Istungi stenogramm

Kolmapäev, 28. veebruar 2018 - Brüssel

18. Euroopa Ülemkogu 23. veebruari 2018. aasta mitteametlik kohtumine (arutelu)

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulla dichiarazione del Consiglio concernente la riunione informale del Consiglio europeo del 23 febbraio 2018 (2018/2575(RSP)).

Venerdì scorso ho illustrato al Consiglio europeo informale la nostra proposta sulla composizione di questo Parlamento nella prossima legislatura e le nostre posizioni sulle altre questioni istituzionali e sul prossimo quadro finanziario pluriennale. Ringrazio il Presidente Tusk per aver voluto informarmi anche ieri sulle discussioni intercorse durante la colazione di lavoro.

Sono lieto di potervi annunciare che la proposta sulla futura composizione del Parlamento, che abbiamo approvato a larga maggioranza durante la scorsa tornata a Strasburgo, è stata accolta in maniera positiva dai capi di Stato e di governo, che l'hanno giudicata sensata ed equilibrata. Quindi ringrazio ancora una volta i relatori Danuta Maria Hübner e Pedro Silva Pereira per l'eccellente lavoro che hanno svolto.

Al Consiglio, ho sottolineato che la proposta del Parlamento assicura che nessun paese perderà seggi rispetto alla situazione attuale e tiene conto dell'esigenza politica di avere un Parlamento più ridotto in seguito all'uscita del Regno Unito, della necessità di adeguare la composizione del Parlamento ai cambiamenti demografici degli ultimi anni nei vari paesi membri, e dell'opportunità di serbare un margine per la futura assegnazione di seggi a paesi di nuova adesione.

Sono convinto che questa proposta otterrà una rapida approvazione da parte del Consiglio europeo, anche perché la decisione attualmente in vigore, che è del 2013, si applica soltanto alla legislatura in corso e quindi abbiamo la necessità di adottarne una nuova in tempo utile per le elezioni europee del prossimo anno.

Interrogato sull'argomento, ho anche spiegato che nella sua proposta il Parlamento non ha ripreso l'idea di istituire liste transnazionali, un'idea suggestiva ma che, per il momento, non gode del sostegno di una maggioranza all'interno dell'Assemblea. I capi di Stato e di governo torneranno probabilmente sulla questione, in futuro, magari in vista delle elezioni del 2024.

Ho ricordato inoltre che il Parlamento ha presentato una proposta di revisione della legge elettorale già nel 2015 e ci auguriamo che il Consiglio europeo approvi almeno le parti sulle quali c'è consenso in tempo utile per le prossime elezioni.

Come saprete, il Consiglio ha anche discusso degli Spitzenkandidaten. Ho sottolineato la posizione ampiamente maggioritaria in Parlamento, secondo cui l'introduzione di questa pratica alle elezioni del 2014 ha rappresentato un passo importante sulla via di un'Europa più politica, da cui non si deve tornare indietro. Non soltanto la pratica va mantenuta, ma dovrebbe essere migliorata, al fine di rafforzare la legittimazione della Commissione attraverso un legame fiduciario con il Parlamento più forte. Se vogliamo ridurre le distanze che esistono oggi tra le istituzioni e i cittadini, dobbiamo dare loro la convinta sensazione di essere parte delle decisioni sul futuro governo dell'Unione europea. Questo è comunque un punto che rimane problematico per il Consiglio europeo, dato che a diritto costante occorre trovare il modo per far salve le prerogative attribuite al Consiglio dal trattato. Io credo però che sia possibile trovare un accordo.

Al Consiglio europeo informale abbiamo anche discusso del nuovo quadro finanziario pluriennale. Ho detto che l'Europa che auspichiamo deve poter disporre delle risorse finanziarie necessarie a conseguire gli obiettivi che avremo concordato. Ho riaffermato che il bilancio post 2020 deve essere un bilancio politico, basato non su logiche meramente redistributive ma su una strategia chiara e obiettivi precisi. Occorre prima compiere le scelte politiche e soltanto dopo stabilire le risorse di bilancio necessarie per realizzarle, e non il contrario.

Ho detto che le priorità del Parlamento sono quelle dei nostri cittadini ed è evidente che il nuovo quadro finanziario dovrà permettere all'Unione di uscire rafforzata dalle crisi del recente passato e affrontare le nuove sfide, come il controllo efficiente della migrazione, la lotta alla disoccupazione giovanile e la sicurezza interna ed esterna, quindi anche la lotta al terrorismo e naturalmente la questione della difesa e della lotta al cambiamento climatico.

Accanto alle nuove sfide rimangono poi quelle tradizionali, come la disoccupazione giovanile, che resta un problema grave. Siamo tutti d'accordo sul fatto che il nuovo quadro finanziario debba essere finalizzato a favorire il benessere, la crescita economica a lungo termine sostenibile, l'occupazione di qualità e l'innovazione, oltre che naturalmente a promuovere l'economia mediante la coesione sociale e territoriale.

Ho sottolineato che il Parlamento riconosce anche la fondamentale importanza di una politica agricola comune moderna ed ecocompatibile, che possa assicurare la sicurezza alimentare e garantire la sopravvivenza della popolazione rurale.

Durante il dibattito, ho sottolineato anche quanto sia importante per noi puntare su risorse proprie. Ho detto che il Parlamento europeo ha una posizione che punta all'1,3 % del PIL europeo, e quindi più soldi nel bilancio, ma ho insistito non poco sulla questione delle risorse proprie, come avevamo concordato anche nel corso della riunione informale che ho avuto con i presidenti dei gruppi. Ho indicato anche quali sono: web tax, tassa ambientale per le importazioni e tassa sulle transazioni finanziarie speculative – ho citato questi tre esempi.

Quanto al calendario, ho illustrato qual è la posizione maggioritaria all'interno del Parlamento, cioè la volontà di avere un voto in Aula sul bilancio prima delle prossime elezioni europee. I tempi tecnici ci sono, dovremo utilizzare al meglio quelli politici. Ho detto che noi siamo pronti a fare tutto ciò che è possibile se questo diventa il nostro obiettivo comune.

Queste, in sintesi, sono le cose che ho riferito a nome e per conto del Parlamento dopo essermi incontrato ancora una volta in maniera informale con tutti i presidenti dei gruppi, proprio perché, data la delicatezza della questione e la sua importanza, ho preferito veramente fare sempre più il portavoce della maggioranza di quest'Aula dicendo sempre, dove c'erano scelte a maggioranza, che erano scelte fatte a maggioranza.

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, one would almost assume that there’s an election going on somewhere. Thank you very much, Mr President. I can be very brief on the institutional issues because the Commission concurs fully with how you reflected the discussion at the summit. I want to comment on a few points. Spitzenkandidaten areapparently now part of the Italian language as well as of the English language. The other German word that I know is in both the Italian and the English languages is angst, but probably there’s no relation between the two.

What do I have to say about this? As far as the Commission is concerned, this is something that was done in 2014 and therefore is established. We at the Commission have to add that the Treaty is leads the way here, so the Commission is, if you could put it that way, a child of Parliament and the European Council. So of course we want to strengthen our position in Parliament and our democratic legitimacy, as you’ve explained, Mr President, but we also have to face the reality that the European Council has a say as well. What we said in our communication is that it does not follow that the person who heads the political group that ends up with the most seats in the European Parliament automatically becomes a Commission President. A majority in the European Parliament might be a factor. Somebody else might be chosen if they secured a majority in the European Parliament and could also be carried by the European Council. That is how way we have put it in our communication.

The leaders did not decide, for now, on the size of the next Commission, although the 2013 decision means that they will have to come back to this issue before the next Commission is put in place, and the issue of a transnational constituency has also been left open. I know that the majority in Parliament is not in favour, but the matter was discussed and we will surely come back to it ahead of the 2024 elections; and I must point out that the leaders do not have much of an appetite at present for the idea of a double-hatted President of the Commission and the European Council.

Finally, I just want to welcome the renewed interest which the leaders have expressed in different forms of outreach and engagement with our citizens. We are really looking forward to sharing our experience with Member States, especially in view of the new impetus that Member States have given to this. We’ve run, I think, 478 citizens’ dialogues so far and before the end of our term we want to do 500 more.

The second topic on the agenda was our future budget. Discussion among the leaders was less abrasive than some might have expected, and that should be welcomed: they all understand that at the end of the day we will need a budget. Many Member States expressed a willingness to increase the level of their contributions. Some did not. At the same time the Commission made it clear that savings on redeployments would be needed for some parts of the budget if new priorities were going to be properly funded. When we, as politicians, formulate new priorities, we also have to face the fact that other issues will then have to be deprioritised, and that has financial consequences. So this is going to be a major task.

