Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen

Dinsdag 16 januari 2018 - Straatsburg

3. Conclusies van de bijeenkomst van de Europese Raad op 14 en 15 december 2017 (debat)

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulle dichiarazioni del Consiglio europeo e della Commissione sulle conclusioni della riunione del Consiglio europeo del 14 e 15 dicembre 2017 (2017/2908(RSP)).

  Donald Tusk, President of the European Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to wish you all the best for the new year and thank Parliament for its excellent cooperation in 2017.

Before reporting on the main outcomes of the European Council, I want to highlight that during the December Summit, 25 Member States launched permanent structured cooperation in defence. The European Union must be both visionary and pragmatic if it is to be effective. More than half a century ago, an ambitious vision of the European Defence Community was created, but what was missing was the unity and courage to put it into practice. Now, the dream is becoming a reality.

Permanent Structured Cooperation on security and defence (PESCO) is the practical expression of our common will to build a European defence system. It shows that the Union moves forward when we combine ambition and pragmatism.

Last September, I proposed a new working method to leaders, with the intention of speeding up decision-making in the Council and tackling quite deliberately the tough issues in the areas where we are deadlocked. December was the first real test of this. We made a good start, with frank, open and constructive discussions on migration and the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). In addition, we took concrete decisions on Brexit, defence and a further extension of sanctions against Russia. I am proud to know that Europeans have stood united together with the Ukrainian people against Russian aggression for three-and-a-half years, and we will stay the course.

On migration, Member States responded well and generously to our request to refinance the North of Africa window of the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, and I would like to thank those governments who made it possible. However, irregular migration will remain a challenge for decades, not years, and therefore we need a structural solution in the form of a stable and predictable EU funding instrument.

I propose to the leaders that we establish a permanent financing mechanism within the next Multiannual Financial Framework to stem the flows of illegal migration. Today I can report to this House that there was univocal agreement on the need to establish such a mechanism. We will discuss it in more detail at our summit in February.

The internal dimension of the migration debate was, as expected, less consensual, although it confirmed the hierarchy of our aims: protecting our territory and keeping our promise never again to allow a return to the crisis of 2015 come first. Additionally, while everyone accepts the need for solidarity, there is currently no consensus on what it should mean in practice. The challenge now is how to express the principle of solidarity so that all Member States contribute in concrete terms and in a fair manner. All the leaders agreed to work hard to find a compromise by June. We will assess progress in March.

On the EMU, the Euro Summit discussed ways and means to reform our economic and monetary union, with a view to taking a first set of decisions in June. Leaders agreed with my proposal to focus efforts on what is realistic while continuing discussions on the long-term ideas. In this regard, in the next six months, the work by Finance Ministers in the Eurogroup and in the Ecofin Council will concentrate on areas where the discussion is more advanced, namely on the completion of the banking union, and further developing the European Social Fund (ESF).

If we achieve these two objectives, we will significantly strengthen the resilience of the EMU, which is my major goal. Discussions, including among the euro-area leaders, will also continue on those ideas that are less developed and have a longer-term perspective. For that reason, I have called the Euro Summit for March.

Finally, on Brexit, leaders decided unanimously that sufficient progress had been achieved on the first phase, with citizens’ rights, Ireland and the financial settlement as priorities. Accordingly, the EU27 adopted the first set of guidelines for the next phase of the talks. This would not have been possible without the unity of the EU27, the hard work of Michel Barnier, and the constructive efforts of Prime Minister May.

As regards our future relations, what we need today is more clarity on the UK’s vision. Once we have that, the leaders will meet and decide on the way that they see the EU’s future relationship with the UK as a third country. It also means a new set of guidelines. The hardest work is still ahead of us and time is limited. We must maintain the unity of the EU27 in every scenario and, personally, I have no doubt that we will. If the UK Government sticks to its decision to leave, Brexit will become a reality, with all its negative consequences, in March next year, unless there is a change of heart among our British friends.

(Applause)

Was it not David Davis himself who said, ‘if a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy’? We, here on the continent, have not had a change of heart. Our hearts are still open to you.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, président de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, la réunion de décembre du Conseil européen a démontré une fois de plus qu’en Europe, se faire des illusions ne sert à rien, ne fût-ce que parce que si on se fait des illusions, on risque de les perdre très rapidement. Mais nous avons su montrer, démontrer que si on a la volonté d’avancer ensemble, nous pouvons surmonter les blocages et rapprocher les points de vue des uns et des autres. C’est notamment ce que nous avons réussi à faire dans le domaine de la défense.

Longtemps, j’ai décelé de la perplexité, parfois de l’amusement, dans le regard de mes interlocuteurs lorsque je plaidais pour une union de la défense qui agisse en complémentarité avec l’Alliance atlantique. Je suis heureux de constater aujourd’hui que le cercle de ceux qui pensent que telle est la nécessité des décennies à venir n’a cessé de s’agrandir, puisque pas moins de 25 États membres ont réveillé la Belle au bois dormant du traité de Lisbonne, c’est-à-dire la coopération structurée permanente.

Le fonds européen de la défense proposé par la Commission européenne viendra compléter ces efforts et inciter à davantage de coopération, y compris en ce qui concerne le financement potentiel de certains projets présentés dans le cadre de la coopération structurée permanente.

C’est la raison pour laquelle j’appelle ce Parlement à arrêter au plus vite sa position sur notre proposition de programme européen de développement industriel dans le domaine de la défense. Il est essentiel que les négociations avec le Conseil s’ouvrent rapidement afin que les premiers projets des capacités de défense puissent être financés en 2019.

Je voudrais aussi souligner que le volet recherche du fonds européen de la défense est déjà bien avancé. Le 22 décembre dernier, la Commission a accordé une première subvention à un projet de recherche collaborative visant à identifier, pour le secteur de la défense, les principales tendances à venir dans le domaine des technologies innovantes, domaine qui, vous le savez, évolue très rapidement. D’autres projets suivront bientôt.

Mr President, the December European Council was an opportunity for the leaders to have an honest debate on migration. It was a time to show the progress made over the last three years, because there has been progress.

Europe has shown that it can act quickly and decisively when it matters, saving lives at sea, setting up a European border and coastguard, reducing arrivals and being a continent of solidarity. The point is not to say that there is no work to do in this area. It is to show that a comprehensive European approach is the solution to our common challenges.

This was not a European Council to talk about the past or dig up old arguments. It was about how we strengthen this European approach in the future. We spoke of the need for all Member States to show solidarity and responsibility, and I welcome the solidarity shown by Member States, notably the four Visegrád countries, in providing additional funding for the Africa trust.

There were also other forms of solidarity that matter. Contrary to what the Cassandras told us, relocation is working. More than 95% of those registered in Greece and Italy have been relocated. Over 11 000 foreign people have been welcomed come from Italy by other Member States and over 21 000 from Greece.

I expect the remaining eligible candidates to be relocated soon. In particular, we must urgently help unaccompanied minors; 392 of them are still waiting in Greece and Italy. But what we have seen is that a few Member States have shouldered most of the responsibility. I would like that to change, and I would like some people to stop arguing against the efficiency of a system which they themselves are making inefficient or are undermining.

As we look to the future, leaders must look at all elements of our comprehensive reform of asylum rules. We need to equip ourselves with a modern asylum system that manages migration. That means returning economic migrants not in need of protection and offering the same standard of conditions for genuine asylum seekers across the Union.

This is the year when a global deal must be agreed. I count on this House and on all Member States to show the courage and determination to bring this reform to a successful conclusion.

Herr Präsident, 2018 ist auch das Jahr, in dem wir unsere Europäische Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion zukunftsfest machen müssen. Deshalb war es auch mehr als nur eine Geste, dass im Dezember der allererste Euro-Gipfel stattgefunden hat, an dem alle 27 Mitgliedstaaten und nicht nur die 19 Euro-Staaten teilgenommen haben. Der Euro ist das Symbol unserer Einheit, er ist die Währung unserer Union, und mit Ausnahme Großbritanniens und Dänemarks sind alle Mitgliedstaaten verpflichtet und berechtigt, dem Euroraum beizutreten, sobald sie alle Bedingungen erfüllt haben. Ich habe nie dafür plädiert – aber ich lese das immer noch, vor allem in der überregionalen deutschen Presse –, dass jetzt sofort, morgen früh um elf Uhr, die Nicht-Euro-Staaten dem Euro beizutreten hätten. Aber ich wollte daran erinnern, was Vertragssache ist: Im Vertrag steht, dass jeder das Recht hat, falls die Bedingungen erfüllt sind, dem Euroraum beizutreten. Und das wird auch passieren, aber nicht morgen früh um elf Uhr.

Wir haben unsere Währung bereits gegen mögliche künftige Stürme – und die wird es geben – besser gewappnet, unter anderem dank der Bankenunion. So sind unsere Banken seit 2014 mit 234 Mrd. EUR mehr Kapital unterfüttert, und der Anteil notleidender Kredite ist seit 2014 um ein Drittel zurückgegangen.

Doch darauf können wir uns nicht ausruhen, sondern wir müssen die aktuelle wirtschaftliche Schönwetterlage nutzen, um die Währungsunion stärker, effizienter und handlungsfähiger zu machen, und deshalb müssen wir die Banken- und Kapitalmarktunion weiter vertiefen.

Präsident Tusk hat schon darauf hingewiesen, was auf dem Arbeitsprogramm der nächsten sechs Monate steht: Europäischer Währungsfonds und andere Bemühungen in dem Sinne. Deshalb brauche ich das hier nicht noch einmal im Detail zu erläutern. Wir als Kommission möchten den Fiskalpakt in EU-Recht überführen. Das hatte der Rat 2012 so entschieden. Und ich hätte gerne, dass dem jetzt auch Folge geleistet wird. Wir werden in diesem Sinne in den nächsten Monaten Hand in Hand mit dem Parlament und mit den Mitgliedstaaten arbeiten.

Präsident Tusk hat einige Worte in Sachen Brexit gesagt. Er hat gesagt, dass unsere Tür nach wie vor offen steht. Ich hätte nicht gerne, dass dies in London überhört wird.

(Beifall)

  Manfred Weber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Meine Herren Präsidenten! Die Politiker starten zunächst mit den Problemen. Deswegen möchte ich heute zum Jahresauftakt zunächst mit einer Gratulation starten: Ich glaube, was im Verteidigungsbereich beim Dezemberrat gelungen ist, ist ein historischer Schritt für die Europäische Union – wir kommen in einem wichtigen Themenfeld voran, und 2018 müssen wir diesen Schwung auch halten.

