Пълен протокол на разискванията

Сряда, 3 октомври 2018 г. - Страсбург

1. Откриване на заседанието

PRESIDENZA DELL’ON. ANTONIO TAJANI
Presidente

(La seduta è aperta alle 9.05)

  Cécile Kashetu Kyenge (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il 3 ottobre del 2013, 366 persone persero la vita al largo di Lampedusa, nel tentativo di raggiungere le nostre coste. Il governo di allora rispose lanciando la più grande missione umanitaria nel Mediterraneo, Mare Nostrum.

Il mio pensiero oggi non va solo alle vittime, ma anche a chi si impegna, ogni giorno, a salvare vite umane, alle donne e agli uomini della Guardia Costiera italiana, ai sindaci impegnati nell'accoglienza e integrazione, alle ONG, purtroppo sempre più criminalizzate per la loro attività umanitaria.

Vorrei che questa data fosse ricordata come Giornata della memoria per onorare tutti gli uomini, le donne e i bambini che hanno perso la vita perché costretti a lasciare il proprio paese.

2. Разисквания относно случаи на нарушаване на правата на човека, на демокрацията и принципа на правовата държава (обявяване на внесените предложения за резолюция): вж. протокола

3. Принципите на правовата държава в Румъния (разискване)

  Presidente. – L’ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulla dichiarazione del Consiglio e della Commissione sullo Stato di diritto in Romania (2018/2844(RSP)).

  Juliane Bogner-Strauss, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, you have invited the Presidency to take part in this debate. To begin with, I would like to underline the importance of common values, such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights, as cornerstones of the European Union. It is crucial that every Member State respects, protects and promotes them. Values like the rule of law and the separation of powers are not negotiable and have to be at the heart of our attention. It is of great importance to stay in constant dialogue and to cooperate in order to ensure the best standards and conditions for all citizens.

The Council addressed the situation in Romania in its conclusions on the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism adopted on 12 December 2017. The Council reiterated the importance for Romania of focusing on further consolidation and fully addressing the concerns in the recommendations set out by the Commission in its report on progress achieved in Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism.

Of great value, too, are the widely acknowledged opinions of the Venice Commission. The Presidency is aware that the Romanian authorities are in constant contact with both the Venice Commission and the European Commission to find solutions to the issues raised. I trust that all sides are taking the issues raised in this dialogue seriously, as they go to the heart of our commitment to this Union. In this sense we hope that the ongoing exchange between the Romanian authorities and the Commission will continue to prove efficient in addressing these issues in a manner that leaves no doubt about our core values.

I will listen attentively to your debate and to the Romanian Prime Minister’s intervention.

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, we last discussed the state of the rule of law in Romania in February, and today is a useful opportunity to take stock of the developments which have taken place in the months since. I’ll try to be as concise as I can.

We are all aware that the initiatives taken by the Romanian authorities since 2017 concerning the reform of the justice laws, the criminal procedure and criminal codes and the processes regarding the judiciary have led to concerns from a wide range of stakeholders, both inside and outside Romania and the EU. Many Romanians are worried that the proposed changes to these laws may undermine the longstanding efforts in the fight against corruption and the independence of the judiciary.

These are concerns that the Commission very much shares. As Guardian of the Treaties, when it comes to the application of EU law and respect for the EU’s fundamental values, the Commission intervenes on the basis of accurate and thorough legal analysis. It focuses on concrete national measures and engages in a dialogue with the authorities. In these matters, the Commission is politically colour-blind and clinical in our approach. That is the case for Romania just as much as for any other Member State.

With your permission, I will set out the main developments in Romania. First, regarding the justice laws: the three justice laws, dating back to 2004, define the status of magistrates and organise the judicial system and the Superior Council of Magistracy. At the end of last year, the laws were amended by the Romanian Parliament. These amendments have been challenged several times before the Constitutional Court.

These laws have attracted criticism from institutions inside Romania and from outside. The Council of Europe anti—corruption watchdog, GRECO, adopted a very critical report in March. The Venice Commission’s preliminary opinion, issued in July, was equally critical, raising serious concerns about the independence of the judiciary, its efficiency and its quality. It made a series of recommendations. The final opinion is expected to be adopted later this month. I know this House will pay as close attention to that opinion as we will at the Commission, but unfortunately the fact is that the Romanian Parliament has so far not shown signs of responding to the opinions and recommendations.

Secondly, as concerns the overhaul of the criminal codes and the code of criminal procedures, in May the Romanian Parliament launched a procedure to amend the criminal code and the code of criminal procedures. They were passed in the months of June and July. The Romanian law enforcement authorities, as well as other Member States, expressed their concerns. The amendments have been challenged before the Constitutional Court, and judgments are expected in mid-October. The Venice Commission is preparing another opinion on these amended codes, which is also expected to be adopted later in October. These laws are crucial for the capacity of prosecutors to investigate, and judges to sentence, high-level corruption, as well as for the ability of the judicial system to pursue crime effectively.

The climate needed for reform has deteriorated due to the secret protocols between the prosecution and the intelligence services. I call on the Romanian authorities to conduct full and impartial investigations into this issue. Romanians deserve a law enforcement order with all authorities properly supervised and full judicial independence. The reforms of the judicial laws and of the criminal codes are interlinked, and they must be prevented from having a negative impact on the independence of the judiciary and its effectiveness in combating corruption. That is why the Commission has discussed this issue regularly with the Romanian Government at the highest level and has made its concerns public. We have examined the texts passed by the Romanian Parliament to fully assess their impact. We are seeking further clarification on how specific elements of these laws should be interpreted.

Thirdly, as concerns a procedure to dismiss the chief anti-corruption prosecutor and the evaluation of the general prosecutor, I would like to recall that the track record of the anti-corruption prosecution, the so-called DNA, was a central reason for the more positive assessment of Romania that the Commission made back in our Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) report in January 2017.

(Applause)

Moreover, robust and independent procedures for the dismissal and appointment of top prosecutors have always been a key element in our recommendations. The Commission has also recommended that the Romanian authorities seek the help of the Venice Commission in this matter. This remains one of the outstanding recommendations under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism.

We are following the latest developments in Romania with concern. The independence of Romania’s judicial system and its capacity to fight corruption effectively are essential cornerstones of a strong Romania in the European Union. We have seen substantial progress in the past, but things are now moving backwards in a way that would be damaging for the place that Romania has built as an EU Member State in recent years.

The Commission has repeatedly called on the Romanian authorities to rethink their course of action, and to build a broad consensus on the way forward, and I want to reiterate that call today. I would stress once again that the Commission is always ready to cooperate with and support the Romanian authorities in this process. I trust this dialogue will continue, and we will be meticulous and precise in all the elements of the proposals that we would like to discuss with the Romanian authorities.

The latest developments are a source of growing concern for the Commission. If adopted without changes, the combined effect of the amended justice laws and the criminal codes would affect the capacity of the justice system, including the prosecution service, to effectively fight against corruption and other crimes. This means backtracking from the situation that led the Commission to make a positive assessment in our report of January 2017. We will report on the situation in our next CVM report next month. You can see what our CVM progress report stated in January 2017 and what it did in the last report in November 2017. The situation has deteriorated. Rest assured that all developments will be thoroughly assessed and reflected in our upcoming report.

President Juncker and I issued a joint statement in January this year, setting out our concerns on the direction of travel. We stated clearly at that point that the irreversibility of the progress achieved so far under the CVM is an essential precondition to phase out the mechanism. Without that, we cannot phase out the mechanism.

So, while we will continue pursuing our objective of a sustainably positive situation in a dialogue with the Romanian authorities, I wish also to be clear today that the Commission will draw the appropriate conclusions if the amendments to the justice law, criminal codes and laws on conflict of interest and corruption are promulgated without taking account of the concerns. Concretely, this means following up our recommendations from the January 2017 CVM report, and the recommendations expressed by the Venice Commission and GRECO.

As the Guardian of the Treaties, we will not hesitate to take action, where necessary, to ensure compatibility with the Treaties. Indeed, the Commission will use all the means at its disposal, be it under CVM or otherwise. The Commission urges Romania to put the reform process back on track immediately. This means going forwards, not backwards, and abstaining from any steps which reverse the progress accomplished over the past years.

I honestly think there is still an opportunity to turn things around. The laws are not yet promulgated, and therefore it is not yet too late for the Romanian institutions to act to turn the situation around. As always, we stand ready to help, but the responsibility and the power to deliver change lie firmly with the Romanian institutions. I call again on them to take the right steps now.

(Applause)

  Viorica Dăncilă, prim-ministrul României. – Domnule președinte, domnule prim-vicepreședinte, stimați europarlamentari, în numele României vă mulțumesc pentru invitație. Spun de la început că nu am venit să dau socoteală. Am venit pentru că vă prețuiesc și vă respect. Cer însă aceeași prețuire și același respect pentru poporul român, pe care îl reprezint. Încep cu o întrebare esențială: pentru cine vrem să construim un sistem de justiție viabil în România? Pentru MCV? Pentru instituții? Pentru magistrați? Pentru politicieni? Evident că nu. Trebuie să facem o justiție corectă pentru cetățeni, ei sunt beneficiarii măsurilor din Parlamentul European sau din parlamentele naționale. De la cetățeni trebuie să înceapă orice discuție. Justiția trebuie să fie garanția că legile și drepturile cetățenești sunt respectate, iar cine le încalcă va fi sancționat.

Este legitim să ne întrebăm: în ce fel a apărat MCV cetățenii români de încălcarea gravă a drepturilor lor? În rapoartele MCV s-a vorbit mult despre instituții, despre numirile de magistrați, despre lupta anticorupție. Este foarte bine, dar nu am văzut nimic despre încălcările drepturilor omului, despre protocoalele secrete dintre serviciile de informații și instituțiile din justiție. În baza acestor protocoale, milioane de români s-au aflat sub monitorizarea serviciilor secrete, în numele luptei anticorupție. Există decizii judecătorești care arată cum s-au falsificat probe, cum s-au modificat transcrierile unor interceptări pentru a crea vinovății sau cum erau șantajați martorii pentru a depune mărturii mincinoase. Nimic despre aceste lucruri în rapoartele MCV. Asta nu înseamnă - sau asta înseamnă, mai bine spus, că acest mecanism și-a ratat menirea pentru care a fost creat și cer oficial să ni se spună cine a redactat rapoartele MCV, cine a furnizat datele și a omis, din neglijență sau din rea credință, aceste realități de neconceput în Uniunea Europeană. Dacă suntem sinceri, de la aceste abuzuri grave trebuie să începem, pentru că au loc pe teritoriul Uniunii Europene.

Comisia de la Veneția spunea că, în sistemul sovietic, Parchetul a reprezentat un mijloc puternic de a controla puterea judecătorească. În ultimii patru ani, peste trei mii de magistrați au fost cercetați de DNA. Practic, jumătate dintre magistrații din România au avut ani de zile dosare prin care, probabil, au fost influențați să dea soluții stabilite în afara sălii de judecată. Nu o spun doar eu. O spun cu multă îngrijorare asociațiile de magistrați din România. Prin astfel de dosare contrafăcute au fost înlăturați din funcție un judecător al Curții Constituționale, un vicepreședinte al Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii, patru judecători ai Înaltei Curți, mai mulți judecători de instanțe superioare, un procuror general, un șef de Parchet Superior. În final, toți au fost achitați sau dosarele au fost clasate, dar ei au fost înlăturați.

Noile legi ale justiției le redau judecătorilor independența. Niciun decident politic nu mai intervine în numirea și revocarea judecătorilor. Independența este totală, nicidecum restrânsă și vă asigur că avem bună credință și vom ține cont de recomandările Comisiei de la Veneția.

Există, totuși, și o parte bună a acestei întâlniri. Azi v-am informat pe toți, oficial, despre abuzurile din România. De acum, nu se mai pot ignora aceste lucruri, nu se va mai putea vorbi despre justiția din România fără a se vorbi și despre aceste abuzuri, doar dacă se face un joc politic fără nicio legătură cu justiția.

Întrebați-vă de ce vi s-au ascuns aceste lucruri. De ce nu v-au spus nimic, dacă totul era legitim și legal ? Puneți-vă aceste întrebări, înainte de a ridica piatra împotriva României.