We will make our formal proposals for the future budget by the beginning of May at the latest. At last week’s meeting, we stressed the need to decide on the final deal and yes, in some cases, agreed trade-offs between different deserving causes before the next European elections. But I also note that opinions diverge on that point and that many people would like to have the decision after the European elections. I see Mr Verhofstadt, who has also, if I’m correct, expressed his view in favour of having the decision after the elections.

Why do we want to take the decision before the elections? Because the current MFF was decided upon only at the very end of 2013, which meant that the programmes putting it into effect could not be brought into being until 2014, so the first year was actually lost when it came to actually getting money out into the real world, which we need urgently to do, to get money invested in our society in order to make sure that convergence starts happening again in Europe.

One of the fundamental threats to the future of the European Union is divergence within and between Member States, and we need to put taxpayers’ money to good use to restart the engine of convergence in our Union. Of course the benefits of EU membership go far beyond the budget. Some of these benefits can be quantified, others not. I think that we should be talking more in terms of the EU dividend, which is not just a balance sheet, but much more than that. Perhaps if we can talk more in terms of EU dividends we can also come to an agreement on how the EU budget should be structured in the future. Not everybody can recognise that this is in everybody’s interest.

(Applause)

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I regret that Donald Tusk is not with us today, because I have had a new experience when discussing the informal Council experience. I am quite fine with the outcome of the meeting on Friday. That is why I regret that he is not present with us, because, first of all, in the preparations for 2019, the EPP Group is very thankful that we can agree on the composition and that we have legal certainty for 2019, which is important.

Secondly, as regards the Spitzenkandidat, the role is clear. The Council is insisting on its role, which is legally defined in the Lisbon Treaty, and that is fine. However, I also see that the same personalities who stressed, in the informal meeting on Friday, the role of the Council are part of the party meetings, and there they are supporting the process to nominate candidates in the party format. My party will do this in Helsinki in November. That is agreed upon and that is what we will do.

Frans Timmermans explained once again what parliamentary democracy means. It is not the biggest group which will have the chance, but only the candidate who can organise a majority will have the chance to be elected as Commission President. However, one thing is again crystal clear: nobody will be elected from this Parliament and from the next Parliament who was not, before the elections, put forward as a candidate from a democratic party. That is a principle. It is fixed and it has now been approved.

The innovation that is ahead of us is that we need not only candidates, but we also really need attractive programmes from the different political parties to show people an alternative and to make a really European campaign.

On MFF, things are on the right path. It was a constructive discussion. First of all, we have to make the EU more effective and spend money in a more effective way. Then there are the new tasks on the table, and we will need fresh new money. I sometimes hear the argument that the EU will be smaller. Dear friends, when I look at the tasks on the table – the demands for the African Fund, for the Defence Fund and for strengthening Frontex – I do not see how Europe will be smaller in the next MFF. There are lot of tasks on the table which have to be financed.

The last point I want to make in my intervention today is about the most important discussion this week on Brexit, because tomorrow Theresa May will make a speech on this subject. When I look to the outcome and the developments in the last weeks in the British debate, the key question is still what the new relationship between the European Union and Great Britain will look like. One principle is clear for us: a country outside the EU cannot have the same standards and the same rights as a country inside the European Union. It is also clear for us that an endless transition period is not acceptable to us. That is why we welcome today’s presentation of a possible Leave Treaty.

One point is still open, and that is the question of what these long-term relationships will look like. We need clarity on this. We hope that, when we listen tomorrow to Theresa May, we will have more clarity, for example on the future relationship with the City of London and how the Open Skies will look in the future. There are many questions on the table and we need a clear idea.

I have to pick up one message we received from the UK Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson. When I look at what he said, especially on the question of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, I must say that a politician should try to solve problems and not create problems. Don’t play with the achievements of the past; don’t play with the peace process; don’t play with the future of the young generation in Northern Ireland. The EPP will be on the side of the Irish people: we will not accept a hard border, and will not risk the peace process. That is what we want to achieve. Europe is ready. We hope that London is also already.

  Udo Bullmann, on behalf of the S&D Group. –Mr President, thank you for informing us about what Mr Tusk told you regarding the conclusions. Frans Timmermans on behalf of the Commission, thank you for drawing the conclusions, a lot of which we share, not all of them but a lot. But the main question today is: where is the European Council? I haven’t met the European Council on the floors of this chamber. I have not seen them here. Thanks to our Bulgarian colleagues, there is not even an empty chair and there is not even an elephant in the room. There’s just nothing. I do not regret that, my dear colleague Manfred Weber – I find it a scandal – because this is about the future of Europe, and where is the President of the European Council? He will learn to take this House seriously, and he and his colleagues will learn to take this Chamber of European parliamentarians seriously because it’s about our common future, and we will not give in on these kinds of procedures.

Bei der Zukunft Europas geht es um Geld – natürlich auch. Deswegen ist es völlig unverständlich, warum so wenig dabei herauskommt. Diese informellen Gipfel sind doch eingeführt worden, damit es leichter geht, damit Sie vertrauensvoller sprechen. Aber was ist denn das Ergebnis? Wie sollen denn die formalen Gipfel aussehen, wenn die informellen schon so wenig zutage fördern?

Natürlich sind wir einverstanden, neue Aufgaben zu übernehmen. Natürlich wissen wir, dass Europa sich um eine anständige Flüchtlingspolitik kümmern muss, dass wir dafür sorgen müssen, dass es in den Migrationsfragen vernünftig zugeht. Und dass wir uns um Sicherheit kümmern, alte Fragen der Sicherheit – neue Fragen der Sicherheit. Das ist unsere klare Position. Aber wie soll das ohne zusätzliche Finanzmittel gehen? Wo ist die Zusage der Damen und Herren im Europäischen Rat, uns davon mehr zuzugestehen? Und insbesondere: Wo ist die Frage der Eigenmittel?

Ich danke Ihnen, Herr Präsident, dass Sie das erneut erwähnt haben, so haben wir es besprochen. Aber warum – es liegt doch in den Händen der Herrschaften im Europäischen Rat – nicht endlich eine Finanztransaktionssteuer, die in das Budget Europas einzahlt? Warum nicht endlich eine Steuer auf die Multinationalen, die im Internethandel ihre Geschäfte machen, ohne anständige Steuern abzuführen? Es ist hohe Zeit dafür, und exakt das hat zu passieren, exakt das hat umgesetzt zu werden. Wir warten darauf.

Der Europäische Rat sagt, dass er nicht einverstanden ist oder nicht garantieren kann, dass die Spitzenkandidaten am Ende des Tages auch vorgeschlagen werden oder die Wahl aus dem Kreis der Spitzenkandidaten erfolgt.

We have to say to Mister Tusk and the colleagues: We could not care less. Warum? We could not care less, weil die Frage, ob die europäischen Parteien Spitzenkandidatinnen und -kandidaten aufstellen, nicht Eigentum des Europäischen Rates ist, sondern der europäischen Zivilgesellschaft, und die Parteien und die Bürgerinnen und Bürger werden eine Entscheidung dazu fällen, und nicht die Herrschaften und die Damen im Europäischen Rat, so wird es nicht sein!

Deswegen erkläre ich ganz eindeutig: Dieses Haus hat sich verpflichtet, niemanden zu wählen, der sich diesem demokratischen Wettbewerb um Programme und um Personen nicht gestellt hat. Wir in der Sozialdemokratischen Fraktion werden das schon gar nicht tun, weil wir die Vorreiter dieses Prozesses waren. Wir werden niemanden wählen, der sich dem demokratischen Wettbewerb entzieht. Wir werden keine Hinterzimmerveranstaltungen mehr gutheißen. Wir wollen Demokratie für die europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger.

  Presidente. – Solo per vostra informazione, si trattava di un Consiglio europeo informale e il Presidente del Consiglio non è obbligato a venire a riferire al Parlamento. È sua facoltà, poi l'opportunità politica è un'altra. Dico questo soltanto per informazione.

  Syed Kamall, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, with friends like that, who needs enemies? Can I come back another time? (Referring toremarks made by members of the EFDDGroup.)

So what came out of last Friday’s Council meeting? A clear signal that there is still a long way to go to persuade Member States to sign up to a bigger budget and also how to select the next Commission President. A number of EU Member State governments know that their voters do not want them to simply sign blank cheques to fund the ambitions of the Commission and the leaders of two or three of the larger Member States. Members of this House can no longer dismiss those voters, those politicians and those governments who question the agenda of political integration or simply label them as being anti-EU, for once you step outside the EU bubble, it is clear that the call for more Europe, whatever the problem, is the voice of an elite, not the voice of citizens in many of our countries.

National governments and voters want to feel that they get value out of the EU for what they pay in. Not all of them want to see a 1950s agenda of political integration. On the whole, the voters want to see a budget that is well managed and matches their priorities, a budget that provides security and well—functioning asylum and immigration systems, and a budget that encourages a cleaner environment, innovation and job creation. But – and members of the ECR Group would want me to be very clear on this point – a budget should not be used to buy solidarity, to bribe Member States into taking asylum seekers, or to control or punish the actions of individual Member States, especially when the Member State pushing for the policy itself broke the rules and, in the process, nearly destroyed the EU’s asylum system.