Schwieriger wird es beim zweiten Thema, nämlich bei der Migration. Dort spricht Donald Tusk von constructive discussions und Jean-Claude Juncker hat von einer solid discussion gesprochen. Ich würde sagen, wenn die Bürger sich die Diskussion vergegenwärtigen, dann würden sie eher von Chaos sprechen, wenn man den Europäischen Rat sieht. Uneinigkeit, kein Wille, zusammenzukommen, kein Wille, einen Konsens zu erzielen, und es entsteht großer politischer Schaden: Den Populisten wird es einfach gemacht. Wenn die politische Klasse nicht liefert, haben Populisten ein einfaches Spiel, und deswegen sollte sich vielleicht der Europäische Rat zwischendurch mal ein Beispiel am Europäischen Parlament nehmen. Wir haben hier klare Fortschritte bei der Frage der Dublin-Reform, wo wir Solidarität, Humanität und Sicherheit zusammenbringen.

The third point I want to mention is about Brexit. It is good that we are now starting the second phase preparing for March 2019, but I have to express already now a clear warning: do not take the conclusions of a transitional period for granted. If the conditions are not good enough the European People’s Party will not give its consent, and the cliff edge is far from being avoided. There is a lot to do in 2018 when we have Brexit in mind.

We saw over the Christmas break a lot of complaints from our British friends: David Davis complained that we are preparing for all scenarios (what a surprise!), and Chancellor Hammond complained about access of the City of London to the single market (what a surprise that we have changes there!). My message to London is: please do not complain anymore; please deliver. Give us an outlook on what you want to achieve for the future relationship.

The most drastic example of the lack of leadership is probably the debate about the colours of the passports in Great Britain. Just before Christmas, Prime Minister May announced that, after Brexit, Britain would return to the blue passport. This would be an ‘expression of the UK’s independence and sovereignty’. The first problem in this respect is about honesty: the whole story is a scam. EU law does not say anything about passport colours. Croatia has had a navy blue passport for years already. You did not have to leave the Union for that, so why don’t you tell the people the truth?

The second problem is a much graver problem: it is about priorities. Nigel Farage immediately celebrated the new blue passport, and I quote: ‘that is the first real tangible victory for the people who voted for Brexit’. Unwittingly, Nigel Farage was right. Not about the victory, but it is true that the blue passport is the first and only real thing the British Government has achieved in more than one-and-a-half years of negotiations, so if I were a British citizen I would be deeply worried about the priorities of my government. That is why I now ask the British Government to come to the point on what is on the table to prepare the future perspective for the Brits. We are ready to negotiate. Europe is united. We wait for London.

  Presidente. – Durante gli interventi a nome dei gruppi non concedo domande "cartellino blu" perché significherebbe alterare il dibattito.

  Maria João Rodrigues, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, yes we can see that the last European Council was a relevant one with relevant progress, first of all regarding the way to deal with Brexit, because we could identify the next steps while fully respecting the European Union principles. This kind of consistency will be needed whatever happens and – we agree with President Tusk – we should keep an open heart to possible developments and choices in the future.

But let me also focus on two other issues where this Council has made commitments; and the commitments must be delivered. This is about putting in motion the road map we have defined since Bratislava and since the Rome Declaration.

The first one is the commitment to equip the European Union with updated social standards with the European Pillar of Social Rights. This is important for all groups of the population, but young people above all, particularly in this new digital era.

If we consider that many, many people today have jobs but without a labour contract or without social protection, we can conclude that something basic is wrong. We need to correct this and make sure that everybody in employment, whatever the kind of job they do, has a decent labour contract and full access to social protection. And then we need to make sure that people, particularly young people, have access to proper skills and new kinds of job, which means large-scale investment in the future.

We have the European Fund for Strategic Investment. This is good but not enough, because we need efforts on a much larger scale. If we want to tackle this problem we need to reform the eurozone because we still have many divergences in the way Member States can invest in the future, inside the eurozone and also involving those who are planning to join.

Something is wrong here, and that is why we welcome this commitment to reform the eurozone. A window of opportunity is there because we have the Commission proposal, we have a committed Eurogroup President, we have a euro summit committing the prime ministers, and let’s see what comes from the German side. This combination of factors can open a window of opportunity.

Let me underline that we want a genuine reform, with the Economic and Monetary Fund in the EU framework, a banking union but also with a fiscal capacity. These are the basic conditions for the eurozone to come back to life in a meaningful manner.

  Syed Kamall, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Happy New Year! As we begin 2018, I am sure most of us were pleased to see that we ended 2017 on a positive note by agreeing to move forward with negotiations on the new EU-UK relationship. But as other speakers have said before me, the next stage won’t necessarily be any easier than the first.

These are tough negotiations in tough times, and there will probably be moments when it feels as though the two sides are far apart, incapable of understanding each other. But the reason that these negotiations are tough is because first of all, negotiation by their very nature ought to be tough, and secondly, because both sides care about the outcome, on opposite sides of the table, but united by one simple goal: the desire to get the best possible result for citizens.

The UK and the EU will remain friends and allies, but we believe that the future is best secured through different approaches. The journey we are on is uncharted, but the ECR Group hopes and believes that we can achieve a deal to the benefit of all sides. And while the UK asks for a bespoke deal, EU negotiators ask: which template? But we all know that while one specific trade deal may act as a template for others, no two trade deals are exactly alike. After all, the Canada-EU agreements were bespoke in themselves. So whether you call for proposals for the EU-UK deal to be bespoke, or Canada+++ or some other variation, it is clear that the UK wants to be good neighbours. However, the UK needs to understand that whilst EU leaders on the whole want as beneficial a deal as possible, they do not want to make it so attractive that other countries are tempted to follow the UK out of the door.

But voters, citizens and workers don’t care about legal protocols or legal technicalities, they don’t sit at home hoping that the UK is made an example of. They simply want both sides to sort it out. They don’t want more uncertainty, more grandstanding or more treading over old ground from either side. They want to keep making a living, keep selling their products, keep their jobs, keep travelling and keep safe. So quite simply, the EU needs to decide: is this a deal for the European peoples, or is it a deal for the European project?

The ECR Group believes that this question is not limited to just Brexit, but a very fundamental question about the very future of the EU. Is the EU serving the needs of its peoples? Is the EU offering workable solutions to the core challenges its Member States face, such as migration and others? Could the EU do less, but do it better? And while there will be those who call for evermore European integration and evermore harmonisation once the UK departs, the European Conservative and Reformist Group will continue to be a voice for those who want to see an EU that respects its Member States, an EU that provides value for money, and an EU that is outward looking, signing trade agreements not only with the UK, but with countries across the world.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, it is a pity that Michel Barnier is not here and Nigel Farage is not here because I should have asked them what happened in their meeting. I have to tell you that since Nigel Farage went into this meeting with Michel Barnier he has apparently been completely disorientated.

I don’t know what he put in Mr Farage’s coffee or tea because he came out of the meeting and backed a second referendum! I wonder what substance was put in that tea or coffee, because five minutes later he is against this second referendum once more. And this confusion is not only in UKIP, it seems to be rather widespread in Britain at the moment. Michael Gove, for example, has forgotten that the ban on plastic bags comes from an EU regulation.

The Prime Minister, Ms May, apparently doesn’t know that the abolition of the charges on credit cards is a consequence of an EU directive. And then, as Manfred Weber has already mentioned, there is the whole hilarious thing about passports. I am a liberal, so I like blue more than red. So if we can have 27 passports in blue with 12 stars on them, for me that would be okay. But that was certainly not a reason to hold a referendum, as Manfred Weber said.

More on a serious note now. I saw to Mr Tusk that we are now coming to the most difficult part of this negotiation. In our view as the European Parliament, there are three things to do. The first is to formalise the withdrawal agreement now, as fast as possible, and ensure there are serious guarantees on citizens’ rights, because that is still a problem. For us, citizens’ rights are not a request that has to be made by EU citizens, there has to be a declaration by the citizens. The burden of proof has to be on the side of the UK authorities, on the side of the Home Office, not on the side of the citizens.

The second request we have concerns transition: we need a transition that is a real transition. Our resolution calls for a transition of not more than three years, and there cannot be cherry-picking in the transition. You cannot request a transition of two or three years on one issue and not on another.

I am very pleased with the latest version of the negotiating directives by the Council because they make very clear that the whole acquis must be accepted. If you stay in the Union in this transition period, all the policies of the EU and all the legislation of the EU will be applicable for the whole two or three years.

The only thing that will change is that Britain will not be represented in the institutions any more, not in the Council, not in the Commission and not in Parliament. It is also very important that in this negotiation directive – and we have to stick to that Mr President – that the new system for EU citizens living in Britain will only come into force after the transition. So there is no question of starting to make it difficult for EU citizens to obtain their permits to reside in Britain during the transition period. That can only be applicable after transition.

Third, on the on the new relationship, we have do not need to reinvent the wheel, as we say. There is the Treaty. Mr Kamall, Article 217 Treaty makes it very clear that we can enter into an association agreement with countries of our neighbourhood, which concerns trade, security, internal security and external security.

But there are two conditions that must in any case be fulfilled before we give our green light as the European Parliament. First, that there can be no cherry-picking inside the system. You cannot say, for example, ‘in this sector we want this and in another sector we don’t want Europe’, or ‘we need a good deal for financial services, but we do not accept the freedom of movement of people’. That will not be accepted by the European side.

The second thing, Mr President, is that we as Parliament will never allow a country to have a better position, a better status, outside the European Union than inside the Union. Inside the Union, membership of the Union will always be the best solution for every European country and European state.

  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, το γνωρίζουμε όλοι μας, έχει πολύ σοβαρά προβλήματα. Πρώτα από όλα, το θέμα της ανεργίας, κυρίως, των νέων, της στέγης για όλους τους ανθρώπους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και της θέρμανσης για όλους τους πολίτες της. Θα εστιάσω όμως σε μερικά ζητήματα που δεν έχουν λεχθεί, γιατί είναι λίγος ο χρόνος που διατίθεται. Πώς στήνουμε, κύριε Πρόεδρε, ένα μηχανισμό που θα αναγκάσει τις εταιρείες-κράτη – τις ονομάζω έτσι γιατί ο όρος «μεγάλες εταιρείες» δεν αποδίδει αυτό που θέλω να πω – να υποταχθούν στον ευρωπαϊκό νόμο με δίκαιο αποτέλεσμα την καταβολή των αναλογούντων φόρων, εκεί όπου προσφέρουν τις υπηρεσίες τους, και να μην μπορούν να καταστρατηγούν ή να εκμεταλλεύονται τα κενά στους νόμους μας, με αποτέλεσμα να αποφεύγουν πλήρως, πολλές φορές, την καταβολή οποιωνδήποτε φόρων. Οι φόροι αποτελούν κοινωνικό πλούτο. Αναφέρομαι σε εταιρείες με όνομα και διεύθυνση: Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook με δισεκατομμύρια κέρδη. Θέλω να ξέρω στη συνέχεια, κύριε Πρόεδρε, αν αυτά τα λεφτά θα αποδοθούν και, συγκεκριμένα, με ποιο τρόπο στην κοινωνία των πολιτών. Μέσω ποιων συγκεκριμένων δημοσίων επενδύσεων θα ενισχυθούν οι τοπικές οικονομίες για να καταφέρει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, εάν το επιθυμεί, να είναι θετικά παρούσα στην καθημερινή ζωή των πολιτών. Αναζητώ τη βοήθειά σας, κύριε Πρόεδρε, για το εξής: να στηθούν δικοινοτικά τρίγλωσσα σχολεία, στην Κύπρο, υψηλών προτύπων για να φοιτούν εκεί όσοι επιθυμούν, έτσι ώστε να συντηρηθεί η πίστη ότι μαζί Ελληνοκύπριοι και Τουρκοκύπριοι μπορούμε να τα καταφέρουμε καλύτερα. Αυτό θα έπρεπε να αποτελεί μεγάλη ευρωπαϊκή φιλοδοξία, για να στήσουμε, πέρα από την άμυνα, καλή παιδεία που να κρατάει τον κόσμο μαζί.

