario. Érase una vez un tiempo en que en la Unión Europea todas las instituciones —al hablar de Schengen— hablábamos la misma lengua, conscientes de que se trata, junto al modelo social europeo, del activo más preciado y más precioso de la construcción europea para quinientos millones de europeos.

Pero ese tiempo se ha encontrado ahora con un problema. Y el problema se llama Consejo, que no solamente ha suspendido la libre circulación de personas, el activo más preciado por los europeos —Schengen—, sino que amenaza con prorrogar la suspensión hasta 2020 y, sobre todo, excluye de esa libre circulación a dos Estados miembros de la Unión Europea que han hecho sus deberes, que han cumplido con todos los criterios técnicos. Y, por tanto, perpetra una grave injusticia contra Rumanía y Bulgaria y amenaza con hacer lo mismo con Croacia, impidiendo la libre circulación de personas a ciudadanos europeos que lo son de cuerpo entero y de pleno derecho.

El Grupo socialista les quiere decir a los rumanos y a los búlgaros que apoya plenamente su derecho de libre circulación y no quiere que los rumanos y los búlgaros, ni mañana los croatas, sean menos ciudadanos que otros en la Unión Europea y le dice, comisario, que la suspensión de Schengen deteriora la credibilidad de la Unión Europea como actor global y deteriora la consistencia del proyecto europeo ante los europeos. Y, por tanto, alimenta a esos enemigos rampantes que amenazan y acechan a la Unión Europea: el nacionalismo excluyente y el populismo.


  Емил Радев (PPE). – Г-н Председател, уважаеми г-н Комисар, дами и господа, десет години след присъединяването на България към Европейския съюз нашата страна ще поеме за първи път председателството на Съвета на ЕС и ще води Съюза в един важен момент за неговото развитие от гледна точка на промените в миграционната политика и Шенген. В същото време обаче България не е пълноправен член на Шенген, въпреки че прилага изцяло шенгенските актове, използва активно Шенгенската информационна система, получи пасивен достъп до визовата информационна система и е в обхвата на новосъздадената система за вход/изход.

Изпълнила всички технически критерии за влизане в Шенген – единствените критерии за присъединяване, България се е доказала като надежден партньор в охраната на външната европейска граница. Време е многократно получаваното признание на думи да бъде подкрепено с ясни и категорични политически действия от страна на европейските ни партньори.

В момент на нарастващ политически популизъм, традиционните партии, особено когато са управляващи, следва да проявят разум и да не се поддават на популистки похвати. Не следва да се потъпкват европейските правила и закони в името на печеленето на гласове. Не е и проява на солидарност, както и правно не е издържано, правилата за едни да бъдат променяни за други.

Затова призовавам държавите членки да вземат положително решение колкото се може по-скоро за присъединяването на България и Румъния в Шенген. Само така ще докажат, че думите им са подплатени с реални намерения в рамките на правила, които самите те са написали.


  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Ich bin in Oberösterreich aufgewachsen, in einer Region, die von Grenzen umgeben war, Schlagbäume und Stacheldraht engten meinen Horizont ein.

Diese Grenzen schützten uns nicht, sie hinderten uns, Kontakte aufzunehmen und schwächten unsere Region. Europa: Das war für meine Generation der Traum, ohne Grenzbalken zu leben. Schengen hat Europa verändert, hat die Menschen zusammengebracht und unseren Wohlstand gemehrt. Besonders Österreich hat davon profitiert.

Offene Grenzen sind ein wertvolles Gut. Sie setzen Vertrauen voraus, und mit diesem Vertrauen muss man sorgfältig umgehen. Aber wir dürfen deswegen nicht andere davon abhalten, in den Genuss eben dieser Freizügigkeit zu kommen. Vor allem, wenn sie – wie Rumänien und Bulgarien –alle Voraussetzungen erfüllen, und das schon seit sieben Jahren, wie das der Vorsitzende Moraes gerade eindrucksvoll erklärt hat. Das ist unfair und ungerecht, unklug noch dazu, und es zerstört das Vertrauen in das gemeinsame Europa.

Es ist höchste Zeit, endlich das zu tun, was man schon längst hätte tun sollen.


  Dimitris Avramopoulos, membre de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, je vous remercie pour vos interventions.

Je ne le répéterai jamais assez, mais l’espace Schengen est, pour moi, la plus grande réalisation de l’Union européenne, pour les citoyens surtout, et leurs droits en tant qu’Européens, mais aussi pour nos économies. Plus que cela, Schengen est un symbole de confiance entre les États membres. C’est un signe que les pays européens travaillent ensemble, vivent ensemble et non les uns contre les autres.

Si les défis migratoire et sécuritaire nécessitent que nous renforcions, adaptions, réformions l’espace Schengen, y faire face n’implique surtout pas de revenir en arrière. Les États membres doivent, au contraire, affronter ensemble ce défi commun, unis dans un espace Schengen plus fort. C’est pourquoi il est grand temps que la Bulgarie et la Roumanie, elles aussi, deviennent membres à part entière de l’espace Schengen et que la Croatie fasse de même dès qu’elle sera prête. La Bulgarie et la Roumanie ont démontré leur capacité à devenir membres à part entière de l’espace Schengen et devraient donc être en mesure d’y adhérer dans un avenir très proche.

L’avenir de l’espace Schengen réside dans le juste équilibre entre deux principes importants: la liberté de circulation et la nécessité de pouvoir faire face à d’importantes menaces à la sécurité. Ainsi, la réintroduction des contrôles aux frontières internes reste l’exception, je le répète, reste l’exception.

C’est pourquoi la Commission a présenté une proposition visant à modifier les codes frontières Schengen afin de maintenir précisément cet équilibre et d’assurer une approche coordonnée de l’Union européenne en matière de contrôles aux frontières intérieures. En contrepartie d’une possibilité plus longue de réintroduire le contrôle aux frontières internes, nous proposons de renforcer les procédures et le devoir de coopérer avec les États membres voisins. Je suis vraiment ravi de constater que la Bulgarie, qui assurera la prochaine présidence, est déterminée à faire avancer ces dossiers en priorité.

Maintenant, permettez-moi de parler pour quelques minutes en grec pour répondre aux préoccupations des membres grecs du Parlement.

Κύριε Πρόεδρε, είπα ακριβώς ότι θα μου επιτρέψετε να απαντήσω στα Ελληνικά σχετικά με τις ανησυχίες ελλήνων ευρωβουλευτών.

Είναι αλήθεια, κυρίες και κύριοι βουλευτές, ότι η Γερμανία έχει επιβάλει ηυξημένους ελέγχους στις πτήσεις από την Ελλάδα. Αλλά τόσο οι ελληνικές όσο και οι γερμανικές αρχές συνεργάζονται για την επίλυση του συγκεκριμένου ζητήματος και βέβαια με τη σειρά μου ενθαρρύνω τη συνέχιση αυτής της συνεργασίας. Βρισκόμαστε και εμείς σε επαφή με τις αρχές και των δύο χωρών. Όπως ενδεχομένως θυμόσαστε, με πρωτοβουλία της Επιτροπής πραγματοποιήθηκε τριμερής συνάντηση εμπειρογνωμόνων στις 22 Νοεμβρίου, δηλαδή της Ελλάδας, της Γερμανίας και της Επιτροπής. Η συνάντηση διευκόλυνε την εποικοδομητική ανταλλαγή απόψεων και τη συζήτηση σχετικά με τα πρακτικά ζητήματα για να περιοριστεί κυρίως η επιβάρυνση των επιβατών.

Δεν σας κρύβω ότι δέχθηκα με ικανοποίηση τις διαβεβαιώσεις που έδωσε η Γερμανία, σύμφωνα με τις οποίες οι έλεγχοι θα γίνονται πλέον μόνο στην πύλη εντός του χώρου αφίξεων Σένγκεν των γερμανικών αεροδρομίων. Οι έλεγχοι πρακτικά περιορίζονται στον έλεγχο της ταυτότητας και στην εγκυρότητα των ταξιδιωτικών εγγράφων. Μέχρι στιγμής δεν έχουμε λάβει καμία πληροφορία για το αντίθετο ούτε από τη γερμανική ούτε από την ελληνική πλευρά. Επίσης με ικανοποίηση δέχθηκα τη διευκρίνιση εκ μέρους των εκπροσώπων της Ελλάδας σχετικά με την ενίσχυση των υφιστάμενων ελέγχων στα ελληνικά αεροδρόμια. Θα συνεχίσουμε να συνεργαζόμαστε στενά και με εποικοδομητικό πάντα πνεύμα με τη Γερμανία και την Ελλάδα, για να επιλυθεί αυτό το ζήτημα.

Όσον αφορά στο Βέλγιο, οι βελγικές αρχές μάς ενημέρωσαν επίσημα ότι πραγματοποιούν μη συστηματικούς δηλαδή απλά σποραδικούς αστυνομικούς ελέγχους στο αεροδρόμιο των Βρυξελλών, στη βάση εκτιμήσεων κινδύνου, κι αυτό όχι μονάχα με πτήσεις που έρχονται από την Ελλάδα αλλά και από άλλες χώρες μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Το ίδιο πρέπει να σας πω κάνουν κατά καιρούς και οι ελληνικές αρχές, όταν ακριβώς υπάρχει μία εκτίμηση κινδύνου. Αυτό το δικαίωμα το έχουν όλες οι χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και κατά καιρούς το ασκούν όταν υπάρχει κάποια ειδοποίηση. Συνεπώς ήταν κάτι που συνέβη μια φορά· δεν έχει συμβεί ενδιάμεσα. Να σας πω ότι κι εγώ ταξιδεύω από την Ελλάδα στο Βέλγιο και δεν αισθάνθηκα ότι υπήρχε κάτι το ιδιαίτερο. Νομίζω ότι ήταν υπερβολική η αντίδραση αλλά σωστά, εν πάση περιπτώσει, έγινε, για να ξεκαθαρίσει και αυτό το θέμα.

Επιτρέψτε μου να σας θυμίσω ότι αυτοί οι αστυνομικοί έλεγχοι δεν γίνονται αυθαίρετα. Προβλέπονται από τον κώδικα συνόρων Σένγκεν και περί αυτού και μόνο πρόκειται. Ειδικά για τη Γαλλία, μιας και έγινε αναφορά πρωτύτερα, θα μου επιτρέψετε να θυμίσω ότι έχει επανεισαγάγει προσωρινούς συνοριακούς ελέγχους όπως και άλλες χώρες. Στην εισαγωγική μου ομιλία εξήγησα πώς έχει η κατάσταση.

Τώρα θα μου επιτρέψετε πάλι να αλλάξω και να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά, για να απαντήσω σε ερωτήσεις συναδέλφων σας.

I will turn to English to answer some of your questions. One of them was from Ms Fajon. Yes, six Member States are currently carrying out temporary internal border controls in line, as I said before, with the Schengen rules. I welcome that these Member States too share the goal of returning to an area without internal border controls. According to these Member States, the controls are being carried out in a targeted manner and strictly limited to safeguarding public policy or internal security, and the impact on free movement will be limited. The Commission is in close contact with them. My services are finalising the analysis of all letters received and, whenever further clarifications are needed, follow-up letters will be sent. As I said already, internal border controls are an exception used only as a measure of last resort.

It is important now that Member States make progress in the discussions on a proposal to update the Schengen Borders Code to be fit for the current context. Here I want to be crystal clear: the Commission’s objective is and will continue to be to preserve and strengthen the Schengen area as an area without controls at internal borders. I am glad to see that we here share the same objective.

I have also carefully listened to the strong message of Mr Moraes, Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). I would like to qualify him as a guardian of Schengen because he has been advocating and fighting for it from the very first moment. He has been expressing the full support of this House, through the LIBE Committee, for Bulgaria and Romania and Croatia to join Schengen as soon as possible.

Once more, I hope that the Council – because it is now up to the Council to take the final decision – will hear this double call from this room: the call of the Commission and the call of Parliament, and that we will all of us very soon be in the happy position of opening the doors of the European Union to our co-citizens, co-Europeans, of Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia.


  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, please be reassured that the Presidency has taken good note of all the comments that were made today on this subject, including that of Commissioner Avramopoulos at the end of the debate. I would like to reiterate the Council’s strong determination to carry on with our work until we reach our ultimate goal, which is the preservation and further development of Schengen, including via enlargement, which will be on the Council agenda in the coming months.




  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, nu este un „point of order”, este un răspuns, o declarație personală, pentru că numele meu a fost menționat de un coleg din Parlament, domnul deputat PSD Boștinaru și, potrivit Regulamentului de procedură, am dreptul să răspund.

Am fost întrebată de domnul Boștinaru dacă știu ce înseamnă Schengen, că a considerat că nu trebuie să îmi dea lecții și vreau să îi spun că da, știu ce înseamnă Schengen. Am fost raportor al Parlamentului pentru modificarea codului Schengen și am introdus România și Bulgaria între statele care trebuie să asigure frontiera externă a Uniunii Europene, cu drepturi și obligații egale față de celelalte state membre. Deci, am făcut un pas înainte, tocmai pentru aderarea țării mele și a Bulgariei la Schengen, pentru că în raportul inițial al Comisiei nu existau România și Bulgaria.

Dar ce a făcut acest guvern socialist și ALDE în România? Din cele peste 60 de milioane, fonduri alocate pentru componenta „frontieră și control frontiere”, au folosit până acuma sub 10 %. Nu au cumpărat niciun scanner pentru verificarea celor care intră și ies din Uniunea Europeană și pentru protejarea Uniunii împotriva terorismului (oratorul a fost întrerupt).


  Presidente. – Scusi onorevole, il regolamento Le dà facoltà di respingere le affermazioni che sono state fatte sul Suo conto, non di riaprire il dibattito. Quindi Lei ha smentito le dichiarazioni che Le attribuivano di non conoscere le questioni relative a Schengen e la questione può finire qui. La ringrazio, onorevole.

La discussione è chiusa.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)


  Marlene Mizzi (S&D), in writing. – The Schengen area is the largest free travel area in the world and the biggest achievement of the European Union. It has marked a significant step forward for the benefit of people travelling in the enlarged Schengen area with no internal border controls. Romania and Bulgaria have fulfilled all the necessary conditions and have made significant efforts to guarantee the security of the EU’s external borders. It is time to take the necessary steps to enable those countries to finally become full members of the Schengen area in order to make citizens’ lives easier and boost our economies.


  Marijana Petir (PPE), napisan. – Pristupanje schengenskom prostoru jedan je od strateških prioriteta Republike Hrvatske kojem se pristupa s velikom ozbiljnošću i predanošću jer hrvatska vanjska granica predstavlja najdužu vanjsku granicu EU-a.

Europska migracijska kriza te problem radikalizacije i vehabijskih naselja koja rastu s druge strane granice, u BiH, čine pitanje proširenja i nužnost ulaska Hrvatske u schengenski prostor neodgodivim i nužnim. Spomenuta naselja služe kao centri za zapošljavanje i osposobljavanje radikaliziranih članova koji su izravna prijetnja europskoj sigurnosti stoga je pojačana kontrola i međusobna suradnja i podrška s ostalim članicama Schengena važan element sigurnosti vanjske granice EU-a s BiH što će ujedno rezultirati i adekvatnim sankcioniranjem i sprečavanjem ilegalnih prelazaka vanjske granice.

Cilj Republike Hrvatske je ostvariti tehničku spremnost tijekom 2018. godine kako bi Vijeće najkasnije početkom 2019., a svakako prije kraja mandata sadašnje Europske komisije, moglo donijeti političku odluku o pristupanju Hrvatske schengenskom prostoru. To bi predstavljalo značajnu odluku i poslalo pozitivnu poruku koja bi išla u prilog ujedinjenoj i snažnoj Europi, jer samo je zajedničkim naporima moguće pružati adekvatnu zaštitu europskim građanima.

Ovim putem izražavam podršku ulasku Bugarske i Rumunjske u schengenski prostor te smatram kako je Europa bez granica jedini put prema jedinstvenoj i sigurnoj Europi.


  Kati Piri (S&D), schriftelijk. – Vandaag debatteren wij over het toelaten van Kroatië, Bulgarije en Roemenië tot het Schengengebied. Volgens de Commissie voldoen Bulgarije en Roemenië aan alle gestelde criteria. Als we het hebben over Schengen, hebben we het ook over grenzen. Afgelopen zomer hebben wij meer dan 200 klachten ontvangen over misstanden aan de grens in Bulgarije: lange wachttijden, het moeten betalen van smeergeld en onterechte boetes - het kwam allemaal voorbij. Uit eigen onderzoek is bovendien gebleken dat geen enkele grensambtenaar tot op heden is veroordeeld. Een groot struikelblok hierin vormt de integriteit. Men staat open voor smeergeld, maar is de stap naar georganiseerde misdaad dan niet snel gemaakt? Al met al betekent het dat Bulgarije na tien jaar lidmaatschap nog steeds niet aan de eisen voldoet en er ondanks alle EU-subsidies weinig vooruitgang wordt geboekt. Dat kan niet langer. Het wordt tijd dat het land de corruptie nu eens serieus gaat aanpakken en zich niet langer verschuilt achter schijnoplossingen.


  Csaba Sógor (PPE), írásban. – Azt gondolom, hogy a schengeni övezet kibővítését nem lehet tovább halogatni: a Bizottság már leszögezte, hogy Románia és Bulgária készen áll a csatlakozásra és ezek az országok és polgáraik évek óta várják a pozitív döntést az uniós belügyminiszterektől. A két ország igazságszolgáltatási rendszerének uniós monitorizálása semmilyen kapcsolatban nincs a schengeni csatlakozással, az európai jog megsértése, ha ezt a két dolgot összekötik. Megfontolhatná továbbá a Bizottság, hogy a monitoring–jelentéshez hasonló uniós mechanizmust az összeg tagállamra vezessen be, hiszen a tagállamok akkor fogják elfogadni ezt a fajta kontrollt, ha nem tesznek különbséget közöttük és nem érzik azt a kettős mérce megnyilvánulásának. Ezt a fajta monitoring-mechanizmust természetesen nagy körültekintéssel lehetne alkalmazni és működtetni, de ha valóban a polgárok Európájának kialakítását tűzzük ki célul, akkor az EU nem tehet mást.


  Claudia Țapardel (S&D), în scris. – În urma eforturilor depuse de România pentru a îndeplini criteriile de aderare la spațiul Schengen, este evident că țara noastră nu mai poate trăi din promisiuni deșarte și trebuie să facă parte din acest spațiu. Așa cum recunosc și Comisia Europeană și PE, de mai bine de șase ani, țara noastră îndeplinește toate criteriile tehnice. Mai mult chiar, România face parte deja și implementează sistemele instituite pentru a gestiona mai bine frontierele externe ale Uniunii, precum Sistemul de Informații Schengen sau Sistemul de Informații privind Vizele. Consider însă că acest statut ambiguu în care România este deopotrivă observator, dar și un participant de facto trebuie să înceteze.

Ar trebui, în schimb, să ne axăm pe consolidarea spațiului Schengen actual și a frontierelor sale externe și să punem mai mult accent pe solidaritate. Refuzul de a extinde spațiul Schengen în România trădează o lipsă de solidaritate și desconsideră angajamentele asumate. Aderarea la Schengen nu este un favor acordat României sau Bulgariei, ci o situație de normalitate și necesitate pentru Europa. Această permanentă amânare nu face altceva decât să aducă gustul amar al nedreptății și să erodeze popularitatea proiectului european și a principiului de egalitate între statele membre.


  Ivica Tolić (PPE), napisan. – Pristupanje schengenskom prostoru strateški je prioritet Hrvatske. Sve dok to ne postignemo, ne možemo govoriti o jednakopravnosti svih članica Europske unije.

Postupak evaluacije primjene schengenske pravne stečevine u Hrvatskoj se primjenjuje od srpnja 2014. godine. Europskoj komisiji predali smo izjavu o našoj spremnosti za evaluaciju te smo dostavili odgovore na 384 pitanja i prijevode svih relevantnih pravnih akata u kolovozu 2015. godine. Do sada su provedene evaluacije u 6 područja (zaštita podataka, zajednička vizna politika, upravljanje vanjskim granicama, povrat i ponovni prihvat, policijska suradnja i propisi o vatrenom oružju). Za sve uočene nedostatke i preporuke za korektivne mjere, Hrvatska je dostavila akcijske planove za otklanjanje nedostataka te je većina preporuka ispunjena. U okviru schengenskog instrumenta, Hrvatskoj je na raspolaganju bilo 120 milijuna eura, od čega je utrošeno 116,7 milijuna ili 97,33%. Naš cilj je ostvariti tehničku spremnost tijekom 2018. godine, kako bi Vijeće najkasnije početkom 2019. godine moglo donijeti političku odluku o pristupanju Hrvatske schengenskom prostoru.

U tom smislu, cijenjene kolegice i kolege očekujemo i vašu potporu, potporu Europskog parlamenta ovom realnom planu.


19. Provádění sociálního pilíře (rozprava)
Videozáznamy vystoupení

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulle dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione sull'attuazione del pilastro sociale (2017/2974(RSP)).


  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, to start with let me thank you for the opportunity to intervene here today on the European Pillar of Social Rights. The pillar has rightly attracted a very high level of attention.

On 17 November at the Social Summit for Fair Jobs and Growth in Gothenburg, our three institutions – the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission – proclaimed the 20 rights and principles of the social pillar. The purpose of the pillar is to serve as a guide towards more efficient social and employment outcomes while taking into due account different socio-economic environments and the diversity of national systems.

The tools for delivering on the pillar are in the hands of the Member States, the social partners, civil society and the EU institutions. We must respect national competences, as well as the diversity that exists in Europe. We must all do our utmost to make the pillar a reality for our citizens.

This is our shared political commitment and responsibility. The pillar sets the framework for various legislative and non-legislative initiatives, including the first legislative proposal on work-life balance, which is currently under discussion in the Parliament and in the Council.

The Council is also looking forward to working with you on the proposal to revise the Written Statement Directive. Further initiatives are included in the 2018 Commission Work Programme, more specifically the social fairness package with proposals on a European Labour Authority, access to social protection for atypical workers and a European social security number.

As far as the implementation of the pillar is concerned, another very important instrument is the European Semester for economic policy coordination. The European Pillar of Social Rights also ties in with the discussion on the social dimension of Europe taking place in the framework of the broader debate on the future of Europe.

During the Estonian Presidency, the Council adopted political commitments to reduce gender segregation in education and employment to facilitate independent living and to respond to the ongoing changes in the world of work. We also reached a general approach on the European accessibility act.

I would like to thank the European Parliament for its strong commitment to a more social Europe. Your strong impetus helped to make the social pillar happen. We all agree on these principles, it is now time to put our values into practice. We look forward to working together as co-legislators in an endeavour to promote the social dimension, hand-in-hand with further deepening of economic convergence, implementing and enforcing the single market in all its dimensions by June 2018, just as our Heads of State or Government have repeatedly called for.


  Marianne Thyssen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, on 17 November in Gothenburg, the three European political institutions proclaimed our European Pillar of Social Rights at the first social summit in 20 years. This proclamation is a unifying message to our citizens and to the world. In Europe, we share important social values and we stand ready to defend a shared vision for a fair society now and in the future.

The European Parliament had indeed a major role in shaping the Pillar, and I would like to thank the President of the Parliament, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL), the President of the EMPL Committee and the rapporteur Ms Rodrigues and the shadow rapporteur Mr Tom Vandenkendelaere and the shadow rapporteurs of the other groups for their steering role and political commitment to the Pillar ahead of the Gothenburg summit.

The Pillar is our chance to reconnect Europe with its citizens. As the Commission President rightly said, if we want to be credible, we have to deliver. The time has come to make sure that the Pillar’s rights and principles are effectively guiding our actions at European, national, regional and local level. The Pillar is essentially a joint endeavour. Its implementation should entail full respect of subsidiarity and the division of competences within the Union, as well as of the role of the social partners in delivering employment policies in Member States. This is the message that I have just sent to all Ministers, social partners and all the stakeholders.

I strongly encourage Member States to continue their efforts to make the Pillar a reality on the ground, in close cooperation with the social partners and the civil society at large. We, from our side, will make full use of the European Semester. The European Semester will be the key instrument to steer the process of social convergence every year, and we are starting now. The 2018 Annual Growth Survey already makes clear that the Semester will be key for delivering the Pillar. The joint employment report includes the new social scoreboard to monitor areas covered by the Pillar, such as the share of school leavers, the youth unemployment rate or the impact of social transfers on poverty reduction. The employment guidelines – as you know, the legal basis for the country specific recommendations – have been aligned with the principles of the Pillar. We will now bring this forward in our bilateral contacts with Member States within the framework of the Semester, where we will identify together the main challenges.