So, as President Tusk has already admitted, agreeing a budget before the next election is probably unrealistic, but even if all of you here and the EU institutions cannot agree on a budget, those politicians facing their electorates in 2019 should all be clear about what modernising the budget really means, about how the EU will face the massive hole after the UK leaves, and whether the EU budget will be one of coercion rather than cooperation between 27 equal Member States.

So the ECR Group’s question to the Council and the Commission is simple: Is the EU facing a future where decisions continue to be made by all 27 Member States, or a future where decisions are dictated by the few?

(Applause)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all we have to thank Mr Kamall for all the recommendations he is giving for the next budget, in which Britain will no longer be involved. Thank you Mr Kamall.

Secondly, I think we have to pay you, Mr President, a double salary in February because you have taken over the role of Mr Tusk today and that is significant because you, Mr Timmermans, spoke of the idea of ‘one hat’ in the European Union, and we have proved that it is possible for the Commission to double-hat for the Council. The only other thing, maybe, is that you can go over to the other side once, and then come back.

But I will not go over the whole discussion that you had in that informal Council about Spitzenkandidaten and transnational lists. I have already said what I think about that, namely that you are making an enormous strategic mistake. You are endangering the Spitzenkandidat concept by not embedding it in a democratic process in a transnational list. The reality is that the Spitzenkandidat continues to be a toy of political parties and again between the Council on the one hand and Parliament on the other, but there is no legitimacy on the democratic front. Transnational lists provide precisely that – putting the Spitzenkandidat concept into a democratic process so it is our people who decide who is elected, and then the European Council could no longer object to the outcome of such an election.

But okay: Rome was not built, as you know Mr President, in a day, and the same is true of transnational democracy. We will come back to this in 2024.

On the issue of the budget, I have been involved three times in the adoption of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), twice as a member of the Council and once as a Member of the European Parliament, and my fear is very simple, Mr Timmermans: that it will be business as usual. It will be a budget for seven years in which the next Parliament will have no say – no say in five years! Secondly, I fear it will be again a list of 50-60 rebates, exceptions, earmarkings, and exceptional monies to buy the support of all the Member States, and 80% of it will be money paid by the Member States going back to the Member States, and not going to the new priorities that we have – border management, innovation, migration, defence and things like that.

So my appeal to all the political groups represented here is: let’s break the cycle of this European budget. Let’s make an agreement, together with the Commission, on the priorities.

Secondly, on conditionality: will we continue to hear, for example, that Mr Orban is misusing European money to build a football stadium in his town, or to make his friends and family multimillionaires on the basis of European money? No! Let us establish conditionality: if you don’t accept the values, you don’t need our money. That must be the principle.

And thirdly, on the issue of our responsibility. This is the only Parliament, colleagues, which has no say about income: the only one worldwide which has nothing to say about revenue. That has to change, and that means Article 311 of the Treaty, once there is a change to the Treaty, will need to incorporate co-decision by the European Parliament on income. My plea to you – and it is more important for me than the period of five years or of seven years – is that, for once, we have can cohesion in this Parliament, unity in this Parliament, on our refusal ever to accept an MFF without co-decision by Parliament on the issue of revenue.

That said, if we do not decide before the next election, it will not be the fault of this Parliament. I’m pretty sure that the European Council will not be capable of reaching agreement on the next MFF before the elections.

  President. – Mr Verhofstadt, thank you very much. We want more power for the European Parliament. Not for the President of the European Parliament, but for the European Parliament!

  Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τα αποτελέσματα του άτυπου Συμβουλίου επιβεβαιώνουν δυστυχώς πως η Ένωση συνεχίζει τις ίδιες νεοφιλελεύθερες πολιτικές, καταστρατηγώντας διακηρυγμένες αρχές αλλά και τα συμφέροντα των λαών. Σε σχέση με το πολυετές δημοσιονομικό πλαίσιο, αντί να συζητηθούν μέτρα αλληλεγγύης για αντιμετώπιση της προσφυγικής κρίσης, προτάθηκε η αύξηση των δαπανών για τη δημιουργία της Ευρώπης-Φρούριο, με ενίσχυση των συνόρων και των περιπολιών. Οι ηγέτες της Ένωσης συμφώνησαν επίσης στην αύξηση των επενδύσεων στη στρατιωτική βιομηχανία αντί να προτείνουν μέτρα για να στηριχθεί η πραγματική οικονομία, για να προωθηθούν κονδύλια και επενδύσεις για κοινωνική και περιφερειακή συνοχή, για καταπολέμηση της φτώχειας, για την απασχόληση και τη δημιουργία νέων ποιοτικών θέσεων εργασίας. Οι πολιτικές αυτές που προωθούν δεν θα ωφελήσουν τους λαούς αλλά θα οδηγήσουν σε νέες πολεμικές συρράξεις, σε νέα κύματα προσφύγων. Η σημερινή ανθρωπιστική κρίση στη Συρία είναι, νομίζω, χαρακτηριστική. Όσον αφορά τις σχέσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με την Τουρκία, η δήλωση-έκκληση μετά το άτυπο Συμβούλιο του Προέδρου Tusk για τερματισμό των παραβιάσεων στην Ανατολική Μεσόγειο και το Αιγαίο είναι θετική αλλά δεν αρκεί.

Η Τουρκία εμπόδισε γεωτρύπανο της ευρωπαϊκής ιταλικής εταιρείας ΕΝΙ να προχωρήσει σε ερευνητική γεώτρηση στην Κυπριακή Αποκλειστική Οικονομική Ζώνη και μέχρι σήμερα συνεχίζει να παραβιάζει το διεθνές δίκαιο και το Δίκαιο της Θάλασσας με τις παράνομες Navtex. Συνεχίζει τις κατάφωρες παραβιάσεις των κυριαρχικών δικαιωμάτων της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας. Αναμένουμε λοιπόν έμπρακτη αλληλεγγύη από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και πιο δραστικά μέτρα, αναμένουμε δηλαδή να ασκηθούν πιέσεις στην Τουρκία για να σταματήσει άμεσα τις παράνομες ενέργειες, για να σεβαστεί τα κυριαρχικά δικαιώματα της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας και για να στηρίξει την επανέναρξη των συνομιλιών από το σημείο που έμειναν κατά τις τελευταίες συνομιλίες στο Crans-Montana, ώστε να μπορέσουμε επιτέλους να οδηγηθούμε στη λύση του Κυπριακού. Θέλω να υπενθυμίζω ότι στο ζήτημα της μελλοντικής διαχείρισης του φυσικού αερίου υπάρχουν ήδη συγκλίσεις των δύο ηγετών των δύο κοινοτήτων από το 2010, στις οποίες κάνει αναφορά και ο Γενικός Γραμματέας του ΟΗΕ António Guterres στην τελευταία του έκθεση. Οι συγκλίσεις αυτές επιλύουν συνολικά το ζήτημα προς το συμφέρον ολόκληρου του Κυπριακού λαού, Ελληνοκυπρίων και Τουρκοκυπρίων, αφού με τη λύση του Κυπριακού και την επανένωση της Κύπρου θα αποκομίσουν και οι δύο οφέλη από το φυσικό αέριο.

  Ska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, how we set up our long—term budget obviously reflects how we want to deal with the European Union overall, and there I do see some cause for concern. Some Member States say they just want to have enough money for their national pet projects, they want money for their farmers, they want internal security and external security, a lot of things, but they also want to pay less money, and that simply cannot work because a strong and active European Union needs resources. That does not mean that we can just spend it how we want. We have to be careful with where we invest taxpayers’ money, and I can think of quite a few cases where we can save on some of them, from big pie—in—the—sky projects like ITER to the way we choose to travel ourselves, dear colleagues.

There are also plenty of examples of how EU money is being misspent in the Member States, and there we need more control and more guidance before the damage is done. EU money always needs to be spent well and in the interests of the people living in Europe, and it must never, ever contribute to corruption.

The fight between Member States about who should pay what shows that we need to put the EU’s budget on a more independent footing. Own resources should be introduced now and we think they should be done in a way that enables us to actually tax and take the money from what is destroying our very own habitat. The budget will always reflect what we value most. It is a tool to finance the vision that we have for this place where we all live, for the future, and we must put the money where we think the EU should be going. We should not forget either that we have actually agreed some important international commitments. I am thinking of the Paris Agreement and climate protection, sustainable development goals, to name just a few.