Despre mitingul din 10 august voi spune doar câteva cuvinte. Văd că este acuzată Jandarmeria română pentru că a intervenit la un miting neautorizat împotriva unor manifestanți violenți care au încercat să ocupe clădirea Guvernului. Nu am văzut aceeași poziție față de evenimentul de săptămîna trecută de la Bruxelles sau față de alte mitinguri din Franța, Spania, Germania, Marea Britanie, când forțele de ordine au intervenit cu exact aceleași mijloace și cu aceleași proceduri ca cele folosite în România. Nu pot accepta sub nicio formă ca Jandarmeria română să fie acuzată de acțiuni și proceduri practicate peste tot în Europa.

În final, vă cer următorul lucru: nu îi interziceți României ceea ce este permis în alte state ale Uniunii și nu permiteți ca în România să se întâmple lucruri de neacceptat în alte state membre. Vrem să vă fim parteneri, dar vrem să vă fim parteneri egali. Nimeni, niciodată, nu va putea întoarce România din parcursul său european. Vă mulțumesc.

  Esteban González Pons, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I would like to welcome Prime Minister Dăncilă to this Parliament, which is also the Parliament of the Romanian people. We are not here to be a court, that is not the role of Parliament, and it never should be. We are here to discuss issues that affect all of us, no matter where we come from – and the independence of the judicial power and the rule of law are indeed European issues of that kind.

When Romania joined the Union in 2007 Romanian judges became European judges. This means that they have to defend not only Romanian law but also European law, and that we have to defend them. Europe is not a single market only. We are also a community of shared values and, when our countries signed the Treaties, we signed up to those values too – to all of them. So this is not an east-west issue, this is a European issue.

I am telling you this as a representative for Spain, a southern country that has had its own democratic transition. We know how difficult the shift is from dictatorship to democracy. It takes time, it requires sacrifices, it causes pain, it is a difficult journey. That is why we cannot understand the changes proposed by your Government, which are putting in danger the balance of powers and the independence of justice in Romania. That is why we cannot understand the extreme reaction of your Government on that tragic day of 10 August, when thousands of Romanians from the diaspora were trying simply to be heard.

And it is why we cannot understand the silence and the complicity of those who are concerned about the rule of law in some countries but not in others.

Of course, you can ignore our criticism, but you should never ignore the voice of your own people. Romanians fought for their liberties against communism. They tore down a tyranny and built up a democracy. They are a brave and a decent people, Prime Minister, and you are ignoring them.

Tell me, why don’t you want to listen to your people? Tell me, what interests are hidden behind the actions of your Government? Tell me, what are you afraid of? That’s what this Parliament wants and needs to know.

Listen to the people’s voice, Prime Minister. They just want integrity, transparency and justice. They just want to have a better future in their own country – not outside it. Nothing more, but nothing less.

Prime Minister, you have two options: you can listen to this Parliament, you can listen to the Commission, you can listen to the Romanian Parliament, you can listen to your people; or you can ignore all the democratic controls. But, with all due respect, this Parliament will remain and it will wait by the side of the noble and proud people of Romania. There is not another option for us. You should understand that.

(Applause)

  Josef Weidenholzer, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Ministerpräsidentin! Für uns Sozialdemokraten stehen Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit im Zentrum der Politik – unverrückbar! Diese Prinzipien sind universell und gelten für alle Mitgliedstaaten – egal ob im Osten oder im Westen und unbeschadet dessen, wer regiert! Wir begrüßen diese Debatte ausdrücklich und freuen uns, dass die Premierministerin anwesend ist. Wir sind besorgt über die Berichte, die uns aus Rumänien erreichen, und wir wollen eine detaillierte Aufarbeitung der Situation ohne Wenn und Aber. Nicht weil wir gegen Rumänien sind, sondern weil wir an einer positiven Entwicklung des Landes größtes Interesse haben. Das Land hat ein großes Zukunftspotenzial, das es nur dann ausschöpfen kann, wenn es den Weg der Liberaldemokratie nicht verlässt.

Der Ausgangspunkt Rumäniens war schwierig. Deswegen wurde der CVM-Mechanismus vereinbart. Wir hören genau hin, was der Vizepräsident der Kommission uns diesbezüglich zu sagen hat, und wir erwarten mit großem Interesse auch die Ergebnisse der Venedig-Kommission.

Es ist auch notwendig, mehr über die Rolle des Geheimdienstes in Erfahrung zu bringen, weil die Korruptionsbekämpfung eine Angelegenheit der unabhängigen Justizorgane sein muss.

Wir erwarten auch, dass der Präsident des Landes bei der nächsten Plenartagung darauf eingeht. Wir werden uns unseren Prinzipien folgend konstruktiv an der Ausarbeitung der geplanten Entschließung beteiligen, für die der LIBE-Ausschuss die entscheidenden Grundlagen liefern wird.

  Monica Macovei, în numele grupului ECR. – Dragnea și Tăriceanu atacă acum Uniunea Europeană pentru că minciuna și impostura le-au fost descoperite, dar românii vor în Europa, în democrație și în libertate. Acum, românii suferă din cauza acestui guvern care lucrează împotriva lor. România nu este un grup de politicieni corupți, România este fiecare om cinstit, oriunde s-ar afla în lume - și mulți au plecat în lume tocmai din cauza corupției, dar vor acasă.

Guvernul a lovit cu bastoane și grenade propriii cetățeni. Imaginile din 10 august nu mint. Presa independentă este și ea amenințată la ordinul unui condamnat penal la zece ani de închisoare pentru spălare de bani. Dragnea a decis să pregătească legi ca să îngroape și presa independentă.

Justiția este primul dușman al PSD și ALDE. Au schimbat legile justiției ca să controleze magistrații, au schimbat codurile penale ca să scape de infracțiuni și să blocheze anchetele. PSD și ALDE se folosesc acum de niște protocoale între serviciile de informații și parchete ca să obțină revizuirea sentințelor de condamnare și să scape de pușcărie, pentru că o lege a amnistiei va scoate oamenii în stradă. Românii protestează, românii nu sunt inerți. Este un popor viu. România este un popor viu și va riposta întotdeauna să își apere democrația.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Romania has, in my opinion, not one but two problems: yes, widespread corruption; and also, Mr Timmermans, a Secret Service out of hand, a state within the state. The nub of my message today is that both problems need to be tackled, and that Romania has to end the bad tradition of what was the Securitate, a Secret Service instrumentalised by one side of the political establishment to hit the other side.

This has to stop, Prime Minister. Also, a totally inappropriate reaction – weakening the fight against high-level corruption, undermining even the prosecution of it – is the way that Orbán and Kaczyński lead their countries. That is not the way that we liberals should govern. Not in our name and certainly not with our name!

So, may I give you one piece of advice, Prime Minister? Don’t follow the bad Hungarian and Polish examples. Embrace fully the remarks and recommendations of the Venice Commission and let them systematically review your legislative proposals, because the fight against corruption must be strengthened and not weakened, and the independence of the courts must be guaranteed and not undermined. And, yes, the murky power of the new-old Securitate definitely needs to be broken. The one is not in contradiction with the other.

  Ska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Romania has a very long and proud tradition of fighting for freedom and civil liberties; overthrowing a dictatorship after 42 years. The efforts to move towards democracy and civil liberties cannot be overestimated. It’s harsh but Romania did it. Democratic institutions have been developed and Romania has joined the European Union.

It is therefore even more worrying, Prime Minister, to see that there is a real backlash. With the reforms of the Romanian Criminal Code, your government is making it legal for officials to abuse their power. Your government will allow convicted criminals to get away with their stolen money and not have it confiscated. You are de facto legalising corruption with that reform.

Corruption makes people lose trust in the state and in democracy. Money is being diverted from the benefit of the many to the pockets of the few. Romanian citizens now lose five times more money to corruption than the state spends on hospitals and healthcare. Romanians do care. They took to the streets to ask for democracy, for good governance from you, Prime Minister, as is their right, as is the right of any European citizen. But, instead of listening to them, you actually sent the police in to attack them, tear-gassing an entire public square.

Even further, your government is now planning to reduce the freedom of assembly, making it obligatory to have an authorisation. Romania would be the first European Union Member State to require an authorisation. Do you really want to go that low?

Colleagues, Commissioner, Romanian citizens are asking for freedom, nothing else. Freedom from corruption, freedom of assembly, freedom from discrimination. Europe is built on that freedom. As someone who grew up in the Eastern bloc, I can testify to how important that freedom is.

That freedom, democracy and civil liberties are being called into question in more and more Member States. As European institutions, as European deputies, we have to defend the rights of Romanian citizens as well as the rights of every European citizen, be it in Hungary, be it in Poland, be it in Austria, be it anywhere. There is no second—class citizenship.

Let’s not wait until it’s too late. Let’s not wait until we have to start yet another Article 7 procedure. Now is the time to change. Now is the time to act.

(Applause)

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND
Vizepräsident

  Barbara Spinelli, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, da anni la Romania scende in piazza.

Visto il tempo che ho mi concentrerò su alcuni punti. Primo, la lotta alla corruzione e per una giustizia indipendente è cruciale per la Rule of Law, ma dovremmo ricordare che la protesta è estremamente frammentata. Per alcuni la corruzione produce disuguaglianze, per altri, ostacola l'agenda neoliberale e giustifica più poteri dei servizi. Ne nasce una falsa unità, è la forza ma anche la debolezza del movimento.

Secondo, nel movimento ci sono lati oscuri. I sostenitori del PSD sono dileggiati come anziani, stupidi, rurali. In realtà, l'opposizione al presente governo non riesce a convincere l'elettorato più povero ed emarginato che vive nelle campagne. Non dimentichiamo, anche noi, gli emarginati del mercato unico.

Terzo, il movimento non combatte solo la corruzione, include anche battaglie contro la costituzionalizzazione della famiglia come unione esclusiva fra uomo e donna. La nostra Carta dei diritti non vieta né impone la concessione dello status matrimoniale a unioni tra persone dello stesso sesso.

Quarto, la difesa della Rule of Law è più che giusta, ma La invito, Vicepresidente, a usarla anche per paesi che regolarmente risparmia. L’ho ascoltata in questi giorni sulle manifestazioni di agosto a Bucarest. Ha parlato giustamente di immagini shock, di protestatari pacifici picchiati dalla polizia, di inchieste da aprire subito. Sono mancate parole così forti quando i pacifici elettori indipendentisti in Catalogna sono stati picchiati e i loro leader imprigionati. E mi chiedo perché la Romania sia severamente vagliata e condannata, mentre la Spagna no.

  Ignazio Corrao, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Primo ministro, fin dal nostro ingresso in Parlamento abbiamo ribadito la centralità dello Stato di diritto nell'Unione europea e chiesto che le istituzioni ne monitorassero costantemente il rispetto da parte degli Stati membri e potessero intervenire in caso riscontrassero violazioni.

Siamo preoccupati da quello che leggiamo su quanto sta accadendo in Romania. Temo che le riforme del Codice penale portate avanti dal governo in corso non solo possano minare l'indipendenza della magistratura nel paese e favorire la corruzione, ma anche indebolire la cooperazione giudiziaria in materia penale con gli altri paesi dell'Unione, potenzialmente facendo della Romania un porto sicuro per continuare i propri affari illeciti impunemente. Mi riferisco alla legge che accorcia la prescrizione a un anno, di fatto lasciando impuniti gli autori di reati gravi, quali corruzione e riciclaggio di denaro, ma anche i provvedimenti abrogativi e reato di abuso di ufficio, fino alla rimozione del divieto di ricoprire cariche pubbliche per i condannati di corruzione o di abuso di ufficio e la depenalizzazione del reato di corruzione.

Noi, ad esempio in Italia, vogliamo fare esattamente l'opposto. Non possiamo permettere che chi si macchia di reati così gravi rimanga impunito. Vogliamo una riforma della prescrizione con la sospensione al primo grado di giudizio o dal rinvio a giudizio per evitare che i criminali possano beneficiare delle lungaggini dei processi per garantirsi l'impunità. Anche la lotta alla corruzione nella pubblica amministrazione è una priorità del nostro governo.

Vogliamo istituire il “daspo” per i corrotti, il che significa che un condannato in via definitiva per corruzione non potrà più avere a che fare con la pubblica amministrazione. Nella direttiva per la lotta al riciclaggio di cui io sono stato relatore, siamo riusciti ad introdurre la sanzione accessoria al divieto di assumere cariche pubbliche e di candidarsi alle elezioni per coloro che hanno subito una condanna definitiva per reati di riciclaggio.