The Commission is already doing its part to translate the Pillar into concrete initiatives. We proposed an initiative on work-life balance, and I welcome the Estonian Presidency’s efforts to make progress on our proposal, and I count on you to deliver on this important file within the mandate of this Parliament. As the social partners could not agree to start negotiations for an autonomous social partner agreement, next week we will present a proposal on the revision of the Written Statement Directive. The aim of this proposal is to increase the rights for the most vulnerable workers. We want to ensure clarity for workers and employers on their contractual relationship, irrespective of the type of the contract. We are also working on a social fairness package, to be launched on 7 March 2018. This social fairness package will include a proposal for a European labour authority and one on a European social security number, to ensure that European Union rules on labour mobility are enforced in a fair, simple and effective way. It will also comprise an initiative on improving the access to social protection of people employed on non-standard contracts and in various forms of self-employment.

To achieve our aims, we also need a budget. The negotiations on the financial programming after 2020 are crucial. The European Pillar of Social Rights should be a compass to guide us also in these negotiations. We count on the support of the Parliament for working in this direction and to make the social dimension of Europe visible also in the next Multiannual Financial framework (MFF). We can only build a fair and a more social Europe by working together. Our common goal is to improve the life chances of every European. I count on you to help deliver on all our legislative initiatives that are implementing the Pillar, and I count on all Members of this House to be ambassadors of the Pillar, and to tell your constituents that the European Union stands up for the rights of its citizens.


  Tom Vandenkendelaere, namens de PPE-Fractie. – Op 17 november werd in Göteborg op de sociale top de Europese pijler voor sociale rechten ondertekend. Met die 20 principes wordt een basis gelegd om zowel op het Europese niveau als op het lidstaatniveau een aantal basisspelregels uit te werken. Tegelijk is er ook een sterk signaal gegeven dat het Europese verhaal niet enkel over de economie gaat, maar ook over het sociale, dat we op beide vlakken vooruit moeten gaan.

En dat is nodig. De opkomst van digitale platformen en de economische revolutie die ermee gepaard gaat, haalt alle vaststaande principes van onze arbeidsmarkt onderuit. Er ontstaan nieuwe vormen van werk. Oude jobs, zoals de man of de vrouw aan de kassa in de winkel, gaan op termijn verdwijnen en nieuwe jobs, zoals de Deliveroo- fietskoerier, komen in de plaats. Onze sociale zekerheid en ons arbeidsmarktbeleid moeten zich echt daaraan aanpassen. De kernvraag is daarbij eigenlijk heel erg simpel: wie zal die mensen beschermen? Mijn antwoord is duidelijk: dan moeten wij doen. Dat moet Europa doen en dat moet ook het Europees Parlement kunnen doen.

We moeten ons daarbij niet alleen concentreren op eerlijke concurrentie, zoals we doen bij het misbruik van gedetacheerde werknemers. We moeten ons ook afvragen wat de nieuwe arbeidsmarkt zal betekenen voor de Europese burger. Hoe zit het met de pensioenen, met sociale rechten, met de digitale geletterdheid? Dat is waar de sociale pijler ons de weg kan wijzen. Dat is precies de functie van de sociale pijler als kompas.

Ik sta achter de principes van die pijler: gelijke toegang tot de arbeidsmarkt, het recht op waardig ouder worden, het voorbereid zijn op digitale uitdagingen. Maar we moeten meer kunnen doen. We moeten het omzetten in praktische regels.


  Maria João Rodrigues, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Social Europe is back in European debates and political initiative, and the proclamation of the Social Pillar is indeed a very important moment to make sure that the roadmap for the future of the European Union will be guided by this ambition to update our social dimension to cope with the new challenges. This is the level of ambition we should bear in mind. And we should have a second ambition, which is to make sure that all European citizens, wherever they live or work, in all Member States, can count on a powerful upward social and economic convergence, because we are still dealing with many inequalities, and without stronger cohesion there is no future for the European project.

Now, after the proclamation, the time for delivery has come, and let me be precise on the expectations from the S&D Group. We are now really focused on making sure that all people in employment, whatever the kind of job, can count on two very important things. One is a transparent and decent labour contract. This is particularly important for young people. The second thing is full access to social protection throughout the life cycle, and we believe these are two key pieces to building a welfare system for the 21st century. So we are now expecting the Commission to table a legislative initiative on this, now that the social partners could not come to an agreement. But let me also say that we believe that updating social standards and social law is not enough. We need to redirect social policies and economic policies, and that is why the European Semester is so important, because the European Semester must become a powerful process to coordinate these policies for upward convergence.

We appreciate the package presented by the Commission. It moves in this direction, but let me tell you that the big test will come when Member States are confronted with big macro-social imbalances and we need to correct the situation.


  Ulrike Trebesius, im Namen der ECR-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Die Kompetenz für die europäischen Arbeitsmärkte liegt aus gutem Grund bei den Nationalstaaten. Jeder Nationalstaat ist selbst dafür verantwortlich, welche sozialen Wohltaten er sich leisten kann und was er finanziell eben nicht stemmen kann. In der Eurozone gibt es deshalb auch das Verbot der Haftungsübernahme. Jeder Nationalstaat muss für die sozialen Wohltaten geradestehen, die er sich nicht hätte leisten dürfen. Mit der sozialen Säule, der geplanten Schaffung einer europäischen Arbeitsbehörde im ersten Halbjahr 2018, der europäischen Sozialversicherungsnummer und diversen weiteren legislativen Initiativen wird versucht, Arbeitsmarktkompetenzen auf die Unionsebene zu ziehen. So wird man die Grundlagen der Europäischen Verträge verändern, weil mit der Verantwortung für die Politik auch die Verantwortung für die Kosten auf die europäische Ebene verlagert wird. So wird das Prinzip der Eigenverantwortung unterwandert.

Weiterhin möchte man die Konvergenz, die wirtschaftliche Angleichung der Mitgliedstaaten durchsetzen, und zwar insbesondere innerhalb der Eurozone. Dazu braucht man Transfers zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten. Soziale Rechte sollen zum Recht auf Transfers führen. Diese Transfers werden für Konvergenz von oben sorgen, also das genaue Gegenteil von dem erreichen, was den Menschen zu Beginn des Eurosystems versprochen worden ist. Die fiskalisch verantwortlichen Länder sollen ihren relativen Wohlstand, sofern man davon sprechen kann, mit allen teilen.

Die Säule der sozialen Rechte ist nicht bloß ein Katalog von Ideen für die Nutzung durch die Mitgliedstaaten. Zwar sind die Anliegen, die in 20 Prinzipien vorgetragen werden, nicht rechtlich bindend, und die Umsetzung soll in die Verantwortung der nationalen Regierungen übertragen werden, aber aus der Wortwahl, der Betonung „Rechte“ und „Prinzipien“ können von Gerichten, eventuell auch vom Europäischen Gerichtshof, abgeleitet werden, dass sich hieraus tatsächlich Ansprüche ergeben.

Der EuGH hat bereits in anderen Fällen auf politische Dokumente dieser Art zurückgegriffen, um die Aufteilung von Kompetenzen zu beurteilen. Die EKR steht der sozialen Säule aus den genannten Gründen skeptisch gegenüber. Ein erhebliches Arbeits- und Sozialmodell der EU lehnen wir ab. Subsidiarität und Eigenverantwortung sind unsere Prinzipien, und sie waren früher auch mal die Prinzipien der EU.


  Enrique Calvet Chambon, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, c’est toujours un plaisir de débattre avec vous, Madame le Commissaire, et d’avoir l’honneur de vous parler, mais je continue en espagnol.

Se puede decir que, afortunadamente, el año 2017 es el año de lo social en el Parlamento Europeo y en las instituciones europeas. Por fin se ha dado uno cuenta de que no éramos un gabinete de rescates financieros y de política financiera, sino un instrumento para hacer ciudadanía europea y lo social tiene que jugar un papel primordial en este momento.

También es el año en que, conjuntamente, nace la lucha para las desigualdades y también ocurre algo muy importante, que es la introducción en el Semestre Europeo del aspecto social, el valor social, la medida de las desigualdades y el intento de corregirlas. Pero claro, queremos resultados. Queremos algo tangible, así que está muy bien que usted ya tenga puestas unas cosas en marcha y, desde luego, no hace falta que pida que les ayudemos y acompañemos. Les vamos a acompañar para desarrollar activamente esto pero también les vamos a exigir.

Yo creo que sería bueno que se realizara una priorización de los temas a desarrollar y un plan de acción —en vez de una cosa por aquí y otra por allá por muy importante que sea cada cual—, y eso con la idea —seamos serios como políticos— de preparar una nueva convención en la que la dimensión social tendrá que estar mucho menos sometida a la barrera de la subsidiariedad. Acaba usted de escuchar ahora mismo de dónde vienen los problemas. También le diría que, por supuesto, nunca debe impedirse la libre circulación de las personas, ni impedirse la libre competencia mediante la fijación de precios administrativos a cualquier factor. Pero, dentro de eso, cree usted ciudadanos con nosotros a través de la política social, pero para eso hace falta financiación solidaria.


  Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin!

Eine kurze Replik auf Frau Trebesius: Ich weiß nicht, ob Sie mit der gleichen Selbstsicherheit und mit der gleichen Arroganz gegenüber Obdachlosen und Hunderttausenden von armen Menschen in der Europäischen Union argumentieren können, dass die Europäische Union nach wie vor eine Union sein soll, in der zuerst die Interessen der Banken und der Wirtschaft bedient werden und in der uns das Gemeinsame – der Zusammenhalt der Union – überhaupt nicht mehr interessiert.

Sie haben eben dafür plädiert, dass wir die Solidarität zwischen den Menschen aufkündigen, dass es uns völlig egal ist, ob in Griechenland, in Portugal, in vielen Ländern Osteuropas die Menschen die Chance haben, eine Zukunftsperspektive zu bekommen, und dass sie uns nicht genauso wichtig sind, wie die Menschen in unseren eigenen Ländern, für die wir kämpfen, um sie aus einer sozialen Not herauszubringen.

Insofern möchte ich nur einen Punkt ansprechen, weil ich denke, wir drehen uns im Moment noch im Kreise und die Katze beißt sich in den Schwanz. Wenn jetzt entschieden worden ist, dass es eine Überführung des Fiskalpakts in EU-Recht geben wird, bedeutet das aus meiner Sicht keine Besserung unserer Situation und der Widersprüche, in denen wir uns befinden.

Solange die Prioritäten nach wie vor auch im Europäischen Semester darauf gerichtet sind, die Schuldengrenze nicht zu überschreiten, Eingriffe in die Haushaltsführung vorzunehmen und Kürzungen, gerade auch bei Sozial-, Bildungs- und Gesundheitsausgaben, zuzulassen, werden wir immer wieder in einen Konflikt kommen. Ich unterstütze alle Bemühungen, die dazu dienen, dass wir die Systeme der sozialen Sicherung in den Mitgliedstaaten stärken. Aber das wäre eben auch möglich mit konkreter Unterstützung der Europäischen Union. Da brauchen wir keine Verträge zu brechen, da brauchen wir keine Subsidiarität zu brechen, sondern da müssen wir unsere gemeinsame Verantwortung wahrnehmen. In diesem Sinne unterstütze ich Sie.


  Philippe Lamberts, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, dans la définition et la mise en œuvre de ces politiques et actions, l’Union européenne prend en compte les exigences liées à la promotion d’un niveau d’emploi élevé, à la garantie d’une protection sociale adéquate, à la lutte contre l’exclusion sociale ainsi qu’à un niveau élevé d’éducation, de formation et de protection de la santé humaine. Tel est, chers collègues, le libellé de l’article 9 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne.

Dans cette perspective, nous nous réjouissons qu’enfin, le socle européen de droits sociaux ait été officiellement validé par les chefs d’État ou de gouvernement européens. Si l’ensemble des droits énoncés dans ce document – droit à l’égalité, droit à l’éducation et à la santé, droit à un travail et à des revenus décents, droit à la protection sociale – était réalisé dans les faits, l’Union européenne aurait fait des progrès immenses sur le chemin d’une prospérité partagée. Mais voilà, ce catalogue de droits n’est à ce stade qu’une déclaration d’intention, et on ne voit pas encore se dégager, au sein de l’espace politique européen, une majorité pour le transformer en législation contraignante, condition nécessaire à ce que ces objectifs soient réalisés.

On l’a bien vu avec la stratégie «UE 2020» qui nous donnait l’objectif de réduire de 20 millions le nombre de pauvres en Europe et, à trois ans du terme, c’est-à-dire 2020, on peut tout au plus espérer que ce chiffre, après avoir augmenté de 6 millions, revienne à son niveau de 2010. La situation est clairement catastrophique au sein de la zone euro.

Alors, les bien-pensants me diront que la meilleure manière de garantir les droits sociaux est l’emploi. La Commission se réjouissait récemment que le taux de chômage soit de retour à son niveau d’avant la crise, mais à quel prix? À celui des temps partiels contraints, voire des contrats à 0 heure, à celui des salaires inférieurs au seuil de pauvreté ou à celui des exclusions massives? Même la Banque centrale européenne le reconnaît: le taux de sous-emploi, deux fois supérieur à celui du chômage, est la seule vraie mesure du phénomène. Si le travail sortait les gens de la pauvreté, nous n’aurions pas en Europe 21 millions de travailleurs pauvres.

Le nœud du problème est que, dans leur choix de politique économique, les majorités au pouvoir dans les États membres et au niveau européen vont totalement au rebours des exigences du socle de droits sociaux. De quoi parlons-nous? D’une part, des règles budgétaires complètement contre—productives et, d’autre part, de la concurrence fiscale et sociale entre les États membres, le tout agrémenté d’un affaiblissement de la négociation collective dans les États membres et couronné par des traités de libre-échange favorables aux multinationales.

Tout cela ne peut résulter que dans deux choses: d’une part, la compression des dépenses et investissements publics absolument indispensables à la garantie des droits sociaux et, d’autre part, celle des salaires, des conditions de travail et de la protection sociale – je conclus, Monsieur le Président. Sans la remise en question de ces choix politiques, nous n’aurons aucune chance, chers collègues, de réaliser et de faire du socle européen de droits sociaux une réalité, et c’est ce que nous attendons.


  Laura Agea, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, signora Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, era il 2015 quando, proprio in quest'Aula, Juncker, il Presidente della Commissione, presentò l'idea della creazione del pilastro sociale.

E il 17 novembre di due anni dopo, quindi dopo lunghi tempi di gestazione, in grande spolvero, in gran pompa magna, presso Göteborg abbiamo finalizzato la creazione di un contenitore, nulla di più. Un bel vaso che oggi, però, abbiamo il dovere di riempire con proposte concrete e misure efficaci. Uno strumento sicuramente importante, che deve garantire la giustizia sociale, deve garantire una speranza per tutti quei cittadini che oggi, all'interno dell'Unione europea, vedono sempre più bistrattati i propri diritti e le proprie tutele, da quelli essenziali, come la casa, come il cibo, come il vestiario, a quelli salariali, a quelli occupazionali.

Noi oggi abbiamo un importante impegno da assumere, che è quello di far diventare uno strumento, una base, veramente uno strumento solido, un vaso riempito di proposte concrete. La Commissione probabilmente ci fornirà la proposta di alcune direttive; quelle devono essere la base per dare risposte concrete.

L'Europa ci chiede speranza, ha sete di speranza, ha sete di giustizia sociale. Ecco, io credo che cominciare a mettere nero su bianco proposte legislative che diano una dimensione vera al bisogno di speranza sia un impegno. Già il Parlamento si è espresso rispetto alla necessità di creare questo pilastro che punti alla convergenza verso l'alto. Il documento sul quale abbiamo lavorato con la collega Rodríguez è fondamentale, e non mi stancherò mai di dire che ritengo che lo strumento del reddito minimo garantito europeo sia uno strumento efficace, che possa permettere ai milioni di cittadini che vivono in povertà ed esclusione sociale di poter avere garantita una vita dignitosa.

Io credo che la convergenza verso l'alto si faccia pensando che le regole non si applicano per alcuni e si interpretano per altri. Onorevole Trebesius, io vengo da un paese che ha una visione, rispetto agli occhi del suo, non positiva. Eppure, che cosa vogliamo fare del surplus dalla Germania? Quando il suo paese deciderà di assumersi la responsabilità degli squilibri macroeconomici che ha determinato negli altri Stati? C'è bisogno di convergenza verso l'alto, sì, ma c'è bisogno di giustizia sociale. Quindi le regole devono valere per tutti, le rispetterà il mio paese, perché è giusto e necessario, ma è necessario che anche gli altri paesi, quelli che da anni e in mille modi diversi danneggiano certe economie, si assumano la responsabilità di mettere fine a certe pratiche e politiche che sicuramente danneggiano l'economia di altri, che purtroppo oggi vivono in condizioni di povertà ed esclusione sociale.

Non è una polemica nei suoi confronti, ma credo fermamente che la solidarietà sia un principio sulla base del quale è stato fondato il Parlamento europeo e debba essere rispettato.


  Auke Zijlstra, namens de ENF-Fractie. – De ministers van Sociale Zaken hebben 20 principes geaccordeerd als sociale pijler van de Europese Unie en dat zijn voornamelijk socialistische principes, die onbetaalbaar zijn en vrijheid ontnemen. Ingrijpen in de arbeidsmarkt, ingrijpen in loonontwikkeling, ingrijpen in ondernemerschap, ingrijpen in pensioenen, de vakbonden weer aan de macht. Nu mogen socialistische ministers socialistische idealen nastreven, maar dit is erger.

Het worden EU-principes en straks Europese waarden. Daarom is het geen onderdeel meer van onze nationale democratie, die soevereiniteit zijn wij kwijt. Met deze socialistische politiek als EU-wet, wordt het illegaal om nationaal nog andere politieke uitgangspunten na te streven. Het socialisme wordt de staatsgodsdienst. Ben ik nu de enige hier die de Europese Unie iedere dag een beetje enger vindt worden?


  Σωτήριος Ζαριανόπουλος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, με τον πυλώνα δήθεν κοινωνικών δικαιωμάτων η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ξεπερνά και τον εαυτό της στο να κάνει το μαύρο άσπρο. Ονομάζει εργασία την ευέλικτη απασχόληση, τη διαρκή περιπλάνηση από μερική εργασία σε ανεργία, ταφόπλακα δηλαδή στη μόνιμη σταθερή εργασία με δικαιώματα. Ονομάζει ισότητα των φύλων την ισοπέδωση ανδρών και γυναικών προς τα κάτω (βλέπε: αύξηση ηλικίας για τη συνταξιοδότηση των γυναικών), εργασιακή ασφάλεια τη διάλυση των συλλογικών συμβάσεων, δικαιωμάτων και ωραρίων με επιχειρησιακές ατομικές συμβάσεις, σύνδεση μισθού με τα κέρδη, όλο και φθηνότεροι εργαζόμενοι χάριν ανταγωνιστικότητας, με ενεργό γήρανση, συντάξεις ψίχουλα ως ατομική υπόθεση, ενώ διαλύεται η κοινωνική ασφάλιση υπέρ ιδιωτικών ασφαλιστικών και γίνονται εκβιασμοί για δουλειά έως θανάτου.

Κοινωνικός εταίρος σας και δεξί σας χέρι ο εργοδοτικός συνδικαλισμός είναι πυλώνας όχι δικαιωμάτων αλλά μοιράσματος φτώχειας και κοινωνικής βαρβαρότητας. Εσείς δεν μπορείτε χωρίς αυτήν, οι εργαζόμενοι δεν μπορούν με αυτήν. Αυτά χειροκροτεί η ικανότατη στις βρόμικες δουλειές κυβέρνηση ΣΥΡΙΖΑ-ΑΝΕΛ και φοβούμενη αντιδράσεις μεθοδεύει κατάργηση του απεργιακού δικαιώματος όπως και αλλού. Δεν θα της περάσει και δεν θα σας περάσει. Η εργατική τάξη θα νικήσει και θα ζήσει.


  David Casa (PPE). – Sur President, is-settur tal-impjiegi qed jinbidel b’mod rapidu u dan iġib miegħu numru ta’ kwistjonijiet illi għandhom bżonn l-attenzjoni tagħna u li għandhom jiġu indirizzati.

Irridu nirrealizzaw li ma teżistix soluzzjoni one size fits all għall-pajjiżi Ewropej kollha, għalkemm l-isfidi huma komuni. Pereżempju, sfida minnhom hija li kull ħaddiem u ħaddiema tiffaċċja kuljum huma l-isfidi tagħna u allura huwa dmir u dover tagħna wkoll li nassiguraw li jkollna pereżempju xogħol diċenti għaċ-ċittadini tagħna, b’aċċess faċli għall-iżvilupp u għall-ħiliet u taħriġ għall-immodernizzar tal-azjendi tagħna u ta’ dawk li jużawhom.

Bħala rapporteur, pereżempju, fuq id-Direttiva għall-bilanċ bejn ix-xogħol u l-ħajja – il-work-life balance, jiena nemmen li din id-Direttiva, għalkemm ambizzjuża ħafna, hija ottenibbli. Jiena nemmen illi, biex jinkiseb dan il-bilanċ bejn l-iżvilupp ekonomiku u l-bżonnijiet taċ-ċittadini, hemm bżonn ir-rieda tajba minn kull settur, minn kull azjenda, għaliex fl-aħħar mill-aħħar se jibbenefika minnha kulħadd.

Pilastru Ewropew, allura, tad-drittijiet soċjali se jerġa’ jpoġġi l-aspett soċjali u l-bżonnijiet tan-nies fuq quddiem nett tal-aġenda Ewropea. U allura nifhem li l-pajjiżi Membri lkoll għandhom ir-responsabilità, kif ukoll ir-rieda, biex jaħdmu id f’id magħna u mal-imsieħba soċjali biex nilħqu dawn il-miri.

Fl-aħħar nett, irrid nirringrazzja lix-shadow rapporteur Tom u lil Madame Rodrigues u lix-shadow rapporteurs l-oħra għax-xogħol utli ħafna li għamlu għalina lkoll f’dan il-Parlament.


  Agnes Jongerius (S&D). – De Europese pijler van sociale rechten is een belangrijk voorbeeld van de manier waarop de Europese Unie opkomt voor de rechten van haar burgers in een snel veranderende wereld, aldus voorzitter Juncker. En uiteraard is de sociale pijler een nieuw hoofdstuk in de sociale geschiedenis van Europa.

Toch maken ik en veel van mijn S&D-collega's in de Commissie EMPL zich zorgen over de vraag of de sociale pijler daadwerkelijk hét voorbeeld wordt om te laten zien dat Europa opkomt voor de rechten van haar burgers. De pijler zou moeten leiden tot een betere toegang tot sociale zekerheid voor allen, tot langer ouderschapsverlof en betere werkomstandigheden voor werknemers in de platformeconomie. Alleen, bij de plannen van de hervorming van de EMU wordt geen rekening gehouden met de pijler en in de gezamenlijke verklaring die morgen getekend wordt, wordt met geen woord gerept over de sociale pijler. Ook in het werkprogramma van de Commissie voor 2018 ligt er meer nadruk op economische voorstellen dan op sociale voorstellen, en dan praat ik nog niet over de competentiestrijd tussen de lidstaten en de Commissie.

U snapt ongetwijfeld mijn zorgen en de zorgen van veel van mijn collega's. Het wordt immers tijd dat er wel concrete maatregelen komen waar zoveel Europeanen naar snakken. De Europese Unie is nu nog te veel een markt en doet te weinig voor de mensen en dat moet na de top van Göteborg echt anders worden. Ik hoop dus dat we een einde maken aan de situatie waarin de Commissie naar de lidstaten wijst en vice versa, want ook de Commissie moet met voorstellen komen. En aan de Raad, aan mijn eigen premier Mark Rutte zeg ik: een handtekening in Göteborg is niet gratis, concrete voorstellen moeten er komen.


  Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Europejski filar praw socjalnych jest działaniem wzmacniającym społeczny wymiar Unii Europejskiej. To dobry kierunek, bo Europę stanowią jej obywatele, bo Europa to ludzie. Pragnę jednak podkreślić, że filar społeczny powinien być traktowany jak mapa drogowa. Tak więc dobrze, że ma on formę nielegislacyjną. Powinien on wspierać funkcjonowanie rynków pracy i systemów ochrony socjalnej, jednocześnie uwzględniając kompetencje krajowe i zasadę pomocniczości, bo to państwa członkowskie są odpowiedzialne za budowanie zasad i praw społecznych, a Unia Europejska może w tej materii służyć pomocą.