But money alone does not bring happiness. What we also need in the Union is a strengthened European debate and to bring decision-making closer to EU citizens, and that is where the whole discussion about the leading candidates comes in. Sure, that concept does not solve all the problems that we have, but it was – and it is – a vital step forward for a more accountable Commission and, more generally, a more accountable European Union. If Member States were to give up that progress because they were afraid that they themselves might not win or because they prefer to have some backroom deals, then this really is a slap in the face of European democracy, and whoever goes down that path should not be surprised if Europe herself gets up at some point and slaps back.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, this debate is of course taking place because you have to talk about how you are going to fill the shortfall of money left when Britain leaves the European Union. I will say something about Brexit. What the Commission is proposing is not a withdrawal agreement so much as a ‘UK not really leaving at all’ agreement – leaving in name, but not in reality. You intend to impede and delay that process and overturn it if at all possible.

Now I do not blame you, because you do not want us to leave and you have no incentive whatsoever to help us do it, but I do blame the British Prime Minister. What Britain needs now is a leader with the courage and spirit of a Boadicea, and instead we have got ‘Theresa the Appeaser’. In the referendum, the British people voted to leave the European Union, and what that means is that we don’t give any more money to the European Union. It means we are not bound by European Union law. It means we don’t have open borders and it means that we are not subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. To make that happen, the Government should take control of the process. The British Government should stop asking the European Union how it might leave please, and it should start telling them how it’s going to work.

(Applause)

  Marcel de Graaff, namens de ENF-Fractie. – Voorzitter, de nieuwe meerjarenbegroting komt eraan en de Commissie wil meer EU, meer geld voor migratie, meer geld voor uitbreiding, meer geld voor een eigen leger. Maar nu Engeland uit de EU stapt, is er minder geld, veel minder: tussen de 14 en 25 miljard euro per jaar. De meeste lidstaten, zo hoorden we vrijdag, willen niet méér betalen. En dus roept mijnheer Verhofstadt, roept de ALDE-Fractie, om directe EU-belastingen. Dat lost het probleem op. Je ziet het niet terug in de nationale begroting, maar de burger betaalt het wel. De andere eurofiele partijen hier sluiten zich hierbij aan. De burger is weer de klos. De burger betaalt voor dit falende project. Ik zeg u: de EU moet niet méér uitgeven, maar minder. De begroting moet niet hoger, maar lager. De burger moet niet méér betalen, maar minder. Dus de prioriteiten zijn duidelijk: geen nieuwe EU-taken, maar minder EU, geen directe belastingen, maar minder EU-afdracht, en bij voorkeur geen uitbreiding van de EU, maar opheffing.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Elnök Úr! Tajani elnök úr most már sajnos távozik, pedig őhozzá szerettem volna a kérdést feltenni, és Timmermans főbiztos úrhoz, a kormány- és államfők informális tanácskozásával kapcsolatosan. Az egyik téma az Európai Unió hosszú távú költségvetése volt, és noha itt most nem vetették föl ezt a Magyarország és a visegrádi országok számára olyan kiemelkedően fontos kérdést, én mégis szeretném, ha ezt pótlólag megtennék, és fölteszem ezt.

Ez pedig a következő: A sajtó szerint, különösen Merkel asszony javaslatára, el akarják vonni a kohéziós pénzeket, felzárkóztatási pénzeket és esetlegesen más forrásokat is azoktól a tagállamoktól, amelyek nemet mondanak a tömeges migrációra, a tömeges bevándorlásra. Mi ebből az igazság? Van-e ilyen tervük? Ezt már csak azért is tudnunk kell, hiszen Magyarországon április 8-án választások lesznek, megy folyamatosan a bagatellizálása ennek a migrációkérdésnek, a butának és tájékozatlannak beállítása azoknak, akik azt mondják, hogy igenis az Európai Unió folyamatosan nyomja ezt a kérdést. Folyamatosan terrorizál bennünket a legkülönbözőbb eszközökkel.

Ha csak ennek a mostani ülésnek a különböző jelentéseit megnézzük, akkor is látjuk, és ugye itt van ez a bizonyos pénzzel való terrorizálás is. Mi ebből az igazság? Vagy esetleg már letettek-e erről? Vagy azért nem beszélnek róla, mert félnek, hogy akkor esetleg a választókat ez Magyarországon befolyásolná, hiszen látnák, hogy igenis az Önök számára ez a legfontosabb prioritás, nem tesznek le róla, minden eszközzel térdre akarják kényszeríteni Magyarországot és a visegrádi országokat. Várom, ha lehet, Tajani úr válaszát, de feltétlenül Timmermans úr válaszát is.

PŘEDSEDNICTVÍ: PAN PAVEL TELIČKA
místopředseda

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Lassen Sie mich einige Bemerkungen machen. Wenn ich das Letzte gerade gehört habe, dass ein Land gebeutelt wird: Ich glaube, es wird kein Land gebeutelt, wenn man darauf hinweist, dass die Ordnung der Europäischen Union, insbesondere die Rechtsstaatlichkeit, gewahrt wird. Das sind Prinzipien, über die wir nicht streiten sollten, und das ist nicht als Unter-Druck-Setzen zu verstehen.

Aber ich möchte zum Europäischen Rat eines sagen und letztlich nur ein Thema aufgreifen. Das ist die Frage ein Jahr vor den Europäischen Wahlen, wie wir unser politisches Projekt noch deutlicher an den Wähler heranbringen können. Da ist ein entscheidender Punkt gewesen im Vertrag von Lissabon, den wir beim letzten Mal bei der Wahl des Kommissionspräsidenten eingeübt haben, der aber von den politischen Parteien noch nicht voll und überall in gleicher Weise in die politische Debatte gebracht worden ist: Das ist die Frage des Spitzenkandidaten. Wir möchten, dass in Zukunft so vorgegangen wird, wie der Vertrag es vorsieht – und wir werden es nicht erlauben, dass der Europäische Rat in den Hinterstuben die eigenen Interessen wahrnimmt. Wir möchten feststellen, dass der Chef der europäischen Administration in Zukunft von den Wählern über das Europäische Parlament gewählt wird, wie der Vertrag es vorsieht, und das nicht eine Klüngelei zwischen Regierungschefs ist.

Wenn wir dieses Europa in den entscheidenden Positionen nicht an den Bürger heranbringen, dann wird dieses Europa auf Dauer keine Chance haben. Nach dieser Erklärung des Europäischen Rates sollten wir klarmachen, dass das Europäische Parlament in den nächsten fünfzehn Monaten für dieses Recht kämpfen wird.

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

  Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Sie setzen sich ja immer so eloquent für den Spitzenkandidaten ein. Nun bin ich ja auch im Wahlkampf unterwegs gewesen: Können Sie mir mal erklären, warum ich in ganz Deutschland im Jahre 2014 während des Wahlkampfes nicht ein einziges Plakat Ihres Spitzenkandidaten Juncker gesehen habe?

  Elmar Brok (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Ich will Ihnen dazu zwei Antworten geben. Erstens habe ich gesagt: Es ist eingeübt worden; das muss sehr viel besser werden. Inzwischen hat die EVP ihre Satzung geändert, und wir werden im November einen Spitzenkandidaten wählen, sodass das nicht mehr läuft wie beim letzten Mal. Ich gehe davon aus, dass das andere Parteien auch so machen.

Zur zweiten Frage war es wahrscheinlich der Fall, dass Sie zu dem Zeitpunkt nur noch auf Plakate der AfD schauten – die Sie ja inzwischen verlassen haben – und schon deswegen keinen Blick für demokratische Kandidaten hatten.

  Maria João Rodrigues (S&D). – Mr President, at their last meeting some leaders proved that they are not really understanding what a budget to pave the way for a better future in the European Union should be. Of course we need to cope with new challenges – for example, managing migration means Europe delivering on better cooperation in development and peace-building with its entire neighbourhood – that’s for sure. But Europe also need to be ambitious on programmes which have proved to be a success, such as Erasmus, the programme for science and technology or the youth initiative. Most of all, we need to ensure strong means to provide social and territorial cohesion in Europe, because without that there is no unity among European citizens. This also means – because convergence is a central problem for us – that, when it comes to the eurozone, we need to include a fiscal capacity in the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework.

So how can we deliver on all this? Well, the answer is easy. We have to accept, once and for all, that we need new own resources to finance our common budget. And there is a further matter on which the leaders were too shy, namely the right way to understand European democracy, because some of them are hesitant about the need for European parties to put up their own candidates in European elections, presenting their own programmes in such a way that citizens can choose not only legislators but also executive power. From our side, this is very clear. The Parliament …

(The President asked the speaker to conclude)

I have two minutes.

(The President urged the speaker to conclude briefly)

Usually I am very precise, Mr President.

Parliament will elect a President of the European Commission only if that person is properly presented to the electorate. From our side this is very clear.

  Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Mr President, let me reflect on the withdrawal agreement which was published yesterday. For me this is a very clear sign that Brexit is a declaration of war on European industry, not only on British industry. Are you aware of the fact that, economically, Brexit is equivalent to 19 countries leaving the European Union at the same time? There are very complex logistical supply chains in danger – customer relationships, supplier relationships – and, in the end, Britain will become the largest British customer.