  Ska Keller, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Mich hat der Gipfel jetzt nicht so überzeugt, denn bei allen großen Fragen, die anstehen, ist der Rat, sind die Mitgliedstaaten nicht wirklich vorangekommen. Ich bin dieses Hickhack zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten ehrlich gesagt auch leid, und ich bin es auch leid, dass die Rechtspopulisten und die Euroskeptiker ständig versuchen, uns die Europäische Union madig zu machen.

Wir können hier wirklich etwas erreichen. Die Europäische Union ist eine großartige Errungenschaft, die wir erlangt haben. Aber die macht sich halt auch nicht von alleine, wir müssen selber was dafür tun, dass es in der Europäischen Union vorangeht, und unter „wir“ zähle ich auch die Mitgliedstaaten, jede einzelne von den Regierungen, die da auch mal zu Potte kommen müssen – auch bei den großen Fragen und nicht nur bei dem kleinen Drumherum. Oder zum Beispiel in der Asylfrage: Da wird gesagt, okay, Abschottung, darauf können wir uns einigen, aber bei der Aufnahme leider nicht, und dann sagen wir halt: Na gut, dann vielleicht das nächste Mal. So kann das doch nicht ewig weitergehen.

Der Euro muss endlich krisenfest und sozial verträglich gemacht werden, auch die Wirtschaftsunion muss solidarischer und vor allem noch demokratischer gestaltet werden. Auch beim Kampf gegen den Klimawandel muss es endlich vorangehen. Dazu haben wir im Haus diese Woche eine Gelegenheit, die wir hoffentlich nicht verstreichen lassen, bei der Frage des Energiepaketes, aber auch die Mitgliedstaaten müssen da vorangehen. Und das Asylsystem habe ich ja schon angesprochen, eine der großen Fragen, weil es da nämlich auch um die substanzielle Frage der Solidarität geht: Wie halten wir es damit? Wie halten wir es mit dem europäischen ‚Zusammenleben? Auch das kommt da durch, wie auch die Frage, wie humanitär und human wir eigentlich sein wollen? Und auch die Frage von Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Denn der Abbau von Demokratie und rechtsstaatlichen Grundsätzen, den wir in einigen Mitgliedstaaten beobachten müssen, höhlt die Europäische Union von innen aus. Wie sollen wir denn einem Mitgliedstaat vertrauen, der zum Beispiel Richterämter politisch besetzt oder unabhängigen Journalisten die Arbeit schwer macht oder NGOs, die aus der Europäischen Union mitfinanziert werden, als fremdgesteuert bezeichnet?

Es ist völlig richtig, dass die Kommission das Artikel-7-Verfahren gegen Polen eingeleitet hat – wir im Europäischen Parlament beschäftigen uns ja auch mit der Frage Ungarn – und jetzt ist es eben wieder an den Mitgliedstaaten zu handeln. Da darf es auch kein Wegducken und kein Ausweichen von Konflikten geben, das ist wirklich substanziell und grundlegend für das Zusammenleben in der Europäischen Union. Ich würde mir wünschen, dass wir in diesen Fragen 2018 vorankommen, denn wann soll es denn sonst passieren?

  Rolandas Paksas, EFDD frakcijos vardu. – Europos Vadovų Tarybos posėdis gruodį iš tikrųjų buvo graži šventė. Artėjantis kalėdinis laikotarpis be teroristinių išpuolių valstybių sostinėse, šilti apsikabinimai, daug savitarpio supratimo ir šiltos dvasios, visi lyg ir patenkinti diskusijomis ir siūlomais sprendimais. Akcentuota pažanga derybose su Britanija, realiai pradėta vertinti situacija dėl migrantų kvotų. Tačiau labai daug Sąjungos piliečių labiau norėtų daugiau pažangos sprendžiant jų kasdieninio pragyvenimo, darbo, tinkamo atlygio, būstų įsigijimo problemas. Jiems labiau norėtųsi ne diskusijų ir susitarimų dėl euro zonos plėtimo, bet galimybių už tą eurą įsigyti daugiau prekių ir gauti daugiau paslaugų. Aš vis dar tikiuosi, kad ateis toks laikas, kai Vadovų Tarybos posėdžiuose bus kalbama ne tik apie pasirengimą karui, bet ir apie būdus, priemones, kaip pasiekti geresnį visuomenės gyvenimą taikos sąlygomis ir kaip tą taiką užtikrinti.

  Marcel de Graaff, on behalf of the ENF Group. – Mr President, the conclusions of the European Council do not contain one word on migration or Brexit. Obviously, the Council is in need of proper guidance, so allow me: mass migration blasts us back to the Middle Ages, which reveals that the globalist elite wants the people to be ignorant and obedient once again. They let the illiterate march in in their millions; they let political opponents be silenced; and they let Islam become the ruling ideology, as their followers are subservient cannon fodder.

That is why Poland and Hungary must be sanctioned. Now, let us be clear. Poland and Hungary defend the true rule of law and true human rights, so I urge this Commission to fully support the Polish and Hungarian Governments and to congratulate Austria on their new government. For the same reasons, the globalist elite seeks to destroy the United Kingdom with a horrid deal of death, by exclusion from the single market or complete and utter submission to the directives of the European Commission and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, as well as an astronomical Brexit bill. Imagine the panic. No deal will bring the UK EUR 650 billion. No deal will cost the EU EUR 500 billion, so the benefit of the single market is clearly a fairy tale. I warn this Commission, once again, that the road to federalism is a dead end. Change your course and aim at the sovereignty of the nation state.

  Presidente. – Probabilmente la traduzione del mio intervento precedente non è stata chiara: non ho detto che non concederò domande "cartellino blu" durante questa discussione, ho detto soltanto che durante gli interventi dei presidenti dei gruppi, se ci sono più deputati che prima dell'intervento del presidente di quel gruppo, dello stesso gruppo, chiedono di parlare, si falsa la posizione del gruppo. Perché era successo così: prima dell'intervento dell'on. Rodrigues c'erano stati alcuni "cartellini blu" da parte dei socialisti, ed era importante ascoltare la posizione del gruppo socialista non essendoci stato alcun riferimento personale.

Quindi le domande "cartellino blu" sono ripristinate da subito, ma quando c'è il dibattito dei gruppi e c'è la possibilità politicamente di rispondere credo che tocchi ai presidenti dei gruppi dire qual è la posizione ufficiale del gruppo. Poi se ci sono fatti personali, sì, ma siccome non c'era stato nessun fatto personale e l'intervento probabilmente era di tipo politico ho ritenuto opportuno dare la parola al presidente del gruppo o al vicepresidente del gruppo per esprimere la posizione ufficiale del suo gruppo.

Quindi non c'è nessun tentativo di soffocare la discussione, era soltanto per avere una posizione chiara dei differenti gruppi nei confronti della Commissione e del Consiglio, per conoscere qual era il vero bilancio che ogni gruppo aveva tracciato. Quindi da questo momento le domande "cartellino blu" sono possibili.

  Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök Úr, az uniós úton döntés született a brexit-tárgyalások második fordulójának a megnyitásáról. Választ kell találni a „Hogyan tovább együtt 27-ek és Egyesült Királyság?” komplex kérdésre, figyelembe véve mindkét fél méltányos érdekeit. Ugyanakkor választ kell találni a „Hogyan tovább 27-ek?” kérdésre is. Egy tagállam távozása elmélyült gondolkodásra kellene, hogy késztesse a döntéshozókat. Elemzések nem születtek, csak kijelentések. Martin Schulz 2025-re tervezi létrehozni az Európai Egyesült Államokat. Ez lenne a brexit tanulsága, miközben az utóbbi években lezajlott választások bebizonyították, hogy Európa népei elvetik a szövetségi állam létrehozását, és az egyre szorosabb unión alapuló modellt? Nem dughatjuk homokba a fejünket, az Európai Unió alapvető reformjára van szükség.

(A felszólaló hozzájárul egy, az eljárási szabályzat 162. cikkének (8) bekezdése értelmében feltett kék kártyás kérdés megválaszolásához).

PRZEWODNICTWO: BOGUSŁAW LIBERADZKI
Wiceprzewodniczący

  David Coburn (EFDD) , blue-card question. – If financial services are not involved in this deal, then there would seem to me to be very little point in actually having a deal, because you sell more to us than we buy from you. It does not seem to us to be a good idea. Surely, would Britain not be better off leaving on World Trade Organisation terms? That would seem to be a good idea. I believe the reason that Digby Jones of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), previously Director-General, came out looking grim – as did Mr Farage – was that he fully realised Mr Barnier’s purpose was simply to destroy Britain as a financial unit in the future. It is all about nobbling our ability. If we accept any deal, then [...]

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Zoltán Balczó (NI), Kékkártyás válasz. – Tisztelt Képviselő Úr, egyetértek azzal, amit mondott, de nem tudom, miért nekem tette föl ezt a kérdést. Én arról beszélek, hogy méltányos megegyezésre van szükség. Tehát, amikor én magyar képviselőként az EU 27-ek érdekeit képviselem, tisztában kell lennem azzal, hogy ha nem kívánjuk méltányolni a jogos brit igényeket, akkor nem születik megállapodás, és olyan távozás lesz, ami mögött nem áll szerződés. Tehát teljesen világos, hogy nekünk úgy lehet képviselni a 27-ek érdekeit, ha figyelembe vesszük a jogos, méltányos brit követeléseket is.

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to speak on Brexit. I would like to start by thanking Michel Barnier and his team for the excellent cooperation, and I hope that we will stick to this honest and constructive spirit in the months to come. However, we – as the European Parliament – also expect much closer cooperation with the Council and the Member States today, as the scope of negotiations is moving. Indeed we are awaiting the legal text of the Withdrawal Agreement, but many separation-related issues, which also belong to the Withdrawal Agreement still need to be negotiated. On a number of them, we do not yet know the UK’s position. So we insist that our British partners make those issues a priority in ongoing negotiations. This is my first point.