Chciałabym w tym miejscu zwrócić państwa uwagę na bardzo skuteczny program społeczny realizowany przez polski rząd. Dzięki wzrostowi wynagrodzeń, spadkowi bezrobocia, programowi 500+ według Eurostatu znaleźliśmy się na pierwszym miejscu wśród krajów unijnych w zwalczaniu ubóstwa. Warto nas naśladować.


  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Mr President, the EU is in the fifth year of the growth – economic recovery – 250 million more people are at work. So yes, it is time to fix the roof when the sun is shining. Some improvement of the necessary living and working conditions, gender equality, etc., is necessary. Nevertheless, Commissioner, I feel that a social pillar might be just partly about it. The bigger part is about minimising the extreme-right parties. We have realised that they are creating a problem in every single European country, making it impossible to form the government, spreading xenophobia, etc., which are serious problems, and therefore we started to fight them by closing the borders and starting to be protectionistic. I feel this is the wrong way to go. It might jeopardise growth, it might jeopardise openness and mobility, and it might end up by not minimising the extreme right. Then we have a double problem.

The social dimension is the right strategy if we want the EU to be something more than a single market, but do not let it be nationalism and protectionism. We need openness and growth, and we need to protect it.

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


  Bill Etheridge (EFDD), blue-card question. – I noticed in your speech, you were talking about this social chapter as being an important tool to be used against political parties in their own countries. Do you think that is the primary purpose of legislation and ideas coming out of Strasbourg and Brussels – to interfere with the democratic process and to combat parties that you personally don’t agree with?


  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE), blue-card answer. – Thank you very much for your question. As I said, the Social Pillar is necessary to fix the things that have not been fixed. Minimising the influence of extreme-right parties is not something that I will be sorry about, and if this is done, I will be happy. But the problem with that is, as I said, that we cannot let it be protectionism and nationalism by itself. We have to keep openness, we have to keep growth, and we have to fight for it.


  Κωνσταντίνα Κούνεβα (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Υπουργέ, κυρία Επίτροπε, συνάδελφοι, κοινωνικός πυλώνας! Εδώ και 2 χρόνια τον περιμένει το 99% των ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Ακόμα ρύθμιση της εφαρμογής του δεν βλέπουν. Για να μπορέσουμε να εφαρμόσουμε τον πυλώνα και να επιβάλουμε κυρώσεις όπου παραβιαστεί, χρειάζεται νομοθεσία, και στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και στα κράτη μέλη.

Πώς θα γίνει αυτό; Ποιος τρόπος θα βρεθεί για να δεσμεύσουμε τα κράτη μέλη, ώστε να εφαρμόσουν κοινωνικές πολιτικές με άξονα τον ευρωπαϊκό πυλώνα;

Κι ακόμα σας ερωτώ: Πώς εφαρμόζεται το άρθρο 9 της Συνθήκης; Πώς ελέγχονται οι ευρωπαϊκές πολιτικές με βάση τις κοινωνικές τους επιπτώσεις; Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, χρειάζεται να εφαρμόσουμε δεσμευτικούς κοινωνικούς δείκτες, για να υπάρξει ο πυλώνας.


  Terry Reintke (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Was vor 60 Jahren in Europa passiert ist, gleicht wirklich einem historischen Wunder.

Menschen, die sich kurz vorher noch auf dem Schlachtfeld begegnet sind, die sich eigentlich hassen sollten, haben sich zusammengerauft, und das Projekt „Europäische Einigung“ war geboren. Wenn wir die nächsten 60 Jahre dieses Projekt „Europäische Einigung“ weiterbauen wollen, dann müssen wir den gleichen Mut und die gleiche Vision beweisen, die die Menschen vor 60 Jahren hatten.

Ich glaube, dass ein sehr zentraler Punkt sein wird, ob wir es schaffen, mehr soziale Gerechtigkeit innerhalb der Europäischen Union zu erreichen. Die Säule sozialer Rechte ist ein erster wichtiger Schritt. Aber eigentlich müssten wir noch weiter gehen: Wir bräuchten ein rechtsverbindliches Dokument zu sozialen Rechten, die alle EU- Bürgerinnen und EU-Bürger genießen. Wir bräuchten mehr Gesetzesvorschläge, wie zum Beispiel eine Mindesteinkommensrichtlinie oder einen europaweiten Mindestlohn, um den Menschen wirklich zu zeigen, dass die Europäische Union ein sozialeres Gesicht bekommt.

Vor 60 Jahren ist etwas in die Verträge geschrieben worden: Nämlich die gleiche Bezahlung von Männern und Frauen. Heute sind wir immer noch so weit von diesem Ziel entfernt. Es wäre wirklich an der Zeit, dass die Kommission auch in diesem Bereich endlich gesetzlich etwas vorlegt.


  Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, the Social Pillar: yet more lefts talking about rights. A wonderful example of the superstate trying to control every aspect of our lives. Interference in every single way. Terms like ‘social protection’, ‘economic convergence’ – and it’s all tied in to the Single Market. Well, the Europhiles and faint hearts back in the UK, when they tell us about soft Brexit and staying in the Single Market, what they really mean is staying in this: having this kind of stuff imposed upon us and told what we can and cannot do. Control over our lives. No say for the national parliament. What this is about is no control of our personal working lives, no control over our businesses, no control of us over our society. The answer that must ring clear, certainly from the United Kingdom, to this – and I would urge all of our friends in Europe to say the same – is no, no, no. Only a true and clean Brexit for the United Kingdom will allow us a true, independent democracy. And we will then free the individual from the ever-growing, ever-grasping deepening clutches of this superstate.


  Dominique Bilde (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, on ne peut que soutenir, sur le principe, l’idée de normes sociales non négociables entre les pays européens. Il faut rappeler, en effet, qu’en dépit des promesses de prospérité et de plein emploi, l’Union européenne compte aujourd’hui 18 millions de chômeurs et 119 millions de personnes risquant l’exclusion sociale. En France, entre 2005 et 2015, c’est un million de nouveaux pauvres qui sont venus grossir les rangs des Français vivant sous le seuil de pauvreté. La situation ne fait que s’aggraver à mesure que l’instabilité grandissante du travail, au travers de ce que la Commission appelle pudiquement les «contrats atypiques», conduit à l’émergence de précariat comme nouvelle classe sociale. De fait, les travailleurs pauvres représentent désormais 9 % de la population active. Les incantations en faveur de normes sociales communes resteront cependant lettre morte, tant cette paupérisation générale résulte du nivellement par le bas entre États membres puisque les écarts salariaux vont de 1 à 10.

Signe que la Commission européenne n’a aucune intention de traiter le mal à la racine, la réforme du travailleur détaché a donné le ton en maintenant le rattachement du travailleur au système social de l’État d’origine, ce qui est la cause principale du dumping social. Une fois encore, Bruxelles déplore donc les effets dont elle chérit les causes en maintenant le cap d’une Europe du libre-échange, contraire à la volonté des peuples.


  Claude Rolin (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, vingt ans, il nous nous aura fallu vingt ans pour avoir un nouveau sommet social. Le dernier, c'était Luxembourg. C'est dire si Göteborg était attendu.

Certains se posent la question: est-ce que ce socle est autre chose qu'une opération de communication? Eh bien, je pense que cette question ne doit pas se poser, parce que nous n'avons pas le choix, nous n'avons pas le droit. Ce socle social doit représenter une fenêtre d'opportunités pour relancer l'idée d'une Europe sociale, mais ce ne sera possible que si les États membres font ce qu'ils doivent faire. Il est nécessaire qu'ils prennent leurs responsabilités. La construction européenne ne peut se poursuivre sans une véritable empreinte sociale. C'est pour cela qu'il faut mettre sur le même pied les enjeux économiques et les enjeux sociaux.

En ce début de législature, Jean-Claude Juncker a plaidé pour le triple A social. Eh bien, allons-y, il est plus que temps! Il faut une feuille de route claire et précise, avec des propositions législatives, avec des moyens qui y soient dédiés. Une première étape peut être certainement la mise en place et la réforme de la directive «déclaration écrite». Il faut aussi continuer à organiser la mobilité des travailleurs salariés, de la façon la plus équilibrée possible, et notamment travailler à la coordination des systèmes de sécurité sociale.

Mais aujourd'hui, trop de femmes, trop de jeunes, trop de travailleurs handicapés, trop de migrants, trop de personnes souffrent de la précarité. Il est indispensable d'avoir la collaboration des États pour que l'Union remette en place les mécanismes de coordination des politiques et des instruments financiers appropriés. Cela doit être une valeur ajoutée. L'Europe sociale, c’est une nécessité, c'est indispensable pour l'avenir de l'Union européenne.


  Javi López (S&D). – Señor presidente. Ahora que en la Unión Europea recobramos un moderado optimismo de la mano de la recuperación económica, después de haber pasado unos años de infarto, ha llegado la hora de hacer frente a las cicatrices, a las gravísimas y hondas cicatrices que han dejado tras de sí los años de la gran recesión. Cicatrices sociales que tienen sobre todo un patrón común: la desigualdad. La desigualdad entre países, la divergencia —cuando éramos una máquina para converger― y la desigualdad dentro de los países. Una desigualdad que ha generado bolsas de pobreza, de miedo, de incertidumbre, de resentimiento. Cosas que hemos visto cada vez que abríamos las urnas en el continente durante los últimos años.

Y es en este marco —en un tiempo de fracturas sociales— en el que las instituciones europeas hemos acordado un pilar europeo de derechos sociales. Un paso positivo, un paso en la buena dirección, un paso modesto —también hay que decirlo― que quiere establecer oportunidades, condiciones de trabajo y protección social. Que para nosotros es visto, para los socialistas, como el alma del proyecto europeo. Pero necesitamos que este alma cobre cuerpo, tome cuerpo en forma de normas vinculantes, políticas públicas, instrumentos y recursos necesarios para regular las condiciones laborales frente a la precarización y la devaluación salarial; para luchar contra la discriminación de género; para hacer frente a las bolsas de pobreza infantil que tenemos.

Y hacerlo todo ello también en el marco del Semestre Europeo, la verdadera maquinaria de coordinación de políticas económicas de la Unión. Por eso, a nosotros nos decepciona que la agenda legislativa de la Comisión aún sea pobre. Esto no puede convertirse en otra fuente de frustración para los ciudadanos. Tenemos en nuestra mano la oportunidad y la necesidad de recobrar la legitimidad de Europa y de pasar de ser vistos como una fría herramienta de la globalización a un cálido hogar que protege a los ciudadanos. Para eso es el pilar de derechos sociales.


  Czesław Hoc (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Europejski filar praw socjalnych obejmuje trzy kategorie celów i zadań, a mianowicie równe szanse i dostęp do zatrudnienia, uczciwe warunki pracy oraz ochronę socjalną i integrację społeczną. To dobra idea, to dobry dokument. Bardzo ważny jest fakt, iż dokument pozwala na zastosowanie różnorodności polityk społecznych poszczególnych krajów członkowskich. Jest on jedynie kierunkowskazem, a nie ujednoliconym obowiązkiem w kreowaniu standardów społecznych. Ten dokument to też swoista europejska odpowiedź na niekorzystne efekty globalizacji jako sprawiedliwe wyrównywanie dysproporcji. Zdecydowanie upominamy się w nim, by Europa stała się autentycznym ambasadorem i wzorcem wartości społecznych. Sprzeciwiamy się natomiast wszelkim próbom Komisji dążącym do unifikacji systemu zabezpieczenia społecznego w poszczególnych państwach członkowskich Unii Europejskiej.


  António Marinho e Pinto (ALDE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, o Pilar Social Europeu é a concretização histórica do espírito europeu, ou seja, dessa ambição de progresso, dessa vontade de fazer sempre mais e melhor, em suma: desse inconformismo constante perante as realizações da vida e da história.

O espírito europeu nasceu da Batalha de Salamina e na derrota do obscurantismo. Ele assenta na filosofia grega e no helenismo, no direito romano, no humanismo do Renascimento, na ilustração do Iluminismo e no triunfo do racionalismo científico sobre os mitos e a superstições.

Essa idiossincrasia dos europeus faz com que apenas 7% da população do mundo produza mais de 20% da riqueza mundial e gaste cerca de 50% de todas as despesas sociais do planeta, permitindo que a Europa tenha atingido, em paz, em liberdade e em democracia, níveis de bem-estar coletivos inigualáveis em nenhum outro lugar ou em qualquer outra época da história.

E será esse espírito europeu que muito em breve irá permitir, através da robotização da economia, libertar o homem dos aspetos opressores e alienantes do trabalho, transformando-o numa contribuição voluntária para o desenvolvimento económico, científico e cultural da humanidade.


  Rina Ronja Kari (GUE/NGL). – Hr. formand! Kære kolleger. Hvis I nu bliver arbejdsløse efter det næste valg, så kan I for eksempel komme til Danmark og arbejde i Rungsted til under 22 kr. i timen. Eller høste grøntsager i Tåsinge til 24 kr. i timen. For sagen er jo den, at arbejdere rundt omkring i EU bliver presset. Deres arbejdsvilkår er dårligere nu, end de har været i mange år. Det skyldes bl.a. EU's indre marked, som tillader arbejdsgiverne at rykke arbejdskraften rundt alt efter, hvor det lige passer dem. Og hvis de falder på stilladset eller kommer til skade, så skal de ikke vente meget hjælp, for de sociale nedskæringer, som følger af finanspagten og det europæiske semester, har trukket sikkerhedsnettet væk under langt de fleste.

Derfor klinger det også hult, når EU-eliten i sidste måned lancerede en social søjle, der skulle løse problemerne. For det europæiske semester og det indre marked er jo skrevet ind i EU's grundlæggende traktater og står over alt andet. Og så bliver "en social søjle" altså bare fine ord.

Og hvis der er noget, de ikke kan bruge på stilladserne og i gartneriet, så er det fine ord. Hvis vi vil sætte handling bag ordene, skal vi bryde traktaterne og sætte faglige og sociale rettigheder øverst.


  Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, las cicatrices de la austeridad son enormes: veinte millones de parados en la Unión Europea; el 25 % de la población en riesgo de pobreza; unos contratos cada vez más temporales, precarios; jóvenes con perspectivas de futuro muy dañadas... Y es evidente que tenemos en estos momentos un problema de opción política con las normas fiscales que hemos adoptado y un problema de articulación institucional que pone a nuestros sistemas sociales y fiscales en competencia.

Y ahora queremos hacer un pilar social, lo que es una buena idea, señora comisaria, pero nos preocupa qué hay detrás del pilar social. Nos ha anunciado hoy la revisión de la Directiva sobre la información por escrito, pero tengo que decirle que eso ya estaba previsto antes del pilar social. También el nuevo paquete de medidas de conciliación laboral y familiar, eso también estaba previsto por la retirada de la propuesta de Directiva sobre el permiso de maternidad. Con lo cual, novedades tenemos la agencia nueva del empleo y el número de seguridad social, algo importante pero limitado.

Le hago dos propuestas: una directiva sobre rentas mínimas y una directiva sobre salario mínimo. Seamos, por favor, un poco más ambiciosos.


  Nicolas Bay (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, au sommet social de Göteborg, le 17 novembre dernier, 20 points ou principes censés constituer ce socle social européen ont été adoptés. Les grandes et belles déclarations d’intention, c’est encore ce que les eurobéats savent faire de mieux.

Mais voyons, par exemple, la question du salaire minimum. Six États membres, et non des moindres, n’ont pas de salaire minimum fixé par la loi ou par un accord intersectoriel: le Danemark, l’Italie, Chypre, l’Autriche, la Finlande et la Suède. Et parmi les autres États, que de disparités! En France, le SMIC brut avoisine les 1 500 euros, comme aux Pays—Bas, en Belgique ou en Allemagne. Au Luxembourg, il est de pratiquement 2 000 euros, mais il est inférieur à 500 euros dans pas moins de neuf pays, descendant même à 275 euros en Roumanie. Comment ne pas croire que l’harmonisation aboutira à un nivellement par le bas?

Mais au-delà de ces disparités que l’on ne pourra faire disparaître à coup de baguette magique, le problème fondamental de tous vos catalogues de bonnes intentions, c’est l’absence totale de remise en cause. La Commission européenne prétend apporter des solutions à des problèmes dont elle est largement responsable: l’austérité budgétaire, la concurrence déloyale intra-européenne, avec notamment le détachement des travailleurs, une monnaie unique dont la rigidité et la gestion pénalisent les économies de beaucoup de nos pays et, bien sûr, la suppression des protections aux frontières.

Auparavant, on parlait de «pilier social», maintenant, c’est le «socle». La Commission cherche ainsi à donner une illusion de stabilité, mais l’Union européenne est – vous le savez – plus fragile que jamais.

Dans un entretien récent à un quotidien belge, vous disiez, Madame le Commissaire, que «nous voulons que la concurrence soit loyale». Vous reconnaissez donc qu’elle ne l’est pas! Mais ce n’est pas en signant tous azimuts des traités de libre-échange que vous allez y remédier.

Madame Thyssen, votre portefeuille comprend la «mobilité». Je sais bien que c’est un terme à la mode, un véritable impératif de l’idéologie ultralibérale. Mais force est de constater que le dogme de la libre circulation des capitaux, des biens et des personnes est en train, par ses excès, de ruiner nos pays.

Vous avez l’ambition d’adresser des recommandations aux États membres en matière sociale. Vous vous lamentiez récemment, à juste raison d’ailleurs, sur la baisse de la natalité en Europe, et M. Juncker ne manque jamais une occasion d’encourager l’immigration comme une fausse réponse à ce problème. Vous devriez plutôt suggérer des mesures sociales et fiscales d’incitation à la natalité que nos nations pourraient ensuite mettre en œuvre.


  Helga Stevens (ECR). – Ja, we moeten er in Europa met z'n allen samen op vooruitgaan, daar mag geen twijfel over bestaan. En ja, daar moet de EU werk van maken. We hebben een sociaal rechtvaardig Europa nodig en een sociale pijler zou daarbij een grote stap in de juiste richting kunnen zijn. De lidstaten moeten door Europa wordt ondersteund en aangemoedigd om sociale vooruitgang te boeken. Dergelijke Europese sociale initiatieven steun ik ten volle.

Maar - en er is een belangrijke maar - de pijler mag geen excuus zijn voor een steeds verder gaande Europese bevoegdheidsuitbreiding in strijd met wat de lidstaten in de verdragen overeenkwamen. Subsidiariteit en proportionaliteit zijn erg belangrijke beginselen. Deze zorgen ervoor dat sociaal beleid aangepast is aan de behoeften van de burgers. Een one size fits all-aanpak in sociaal beleid leidt simpelweg tot een one size fits none-resultaat. Dit besef zou echt moeten doordringen en ik betreur dat dit in de huidige concrete voorstellen met betrekking tot de sociale pijler niet of onvoldoende aanwezig is.


  Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, la utilidad del pilar social no va a medirse en proclamaciones grandilocuentes vacías de contenido, sino en su implementación efectiva, y sí va a contribuir a mejorar las condiciones laborales y de vida de los trabajadores. Le hacemos varias propuestas desde el Parlamento.

La primera, que escuchen precisamente la propuesta legislativa de los sindicatos, empezando por la reforma de la Directiva de la declaración escrita, para que se reconozcan explícitamente las condiciones de empleo de todos los trabajadores. Tienen que impulsar una Directiva marco de rentas mínimas, llevar a cabo inspecciones y controles que acaben con los falsos autónomos y también con las empresas buzón en el mercado único. Propuestas concretas que llevamos tiempo reclamando y que no pueden demorarse a la próxima legislatura.

El Consejo y la Comisión han de asegurar que los derechos reconocidos en el pilar social, el derecho a un salario decente, a un trabajo digno, a la negociación colectiva, a la protección social, sean interpretados por analogía con los derechos ya reconocidos en la Carta Social Europea, haciéndolos vinculantes y unificando de una vez la normativa internacional de derechos sociales con el acervo europeo.


  Ádám Kósa (PPE). – Elnök Úr! Üdvözlöm, hogy az Európai Unió a szociális jogokkal kapcsolatos alapelveit pontokba szedte, és deklarálta. Nekem meggyőződésem, hogy a hatékony és sikeres gazdaságpolitikának mindig meg kell előznie a szociális politikát. Akkor lesz fenntartható az állampolgárok szociális védelme, hogyha annak megvan a gazdasági fedezete.

Ha van fenntartható és nem hitelre építkező gazdasági növekedés, és munkahelyteremtés, akkor lehet költeni szociális célokra és így az emberek jobban fognak élni. Ugyanez igaz a fogyatékossággal élő személyek esetében is. Évek óta hangsúlyozom, hogy rájuk is alapvetően munkavállalóként kell gondolni. Magyarország ezen a területen jó úton jár 2010 óta, és az eredmények önmagukért beszélnek.

Kereken négy százalék a munkanélküliség, a foglalkoztatottak száma pedig a rendszerváltás, 1989 óta a legmagasabb, 4.445.000 fő dolgozik jelenleg, vagyis 775 ezerrel több, mint 2010-ben. Tehát a munkaképes korú felnőttek közül 68,7 százalék dolgozik, tehát 3,5 százalékkal több, mint például Franciaországban. De a munka nem ért véget, továbbra is mindent meg kell tennünk az állampolgárainkért.


  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – Taip, mieli kolegos, mes iš tikrųjų turime socialinių teisių ramstį ir dvidešimt principų, kurie nusako socialinės Europos ateitį ir esmę. Ir iš tikrųjų labai sveikinu, kad pagaliau mes suvokiame, jog Europos Sąjunga neturi ateities, jeigu mes neinvestuosime į žmonių gyvenimą, į savo socialinę politiką. Aš iš tikrųjų labai dėkoju komisarei Marianne Thyssen ir komisarei Věra Jourová už tai, kad pateikė Darbo, šeimos ir asmeninio gyvenimo suderinimo direktyvos projektą. Tačiau kartu kreipiuosi ir į pirmininkaujančią valstybę ir į valstybes nares, kodėl nematau aštuonioliktų metų deklaracijos prioritetuose Darbo ir asmeniniu gyvenimo direktyvos suderinimo, nejaugi nebus pasiekta bendro sutarimo tam, kad šita direktyva įsigaliotų, būtų priimta ir kad žmonės realiai pajustų pasikeitimą. Juk iš tikrųjų būtina, kad ir tėčio atostogos, vaiko priežiūros atostogos, sergančių šeimos narių atostogos būtų iš dalies apmokamos, bent jau taip kai pasiūlė Komisija. Todėl labai raginu valstybes nares, pirmininkaujančią valstybę, būsimas pirminkaujančias valstybės į tai labai rimtai atkreipti dėmesį, nes to būtinai reikia mūsų senstančioje Europoje, įvertinant demografinę situaciją.

Ir kreipiuosi kartu į ir komisarę Marianne Thyssen, mes, socialdemokratai, ne kartą esame sakę, kad būtina ištraukti apie dvidešimt milijonų vaikų iš skurdo, kurie gyvena turtingoje Europos Sąjungos šeimoje, taigi kaip niekad yra reikalinga Europinė vaikų garantija. Aš manau, kad tai būtų labai geras rezultatas, jeigu tokią garantiją mes turėtume įgyvendindami būtent socialinių teisių ramstį.


  Anders Primdahl Vistisen (ECR). – Hr. formand! Velfærdsturisme og social dumping har været nogle af de grundsten, vi har set, efter at EU er begyndt at blande sig i landenes socialpolitik. SU og børnepenge, der for eksempel sendes ud af et land som Danmark og sendes til særligt de central- og østeuropæiske lande, er konsekvensen af den indblanding, som EU allerede har gjort i landenes socialsystemer. Med den sociale søjle får vi endnu en rambuk ind i de nationale velfærdsordninger. Jeg er sikker på, at EU-Domstolen vil bruge det nye charter til endnu en gang at udvide den indblanding, som EU allerede uretmæssigt foretager i landenes økonomiske politikker og i den sociale politik, og der kan der kun lyde et klart og rungende NEJ til, at EU skal bevæge sig endnu længere ind i velfærdsstaternes maskinrum. Særligt fordi vi i Europa har valgt at organisere os på 28 forskellige måder, og derfor er det kun rimeligt, at de skatteydere, som findes i de forskellige lande, betaler for deres egne statsborgere og ikke for hele Europa.