Questo è il nostro obiettivo: tenere lontani dalla pubblica amministrazione i criminali. Questo deve essere l'obiettivo, Primo ministro, della Romania e di tutta l'Unione europea. La Commissione deve vigilare affinché vengano rispettati i trattati dello Stato di diritto e gli Stati membri assicurino la corretta trasposizione di questi importanti strumenti normativi a livello dell'Unione europea, quali la direttiva sulla lotta al riciclaggio tramite il diritto penale, che ho citato, la quinta direttiva contro il riciclaggio che contiene importanti disposizioni sulle persone politicamente esposte, che mi risultano essere state scientemente omesse dal governo romeno, di cui spetterà alla Commissione valutarne la liceità.

  Nicolas Bay, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, après la Hongrie et la Pologne, c’est maintenant la Roumanie qui est dans le viseur de la Commission.

Comme dans le cas de la Pologne, les eurocrates reprochent au gouvernement roumain sa réforme du système judiciaire qui, prétendument, menacerait l’État de droit mais, à chaque fois, ces arguties juridiques et techniques ne sont en réalité que des prétextes, comme j’ai eu l’occasion de m’en apercevoir lors de la récente mission de la commission LIBE à Varsovie.

En réalité, ce que la Commission ne supporte pas, c’est que les peuples prennent des décisions démocratiques et soient consultés sur des questions qu’elle voudrait trancher à leur place.

Le commissaire Timmermans a eu beau reconnaître lundi soir que les politiques familiales sont du ressort des États membres, pour cet ardent soutien du lobby LGBTI cucul, etc., on n’a pas le droit d’être contre le mariage pour les couples de même sexe.

Samedi et dimanche prochains, le peuple roumain pourra s’exprimer par référendum et valider ou non la proposition de constitutionnaliser le mariage entre un homme et une femme. Étant français, j’avais oublié que l’on pouvait être de gauche et refuser de céder aux revendications communautaristes ultraminoritaires.

Les institutions européennes doivent respecter la Roumanie, sa souveraineté et ses choix démocratiques, n’en déplaise à M. Timmermans. C’est au peuple roumain qu’il revient de décider de l’avenir qu’il souhaite pour ses enfants.

  Steven Woolfe (NI). – Mr President, I would say to Madam Prime Minister, 20 years ago I worked in Romania, in Bucharest on the laws that became your anti-money laundering legislation. I worked with intelligent, smart and caring lawyers alongside me. We worked on the international rules that finally became your own legislation. What I also remember of my time in Romania was how proud they were of you becoming an independent country, how they can once again vote for their own Prime Minister, such as yourself. When you and your government stood and received over 45% of your nation states’ votes only a few years ago, you became a leader of a country that was also proud.

Be in no doubt: today, you are here to be once more one of those Prime Ministers who are to be attacked, bullied and abused by those people on the front bench for having one simple thing: the audacity to actually stand up to them and their anti-democratic ways. You are a Prime Minister who has a vote. You are a Prime Minister that has received the backing of its people. You are standing up to those people in this room who have one vision and that is their own vision. Now you can go away from here understanding that they don’t really want to support you. They’re attacking you – the Hungarians, the Romanians, but you have a responsibility to your people first, not to this lot here.

  Dan Nica (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule prim-vicepreședinte, doamnă prim-ministru, aș dori să fac o primă declarație care trebuie să fie foarte clară pentru toată lumea. România nu acceptă să fie monedă de schimb în niciun fel de condiții și cu nicio altă țară. Înțelegem că au fost îngrijorări în privința anumitor state membre, dar noi cerem -și acest lucru a fost subliniat și de către prim-vicepreședintele Comisiei Europene - ca fiecare țară să fie judecată în funcție de propriile merite.

Noi, în România, încercăm în acest moment ca toate lucrurile care au ținut de un trecut întunecos, de un sistem judiciar pervertit, de foști miniștri ai Justiției care au transformat procurorii în propriii servitori, de cei care au reușit astfel să transforme o instituție respectabilă a judecătorului în persoane timorate, în procurori care au fost forțați să facă dosare la comandă, să devină un sistem independent, controlat doar de către Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii și în care nimeni, niciodată, să nu fie șantajat.

Toată lumea, în România, trebuie să înțeleagă un singur lucru: justiția se face doar în sala de judecată și niciodată pe bază de protocoale, pe bază de servicii secrete și pe bază de înțelegeri oculte și salut această luare de poziție a Comisiei Europene. Toată lumea trebuie să știe că vremurile care au fost nu se mai pot întoarce, cu toate eforturile disperate pe care le fac acești români adevărați din sală, cum ar fi Preda și Macovei, și care au reușit să transforme justiția română într-o rușine. Noi aceste lucruri nu le tolerăm, le vom schimba și le vom schimba așa cum trebuie, în conformitate cu normele democratice.

(Vorbitorul a acceptat să răspundă unei întrebări adresate în conformitate cu procedura „cartonașului albastru” (articolul 162 alineatul (8) din Regulamentul de procedură))

  Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege Boştinaru! Ich brauche von Ihnen keine Belehrungen. Ich achte sehr genau darauf, was dazwischengerufen wird. Zwischenrufe sind im parlamentarischen Betrieb möglich und erlaubt, solange sie sich hinsichtlich Form und Inhalt im vernünftigen Rahmen bewegen. Ich entscheide das. Dazu brauche ich keine Zurufe von der Seitenlinie von Ihnen. Damit das ein für allemal klar ist.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE), blue-card question. – I am more and more surprised about the debate here. I heard the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) Group applaud the extremes up here when defending corruption in Romania, and the question I would like to raise is: aren’t you concerned about a government that is not just not sufficiently fighting corruption, but is fighting those who are fighting corruption? Could I have an answer to that?

  Dan Nica (S&D), Răspuns la o întrebare adresată în conformitate cu procedura „cartonașului albastru”. – Acest lucru face parte din ceea ce înseamnă campania de fake news. V-a spus cineva că în ultimii cinci ani, 98 % din cei trimiși, chipurile, pentru dosare de corupție în instanțe au fost achitați? Vi s-a spus că toți acești oameni care, chipurile, au fost raportați și către Comisia Europeană, au fost declarați nevinovați? Doar în aceste șase luni, peste 200 de achitări din partea Direcției Naționale Anticorupție.

Anticorupția înseamnă pentru noi ca acel vinovat să plătească și cel nevinovat să nu plătească. Injustiție pentru unul, înseamnă injustiție pentru toată lumea. Asta este deviza noastră.

  Laurenţiu Rebega (ECR). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, voi spune de la început că în România, în ultimii ani, s-au impus decizii politice care au încălcat unele standarde europene în privința statului de drept. Aceste decizii au fost luate însă de către liderul PSD, Liviu Dragnea, pentru rezolvarea problemelor sale personale și toți cei care îl susțin, aici și în țară, știu acest lucru foarte bine.

Este însă obligatoriu să subliniez, în fața Parlamentului European, că nu voi fi de acord ca românii să fie pedepsiți pentru ceea ce fac politicienii în țara lor. Nu, nu trebuie adoptate sancțiuni care vor afecta cetățenii nevinovați ai României, care nu au susținut niciodată sforăriile lui Liviu Dragnea. Dacă colegii săi din guvernare sunt complici, atunci măsurile trebuie luate contra lor și nu contra cetățenilor României.

Îi invit, deci, pe colegii social- democrați, ALDE, să ia atitudine față de colegii români care susțin demersul liderului lor politic. Să îi criticăm și să îi sancționăm pe politicienii vinovați, nu pe cetățenii României. România este o țară pro-europeană.

(Vorbitorul a acceptat să răspundă unei întrebări adresate în conformitate cu procedura „cartonașului albastru” (articolul 162 alineatul (8) din Regulamentul de procedură))

  James Carver (NI), blue-card question. – Mr Rebega, thank you for taking my blue card. This is one of a series of debates that have been taking place in here concerning the rule of law in a particular EU Member State. Is it not an indication of the increasing authoritarian approach across the European Union and of the fact that the UK, which has always been a bastion of free speech and democracy, has made the correct choice by voting to leave this increasingly federalist and undemocratic organisation?

  Laurenţiu Rebega (ECR). – Care este întrebarea referitoare la România?

What is the question referring to Romania?

  James Carver (NI), blue-card question. – We are seeing an increasingly authoritarian approach across the European Union. From the right and from the left – right-wing governments have been criticised, and now left-wing governments are being criticised. Surely it is an indication that my country has made the right choice, seeing what is happening in Hungary, in Poland and in Romania, and seeing how the European Union does not like what is happening?

  Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege Carver! So wird das nichts. Ich war am Anfang nicht so streng. Aber Sie haben es jetzt auch beim zweiten Mal nicht geschafft, eine Frage zu formulieren. Deshalb brauchen wir auch keine Antwort.

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – Mr President, I find it amazing how Brexiteers still feel the need to lecture the European Union about the internal affairs of the European Union.

(Applause)

Bye-bye.

Mrs Prime Minister, I’m very pleased that you’re here today to debate with us, but I have to say that I am disappointed at your speech. The European Parliament is not the enemy. We are not attacking Romania – we are all in the same family, but we are expressing our concern about developments in your country, so I would suggest that you embrace that as a hand we’re stretching out to you to help – because we’re all in this together. Don’t seek confrontation with the European Parliament. Don’t be on the defensive, but see this as an attempt to create a culture of the rule of law and fundamental rights throughout the territory of the European Union. I’m not going to repeat what has been said about following the recommendations of the Venice Commission or investigate the claims of interference by the intelligence services, but I would urge you to repeal the laws, the anti-money laundering laws and the laws on the freedom of assembly that are going to severely and unduly restrict the freedom of NGOs. I would also call on all political parties – I know I cannot call on the government, but all political parties – to campaign against the anti-LGBTI referendum. I also officially asked the Presidency of this House to investigate claims that EU or EP funding has been used to fund the campaign against …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Der Präsident. – Ich bekomme jetzt einige blaue Karten. Es scheint sich herumgesprochen zu haben, dass wir sehr viele Wortmeldungen zum Thema catch-the-eye haben. Ich kann nicht erlauben, dass das umgangen wird. Außerdem wollen Sie bitte zur Kenntnis nehmen, dass ich hier die generelle Linie habe, dass ich jemandem, dem ich das Wort wegen Redezeitüberschreitung entzogen habe, nicht noch eine weitere Redezeit durch eine blaue Karte zugestehen möchte.

  Harald Vilimsky (ENF). – Herr Präsident! Meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Um das vorab klarzustellen: Ich möchte Respekt und Wertschätzung gegenüber dem rumänischen Volk zum Ausdruck bringen. Ich möchte aber auch Schimpf und Schande für diese rumänische Regierung, für diese sozialistische rumänische Regierung deponieren, wo gegen den Chef wegen einer Korruptionssumme von mehr als 20 Millionen Euro ermittelt wird. Und als im August dieses Jahres über 100 000 Menschen auf die Straße gegangen sind und gegen die korrupte Regierung demonstrieren wollten, hat ein Regierungsberater dieser sozialistischen Regierung gefordert, man sollte auf diese Leute schießen. Und ein anderer hat behauptet, man wolle eine Gegendemonstration aufziehen und diese Menschen niedertreten.

Das sind Dinge, die schlichtweg inakzeptabel sind. Ich behaupte, dass sie ein Theater in Richtung Ungarn und in Richtung Polen hochgezogen haben, um ganz bewusst zu verdecken, was hier in diesen Bereichen in der sozialistischen Regierung in Rumänien passiert. Daher kann ich nur an Sie, meine Damen und Herren von den Sozialdemokraten, appellieren: Machen Sie Ordnung im eigenen Stall und ziehen sie nicht ein Theater hoch, wo kein Theater notwendig ist.

  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Uważam, że jeżeli chodzi o prawo do zadawania pytań, Pan nie powinien karać, odbierając prawo do zadania pytania, tych, którzy mają prawo z tego skorzystać, tylko co najwyżej posła, który przekroczył czas. To on może mieć skróconą odpowiedź o ten czas, o który to prawo do wypowiedzi przekroczył, a nie ci, którzy chcieliby zadać krytyczne pytanie. To zupełne nieporozumienie.

  Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege! Vielen Dank für diese Sicht der Dinge. Sitzungsleitung ist keine Strafe, jedenfalls nicht für jene, die sprechen.

Ich bemühe mich, hier einigermaßen Ordnung reinzubekommen. Klar ist auf jeden Fall, dass man mit blauen Karten nicht eine unbestreitbar vorhandene Vielzahl von beantragten spontanen Wortmeldungen umgehen kann.

Ich verstehe sehr genau, dass sich sehr viele rumänische Kollegen in dieser Debatte zu Wort melden möchten. Aber die Redezeit im Plenum ist nicht dazu da, dass nur eine Sicht der Dinge transportiert wird und nicht nur die Sicht aus einem Land.