I wonder why we are continuing to try to punish Britain for their decision. Instead the Commission should focus on placing the interests of the European Union as priority number one. Those interests are very similar to Britain’s interests. Any deal which is good for British industry is also a very good deal for European industry, and that is why I believe we should change the Commission’s priorities. Let’s make sure that British industry has access to the European common market as before and, likewise, let’s make sure that common market industries have the same access to British industry.

  Harald Vilimsky (ENF). – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Ausgangspunkt der Debatte ist doch die Entscheidung des britischen Volkes gewesen, diese Europäische Union verlassen zu wollen. So weit – so gut. Die Entscheidung wurde getroffen. Aber was macht die Europäische Union? Nicht die 73 Sitze, die die Briten hier innehatten, einfach wegzustreichen, der europäischen Steuerzahleröffentlichkeit zu signalisieren, dass man auch entsprechend zu sparen bereit ist. Nein, man krallt sich von diesen 73 wegzusparenden Sitzen 27 und bläst dieses Parlament abermals auf. Eine falsche Entscheidung, weil dieses Parlament, wenn es arbeitsfähig und effektiv und akzeptiert sein sollte, doch entsprechend redimensioniert sein soll. Genauso ist es mit der Kommission, wo es auch im Bereich des Vertrags von Lissabon hier entsprechende Festschreibungen gibt, diese Kommission um mindestens ein Drittel zu verkleinern. Und was tut man? Eine einstimmige Entscheidung des Rates, diese Kommission in der ursprünglich großen Größe von 27 Mitgliedern zu belassen. Ein falsches Signal.

Wenn diese Europäische Union und dieses Projekt Einigung und Akzeptanz finden will, dann muss man sich redimensionieren.

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Mr President, colleagues at the beginning of this month we voted, by a large majority, on the new composition of the European Parliament for the European elections of 2019. We reduced the size of the House from 751 to 705 seats and proposed a composition that is fair, based on objective principles, respects the EU’s Treaty and adheres to the principle of digressive proportionality. I appreciate that during the informal European Council meeting, our proposal was broadly supported. Let me however underline the fact that, after a formal decision is taken by the European Council, it will have to come back to the European Parliament so that we can have a final vote as part of the consent procedure. This should happen by summer this year.

On the issue of the Spitzenkandidaten, I wish to reiterate that this process, endorsed again by a large majority of this Chamber three weeks ago, is a matter of principle and of interinstitutional balance and cooperation for us. We see this process as a reinforcement of the democratic accountability of the European institutions and as an enhancement of the role of the European political parties. So I trust that the European Council will pursue this democratic advance with a view to helping citizens develop the feeling of ownership of Europe.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Mesdames de la présidence bulgare, mes chers collègues, dans les discussions désormais ouvertes sur les finances de l’Union européenne, le président Juncker nous invitait, il y a quelques jours, à sortir de la logique comptable. Bien sûr, nous devons maintenir notre sérieux budgétaire et cependant, nous devons effectivement embrasser le débat sur l’avenir de l’Europe à travers cette discussion. Alors de grâce, sortons des oppositions stériles, de la mise en concurrence entre cohésion et agriculture ou, pire encore, de situations où la solidarité est sacrifiée au profit de la sécurité.

Posons-nous la question de ce que nous voulons faire ensemble; ce Parlement, avec ses 750 députés, s’apprête à le faire. Accord sur le climat, pilier social, convergence, jeunesse, objectifs de développement durable, investissements d’avenir: nous avons notre cap.

Il ne s’agit donc pas de couper dans la PAC ou dans la cohésion, mais au contraire, de leur laisser les moyens d’évoluer pour atteindre ces objectifs. La PAC doit devenir l’instrument d’une autonomie alimentaire respectueuse des sols, de l’eau et de ceux qui y travaillent, et bien sûr de nous qui nous en nourrissons.

Quant à la cohésion, c’est notre clé pour converger vers un développement pour tous les peuples, toutes les régions, un développement environnemental et social.

J’invite le Conseil, bien qu’il soit absent, à accepter la main tendue du Parlement. Elle augmente les chances de son consentement ou, si vous préférez, diminue les risques de son veto.

Définissons avec la présidence bulgare les modalités de notre méthode de discussion. Laissons-nous jusqu’à la proposition de la Commission, le 2 mai, pour trouver un accord partagé sur un nouveau cadre financier pluriannuel.

  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, comandantul suprem al forțelor aliate din Europa, generalul Breedlove, a avertizat că forțele rusești care au amplasat rachete în Marea Neagră pot să controleze întreaga zonă a Mării Negre și să instaleze arme nucleare în zonă. Un alt avertisment a venit recent, acum câteva luni, de la șeful contraspionajului militar din Germania care din nou a spus „Federația Rusă nu ne este o prietenă și trebuie să fim pregătiți pentru orice”. România are a doua graniță externă ca dimensiune din Uniunea Europeană. Avem graniță cu Republica Moldova unde încă staționează trupe sovietice, avem graniță cu Serbia care practic se află sub control rusesc, avem graniță cu Ucraina, cu Marea Neagră, implicit cu Crimeea ocupată de ruși. Avem informații privind amestecul Rusiei în alegerile din multe state democratice prin bani și propagandă falsă. Războiul împotriva democrației a început. Trebuie să creștem finanțarea pentru securitatea Uniunii, să creștem finanțarea și să întărim agențiile europene care luptă împotriva terorismului.

  Janice Atkinson (ENF). – Mr President, today’s draft Brexit document is just a work of pure fantasy, but it is also dangerous one, particularly on Northern Ireland. We will decide on our borders for our citizens. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, we have not voted successively to take back control of our frontiers in Britain only to see them reimposed at a European level, in a European superstate, exercising a new dominance from Brussels. No, no, no. The UK is not for turning. And the only common sense that has been spoken in this Chamber today was the ECR’s Mr Henkel. What matters is people’s jobs, industry and their GDP.

Your companies want to have a free-trade deal with us. Our companies want to have a free-trade deal with you. If you do not want to see this Parliament split apart – because that is what is happening because of the populist vote: my side of the Parliament is actually gaining control of governments or being in opposition – then I suggest you listen to Mr Henkel if you don’t listen to us.

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Przed spotkaniem Rady Europejskiej przewodniczący zadał w swoim liście trzy pytania dotyczące po pierwsze priorytetów, po drugie wielkości budżetu, po trzecie kalendarza. Po spotkaniu Rady Europejskiej otrzymaliśmy komunikat, co do którego zastanawiamy się, czy to jest dobra czy zła wiadomość dla Parlamentu.

Jeżeli chodzi o zawartość, to my w Komisji Budżetowej Parlamentu Europejskiego staraliśmy się odpowiedzieć na te pytania, również zakładając, że one padną później. W naszym stanowisku, które przyjęliśmy dzień przed spotkaniem Rady Europejskiej, wyraźnie powiedzieliśmy, w jaki sposób chcemy traktować nowe priorytety, i w tej kwestii zgadzamy się z Radą Europejską. Po drugie, mówiliśmy o wielkości budżetu, i tu reakcja Rady Europejskiej nie jest jeszcze jasna, co jest dobrą wiadomością, ponieważ oznacza, że nie odrzuca się dzisiaj pewnej propozycji. Co do kalendarza, na dzisiaj również odpowiedzi jasnej nie ma, co także uważamy za znak raczej pozytywny niż negatywny. Innymi słowy Rada Europejska zostawiła drzwi otwarte i rozpoczyna się poważna debata z Parlamentem Europejskim.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Wir debattieren heute über die Tagung des Rates, so wie wir das regelmäßig tun. Wieder einmal kritisieren wir, dass die Erwartungen nicht oder nur teilweise erfüllt wurden.

Zu Hause werden wir dann mit enttäuschten Erwartungen konfrontiert. Die Menschen werden dann lapidar behaupten, die EU würde nicht funktionieren. Zu unübersichtlich sind die Dinge für die Menschen geworden, und weil sich keine Verantwortlichkeiten festmachen lassen, ensteht oft Skepsis und Ablehnung. Dieses Mal hätten es die Staats- und Regierungschefs in der Hand gehabt, einen wichtigen Schritt zu setzen. Wie immer man zum Spitzenkandidatenprinzip stehen mag – es ist auf jeden Fall ein wesentlicher Beitrag dazu, Verantwortlichkeit herzustellen.

Die Vertreter der Mitgliedstaaten haben es vorgezogen, alles auf die lange Bank zu schieben, anstatt konkrete Vorschläge zu machen. Besonders enttäuschend ist aber, dass darunter auch Staatschefs – wie jener von Frankreich – sind, denen normalerweise nichts zu schnell gehen kann.