  João Pimenta Lopes (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, os vinte princípios enumerados no dito Pilar Social configuram um embuste, uma tentativa de branqueamento das políticas da União Europeia e de propagação da ideia de compatibilidade entre direitos laborais e sociais e políticas que objetivamente os limitam ou negam.

A justiça social é indissociável da política económica. Uma Europa verdadeiramente social não é compatível com as políticas do euro, da união bancária, da governação económica, do semestre europeu, da militarização, da securitarização, do ataque constante à soberania e ao desenvolvimento dos povos.

O Pilar é um exercício de intenções contrariadas por aquelas políticas, e vazias de medidas concretas, que promovam o efetivo combate aos graves problemas sociais existentes. Uma Europa verdadeiramente social só é possível enformada na intransigente defesa do trabalho com direitos, da contratação coletiva, no aumento real de salários, numa justa redistribuição da riqueza e justiça fiscal, na proteção social suportada em serviços públicos universais e de qualidade, no acesso universal e gratuito à saúde e à educação.

Não é compatível com as políticas da União Europeia ou com os interesses que protege.


  Verónica Lope Fontagné (PPE). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, en las últimas fechas he tenido la oportunidad de reunirme con entidades que luchan contra la pobreza extrema y, pese a que consideran que el pilar social es un paso muy importante, lo valoran como una mezcla entre esperanza y escepticismo.

Es cierto que la firma en Gotemburgo pone de manifiesto la voluntad política de las instituciones europeas y de los Estados miembros de avanzar hacia una Unión Europea más justa y más equitativa, pero, señora comisaria, hemos generado unas expectativas muy elevadas y mi preocupación es que no lleguemos a colmarlas. La ratificación es una muestra del compromiso político de todos los Estados miembros de priorizar los aspectos sociales en sus políticas. Compromiso que hay que plasmar y que necesita de la responsabilidad conjunta de todas las instituciones, incluidos los interlocutores sociales.

Muchos países europeos ya tienen ayudas sociales, pero si finalmente no podemos contar con un mayor presupuesto de la Unión, como sería lo deseable, tenemos que conseguir una mejor ordenación de las ayudas existentes para que sean verdaderamente efectivas y lleguen a los ciudadanos más excluidos. Y para ello, señora comisaria, necesitamos contar con el apoyo y la participación de las ONG que trabajan con los más vulnerables, así como de las personas que viven en situación de pobreza, ya que su conocimiento es clave para que las políticas dirigidas a ellas sean las más apropiadas.


  Georgi Pirinski (S&D). – Mr President, on 17 November the Presidents of Parliament, Council and Commission personally and solemnly proclaimed the European Pillar of Social Rights. Its articles state that delivering on the Pillar is a shared political commitment and responsibility, while for the proclaimed principles and rights to be legally enforceable, they first require dedicated measures and legislation.

It now seems, however, that the Commission considers this to commit principally the Member States. President Juncker, in co-presenting the way forward on 28 November, stated that: ‘You can be sure that the European Commission will continue to play a strong role in this endeavour’ [How?], ‘notably through the country—specific recommendations in the European semester process’. But this is woefully inadequate. The joint declaration on the EU’s 2018-19 legislative priorities just being adopted mentions only at the very end – and almost as an afterthought – that progress is also needed on social protection and social rights, referring to the 20 Pillar principles. More, the social fairness package promised by the Commission as a concrete follow—up on the Pillar, has totally disappeared. This sort of delivery has shown the whole Pillar exercise to be no more than a feeble excuse for further aggravating austerity, including by injecting the so-called fiscal pact into the Treaties, thus in actual practice delivering another severe blow to social Europe. Do not deceive yourselves. The people will not fail to notice.


  Richard Sulík (ECR). – Pán predsedajúci, právo na celoživotné vzdelávanie či právo na personalizovanú ochranu v prípade nezamestnanosti nie sú žiadne práva, ale nároky. Rozdiel medzi právom a nárokom je ten, že právo, napríklad právo na slobodu prejavu, nič nestojí. Zatiaľ čo nároky stoja miliardy a miliardy eur. Toto nie je nič nové. Populisti v celej Európe roky rokúce pred voľbami sľubovali, a po voľbách garantovali, nároky, ktoré dnes spôsobujú obrovské dlhy. Najlepšie to vidieť na Grécku. Populisti sľúbili stomesačné odstupné a obrovské dôchodky, množstvo práv, teda v skutočnosti nárokov, a dostali tak Grécko do bankrotu. Ale aj Španielsko, Taliansko, Portugalsko, Francúzsko ženú verejný dlh od jedného rekordu k druhému, lebo populistickí politici ľuďom nasľubovali veci, ktoré nemá kto zaplatiť. A práve v Grécku vidieť, ako ťažko sa ľudia vzdávajú svojich práv a ako sú ochotní ísť do ulíc. Preto odporúčam Európskej komisii nehnať Európu do socializmu a do bankrotu.


  Tania González Peñas (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, por primera vez en diez años la Comisión Europea recupera la palabra social y esto nos alegra si eso significa que por fin se da cuenta de que las recetas de desmantelamiento del Estado social solamente han generado más pobreza, más precariedad y más desigualdad.

Entre las propuestas de este pilar social hay avances positivos como la propuesta de Directiva sobre la conciliación que, no obstante, debe sufrir cambios importantes si queremos que realmente sea eficaz para la lucha por la igualdad en el mercado laboral y no perpetuar el reparto de género en los cuidados.

Sin embargo, la mayor parte de los nuevos derechos sociales que se mencionan no son tan nuevos porque ya están recogidos en la Carta Social Europea y las nuevas propuestas legislativas son en su mayor parte directivas que necesitaban ser reformadas.

Europa debe hablar de por qué los salarios siguen siendo tan bajos, por qué no deja de crecer la desigualdad, por qué apenas se crea empleo de calidad y por qué cada vez hay más exclusión social. Mientras no demos un giro de 180 grados en las políticas económicas y sociales de esta Unión, estaremos hablando de un pilar social absolutamente vacío.


  Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Rozwój społeczny i poprawa warunków życia i pracy są nierozerwalnie związane z rozwojem gospodarczym. Zrównoważony i trwały wzrost może zostać osiągnięty dzięki połączeniu polityki wspierającej inwestycje i pobudzającej zatrudnienie przy jednoczesnym wspieraniu inicjatyw wzmacniających spójność społeczną i wyrównujących różnice między regionami. Dlatego też uważam za słuszne włączenie europejskiego filaru praw socjalnych w proces zarządzania gospodarczego w ramach europejskiego semestru. Pozwoli to na lepsze monitorowanie realizacji założeń filaru i da jasny sygnał krajom członkowskim, że aspekty społeczne i zatrudnieniowe są nierozerwalnie związane z zarządzaniem gospodarczym. Najnowsze sprawozdanie dotyczące rocznej analizy wzrostu wskazuje na pozytywne trendy, spadek bezrobocia i ograniczenie ubóstwa. Gospodarka europejska wróciła na ścieżkę wzrostu i to dobry moment, aby skoncentrować się na zwiększeniu inwestycji i wydajności, za czym musi iść wzrost zarobków i poprawa warunków pracy. W tym obszarze zadaniem Unii jest przede wszystkim wspieranie państw członkowskich w reformach pobudzających wzrost i zwiększających włączenie społeczne, gdyż to głównie na nich spoczywa odpowiedzialność za realizację zobowiązań filaru.

Mam też nadzieję, że w działaniach na poziomie unijnym Komisja bazować będzie na sprawdzonych instrumentach jak chociażby Europejski Fundusz Społeczny, który dysponuje prawie jedną czwartą całości finansowania w ramach funduszy strukturalnych i inwestycyjnych Unii Europejskiej. Ważne jest także, aby przyśpieszyć prace nad europejskim programem na rzecz umiejętności.


  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin! Das soziale Europa wird gern in Sonntagsreden beschworen. Jetzt geht es aber darum, wirkliche Ergebnisse zu liefern. Wir dürfen nicht mehr zuschauen, wie in Europa die Verteilung des Wohlstands immer weiter auseinanderfällt, wir dürfen nicht zuschauen, wenn in ganz Europa das Arbeitsrecht mit Füßen getreten wird, wenn wir uns beispielsweise die neuen sozialen Rückschrittspläne in Österreich anschauen – ganz neu der unsägliche 12-Stunden-Arbeitstag –, und wir dürfen auch nicht zuschauen, wenn die Bürgerinnen und Bürger ihren Glauben an den Traum von einem Europa verlieren, in dem alle vom Wohlstand profitieren und es unseren Kindern einmal besser geht. Uns werden weder Nationen noch wundersame Kräfte des Marktes retten. Deswegen müssen wir uns selbst retten und jetzt handeln.

Der Sozialgipfel in Göteborg war nur der Auftakt. Soziale Mindeststandards müssen zwingend für alle Mitgliedstaaten gelten, denn nur mit sozialen Mindeststandards, mit Mindesteinkommensschemen und einer Unterbindung von Lohn- und Sozialdumping können wir das Ost-West-Gefälle sowie das Nord-Süd-Gefälle überwinden.




  Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Mr President, I think this is a very important element of European legislation and European policy, and it shows that Europe is leading the way towards a modern social economy. We need a pillar of social rights for a social market economy to be successful and competitive, now and in the future as well, and that the living and working conditions in Europe converge for the better for all.

The world of work and our societies are changing fast with globalisation, digitalisation and changing work patterns, and also with communications. We have plenty of opportunities but we also have challenges, and we need to shape these developments and to make very good use of them.

Most of all, I think we need to make sure that economic and social developments go hand in hand and that Europe continues to be a world-class place to live and to work. The proclamation of social rights by the social partners is very much welcome. I also think the social scoreboards are very welcome, because we know there is a wide divergence between Member States when it comes to social rights, yet we must respect individual States to make decisions for themselves. I think it is very important that we set standards and lead by example and, indeed, set minimum rates.

When we look at maternity leave, the highest amount is over 50 weeks, and yet in some countries paternity leave is not yet legislated for. I believe issues such as this, and the work-life balance, are extremely important, particularly from a female point of view. Paternity leave, work-life balance: they encourage women to participate in the workplace, to participate in education, and all in all, increasing the social content and the social progress of our European states.


  Joachim Schuster (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Schon der ehemalige Kommissionspräsident Jacques Delors wusste: Kein Mensch verliebt sich in einen Binnenmarkt. Wer will, dass die EU Rückhalt in der Bevölkerung erlangt, muss deutlich machen können, dass Europa den Menschen nützt, die Lebenssituation der Menschen verbessert und nicht verschlechtert. Das ist in den letzten Jahren leider nicht immer gelungen. Viele Menschen verbinden die EU vor allem mit der Anpassung an eine Globalisierung, die nur wenigen nützt und vielen Regionen und Menschen schadet. Das ist übrigens auch eine Ursache für den wachsenden Nationalismus, der allerdings leider völlig perspektivlos ist. Deshalb ist die neue Diskussion über die soziale Dimension Europas so wichtig.

Aber warme Worte reichen nicht. Wir brauchen konkrete europäische Maßnahmen und Gesetze, etwa eine Entsenderichtlinie, die vor innereuropäischem Lohndumping und Sozialdumping wirkungsvoll schützt, etwa eine europäische Kindergarantie, die allen Kindern den Zugang zu kostenloser Bildung, zu Krankenversorgung und zu angemessenem Wohnraum garantiert. Aber wir brauchen auch eine andere Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik, die endlich die Bekämpfung der Arbeitslosigkeit, vor allen Dingen der Jugendarbeitslosigkeit, in den Mittelpunkt stellt. Den schönen Sonntagsreden müssen endlich Gesetzesinitiativen und veränderte Taten folgen.


  Anne Sander (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, en cette fin d'année, il est de tradition de regarder dans le rétroviseur afin de faire un bilan des mois écoulés.

2017 fut l’année des avancées de l'Europe sociale, en particulier avec la proclamation du socle européen des droits sociaux. Ces efforts doivent absolument se poursuivre, tant les chantiers qui se présentent à nous restent nombreux: coordination des régimes de sécurité sociale, finalisation des travaux sur les travailleurs détachés, équilibre entre vie professionnelle et vie privée et, bien évidemment, tous les enjeux qui entourent la numérisation.

L'avènement du numérique va faire émerger des formes d'emplois nouvelles et très diverses, nécessitant de développer les compétences des travailleurs et, en cela, l'enseignement, la formation professionnelle, l'apprentissage, l'accès à une éducation tout au long de la vie, axée sur de nouvelles compétences, qui suivent le rythme des évolutions technologiques, sont indispensables. La numérisation de la société et du monde du travail entraîne une multiplication des formes d'emploi qui sont très diverses et pour lesquelles nous manquons aujourd'hui de clarté juridique. Quel contrat de travail offrir à ces travailleurs? Quelle couverture sociale leur assurer? Il faut donc veiller à ce que les règles du travail traditionnelles s'appliquent aussi à ces salariés. C'est tout l'enjeu pour la construction de l'Union européenne.


  Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, komissaari ja kollegat, viime viikolla kotimaani Suomi täytti sata vuotta. Suomen tarina on nousutarina. Yhdestä Euroopan köyhimmästä maasta kasvoi vuosikymmenissä yksi tasa-arvoisimmista ja vauraimmista maista. Keskeinen tekijä tässä on ollut tasa-arvoiset sosiaaliset mahdollisuudet: neuvola, maksuton koulutus, julkinen terveydenhuolto sekä työntekijöiden järjestäytyminen ja suojelu. Kaikki ovat mukana kehityksessä.

Nyt omasta maastani on tullut oikeistohallituksen myötä maa, joka pelkää EU:n minimistandardien asettamista, ylöspäin suuntautuvaa koheesiota ja yhteistyötä parhaiden käytäntöjen jakamisessa. Valitettavasti Suomi ei ole neuvostossa yksin. Milloin me eurooppalaiset aloimme pelätä ihmisten elinolojen parantamista?

Sosiaaliset investoinnit ovat taloudellisen kasvun lähde. EU tarvitsee vahvan sosiaalisen sitovan pilarin, koska moni eurooppalainen ei enää tunnista EU:ta oikeuksiensa puolustajaksi. Jo nykyisin voimassa oleva EU:n perusoikeuskirja ja sen myötä eurooppalaisten oikeudet ovat jääneet muiden politiikkojen jalkoihin. Toivottavasti Göteborgin huippukokous oli uusi alku.


  Othmar Karas (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin Marianne Thyssen! Außerhalb dieses Raumes wird soeben vom Abgeordneten Paul Rübig und anderen österreichischen Abgeordneten das Friedenslicht aus Bethlehem dem Europäischen Parlament übergeben.

Hier im Plenarsaal debattieren wir mit der zuständigen Kommissarin über die Umsetzung der sozialen Säule in der Europäischen Union. Beides gehört zusammen. Der soziale und wirtschaftliche Zusammenhalt ist eine ganz wesentliche Voraussetzung für den Frieden in Europa. Ein gerechteres Europa, ein wettbewerbsfähigeres Europa und die Stärkung seiner sozialen Dimension gehören zu unseren gemeinsamen wichtigsten Prioritäten. In Göteborg wurde uns – man könnte es so sagen –ein großes Packerl von der Kommission übergeben.

In diesem Packerl ist ein Baukasten, den wir jetzt mit den Mitgliedstaaten und im Parlament zusammensetzen müssen, den wir umsetzen müssen. Wir haben es schon erreicht, dass die soziale Marktwirtschaft die Nachhaltigkeit, das europäische Ordnungsmodell ist. Wir haben es schon erreicht, dass die sozialen Grundrechte Teil der Charta der Grund-, Bürger- und Freiheitsrechte sind. Wir müssen es jetzt erreichen, dass ganz konkret die soziale Dimension Bestandteil der europäischen Politik wird und wir eine Balance zwischen Wettbewerb, Wirtschaft und sozialer Dimension erhalten. Die soziale Säule ist ein Muss, und das ist wie ein Weihnachtsgeschenk. Setzen wir es um!


Διαδικασία catch-the-eye


  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, pilíř sociálních práv nám připomíná stávající ochranu sociálních práv v Evropské unii a přidává některé nové zásady, které reagují na nové výzvy, jako je například potřeba zajištění minimálních příjmů.

Ráda bych připomněla, že sociální politika zůstává v kompetenci členských států, stejně jako je potřeba respektovat rozdílnou socio-ekonomickou situaci a rozmanitost systémů jednotlivých členských států. Byť považuji ochranu sociálních práv občanů za prioritní, chtěla bych připomenout, že je třeba vyvažovat všechny zájmy, například pokud chceme účinně posílit sociální práva zaměstnanců, měli bychom také umožnit nové formy podnikání i zaměstnávání, jako je například crowdworking. Tyto inovativní formy práce vytváří nové pracovní příležitosti. Máme tedy před sebou politický plán pro sociální oblast, která by podle mého názoru neměla být odpoutána od ekonomické a politické reality.


  Monika Beňová (S&D). – Pán predsedajúci, pani komisárka, kolegyne, kolegovia, implementácia sociálneho piliera je jednou z najdôležitejších úloh, ktorá pred nami stojí ešte v tomto volebnom období. Národné rozdielnosti a rozmanitosti sú, žiaľ, brzdou na ceste k prehlbovaniu spolupráce v oblasti sociálnej politiky.

Nikto nespochybňuje potrebu silnejšieho záväzku pri presadzovaní napríklad rodovej rovnosti. Avšak témou, ktorá je mimoriadne citlivá a dlhodobo aktuálna pre zamestnancov naprieč členskými štátmi Európskej únie, je všeobecná nerovnosť v prístupe zamestnávateľov, a to najmä veľkých podnikov s prevádzkami vo viacerých členských štátoch EÚ.

Tak ako sme my v minulosti podporili Posting Workers´ Directive, budeme veľmi radi a aj očakávame, že podobnú ústretovosť a podporu prejavíte aj pri odstraňovaní často priepastných rozdielov v platoch pracovníkov produkujúcich rovnaké výrobky pre rovnakého zamestnávateľa v rôznych krajinách EÚ.


  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η υλοποίηση του κοινωνικού πυλώνα είναι αναγκαιότητα για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Όμως αυτό δεν μπορεί να πραγματοποιηθεί όσο η ηγεσία της ΕΕ εφαρμόζει πολιτικές λιτότητας και βίαιης δημοσιονομικής προσαρμογής που διαλύουν το κοινωνικό κράτος, πετσοκόβουν μισθούς και συντάξεις και γεμίζουν την Ευρώπη με εκατομμύρια φτωχούς και στρατιές ανέργων. Μόνο όταν η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση εγκαταλείψει τις νεοφιλελεύθερες επιλογές θα ανοίξει ο δρόμος για το τριπλό κοινωνικό άλμα της Ένωσης. Η κοινωνική Ευρώπη προϋποθέτει τη θεσμοθέτηση ευρωπαϊκού ελάχιστου μισθού, ευρωπαϊκού εισοδήματος ανεργίας, επιδόματος ανεργίας και ευρωπαϊκού ελάχιστου εισοδήματος. Πρέπει λοιπόν η ηγεσία της Ένωσης να εγκαταλείψει τη διγλωσσία και τα κροκοδείλια δάκρυα για την υλοποίηση του κοινωνικού πυλώνα, γιατί έχει τεράστιες πολιτικές ευθύνες για τα 123 εκατομμύρια ευρωπαίων πολιτών που απειλούνται με φτώχεια και κοινωνικό αποκλεισμό.


  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, οι κοινωνικές υπηρεσίες στην Κύπρο, κυρία Επίτροπε, αλλά και σε άλλα κράτη μέλη καταρρέουν. Η Κύπρος είναι μάλλον το μόνο κράτος στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση χωρίς Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας. Τα νοσοκομεία και οι γιατροί και το νοσοκομειακό προσωπικό αδυνατούν να αντεπεξέλθουν στα μεγάλα προβλήματα. Γέροι άνθρωποι αναμένουν μέχρι και δεκάδες μήνες για να τύχουν μιας κρίσιμης για τη ζωή τους εξέτασης. Ενώ το μνημόνιο στην Κύπρο εφαρμόζεται κατά γράμμα, το μόνο στοιχείο του με κοινωνική διάσταση, που είναι το Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας, παραπαίει παρά τις προσπάθειες τόσο του κόμματός μου όσο και του υπουργού Υγείας.

Τι γίνεται ακόμα με τις συντάξεις; Προχτές είχαμε μια ομάδα επισκεπτών από την Κύπρο και ντράπηκα εκ μέρους όλων μας, όταν μία ηλικιωμένη κυρία μου είπε ότι ζει με 300 ευρώ σύνταξη και έχει να πληρώσει φαγητό, στέγαση και φάρμακα. Πώς μετά από όλα αυτά να βγω και να υπερασπιστώ την άποψή σας και να πω στους πολίτες της χώρας μου ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση υπερασπίζεται τα κοινωνικά τους δικαιώματα;


(Λήξη της διαδικασίας catch-the-eye)


  Marianne Thyssen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, let me thank you first of all for this vital debate. Let me continue if you will allow me, dear Mr President, in my mother tongue – in Dutch – because I know that we have a perfect interpretation service here.

De proclamatie van de Europese pijler van sociale rechten, beste collega's, is uiteindelijk, zoals we allemaal weten, een begin. Het is een goede zaak dat we hier vandaag een goed debat voeren, omdat we uiteindelijk hier moeten voortbouwen aan een sociaal Europa. We moeten samen discussiëren over de volgende stappen. Ik zie dit debat van vandaag als een start van dat debat.

We hebben ambitieuze doelen gesteld, zeer zeker. We hebben gezegd dat we meer convergentie in Europa willen, dat we opwaartse convergentie in Europa willen, dat wil zeggen betere arbeids- en levensomstandigheden voor onze burgers. We hebben ook gezegd dat we met onze pijler onze sociale instellingen willen aanpassen aan de omstandigheden van de 21ste eeuw, om ervoor te zorgen dat we een competitieve, een dynamische, maar ook een inclusieve markteconomie hebben, dat we een sociale-markteconomie kunnen uitbouwen die het mogelijk maakt voor onze mensen om goede kansen te hebben en te kunnen nemen op het vlak van vorming, opleiding, levenslang leren, toegang tot de arbeidsmarkt, faire arbeidsomstandigheden en toegang tot sociale zekerheid, tot sociale bescherming en aangepaste toegankelijke, betaalbare basisdiensten. Dat is onze ambitie, niet meer en niet minder.

En we moeten dat natuurlijk doen met respect voor de interne markt, dat laat geen twijfel. De interne markt is trouwens een troef om dat waar te maken.

Vele collega's hebben in het debat gezegd dat we de subsidiariteit miskennen, dat we op het terrein van de lidstaten komen. Aan al die collega's die daarover opmerkingen gemaakt hebben, zou ik willen vragen de preambule bij de pijler te lezen. Kijk naar punt 17 en 18 in de overwegingen en dan zal u zien wat het kader is dat we samen afgesproken hebben. We moeten dat samen waarmaken. Wij veranderen niets aan de bevoegdheidsverdeling, maar dat betekent dat het belang van samenwerken des te groter is en daarom is het ook goed dat we de Europese pijler van sociale rechten met de drie politieke instellingen samen geproclameerd hebben. Dat betekent ook dat we samen verantwoordelijkheid moeten nemen, ieder op zijn terrein, en dat we daar in de toekomst ook werk van moeten maken.

Er zijn ook nogal wat opmerkingen geweest over het feit dat de Commissie aan de economische kant niet goed weet wat ze aan de sociale kant wil en omgekeerd. Laat me er toch op wijzen dat we een duidelijk bewuste aanpak gekozen hebben van bij de start van deze Commissie. Dat geldt voor het belastingbeleid, het budgettair beleid, ons handelsbeleid en de manier waarop we omgaan met de sociale partners.

Op het vlak van belastingbeleid verwijs ik naar de talrijke voorstellen die al gedaan zijn door mijn collega's die bevoegd zijn voor belastingbeleid, Moscovici en andere. Deze voorstellen worden trouwens door de hele Commissie gesteund, door de beslissingen die genomen zijn door collega Vestager, om ervoor te zorgen dat we faire belastingen krijgen, dat de belastingen niet geërodeerd worden. We gebruiken maximaal de bevoegdheden die we daartoe hebben.

Deze Commissie voert een slim budgettair beleid. We maken maximaal gebruik van de flexibiliteit die er in het stabiliteits- en groeipact is en we spreken met de lidstaten, zodat we niet moeten overgaan tot straffen. Daar gaat het ons niet om, wel dat we de lidstaten maximaal aanmoedigen om een duurzaam begrotingsbeleid te voeren. Want laat ons toch ook dat niet vergeten: zonder duurzame fiscale omstandigheden kunnen we ook geen duurzaam sociaal beleid uitbouwen.