Secondly, we understand that Michel Barnier’s objective is to conclude in a timely manner the Withdrawal Agreement to which a political declaration on the future will be attached. But, even for this chapter of the process, there is a risk regarding a timely conclusion. We hear from the British side that, in London, the ratification by Parliament can happen only at the last minute. There could also be a crisis in the negotiations. While this is in nobody’s interest, those risks could materialise and that is why we must prepare for the worst possible scenario, which is no deal on 30 March next year. There is a clear need to create legal certainty for this no deal situation. We know that there is work ongoing in the Commission, and we – as the European Parliament – hope for constructive cooperation with the Commission and the Council regarding preparedness, in particular on legislative amendments.

Thirdly, the UK has already been very clear on what it does not want. Much less clear is what it wants. There are ideas leaked here and there, some of them unacceptable and some of them in contradiction with the treaties, so we hope to have the best and widest possible cooperation with the UK in the future, but the internal market must not be torn into pieces to single out the parts that taste good. In this context, we call on all Member States and all European institutions to continue to keep their strong unity throughout the whole process.

  Tanja Fajon (S&D). – Spoštovani, glede rezultatov decembrskega vrha imam mešane občutke. Konkretne odločitve v zvezi z brexitom, oblikovanjem Pesca, rusko agencijo, pozdravljam. A na drugi strani obžalujem odsotnost vizije voditeljev do aktualnih izzivov – migracij. V sklepih ni bilo besede o azilni in migracijski politiki. Vi, predsednik Sveta Tusk, ste govorili o vzpostavitvi sklada za Afriko, predsednik Juncker v tej razpravi prav tako. Solidarnost in odgovornost vseh držav sta ključni, a teh ni, ljudje ne vidijo napredka.

Na vas, v vladah je odgovornost za ambiciozno reformo migracijske politike do poletja letos. In tu bomo v Evropskem parlamentu vztrajali, kot pri ohranitvi Schengena, ki počasi na žalost razpada pred našimi očmi. Predlog Evropske komisije, ki je ta hip na mizi, skuša dobesedno legalizirati trenutno obstoječo nezakonito prakso posameznih držav, ki že več kot dve leti izvajajo notranje nadzore na mejah, namesto da bi Komisija začela postopke zaradi kršitve evropskega prava.

In kolegi, dokler bomo govorili o vladavini prava, spoštovanju evropskih vrednot, solidarnosti, obenem pa dovolili, da te sami kršimo, nam žal ljudje ne bodo verjeli. In boli me, da se nam to vse bolj dogaja, zato iskreno želim, da letos prepričamo Evropejce, da delamo za njih in da je povezava naš skupen projekt, ki nas združuje in krepi tam, kjer imamo skupne izzive.

  Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Mr President, I have three questions for you and a proposal to make. The first question is: do you agree with me that Brexit is a true lose-lose situation, not only for Britain but also for the European Union? My second question is: do you believe that Brexit is also a personal defeat for yourself? My third question is: do you not believe that it is now the time for the European Commission to do everything possible to avoid this catastrophe of historical proportions? I have heard with great interest, and I must say with a positive surprise, the remarks of President Tusk, and your remark, that the door to Britain is always open.

Here is my proposal: Why do you not support a new European initiative called ‘A New Deal for Britain’, aimed at avoiding Brexit in the first place? If you cannot do that, at least tell the British that, should they change their mind before 28 March 2019, they could revoke Article 50. Mr President, I do not think that you want to go down in history as the President who lost Britain.

  Νικόλαος Χουντής (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο απασχόλησε και o λεγόμενος κοινωνικός πυλώνας, το πολιτικό πυροτέχνημα δηλαδή που ανακάλυψαν τα επικοινωνιακά επιτελεία της Επιτροπής, για να αποκρύψουν το αντικοινωνικό πρόσωπο των πολιτικών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Αντί για σύγκλιση οικονομιών και κοινωνιών στην Ευρώπη, με τις πολιτικές σας, έχουμε έκρηξη ανισοτήτων μεταξύ των χωρών, όσο και μεταξύ πλουσίων και φτωχών εντός των κρατών. Αντί για αξιοπρεπείς θέσεις εργασίας, που θα εγγυώνται ένα υψηλό επίπεδο διαβίωσης, έχετε οδηγήσει στη διάλυση των εργασιακών σχέσεων και στην αποδυνάμωση των εργαζομένων. Πρόσφατο παράδειγμα, η Ελλάδα που χθες όλο το αντιδραστικό σύστημα που κυβερνά τη χώρα, με πρωταγωνιστή τη νεο-μνημονιακή κυβέρνηση ΣΥΡΙΖΑ-ΑΝΕΛ, έβαλαν χέρι στο δικαίωμα της απεργίας, στο μόνο όπλο που έχει απομείνει στους Έλληνες εργαζόμενους για να αντισταθούν στις πρωτοφανείς περικοπές μισθών, συντάξεων και επιδομάτων, μόνο και μόνο για να πάρουν άλλη μία δόση από την τρόικα. Κύριε Πρόεδρε, οι Έλληνες και οι Ευρωπαίοι εργαζόμενοι δεν περιμένουν να ικανοποιήσουν τα αιτήματά τους από τον κύριο Juncker, από τον κύριο Draghi, από τον κύριο Macron, από τον κύριο Τσίπρα– αυτοί έχουν ομολογήσει ότι προστατεύουν τις Τράπεζες και το ευρώ – και γνωρίζουν ότι πρέπει να παλέψουν για την ανατροπή των νεοφιλελεύθερων πολιτικών.

  Josep-Maria Terricabras (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Mr Tusk, Mr Juncker, I am glad to see that the EU leaders agreed last December to do more in the field of education and culture. Apparently, I am the first one to focus on that. They established some priorities; however, I am afraid that they – and that we – are still living under the idea that education and culture are matters related to programmes and studies which end with a diploma. It should not be so. Education has to start at an early age. To our children and young people, we have to partner titles on theoretical topics with, above all, practical values.

Indeed, education and culture have to do with civilisation. For us, civilisation means European civilisation, which is not yet totally constructed, and which means having a better Europe, with dialogue, critical thinking, a love for science and art, and respect for living creatures and for nature. To achieve this, we first of all urgently need to write and publish an agreed and rigorous history of Europe, which should contain successes and failures in European history. This demands knowledge, ability and time. Once we have historical knowledge, the rest will probably be better mutual understanding. This is civilisation. Is this what the EU leaders were seeking last December?

  Peter Lundgren (EFDD). – Herr talman! Det står alltmer klart vad ambitionen från EU är – både från herr Juncker och från herr Tajani får vi hela tiden höra detta – nämligen ett allt djupare samarbete tills man har utplånat nationalstaten och upprättat den federala staten, där vi har en gemensam president, en gemensam finansminister och en gemensam försvarsminister osv. tills medlemsstaternas regeringar i praktiken kan ersättas med förvaltningar som lyder under EU.

Det är inget annat än ett bedrägeri, det ni gör mot det europeiska folket. Det som startade som ett fredsbevarande och handelsfrämjande projekt har nu utvecklats till en alltmer makthungrig institution som gör allt för att tysta kritik. Instämmer man inte i hyllningskören härinne stämplas man omedelbart som högerextrem och protektionistisk. Länder som Polen ska straffas av EU för bland annat hur man tillsätter sina domare. Det är för övrigt exakt samma till tillsättningssystem som Sverige har för sina domare. Då är min fråga: När kommer ni att inleda sanktionerna mot Sverige? För ni kan väl inte rimligtvis mena att ni ska straffa Polen för att de vill ha samma system för tillsättningen som det som Sverige använder sig av? Ni är i en våldsam otakt med det europeiska folket, men ni lär er ingenting av det ständigt minskande valdeltagandet.

  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, les représentants de la Commission également, parlons de la défense avec le Brexit.

La notion de coopération structurée permanente nous ramène à la méthode des petits pas, ou de l’engrenage cher à Jean Monnet. Il s’agit d’engluer les pays européens qui ont encore un peu d’autonomie stratégique pour leur faire perdre le peu d’indépendance qu’il leur reste, au profit d’une collectivisation, d’une mutualisation des faiblesses.

La mutualisation des faiblesses ne fera jamais une force. Pour être clair, il n’y a que deux pays aptes militairement en Europe, essentiellement la France et l’Angleterre.

La Grande-Bretagne a sauvegardé son indépendance stratégique en quittant l’Union européenne. Il reste le cas de la France.

Si la France continue dans la voie de la mutualisation, elle ne sera plus une puissance militaire, ni diplomatique.

Quand l’Allemagne, grâce à sa suprématie industrielle – il faut la reconnaître – aura le monopole de la fabrication d’armements, le nucléaire en plus, mon pays, la France, aura disparu.

Comme disait le général de Gaulle, «quand on renonce à se défendre soi-même, on disparaît, parce qu’on laisse d’autres nations faire notre histoire à notre place».

  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, από όσα συζητήθηκαν στη Σύνοδο Κορυφής του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου, επισημαίνω τα εξής: ο ευρωπαϊκός πυλώνας κοινωνικών δικαιωμάτων αποτελεί εξαγγελία ουτοπική. Είναι ανειλικρινής κάθε συζήτηση για ίσες ευκαιρίες και πρόσβαση στην αγορά εργασίας, για δικαιώματα και για κοινωνική προστασία τη στιγμή που στην Ελλάδα επιβλήθηκαν μνημόνια που εξομοιώνουν την απασχόληση με την καταναγκαστική εργασία «σταλινικού τύπου». Το Συμβούλιο, η Επιτροπή και οι διορισμένοι τεχνοκράτες προβάλλουν τις ανησυχίες, τα προβλήματα και τις υπαρξιακές τους ιδεοληψίες, υπονομεύοντας κυρίαρχες αποφάσεις δημοκρατικά εκλεγμένων κυβερνήσεων που βρίσκονται σε άνιση διαπραγματευτική θέση. Η μόνη ασφαλής διαπίστωση είναι ότι η ευρωπαϊκή πολιτική ασκείται κυνικά και ετεροβαρώς, πέρα από τις πραγματικές ανάγκες και προκλήσεις των πολιτών, και προτάσσει το ιδιοτελές όφελος ορισμένων απολιτίκ κέντρων αποφάσεων. Αντί η Ένωση να συνεχίζει τη νυν τιμωρητική διάθεση με αυθαίρετα και μονομερή κριτήρια, μέχρι τον πλήρη εκφυλισμό της, οφείλει να εφαρμόσει τις Συνθήκες περί αναλογικής επικούρησης των κρατών μελών στα πλαίσια της συνεργασίας και της αλληλεγγύης.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Präsident des Europäischen Rates, Herr Kommissionspräsident, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich glaube, dass der Europäische Rat dadurch, dass er die Verteidigungsunion nun auch offiziell nach vorne gebracht hat, hier einen wichtigen Schritt geschafft hat. Hier sollte einigen – wie auch meinen Vorvorrednern – deutlich gemacht werden: Dadurch wird Europa seine Souveränität zurückgewinnen, und das ist ein ganz entscheidender Punkt. Ich hoffe, dass wir in all den Reformmaßnahmen in Deutschland eine Regierung hinbekommen, die schnell tätig werden kann, und nicht so viele sich in Verantwortungslosigkeit stürzen.