Ich habe weit über 30 Anträge für spontane Wortmeldungen erhalten. Ich werde nur wenig mehr als fünf zulassen und habe darauf geachtet, dass nicht aus jeder Fraktion ausschließlich rumänische Kollegen zu Wort kommen.

Spontane Wortmeldungen

  Roberta Metsola (PPE). – Mr President, the attacks on anti—corruption and judicial bodies in Romania are worrying. The scenes of protesters being beaten are deeply disturbing. These are ordinary people on the receiving end of the baton. These were not terrorists, they were not provocateurs, they weren’t even there illegally. These are the mothers, fathers, sons and daughters of Romania, Europeans whose only crime is to demand an end to corruption and abuse. That is all they want. They stood up for the Romania they were promised and for the rights guaranteed by the EU treaties. This should not be too much to ask. After all, modern Europe is built on the shoulders of the people who shaped history by speaking out with their lungs bursting with tear gas.

On 10 August, Romanians took to the streets, shouting ‘justiţie nu corupţie’ – ‘justice not corruption’. If ever there were three words which articulate what the EU must stand for, those are they: ‘justice, not corruption’.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, primera ministra, el Parlamento Europeo no es una potencia extranjera en Rumanía, porque representa a los ciudadanos rumanos y porque usted viene de este Parlamento Europeo. Por eso, entiende muy bien cuánto nos preocupa el Estado de Derecho y los derechos fundamentales.

La animamos en su lucha contra la corrupción, pero marque usted la diferencia con el comportamiento de los Gobiernos de Hungría y de Polonia. Siga usted los criterios de la Comisión de Venecia. Porque, en la lucha contra la corrupción, hace falta un poder judicial independiente y un ministerio fiscal libre de injerencia en el Gobierno.

Pero, además, este domingo tiene lugar en Rumanía un referéndum preceptuado por el que se acomete el objetivo manifiesto de impedir la mera posibilidad legal de matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo.

La animo a que tenga el coraje de decirle a los ciudadanos rumanos que usted no quiere para su país ninguna discriminación en el disfrute de derechos en condiciones de igualdad.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, vladavina prava u državama koje su bile iza željezne zavjese još uvijek je iznimno krhka i zato naša nastojanja moraju ići u smjeru zaštite i jačanja demokratskih institucija.

Ne smijemo pritom smetnuti s uma da početna pozicija bivših komunističkih država nije jednaka onoj zapadnih demokracija i da su određene intervencije u pravosuđu vjerojatno nužne kako bi se one očistile od recidiva starih struktura koje ga podrivaju. Budući da je to vrlo sklizak teren, uvijek postoji opasnost da se iskoristi kao izlika za stavljanje sudbene vlasti pod kontrolu izvršne i daljnju eroziju sustava kao što se, prema svemu sudeći, događa ne samo Rumunjskoj nego u većini postkomunističkih država.

Stoga, držim da je nužno prepoznati i ojačati ulogu upravo onih pojedinaca i društvenih skupina koje mogu i žele dići glas protiv takvih nefunkcioniranja država, jednako kao što podržavam i borbu koju u ovim trenucima jedan dio hrvatskog društva vodi protiv neprocesuiranja ratnih zločina u Hrvatskoj.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – Domnule președinte, ca popor pro-european suntem foarte constructivi și vă propun, domnule Timmermans, să declarăm astăzi, în plenul Parlamentului de la Strasbourg, că nu este nevoie de nicio autorizație și niciun respect față de lege ca să protestezi în Europa. Acesta este standardul democratic pe care îl impuneți la București.

Da, cu siguranță, poate n-am făcut foarte mult pentru a combate corupția la nivel înalt și v-aș propune, domnule Timmermans, să rugați anumite state membre să nu își mai prevadă în legislație posibilitatea de a da mită pentru a obține contracte în străinătate. Într-adevăr, oficiali care se presupune că ar fi dat mită la București nu am văzut niciodată a fi traduși în curțile noastre de judecată.

Sigur, stimați colegi, dublul standard devine astăzi, din punctul meu de vedere, o realitate în această dezbatere de la Strasbourg. Aceasta nu aduce nici mai multă coeziune, nu aduce nici mai multă Europă și este dovada unei lipse de analiză, a unei lipse de obiectivitate și a unei lipse de standard. Aș întreba Comisia Europeană, deși este obligatoriu: de ce în ultimii ani nu am avut niciun fel de analiză privind situația corupției în toate statele membre din Uniunea Europeană? Ori vă plac doar acestea trei?

  Der Präsident. – Frau Kollegin Nicolai! Gestatten Sie eine Frage von Herrn Kollegen Bütikofer?

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – Mr President, for the catch-the-eye procedure, it is not possible ...

  Der Präsident. – Frau Kollegin Nicolai! Erstens spricht man im Stehen. Zweitens entscheide das ich.

Sie haben es in der Hand, zu sagen, Sie gestatten keine Frage. Ich entnehme Ihrer Antwort, dass das ein Nein ist. Deshalb spricht als nächstes Herr Kollege Agnew.

  John Stuart Agnew (EFDD). – Mr President, this is a good opportunity. I think the Prime Minister was on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development with me a few years ago, and I would like to tell her that I have a constituent in my region, whose lighting company sold some materials to a firm in Romania, which then sold them on to another firm in Romania; it paid the original firm in Romania but that firm did not pay my constituent; he then went to court in Romania, and he believes that the official organising the timing of the hearings kept putting them off because he was being bribed to do so. In the end, my constituent went bankrupt. I tried to get the Commission interested because it is supposed to intervene in such cases but it did absolutely nothing. My constituent had thought the European Union would be on his side. He has ended up losing heavily.

Please, Prime Minister, can you have a look at your own country, and endeavour to ensure that British businesspeople can invest there with confidence.

  Răzvan Popa (S&D). – Domnule președinte, cu tot respectul pentru dumneavoastră și pentru această instituție, mi-ar fi plăcut să fiți la fel de ferm și cu colegii de acolo, care au vociferat toată ședința, iar domnul Preda este o rușine pentru această instituție și pentru felul în care nu este în stare să îi respecte pe cei care sunt aici și instituția aceasta.

  Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege Popa! Ich bin vorher darauf eingegangen, dass es zu einer lebendigen Debatte – jedenfalls in den Demokratien dieser Welt – gehört, dass auch Zwischenrufe zulässig sind. Solange diese sich im Blick auf die Form und den Inhalt im Rahmen halten, gedenke ich nicht, das zu untebinden.

Wohl aber rufe ich Sie zur Ordnung dafür, dass Sie einen Kollegen hier im Saal als Schande für das Parlament bezeichnet haben.

  Emilian Pavel (S&D). – Domnule președinte, nu pot să nu observ că aveți un comportament foarte părtinitor față de grupul dumneavoastră politic. Ați uitat că la catch the eye nu există posibilitatea blue card, dar ați ținut neapărat să o atenționați pe doamna Nicolai că se vorbește din picioare. Uitați, eu vorbesc în picioare și vă rog frumos, reprezentați acolo Parlamentul European și nu grupul dumneavoastră politic. Trebuie să fiți imparțial și să respectați toți deputații de aici, nu doar pe ai dumneavoastră.

  Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege! Ich rate Ihnen erstens, sich zu informieren, welcher Fraktion ich angehöre. Zweitens habe ich vorhin gesagt, ich werde nicht zulassen, dass durch blaue Karten Wortmeldungen zum Catch-the-eye umgangen werden. Und ich habe gerade vorhin Frau Kollegin Nicolai gesagt, ob eine Zwischenfrage zugelassen wird, entscheiden zwei Leute: der Sitzungsleiter und derjenige, der gefragt werden soll. Ihre Antwort war „nein“. Meine Antwort wäre in diesem Fall „ja“ gewesen. Ich sage Ihnen auch, warum ich hier geneigt war, die Zwischenfrage zuzulassen. Weil es nämlich aus der Fraktion der Grünen keine einzige Wortmeldung zum Thema Catch-the-eye gab. Deshalb habe ich gedacht, ich lasse das zu. Die Geschäftsordnung gibt keine Regel vor, ob im Catch-the-eye-Verfahren blaue Karten möglich sind.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, dumneavoastră ați declarat în momentul în care am ridicat cartonașele, la speaking time, că nu puteți să dați și catch the eye și cartonaș. Eu am avut un cartonaș, nu mi l-ați oferit și nu mi-ați dat nici la catch the eye, spunând totuși că dumneavoastră decideți dacă (asta este democrația? să o înțelegem și noi!), dumneavoastră decideți dacă dați cartonașe la catch the eye și nu la speaking time. Nu mai înțeleg modul de conducere și voi face în scris o scrisoare Președintelui Parlamentului.

  Der Präsident. – Frau Kollegin Grapini! Sie können gerne etwas schriftlich einreichen. Ich habe drei Dinge gesagt. Erstens, dass ich, wenn ich jemandem das Wort entziehe, weil er zu lange gesprochen hat, dann lasse ich von mir aus keine blaue Karte zu. Da hatten Sie sich unter anderem gemeldet.

Und zweitens habe ich darauf hingewiesen, dass einige Kollegen jetzt durch blaue Karten versuchen, ihre Meldung im Catch-the-eye sozusagen umzupolen. Das werde ich auch nicht zulassen. Ich habe zu keinem Zeitpunkt davon gesprochen, ob ich umgekehrt blaue Karten im Catch-the-eye-Verfahren zulasse.

  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η μεν Ρουμανία αποδέχθηκε την επικυριαρχία ως προαπαιτούμενο για την προσχώρηση στην Ένωση και με αντάλλαγμα την πρόσκαιρη και καιροσκοπική εισροή φθηνού χρήματος, ενώ η Ένωση επέλεξε την καταστρατήγηση των βασικών συστατικών της αρχών στον βωμό των ευκαιριακών πολιτικών συμβολισμών. Παρά τις σχετικές προειδοποιήσεις, τα λάθη ήταν αμοιβαία και η διαχείρισή τους βαραίνει εξίσου και τις δύο πλευρές. Πλέον έντεκα χρόνια μετά, η διαδικασία έχει παρεκτραπεί και κατέληξε σε συστάσεις ακόμη και για την αλλαγή διατάξεων του Συντάγματος της Ρουμανίας, γεγονός απαράδεκτο. Με στόχο την ταχύτερη απεμπλοκή, η Ένωση δεν έχει καμία άλλη επιλογή παρά την εποικοδομητική υποστηρικτική συμμετοχή και την εφαρμογή του εν λόγω μεταβατικού μέτρου παροχής βοήθειας.

Στόχος, με σαφή επιμέρους κριτήρια αναφοράς, παραμένει η εξάλειψη των αδυναμιών στους τομείς της δικαστικής μεταρρύθμισης και της καταπολέμησης της διαφθοράς, μέσω λελογισμένων και αναλογικών συστάσεων, της παροχής τεχνογνωσίας και στοχευμένης χρηματοδότησης, όπου αυτό κρίνεται αναγκαίο ή απαραίτητο.

Βέβαια και κάτι τελευταίο: Η υποκρισία εδώ περισσεύει. Μιλήσατε για δακρυγόνα στη Ρουμανία και, όταν ήρθε ο πρωθυπουργός της Ελλάδας Τσίπρας εδώ, που έκανε τα ίδια και χειρότερα στο Πισοδέρι και στη Θεσσαλονίκη, με την αστυνομία να δέρνει τους πολίτες, δεν είπατε κουβέντα.

  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Ja krytycznie odniosłem się do interpretacji pana przewodniczącego, jeżeli chodzi o odbieranie prawa do zadawania pytań ze względu na przekroczenie czasu przez mówców, ale w tym wypadku chcę się odnieść krytycznie do krytyków przewodniczącego. Catch-the-eye jest zbiorem normalnych wypowiedzi w debacie. I do każdej z tych wypowiedzi można zadać pytanie. Istnieje praktyka, która tego odmawia, ale ona nie ma podstawy w regulaminie. I pan przewodniczący w tym wypadku ma całkowicie rację.

  Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank für die Blumen, Herr Kollege Jurek.

  Siegfried Mureşan (PPE). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, de doi ani de zile poporul român se manifestă în stradă pentru apărarea valorilor europene. Oamenii cer justiție, oamenii cer dreptate, oamenii cer stat de drept și oamenii cer bună guvernare și oamenii ies în stradă, împreună cu drapelul Uniunii Europene și oamenii întreabă: ce poate face Uniunea Europeană pentru noi? Iar răspunsul nostru, domnule prim-vicepreședinte Timmermans, stimați colegi, trebuie să fie un răspuns convingător. Trebuie să fim alături de poporul român, să apărăm împreună valorile europene, să apărăm împreună modul de viață european. Asta dorește poporul român și asta trebuie să facem și noi. Suntem alături de poporul român.