Wat handel betreft, nodig ik u uit om te kijken naar de nieuwe handelsakkoorden die onder deze Commissie gesloten zijn. U zal zien dat er heel wat meer aandacht is voor het sociale en voor een aantal aspecten die onze burgers terecht van ons verwachten. Er is meer transparantie en er wordt ook meer aandacht besteed aan een aantal aspecten die vroeger misschien een beetje aan de kant geschoven waren.

En wat betreft de sociale partners, de sociale dialoog, wil ik erop wijzen dat deze Commissie een grote inspanning geleverd heeft en blijft leveren om de sociale dialoog opnieuw te lanceren en om aan capaciteitsopbouw te doen in de lidstaten de sociale dialoog op gang moet worden gebracht of moet worden bevorderd. Wij raadplegen ook de sociale partners op veel meer vlakken dan we verplicht zijn volgens het verdrag en we doen dat ook graag omdat we hun toegevoegde waarde, zowel voor de design als de implementatie van ons beleid heel erg appreciëren.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, beste collega's van het Parlement, mijnheer de voorzitter van de Raad, de proclamatie van de pijler stuurt een heel duidelijke boodschap. Dat is een boodschap van eenheid, een boodschap van hoop en een boodschap van actie.

Een boodschap van eenheid, dat we in Europa weten wat we samen willen en dezelfde waarden verdedigen, de waarden die we samen geproclameerd hebben. De Raad met een mandaat van alle 28 lidstaten en de andere instellingen hebben samen die pijler geproclameerd. Dat is een teken dat we dezelfde waarden verdedigen en we moeten nu bewijzen dat we dat ook doen. De verantwoordelijkheid daarvoor ligt bij elk van diegenen die deze pijler heeft ondertekend en geproclameerd.

Het is ook een teken van hoop, want het geeft hoop aan de mensen dat we de zaken aanpakken, dat we weten dat de toekomst in onze handen ligt en dat wij, als we een goed beleid voeren, die toekomst vorm kunnen geven op zo'n manier dat alle mensen er kunnen op rekenen dat we alle veranderingen in de samenleving en in de economie begeleiden en dat ze zelf, en ook hun kinderen, nog een goede toekomst hebben.

Het is ook een boodschap van actie, omdat we gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid genomen hebben. Dit moet een boost geven aan iedereen om effectief te handelen naar de woorden die men zelf heeft geproclameerd. Dat is ook de sfeer, beste collega's, die ik hier vandaag in dit debat heb gevoeld en dat sterkt mij om, wat mij betreft, ook verder vanuit de Commissie werk te maken van de uitvoering van die pijler.

Want het komt er uiteindelijk op aan dat we die pijler realiseren op het terrein. We hebben veel beloofd en we zullen er nu allemaal samen werk van moeten maken. Als we onze belofte nakomen, ieder op zijn terrein, en als we allemaal samen ambassadeurs zijn van die pijler, dan moet ons dat lukken. Dat is de opdracht die ons te wachten staat. Zoals gezegd, die pijler is een begin en is geen eindpunt. Het hangt af van ons wat we daarvan maken, maar ik ben optimistisch.


  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I wish to thank the Commissioner and the honourable Members for a very rich and timely debate. It is clearer than ever that the European Pillar of Social Rights is a widely supported initiative. It will bring about tangible improvements in the living and working conditions of our citizens thanks to the engaged involvement of all stakeholders at all levels.

When it comes to the implementation of the Social Pillar, account needs to be taken of the different starting positions and situations of the Member States. The country-specific recommendations in the framework of the European Semester offer essential instruments for ensuring that all Member States strive towards the same goals. The European Pillar of Social Rights gives a solid embodiment to our common values within the EU. It is reassuring to note that there is a broad consensus across the Union and its institutions on these values.


  Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 162)


  Nicola Caputo (S&D), per iscritto. – Non mi stancherò mai di ripeterlo: è fondamentale che l'Unione riduca il divario economico e sociale fra i suoi Stati membri, a partire dalle regioni del Mediterraneo e dalle regioni in ritardo. È questo l'unico modo per creare i presupposti di una vera cittadinanza europea, per creare un'Europa più unita e più forte. In questo senso, credo che il vertice di Göteborg abbia lanciato un messaggio chiaro, invitandoci a fare i conti con le enormi differenze che ancora segnano la realtà dei cittadini europei, dalla ricerca del lavoro, alle opportunità per le donne e per le nuove imprese, fino all'assistenza per i cittadini più deboli. I sistemi di welfare degli Stati membri sono chiamati oggi a fronteggiare sfide completamente nuove. L'Europa deve guidare questo processo, rispettando le specificità delle diverse culture ma mirando a un obiettivo unico: traghettare tutta l'Unione, nessuno escluso, nella nuova economia globale, attraverso eque opportunità e una crescita inclusiva, sostenibile e armonica. L'ascolto delle parti sociali è stato al centro della stesura definitiva del pilastro europeo dei diritti sociali. È necessario che anche la sua attuazione sia inclusiva e condivisa, e metta al centro le esigenze dei giovani e del lavoro.


  Κώστας Χρυσόγονος (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Η διαδικασία προς την οικοδόμηση ενός ευρωπαϊκού πυλώνα κοινωνικών δικαιωμάτων προχωρεί με χαρακτηριστικά αργούς ρυθμούς. Την ίδια στιγμή δεκάδες εκατομμύρια άνθρωποι σε όλη την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση βρίσκονται σε καθημερινή αγωνία σε σχέση με την εργασία τους, την υγεία τους, την κοινωνική τους ασφάλιση και γενικότερα τις συνθήκες της ζωής τους. Δεν αρκεί επομένως το μακροσκελές ευχολόγιο που ψηφίσαμε εδώ στο Ευρωκοινοβούλιο τον Ιανουάριο φέτος, ούτε η κοινή διακήρυξη Επιτροπής, Συμβουλίου και Κοινοβουλίου τον Νοέμβριο, η οποία απλώς επαναλαμβάνει τις σχετικές με τα κοινωνικά δικαιώματα διατάξεις του Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της Ένωσης. Χρειαζόμαστε συγκεκριμένες πολιτικές για τη βελτίωση των πραγματικών συνθηκών ζωής των ανθρώπων, στηριγμένες σε χρηματοδοτικά εργαλεία μέσα από τον προϋπολογισμό της Ένωσης. Τέτοιες δράσεις μπορούν να είναι η χορήγηση ενός ευρωπαϊκού επιδόματος ανεργίας, με έμφαση σε περιπτώσεις που δεν καλύπτονται από τα εθνικά κράτη, όπως π.χ. η κρυφή ανεργία στους ελεύθερους επαγγελματίες, η ενίσχυση των εθνικών συστημάτων υγείας για την κάλυψη της φαρμακευτικής δαπάνης σε ιδιαίτερα σοβαρές ασθένειες με μεγάλο κόστος, η επιδότηση φοιτητών που συμμετέχουν στα προγράμματα Erasmus για την αντιμετώπιση του κόστους διαμονής και πολλά άλλα. Χρειαζόμαστε έργα και όχι λόγια.


  Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), în scris. – Într-o Europă în plină evoluție a pieței muncii este important să fie luate în calcul realitățile în schimbare de pe această piață – de exemplu, digitalizarea avansată a societății necesită o dezvoltare a competențelor digitale ale forței de muncă. Este și motivul pentru care este foarte important să fie bine definit conținutul și rolul Pilonului european al drepturilor sociale, precum și modul în care s-ar putea asigura echitatea și justiția socială în Europa. În prezent, există deja o dimensiune socială puternică în Europa, dar este nevoie să se pună accentul pe creșterea contribuției Europei sociale la competitivitatea globală a Europei.

Consider, totodată, că pilonul social trebuie să ofere un proiect pozitiv pentru toți cetățenii europeni, indiferent de regiunea în care locuiesc și pe tot parcursul etapelor ciclului de viață. Cred, de asemenea, că este benefic ca prevederile acestuia să se aplice tuturor statelor membre ale Uniunii, pentru a asigura egalitatea de șanse și accesul pe piața muncii tuturor cetățenilor, precum și condiții de muncă echitabile și protecție și incluziune socială.


  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – O chamado “Pilar Social” é mais do que uma espécie de fachada social que se quer colocar num edifício estruturalmente antissocial. Ele não afasta a intenção de nivelamento por baixo das condições de vida e de trabalho na Europa. Pelo contrário, dá-lhe guarida. A justiça social é indissociável da política económica. Uma Europa verdadeiramente social não é compatível com as políticas do Euro, da União Bancária, da Governação Económica, do Semestre Europeu, da militarização e da securitização, do ataque constante à soberania e ao desenvolvimento dos povos.

É elucidativo que, ao mesmo tempo que se discute o “Pilar Social”, se decida internalizar na ordem jurídica da UE o chamado Tratado Orçamental. Este Pilar é um desfiar de intenções contrariadas por aquelas políticas e um vazio de medidas concretas que promovam o efetivo combate aos graves problemas sociais existentes. Uma Europa verdadeiramente social só é possível com a intransigente defesa do trabalho com direitos, da contratação coletiva, do aumento real de salários, de uma justa redistribuição da riqueza, da justiça fiscal, da proteção social suportada em serviços públicos universais e de qualidade, do acesso universal e gratuito à saúde e à educação. Não é compatível com as políticas da União Europeia nem com os interesses que protege.


  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), na piśmie. – W 2016 r. ponad 40 proc. osób zatrudnionych w UE pracowało w ramach niestandardowych umów lub było samozatrudnionych. Szacuje się, że przynajmniej połowa z nich nie ma wystarczającego dostępu do ochrony socjalnej oraz związanych z nią świadczeń. Europejski filar praw socjalnych, który jest częścią prac podjętych przez Komisję Europejską na rzecz pogłębionej i bardziej sprawiedliwej unii gospodarczej i walutowej, powinien przyczyniać się do właściwego stosowania międzynarodowych norm pracy i do modernizacji dorobku socjalnego.

Ponadto standardy, zawarte w europejskim filarze praw socjalnych, powinny być stosowane we wszystkich krajach uczestniczących w jednolitym rynku, a prawodawstwo i mechanizmy zarządzania potrzebne do ich osiągnięcia powinny mieć zastosowanie do wszystkich państw członkowskich UE. Należy zadbać o to, aby systemy ochrony socjalnej były zrównoważone i sprawiedliwe. Pracownicy muszą być chronieni, bez względu na to, czy są zatrudnieni na podstawie standardowych umów, nowych rodzajów umów, czy pracują na własny rachunek.


  Maria Grapini (S&D), in writing. –The social pillar should be the backbone of the EU, but this should not be a slogan but must be reflected in concrete measures for social cohesion. We still have many poor citizens, children living in poverty, social inequities, lack of access to the labour market for people with disabilities. Closing the borders and protectionism will not solve the social problem, nor will non-admission of Romania and Bulgaria to Schengen increase well-being in the other states. The concept of the EU, the philosophy of its existence, consists of solidarity, social cohesion and the security of citizens’ lives. Together, Member States are stronger, but there is a need to improve the mechanisms that increase social cohesion and improve the lives of social generations.


  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), na piśmie. – Szef Komisji Europejskiej jako jeden z priorytetów swojej kadencji wskazał ustanowienie w ramach Unii filaru społecznego. Idea jest jak najbardziej szczytna, bowiem wszyscy powinni być objęci ochroną niezależnie od płci, miejsca zamieszkania czy wykonywanej pracy. Obecnie dysproporcje pomiędzy kobietami i mężczyznami, mieszkańcami miast i wsi czy pracującymi na etacie lub w ramach elastycznych form zatrudnienia są bardzo duże. Potrzebujemy dobrych rozwiązań w ramach zasady pomocniczości. Zdefiniowany na szczycie w Goeteborgu dokument zawiera szczytne idee i dobre propozycje. Należy zgodzić się, że każda osoba ma prawo do dobrej jakości edukacji, szkoleń i uczenia się przez całe życie w celu utrzymania i nabywania umiejętności, które pozwolą jej skutecznie radzić sobie ze zmianami na rynku pracy. Jest to niezwykle istotne, bowiem w nadchodzących latach będziemy obserwowali radykalne przeobrażenia związane z rozwojem nowych technologii oraz postępującą automatyzacją i robotyzacją gospodarki. Tylko dobrej jakości edukacja i uczenie się przez całe życie są właściwą odpowiedzią na te wyzwania. Ponadto musimy pogodzić się, że kończy się era zatrudniania na etacie. Dlatego też należy wspierać innowacyjne formy zatrudnienia, ale tylko takie, które gwarantują wysoką jakość warunków pracy. Niemniej jednak działania w tych obszarach powinny być podejmowane z uwzględnieniem specyfiki poszczególnych państw i regionów.


  Dominique Martin (ENF), par écrit. – Il semblerait que les tenants et les aboutissants du Pilier social européen des droits sociaux (EPSR) n’évoluent pas malgré les travaux réalisés en Commission emploi et affaires sociales (EMPL). L’EPSR semble toujours refléter la nécessité pour l’Union européenne «d’opérer un changement de paradigme vers un modèle social européen fort»: en clair, une harmonisation et donc malheureusement un nivellement par le bas!

L’Europe existe depuis de nombreuses années, et chacun des États qui la compose (il n’est pas question ici des États membres mais bien des États souverains) a su adapter avec succès, selon ses propres besoins, prenant en compte les particularités de chaque profession, son propre modèle social.

Il faut préserver ces particularités et tendre vers le haut en échangeant les bonnes pratiques, et non déconstruire! Au-delà de l’harmonisation, je dénonce une volonté sous-jacente plus grave: celle d’une propagande ayant pour but de faire passer l’UE pour seule solution aux problèmes des citoyens, le désir de sauver un projet européen abîmé, sans effectuer en profondeur les réformes qui s’imposent.


  Luigi Morgano (S&D), per iscritto. – Il 17 novembre a Göteborg è stato proclamato il pilastro europeo dei diritti sociali. Un passo nella giusta direzione, con cui le istituzioni europee si sono impegnate a mettere al centro della propria agenda la dimensione sociale. È arrivato però il momento di far seguire alle parole i fatti. Per fare questo, è necessario, in primo luogo, che la lista di venti principi e diritti diventi un concreto strumento per influenzare le politiche sociali degli Stati membri. Questo può essere fatto attraverso lo strumento del semestre europeo e l'inserimento di indicatori sociali nelle raccomandazioni specifiche agli Stati membri. In secondo luogo, è fondamentale che il pilastro diventi strumento per il rilancio di iniziative legislative concrete dell'UE in materia di politiche sociali. Ben venga quindi la proposta della Commissione di una direttiva sul bilanciamento vita familiare e lavorativa e di una revisione delle direttive sui contratti, sul tempo di lavoro e sui lavoratori distaccati. Infine, perché il pilastro diventi uno strumento efficace, è indispensabile che esso diventi strumento per una revisione della governance economica dell'eurozona. Sotto questo aspetto, bene l'idea di un social scoreboard, ma, come S&D, proponiamo misure più incisive, a partire da uno "schema comune europeo contro la disoccupazione".


  Romana Tomc (PPE), pisno. – Veseli me, da ideja o Evropskem stebru socialnih pravic, ki jo je Evropska komisija predstavila ob začetku svojega mandata, dobiva konkretnejšo obliko.

Res je, da morajo biti neenakosti na trgu dela in na področju sociale med državami članicami manjše, kot so trenutno in k temu bi si morale prizadevati vlade držav članic. Vendar pa se moramo zavedati, da tega ne bomo dosegli, če države ne bodo sprejele ključnih reform. Le na dobro stoječem gospodarstvu, ki se je sposobno odzvati na pretrese in se jim prilagoditi, lahko gradimo pravičen socialni sistem. Zdravo gospodarstvo bo prineslo urejen trg s poštenimi delovnimi pogoji, ustrezno in vzdržno socialno zaščito, enakimi možnostmi in dostopom do trga dela.

Dobri ukrepi na ravni držav članic bodo omogočili močan socialni sistem, ki ga Evropa tako zelo potrebuje.


  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), schriftelijk. – Dankzij de sociale pijler en zijn 20 principes wordt sociaal beleid eindelijk opnieuw prioritair op de politieke agenda gezet. Dit juich ik uiteraard toe. Er is echter een levensgrote ‘maar’ die de feeststemming dreigt te drukken. De sociale pijler mag dan vol goede bedoelingen zitten, hij blijft een vrijblijvend ‘kompas’ dat lidstaten ‘kunnen’, maar niet moeten gebruiken om hun sociale systemen te verbeteren. Zolang de sociale pijler een symbolisch gebaar van goodwill blijft, dreigt hij door de lidstaten opzij geschoven te worden als het er echt op aankomt en werknemers hun rechten willen laten gelden. Voor mij moet de sociale pijler leiden naar concrete maatregelen en afdwingbare wetgeving om onder andere bescherming te bieden aan alle werkenden, ongeacht hun statuut. Ook mensen in tijdelijke of on demand-contracten moeten een betere bescherming kunnen genieten. Er moet bovendien een verbod komen op onbetaalde stages en nul-urencontracten en er moet worden gezorgd voor een betere wetgeving met betrekking tot zwangerschaps-, vaderschaps- en ouderschaps- en zorgverlof. Ik roep de Europese Commissie dan ook op om wetgevende initiatieven te nemen om de verwachtingen van de sociale pijler in te lossen en de Raad om zijn beloftes na te komen en concrete maatregelen, financiering én wetgevende initiatieven te steunen.


  Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – A justiça social é indissociável da política económica. Uma Europa verdadeiramente social não é compatível com as políticas do Euro, da União Bancária, da Governação Económica, do Semestre Europeu, da militarização e da securitização, do ataque constante à soberania e ao desenvolvimento dos povos.

O Pilar é um exercício de intenções contrariadas por aquelas políticas vazias de medidas concretas que promovam efetivo combate aos graves problemas sociais existentes. Uma Europa verdadeiramente social só é possível enformada na intransigente defesa do trabalho com direitos, da contratação coletiva, no aumento real de salários, numa justa redistribuição da riqueza e justiça fiscal, na proteção social suportada em serviços públicos, universais e de qualidade, no acesso universal e gratuito à saúde e à educação.

Não é compatível com as políticas da União Europeia ou com os interesses que protege.


  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D), schriftlich. – Nach langjährigem politischem Druck durch Sozialdemokratinnen und Sozialdemokraten hat die Kommission einen Vorschlag zur „Europäischen Säule Sozialer Rechte“ vorgelegt. Erstmals in der Geschichte der Europäischen Union wird das „soziale Europa“ auf die Agenda gesetzt. Mit der Proklamation zur Sozialen Säule wird der Fahrplan für ein Soziales Europa festgelegt. Den Absichtserklärungen müssen konkrete Maßnahmen wie eine Rahmenrichtlinie für menschenwürdige Arbeitsbedingungen, Grundsicherung für Kinder in Armut, Europäische Arbeitsbehörde und soziale Mindeststandards für alle Mitgliedstaaten folgen. Es ist höchst an der Zeit, dass wir das Vertrauen der Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer europaweit zurückgewinnen. Nur ein Soziales Europa ist ein gerechtes Europa.


20. Agenda 2030 a zpráva Eurostatu o „Monitorování pokroku při dosahování cílů udržitelného rozvoje v EU“ (rozprava)
Videozáznamy vystoupení

  Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο είναι οι δηλώσεις του Συμβουλίου και της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την Ατζέντα του 2030 και την έκθεση της Eurostat με θέμα «Παρακολούθηση της προόδου προς την επίτευξη των Στόχων Βιώσιμης Ανάπτυξης στην ΕΕ» (2017/3006(RSP)).


  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, the EU demonstrated strong leadership in the negotiations that led to the adoption of the 2030 agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals in September 2015. We must continue to lead the implementation phase as well. After agreeing on what to do, we now have an obligation to do it at national as well as at the EU level.

The joint adoption of the new European consensus last June is certainly a very important step, as it will guide both the EU and its Member States for the next 12 to 15 years. The Member States have been leading by example, notably through voluntary national reporting in the context of the United Nations High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. However, more needs to be done in terms of implementation at the EU level across all policies – internal and external.

The Commission Communication of 22 November 2016 was a step in that direction. However, the Council, in its conclusions from 20 June 2017, urged the Commission to elaborate by mid-2018 a comprehensive implementation strategy to reflect the 2030 agenda in all relevant EU policies.

The Council largely shares the views expressed by the European Parliament in that regard in its own-initiative report that was adopted last July. The EU needs a clear vision of how all relevant EU policies will contribute to the realisation of the 2030 Agenda in a comprehensive and holistic manner.

At this stage, the Council is certainly looking forward to receiving more specific sectoral implementation proposals from the Commission. In this respect, the Council adapted its working methods to be better able to monitor the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals at EU level in a holistic manner.

The Council, under the Estonian Presidency, established a dedicated Council working party that will deal with the Agenda 2030. The mandate of this working party will be to ensure systematic, effective, participatory, transparent and integrated follow-up and review of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals at EU level in order to track progress, assess achievements and ensure accountability.

The working group starts its work in early 2018 and will be reporting to the General Affairs Council. Also, in November the Council welcomed the first implementation monitoring report on progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals in the EU prepared recently by Eurostat. Even though this is still early days, the report provides useful insights in terms of trends, showing that our performance is on the right track with some goals, but less so on several others. However, there is a need for a fully-fledged analysis of gaps and a comprehensive EU implementation strategy to ensure that all policies are covered, both internal and external. This will allow the EU to remain a global leader in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.


  Marianne Thyssen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, with the signing of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development on 25 September 2015, 193 countries from all regions of the world committed themselves to implementing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 related targets to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity and peace.

The 2030 Agenda prescribes a regular follow—up and review of progress towards the SDGs as a crucial element to support accountability to citizens. Governments have the primary responsibility for follow—up and review at national, regional and global levels. To follow up and review the goals and targets, the 2030 Agenda foresees the development of a reference indicator framework for global monitoring, complemented by indicators at regional and national levels, which will be developed by the Member States.

The European Union has its own monitoring process. The Commission Communication on ‘Next steps for a sustainable European future’ of November 2016 announced detailed and regular monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals in an EU context. It also announced the development of a reference indicator framework for this purpose.

On 20 November 2017, Eurostat released the first monitoring report. This monitoring report is based on the European Union SDG indicator set, which the Commission developed in cooperation with a large number of partners and stakeholders, including the European Union Member States, Council committees, academia, civil society and international organisations. The indicator set will be regularly reviewed to make sure that it includes the most relevant and highest-quality indicators and that it aligns with the UN global indicators.

The European SDG indicator set includes indicators which are relevant from an EU policy perspective and which are already available. They include detailed information on gender, age groups, regions, educational level, degree of urbanisation, income, and disability. Fifty-six of the 100 European Union SDG indicators are also part of the UN set.

Eurostat’s monitoring report builds on Eurostat’s long experience in monitoring sustainable development in the Union. As a matter of fact, from 2005 until 2015, Eurostat regularly monitored progress towards the objectives of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy.

The report finds that, over the last five years, the European Union has made progress towards all SDGs. Progress for some goals has been faster than for others and within the goals movement away from the sustainable development objectives also occurred in specific areas. The European Union has made significant progress over the last five years towards the overall achievement of the goals concerning affordable and clean energy, responsible consumption and production, life on land, sustainable cities and communities and good health and well—being.

But let us be clear about this progress. In this way that progress towards a given goal does not necessarily mean that the status of that goal is satisfactory for the European Union. For example, in the case of terrestrial ecosystems, the indicators mostly show good progress, but this should not lead to the conclusion that ecosystems or biodiversity in the Union are in good health. As an example, common bird species have been declining in the Union since 1990 and only recently showed signs of slight recovery.

We also have eight SDGs in which the European Union has, over the last five years, made moderate progress. These concern quality education, partnership for the goals, industry innovation and infrastructure, gender equality, decent work and economic growth, no poverty, zero hunger and reduced inequalities. These results are visually presented on a newly created and dedicated section of Eurostat’s website, which I invite you to consult. There you will find links to additional products, a short brochure, and a series of online articles in the style of Wikipedia, which aim to reach the widest possible audience.

To conclude, monitoring progress towards the implementation of the SDGs is essential to meet the expectations raised by the 2030 Agenda. Eurostat will continue to evaluate and improve the list of indicators and produce annual monitoring reports. Next year, the Commission will present a reflection paper ‘Towards a sustainable Europe by 2030’. It will be accompanied by a ‘distance to SDGs’ analysis to provide, in addition to the trends, an understanding of the distance we still need to cover in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.