Ich finde es auch wichtig, dass die Frage der Vorschläge für die Entwicklung der Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion auf der Grundlage der Kommissionsvorschläge vorangetragen wird. Und, Herr Kommissionspräsident, ich finde es außerordentlich wichtig zu sagen, dass der Euro die Währung der gesamten Europäischen Union ist, dass es die Verpflichtung aller Länder gibt – mit Ausnahme der Sonderregelung für Dänemark –, dem zu folgen, und dass es richtig ist, diesen Ländern zu helfen, dieses Ziel zu erreichen.

Lassen Sie mich einige Bemerkungen zum Brexit machen. Wir müssen jetzt schnell Verhandlungslinien sowohl für unsere Definition der Übergangsregelung als auch für das Verhandlungsziel haben. Und ich glaube, dass wir in der Zusammenarbeit von Kommission, Rat und Europäischem Parlament auf einem guten Weg sind. Dabei muss weiter klar bleiben: Der Satz, der in den Guidelines für die erste Runde feststand, wonach ein Land, das die EU verlässt, nicht dieselben Vorteile haben kann wie ein Land, das in der EU bleibt und die Bedingungen und Lasten trägt, muss meines Erachtens der Bemessungsgrad sein. Ich glaube, auf dieser Grundlage können wir etwas erreichen. Wir können in dieser zweiten Phase schon über den zukünftigen Handelsvertrag verhandeln. Aber die Zeit wird nicht ausreichen, dafür brauchen wir die Übergangsregelung – eine Übergangsregelung, in der der volle Acquis der Europäischen Union zu gelten hat, einschließlich des Europäischen Gerichtshofs.

Es muss dabei auch klar sein, dass cherry picking nicht möglich ist. Wenn ich hier höre, dass von der City of London Vorschläge kommen, dass hier Sonderregelungen geschaffen werden sollen und dass man Kanada plus plus plus haben will: Hier gilt auch die Bedingung, dass man nicht Sondervorteile haben kann und dass aus diesem Grunde heraus auch klar ist, dass so etwas wie Clearingstellen und ähnliche Fragen in die Europäische Union gehören. London kann nicht Aufgaben wahrnehmen, die Aufgabe der Europäischen Union sind.

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

  David Coburn (EFDD), blue-card question. – Mr Brok, from what you have just said, it sounds very much to me as though you have no interest whatsoever, and nor does Mr Barnier. This is what I said earlier when they had a meeting with various people: there is no interest in doing business for the City of London. Therefore, Britain would be better off leaving without any agreement whatsoever, on World Trade Organisation terms. No matter how much damage this might do to Europe, it seems to me that Mr Barnier is not interested in the damage it does to the people of Europe. He is more interested in punishing us for doing something to ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Maria João Rodrigues (S&D). – Mr President, of course we appreciate that Parliament’s President is giving blue cards because we have a lively debate. But we should not accept a situation where a blue card is given twice to the same Member of Parliament. This is beyond the kind of balance we should have, so please pay attention to this.

  Elmar Brok (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. –Herr Kollege! Die Mitgliedsländer der Europäischen Union und die Europäische Union haben dasselbe Interesse, ihre Interessen zu wahren und dasselbe Recht, wie es das Vereinigte Königreich hat, und dazwischen müssen wir einen fairen Ausgleich finden. Sie wollen – und das haben Sie immer wieder gesagt – überhaupt keine Einigung und benutzen jedes an den Haaren herbeigezogene Argument, um deutlich zu sagen, dass Sie überhaupt keine geeignete Lösung wollen. Sie sind Gegner jeglicher Lösung, und deswegen machen Sie uns nicht diese Vorwürfe, dass wir einen ausgewogenen Kompromiss finden werden. Ich glaube, diese Alibisuche für den totalen Kracher ist Ihre Verantwortung und die Verantwortung, die Sie für Ihr eigenes Land tragen. Und die Frage, die mit der Zukunft der Arbeitsplätze Ihres Landes zu tun hat – Ihre Verantwortung. Und wir sehen in Meinungsumfragen, dass Sie zunehmend an Rückhalt in Ihrem eigenen Land verlieren.

  Elena Valenciano (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor Tusk, le voy a recordar una frase que dijo usted en la reunión del Consejo: «Frenar la inmigración ilegal es lo primero».

En el anterior Pleno yo tuve ocasión de criticar duramente esa afirmación. Me alegro de que esté hoy aquí para poder decírselo directamente: verá, señor Tusk, la mejor manera de combatir el nacionalismo excluyente, el populismo, no es copiándoles los mensajes. Dijo usted una cosa más, que demuestra que no entiende usted muy bien ni siquiera la política que la Comisión ha puesto en marcha. Dijo usted que los países miembros están de acuerdo en que la reubicación no es la solución a la inmigración ilegal. Claro que no, señor Tusk, porque la reubicación está pensada para los refugiados.

Así que vamos a ver si es posible que abordemos el debate de la migración en su conjunto con un poquito más de consistencia y con un poquito más de solidaridad y de inteligencia política. Aquí hemos reclamado un enfoque integral de la migración, hemos reclamado que se superen las soluciones ad hoc y hemos reclamado que se cumpla la legalidad internacional, que dice que los refugiados tienen derecho a ser protegidos en los países europeos. Así que le sugiero, primero, que nos escuche un poco más y, segundo, que este nuevo mensaje que usted ha lanzado sea el mensaje que permanezca en los próximos meses. Porque, verá, estamos perdiendo prestigio, prestigio como institución —la Unión Europea como conjunto—, precisamente por declaraciones como esas y por políticas insolidarias como las que ustedes están defendiendo, en contra de lo que la Comisión Europea trata de hacer.

Y una última reflexión, señor presidente: verá, el señor Donald Trump acaba de lanzar una bomba humanitaria política y de seguridad, afirmando que va a dejar de financiar a la agencia de los refugiados palestina. Le ruego, señor Tusk, que tenga esto en cuenta para equilibrarlo, porque lo último que nos falta es dejar aún más abandonados a los palestinos más vulnerables.

  Helga Stevens (ECR). – Ik wil graag het Estse voorzitterschap danken voor het geleverde werk en de fijne samenwerking in de afgelopen maanden. Het was geen gemakkelijke opdracht met zo'n ambitieus programma.

Op het vlak van werkgelegenheid en sociale zaken heeft het voorzitterschap vele stappen vooruit gezet in heel wat dossiers. Ik noem onder andere de coördinatie van de sociale zekerheid en de detacheringsrichtlijn. Ook de afkondiging van de Europese pijler van sociale rechten gebeurde onder het Estse voorzitterschap.

Hoewel ik vele van deze prioriteiten van het voorzitterschap ondersteun, inclusief een sociale pijler, wil ik onze burgers niets wijsmaken. We moeten duidelijk en eerlijk zijn over wat Europa wel kan realiseren en bijbrengen en wat niet. Voor mij is de sociale pijler om die reden een gemiste kans. De pijler had de lidstaten richting kunnen geven om opwaartse convergentie te realiseren, maar is jammer genoeg verzand in hoogdravende politieke verklaringen.

Daarbij vervaagt de grens tussen wat de bevoegdheid van de EU is en wat die van de lidstaten is en moet blijven. Ik zei het eerder en ik zeg het opnieuw: het is in de eerste plaats de verantwoordelijkheid van de lidstaten om sociale vooruitgang en economische groei te boeken. Europa moet hierbij meerwaarde leveren en niet het beleid van de lidstaten gaan ondergraven of vervangen.

  Rina Ronja Kari (GUE/NGL). – Hr. formand! Så blev endnu et møde afviklet, endnu en erklæring underskrevet, endnu en tale holdt, og ikke mindst blev der taget endnu flere skridt hen imod Europas Forenede Stater. Men helt ærligt: I taler om, at vi skal tage borgernes bekymringer alvorligt, men I glemmer at lytte til dem. Millioner af borgere er arbejdsløse eller lever under voldsomme konsekvenser, med dårlig løn og dårlige arbejdsvilkår. Vi kan allesammen mærke konsekvenserne af velfærdsforringelserne, som jo kommer af økonomiske nedskæringer. Hvis vi skal tage borgerne alvorligt, så kræver det, at vi tør bryde med EU’s indre marked. Det kræver, at vi tør bryde med EU’s nedskæringspolitik. Derfor vil jeg gerne opfordre jer til at stikke hovedet ud af EU’s glasboble, snakke med borgerne, lytte til dem og til at spørge dem, om de faktisk gerne vil have Europas Forenede Stater, eller om de gerne vil have magten tilbage på egne hænder.

  Jörg Meuthen (EFDD). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Präsident des Rates, sehr geehrter Herr Präsident der Kommission, verehrte Kollegen! Monate sind vergangen, ohne dass wir bei den entscheidenden Fragen rund um den Brexit Antworten sehen. Unter welchen Bedingungen dürfen europäische Unternehmen Handel treiben? Welche Regeln, welche Zölle gelten für den Export von Waren wie etwa von deutschen Autos auf die britischen Inseln?

Es geht um Hunderttausende von Arbeitsplätzen in Deutschland und im Rest der Europäischen Union. Die Kommission und die Staats- und Regierungschefs riskieren diese ohne Not, weil sie den Brexit vor allem dazu missbrauchen, den Austritt weiterer Staaten aus der EU so unattraktiv wie nur möglich zu gestalten. Dieser falsche Fokus ist eine fast schon vorsätzlich zu nennende Schädigung der Wirtschaft, der Arbeitnehmer und der Verbraucher. Seit den Römischen Verträgen war das europäische Projekt für den freien Austausch von Gütern und Dienstleistungen gedacht – in Europa, aber auch mit der ganzen Welt. Es ist eine Schande, dass sich beim Brexit auf einmal keiner mehr daran erinnern will.

  Laurenţiu Rebega (ENF). – Domnilor președinți, stimați colegi, aș vrea să vă pot ura un an bun și fructuos la începutul acestei noi sesiuni, dar contextul global și chiar rezultatele Consiliului pe care le discutăm astăzi ne prevestesc un an nu așa de ușor. Avem în față provocări generate de crize care au putut părea punctuale și fără legătură între ele în 2015, 2016 și chiar 2017. Astăzi însă, ele se potențează și se accelerează reciproc.

Apreciez faptul că la Consiliul European din decembrie s-au abordat multe teme stringente și sensibile, dar sunt sceptic în privința atingerii tuturor obiectivelor stabilite.

Aș vrea să punctez încă o dată problema migrației. Mai în glumă, mai în serios, dacă facem o analogie între Uniunea Europeană și încălzirea globală, atunci fenomenele migrației de masă sunt analoage cu fenomenele meteo extreme. Și, dacă o cauză a încălzirii globale este concentrarea și intensificarea activităților industriale, atunci, analog, centralizarea și polarizarea Uniunii sunt cauze clare ale fenomenelor migratorii. Soluția evidentă este reechilibrarea Uniunii prin creșterea competențelor statelor membre.