Trebuie să știm, totodată, că oamenii se manifestă împotriva unui guvern care este controlat de președintele Partidului Social Democrat, care este un infractor condamnat de mai multe ori, iar când infractorii fac legi, legile sunt bune pentru infractori, nu sunt bune pentru oameni. De aceea, domnule prim-vicepreședinte Timmermans, dumneavoastră, Comisia Europeană și noi, Parlamentul, suntem alături de popor, trebuie să fim alături de ei, să apărăm valorile europene și buna guvernare.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). – Domnule președinte, dezbaterea privind statul de drept în România a fost așteptată de români cu speranță. Ei se așteptau ca Uniunea Europeană să îi ajute să scape de sistemul odios expus aici de primul-ministru. Spre amara lor surpriză, în loc de ajutor, românii primesc apostrofări și amenințări că, dacă nu revin imediat la sistemul odios de care încearcă să scape acum, vor fi penalizați.

Românii, printre cei mai pro-europeni cetățeni, nu merită asta, pentru că românii adevărați sunt cei mulți, care prin votul masiv acordat coaliției în 2016 i-au cerut acesteia să le redea drepturile democratice furate de o justiție politizată, controlată de serviciile secrete, și nu cei puțini care dezinformează.

  Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Herr Kollege Paşcu. Das Missverständnis geht auf meine Kappe. Ich sagte Paşcu, aber ich sagte auch Marinescu, als ich mich nämlich beim Kollegen Mureşan für seinen Beitrag bedankt habe.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

  Viorica Dăncilă, prim-ministra României. – Domnule președinte, vă mulțumesc tuturor pentru poziția pe care ați avut-o. Am văzut lucruri pe care le-am luat în calcul, lucruri constructive. Am vrut un dialog constructiv, dar mi-am dat seama că există multă dezinformare și nu acuz pe cei care au spus aceste lucruri, ci pe cei care stau în spatele acestei dezinformări.

Domnule Pons - da, trebuie să apărăm cetățenii. Acest lucru îl cer și eu, și nu am să ignor vocea poporului, iar martoră este larga susținere populară pe care o avem în România. Ascult pe toată lumea de bună credință și vreau un dialog constructiv, dar un dialog care să fie corect pentru România și pentru Uniunea Europeană.

Doamna Macovei, știu despre dezinformările dumneavoastră. Acest guvern pe care îl criticați atât de des a adus o creștere economică de 7%, a crescut nivelul de trai al românilor și, de aceea, românii îl iubesc. Nu vă face cinste să aduceți lupta politică internă în Parlamentul European, este o lipsă de respect față de poporul român.

Nu am să pot răspunde la toată lumea, ar fi foarte mult timp, dar vreau să mai dau câteva răspunsuri. Da, România este divizată, iar eu vreau ca România să fie unită, dar trebuie să avem grijă de un lucru - și vă spune o țară pro-europeană: vrem și o Europă divizată? Da, avem dialog, dar să nu încercăm, indiferent de grupul politic, să ne învrăjbim unii pe alții. Împreună trebuie să desenăm, să creionăm viitorul Uniunii Europene, începând cu anul viitor. Haideți să vedem lucrurile care ne unesc și să lăsăm la o parte lucrurile care ne divizează. Ceea ce avem de îndreptat, vom îndrepta, vom avea dialog, sunt dispusă dialogului.

Domnule Corrao, reforma în ceea ce privește justiția, legile justiției este inițiată în Parlament. Parlamentul este cel ales în mod democratic, este expresia voinței poporului. Vedeți că și aici există dezinformare? Pentru că au arătat cu degetul spre guvern. Nu - în Parlament au fost inițiate aceste legi.

Domnule Rebega, nu aduceți lupta politică în Parlamentul European. Nu este corect față de români, poate ar trebui să vă gândiți că ați candidat pe listele Partidului Social Democrat, dar nu vă judec eu, pentru că nu am dreptul, vă vor judeca cei care v-au susținut și pe care acum i-ați dezamăgit.

Doamnă, in't Veld, mulțumesc mult pentru sugestii, voi ține cont de sugestiile dumneavoastră. Parlamentul European nu este inamicul meu, am fost europarlamentar nouă ani de zile și nu o să mă abat niciodată de la valorile europene. Poate nu toate lucrurile sunt corecte, poate nu toate lucrurile sunt așa cum trebuie să fie, dar sunt convinsă că un dialog constructiv și faptul că puteți să ascultați toate părțile și vom ține mai puțin cont de cei care nu vor să fie înțelegere și dialog în Parlamentul European, cei care vin cu dezinformări, cei care au dezinformat întotdeauna, nu numai acum - cred că lucrurile se pot îndrepta.

Domnule prim-vicepreședinte Timmermans, cu siguranță vom ține cont de recomandările Comisiei de la Veneția. Azi, ministrul justiției, prezent lângă mine, va merge la Comisia de la Veneția. România este o țară pro-europeană și cu siguranță nu se va abate de la drumul pro-european - și vă spune o fostă colegă de-a dumneavoastră. Vă rog să aveți încredere în România și să aveți încredere în parcursul european și în respectarea statului de drept în țara mea. Vă mulțumesc!

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, in the course of my professional and political life over the past 30 years I have been a very close witness to everything that has happened in Romania and I remember vividly that 30 years ago, working on the issue, I saw that the Romanian people had inherited a thoroughly, thoroughly corrupt system.

It was not just corrupt because of the corruption, it was morally corrupt. The nation had been under the direction of a morally deeply corrupt dictator and his system. If you take that, 30 years ago, into account and then see where Romania is today, huge progress has clearly been made, apart from the party-political composition of the government. Over those decades, huge progress was made. So why am I so worried today?

Because, in the final stretch of this long and painful marathon, we now risk not reaching the finishing line to ensure that the fight against corruption cannot be reversed and that the rule of law is irreversible. To go in the other direction would be to undo some of the most important achievements by the Romanian people in ridding themselves of this horrible past.

Someone who comes from a country like mine cannot even begin to imagine how difficult this must have been for the Romanian people. So, if we now speak out and speak up, it is because we are doing it for the Romanian people, who want to fulfil their European destiny by being sure that the system they live in – the country they live in – is a democracy based on the rule of law, with full respect for human rights, and where corruption is combated effectively and rooted out of society.

I want to remind the Members of this House who have not made reference to the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) report that, yes indeed, the recommendations of the Venice Commission are important and we will work on them, but please also look at the recommendations made in the Commission’s CVM report of last year and the recommendations we will be making in the CVM report next month. I think they constitute a good road map for ensuring that reform is irreversible.

I will continue the dialogue with the Romanian Government. Because of time, I could not be precise on every question and critique we have on the proposed and already promulgated laws, but I will be very meticulous and precise in putting my questions to the Romanian Government, and in inviting them to answer those questions and to continue the dialogue so that we can resolve these issues.

Let me be very clear: what is at stake is of huge importance for the future of our European Union, but what is at stake is of even greater importance for the future of the Romanian people. So, if the Commission needs to be brutal in our assessment we will be brutal. If we need to use other instruments at our disposal, we will use them. This is not a threat. This is just the Commission setting out what our role is and pointing out that we are the guardian of the Treaty and we need to take this role very seriously indeed.

If I may make a political remark: sometimes I have the impression – to put it in the words of the immortal Yogi Berra – that it’s ‘déjà vu all over again’. In response to criticism, two things always emerge: firstly the cry of ‘Double standards’, which is a sort of knee jerk reaction; and secondly the assertion that ‘It’s not an attack on the government, it’s an attack on the nation (or on the people).’

I hope I have made clear today that we have made a clinical assessment of the situation: that we have analysed precisely the proposed changes in the legislation, that we are doing this on behalf of the Romanian people, not against the Romanian people, and that we look at each and every Member State in exactly the same way.

(Applause)

We look at the facts, while also recognising that every situation is different. We are not putting Member States all in one batch, we are looking at every Member State on the basis of the specific issues in that Member State, and I really want us to be successful here. I urge the Romanian Government, once again: keep the dialogue open and listen to our recommendations – they have been put down on paper in a spirit of cooperation, and of keeping Romania on the right European track.

(Applause)

  Juliane Bogner-Strauss, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, the emotionality of this discussion clearly shows how important this issue is. I also want to thank Commissioner Timmermans. The First Vice—President made the situation and the necessity for a dialogue very clear.

Let me assure you once again that the Austrian Presidency and the Council as a whole attaches great importance to upholding the rule of law and fundamental values within the European Union. I speak as Presidency of the Council and therefore in the name of all of its Member States. The Council will continue to follow this issue closely and the Presidency will pay particular attention to the views which were expressed during the dialogue and during this debate.

  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet während der November-I-Tagung statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162)

  Cristian-Silviu Buşoi (PPE), în scris. – Trebuie să se facă distincția între un guvern rău și un popor bun. Este foarte important ca această dezbatere să îi țină pe români aproape de Uniunea Europeană, chiar dacă greșelile guvernului par să ne îndepărteze tot mai mult. Sunt greșeli mari, cea mai gravă fiind de departe gazarea și bătaia protestatarilor pașnici, pentru care guvernul trebuie să plece cât mai repede, prin moțiune de cenzură.

Cu toate acestea, România nu trebuie ajutată să ajungă în situația Ungariei. Nu cred că se justifică în niciun fel discuțiile despre activarea articolului 7, deși unii dintre politicienii de la guvernare par interesați să încingă la maximum schimbul de replici cu Uniunea Europeană, pentru că în acest fel distrag atenția de la propriile erori.

România trebuia să fie în spațiul Schengen, îndeplinind deja toate condițiile tehnice, iar faptul că nu este membru dintr-o indecizie politică este un subiect care alimentează constant curentul critic față de Uniunea Europeană și, din păcate, este un subiect care a rămas nelămurit.

Aceasta este o realitate politică de care profită în special eurocinicii, adică euroscepticii din interes, cei care critică Uniunea Europeană pentru a distrage atenția de la propria responsabilitate.

  Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE), schriftlich. – Während wir Ungarn und Polen wegen mangelnder Rechtsstaatlichkeit scharf kritisieren, wird von der rumänischen Regierung fast unbemerkt an einer radikalen Schwächung der Justiz gearbeitet. Die Änderungen des Strafrechts und der Strafverfahren und die Entlassung des obersten Staatsanwalts der Anti-Korruptionsbehörde werfen viele Fragen auf. Wir brauchen jetzt eine umfassende Analyse der EU-Kommission zu den Auswirkungen der geänderten Gesetze in den Bereichen Justiz und Strafverfolgung. Und dann müssen wir aus den Ergebnissen Konsequenzen ziehen. Rechtsstaatliche Grundsätze dürfen nicht eingeschränkt werden, Korruption darf nicht legalisiert werden. Wir müssen den Bürgern Rumäniens ein Zeichen senden und sie in ihrem Kampf gegen Korruption unterstützen.

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), în scris. – Dezbaterea privind statul de drept în România a fost inclusă în programul PE la insistențele grupului PPE, într-un mod artificial, pentru a echilibra politic rezoluția Parlamentului pe Ungaria, prin care s-a votat în favoarea activării unor sancțiuni asupra acestei țări.

La 1 octombrie, în Comisia LIBE a PE, în luările de cuvânt ale unor deputați PPE, ECR, Verzi etc., s-au prezentat diverse situații din România - multe neconforme cu realitatea - privind independența justiției, a protestelor din 10 august și a referendumului ce va avea loc în România în 6-7 octombrie a.c. Au fost intervenții pro și contra României, dar este evident pentru orice observator avizat faptul că se urmărește un scop politic și anume slăbirea social-democraților români și a guvernului condus de aceștia. Este un scenariu politic de lovire în Guvernul României și crearea pe plan internațional a unei imagini de instabilitate în România, ceea ce folosește forțelor de dreapta europene.

De ce dezbateri privind numai situația țărilor din Europa Centrală și de Est? Se urmărește crearea unei noi fracturi între vestul și estul Europei? Este în avantajul viitorului UE o Europă cu mai multe viteze? Categoric nu, pentru că discrepanțele dintre vestul și estul european se vor mări.

  Maria Grapini (S&D), în scris. – În această dezbatere atipică organizată doar pentru România, constat că cei care critică statul de drept și justiția din România o fac pe principul ,,drobului de sare”. Dacă nu veți avea legi ale justiției bune?