  Sirpa Pietikäinen, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, in the sustainable development goals there are two sides – firstly to decide how the European Union is acting towards third countries and the rest of the world to get the goals right, and there, indeed, I think we need quite a lot more and better coherence.

Then, on the other side, when we look inside – and I thank Commissioner Thyssen for mentioning this – when you are getting closer to the goals or you have progress that actually does not mean that you have achieved the goal or that the progress would be anything else than just nominal as we can see in biodiversity or in the state of oceans when we refer to life below the waters for example, and other such matters, with the climate effect actions that are being dictated here in Europe very heavily at the moment.

That is why I congratulate the Commission and Eurostat on being so effective, of having effective indicators and the Eurostat monitoring scoreboard where we can see the actions. What I would hope is that we could have in the future this sort of sustainability or end goal so we could really measure how close or far we actually are from the sustainable achievement or target itself.

The second point is that to be really effective inside the EU, I hope that you could work with the Council in the future so that we could get this monitoring on all of these 17 points to the European Semester so that we could follow up and monitor effectively what the Member States are doing.


  Kathleen Van Brempt, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, sustainability is not just a buzzword. It is a sine qua non for the future of our planet and for the future of our people. Therefore, reaching the sustainable development goals within the EU is vital. To do that, today we now have the Eurostat monitoring report, which should show us the way in the progress that we are making within the European Union.

Let me be frank. There is something fundamentally wrong with this report. It says that we are making progress and we are moving in the right direction. It gives us nice arrows and these arrows are painted in hopeful green, but when we peel off the green glitz, we are left with an unsatisfactory report lacking the essential data, focusing on the past and missing the point of the universal character of the SDGs by not taking into account their interconnection nor their impact on EU policies.

You could say that, in times of fake news, it is good to have data. Of course that is true, but when you look at the data and you see that, for instance, the 1% is being qualified as progress of the highest category, then we are fooling ourselves. Some say that 15% is a good way forward in the 12 years to come, but if we know that we need 40% to get, for instance, the Paris climate goals in place, then we know that we are fooling ourselves.

Heading in the right direction is not the same as being on the right track fast enough to go in that same direction. As you mentioned, Madam Commissioner, some of these SDGs will not be met. They are in your portfolio – no poverty, reducing inequality, decent work. That is really worrying, because it outlines that we do not sufficiently take into account European policy and governance.

Let me conclude. We need to revise our measuring tools, using better indicators and data and providing a clear plan for the future. You need to do that not just with Parliament, but also with NGOs.


  Charles Goerens, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, les objectifs pour le développement durable sont au cœur du débat politique aujourd’hui. Il y va ni plus ni moins de la survie de notre planète.

Ces objectifs adoptés en 2015 par 193 pays semblent se réduire pour certains de nos États membres à une fonction essentiellement académique. En effet, leur mise en œuvre tarde à démarrer. Cela n’a rien d’étonnant, parce que ce n’est pas la première fois que des annonces faites en grande pompe ne sont pas suffisamment suivies d’effet.

Tel est le cas notamment pour l’aide publique au développement. Annoncée depuis quatre décennies, on en est encore qu’à mi-chemin pour ce qui est de l’objectif de 0,7 % par rapport au PIB. La raison de cet échec? C’est l’absence de méthode obligeant les États membres à rendre compte des objectifs auxquels ils ont souscrit.

Or, les mêmes causes produisent les mêmes effets, c’est pourquoi il importe dès à présent de nous doter d’une méthode pour réaliser des objectifs pour le développement durable. À cette fin, il serait souhaitable de connaître la stratégie de chaque État membre. Par ailleurs, il me paraît indispensable de préciser un axe de temps pour savoir qui fait quoi et à quelle échéance.

Pour que ces efforts ne soient pas vains, la mise en place d’un système de contrôle parlementaire me paraît incontournable. Ledit système de contrôle et de supervision parlementaire devrait répondre aux prérogatives tant des parlements nationaux que du Parlement européen. Les États membres responsables de lacunes importantes en matière de réalisation des objectifs pour le développement durable devraient venir devant le Parlement européen pour rendre compte de leur action politique en la matière. Il ne suffit pas d’aller à New York, de faire le généreux à la tribune des Nations unies, de rentrer dans sa capitale et de tabler sur la mémoire courte de ceux devant lesquels on a pris des engagements très forts.

Cela concerne le volet tant intérieur qu’extérieur et, en matière de développement durable, nous sommes tous des pays en développement, y compris au sein de l’Union européenne. Nous sommes tous logés à la même enseigne et avons tous les mêmes comptes à rendre à nos citoyens.


  Lola Sánchez Caldentey, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor presidente. Pocos avances se han visto desde que se aprobó la Agenda 2030, hace dos años ya. Urge incrementar la voluntad política, para priorizar los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible. Para ello, la Unión Europea y sus Estados miembros deberían designar líderes políticos que tengan poder y, sobre todo, voluntad política para guiar a todo el gobierno e impulsar esta agenda; establecer un proceso gubernamental estructurado y claro para implementar la agenda, involucrando a todos los ministerios; y llevar a cabo un análisis exhaustivo y honesto de los déficits, indicando claramente dónde existen contradicciones entre las políticas. Y así estaríamos fortaleciendo el principio de coherencia de las políticas para el desarrollo.

También debemos adoptar un plan de implementación para cumplir la agenda que abarque las políticas nacionales e internacionales, especialmente las comerciales, y establecer un marco robusto de monitoreo, en el sector privado también, porque ni uno solo de los objetivos se alcanzará si no somos capaces de regular el comportamiento de nuestras empresas, y para eso necesitamos normas vinculantes en materia de diligencia debida.

Por eso, es incoherente firmar los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible mientras seguimos sin desarrollar, por ejemplo, legislación vinculante en cadenas de valor tan mortíferas como la textil, o si seguimos obstaculizando en las Naciones Unidas el proceso para la creación de un tratado vinculante sobre empresas y derechos humanos.

De otro modo, estaremos volviendo a lo de siempre: palabras bonitas, pomposos objetivos y, en la práctica, estaremos obrando en dirección contraria. A este ritmo, ni en el 2 000 ni en el 3 030 alcanzaremos los objetivos.


  Heidi Hautala, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the SDG agenda is deeply social in the sense that the core and underlying principle is ‘leave no-one behind’, and this is most appropriate following the debate that you have just led, Ms Commissioner, on the implementation of the Social Pillar of the European Union. This is of course what we also have to practise in our external programmes and policies. There needs to be a deep commitment to fighting inequalities and in favour of equality.

Basically, the challenge for me would be that we cannot go on taking decisions as if it were business as usual. We cannot work in silos, and I think this has been understood but not really implemented yet. For instance, in our House we don’t have a mechanism, to my knowledge, to make sure that our efforts for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals are concerted and coordinated. I think we should all together think about a mechanism for how that could be done, because we need to reach true coherence in our policies.

In fact we do have some ideas already from existing policies. We do have the notion of policy coherence for development, which we have been insisting on very much, Mr Goerens, for at least five years if not longer. We should use the mechanisms that we have been able to put in place for Policy Coherence for Development and expand them to all Sustainable Development Goals. We also have the Commission’s Trade For All policy paper which has been revised recently and it also gives some instruments and indications for how we should combine our efforts across the board. Finally, the High-Level Expert Group on sustainable finance is just about to publish its proposals. We will have to see how we will improve our investment policies so that they are truly sustainable.


  Mireille D’Ornano, au nom du groupe EFDD. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, la Commission déclarait, il y a un an, que les objectifs de développement durable (ODD) étaient intégrés dans l’ensemble de ses dix priorités.

Pourtant, le rapport d’Eurostat révèle qu’en cinq ans seulement, cinq ODD ont montré des progrès significatifs, comme l’ODD 7 «Énergie propre et d’un coût abordable», l’ODD 12 «Consommation et production responsables» ou encore l’ODD 3 «Bonne santé et bien-être». Pour le reste, on compte huit objectifs qui ne progressent pas significativement. Parmi eux, l’ODD 4 «Éducation de qualité», l’ODD 1 «Pas de pauvreté», l’ODD 2 «Faim "zéro"» et l’ODD 5 «Égalité entre les sexes». Pire, on apprend qu’en raison d’une insuffisance de données, quatre ODD ne peuvent même pas être étudiés.

Soyons lucides, les États restent les mieux à même d’atteindre les objectifs qu’ils ont eux—mêmes approuvés.


  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, cíle udržitelného rozvoje jsou zakotvené v základních smlouvách Evropské unie a začleněny rovněž do klíčových projektů odvětvových politik a iniciativ. Přežití naší planety je skutečně úkolem nás všech, je naší vlastní odpovědností.

Organizace spojených národů, jak zde již bylo řečeno, přijala v září 2015 Agendu pro udržitelný rozvoj do roku 2030 v podobě právě těch sedmnácti cílů. Sdělení Komise stanoví rámec pravidelného monitorování pokroku směrem k těmto cílům v kontextu Evropské unie. Na základě tohoto sdělení má Eurostat vydávat každoročně zprávu a jak již hovořila má předřečnice, vydal tu zprávu právě o plnění těchto sedmnácti cílů letos v květnu. Shromážděné údaje ukazují, že v uplynulých pěti letech učinila Evropská unie pokrok k dosažení všech těchto cílů. Významného pokroku bylo dosaženo u cíle sedm „Cenově dostupná a čistá energie“, u cíle dvanáct „Odpovědná spotřeba a výroba“, u cíle patnáct „Život na venkově“, u cíle jedenáct „Udržitelná města, obce a dobré zdraví a životní pohoda“.

Slabšího pokroku bylo dosaženo u těch cílů, o kterých hovořila má předřečnice, nebudu je opakovat, ale chybí dostatečné informace pro vyhodnocení čtyř oblastí: čistá voda, to mě skutečně překvapuje, rovněž klimatická opatření, život pod vodou a mír, spravedlnost a silné instituce. Chtěl bych se paní komisařky zeptat: Jak můžeme vyhodnocovat oblasti, ve kterých nemáme dostatek informací? Myslím, že by to stálo za zvážení, jak v daném případě postupovat při naplnění těchto ukazatelů.


  Elly Schlein (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la pubblicazione del rapporto Eurostat sul monitoraggio dei progressi sugli obiettivi per lo sviluppo sostenibile è una buona notizia, ma siamo ancora lontani dai meccanismi di monitoraggio e di revisione di cui abbiamo bisogno per un'effettiva implementazione degli SDGs.

Stiamo ancora aspettando che l'Unione si doti di una strategia globale per l'attuazione dell'Agenda 2030, una strategia che guardi al futuro, non al trend degli ultimi quindici anni, una strategia basata su un'attenta analisi dei gap. Non bastano semafori e frecce rosse e verdi, abbiamo bisogno di scadenze, obiettivi e indicatori efficaci.

Due esempi: salutare come positivo un aumento dello 0,09 per cento degli aiuti pubblici allo sviluppo a livello europeo, dal 2011, è una presa in giro. Stiamo parlando di risorse che servono ora, non dopo il 2030, così come utilizzare il PIL come unico indicatore per una crescita economica sostenibile, e potrei continuare. Progresso in un'area non significa per forza essere sulla buona strada, e in alcuni casi ragionare senza obiettivi quantitativi sulla base di meri aumenti percentuali può essere molto ingannevole.

Ci siamo dati una scadenza, il 2030, purtroppo pochi politici lavorano su orizzonti temporali che vadano al di là delle prossime elezioni, ma qui è il caso di fare uno sforzo. L'Agenda 2030 è unica nel suo genere, è universale e gli obiettivi sono profondamente interconnessi tra loro, questo ci impone di rispondere a nuove sfide, nuove sfide cui possiamo rispondere solo con nuovi dati, indicatori innovativi e nuovi strumenti di monitoraggio.

Il rapporto non ci permette dunque di trarre conclusioni sull'effettiva possibilità che l'Unione riesca a mantenere gli impegni che ha preso con l'Agenda 2030. Manca un'analisi attenta dell'impatto delle politiche dell'Unione sullo sviluppo sostenibile, che è essenziale per sviluppare una strategia di attuazione globale a livello europeo.

Infine una cosa dovrebbe farci riflettere: il rapporto dimostra che su temi come lotta alla povertà, alla fame, alle disuguaglianze, l'Unione europea arranca, è molto indietro, non dimentichiamo che su questi nuovi obiettivi siamo tutti paesi in via di sviluppo.


  Jo Leinen (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Ja, der Eurostat-Bericht ist sicherlich hilfreich, um Erfolge und Misserfolge festzustellen. Wir brauchen aber drei weitere Instrumente: einmal ein Mainstreaming aller Politiken hin auf die SDG-Ziele, zweitens eine ausreichende und kohärente Finanzierung und drittens auch politische Führungskraft, damit die SDG als Priorität auf der Agenda bleiben.

Ich frage die Kommission: Gibt es eine Governance-Struktur für die SDG checks? Was ist da in der Kommission denkbar? Dasselbe gilt natürlich für den Rat und – wie die Kollegen gesagt haben – auch für uns. Auch im Parlament brauchen wir eine Struktur für das Monitoring, wie Herr Goerens gesagt hat, und für das Begleiten der SDG.

Dann die Frage an die Kommission: Wird der neue multilaterale Finanzierungsrahmen respektieren, für was wir unser Geld ausgeben? Das ist ein Test beim nächsten MFR.

Und zu guter Letzt brauchen wir auch Partner in der Welt. Wir reden über Klimadiplomatie, eigentlich brauchen wir auch eine SDG-Diplomatie, damit wir nicht allein in Europa das machen, sondern andere auch.


  Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, the Eurostat assessment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) progress in Europe shows that good progress has been registered on the sustainability of cities, cleaner energy and responsible consumption. This proves that when the EU has a strong collective strategy, progress is possible. However, at the other end of the spectrum, we find the reduction of inequalities and the elimination of poverty, plus gender equality, remaining at moderate progress only.

So what does this say about our societies? These results show that Europe must focus on improving the lives and well—being of the most vulnerable. Growing inequalities are not only a lost economic potential, as this report demonstrates, but they are also at the root of rising populism and extremism, which sows division in our communities and threatens European values.

Years of austerity politics have only made things worse, in particular in my country, as well as in Greece, Portugal and Spain. I want to reaffirm that the number of children living in, or at risk of, poverty in our societies in 2017 is simply shameful. We need to adopt the EU Child Guarantee now.


  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome as well the Eurostat report, but at the same time I stress the importance of regularly revising the EU SDG indicators set, so that the latest remain in line with future policy developments and progress. According to the findings, overall the EU made progress towards the 17 SDGs over the past five years, with progress for some goals having been faster than for others. However, we have to remain cautious because advancement towards a given goal does not entail per se that the status of the respective goal is satisfactory for the European Union.

Moreover, I would like to put forward some remarks. The report does not provide enough information to develop conclusions on whether the European Union’s efforts will be successful in attaining the SDG targets by 2030, and fell short on measuring the EU’s impact on sustainable development from a global perspective. Therefore, this shortcoming sends a strong signal on the need to revise the indicator set, to fill the existing gaps and to put in place a more ambitious and comprehensive monitoring system.


Διαδικασία catch-the-eye


  Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Od proklamacji celów minęło nieco ponad dwa lata. Cieszy więc, że w pięciu z siedemnastu z nich już teraz odnotowany został znaczący postęp. To dobry prognostyk, który daje nadzieję na to, że do 2030 roku założone cele zostaną zrealizowane. Pierwsze pozytywne sygnały nie mogą być jednak impulsem do tego, by popaść w samozadowolenie. Przede wszystkim raport Eurostatu wskazał, że niemal w każdym z poszczególnych celów istnieją wskaźniki, które utrzymały się na niezmienionym poziomie lub wręcz uległy pogorszeniu w ostatnich latach. Szczególny niepokój budzi zwłaszcza brak postępów w redukowaniu nierówności i biedy.

Unia stawiana jest innym krajom za wzór dobrze prowadzonej polityki społecznej. Widać jednak, że także w tym obszarze mamy jeszcze szerokie pole do poprawy. Ponadto Unia Europejska powinna skupić się nie tylko na realizacji celów na własnym obszarze, ale także współpracować z ONZ i innymi krajami na rzecz osiągnięcia zrównoważonego rozwoju w krajach rozwijających się.


  Arne Lietz (S&D). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin! Ich war 2015 zusammen mit den Kommissaren Timmermans und Mimicaund Frau Mogherini bei den Vereinten Nationen, als die entwicklungspolitischen Ziele 2030 ausgerufen wurden, und gleichzeitig wurde dort verkündet, dass es eine Strategie geben wird. Diese liegt leider noch nicht vor, das ist sehr zu bedauern.

Es ist höchste Zeit, dass wir einen europäischen Fahrplan entwickeln, da Europa 2019 in New York seine Ergebnisse präsentieren muss. Das heute zur Diskussion stehende Monitoring von Eurostat ist viel zu kurz gegriffen. Ich mache das beispielsweise am Ziel 12 nachhaltiger Konsum und Produktion fest – sehr lückenhaft und noch nicht stark ausgearbeitet.

Die globale Bedeutung und Auswirkung von Lieferketten, insbesondere der Textillieferketten, böte die Chance, unter anderem die Aspekte des Verbraucherschutzes für EU-Bürger, der Arbeitsbedingungen in Europa, und insbesondere der Arbeits- und Umweltbedingungen in den Produktionsländern aufzugreifen und zu verbessern.

Als ich dieses Jahr erneut zum Thema SDG bei den Vereinten Nationen in New York war, haben dort Dänemark und Estland anhand der Textillieferkette ihre SDG und ihre Arbeit daran vorgetragen.

Ich bitte die Kommission, endlich in diesem dringend notwendigen Bereich die ursprünglich angekündigten Fortschritte zu erzielen und hier endlich Aktivitäten zuentwickeln.


  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). –Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ασχολείται με την εκπλήρωση των 17 στόχων της βιώσιμης ανάπτυξης και με την εξάλειψη της φτώχειας σε όλον τον κόσμο, τη στιγμή που ακόμη και τώρα η Τρόικα επιβάλλει στον ελληνικό λαό σκληρές μνημονιακές πολιτικές, πολιτικές που έχουν μειώσει τις συντάξεις τουλάχιστον κατά 40%, πολιτικές που έχουν πετσοκόψει τους μισθούς, πολιτικές που έχουν οδηγήσει το 40% του ελληνικού λαού στο να ζει κάτω απ’ τα όρια της φτώχειας. Επομένως η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να παύσει τη διγλωσσία.

Οι δείκτες δείχνουν ότι στην Ελλάδα και στην Ευρώπη οι λαοί δυστυχούν. Δείχνουν ότι στην Ευρώπη των 28 τουλάχιστον 123 εκατομμύρια Ευρωπαίοι απειλούνται από τη φτώχεια, ενώ το 9,6% του πληθυσμού αντιμετωπίζει σοβαρή υστέρηση. Η επίτευξη λοιπόν των στόχων της βιώσιμης ανάπτυξης απαιτεί αλλαγή πολιτικής στην Ευρώπη, απαιτεί κονδύλια για την κοινωνική Ευρώπη, απαιτεί δραστηριοποίηση των ευρωπαϊκών ταμείων αλλά και της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας, η οποία οφείλει να κατευθύνει τα δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ της ποσοτικής χαλάρωσης στην ενίσχυση της πραγματικής οικονομίας και όχι της οικονομίας καζίνο.


  Κώστας Χρυσόγονος (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή μάς παρουσίασε εδώ μια υπεραισιόδοξη θεώρηση της κατάστασης σε ό,τι αφορά την επίτευξη των στόχων βιώσιμης ανάπτυξης για το 2030. Δυστυχώς η πραγματικότητα δεν ανταποκρίνεται στη θεώρηση αυτή. Η φτώχεια και η κοινωνική ανισότητα επιδεινώνονται, η καταστροφή της βιοποικιλότητας συνεχίζεται, ο άνθρωπος επιδεινώνει διαρκώς το φυσικό του περιβάλλον και στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αλλά βέβαια και εκτός Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και –ξέρετε– στον σημερινό παγκοσμιοποιημένο οικονομικό χώρο ό,τι συμβαίνει στη γειτονιά μας έχει επιπτώσεις και σε μας.

Χρειαζόμαστε λοιπόν έναν ισχυρότερο μηχανισμό επιτήρησης της προόδου προς την κατεύθυνση της επίτευξης των στόχων της βιώσιμης ανάπτυξης και βεβαίως και μηχανισμό χρηματοδότησης των κρατών μελών, για να επιτυγχάνουν τους στόχους αυτούς με αναδιανομή από τα ισχυρότερα προς τα ασθενέστερα κράτη μέλη, όπως επίσης χρειαζόμαστε και έναν αναπροσανατολισμό στην εξωτερική μας οικονομική πολιτική, ούτως ώστε το ελεύθερο εμπόριο να συντελείται μόνον μέσα σε στόχους και περιορισμούς που θα θέτει η ανάγκη επίτευξης βιώσιμης ανάπτυξης.


  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dall'analisi dei dati Eurostat sull'attuale situazione dell'Europa rispetto ai 17 obiettivi di sviluppo sostenibile, emerge un quadro non proprio incoraggiante.

Alcuni passi in avanti, pochi per la verità, sono stati compiuti nell'ambito della sostenibilità, soprattutto con riferimento ad ambiente, energia pulita, consumo e produzione responsabili, salute e benessere, ma troppo pochi sono stati i progressi sociali. La qualità dell'istruzione, l'occupazione e la lotta alla povertà, alla fame e alle disuguaglianze non hanno compiuto progressi significativi, e questo vuol dire che stiamo lasciando indietro ampie e troppe fasce di popolazione dell'Unione europea.

Ben venga dunque l'iniziativa del pilastro sociale, a patto che non si limiti ad essere una dichiarazione di intenti. Purtroppo per carenza di dati, non siamo in grado di fare una valutazione su alcuni dei più importanti obiettivi di sviluppo sostenibile: lotta contro il cambiamento climatico, pace e giustizia.

Come ho già accennato in altra sede, vanno migliorati i nostri sistemi di monitoraggio per evitare che politiche impostate male non possano essere riviste per l'impossibilità di un fact checking.


(Λήξη της διαδικασίας catch-the-eye)


  Marianne Thyssen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Members of Parliament for their engagement in this important debate. I would like to stress that for the Commission the importance of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is beyond dispute.

The Council has invited the Commission to prepare for the first EU report on the internal and external implementation of the 2030 Agenda by the EU at the United Nations High-Level Political Forum by 2019. We are starting to prepare for this report with the Reflection Paper due in the second half of 2018. The Reflection Paper is part of the discussion on the future of Europe. It will include the reflection on the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change as well as the reflection on economic and societal changes. I repeat that this Reflection Paper will be accompanied by a ‘distance-to-SDGs’ analysis to provide, besides the trends, also an understanding of the distance we still need to cover.

The Commission also established, as you know, the SDG multi-stakeholder platform, and there the European Parliament and the Council will be closely associated with the work. You will be engaged via the relevant institutional fora. Moreover, in relation to development policy, the Commission will produce a joint synthesis report with Member States on our implementation of the consensus, including the impact of their actions in support of the 2030 Agenda in developing countries, as a contribution to the EU reporting to the High-Level Political Forum.

Some honourable Members mentioned that there are no data for four indicators. It is true that those data are missing. Eurostat is working on it, together with the United Nations, to define those missing indicators. I can tell you that in Europe we have much more data than is available at the United Nations. However, in some cases, data series do not exist and therefore we cannot now show progress in the last five years – I hope it will be progress we can show and not regress, of course. I can tell you that in the future this will be possible, and it will also be possible – I say it again, also possible – to look at the distance from goal. Let me tell you also that the current list of indicators is not fixed in stone; indicator development will continue and the EU framework will be adapted accordingly.

Mr President, dear Members of Parliament, Mr Minister, having said this, the SDGs are sharply formulated goals, and those goals address the main questions of our time. We all know that. Making progress on them is not easy and does not come quickly. That should not be a surprise to any of us. But we also know that we have to measure to know, and indeed monitoring our performance is the first step to knowing where we stand, which in turn is the first step to making progress, and that first step is now taken. I am looking forward to continuing to work together with all of you on the many, many next steps on our way.


  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, the debate today shows the key importance of coherent and objective monitoring if we want to be serious about implementation of this transformative 2030 Agenda. But we need to have a truthful and objective measure and assessment of our performance and progress in line with the United Nations requirements. To that end, future reports should provide indications about the gaps to targets and not just about trends. This is key.