Președintele Tusk a pus în discuție ideea unui compromis. De acord, dar primul pas trebuie să-l facă aceia care au greșit deschizând iresponsabil porțile migranților!

(Vorbitorul a acceptat să răspundă unei întrebări adresate în urma ridicării cartonaşului albastru, în conformitate cu articolul 162 alineatul (8) din Regulament).

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), Întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonașului albastru”. – Aș vrea să-l întreb pe colegul nostru român, domnul Rebega, despre care eu știu că era un pro-european și, întâmplător, a ajuns în grupul ENF, de ce este sceptic privind viitorul Uniunii Europene și care ar fi alternativa la Uniunea Europeană? Pentru că alternativa ar fi numai o zonă gri, o zonă de teamă, o zonă în care am avea toți mult mai multe probleme decât avem acum.

Cred că viitorul este o Uniune Europeană mai puternică, mai integrată.

  Laurenţiu Rebega (ENF), Răspuns la o întrebare adresată în conformitate cu procedura „cartonașului albastru”. – Răspund cu mare plăcere colegului meu. Am rămas în continuare un pro-european, dar îi dau două exemple colegului nostru din România, și anume: solidaritatea la care face referire de fiecare dată Parlamentul European impunând cotele de migranți obligatorii - cu toate acestea, Comisia încalcă flagrant tratatele privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene. Deci, dacă dorim o Uniune Europeană mai puternică, trebuie să respectăm noi, în primul rând, ceea ce am hotărât.

În al doilea rând, este important pentru dumneavoastră, domnule Frunzulică, să vă reamintesc încă o dată că România nu face parte din spațiul Schengen, chiar dacă întrunește toate condițiile tehnice pe care le-a impus Comisia Europeană. Dumneavoastră trebuie să vă răspundeți la întrebarea: este asta o Uniune Europeană pe care ne-o dorim?

  Σωτήριος Ζαριανόπουλος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κάθε Συμβούλιο της Ένωσης σκιαγραφεί, αποτυπώνοντας συσχετισμούς, το μέλλον της που τόσο σας προβληματίζει. Οξύτεροι ανταγωνισμοί του κεφαλαίου, διεθνείς και ενδο-ενωσιακοί, για κέρδη και ισχύ. Κοινός παρονομαστής η ένταση της βαρβαρότητας. Δείτε: Τραπεζική Ένωση, δηλαδή ενίσχυση των τραπεζών για νέες χρηματοδοτήσεις στο κεφάλαιο, σημαίνει πλειστηριασμοί λαϊκής περιουσίας παντού. Στη θέση του Διεθνούς, το Ευρωπαϊκό Νομισματικό Ταμείο, δηλαδή διαιώνιση της επιτροπείας παντού. Κοινωνικός πυλώνας μοιράσματος της φτώχειας, ανασφάλειας, ευέλικτης απασχόλησης, δηλαδή μειωμένες λαϊκές απαιτήσεις και κοινωνική συναίνεση. Και αν αυτή δεν επιτευχθεί, καταστολή. Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση παγκοσμίως παρούσα για τα συμφέροντά της εντός και διακριτά στο ΝΑΤΟ, ενισχυμένη στρατιωτική συνεργασία. Δηλαδή, εξαγωγή δήθεν Δημοκρατίας, στην πραγματικότητα πολέμου, με χιλιάδες θύματα και πρόσφυγες πνιγμένους ή εγκλωβισμένους. Παιχνίδια κρατών στην πλάτη τους, αν τους χρειάζονται σαν δούλους ή όχι. Κάθε βήμα ενοποίησης περικλείει αντιθέσεις, τάσεις απομονωτισμού ή και φυγόκεντρες. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, η ένταση της εκμετάλλευσης και των κινδύνων για τους λαούς. Η λυκο-συμμαχία του κεφαλαίου δεν εξανθρωπίζεται. Ανατρέπεται μαζί με την εξουσία του σε κάθε κράτος.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panowie Przewodniczący Rady i Komisji! Wydaje się, że omówienie konkluzji szczytu to zawsze taka rytualna praca, ale tak naprawdę w wypadku tej Rady tak nie jest. Chcę zwrócić w szczególności uwagę na odnowioną wspólną politykę bezpieczeństwa i obrony. Ona może być brakującym wspólnym mianownikiem, którego brakuje nam w Unii Europejskiej obecnie. Odpowiada bowiem też na wyczuwany deficyt bezpieczeństwa obywateli państw członkowskich. I ma też potencjał, żeby łączyć państwa członkowskie i łączyć obywateli. Stąd też z zadowoleniem należy przyjąć i odnotować, że stała pogłębiona współpraca w zakresie obronności ma nowych dwóch członków. Jest to Portugalia i Irlandia. Zatem już 25 państw członkowskich się włączyło w tę współpracę. Oczekujemy od PESCO, że będzie zarówno szerokie, jak i ambitne. Natomiast jak daleko sięgną te ambicje, dowiemy się z narodowych planów wdrożenia i zaangażowania w wykonanie pierwszych przyjętych wspólnych projektów. Chciałbym też podkreślić, że to jest też sposób na wzmocnienie tego europejskiego filaru NATO dzięki koordynacji i również wykorzystania efektu takiej dźwigni finansowej przy wspólnym finansowaniu w szczególności wydatków obronnych. Tu chciałbym podkreślić, że konieczne jest tutaj też zrównoważenie, tak aby zarówno geograficznie to zrównoważyć, jak i włączyć mały i średni przemysł. I na koniec chciałbym też powiedzieć o kwestii brexitu. Wydaje nam się, że to jest szalenie ważne, że mamy tu istotny postęp w kwestiach finansowych, zabezpieczenia praw obywateli, ale tak naprawdę to oczekujemy na te decyzje może nie tyle finalne, konkludujące ten rozwód Wielkiej Brytanii, tylko raczej na zmianę tej decyzji. Myślę, że wszyscy bylibyśmy najbardziej zadowoleni, gdyby ta zmiana nastąpiła w Wielkiej Brytanii.

(Mówca zgodził się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki (art. 162 ust. 8 Regulaminu))

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Köszönöm szépen a lehetőséget, tisztelt Elnök Úr és Képviselő Úr! Én igazából arra figyeltem föl, hogy Ön azt a szót használta, hogy „megfelelő” költségvetést kell biztosítani az európai védelmi unió hátterében. Ez a Néppárt, illetve az Ön véleménye szerint a „megfelelő” a jelenlegi kereteken belüli, vagy pedig a jelenlegi kereteket messze meghaladó költségvetési eszközöket igényel?

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki – Panie Pośle, wszyscy doskonale wiemy, że nowe zadania to również nowe obowiązki nie tylko w zakresie ich wykonania, ale również finansowania tego projektu. Wiemy, że te nowe zadania obronne wymagają zwiększenia również minimów budżetowych, w szczególności gdy mówimy o wspólnych wydatkach zarówno na uzbrojenie, jak i na rozwiązania o charakterze organizacyjnym, na podniesienie naszych wydatków, naszych zdolności w szczególności zdolności obronnych. Nie można więc uznać, że obecny budżet w wystarczającym stopniu odpowiada na te wyzwania, które zostały zawarte w projekcie unii obronnej.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sulla Brexit il Consiglio europeo di dicembre ha segnato una tappa importante e ci attendiamo che gli impegni della relazione comune siano rapidamente e fedelmente tradotti nel progetto di trattato e che le questioni ancora aperte siano risolte. Questo Parlamento continuerà a essere vigile e attento, il bastione per la difesa dei diritti dei cittadini.

Naturalmente, come ha detto il Presidente Tusk, il nostro cuore è sempre aperto. Così come la nostra posizione è equilibrata e ferma, e se diciamo no al "cherry picking" sui servizi finanziari intendiamo proprio questo, che il cesto è uno e non tre, e che per avere il "passport" bisogna essere nel mercato interno.

Sull'Unione economica e monetaria credo che la differenza tracciata ora dal Presidente Tusk su cosa è realistico e cosa no tra le proposte della Commissione e del Parlamento vada rivista alla luce dell'evoluzione della posizione in alcuni paesi – penso all'accordo di coalizione tedesco.

Realismo intelligente è incorporare il MES nel diritto europeo e attribuire al bilancio dell'Unione specifiche risorse aggiuntive per la stabilizzazione economica e per la convergenza. Noi siamo pronti su questo terreno a svolgere il nostro ruolo.

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE). – Señor presidente, señorías, los británicos tienen que saber que no nos alegra su marcha. La Unión Europea pierde un poco de su esencia con la salida del Reino Unido. Por eso, podemos afirmar hoy aquí que está en nuestra voluntad lograr el mejor acuerdo posible para ambas partes. Para que la mañana siguiente al 19 de marzo, la Unión Europea haya perdido un socio, pero haya conservado un amigo y un aliado.

Durante 2017 los europeos también hemos tomado conciencia de nuestra seguridad. La cooperación estructurada permanente en materia de defensa que se puso en marcha el año pasado constituye ya un hito europeo y del que mi país, España, se enorgullece de formar parte integrante. En el último Consejo Europeo del año también se pudieron tratar cuestiones que para mí son fundamentales: la dimensión social, la educación y la cultura.

Europa significa, señorías, progreso e igualdad de oportunidades. Significa valores comunes y principios compartidos. Significa solidaridad con quienes lo están pasando mal, ya sea por razones de la crisis económica o la crisis de refugiados. Significa una mayor concienciación por el medio ambiente y la protección de nuestro patrimonio natural.

En definitiva, queridos colegas, la Europa del siglo XXI tendrá que ser más social o no será. Si queremos, señorías, un futuro de oportunidades, de progreso y de bienestar para las próximas generaciones, empecemos a invertir en él.

  Richard Corbett (S&D). – Mr President, the Brexit debate is still overshadowed by a complete lack of clarity as to what the UK Government actually wants to achieve. Deep divisions in the UK Government are clear for all to see. Approaching two years after the referendum, they have still not settled on what they want as a final destination in this process. At the same time, British public opinion has not rallied behind the referendum results, as one might have expected. If anything, it has shifted slightly the other way. There are still significant doubts. Nigel Farage himself admitted last week that this issue is not a settled issue in British politics. So in that context, many in Britain will have noted and appreciated the comments made by the President of the European Council just now, when he said that if Britain had a change of heart the door would still be open.

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

  Seán Kelly (PPE), blue-card question. – [beginning of speech inaudible] and also very pro-European. I just want to ask him, as a follow-up to what he said, about the possibility of a change of heart. How could that come about, and in what timeline? I think it is probably unlikely between now and next March. If that is the will of the British people, what can we do to facilitate that?

  Richard Corbett (S&D), blue-card answer. – You are right that there are many ‘ifs’ in that process. But I think the lesson we have learned from the statements made today by President Tusk and, indeed, President Juncker, is that the door is still open, from the European side, right up to 29 March, or whatever date is scheduled in the end, for Britain to leave the European Union. That means that, if the debates in Britain were to conclude that Britain should reconsider, there is no obstacle from the European side to that happening. That is an important element to enrich the debates in my country about what best to do, as we face a situation which is far more complex, far more costly, and far more difficult than we were told at the time of the referendum.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Presidente do Conselho, Senhor Vice—Presidente da Comissão, eu gostaria, em primeiro lugar, de ressaltar esta conclusão relativa à defesa, e basicamente centrar-me aí.