Eu cer o analiză obiectivă și comparativă cu ceea ce se întâmplă în toate statele membre. Ați stârnit un val de reacții împotriva Europei! Asta doriți? România este un stat suveran și independent și respectă propria Constituție și voința cetățenilor români. Cum poate Comisia să justifice faptul că nici într-un raport MCV nu s-au menționat protocoalele între SRI și nici poziția Curții Constituționale și a Uniunii Naționale a Judecătorilor? Ce surse de informare folosește Comisia pentru a da verdicte despre România?

Ca să crească credibilitatea UE, trebuie să respectați toate statele și să nu folosiți dublul standard în aprecierea statelor membre. Solicit Comisiei să transmită în mod transparent cum analizați funcționarea statului de drept și corupția în toate statele membre. Veți avea surpriza că exportul de corupție din vest în est este consistent! Vrem o Românie curată, democratică, dar și o Românie cu statut egal în UE cu celelalte state.

  Antanas Guoga (PPE), in writing. – Last plenary session we had Mr Orban, and now we have Mrs Dăncilă to discuss the same issue – a possible breach of the rule of law in an EU Member State. Poland, Hungary and now Romania – we see a ‘tendency’' which highly threatens the core values and the existence itself of the EU. It is very worrying, especially before the upcoming EP elections. What we see now in Romania is a clear sign of an illiberal democracy in the EU: the Social Democratic Party of Romania has embarked on a process of overhauling the judiciary and change legislation to decriminalise several graft offences. Several party members, including leader Liviu Dragnea, are under investigation or on trial for corruption. Justice Minister Tudorel Toader pushed through the dismissal of chief anti—corruption prosecutor Laura Codruța Kövesi earlier this year. We see a clear threat to transparent judiciary processes in Romania which also leads to direct threats to the democratic rights of Romanian people, which we have to protect. However, the Prime Minister herself calls this fake news. Do you see the current processes in Romania as a healthy democratic development of your country Prime Minister? If you think it’s acceptable, then that is deeply worrying to me.

  Eva Joly (Verts/ALE), par écrit. – Il y a deux semaines, j’intervenais ici-même pour dénoncer les graves dérives du gouvernement hongrois. Je pourrais reprendre quasiment point par point mon intervention d’alors pour m’adresser à vous, Madame la Première ministre.

Comme en Hongrie, votre gouvernement s’attaque à la justice pour tenter d’y soustraire des élus corrompus et condamnés, au risque de remettre en cause des progrès reconnus et soutenus dans la lutte contre la corruption. Comme en Hongrie, vous promulguez des lois pour entraver le travail des ONG et la mobilisation de la société civile. Comme en Hongrie, vous vous abritez derrière les résultats d’élections, oubliant que l’état de droit ne se limite pas aux échéances électorales. Il se fonde sur le pluralisme et repose sur un socle de valeurs. Comme la Hongrie, vous devez le relatif silence de l’UE au soutien d’un grand parti politique européen, ici le Parti socialiste. Comme les Hongrois, les Roumains ne doivent plus être instrumentalisés pour le profit de quelques-uns. Ils ont droit au respect de leurs droits fondamentaux et au soutien de l’UE dans leurs revendications pour une véritable démocratie. Je ne peux terminer mon intervention sans saluer le travail remarquable de ma consœur Laura Codruta Kovesi contre la corruption.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), în scris. – Doamnă Dăncilă, săptămâna trecută la Bruxelles v-am spus că reprezentați toți românii și că trebuie să informați corect despre ce se întâmplă in România. Nu ați procedat așa, nici la Bruxelles și nici astăzi. Din păcate pentru dumneavoastră, există suficiente surse de informare credibile și oneste pentru a afla realitatea.

Veți rămâne în istorie ca persoana care a ocupat funcția de prim ministru în timpul evenimentelor din 10 august. Ce s-a întâmplat atunci este un sumar al activității guvernului dumneavoastră: dispreț față de oameni, dispreț față de democrație, de valorile europene, atitudine de dictatură, neadevăr și manipulare.

Ați bătut și ați gazat oameni pașnici, nu drogați și plătiți cum ați susținut dumneavoastră, femei și copii. Cei care sunt acum investigați pentru aceste fapte nu trebuie sa rămână singuri. Trebuie să răspundeți pentru toate acestea, dumneavoastră și ministrul de interne, dar și conducătorul din umbră, Liviu Dragnea.

România este o țară europeană și românii vor continua să susțină UE indiferent de eforturile pe care le faceți dumneavoastră și colegii dumneavoastră, din interes sau din lipsă de competență, de a merge în direcția opusă.

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE), písemně. – Situace v Rumunsku je alarmující. Postup vlády ohledně tolerance korupce úředníků je nepřijatelný. Vláda by měla naslouchat svým občanům. Když nebere vážně ani sto tisícovou demonstraci, pak je nutná tato debata v EP. My zde nahrazujeme hlas rumunských občanů, kterým vláda nenaslouchá. Plně podporuji úsilí Komise monitorovat situaci v Rumunsku v rámci mechanismu pro spolupráci a ověřování. Nevyzývám ale k finančním sankcím vůči Rumunsku v podobě zastavení plateb z fondů EU, neboť ty by právě nejvíce poškodily občany.

  Claudia Țapardel (S&D), în scris. – Parlamentul European a dezbătut ieri cu privire la situația statului de drept în România. Consider că această dezbatere nu a prezentat situația reală din țara noastră, cea a unui guvern ales legitim care acționează pentru a asigura securitatea și siguranța cetățenilor săi și care luptă împotriva unui sistem de tipul „deep state”. Obiectivul Guvernului României este acela de a asigura respectarea drepturilor și libertăților civile ale cetățenilor români.

Tot acest proces de dezinformare și propagare de informații false este menit să discrediteze România în cea mai democratică instituție a Uniunii Europene. Intervențiile jandarmilor din cadrul protestelor de la București au fost intens criticate, dar nu au existat dezbateri pe această temă atunci când și jandarmii, de exemplu, de la Bruxelles sau de la Barcelona au acționat la fel ca cei de la București.

Îmi doresc ca pe viitor, în cadrul dezbaterilor, să se pună accentul pe aspecte esențiale precum creșterea economică a României de 7 % din ultimii patru ani și rolul acesteia în realizarea obiectivelor de unitate și întărire a construcției europene.

În acest context, este clar că avem nevoie de o nouă abordare și un dialog constructiv și corect între România și Uniunea Europeană.

  László Tőkés (PPE), írásban. – Elégtétellel üdvözölhetjük, hogy szakítva az eddigi kettős mércével, az Európai Parlament nem csupán a jobboldali kormányzatú Magyarországgal és Lengyelországgal, hanem a baloldali-liberális kormány vezette Romániával szemben is alkalmazza a jogállamisági mechanizmust. Mai felszólalásomban két olyan kisebbségi magyar ügyre szorítkozom, melyek nyilvánvaló módon durva sérelmét jelentik a romániai jogállamiságnak, sőt a Ceauşescu-korabeli kommunista diktatúra kisebbségellenes gyakorlatát idézik.

Miként a kommunizmus idején: ismét politikai foglyok ülnek börtönben Romániában. Köztudott, hogy az igazságszolgáltatás intézményei törvénytelen titkos megállapodások tucatjait közölték a hírszerző szolgálatokkal. Ez történt a Román Hírszerző Szolgálat (SRI), valamint a Szervezett Bűnözés és a Terrorizmus elleni Ügyészség (DIICOT) között is, aminek következtében koholt vádak alapján, bizonyítékok nélkül, terrorizmus vádjával a titkosszolgálat befolyása alatt álló bíróság Beke István és Szűcs Zoltán magyar közéleti vezetőket ártatlanul öt–öt évi börtönnel sújtotta. A maga nemében hasonló eset a Marosvásárhelyi Orvosi és Gyógyszerészeti Egyetem (MOGYE) ügye.

A rangos magyar tanintézetet Ceauşescu diktátor idejében románosították el. Utóbb a román tanügyi törvény mindhiába írta elő a teljes körű magyar nyelvű képzés intézményes bevezetését, a soviniszta egyetemi vezetőség ezt mindmáig nem hajtotta végre. Most viszont az egyetem végleges beolvasztása, megszüntetése van folyamatban. Határozottan követeljük ezen diszkriminatív magyarellenes jogsértések haladéktalan orvoslását!

  Romana Tomc (PPE), pisno. – Romunija je še ena država, kjer je na oblasti socialistična vlada in kjer je očitno, da vladavina prava ne deluje.

Iz razprav poslancev, posebej tistih iz vrst socialistov, je bilo jasno razbrati, da imajo pri obravnavi posameznih držav dvojna merila. Medtem, ko so bili pri razpravi o Madžarski zelo kritični, je bil tokrat njihov ton bolj spravljiv ali pa so bili kar tiho. Iz tega lahko sklepamo, da ne gre za iskreno zavzemanje za vladavino prava po enakih kriterijih in merilih za vse. V zadnjih desetih letih se je iz Romunije izselila skoraj petina njenega prebivalstva, to je zaskrbljujoče. Je pokazatelj stanja v družbi, s katerim se soočamo tudi v Sloveniji. Del tega je tudi apatija, ki se kaže v volilni abstinenci. Proti temu se moramo boriti in zahtevati, da se nepoštene in koruptivne politike odstrani iz političnega prostora. Ne s političnim preganjanjem, ampak na podlagi pravičnih in poštenih meril, ki bi morala veljati v državi, kjer se vladavina prava resnično spoštuje.

Apatiji na volitvah sledi tudi izseljevanje, ki je posledica izgube upanja, da lahko boljšo prihodnost ljudje najdejo doma.

  Monika Vana (Verts/ALE), schriftlich. – Nach den bekanntgewordenen Fällen von Korruption und Beeinflussung der Justiz durch die rumänische Regierung braucht es dringend eine Untersuchung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Die Europäische Union muss aus den Versäumnissen bei Polen und Ungarn lernen und diesmal schneller reagieren, um die Demokratie und die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz in einem Mitgliedsstaat zu schützen. Rumänien darf nicht den Weg in Richtung „illiberale Demokratie“ einschlagen.

PRESIDENZA DELL’ON. ANTONIO TAJANI
Presidente

4. Разискване с участието на министър - председателя на Естония, Юри Ратас, относно бъдещето на Европа (разискване)

  Presidente. – L’ordine del giorno reca la discussione con il Primo ministro dell'Estonia, Jüri Ratas, sul futuro dell'Europa (2018/2731(RSP)).

Ringrazio il Primo ministro dell’Estonia per aver accettato il nostro invito a partecipare al dibattito sul futuro dell’Europa. Noi stiamo ascoltando tutti i primi ministri, ma voglio ringraziare in modo particolare Jüri Ratas per avere sempre, durante la Presidenza estone, dato grande rilievo alla posizione del Parlamento. Non c’è stata riunione del Consiglio, anche informale, alla quale io non sia stato invitato e non abbia avuto un ruolo preminente. Per questo lo ringrazio e può contare certamente, in questa direzione, sul sostegno di un Parlamento che vuole anche avere il potere di iniziativa legislativa. Signor Primo ministro, ha la parola, benvenuto, ancora una volta, nell’Aula di Strasburgo.

  Jüri Ratas, Prime Minister of Estonia. – Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, distinguished leaders of the political groups and Members of the European Parliament, Europe is a thought that needs to become a feeling. I am honoured to be back in this great House. I would like to thank President Tajani for organising the debates on the future of Europe and for giving me the opportunity to participate.

Today, we can all together congratulate our German friends, and all Europeans on the occasion of German Unity Day. For my generation, this day symbolises not only the end of the division of Germany, but it also heralded the liberation of Eastern Europe and the start of the eastward enlargement of the European Union. It made possible the starting of accession talks 20 years ago. It has been an amazing journey for our country, for Estonia. The role of the European Parliament in it has been remarkable. I would like to thank you, honourable Members of the European Parliament, for your support.

This year, Estonia celebrates the hundredth anniversary of our statehood. Like Germans in the east of the country, we had to wait and dream for 50 years about freedom, rule of law and justice. I very clearly remember watching Finnish TV, as this was our only connection to the free world. This is why I, from the bottom of my heart, dislike borders in Europe: those still existing for Member States who have fulfilled all criteria to join Schengen; those that have been partly reintroduced following the migration crisis – although I understand the concerns back then – and those that still may be erected, should we collectively fail in Brexit negotiations, which I refuse to accept. Against this background, it is not hard to understand why Estonians have such a special emotional connection to Europe.