I can assure Mr Leinen that the new dedicated working party in the Council will also look at the issue of accountability. I am very happy to hear the Commission being responsive to the Council’s call to prepare a fully-fledged strategy outlining timelines, objectives and concrete measures to reflect the implementation of the 2030 Agenda in all relevant EU internal and external policies.


  Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 162)


  Bogdan Brunon Wenta (PPE), na piśmie. – Sprawozdanie Eurostatu w sprawie postępów w realizacji celów zrównoważonego rozwoju w UE pokazuje, że udało się nam w tej materii wiele osiągnąć, jednakże sporo pozostaje jeszcze do zrobienia. Z zadowoleniem należy przyjąć postęp w ramach celu 3, który obejmuje wzrost średniej długości życia oraz spadek liczby zgonów w wyniku chronicznych chorób. Coraz lepsza realizacja celu 7, związanego z mniejszym zużyciem energii oraz ze zwiększonym wykorzystaniem źródeł odnawialnych, jest również dobrą prognozą na przyszłość. Z drugiej strony sprawozdanie pokazuje, że musimy zrobić więcej dla osiągnięcia celu 1, szczególnie w kierunku redukcji liczby osób zagrożonych ubóstwem. Mam nadzieję, że obecne polepszenie koniunktury gospodarczej pozwoli na uporanie się ze skutkami kryzysu finansowego, które ciągle jeszcze odczuwamy. Niesatysfakcjonujący wynik w tej i innych sferach dowodzi, że Unia Europejska i jej kraje muszą dołożyć wszelkich starań, aby osiągnąć cele zrównoważonego rozwoju do 2030 roku, nie zapominając o wspieraniu w tym zakresie państw partnerskich.

Z badań przeprowadzonych przez organizacje pozarządowe wynika, że prawie 40% państw członkowskich nie planuje przyjęcia krajowych strategii wdrożenia celów zrównoważonego rozwoju. Dlatego chciałbym zwrócić się do rządów państw Unii o stworzenie planów i struktur koordynacyjnych na rzecz implementacji celów, co pozwoli na osiągnięcie postępu tam, gdzie był on do tej pory niewystarczający.


21. Mechanismus civilní ochrany EU s vlastní operační kapacitou (rozprava)
Videozáznamy vystoupení

  Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο είναι οι δηλώσεις του Συμβουλίου και της Επιτροπής σχετικά με τον μηχανισμό πολιτικής προστασίας της ΕΕ με ίδιες επιχειρησιακές ικανότητες (2017/2975(RSP)).


  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, only in October we had a debate here in this very Chamber on the tragic forest fires in Portugal and Spain. Therefore, I would like to start by thanking the European Commission for having very quickly delivered a legislative proposal to amend the Union’s Civil Protection Mechanism.

The Civil Protection Mechanism is a good mechanism. It is a very concrete expression of European solidarity, focusing both on the response and on supporting the Member States in preparing for disaster. But the context in which we operate today is evolving rapidly, as we discussed in October. We are faced with an increased number of disasters with a high impact on lives and infrastructure. Forest fires, which hit several Member States in recent months, have shown that we have gaps which affect our capacity to respond effectively to disasters and that we need to prevent and prepare better.

I will not go into the details of the Commission’s proposal, which by now is well known to you. Let me just say that this is a very ambitious proposal. It merits a thorough examination by the Council as a matter of urgency, bearing in mind the importance of European solidarity, but also of national responsibility. Discussions will start in the Council as early as next week.

In parallel, the Presidency would encourage the Commission to work together with the Member States on all possible intermediary measures which do not require a change in the current legislation. These can bring immediate, concrete improvements, allowing for faster deployments of Member States’ capacities, especially in view of the next forest fire season.

The Council looks forward to working closely with the European Parliament and, indeed, the European Commission on these matters.


  Christos Stylianides, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the Estonian Presidency for its support in these ambitious proposals and I am sure that we are working together in order to reach our common goal.

I am grateful for your initiative to debate our proposals to strengthen the Union’s Civil Protection Mechanism and create Rescue, the new structure for our mechanism regarding civil protection. In 2017 we witnessed intense forest fires, floods, hurricanes and earthquakes, disasters that claimed human lives, damaged properties, livelihoods and of course the environment, not only inside Europe but also across the world, and unfortunately the list is long. As the Minister has already said, devastating forest fires in Portugal, also in Croatia, Spain, France, Italy, Greece – an extended fire season that lasted until the end of October. It is a very unique phenomenon because, of course, of climate change. At the same time, Hurricane Ophelia in the UK and Ireland caused severe floods, deadly storms also in Greece, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, storms that are ongoing and that keep producing disastrous floods. Albania is the most recent victim. Natural disasters have become more frequent and more intense. Their effects are more unpredictable, all the more for emergencies that can completely overwhelm the national capacities and national resources.

I am proud, as Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Management, of the support we could provide for such crises through our current system, our current voluntary pool Civil Protection Mechanism. I would like once more to thank all our Member States that have actively contributed to help countries that are victims of disasters and emergencies. But the reality on the ground is different today. Climate change has changed the game, and unfortunately this is our new reality. Maybe this is our new normal and we must adapt and be prepared to face this new reality. I strongly believe that European support in disasters and emergencies is strongly needed. As you know, this European support is based on voluntary contributions by our Member States. But it is very hard, and I saw on the ground – it was a very painful experience even to me and other ministers – it is very hard for any of our Member States to help one another if they both face disasters or risks at the same time, simultaneously. What happened recently in Portugal is the most painful example. Countries with strong records of solidarity could not help Portugal this time because they were also facing forest fires at the same time. It is clear that the current voluntary system has reached its limits.

Three weeks ago you know that the College of Commissioners adopted my proposal with the strong support of our President, Jean-Claude Juncker, to upgrade the current system of the Civil Protection Mechanism and create Rescue. Rescue? What is Rescue? Rescue is a structure based on two pillars.

Firstly with Rescue our Union will have its own capacity with command and control to respond to disasters. You can think of Rescue as a safety net when national capacities and national resources are not enough. In essence, Rescue means that no European country will stand alone when facing forest fires, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes or epidemics.

Let me stress one critical point. Rescue will not replace national capacities. I would like to repeat, it will not replace national capacities. It will support and complement national capacities and resources. I am very firm on this point. The primary responsibility to prepare for and respond to disasters remains with our Member States. Through Rescue we will also increase financial incentives for our Member States to make their own capacities available to others. This will be the European Civil Protection Pool.

The second pillar of these proposals means prevention and preparedness. I want to be frank on this. Solidarity comes with responsibility. Prevention and preparedness are at the heart of a comprehensive response to natural disasters and emergencies. Member States have to improve their risk assessment, their risk management plans. We are here to help them and we will also help establish a common cultural prevention and preparedness. It is quite important to see and to improve this culture of prevention. For this to be done, Member States need to be supported through the Structural and Investment Funds, and they also need to be supported through all related Union policies and instruments. I am thinking of environment, climate, health, research and others.

Dear colleagues, Rescue demonstrates the Commission’s commitment to strengthen the EU support to our citizens when natural disasters or emergencies threaten their lives and their properties. Today, I am here to ask for your support for these proposals. I know many of you have already expressed your interim support, and thank you so much for this. I am sure that through our exchange of views we can do more to cultivate all aspects of these proposals. I am looking forward to listening to your remarks and thoughts.


  Elisabetta Gardini, a nome del gruppo PPE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio il Commissario per le sue parole e ringrazio anche il Consiglio. Sono sicura che faremo anche questa volta un ottimo lavoro.

In particolar modo condivido al cento per cento le parole dette dal Commissario, quando ha detto che forse questa nella quale ci troviamo a vivere è la nuova normalità. Non è un caso che tutte le volte, signor Commissario, che ci siamo trovati in quest'Aula a dibattere di questi temi, era appena accaduta o era in corso una catastrofe naturale. Per fortuna meno grave delle altre, ma anche in questi giorni si è abbattuta sulla nostra Europa, e sull'Italia in particolare, un'ondata di maltempo. Noi abbiamo ancora per esempio in Emilia Romagna e in altre regioni migliaia di sfollati, collegamenti interrotti, ingenti danni.

Allora non basta, l'abbiamo visto, anche se efficace, quanto messo in campo dall'Unione europea non basta, soprattutto, come ha detto Lei, quando vari paesi si trovano simultaneamente a dover affrontare la stessa catastrofe, lo stesso disastro. Bene, noi abbiamo bisogno di questa revisione. Noi abbiamo bisogno di aumentare la capacità di agire rapidamente e con efficacia, ma soprattutto abbiamo bisogno di rafforzare la prevenzione e la preparazione, che sono alla base, come ha detto Lei, ma sono anche il modo migliore per prevenire la perdita di vite umane e le ingenti perdite, anche economiche.

Quindi su questo dobbiamo lavorare e migliorare l'accesso ai fondi strutturali, tutto il sostegno possibile. Non dimentichiamo poi che mettere in sicurezza i nostri territori è anche un enorme volano economico, quindi una cosa assolutamente win-win per noi. Ringrazio quindi la proposta del Commissario: ricordiamoci che i cittadini la vogliono, questa cosa.


  Soledad Cabezón Ruiz, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, quiero comenzar diciendo que celebro esta iniciativa por parte de la Comisión, una iniciativa que significa hacer más Europa porque significa combatir los desafíos comunes desde la unidad y la solidaridad. De entrada, mi felicitación.

Las catástrofes del año 2017 han puesto de manifiesto que nuestros recursos son insuficientes: más de doscientas víctimas mortales —cien en Portugal en los últimos incendios— y un millón de hectáreas calcinadas durante el último año, lo que supone tres veces más que lo calcinado durante los últimos cinco años en la Unión Europea. En definitiva, consecuencias del cambio climático que son devastadoras y que necesitan una mayor actuación coordinada y más fuerte.

Pero no es solamente el cambio climático, son también los terremotos o amenazas sanitarias como el ébola o el zika. En definitiva, los recursos son insuficientes, lo que nos pone de manifiesto —como la Comisión subraya— que necesitamos un mecanismo permanente con recursos propios y además que tenga una actuación integral, desde la prevención hasta la reparación. Y, centrándome en concreto en la propuesta de la Comisión, me gustaría subrayar, por supuesto, el ámbito específico del cambio climático y cuatro aspectos.

Anticipación: para poder prevenir, necesitamos evaluar bien los riesgos y para eso un mapa de riesgos de las diferentes regiones en el que también se incluyan los recursos hídricos que tenemos en las diferentes regiones.

Complementariedad: necesitamos suma de esfuerzos, como muy bien ha dicho el comisario, no sustitución de recursos de los Estados miembros.

Coherencia: coherencia entre todos los instrumentos políticos y financieros de la Unión Europea y especialmente en el cambio climático. Es un desafío global que necesita coordinación y acciones transversales. Necesitaríamos un organismo específico para el cambio climático, capaz de hacer frente —como digo, de esta forma coordinada— a este gran desafío.

Y reparación: en concreto, el Fondo de solidaridad. El Fondo de Solidaridad tenemos que modificarlo. Hemos visto en las últimas catástrofes que es insuficiente, que penaliza a aquellas regiones que son grandes cuando se evalúa el PIB global y no la riqueza real por el PIB per cápita. Necesitamos modificarlo y también introducir el medio ambiente como criterio de reparación.

En definitiva, a pesar de todo lo que he dicho, me parece un gran acierto esta iniciativa y le ofrezco todo nuestro apoyo para que vea la luz.


  Νότης Μαριάς, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας ECR. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τα τελευταία χρόνια λόγω της κλιματικής αλλαγής έχουμε γίνει μάρτυρες τεράστιων φυσικών καταστροφών. Φωτιές κατακαίνε τα δάση του ευρωπαϊκού Νότου. Πλημμύρες πλήττουν τις πόλεις και τα χωριά μας. Πρόσφατα στην Ελλάδα θρηνήσαμε 24 θύματα από τις φονικές πλημμύρες στην πόλη της Μάνδρας, στη Δυτική Αττική. Επιπλέον, ο Εγκέλαδος επισκέπτεται όλο και πιο συχνά την Ελλάδα και την Ιταλία, που πλήττονται από καταστροφικούς σεισμούς. Είναι λοιπόν προφανές ότι πλάι στους εθνικούς μηχανισμούς πολιτικής προστασίας η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση οφείλει να οικοδομήσει έναν επικουρικό μηχανισμό πολιτικής προστασίας, που θα δρα επιβοηθητικά προς τις εθνικές αρχές για τη συμπληρωματική αντιμετώπιση των συνεπειών των φυσικών καταστροφών. Ταυτόχρονα η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση οφείλει να διαθέσει αυξημένους πόρους μέσω του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Αλληλεγγύης και του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης για την αποζημίωση των πληγέντων, για την αποκατάσταση των ζημιών και για την ενίσχυση της υλικοτεχνικής υποδομής των εθνικών μηχανισμών πολιτικής προστασίας.


  Νικόλαος Χουντής, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, ο ευρωπαϊκός μηχανισμός πολιτικής προστασίας δεν μπορεί να είναι αποτελεσματικός, καθώς ο ρόλος του υπονομεύεται από τη γενικότερη πολιτική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, δηλαδή την πολιτική της λιτότητας και των μνημονίων, που απογυμνώνει τους μηχανισμούς από τα απαραίτητα επιχειρησιακά μέσα. Όμως υπάρχει θέμα ευθυνών στην πρόληψη των καταστροφών. Αναφέρομαι στην πρόσφατη τραγική καταστροφή που έγινε πριν ένα μήνα από τις πλημμύρες στη Μάνδρα και στη Νέα Πέραμο, κοντά στην Αθήνα, όπου πνίγηκαν 24 άνθρωποι. Ο κίνδυνος πλημμυρών στη συγκεκριμένη περιοχή ήταν γνωστός με βάση τις προκαταρκτικές μελέτες αξιολόγησης κινδύνων από πλημμύρες που ορίζει η οδηγία 60/2007. Υπάρχουν ευθύνες για ανεπάρκεια και αδιαφορία των κυβερνήσεων, που δεν έκαναν τίποτα, γιατί η οδηγία προέβλεπε ότι για όσες περιοχές οι προκαταρκτικές μελέτες έδειχναν ότι υπάρχει κίνδυνος θα έπρεπε μέχρι τις 12 Δεκεμβρίου 2015 να καταρτιστούν οριστικά σχέδια διαχείρισης του κινδύνου πλημμυρών από το αρμόδιο Υπουργείο Περιβάλλοντος.

Εδώ, κύριε Επίτροπε, ο καθένας πρέπει να αναλάβει τις ευθύνες του, και θέλω να σας ρωτήσω: Όταν έγινε σαφές ότι παρήλθε η προθεσμία του Δεκέμβρη και οι ελληνικές αρχές δεν είχαν πραγματοποιήσει τα επιβαλλόμενα σχέδια διαχείρισης των κινδύνων πλημμύρας, τι έπραξαν οι υπηρεσίες σας; Ενημέρωσαν τις ελληνικές αρχές; Πίεσαν και με ποιον τρόπο; Με ποιες Αρχές είχαν επαφή; Τι δικαιολογίες τελικά έλαβαν για την απαράδεκτη καθυστέρηση, που τελικά κόστισε τις ζωές 24 συμπολιτών μας;




  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το χρηματοδοτικό πλαίσιο της Ένωσης για παροχή βοήθειας σε πληγείσες περιοχές βοηθά στην ανοικοδόμηση και ανακούφιση αλλά δεν προλαμβάνει ούτε αντιμετωπίζει δασικές πυρκαγιές, κατολισθήσεις, καθιζήσεις, πλημμύρες, ισχυρές χιονοπτώσεις, παγετούς, σεισμούς και ραδιοβιολογικό χημικό πόλεμο. Η Ένωση έχει σχεδιάσει επαρκώς την πολιτική προστασία με την ανοικτή μερική συμφωνία για την αντιμετώπιση μεγάλων καταστροφών και τα σχέδια Εβίτα και Προμηθέας· αλλά και τα κράτη μέλη, μεμονωμένα, συμμετέχουν σε διμερείς και πολυμερείς συμφωνίες. Η βελτιστοποίηση των κοινών επιχειρησιακών διαδικασιών και η ενίσχυση της προληπτικής και κατασταλτικής ικανότητας της πολιτικής προστασίας πρέπει να επικαιροποιηθεί και να αναβαθμιστεί σε επίπεδο διακρατικού κέντρου επιχειρήσεων και τη δημιουργία ενός μηχανισμού άμεσης επέμβασης και αρωγής σε πρόσωπα και μέσα. Καλώ, λοιπόν, όλα τα συμβαλλόμενα μέρη να σχεδιάσουν και να υποστηρίξουν τη δημιουργία κοινών τμημάτων επεμβάσεως με δυνατότητες άμεσης μεταφοράς και ανάπτυξης, κατάλληλα εξοπλισμένες και εκπαιδευμένες, για να μπορούν να αντιμετωπίσουν φυσικές ή τεχνητές καταστροφές.


  John Stuart Agnew (EFDD). – I hope you will agree with me that we should all congratulate you on your new position as a Vice-President here. It is the first time such a small party has been able to do it. Well done. I wish you all the best in this debate.


  Presidente. – Grazie collega, vi ringrazio per queste congratulazioni e vi ricordo, ovviamente, che bisogna usare le "blue card" per porre delle domande all'oratore in corso, ma capisco l'eccezione del momento. Grazie ancora.

La parola all'onorevole van Nistelrooij.


  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). – Commissaris en Minister, het is goed dat u heeft doorgezet. U was diverse keren hier, en deze keer ook de Raad, om uw aanpak van de concrete problemen te bespreken. Vaak merkten we dat we toch wat problemen hadden om op tijd te zijn, om vlot te reageren. U heeft een goed pakket neergelegd.

Maar in de EVP hebben we bij de voorbereiding ook gesproken over een vervolgstap en daar speelt de Raad een grote rol in. Namelijk, als je niet tegelijkertijd ook aandacht hebt voor de provincie, dan gebeurt er wat er in Attica gebeurde. Als je je rivierenbassins niet goed beheert - en ook daar hebben we middelen voor - dan krijg je overstromingen, dan komen mensen in gevaar, dan moet je optreden. Begin dus met preventie en gebruik dan ook de structuurfondsen. Dat kunnen we doen: het solidariteitsfonds en andere fondsen tot 95% inzetten om dat te doen.

Een compliment dus vandaag, maar tegelijkertijd een uitnodiging om elkaar bij de les te houden. Vooral de lidstaten, vooral de Raad moet ervoor zorgen dat we op het gebied van de bestrijding van klimaatverandering voorop zijn. We hebben nu zes of zeven keer dit jaar hier gediscussieerd met de Commissaris. Maar het probleem is grotendeels dat we onze zaken niet op orde hebben, dat we geen goede risicopreventie hebben. Dat moet anders.


  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Senhor Ministro, ao longo deste ano neste Parlamento fizemos vários debates sobre catástrofes que ganharam uma grande dimensão devido ao novo contexto das alterações climáticas.

É uma dimensão e uma realidade que é nova e, por isso, as respostas também têm que ser novas. Em todos estes debates, depois do diagnóstico, concluímos que era necessário passarmos à ação. Melhorar e otimizar os mecanismos de resposta a todos os níveis e apostando na cooperação ao nível da União.

É, por isso, Senhor Comissário, muito importante que estejamos hoje aqui para apreciar uma iniciativa concreta capaz de dar respostas imediatas aos cidadãos.

Parabéns! É disto que a União precisa. É de medidas que se traduzem em benefícios diretos para as pessoas, para a sua segurança e para a sua qualidade de vida. Medidas que significam um reforço dos fundos e dos meios europeus e se enquadram numa estratégia comum.

Dito isto, Senhor Comissário, não podemos perder a ambição de vir um dia a construir uma União da Proteção Civil, mas essa ambição deve motivar-nos ainda mais para concretizar o rescUE e aproveitar o acréscimo de recursos financeiros e de meios disponíveis.

Três formas para o fazer. Numa lógica top down, reforçar os meios comuns, agilizar processos, combinar informação e partilhar conhecimento. Apoiar o reforço dos meios dos Estados-Membros e criar de forma indireta uma harmonização e interoperabilidade que ajudarão a melhorar os sistemas nacionais de prevenção e resposta. Finalmente, promovendo a cooperação e as sinergias entre os meios disponíveis, prática que já ocorreu por diversas vezes, mas, como disse, com fenómenos que são endémicos, sistémicos e transnacionais, muitas vezes não há resposta possível para todas as necessidades.

A amplificação das catástrofes não é teoria. Convive com o quotidiano dos povos em geral e dos europeus em particular. Por isso, a amplificação da capacidade de resposta também deixou de ser teoria e essa é uma boa notícia. Coloquemo-la em prática quanto antes.


  Ivica Tolić (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, spremnost Europe na prirodne katastrofe prijeka je potreba i može se gledati kao nadopuna zajedničke sigurnosne i obrambene politike.

Požari, poplave, potresi i druge katastrofe u kojima stradavaju ljudi i materijalna dobra zahtijevaju od nas konkretne akcije pomoći građanima, konkretne planove i snage za uporabu u takvim slučajevima. Suosjećanje i solidarnost koji se najčešće izražavaju od strane institucija, uključujući i ovaj Parlament, dobre su i poželjne, ali mi trebamo konkretno djelovanje i konkretnu pomoć ljudima. Pomoć i djelovanje koji će Europu učvrstiti više od svih deklaracija, summita i izjava suosjećanja.

Osnivanje rescEU snaga civilne zaštite na Europskoj razini zato je ohrabrujuća poruka i prijedlog koji se jednostavno mora podržati. Vjerujem da smo sposobni realizirati taj prijedlog, osigurati dobru opremu, napraviti dobar plan uporabe snaga i iskreno se nadam, jednostavne procedure aktiviranja snaga. Operativne snage, ako ih dobro organiziramo, bitno će unaprijediti sposobnost odgovora u kriznim situacijama na europskoj razini ili kao dopuna snaga na nacionalnoj razini.

Naravno, kao i u svim drugim situacijama, postavit će se pitanje opravdanosti ulaganja i ako samo analiziramo štete od požara proteklog ljeta u članicama Europske unije, vidjet ćemo da je ulaganje u civilnu zaštitu potrebno i opravdano.


  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar, ich glaube, noch selten ist ein Vorschlag der Kommission auf so ungeteilte Zustimmung in diesem Haus gestoßen wie der Ihre, und Sie haben auch die Bevölkerung hinter sich.

Nach der neuesten Eurobarometer-Umfrage sind 90 % der Europäerinnen und Europäer davon überzeugt, dass im Katastrophenschutz, in der Katastrophenhilfe die Europäische Union und die Mitgliedstaaten zusammenarbeiten müssen. Sie sind davon überzeugt, dass nur dann, wenn die Mitgliedstaaten solidarisch sind, der Katastrophenschutz wirklich funktionieren kann. Ihr Vorschlag beinhaltet genau das.

Sie haben heute deutlich gemacht, dass wir zwei Dinge tun müssen: im Katastrophenfall gut ausgestattet sein, um sofort helfen zu können. Aber was ganz wesentlich ist, überall dort, wo Katastrophen zu verhindern oder zu mindern sind, in der Prävention und in der Abwehrbereitschaft wirklich gestärkt sein. Ihr Plan enthält das.

Ich glaube, dass es wichtig ist, diese Mittel so schnell wie möglich zur Verfügung zu stellen, dass zwar an sich weiter die Mitgliedstaaten für den Katastrophenschutz verantwortlich sind, ein funktionierender Katastrophenschutz in Europäischen Union aber nur dann vonstatten gehen kann, wenn wir bereit sind, europäische Mittel in die Hand zu nehmen und die operativen Aufgaben in diesem Fall bei der Kommission ansiedeln. Ich wünsche Ihnen viel Erfolg. Ich glaube, die Zustimmung dieses Hauses haben Sie schon.


  Nuno Melo (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Portugal é um exemplo trágico da necessidade e da importância de um Mecanismo Europeu de Proteção Civil capaz. O nosso esforço concertado e empenhado pode salvar empresas, aldeias, florestas, principalmente, pode salvar vidas.

Este ano Portugal perdeu mais de cem vidas que, existisse este mecanismo a operar como o desejamos e como hoje aqui o discutimos, porventura poderiam ter sido salvas. Temos de empenhar os nossos recursos naquilo que mais importa, e volto a sublinhar, o que mais importa nesta Europa que tem de ser solidária, são as vidas, são as pessoas.