Queria naturalmente dizer que estamos muito satisfeitos com este avanço que foi feito. Lamentamos que Portugal se tenha juntado à última da hora, muito porque o governo português é suportado, no Parlamento, por países totalmente anti europeus e totalmente contra a NATO, por partidos e, portanto, o governo português estava numa situação muito difícil quando Portugal esteve sempre na frente de todos os esforços de defesa. É lamentável que tenhamos perdido este tempo e queria deixar aqui uma recomendação ao Parlamento e uma recomendação ao Conselho e à Comissão.

Ao Parlamento, que constitua um verdadeiro comité de defesa, uma comissão de defesa, para acompanhar estas matérias e à Comissão que na sua próxima, digamos no seu próximo mandato, possa ter, possa haver um conselho de defesa, um conselho de ministros da defesa presidido pela Vice-presidente, pela Alta Representante, de forma a que as políticas de defesa da PESCO e as políticas de defesa da União Europeia, em conjunção com a NATO, possam ser seguidas quer no Parlamento, quer por uma equipa de ministros dos diferentes governos ao nível europeu.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono soddisfatta che il Consiglio europeo abbia finalmente dato seguito alle richieste del Parlamento e del vertice dei leader di Göteborg, formalizzando le conclusioni su educazione e cultura come parte integrante della dimensione sociale europea.

In particolare accogliamo gli impegni per la mobilità studentesca con il potenziamento e l'estensione del programma Erasmus+, per il quale la commissione CULT chiede la decuplicazione dei fondi nel prossimo programma pluriennale, la creazione di un primo network di almeno venti università europee, che favorisca il mutuo riconoscimento dei diplomi di istruzione terziaria, e il potenziamento del multilinguismo.

È significativo che siano state accolte due iniziative nate dalla commissione CULT: la "European Student Card", per agevolare con servizi e prestazioni gli studenti più svantaggiati, in particolare in mobilità, e il riconoscimento dell'importanza dell'Anno europeo del patrimonio culturale, su cui domani avremo un dibattito in Plenaria da noi richiesto.

Mi auguro che il pacchetto "Education", oggi all'ordine del giorno della Commissione – che vara un piano d'azione, finalmente, per le competenze digitali ma anche per l'insegnamento, in Europa, dei valori europei d'inclusione – sia finalmente approvato al più presto dal Consiglio.

Serve tuttavia che ci sia coerenza, ovvero che nel prossimo quadro pluriennale ci siano aumenti significativi di risorse per l'istruzione e la cultura e che anche, finalmente, il FEIS (il Fondo europeo per gli investimenti strategici) possa far accedere le imprese culturali e creative.

  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Gospodine predsjedniče, 2017. bila je jedna od najznačajnijih u šezdesetogodišnjoj povijesti Europske unije kada govorimo o zajedničkoj obrani sigurnosti. Važno je nastaviti istim intenzitetom i što prije ostvariti prve projekte. Dovoljan napredak postignut je u dogovorima o Brexitu, opet naglašavam da svi građani Europske unije moraju imati jednak tretman glede njihovih prava nakon odlaska Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva.

Posebno pozdravljam zaključke o socijalnoj dimenziji Europske unije, obrazovanju i kulturi. Iako su dobrim dijelom u nadležnosti zemalja članica, spadaju među najvidljivije rezultate europskih integracija. Drago mi je što su u zaključke ušli i proračunski resursi za socijalne aktivnosti u kontekstu idućeg višegodišnjeg financijskog okvira.

U vrijeme kada neki od najmoćnijih lidera neodgovorno dovode u pitanje razorne efekte klimatskih promjena, važno je da smo još jednom zajednički potvrdili predanost Pariškom sporazumu. Uglavnom, zaključci su dobar temelj za nastavak rada u ovoj godini, imamo priliku da se predanost ovim temama pretoči u konkretne financijske instrumente u sklopu Nacrta višegodišnjeg proračunskog okvira.

  Iratxe García Pérez (S&D). – Señor presidente, llevamos una parte muy importante de esta legislatura denunciando la parálisis de Europa, alertados por el auge de los populismos, preocupados por las grandes crisis, como la de los refugiados, y creo que es el momento de ser valientes y de entender que son necesarias reformas fundamentales para la Unión Europea. Porque necesitamos una reforma de la zona del euro que se centre en conseguir una convergencia económica y social y que eso se traduzca en un crecimiento justo e igualitario. Porque necesitamos un pilar social —como hemos venido defendiendo los socialdemócratas europeos— que garantice los derechos de los trabajadores, que garantice los salarios dignos y las pensiones justas. Porque necesitamos un presupuesto de la Unión fuerte, que afronte nuevas políticas como la de defensa y la de cooperación, pero que no permita recortes en políticas fundamentales, como la cohesión y la agricultura.

Y quiero señalar una cuestión. Estamos aquí las tres instituciones. Los tres hombres que presiden las instituciones europeas —el Parlamento, el Consejo y la Comisión— han establecido las prioridades para 2018 olvidando las políticas de igualdad de género: no es prioridad la lucha contra la brecha salarial, no es prioridad la violencia de género, no es prioridad la conciliación. Es un olvido muy preocupante, porque dejamos de lado a la mitad de las voces europeas, a la mitad de las almas europeas, a la mitad de los corazones europeos: las mujeres. Aquí estaremos para recordarlo y para ser la voz de vuestras conciencias.

Zgłoszenia z sali

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, firstly, I would like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with President Juncker when he speaks about the migration crisis and the refugees, especially that there is a need for burden sharing. Pressure needs to be put on the countries who thus far have not taken on their fair share in that regard because, at a time of economic growth, thankfully, right across all Member States, surely every Member State can take in the required number of refugees.

Secondly, I was delighted that Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker both emphasised that the door is always open for the United Kingdom to change their minds. That is a very positive message, as Richard Corbett and others have said. In relation to that, I would like to ask President Tusk if, subsequent to March 2019, would a long transition period, rather than a short transition period, be more appropriate to ensure that this could happen and give the British people an opportunity to reflect and then make a decision?

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente; señor presidente del Consejo Europeo, Donald Tusk; en apariencia, la agenda de esta sucesión de Consejos se ensancha y se complica, hasta el punto de alcanzar, ¡por fin!, una palabra sobre la Europa social y hasta sobre el Erasmus+. Pero no es tolerable que lo haga a costa de que los problemas pendientes ni se resuelvan ni mucho menos se disuelvan, como es el caso, absolutamente inaceptable, del fracaso en política migratoria.

Ni una palabra, ni una reflexión acerca del cambio de las rutas migratorias en el Mediterráneo. Porque declinan en la costa de Libia, pero incrementan dramáticamente la presión, con el resultado trágico, ayer, de la muerte de siete inmigrantes en la costa de Lanzarote. Pero sobre todo, lo único que dice la conclusión del Consejo Europeo es que hay que reflexionar sobre los impedimentos del cumplimiento de los objetivos proclamados en materia migratoria. ¿Le digo por qué?

Porque no se atiende a la exigencia de este Parlamento. Porque se hace exactamente lo contrario. Porque se persiste en el reconocimiento de impotencia frente a los países incumplidores y no se aborda una política integral —tal y como exige este Parlamento— en materia migratoria, que dé cuenta no solamente de la dimensión social de la ayuda en origen, sino también del derecho fundamental del refugiado y del Derecho internacional humanitario en la protección de las personas que llegan a nuestras costas.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Tusk, η στάση σας στο μεταναστευτικό έχει ξεσηκώσει θύελλα διαμαρτυριών στην Ελλάδα και ιδίως στα νησιά του Αιγαίου. Εκεί όπου συνεχίζονται αμείωτες οι μεταναστευτικές ροές. Στα νησιά του Αιγαίου, όπου υπάρχουν σήμερα πάνω από 15.000 πρόσφυγες και παράνομοι μετανάστες. Κύριε Tusk, η Ελλάδα δεν αντέχει άλλους πρόσφυγες και παράνομους μετανάστες. Από τις 66.400 μετεγκαταστάσεις προσφύγων, που δεσμεύτηκε η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να πραγματοποιήσει την τελευταία διετία από την Ελλάδα, τελικά, έχουν πραγματοποιηθεί μόνο το 1/3 των μετεγκαταστάσεων. Και εσείς, κύριε Tusk, αντί να στηρίξετε το πρόγραμμα μετεγκαταστάσεων το τορπιλίσατε, θωπεύοντας τις χώρες που αρνούνται να εφαρμόσουν τις μετεγκαταστάσεις. Μόνη λύση για την Ελλάδα, όπως έχουμε ήδη προτείνει από το 2015, είναι η αποχώρηση της Ελλάδας από τη Σένγκεν, προκειμένου έτσι η πατρίδα μου να πάψει να είναι μαγνήτης για χιλιάδες πρόσφυγες και παράνομους μετανάστες.

  Hilde Vautmans (ALDE). – De laatste Europese Raad van 2017 was wat mij betreft alleszins de belangrijkste top van dat jaar. Want het was een top waar de leiders niet alleen hun positie rond bepaalde thema's herbevestigden, maar waarbij ook heel duidelijk standpunten werden ingenomen. Ik ben heel erg blij dat we eindelijk naar die tweede fase van de brexitonderhandelingen kunnen en dat duidelijk het signaal is gegeven dat we niet zullen aanvaarden dat er aan cherrypicking wordt gedaan.

Twee, de vooruitgang op het vlak van defensie en veiligheid. Dat is wat de Europese burgers van ons verwachten: dat we stappen zetten om de veiligheid in Europa te vergroten. We gaan naar een militair hoofdkwartier, we hebben de permanent gestructureerde samenwerking, we hebben het Europees Defensiefonds. Laten we dat nu ook allemaal heel snel uitrollen.

Zo blij als ik echter ben op het gebied van defensie, zo ontgoocheld ben ik eigenlijk op het gebied van asiel en migratie. Ja, er zijn stappen gezet. Ja, we gaan vooruit. Maar ik denk dat we er op dit vlak, mijnheer Tusk, echt nog wel op moeten aandringen dat alle lidstaten solidair zijn. Dat we dit gemakkelijk aankunnen als we allemaal samenwerken. Daar verwacht ik actie van u.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, there have been lots of important exchanges about trade deals with Britain post-Brexit, but there has been a lot less has been about equality and human rights, which are essential elements of democratic societies.

The Council conclusion refers to paragraphs 52 and 53 of the UK-EU Joint Report on Phase 1 of the Negotiations regarding the Good Friday Agreement and the rights of the people in the north of Ireland. Many of those rights are rooted in EU law and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Council and this Parliament confirmed that they would uphold the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts.