I can only agree with the Irish singer Bono that Europe is not only an idea, but also a feeling and a destiny, because, and I quote, our ‘values and aspirations make Europe so much more than just a geography. They go to the core of who we are as human beings, and who we want to be’.

Compared to its share of territory and population in the world, Europe is small and diverse. But by sharing our sovereignty and pooling our strength, by having common policies, we have been able to make a difference in the world. I believe that we all have shared interests in rules-based and effective multilateral order, built on liberal values and democratic principles.

We also have common interests in open, free and fair global markets. It is what the world expects from us and it is what our citizens want. It is Europe that protects our values and freedoms from the turbulence of today’s world. Europe’s geographical ties and our global interdependence as the world’s largest trader dictate that it is vital to have a world that functions. We Europeans are all stronger together, and I hope that we will spare no effort in securing our collective interests and the values in the world.

Europe’s core strength is its diversity. Being European adds a rich layer to one’s identity. Nothing represents this better than the fate of small nations in the European family. I would like to paraphrase former Estonian President Lennart Meri, who once said that small nations in Europe are the glue, the oil and the cement in the European construction. Therefore, allow me to express here modest enthusiasm when it comes to grand institutional designs in Europe, which could lead to a lesser role for smaller nations in our common institutions. Less diversity will also result in less Europe.

Today, in this limited timeframe, please allow me to focus on only some of the areas essential for Europe according to Estonia. Firstly, preserving unity within the EU. The key for our common future is our ability to keep the EU united and move forward with the EU’s positive agenda. There is a saying that the best way to predict the future is to create it. Future is not something abstract or another Treaty-change. We are building our future every day. We are doing this by providing answers to the concrete concerns of our citizens, and, where possible, building connections that bring Europeans closer together – human, physical and professional connections.

Europeans also expect us to tackle transformational challenges that are too big for a single Member State, such as European defence, climate change and digital transformation. We will also have to find answers to global population growth and migration, triggered by these changes. I therefore hope for an ambitious Multiannual Financial Framework that reflects these challenges. A new Multiannual Financial Framework is actually the best indicator of how we will see our common future.

I agree with President Macron that the European Union depends on the feeling of unity. But as we know, unity does not have to mean uniformity. Sometimes we should simply recognise our different views, without compromising on the same values. I find different levels of direct taxes in Member States to be perfectly normal. I also feel that, with a European budget of the size of only 1% of GNI, fundamental decisions of a redistributive nature can be made at national or even local level through social dialogue.

At the same time, we must have a credible framework that is vital for our common future, like the spending of 2% of our GDP to keep Europe safe or aiming at an expenditure level of 3% of GDP on research and innovation. Also, we expect Europe to be big in big things, but at the same time it has to be excellent in details. Without standards and fine details, the Single Market or Capital Markets Union would simply not function.

We are now trying to find consensus when deciding on the core elements on how to manage migration. It is difficult, but we all realise that short-term measures will only bring short-term solutions. All of us need to show solidarity in the way that suits best our common purpose and each Member State’s particularities. The key in decreasing irregular migration is to work with third countries. We must use all the instruments that our trade, visa and development policies offer.

The new Africa-EU alliance proposed by President Juncker to support jobs, skills and private investments in Africa definitely serves long-term effects. Estonia pulls its weight here. Last November I signed an e-government cooperation agreement between Estonia and the African Union. Estonia is geographically distant from Africa, but the digital world does not recognise distance.

Secondly, it is important to maintain and strengthen the EU’s influence in the global economy. I cannot imagine a better example than the Single Market to prove that we are bigger and stronger together. But it still remains unfinished. Take, for example, the field of services: while the sector continues to grow unlike anything else, especially in the digital domain, we are far from using its full cross-border potential. For example, public services remain essentially national.

My good colleague, Mark Rutte, called the services market the ‘elephant in the room’ when standing in front of you here in June. I understand him well, and I always worry: when did talking about the completion of the Single Market, our economic engine, become a taboo? It is high time that we set ourselves new goals in building the Single Market.

‘Success in creating effective artificial intelligence could be the biggest event in the history of our civilisation. Or the worst. We just don’t know’ – a famous quote by Stephen Hawking. In the field of artificial intelligence, the race is definitely on. Everybody is keen on exploring and developing strategies and reaping the benefits while we are still struggling to make it work. As it moves from the age of invention into the age of implementation of AI, Europe has to reinforce our values and lead technological change in the public and private sectors. We need progress in the areas of the free movement of data, the data economy and artificial intelligence.

In the world of hybrid warfare, cybercrime and fake news, security in cyberspace should come by design and go hand in hand with emerging technologies. We need to build data integrity into systems, to be able to guarantee that the sensors, inputs and computing of the robotic systems are not compromised. We need to develop strong digital identities, in order to be able to distinguish real persons from fake unfriendly bots. We need to establish practice with a strong professional spirit on keeping AI open and transparent.

I am very pleased with the Commission proposals resulting from the Tallinn Digital Summit last year, especially our commitment to invest in technological and social readiness throughout the new budget. It is time to adopt proposals to complete the Digital Single Market and enable digital transformation. The world will not wait.

Thirdly, it is important to maintain and enhance internal and external security. All Eurobarometer surveys have shown that our people are most concerned about security. Our long-term focus should be on prevention of crime and illegal activities at our borders. A high level of border and customs surveillance ensures security throughout Europe. Common standards and investments into both technical and operational features in border surveillance are required. Only then can we realistically assess what to expect from the 10 000 European border guards that President Juncker has proposed.

Also, effective control of people and goods at our external borders demands reliable databases that can communicate with each other. We do not need to collect the same data in different information systems, we just have to make them able to share the information. Interoperability of EU-wide databases by 2020 is the only way forward. We must also explore how to develop better synergies between the internal security, border control and customs information systems. Similarly, Romania and Bulgaria would also benefit from membership in the Schengen area.

The call for European nations to show that they take their security seriously has been around for a long time, and clearly it will not go away. This is not merely a question about maintaining or increasing our military capabilities. This is ultimately a question about how serious Europe is about its role in its immediate neighbourhood and in the world in general. How serious are we about our transatlantic partnership with the United States?

A Europe that protects has to maintain a strong relationship with our global partners. In addition to the European defence cooperation, it is vital that we preserve transatlantic unity. Europe cannot deal with global security risks alone.

For the European Union, this means going beyond its current role as a regulatory superpower and starting to support the development and deployment of more traditional instruments of foreign and security policy. Therefore, increased defence cooperation among the EU Member States is very welcome. This will lead to increased defence spending and to a larger number of commonly usable capabilities. At the same time, NATO will remain the bedrock of collective defence in Europe. Our aim should be a mutually reinforcing relationship between the EU and NATO.

The final point I would like to make is that we need to strengthen the European feeling and fight populism. We are working hard in the EU to make our citizens feel well. However, in a recent youth forum in Estonia, students said that even their teachers were not able to explain the European Union. Upcoming European Parliament elections give us politicians a perfect opportunity to explain our decisions. The European Union has brought so many opportunities that people nowadays seem to take for granted. We have to speak about the benefits of the Single Market and single currency to our businesses, of free movement to our people, and of ERASMUS to our students.

I very much appreciate the structured dialogues on the future of Europe, initiated by the French President, Emmanuel Macron; the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker; and the President of this great House, Antonio Tajani. Working for a better Europe that benefits citizens is daily work. This also includes taking responsibility for the decisions and compromises made in the EU, and showing very clearly that we own these decisions.

The action taken after the Bratislava and Rome Summits already seems to have had positive results and to enjoy the support of the people. More than two—thirds of EU citizens feel that EU membership has been beneficial to their country – the best results since 1983.

To summarise, external pressure and crises have always pushed the EU forward and motivated Member States and institutions to cooperate. Our common response to the Russian aggression against Ukraine, to the Bataclan terrorist attack, or, if we will, to the eurozone crisis, is an example of solidarity and an example of common values.

The European Union as a community of values – and, of course, shared interests – has to have the means to stand up for the respect of individual freedoms and fundamental rights, for a multilateral and rules-based order and to tackle the challenges to our security, peace and wellbeing. I believe that our citizens understand this, as we engage in the negotiations over the next Multiannual Financial Framework.

The fundamentals of the European Union are constantly being disputed by the people, by the Member States, and by third states. Our Union is therefore politically fragile. This means that we need a self-confident, reassuring Union that protects its citizens and its members.

We also need citizens and Member States that are passionate about the Union and everything it stands for as a family of peoples and states. There must be more of us. I really hope that 10 years from now, I can listen to a colleague from any of the current candidate countries in the same capacity as I am standing here today.

I would now like to conclude in my mother tongue, Estonian.

Kallid parlamendiliikmed! Ma tahan teid tänada selle eest, et Euroopa olevik ja Euroopa tulevik ei jäta teid kedagi ükskõikseks. Alles täna siin, seistes teie ees, mõistan ma täielikult, milline privileeg ning vastutus oli Eestil ja minul eelmisel aastal, kui meil oli au ja võimalus juhtida Euroopa Liidu Nõukogu tööd.

Eesti kirjanik Anton Hansen Tammsaare on öelnud, et tööd tehes kasvab armastus. Nii see on. Euroopa oli, Euroopa on ja Euroopa jääb minu südamesse.

  Presidente. – Grazie Signor Primo ministro. Prima di dare la parola alla Commissione, vi chiedo se tutti coloro che sono interessati a registrarsi per il catch-the-eye lo hanno fatto. Siete ancora in tempo, stiamo per chiudere ora il sistema. Se qualcuno si vuole registrare lo può ancora fare. Bisogna registrarsi con la carta di voto. Bene allora possiamo chiudere il sistema elettronico.

Do ora la parola alla Commissione europea, ad Andrus Ansip.

  Andrus Ansip, Euroopa Komisjoni asepresident. – Austatud president Antonio Tajani, austatud peaminister Jüri Ratas, austatud Euroopa Parlamendi liikmed, head külalised, daamid ja härrad! Ma kõnelen täna Euroopa Komisjoni presidendi Jean-Claude Junckeri nimel. Ma loodan, et te mõistate – kui ma ei kõneleks president Junckeri nimel, siis ma oleksin kiitusega Eesti aadressil märksa mõõdukam. Aga ma kõnelen president Jean-Claude Junckeri nimel.

Mr President, speaking on behalf of President Juncker, let me start by thanking the Prime Minister for taking part in this debate and for his vision on the future of our Union.

As you know, this is a special year for Estonia. In February, we marked 100 years since independence. Today, Estonia is a modern country, flourishing at the heart of Europe. It may be one of the smaller Member States, but it is an example for others to follow. Estonia always fights to take its rightful place at the heart of our European Union, whether Schengen, the euro or on defence. It always seeks compromise and works for a unity. We saw this repeatedly during the first—ever Estonian EU Presidency last year. All of this shows that Estonia will continue to be a leader in the European Union in the future.

Nowhere is this more important than when it comes to making our people safe. Defence and security are not abstract terms for Estonians. They are daily and visible preoccupations. This is why we have invested so much in the EU’s partnership with NATO, which remains the cornerstone of our defence.

Estonia knows first—hand the true value of this partnership. As I speak, Estonian troops are in Afghanistan, Mali, Kosovo, Lebanon and other countries, while the presence of NATO forces in Estonia continues to give us peace of my mind.

Estonia is also leading the way through its participation in permanent structured cooperation. Its planned project with Finland, Latvia and others to develop unmanned land systems is a perfect example of how we can achieve more by working together and how we can bring digital solutions to the battlefield to save lives. We need to back this up with the resources to match.

As part of our proposals for a new long—term European budget, we have designated EUR 13 billion for the European Defence Fund. I know we can rely on Estonia’s full support for these proposals.

All of our proposals for the Multiannual Financial Framework focus on areas where we can achieve more together to build a stronger Europe. We have seen the potential of targeted investments. Rail Baltica is a good example. This project connects Europeans and creates new opportunities for people and businesses from Helsinki to Tallinn, through Riga and Vilnius, and eventually to Warsaw. This is the largest infrastructure project in the Baltics – EUR 5 billion invested in the region.

These projects cannot happen overnight or within one financial period. In that spirit, we have proposed to increase the funding for the Connecting Europe facility by 24%, to focus on transport, digital and energy infrastructure. This will allow major projects to become a reality, such as the synchronisation of the Baltic countries’ electricity systems and the Baltic connector gas pipeline between Finland and Estonia.

The same applies to digital, which is in the DNA of Estonia. It now needs to become part of Europe’s too, in digital infrastructure, e-government and digital skills. This is what the EU leaders endorsed at the Tallinn Digital Summit. This is why we are fully focused on building a true digital single market.