  Jeppe Kofod (S&D). – Mr President the latest agenda and informal summit are important stepping stones towards a better and more inclusive Europe. The open and frank exchange of ideas on the future of Europe is how democracy works on a truly European scale. Not all ideas are good ideas, and only a fraction will become reality. Personally, I do not believe in the idea of a transnational list, but I think it’s important that we had the debate and found a clear majority, both in Parliament and in Council, of the same opinion.

On the budget, it’s clear that it’s not set in stone. We need to adopt the budget so it represents the real needs and concerns of our citizens. We wholeheartedly support additional EU spending to stop illegal migration, trafficking and to counter human smugglers and criminal networks who prey on those who are already most vulnerable. But at the same time Europe cannot and will not isolate itself from the world. We need to step up our engagement with and in Africa. The MFF should be a cornerstone in a new Marshall Plan for Africa, so we can help those who are most vulnerable more, help them sooner and help them where they are.

  Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, para quem defende o avanço do projeto europeu, as conclusões do último Conselho informal são motivo de preocupação, mas numa coisa o Conselho esteve bem, ao endossar a proposta que foi aprovada aqui neste Parlamento sobre a recomposição do Parlamento Europeu e que foi aprovada por larga maioria e em que tive a honra de ser correlator.

Numa questão difícil, o Parlamento provou que era capaz de gerar soluções justas e consensos alargados. O Conselho faria bem em dar mais ouvidos a este Parlamento também noutras questões, como o Quadro Financeiro Plurianual.

O Sr. Comissário disse—nos aqui que uma das maiores ameaças ao futuro do projeto europeu é o agravamento das divergências. Pois há, hoje, quem no Conselho e na Comissão defenda cortes nas políticas de coesão e de convergência. Era bom que também aí fossem dados ouvidos a este Parlamento Europeu.

  Daniele Viotti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Consiglio informale della scorsa settimana ha discusso, tra le altre cose, anche del prossimo quadro finanziario pluriennale per la nostra Europa. È una discussione importantissima perché ha a che fare con il futuro, ha a che fare con il futuro delle nostre imprese, della ricerca, del lavoro, dei nostri giovani, dell'ambiente, cioè ha a che fare con l'idea che abbiamo di Europa da qui in avanti, nei prossimi sette anni.

Per far questo noi abbiamo bisogno – l'abbiamo scritto nei nostri documenti, l'abbiamo detto alla Commissione e al Consiglio – di un bilancio che sia forte, di un bilancio che sia in grado di rispondere alle aspettative dei cittadini, che sia in grado di rispondere alle aspettative delle nostre imprese, del nostro mondo dell'economia, del nostro mondo del lavoro. Per avere un bilancio forte, bisogna avere delle risorse europee, delle risorse proprie molto forti: su questo mi sembra che ci sia pochissima spinta da parte del Consiglio e che non ci sia la volontà di andare avanti.

Noi invece riteniamo che occorra liberare delle risorse per gli Stati membri e, parallelamente, avere un'Europa che sia in grado di provvedere per conto proprio ad almeno il 50 % del proprio fabbisogno, del proprio bilancio. Queste sono le aspettative non soltanto di questo Parlamento, ma sono le aspettative per il futuro delle cittadine e dei cittadini d'Europa.

  Κώστας Μαυρίδης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα και εγώ στο ένα λεπτό που έχω να επικεντρωθώ στα θέματα της Ευρωπαϊκής αντιπροσώπευσης. Αλλά, όταν ο Erdoğan επεμβαίνει στη νότια θάλασσα της Κύπρου που είναι και θάλασσα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, δεν έχουμε άλλη επιλογή παρά να συζητήσουμε αυτό το θέμα. Πόσα εγκλήματα πρέπει να κάνει αυτό το καθεστώς για να δράσουμε επιτέλους; Συνεχίζει την παράνομη κατοχή του Βόρειου τμήματος της Κύπρου. Κατέλυσε το κράτος δικαίου εντός της Τουρκίας. Φυλακίζει κάθε αντίθετη άποψη. Εξοντώνει τους Κούρδους και κάθε άλλο λαό εντός της Τουρκίας. Συμμαχεί εδώ και τόσα χρόνια με τους τζιχαντιστές τους οποίους, όπως γνωρίζουμε όλοι μας, χρηματοδοτεί και τους χρησιμοποιεί σήμερα στην επίθεση στο Afrin. Το τελευταίο συμβάν φυσικά είναι η επιδρομή στην Αποκλειστική Οικονομική Ζώνη της Κύπρου και στο Αιγαίο. Νομίζω ότι, αν μείνουμε κι αυτή τη φορά απλώς στις καταδικαστικές δηλώσεις και στα λόγια, θα έχουμε αποτύχει και σύντομα θα το μετανιώσουμε.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θεωρώ ότι πολύ ορθά το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο αποφάσισε και καταδίκασε με σκληρή γλώσσα την Τουρκία για τις απαράδεκτες ενέργειες της στην Κυπριακή Αποκλειστική Οικονομική Ζώνη. Θεωρώ ότι αυτές οι ενέργειες στρέφονται κατευθείαν εναντίον της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Όταν παραβιάζει την Αποκλειστική Οικονομική Ζώνη της Κύπρου, παραβιάζει τα εξωτερικά σύνορα και τα θαλάσσια σύνορα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Όταν στοχοποιεί τους ενεργειακούς σχεδιασμούς της Κύπρου, στοχοποιεί και πλήττει την ίδια την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Όταν η Τουρκία παρεμποδίζει ευρωπαϊκές εταιρείες, όπως είναι οι ENI και TOTAL, πλήττει εταιρίες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, πλήττει τα ίδια τα συμφέροντα της ΕΕ. Η Τουρκία σήμερα, με όλες αυτές τις προκλητικές ενέργειες, αποτελεί πρόκληση και προσβολή για την ίδια την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Επειδή η Τουρκία αντιλαμβάνεται μόνο τη γλώσσα των κυρώσεων και των μέτρων, θεωρώ ότι επιβάλλεται να σκεφτούμε ξανά τις οποιεσδήποτε ευρωτουρκικές σχέσεις, την αναβάθμιση τελωνειακής Ένωσης που είναι αδιανόητη και απαράδεκτη, την απελευθέρωση της βίζας για Τούρκους πολίτες, αλλά και κάτι σημαντικότερο και κυριότερο, επί του οποίου έχει λόγο και το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, τη χρηματοδότηση με κονδύλια από τα Ευρωπαϊκά Ταμεία. Αυτή η Τουρκία χρειάζεται μέτρα και καταδίκες.

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Chci se také krátce vyjádřit k neformálnímu zasedání Evropské rady, které se konalo v počtu 27 lídrů. Už si tedy zvykáme na brexit, bohužel.

Souhlasím s panem místopředsedou Komise, že je třeba se jasně přihlásit k prioritám pro následující finanční rámec EU. Těmi prioritami má být bezpečnost, řešení migrace a jsem velmi ráda, že se Evropská rada přihlásila k programu Erasmus+, protože vzdělání, mobilita mladých, to je budoucnost EU. Rovněž podmínka pro Turecko, aby mohlo proběhnout příští měsíc jednání ve Varně, musí být ukončeny aktivity Turecka ve Středomoří a v Sýrii a měla by být přidána také lidská práva, protože věznění novinářů a akademiků je pro nás nepřijatelné. Pokud se jedná o proces Spitzenkandidaten, pak já se domnívám, že dohoda je tady více než automatické pravidlo.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to focus on these additional issues to say that the composition is very balanced and I am very happy that there is a positive response. Secondly, I am also very happy that transnational lists were not considered. This is very important because, for true federalists and true pro-Europeans, there is no experience of a joint and single constituency in the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany or in Switzerland. This would create an imbalance between the countries. If you want to change the rules in Parliament on the balance of the countries, you have to change it first in the Council and then we will see.

Finally, I fully understand the position of the Council in the Spitzenkandidaten issue, but they also have to understand ours, because we have to approve the candidate, we have to approve their programme, and we have to approve the College. We have three opportunities to reject the Council’s proposal.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, este Consejo informal de febrero se ha ocupado del marco financiero plurianual, de Turquía y hasta de Siria y, por supuesto, del brexit. Pero hace muy bien este Parlamento Europeo en poner el acento en la oportunidad que el Consejo se arriesga a perder al dejar pasar una cita ineludible con una Europa mejor que esta, porque la propuesta aprobada por el Parlamento Europeo que intenta vincular la presidencia de la Comisión a la cabeza de lista de cada una de las grandes familias políticas es una apuesta cívica, ciudadana y de cultura europea.

Somos muchos los que votamos, además, a favor de las listas transnacionales, porque significan el comienzo de una respuesta paneuropea a una necesidad de una ciudadanía y una representación paneuropeas en este Parlamento Europeo.

Pero el Consejo en ningún caso puede perder la oportunidad de relanzar a Europa y sacarla de este estado de declive, si no de parálisis, en el que lamentablemente ha estado estos últimos años.