Ireland’s Taoiseach will be here in this Chamber tomorrow. If the Taoiseach is going to make good on his promises to the people of the north of Ireland that we will never again be left behind by an Irish Government – a welcome acknowledgement that we certainly have been – he must guarantee no diminution of our rights as a result of Brexit. That needs to be reflected in the legal text currently being drawn up for phase 1 in order to move on to phase 2, and there must be no ambiguity.

The denial of rights in Ireland was wrong in 1968, which marked the start of the civil rights campaign and an awful conflict, and it would be wrong 50 years on, in this year of 2018.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ένα από τα θέματα τα οποία αντιμετώπισε για μια ακόμη φορά το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο ήταν και το θέμα της μεταναστεύσεως. Δυστυχώς, όμως, όπως συμβαίνει πάντοτε, ο εμμονικός τρόπος με τον οποίο αντιμετωπίζει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αυτό το σοβαρό θέμα δεν αφήνει πολλά περιθώρια αισιοδοξίας ότι θα υπάρξει μια ουσιαστική λύση. Πολύ απλά, διότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αρνείται να αντιμετωπίσει τα γενεσιουργά αίτια της μεταναστεύσεως και τις παρενέργειες οι οποίες είναι συνυφασμένες με αυτά. Ενώ, παραδείγματος χάρη, όλοι δέχονται ότι πρέπει να ελέγχονται αποτελεσματικά τα εξωτερικά σύνορα, κυρίως των χωρών της εισόδου, αυτή η αποστολή έχει αφαιρεθεί από τις δυνάμεις ασφαλείας των χωρών και έχει ανατεθεί σε αναποτελεσματικούς οργανισμούς, όπως η Ευρωπαϊκή Συνοριοφυλακή και Ακτοφυλακή. Αυτό έχει ως συνέπεια να συνωστίζονται, κυρίως στα ελληνικά νησιά, εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες παρανόμων μεταναστών, οι οποίοι ωθούνται εκεί από την Τουρκία, και να παραμένουν ζώντας κάτω από άθλιες συνθήκες για άγνωστο χρονικό διάστημα επειδή πολλές χώρες έχουν κλείσει τα σύνορά τους και δεν δέχονται το ποσοστό που τους αναλογεί. Για ποια λοιπόν Συνθήκη μιλάμε; Για ποιες διαδικασίες χορηγήσεως ασύλου; Ας οπλιστούμε λοιπόν με υπομονή και ας περιμένουμε έως ότου γίνει η επομένη σύνοδος του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου για να ακούσουμε πάλι τα ίδια ευχολόγια.

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, in fact this European Council brought more unity, or was intending to bring more unity among the Member States. I am also looking to see more solidarity between all the Member States – and I am referring here to the Schengen Area. We cannot continue to deny access to some Member States fulfilling all the conditions to the Schengen Area, and I refer mainly here to Romania and Bulgaria. I truly hope, President Tusk, that during the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council, Romania and Bulgaria and then Croatia are going to be accepted as fully fledged members of the Schengen Area.

As well as this, I hail the adoption of this European defence industrial development programme and the first EU Defence Fund in view of financing the first capabilities projects for a future European Defence Union.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedniče, problem migracije i položaja migranata koji se nalaze na teritoriju Unije ili čekaju na njezinim granicama postaje dugoročni izazov na koji više ne smijemo odgovarati ad hoc rješenjima.

Nedavni prosvjed migranata na hrvatsko-srpskoj granici dokazuje da je problem i dalje prisutan, a pojedine najave da bi Turska u bliskoj budućnosti mogla ponovno propustiti nekoliko stotina tisuća migranata prilično su zabrinjavajuće.

Građani su u nizu država članica na izborima kaznili dosadašnji pristup migraciji i to Unija mora uzeti u obzir. Politička nestabilnost diljem kontinenta, pa i u jednoj Njemačkoj, posljedica je upravo migracije i njezinih učinaka na društvo.

Krajnje je vrijeme da na temelju jasnih i oštrih kriterija odlučimo tko Europi treba, kome Europa mora pomoći, a kome ćemo zbog zaštite interesa naših vlastitih građana morati poručiti da sreću potraži negdje drugdje.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, the joint report agreed with Brussels in December was an important step forward in agreement on the terms of the UK’s exit from the European Union. Across the United Kingdom there is an acceptance that the integrity of our precious union and of our economy is better protected as a result of Democratic Unionist Party input into the text. We will continue to act in the national interest. An implementation period and trade talks should now go ahead as quickly as possible.

Finally, can I say that my constituency, my home, Northern Ireland, is not a bargaining chip? As we have seen over the last few days, whether it be in West Tyrone or delivered by a European Union President in Dublin, careless talk or calculated soundbites can have harmful consequences for political stability in Northern Ireland.

I say to Presidents Tusk and Juncker: your understanding of this would be greatly improved by talking to Northern Ireland’s political leaders.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Consiglio europeo di dicembre ha discusso, tra l'altro, della dimensione esterna ed interna della politica migratoria dell'Unione europea.

Sulla riforma del regolamento di Dublino non si è ancora trovata un'intesa. Sulla ricollocazione dei migranti, in particolare, resta un'indisponibilità inaccettabile di alcuni Stati membri, cioè il gruppo di Visegrad composto da Polonia, Repubblica Ceca, Slovacchia e Ungheria, che rifiutano la decisione, che pure è stata presa, di obbligatorietà delle quote di ricollocamento. La mia speranza è che i successi nella lotta al traffico di esseri umani e quindi la riduzione dei flussi irregolari rendano il clima della discussione sulle regole interne più sereno e, quindi, più semplice.

Al vertice di dicembre è stata anche affrontata la questione della cooperazione strutturata permanente in materia di difesa. Per molti anni la principale argomentazione contro la PESCO era stata il timore che potesse portare ad un indebolimento della NATO. In realtà è esattamente il contrario: una difesa europea forte rafforza la NATO. Ecco perché penso che la PESCO sia una buona notizia per il futuro dell'Unione europea.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule președinte Tusk, analizăm astăzi întâlnirea din decembrie. Eu aș vrea să vă întreb, domnule președinte al Consiliului, dacă dumneavoastră considerați că anul 2017 a fost un an bun?

Să nu uităm că am terminat anul 2017 cu un Brexit, există încă multă neliniște în statele membre, există încă ideea de divizare - avem Catalonia, avem un comportament al Ungariei despre care probabil ați aflat, ultimul fiind vandalizarea ambasadei României la Budapesta, țările care au îndeplinit condițiile tehnice, România și Bulgaria, nu sunt în Schengen. Bulgaria deține președinția și este nedrept să avem un președinte al Europei fără a fi în spațiul Schengen.

Considerați că pentru viitor, totuși, ajungem la un singur spațiu, la o singură Europă, la unitate?

Pentru că da, sunt progrese, avem pilonul social, avem câteva lucruri pe care le-am înregistrat ca progrese, dar asta nu înseamnă că trebuie să uităm că sunt lucruri încă nerezolvate și eu cred că acestea trebuie prioritizate.

IN THE CHAIR: ANTONIO TAJANI
President

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice President of the Commission. – Mr President, the EU faces daunting challenges, and we have heard many of them mentioned here today, but I don’t think there is reason to be so gloomy about our future.

Let’s go back a couple of years. We faced an incredible refugee crisis in 2015. We found the right measures to tackle that crisis at the time. Now we need to find the measures to be able to sustainably handle a migration over a long period of time.

This is a different challenge and will need different measures, but we are up to it. I think that in close cooperation between our three institutions – the Council, the Parliament and the Commission – we can come up with answers and I would just caution against making the issue of relocation the biggest issue there is. It is a small issue compared to the overall challenge of migration. It is the last resort measure in the case of an extreme crisis pertaining to refugees.

The bigger challenge we face is migration – people who want to come to Europe to seek a better future – and we have to make sure that we develop all the instruments at a European level to tackle that issue: better border controls, better agreements with countries of origin and countries of transit and also a better system of legal migration so that we get to Europe the people that we need in Europe. I think we are up to this challenge and I think we can face this challenge in the coming year, but we need to do it now. We need to do it within the mandate of this Parliament and this Commission.

Likewise, I would say on Brexit that it was a good decision in the European Council, and now we need to get to work. What we need is more clarity from London. Let me just say once again, as President Tusk has also said, that it is not the EU that decided to leave the United Kingdom, it is the United Kingdom that decided to leave the European Union. If at some point the United Kingdom had second thoughts or were to take another decision, obviously the European Union would leave the door open. I want to stress this once again.

Finally, let me say this – and I think this is important for our future cooperation – the three institutions need each other and the basis of our cooperation is rooted in the Treaty and in EU law. For this to work, we need full respect for the rule of law in all our Member States. It is not an option you choose. It is not an option you choose on the basis of national sovereignty.

It is a fundamental issue for the functioning of the European Union, and I say this against the background of increased support for the European Union amongst the European population in every Member State of the European Union. Even in those Member States who have governments who dispute some of the fundamental values of the European Union, the population still increasingly supports the European Union as the instrument to provide solutions for the challenges that the world throws at us.

Let’s be very clear. We are at the beginning of the fourth industrial revolution, a huge challenge. We need to find solutions to the migration challenge, a huge challenge. We need to have an answer to the aggressive and cynical attitude of President Putin of Russia. That is a huge challenge. But we can face this challenge.

There is no need for paralysing pessimism in the European Union. We can be more optimistic than before. There are more jobs. Economic growth is up. Support for Europe is up. Let’s use this opportunity to solve some of the problems we need to solve urgently.

  Donald Tusk, President of the European Council. – Mr President, I have nothing to add to what Frans Timmermans has said. I totally agree with you, with your comments, and there is just one thought, one reflection: I want to thank all those who took the floor in today’s debate, because your positive reactions to my comment on Brexit make me even more confident that we will stay united as 27 in every scenario, and this is why I feel so comfortable today – at least in this context. Thank you Frans for your remarks.

  Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)

  Светослав Христов Малинов (PPE), в писмена форма. – В края на миналата година лидерите на държавите членки дадоха своята оценка на преговорите за излизане на Обединеното кралство от ЕС и решиха, че има достатъчен напредък, за да се премине към следващата фаза. Аз си запазвам обаче всички притеснения относно това какъв ще бъде крайният резултат от Брексит и най-вече отношението към българските граждани на Острова. Като казвам това съм напълно наясно, че когато става дума за защита на правата на българските граждани, те ще бъдат формално така добре защитени, както са защитени и правата на всички останали европейски граждани, било то французи, германци или поляци.

Въпреки това вече познаваме някои от най-лошите практики на английските институции. Общественото мнение в страната още от 2007 г. е крайно негативно към българи и румънци. Трябва да сме много внимателни в преговорите и изключително твърди, когато става дума за специфичните гаранции за зачитане на договорените права на нашите граждани.

(La seduta è sospesa alle 11.44)

PRESIDE: RAMÓN LUIS VALCÁRCEL SISO
Vicepresidente