Fogos, terramotos, inundações, serão sempre inevitáveis. A diferença só estará na forma como os podemos prever, como os podemos evitar e, se acontecerem, como os podemos enfrentar e combater. Esta força significará a possibilidade até de juntar meios que muitas vezes estão dispersos e não são utilizados em favor de todos os europeus no futuro.

Faça-se, então! Certamente terá o apoio de todos os eurodeputados.


  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, queria saudar também o Senhor Comissário e o Senhor Ministro representante do Conselho.

Senhor Comissário, parabéns pela sua proposta e pelo trabalho que tem desenvolvido. Todos nós sabemos o número de vidas perdidas este ano na União Europeia e no meu país foram mais de cem pessoas que perderam a vida em resultado dos incêndios. Isto prova que a solidariedade da União Europeia tem de se concretizar em ações concretas e essa concretização também se faz com esta nova iniciativa.

Não nos podemos, no entanto, iludir. É verdade que é essencial reforçar o Mecanismo Europeu de Proteção Civil, mas mais importante é a necessidade de se reforçar a prevenção. E essa tem de ser a aposta. E este não é o único fundo que existe ou vai existir para a solidariedade, os fundos estruturais também servem para a solidariedade e têm de ser utilizados, em primeira mão, para a prevenção.

E essa responsabilidade está nas mãos dos Estados-Membros e são os Estados-Membros que têm de assumir e de dar corpo ao ditado que mais vale prevenir do que remediar. Também quero terminar dizendo-lhe que para prioridades novas precisamos de novos recursos, de recursos adicionais, e, por isso, dou-lhe os parabéns pelo facto de nesta proposta utilizar o instrumento de flexibilidade. Espero que o Conselho também ele perceba esta coisa simples de que para novas prioridades, dinheiro adicional, recursos novos e, por isso, a nossa proposta será sempre a de não aceitarmos reafetações e a de utilizarmos as margens e o instrumento de flexibilidade.


  Franck Proust (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Ministre, Monsieur le Commissaire, les catastrophes naturelles et les risques n’ont pas de frontières. Nous avons trop souvent été dans la réaction et non dans l’anticipation. La solidarité européenne face aux catastrophes doit passer par des actes forts.

C’est ce qui s’engage aujourd’hui, sous votre impulsion, Monsieur le Commissaire, et je vous en félicite, avec les 280 millions d’euros engagés jusqu’en 2020 et la mise en œuvre d’une réserve capacitaire autonome. J’allais dire «enfin!», car je fais partie de ceux qui appellent de leurs vœux, et depuis plusieurs années, la mise en commun de capacités et le renforcement des moyens pour une protection civile européenne renforcée.

Je pense ici, précisément, à une flotte européenne de Canadair, projet que je défends aussi avec ferveur, avec mon collègue Renaud Muselier, président de la région Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur. Des bombardiers d’eau aux couleurs de l’Europe seraient un symbole fort d’une Europe concrète, au secours des populations.

Je pense aussi au réseau européen de hubs pour la protection civile et la gestion des risques, fruit de l’action préparatoire que j’ai portée au Parlement européen et qui a été approuvée dans le budget 2018 de l’Union européenne. Précisément, Monsieur le Commissaire, la base aérienne de Nîmes-Garons, en France, que vous connaissez bien, parce que vous l’avez inaugurée, fleuron de la sécurité civile française, pourrait servir ici de première base pilote au niveau européen pour accueillir de nouvelles capacités.

Il revient désormais – cela a déjà été dit – aux États membres de dire concrètement comment ils comptent contribuer aux efforts que nous engageons. C’est pour cela que j’ai interpellé, à ce sujet, le président de la République française, pour que la France puisse concrètement défendre, au niveau européen, la nécessité de mieux prévenir les risques et, surtout, de protéger avec réactivité grâce à des moyens renouvelés.


Procedura "catch–the–eye"


  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, congratulazioni per la sua elezione a Vicepresidente. I disastri stanno diventando in tutta Europa sempre più frequenti e complessi. Gli effetti del cambiamento climatico hanno colpito duramente molti Stati membri negli ultimi anni. Solo pochi mesi fa il Portogallo e l'Italia, in particolare, hanno dovuto fronteggiare una quantità di incendi estivi mai verificatasi in precedenza.

A fronte di ciò gli attuali strumenti di risposta alle catastrofi sono limitati e spesso non in grado di fornire assistenza rapida agli Stati membri nel corso di una crisi, perché l'attuale meccanismo di produzione si basa su un sistema volontario e su capacità supplementari che gli Stati membri possono offrire ad un altro paese bisognoso. La creazione di un sistema in grado di aumentare le capacità di risposta alle catastrofi nell'Unione europea va senza dubbio nella giusta direzione, aumentando l'integrazione e la solidarietà tra i paesi membri.

Tuttavia, restano la prevenzione e la preparazione i capisaldi di una risposta efficace ai disastri naturali. Concentrando i finanziamenti su queste due attività saremo in grado di incrementare le nostre capacità di gestione del rischio, minimizzando il danno economico, ma soprattutto evitando preziose perdite di vite umane.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, salvarea de vieți omenești trebuie să fie preocuparea autorităților naționale, dar și a celor de la nivel european și vă felicit pentru că ați gândit și doriți să introduceți un mecanism nou.

Este nevoie să întărim protecția civilă, capacitatea populației de a reacționa. Este nevoie și de prevenție în ceea ce privește prevenirea incendiilor dar, pentru a preveni, avem nevoie de educație, trebuie să înțelegem și să cunoaștem riscurile. Din păcate, schimbările climatice conduc la catastrofe naturale, la incendii, inundații, alunecări de teren. Sunt pierderi de vieți omenești și cred foarte mult că nu putem să lăsăm numai la latitudinea autorităților naționale.

De aceea, cred foarte tare într-un mecanism european, în solidaritate, în sprijin reciproc, în împărtășirea experiențelor pozitive dintr-un stat în alt stat și, până la urmă, avem nevoie și de buget, pentru că avem nevoie de anumite dotări specifice pentru intervenții. Trebuie să ținem cont în viitor și de acest lucru, de nevoia de a avea o finanțare adecvată.


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


  Christos Stylianides, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Minister and colleagues for their support, first of all because I realise, for these very constructive discussions, that we are in the same boat and we can work together in order to proceed for these proposals to be legislation in our institutions. I took careful note of your remarks and ideas. As I said in the beginning of my intervention, this demonstrates this Parliament’s active interest in and commitment to these proposals.

Recent disasters were damaging but they taught us several lessons. Firstly, they showed that our collective combined capacities to respond to disasters are not enough when large-scale disasters happen; we have to be frank. Secondly, they showed the limitation of the current purely voluntary system. This is the hard reality. Finally, of course, they showed that the negative impact of disasters would have been reduced if effective preventive actions had been in place. As you said, prevention is better than cure. It is as simple as that.

We have to focus on prevention and preparedness in order, of course, to save lives, but also to reduce our costs. At the same time, there is also some good news. We are not starting from scratch. We have a lot of accumulated knowledge and experience because of the current system, and through Rescue we work towards maximum efficiency with minimum bureaucracy. We don’t need more bureaucracy. We have to find ways to reach maximum efficiency with minimum bureaucracy; this is very important for all of us and this is why I strongly believe that Rescue is a cost-effective and cost-efficient system. Through Rescue we can provide tangible European solidarity to our citizens, not in theory but in action. Action that helps save lives, livelihoods and of course our environment.

Remember that Rescue is first of all about economies of scale. It is very simple to understand this. Secondly, it is a tool to directly help our citizens in very critical times of floods, forest fires, epidemics and earthquakes and, as I have already highlighted, a cost-effective way to ensure coordination and a harmonised approach to prevention and preparedness.

Some of you raised the issue about the national risk management plans and the risk reduction plan. At present our European Union Civil Protection Mechanism is not responsible for the national risk reduction plan. It is a national competence. Now, through Rescue, we can find ways to fund this cooperation between our services and national services in order to increase and to improve the national plans for management and risk reduction. Through Rescue we can improve ourselves across Europe.

During the terrible forest fires in Portugal last October – and our colleagues from Portugal know well the situation in Portugal at that time – Jean-Claude Juncker said that Europe must and should offer more than condolences during natural disasters. He asked all of us for immediate and concrete action. I strongly believe that we can provide our citizens with more than condolences. We are all aware that the next disasters can happen at any time in any country, because no country is immune and self-reliance should not be taken for granted. It is an illusion for anyone to believe that any country can face alone the size of the current natural disasters because of climate change.

Thank you again for your support. I am sure you understand the importance and the urgency of adopting the proposal. It is for this reason that I count on your swift action. I strongly believe that we can work together in order to persuade anyone who, until now, may show some reluctance, but we have powerful arguments in order to convince them that this is very important for Europe, for our citizens, to save lives and livelihoods.


  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, the civil protection mechanism is a concrete expression of European solidarity, and it is a priority for us. Happy to hear that this is the case for the Council, for the Commission and indeed for the European Parliament. I didn’t expect it to be any other way.

We in the Council will look at the Commission’s proposal with great attention. We will work swiftly, but we are taking the necessary time to deliver a rock solid mechanism – better than the current one.

In the meantime, nevertheless, we owe it to our citizens that no effort is spared to improve our Member States’ capacities, as well as our collective capacities, to better prevent and to quickly react within the current framework.


  Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.


22. Celounijní zákaz nacistických a fašistických symbolů a hesel (rozprava)
Videozáznamy vystoupení

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulle dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione sul divieto a livello dell'UE relativo a simboli e slogan nazisti e fascisti (2017/3007(RSP)).


  Matti Maasikas, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, you have invited the Presidency to speak on behalf of the Council on the topic of an EU-wide ban on Nazi and fascist symbols and slogans. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here and to present our views on this topic.

This discussion is important for several reasons. First of all, reports from the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe confirm an alarming increase of intolerance and hatred in Europe. There might be several reasons explaining this worrying phenomenon, but let me be clear on this, there is no justification for it.

Secondly, we notice an increasing use of Nazi and fascist symbols on social media platforms but also in public, both online and offline. This shows that some of our citizens have not learnt from history. As we know, this can be very dangerous. Those who forget mistakes of their own history risk repeating them.

We are therefore obliged to take all incidents of that kind seriously and never ignore them. On a positive note, the EU has adopted specific legislation on combating intolerance and hatred. I refer in particular to the 2008 Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. In June 2016 the Council invited Member States to ensure the effective transposition and implementation of the framework decision and other relevant hate crime laws at national level. In addition, it asked Member States to develop effective methods to report and ensure proper recording of hate crimes. According to this legislation specific offences exist when directed against a group of persons, or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. They include, among others, public incitement to violence or hatred, public dissemination or distribution of propaganda material and images.

I have already mentioned that social media is one of the main vehicles enabling hate speech to go viral. One possible remedy against this epidemic is a harmonised and determined European response. As for the steps taken in the Council, the Estonian Presidency and the previous Maltese and Slovak Presidencies have done important work to tackle these issues. In October the Council conclusions on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2016 were adopted, where the Council welcomes the measures coordinated by the Commission High-Level Group on combating racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance. We also welcome and support the ongoing EU-level dialogue with major IT companies to address hate speech online, also through the implementation of the code of conduct launched by the Commission for this purpose. Last but not least, we should remember and commend the remarkable work done by the Fundamental Rights Agency in this field. But all these countermeasures would be in vain if we forget the important role of education and youth work, and more precisely the need to develop democratic resilience, media literacy, tolerance, critical thinking and conflict resolution skills in the learning process.

To sum up, we have different tools: we have knowledge, education, counter-narratives, but also condemnation of any form of anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim violence, hate speech or discrimination. Accordingly the responsibility rests with all of us: politicians, teachers, civil servants, students, parents, and if needed also judges and prosecutors. No one can close their eyes or ears and pretend not to see injustice, discrimination or hatred.

I would like to conclude by stressing how important it is to prevent our societies from becoming dominated by hatred. Our role, and on this I know I can count on your support, is to remind ourselves of our responsibility for what we say. Words and symbols have power, including the power to harm. For this reason, freedom of expression has its limits. It is our common responsibility to find the right balance, and this is never an easy task.


  Dimitris Avramopoulos, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, we all know, and we are proud of it, that the European Union is built upon common values of human dignity, fundamental rights, equality, rule of law and democracy.

The Commission shares the concerns of Parliament over the worrying trends in the rise of racist and xenophobic attitudes, which sadly have found their way into mainstream politics and mainstream media.

Under the Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law the Member States must ensure that public incitement to violence or hatred, including through the use of Nazi and fascist symbols and slogans, is criminalised under national law. National law enforcement and judicial authorities are responsible for investigating and prosecuting any such instance. The Commission rigorously monitors the application of this legislation.

In the past couple of years nine Member States have made amendments to their respective criminal laws in order to bring them in line. The Commission will continue to work on reducing the remaining gaps in national legislation, but laws are only as good as they are effectively implemented in practice. This is why the Commission has been stepping up its efforts to assist Member States to build the capacity to ensure the effective implementation of the law, but also to support targeted measures to prevent and tackle intolerance in practice. This includes the work of the EU High Level Group on combating racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance.

The EU High Level Group was set up in 2016 to foster discussions and synergies between Member States, civil society and other key stakeholders with a view to improving responses, including guidance on how to train police and judicial authorities on hate speech and hate crime, and guidance on how to ensure adequate support and protection for hate crime victims.

The Commission has been leading major initiatives such as the Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online. The recent guidance Communication on Tackling Illegal Content Online adopted by the Commission in September also provides key impetus for further progress in this area. Continued efforts are also being devoted to initiatives on remembrance. As the Commission remarked in its statement on the Europe-wide Day of Remembrance for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes on 23 August, it is essential not only to remember the victims of these regimes but also to use remembrance as a guide for the future so as not to repeat mistakes and let discrimination and hatred spread again.

I used to say that history does not really repeat itself; men repeat history very simply because they do not read it and they do not draw lessons from what has happened in the past. This is why the Commission strongly reaffirmed on that occasion the rejection of totalitarian and authoritarian ideologies such as Nazism and fascism.

It is crucial to remember past horrors in order to give us the knowledge and strength to reject those who seek to revive these heinous ideologies.


  Dubravka Šuica, u ime kluba PPE. – Gospodine predsjedniče, najprije želim zahvaliti Komisiji i Vijeću na njihovom maksimalnom angažmanu oko borbe protiv svih totalitarističkih sistema i natruha. Također, zahvaljujem što je ova točka došla na dnevni red, da možemo i o ovome progovoriti u Europskome parlamentu, ali za razliku od kolega iz zapadne Europe, nama u Hrvatskoj još su svježa sjećanja na totalitarni režim koji nije bio ni fašistički ni nacistički, ali se itekako obračunavao s neistomišljenicima, pojedincima i skupinama koje je smatrao prijetnjom samome sebi.

Novija povijest svijeta govori o milijunima smrti direktno ili indirektno povezanih upravo s komunističkim režimima i njihovi simboli jednako su neprihvatljivi u Europi 21. stoljeća, kao i fašistički i nacistički. Stoga žalim što u današnjem naslovu točke dnevnog reda, vi predlagatelji, niste uključili i komunizam. Naravno da se protivim svim totalitarističkim simbolima i sloganima.

Pokušat ću vam ilustrirati situaciju. U hrvatskom javnom prostoru postoje različita tumačenja prošlosti, a njegovanje kulture sjećanja na kršenje ljudskih prava i otpor nedemokratskim režimima nije sustavan i sveobuhvatan. Ni aktualna upravna ni sudska praksa po pitanju isticanja simbola nije ujednačena. Zato je Vlada na čelu s Andrejem Plenkovićem osnovala Vijeće za suočavanje s prošlošću, čiji je zadatak predložiti Vladi preporuke i pravno regulirati isticanje sadržaja kojima se veličaju nedemokratski režimi.

Ne postoji totalitarni režim koji zaslužuje biti amnestiran samo zato što pobjednici pišu povijest. Europa, pa tako i europska Hrvatska, s jednakom osudom treba gledati na sve režime koji su provodili ili provode diskriminaciju po bilo kojoj osnovi, koji su odgovorni za političke progone, pojedinačna ili masovna ubojstva te represiju nad osnovnim pravima i slobodama. U svakom slučaju, pozdravljam činjenicu da o ovome razgovaramo, a isto tako mi je drago da su predstavnik Komisije, gospodin Avramopoulos, i predstavnik Vijeća danas izrazili stajalište Komisije koje se protivi svakom totalitarizmu.


  Cécile Kashetu Kyenge, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, nei sessant'anni che sono seguiti ai trattati di Roma, l'Europa ha reso possibile il cammino verso la pace.

Abbiamo fatto sì che le nostre diversità non fossero più causa di divisioni, ma il fondamento del nostro stare insieme secondo valori comuni, costruiti nei secoli. Valori come la democrazia, i diritti umani, la libertà di pensiero e i principi dello Stato di diritto. Valori che siamo arrivati a negare nella storia, attraversando la devastante esperienza delle dittature e del nazifascismo. Per questo oggi la nostra Unione rappresenta tutto il contrario di ciò che hanno significato i fascismi nella storia.

Per questo il nazifascismo non è un'opinione, non è un normale esercizio della libertà di espressione, ma piuttosto il suo contrario: è negazione della libertà, è un crimine, un crimine che non si può circoscrivere ad un determinato momento storico. Come diceva Primo Levi, signor Presidente, ogni tempo ha il suo fascismo: inizia diffondendo in molti modi sottili la nostalgia per un mondo in cui regnava sovrano l'ordine e in cui la sicurezza dei pochi privilegiati riposava sul lavoro forzato e sul silenzio forzato dei molti.

Ordine e pulizia: il fascismo inizia anche così. Dalla riabilitazione di un linguaggio in grado di suscitare profonde divisioni nella società, propagandare idee che incitano alla soppressione della democrazia, alla criminalizzazione delle diversità e alla sopraffazione, signor Presidente, non può essere mai considerato come semplice esercizio della libertà di espressione. Siamo liberi di esprimere il nostro pensiero, proprio perché abbiamo messo fine al nazifascismo, che era ed è tuttora estrazione della violenza.

C'è chi ritiene che tutto questo sia limitato al folclore di un passato lontano. È necessario però avere una solida memoria storica per poter guardare al futuro senza commettere gli errori del passato, e mettere al bando il nazifascismo, condannare la sua apologia, relegare ai musei e alla storia i suoi simboli, non è negare una libertà altrui, ma garantire quella di tutti noi.


  Jussi Halla-aho, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I think it is very childish to try and ban symbols, even if they represent repulsive ideologies such as National Socialism, or Communism for that matter.

First, it is difficult to define what exactly is banned and in what context. Symbols such the swastika or the red star are universal motifs and have different meanings in different cultures. It is even more difficult to define expressions.

Second, we would never reach an agreement on which destructive ideologies are bad enough for the symbols to be banned. The criteria would be political not objective.

Third, if you ban a symbol representing a certain ideology, the proponents of that ideology will just invent a new symbol which resembles the old one just enough to be understood, but not enough to meet the definition.

I must say I disagree with Mr Maasikas, symbols alone have no power: they are ink on paper.

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


  Maria Grapini (S&D), Întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonașului albastru”. – Stimate coleg, ați spus că este copilărește să interzicem anumite simboluri. Sigur, noi aici nu vorbim de anumite simboluri, ci specificăm care. Dumneavoastră considerați că simbolurile naziste, fasciste, demonstrate de istorici, de specialiști, pot influența copiii, tinerii în a fi extremiști, în a ajunge la acte de violență?

Credeți că aceste simboluri pot să influențeze copiii?


  Jussi Halla-aho (ECR), blue-card answer. – I don’t believe extremism stems from symbols of extremism. What I wanted to point out is it would be very difficult to make a definition which would ban the Nazi swastika but not the swastika in other contexts, used in different cultures in different times and places.


  Ivan Jakovčić, u ime kluba ALDE. – Gospodine predsjedniče, poticaj za ovu točku dnevnog reda našeg Parlamenta našao sam u tužnoj, ali i opasnoj činjenici da se danas na ulicama europskih gradova, više nego ranijih desetljeća, okupljaju osobe koje veličaju nacizam, fašizam i njihove izvedenice u raznim državama.

Vidjeli smo nedavno što se dešavalo u Varšavi, Madridu, Rimu, Sofiji, Zagrebu, Beogradu, a nažalost i u mnogim drugim većim ili manjim mjestima. Predugi je niz manifestacija mržnje oko nas da bismo mi mogli šutjeti. Nacizam je potekao iz Njemačke, ali upravo je Njemačka prva i najbolje od svih odlučila kažnjavati sve one koji veličaju nacizam ili koriste njegove simbole ili slogane. Italija je to u odnosu prema fašizmu učinila na sličan način. Nažalost, još uvijek ima zemalja i vlasti u Europskoj uniji koje se prema simbolima i sloganima nacizma, fašizma ili ustaštva i četništva odnose bez ozbiljnih sankcija i čvrstih reakcija. Europska je unija nastala sa željom da se rat u Europi nikada više ne ponovi. Zlo nacizma koje je nastalo na europskom tlu i proširilo na mnoge druge zemlje pobijeđeno je, ali očito nije iskorijenjeno.

Zato trebamo djelovati. Odmah i ovdje. Upravo zato ne samo zemlje članice, već i sama Europska unija, ovaj Parlament, ova Komisija moraju predložiti konkretna zakonska rješenja na europskoj razini. Tražim od Komisije i od svih nas ovdje u ovom Parlamentu da ovaj saziv Parlamenta usvoji posebnu rezoluciju i druge neophodne akte kojima će se oštro kazneno suprotstaviti svima onima koji veličaju i koriste simbole i slogane poraženih zločinačkih režima.


  Στέλιος Κούλογλου, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, είναι θετικό το γεγονός ότι πάμε να απαγορεύσουμε τα ναζιστικά και ακροδεξιά σύμβολα στην Ευρώπη, αλλά είναι μία συμβολική πράξη. Για να γίνει κάτι παραπάνω, πρέπει να δούμε τις ρίζες της ανόδου της Ακροδεξιάς και του ναζισμού στη σημερινή Ευρώπη. Το είδαμε στην Ελλάδα, πριν από μερικά χρόνια. Το είδαμε τελευταία στη Γερμανία με την άνοδο του ακροδεξιού κόμματος. Το βλέπουμε παντού.

Για να μπορέσουμε να αντιμετωπίσουμε αυτό το πολιτικό φαινόμενο, πρέπει να αντιμετωπίσουμε τις αιτίες που το προκαλούν, δηλαδή τις πολιτικές λιτότητας που έχουν εφαρμοστεί, τις κοινωνικές αδικίες που μεγαλώνουν, πράγματα τα οποία προκαλούν και οργή στον πληθυσμό και πολύ μεγάλη ανασφάλεια, και στρέφουν ανθρώπους, εργαζόμενους από λαϊκά στρώματα, –το έχουμε δει και στη Γαλλία– προς την Ακροδεξιά. Πρέπει να αλλάξουμε πολιτική και να πάμε σε μια κοινωνική, δίκαιη Ευρώπη, η οποία να εξασφαλίζει σταθερότητα και ασφάλεια στους πολίτες.

(Ο ομιλητής δέχεται να απαντήσει σε ερώτηση με γαλάζια κάρτα, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 162 παράγραφος 8 του Κανονισμού)


  Jaromír Štětina (PPE), otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Vážený pane kolego, já vítám snahu Komise a Rady o zákaz nacistických symbolů a hesel a dovoluji si Vás zeptat: Čím se liší hákový kříž od srpu a kladiva? Čím se liší totalitní nacismus od totalitního komunismu? Vždyť komunismus má na svědomí také miliony lidí. Není již čas zahrnout komunistické symboly spolu se symboly nacistickými do snahy o zákaz?


  Στέλιος Κούλογλου (GUE/NGL), απάντηση σε ερώτηση με γαλάζια κάρτα. – Τη διαφορά μεταξύ των ναζιστικών συμβόλων και των κομμουνιστικών συμβόλων μπορείτε να τη δείτε σε μία φωτογραφία μόνο. Στη φωτογραφία της απελευθέρωσης του Βερολίνου το 1945 από τα ναζιστικά στρατεύματα, αυτά τα στρατεύματα που είχαν εκτελέσει δεκάδες εκατομμύρια και είχανε στείλει εκατομμύρια ανθρώπους στα κρεματόρια, μία σημαία, διαφορετική σημαία, που κρατούσαν στρατιώτες απελευθέρωσε το Βερολίνο και έριξε τον Χίτλερ, και αυτή η σημαία είχε το σφυροδρέπανο. Δεν μπορείτε να βάλετε το ένα πράγμα δίπλα στο άλλο.