Spitzenkandidat: sí.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, οι ευρωεκλογές του Μαΐου 2019 πρέπει να διεξαχθούν με τον πιο ανοιχτό και δημοκρατικό τρόπο. Αυτό σημαίνει διασφάλιση της πολυφωνίας στα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης των κρατών μελών. Δυστυχώς στην Ελλάδα τα κρατικά ΜΜΕ και η πλειοψηφία των ιδιωτικών ΜΜΕ έχουν επιβάλει καθεστώς φίμωσης στο κόμμα μας «Ελλάδα - Ο Άλλος Δρόμος». Παρότι αποτελούμε Κόμμα εκπροσωπούμενο στην Ευρωβουλή, παρότι ο ομιλών είναι ευρωβουλευτής μέλος του ECR της τρίτης σε κοινοβουλευτική δύναμη πολιτικής ομάδας του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, εντούτοις τα ελληνικά ΜΜΕ μεροληπτούν εις βάρος μας και μας αποκλείουν συστηματικά από όλες τις εκπομπές ενημερωτικού περιεχομένου. Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ζητούμε από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και από εσάς προσωπικά τη στήριξή σας προκειμένου να διασφαλιστεί η πολυφωνία στα ελληνικά ΜΜΕ και να παύσει ο αποκλεισμός του ECR και του κόμματός μας «Ελλάδα - Ο Άλλος Δρόμος» εν όψει των ευρωεκλογών του 2019 διότι, διαφορετικά, οι εκλογές το 2019 στην Ελλάδα θα αποτελέσουν μνημείο φίμωσης και αυθαιρεσίας και μεροληψίας.

  Νικόλαος Χουντής (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τον τελευταίο καιρό η Τουρκία έχει επιλέξει το δρόμο της επιθετικότητας και της πρόκλησης στο Αιγαίο και στην Κύπρο, αμφισβητώντας τα κυριαρχικά δικαιώματα δύο χωρών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Η επιθετικότητα αυτή, εκτός των άλλων, δίνει το έναυσμα για ένα νέο κύμα στρατιωτικών εξοπλισμών στην Ελλάδα και στην Τουρκία, όπως αποδεικνύουν τα στοιχεία της Eurostat και του ΝΑΤΟ, αφαιρώντας έτσι σημαντικούς πόρους που θα μπορούσαν να χρησιμοποιηθούν για την ευημερία των δύο λαών. Στην επιθετικότητα αυτή της Τουρκίας αντέδρασε το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο με μια πολιτικά υποκριτική ανακοίνωση κατά τη γνώμη μου, με την οποία ζητεί απλώς από την Τουρκία να σταματήσει τις προκλητικές ενέργειες ενάντια στην Ελλάδα και στην Κύπρο και λέω πολιτικά υποκριτική γιατί είναι οι ευρωπαϊκές πολεμικές βιομηχανίες που συνεχίζουν να πουλάνε όπλα στην Τουρκία, γιατί αυτές κερδίζουν τα περισσότερα από την ένταση μεταξύ Ελλάδας και Τουρκίας. Κατά τα άλλα άλλωστε, στο πλαίσιο του πολυετούς δημοσιονομικού πλαισίου, ζητούμε αύξηση των στρατιωτικών δαπανών. Οι λαοί θέλουν ειρηνική επίλυση των διαφορών. Αντίθετα, είναι οι ιμπεριαλιστικοί σχεδιασμοί του ΝΑΤΟ και τα συμφέροντα της πολεμικής βιομηχανίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης που αναζητούν την αστάθεια …

(Ο Πρόεδρος διακόπτει τον ομιλητή)

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, σε ό,τι αφορά τις σχέσεις της ΕΕ με την Τουρκία το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο έκανε ένα ακόμη απαράδεκτο λάθος. Πρότεινε δηλαδή να συνεχιστούν οι συνομιλίες με τη χώρα αυτή. Οι αρχηγοί των κρατών, προφανώς είτε αδιαφορούν, είτε δεν ενδιαφέρονται να αντιμετωπίσουν με τρόπο αποφασιστικό αυτόν τον διεθνή ταραξία, ο οποίος θέτει σε κίνδυνο την ασφάλεια και την ειρήνη στο Αιγαίο, στην Ανατολική Μεσόγειο και στη Μέση Ανατολή. Τι επιπλέον έπρεπε να κάνει η Τουρκία ούτως ώστε να αντιμετωπιστεί με αποφασιστικότητα από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση; Να συλλάβει το ιταλικών συμφερόντων ερευνητικό πλοίο και να ζητήσει μετά λύτρα - ευρωπαϊκά κονδύλια - για να το απελευθερώσει; Έπρεπε να επιτεθεί για να καταλάβει και το ελεύθερο τμήμα της Κύπρου ή έπρεπε να δημιουργήσει θερμό επεισόδιο με την Ελλάδα στο Αιγαίο; Όσο η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ανέχεται την Τουρκία και δεν της κλείνει την πόρτα της εισόδου, τόσο αυτή υπερεκτιμά τις δυνάμεις της και δημιουργεί προβλήματα αποθρασυνόμενη.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I see a broad consensus between the Commission and a majority of this Parliament, on both the institutional issues and the issue of the Multiannual Financial Framework, so there is no need for me to go into that right now. I need to react briefly to the many comments that were made on the issue of Brexit, especially because of the decision today by the Commission on the draft treaty.

It is fair to say, from my perspective, that Brexit is a decision taken by the British people that needs to be respected by all of us. The right is there of a Member State to decide to leave. At the same time, I shan’t hide the fact that this saddens me greatly, and I also do not want to hide the fact that if they change their minds and want to come back to the European Union, I think we would all welcome them warmly back into the European Union family. I insist on that, because I think there is not one person present in this august forum, including the people up there, who has never changed their minds in their lives. Everybody changes their minds sometimes, and I think that deserves just as much respect as when people decide that they want to go along one course. But I do think there is one responsibility nobody can shy away from, whatever your position is on Brexit, and that is to explain in great detail the consequences of Brexit. That is the reason why the Commission translated the decisions from December into concrete text on concrete issues, and we will be putting it before your Parliament very soon. I also think that those who championed Brexit and are very vocal about that have a responsibility to explain to their constituents why it is going to be such a tremendous success. It is just too easy to then invent a situation which makes it seem as though we were there to punish them. It is not our fault that things are not working out. It is not our fault that you said ‘we are shackled to a corpse’, but now the corpse seems to be doing much better than you are. That is our fault? That is because these Europeans are being so nasty to us. Stop it. Take responsibility for your own position. Explain to your voters what you want from Brexit and then face the consequences if everything you have promised doesn’t work out. We will negotiate in a faithful, honest way, because Brexit will do harm. It will do harm to the UK. It will do harm to Europe, and we have a collective responsibility to make sure that we do as little harm as possible.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D), por escrito. – El Consejo Europeo informal de febrero se ha ocupado del Marco Financiero Plurianual, de Turquía y Siria y, por supuesto, del brexit. No hay duda de que debemos hacer frente a los nuevos desafíos. Pero también necesitamos garantizar la cohesión social y territorial en la Unión, porque sin una política de cohesión fuerte no hay unidad entre los ciudadanos europeos. Asimismo, el Parlamento Europeo debe poner el acento en la oportunidad que el Consejo Europeo se arriesga a perder al dejar pasar una cita ineludible con una Unión Europea mejor que la actual. La propuesta aprobada por este Parlamento para vincular la presidencia de la Comisión a la cabeza de lista de cada una de las grandes familias políticas es una apuesta cívica, ciudadana y de cultura europea. Somos muchos los que votamos, además, a favor de las listas transnacionales, porque significan el comienzo de una respuesta paneuropea a una necesidad de una ciudadanía y una representación paneuropeas en este Parlamento Europeo. El Consejo Europeo en ningún caso puede perder la oportunidad de relanzar a la Unión Europea y sacarla de este estado de declive, si no de parálisis, en el que lamentablemente ha estado en los últimos años.

  Francisco Assis (S&D), por escrito. – Na passada reunião do Conselho Europeu, de 23 de Fevereiro, foi novamente abordada a brutal e infindável catástrofe na Síria, na qual continuamos a assistir à perda de vidas humanas, à disseminação do terror, à miséria e à desgraça.

O Conselho pediu a imediata implementação de um cessar-fogo. Felizmente, esse cessar-fogo foi decretado, ainda que, entretanto, se tenham verificado violações do mesmo. Este é um primeiro passo, mas não podemos esquecer que este primeiro passo já foi dado no passado, sem que a partir dele se tivessem produzido as condições para o estabelecimento de uma paz duradoura.

A União Europeia e os seus Estados-Membros devem agir de forma intransigente e sem excluir à partida o recurso a formas de intervenção mais fortes, se a tal for necessário recorrer, para que se ponha de uma vez por todas fim a esta tragédia, que ceifa vidas, destrói um país e envergonha a Humanidade.

  Cristian-Silviu Buşoi (PPE), in writing. – Regarding the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), Romania has confirmed that Member States need to increase their contributions to the EU budget in order to enhance the Union’s capacities to deal with new realities in an efficient manner. Facing the numerous security challenges arising from the south and east, reinforcing border management through the European Border and Coast Guard Agency and showing European solidarity with Africa represent new engagements that require new capital.

Furthermore, I would like to stress that, in the new EU27 format, the budgetary gap caused by Brexit should not under any circumstances be filled by resources from our European fundamental policies such as the cohesion fund or the common agriculture policy (CAP), given the alarming effects that scenario could produce on our societies. Therefore, I salute the decisions of the Member States that have already expressed their agreement on an increased budgetary contribution, and I would remind the ones that have not done so that the European project brings to each of us incomparably more gains than our expenditure.

I will end by making a comparison: while the EU’s annual budget is below 1% of Europe’s GDP, the federal budget of the United States is equivalent to 30% of its GDP.

  Soledad Cabezón Ruiz (S&D), por escrito. – El Consejo Europeo informal de febrero se ha ocupado del Marco Financiero Plurianual, de Turquía y Siria y, por supuesto, del brexit. No hay duda de que debemos hacer frente a los nuevos desafíos. Pero también necesitamos garantizar la cohesión social y territorial en la Unión, porque sin una política de cohesión fuerte no hay unidad entre los ciudadanos europeos. Asimismo, el Parlamento Europeo debe poner el acento en la oportunidad que el Consejo Europeo se arriesga a perder al dejar pasar una cita ineludible con una Unión Europea mejor que la actual. La propuesta aprobada por este Parlamento para vincular la presidencia de la Comisión a la cabeza de lista de cada una de las grandes familias políticas es una apuesta cívica, ciudadana y de cultura europea. Somos muchos los que votamos, además, a favor de las listas transnacionales, porque significan el comienzo de una respuesta paneuropea a una necesidad de una ciudadanía y una representación paneuropeas en este Parlamento Europeo. El Consejo Europeo en ningún caso puede perder la oportunidad de relanzar a la Unión Europea y sacarla de este estado de declive, si no de parálisis, en el que lamentablemente ha estado en los últimos años.

  Iratxe García Pérez (S&D), por escrito. – El Consejo Europeo informal de febrero se ha ocupado del Marco Financiero Plurianual, de Turquía y Siria y, por supuesto, del brexit. No hay duda de que debemos hacer frente a los nuevos desafíos. Pero también necesitamos garantizar la cohesión social y territorial en la Unión, porque sin una política de cohesión fuerte no hay unidad entre los ciudadanos europeos. Asimismo, el Parlamento Europeo debe poner el acento en la oportunidad que el Consejo Europeo se arriesga a perder al dejar pasar una cita ineludible con una Unión Europea mejor que la actual. La propuesta aprobada por este Parlamento para vincular la presidencia de la Comisión a la cabeza de lista de cada una de las grandes familias políticas es una apuesta cívica, ciudadana y de cultura europea. Somos muchos los que votamos, además, a favor de las listas transnacionales, porque significan el comienzo de una respuesta paneuropea a una necesidad de una ciudadanía y una representación paneuropeas en este Parlamento Europeo. El Consejo Europeo en ningún caso puede perder la oportunidad de relanzar a la Unión Europea y sacarla de este estado de declive, si no de parálisis, en el que lamentablemente ha estado en los últimos años.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D), por escrito. – El Consejo Europeo informal de febrero se ha ocupado del Marco Financiero Plurianual, de Turquía y Siria y, por supuesto, del brexit. No hay duda de que debemos hacer frente a los nuevos desafíos. Pero también necesitamos garantizar la cohesión social y territorial en la Unión, porque sin una política de cohesión fuerte no hay unidad entre los ciudadanos europeos. Asimismo, el Parlamento Europeo debe poner el acento en la oportunidad que el Consejo Europeo se arriesga a perder al dejar pasar una cita ineludible con una Unión Europea mejor que la actual. La propuesta aprobada por este Parlamento para vincular la presidencia de la Comisión a la cabeza de lista de cada una de las grandes familias políticas es una apuesta cívica, ciudadana y de cultura europea. Somos muchos los que votamos, además, a favor de las listas transnacionales, porque significan el comienzo de una respuesta paneuropea a una necesidad de una ciudadanía y una representación paneuropeas en este Parlamento Europeo. El Consejo Europeo en ningún caso puede perder la oportunidad de relanzar a la Unión Europea y sacarla de este estado de declive, si no de parálisis, en el que lamentablemente ha estado en los últimos años.

  Alfred Sant (S&D), in writing. – The informal Council meeting discussed the make-up of the upcoming European Parliament, including the so-called ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ process to elect the President of the Commission. This issue needs to be given further consideration both by the European Parliament and by the Council. Both sides seem to be making assumptions about democracy and political legitimacy that have little to no resonance among European people. Another point discussed was the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework. Given new priorities and the funding vacuum being created through Brexit, there is clearly a need to explore other ways of funding. When proposing own resources for EU funding, the economic sensitivities of each Member State must be duly respected. Similarly, new funding priorities should not downgrade cohesion as a crucial tool of European policy. They must take into consideration the different constitutions of the Member States. Defence has now emerged for some as a leading priority. The EU as of now is not a military union. Defence spending should be kept separate from the common MFF. This would allow those that want to participate in a defence union to do so, without imposing additional burdens on those Member States wishing to opt out.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – The European Council discussed important topics for its future seeking to find common ground, acceptable for all. We shouldn’t be divided on issues where we should be united. Tackling effects of the migration crisis is our common endeavour. We have to allocate resources in the financial framework which would help us to tackle migratory challenges. These resources, nevertheless, shouldn’t be unduly mixed with other European issues, such as cohesion policy and structural funds in general. These have been created to underpin a strong European economy and cohesion between Member States within the single market. Creating undue linkages with other sectorial agenda would compromise their effectiveness and added value. This does not mean conditionalities shouldn’t be put in place. The Rule of Law is a basic prerequisite not only for participating in the European project but also in the common market, and they could be included in one way or another in close linkage with the spending of the budget. This does not mean either that we shouldn’t fight to have resources to address migratory pressures. On the contrary, these are needed. But resources to address such pressures should stay transparently separated to be able to withstand migratory challenges effectively and in a united way.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), na piśmie. – Wśród tematów dyskutowanych na ostatnim posiedzeniu Rady Europejskiej w kontekście przyszłego budżetu wieloletniego UE znalazła się też wspólna polityka rolna. WPR to 37% budżetu UE, jednakże w przeszłości udział ten był nawet dwa razy większy. Finansowane z niej dopłaty bezpośrednie stanowią aż 50% dochodów rolników – dochodów, które wynoszą tylko połowę dochodów innych grup zawodowych. Niskie dochody rolników są przyczyną braku młodych rolników. Sytuacja finansowa rolników bez WPR byłaby katastrofalna. Pamiętajmy, że z WPR korzystają nie tylko rolnicy, ale wszyscy konsumenci, bo dzięki środkom w ramach WPR żywność jest tańsza i rośnie zakup środków produkcji, co poprawia też sytuację przemysłu maszynowego i chemicznego oraz handlu. WPR zapewniła bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe w zakresie powszechnego dostępu do żywności o odpowiedniej jakości i przystępnych cenach. Rolnicy zapewniają społeczeństwu szereg dóbr publicznych w zakresie środowiska, kształtowania krajobrazu, za które nie są wynagradzani. Taka sytuacja wymaga utrzymania finansowania WPR na niezmienionym poziomie.

  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D), por escrito. – A definição do próximo Quadro Financeiro Plurianual é fundamental para consolidar o projeto europeu. Os líderes europeus tiveram no Conselho Informal de 23 de fevereiro uma primeira oportunidade de transmitirem aos cidadãos europeus uma mensagem credível e consistente sobre o percurso a seguir. Sendo uma primeira abordagem, é normal que as posições ainda tenham sido muito diferenciadas, mas no momento em que nos aproximamos de um novo ciclo eleitoral no quadro europeu é fundamental que os próximos passos sejam ambiciosos e mobilizadores.

Num contexto global cada vez mais competitivo, a União Europeia tem de fazer da convergência a palavra-chave em todas as suas estratégias: convergência interna para aproveitar as sinergias e a totalidade do seu potencial e convergência externa com os mais elevados padrões de inovação e sustentabilidade. As políticas de competitividade, coesão, agrícola, migrações, segurança e defesa têm de estar interligadas entre si por um forte impulso de inovação e inclusão social. Esta é a abordagem que permitirá tirar o máximo partido dos recursos orçamentais disponibilizados pelos Estados-Membros e dos recursos próprios, designadamente daqueles que resultarem da cobrança feita em cadeias de valor transnacionais no domínio financeiro, ambiental ou digital.