I rely on the support of this House, as well as the Council, to agree on the remaining proposals as quickly as possible. We need them urgently to build Europe’s digital future.

The European Commission has proposed a new digital Europe programme worth EUR 9 billion to support Europe’s digital transformation. This will be especially important when it comes to implementing the Tallinn Declaration on e—government.

All of this shows the importance of agreeing on the new long—term budget as quickly as possible. As President Juncker said in this very room only a few weeks ago, there would be no better message, no greater symbol to show Europeans that their Union will invest in the future and take its destiny into its own hands.

Honourable Members, Prime Minister, only a strong and united Europe can protect our citizens, make the most of the new digital world and create new opportunities for its people and businesses alike. But to do so, we will have to work together and work for a compromise. We will probably have to do less, be more focussed on the things that matter, and do things more efficiently. As ever, Estonia is showing the way. The motto for its Presidency ‘unity through balance’ shows us the way forward for our European Union. It is time to take it.

(Applause)

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I would like to welcome Prime Minister Ratas to the debate on the future of Europe in this House.

Prime Minister, it is good to have you here because we can be inspired by the history of Estonia and by the strength of its people. In the PPE Group, we are lucky to have one of your compatriots within our family. He is only one but he counts for ten. I want to thank our friend Tunne Kelam, who is with us. He fought the Soviet occupation at first hand and was not afraid to stand up against injustice despite the great risks. Together, he and all the people of Estonia achieved a lot: a Europe that fights back for what is right, a Europe that is strongly together against all the odds and a Europe that sticks to its values. Europe can learn a lot from the Estonians’ spirit.

Estonia is a small, innovative and courageous country. If there is no Europe which cares about the small Member States, there is no Europe at all. You said it, Prime Minister: diversity is what Europe is all about.

Estonia was reborn from the ashes. It was one of several victims of nationalism and brutalism. The Hitler—Stalin Pact meant oppression for more than 50 years. For Estonia, a united Europe means, first of all, freedom and security. Today, with Vladimir Putin on one side, Estonia needs a strong Europe; and with Donald Trump on the other side, Estonia also needs a self-confident Europe, which cares about security. In the same way that Europe is sticking to NATO, we also have to strengthen our defence union. You mentioned this in your speech, Prime Minister. In the future it could probably be a fascinating idea to guarantee the future security of the Baltic states with European troops present there.

Sadly, Estonia was also one of the first countries to know a brand new type of warfare. Back in 2007 it withstood one of the first cyberattacks. Today Estonia is a leading nation in cybersecurity at European level and also globally. Its experience could also be a starting point from which to create in the future a cyber-rearguard, defending the whole European Union in response to these modern challenges.

Today I want to focus on the question of the digital revolution. The new technologies are improving dramatically and we can all see this. Estonia has done a great job: 99% of all public services are already e—services; and, when you bear in mind that it is a country with six times more start-ups per citizen than the EU average, we can only congratulate Estonia on what it has done in this regard.

(Applause)

Estonia’s ambitions are a role model for Europe. Innovation is key and it is part of the European DNA. We now need to give a proper answer as to what our share is in this digitalisation, because it’s obvious that the USA is more of a frontrunner than we are, as Europeans, in the digital revolution. That is why we need to consider and discuss how we can now organise and use the opportunity of the next wave in the digital transformation which is ahead of us.

Let me underline one important point for us. We don’t think that creating legislation on copyright or data protection means creating a burden for the innovative sector. For us it’s clear that this is about creating a level playing field for a modern innovation policy.

A second important point is that we have to take people’s concerns people seriously. When a waiter feels that an iPad is taking over his job or a truck driver fears the self-driving vehicles which will be on our streets in the future, then we have to give an answer in terms of a digital social market economy. How we organise this is one of the big challenges ahead of us.

The third thing I want to underline is the gap between advanced regions and those which are still catching up. Improving the digital infrastructure in the European Union is a key issue for keeping Europe together. That’s why I think we must invest a lot in the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework and especially in the idea of broadband for everyone. Because technology does not shape the people – it is the people who shape technology – our European way of life has all the ingredients for us to succeed: firm values, a fair social market economy, creative capacities, lively regions and stable democracies.

That is why we need to start now to build up this digital revolution with the European spirit. The future of Europe will not be written only through interinstitutional reforms. Investing in innovation and digital infrastructure to ultimately improve European citizens’ quality of life is what matters most. The PPE Group is ready to stand with all those who want to go into the future.

(Applause)

  Udo Bullmann, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, it is a pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister on behalf of the Social Democrats here in the House, together with my good friend Ivari Padar in the first row here. Let me say, Prime Minister, that it was a pleasure to listen to you. You gave us the impression that Estonia seems to be a great place to live. We can also congratulate you on the Presidency and the great results which you delivered for Europe.

Together with your coalition partners, especially with our sister party, the Social Democrats, you achieved a lot in your country. You have already made Estonia a fairer society and a better place for its citizens, and we would like to congratulate you on that. We share the same idea that Europe and our countries have to be locations for the best of the many and not only for the few. We are dreaming and we are working for a Europe that is sustainable: sustainable in its economy, in its environment and its social structures, where everybody – every woman and every man – regardless of their income can count on the support of their public institutions and where everybody can breathe fresh and clean air. You showed in a small country what can be done for instance in public transport. Public transport is free everywhere there, and I am dreaming of that in my home country and everywhere in the European Union.

Let us build on your experience and let us try to make that the common experience. You invested in children, you invested in teachers; this is the leading issue for what we have to follow in the European Union, and if you look at how much you spent on the well—being of families, many other countries could copy that.

Lassen Sie mich heute, an dem Tag, an dem wir in Deutschland den Tag der deutschen Einheit begehen, etwas Nachdenkliches sagen. Wir in Deutschland feiern den Fall der Mauer, wir in Europa feiern den Fall des Eisernen Vorhangs. Wir haben im Kopf und im Herzen, mit wieviel Freude die Menschen diese Ereignisse begleitet haben und welche Hoffnung auf Freiheit und auf Demokratie damit verbunden waren.

Wir müssen uns heute aber Sorgen machen. Wir müssen uns Sorgen machen über neue Mauern, über neue Grenzzäune in der Realität, im Herzen und im Kopf. Grenzen zwischen denen, die denken, dass sie alles erreichen können, und denen, die sich vergessen fühlen und glauben, dass sie nicht mitgenommen werden, die keine Chance haben; Grenzen zwischen denen, die sich wirklich anständig jeden Tag Mühe geben, zum Gemeinwohl beizutragen, und denen, die das schamlos ausnutzen; Grenzen zwischen denen, die völkisch hetzen und nationalistisch intrigieren, und denen, die als Flüchtlinge von Krieg und als Flüchtlinge von Gewalt davon Opfer werden.

Lassen Sie mich an einen großen Franzosen erinnern, an François Mitterrand, der 1995 in diesem Parlament gesagt hat, Nationalismus wird zu Krieg, wenn wir dem nicht entgegensteuern. Das ist die Botschaft für Europa, der wir folgen müssen. Und das ist der Auftrag auch für unsere heutige Diskussion. Ich habe Hoffnung. Das ist Ihre Erfahrung, das ist das, was Sie mitbringen, wenn sie aus dem Herzen Ihres Volkes sprechen. Ich habe die Hoffnung, dass Sie uns helfen werden, ein Europa ohne Mauern zu verteidigen, ein Europa ohne neue Grenzzäune, ein Europa des sozialen Zusammenhalts. Nur wenn unsere Gesellschaften sozial zusammenhalten, wird es die Freiheiten geben, die wir uns wünschen, und ein Europa, das Rechtsradikalismus, das Faschismus, das neue Grenzen zurückweist und die Demokratie schützt, auch in Ihren nächsten Wahlen, auch in der nächsten Europawahl.

Ich wünsche Ihnen Glück und Erfolg, und ich hoffe, dass dieses Land so blühen kann wie es angefangen hat zu blühen.

  Peter Lundgren, för ECR-gruppen. – Herr talman! Välkommen hit, premiärminister Ratas. Det är trevligt att ni tar er tid att besöka oss.

Vi har hört många positiva röster om EU-medlemskapet. I det här huset tror ju vi på mångfald. Därför kommer jag att leverera en delvis annorlunda bild av medlemskapet. Jag är svensk och kommer från Sverige. År 1994 hade vi vår folkomröstning om medlemskapet då vi egentligen blev översköljda av ja-sidans kampanj eftersom de hade de ekonomiska musklerna att bedriva en riktig kampanj. Nej-sidan var mer en ideell förening. Vi blev översköljda av allting som skulle vara jättebra med EU. Det fanns inte en röst som pratade om det som skulle vara baksidan av ett medlemskap.

Vi blev medlemmar, och 1995 gick vi med i EU. Jag röstade faktiskt själv ja den gången. Jag såg klara fördelar med att kunna handla med hela Europa. Vad jag aldrig såg och inte kunde förutse var väl den utveckling som detta hus i sig självt skulle ta, där man mer och mer äter upp det nationella självbestämmandet. Vi har bekymmer i dag. Vi har en transportnäring som hotas av fuskande företag som opererar i skydd av EU:s regler. Vi kan inte själva kontrollera detta i Sverige eftersom EU:s regler per automatik överstiger våra egna regler. Just för stunden har vid en gränskontroll. Annars har vi obefintliga gränskontroller. Vi har inte längre kontroll över vilka människor som finns i vårt land. Vi har i mångt och mycket en okontrollerad immigration.

Tack gode gud att vi aldrig gick med i europrojektet! Alla experter förklarade att om inte Sverige gick med i eurosamarbetet så väntade en katastrof. Jag tror att vi, svenska folket, är glada i dag att vi aldrig lyssnade på experterna, eftersom det ju har varit bra för Sverige i mångt och mycket att stå utanför.

För Estland har medlemskapet fått en helt annan effekt. För er har det varit väldigt positivt. Estland är ett väldigt vackert land som jag har besökt flera gånger, och som i mångt och mycket också påminner om Sverige. Jag är glad för att ni har så många positiva erfarenheter av medlemskapet.

Som situationen är i dag för mitt land, Sverige, i detta samarbete skulle jag dock vilja omförhandla vårt avtal. Jag skulle vilja omförhandla det precis som jag och alla andra svenskar och européer omförhandlar sina avtal t.ex. med elleverantören, med banken, där man har sina huslån, eller med alla de institutioner eller föreningar som man har gått med i men inte längre är fullt nöjd med medlemskapet. Det är emellertid väldigt svårt att få till stånd en sådan omförhandling. Sverige är ett litet land – vi har bara 20 ledamöter här i huset och 14 röster av 340 i ministerrådet. Jag skulle dock önska att man skulle kunna få till stånd en sådan omförhandling för jag gillar inte tanken på att alla medlemsländer ska stöpas i exakt samma form inom Europa. Jag vill ha ett samarbete med våra vänner och grannar, och jag vill att det ska vara under en bibehållen nationell suveränitet.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would ask the Prime Minister just to look at the approval. Jüri, everybody praises you and finds Estonia fantastic, a magnificent country. I always say yes, that’s normal, it’s because the Liberals are always in power – naturally – in Estonia! You, with the Centre Party, you are even leading the opposition with the Reform Party. So I think the fact that everything is so good in Estonia has something to do with the strong position of our two liberal parties. But I don’t have to say that as you are better aware of it than me.

I want to come to another point – and it is the last time that I will come back to this – which is what Mr Hunt said about the comparison between the European Union and the Soviet Union. You have to know that the two first reactions didn’t come from us. The two first reactions game from the Lithuanian Commissioner, and came from the Latvian Ambassador, by the way, in the UK. I think that is not by accident. They explained how the Soviets killed, deported, exiled, imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Baltic citizens, especially also Estonian citizens. They both explained how, in contrast, the European Union brought their countries prosperity, equality, growth, respect. I think that both of them gave Mr Jeremy Hunt a stark lesson in history in 200 characters, so to speak.

That is exactly, also, what you said in your intervention, Jüri, here in Parliament: the Baltic States, more than anyone else, I should say, in the European Union, needs a united Europe, a strong Europe, more united than today and stronger than today. A Europe that is also capable – let’s be very clear about this – to stand up against Vladimir Putin, because if you look a little bit at the last decade in the European Union, we have seen a decade of Russian aggression. The list is long – the partial occupation of Georgia, the annexation of Crimea, the war in eastern Ukraine, the shooting down of MH 17, the cyberattacks against our institutions, against the German Bundestag even, the money laundering through our banks, the chemical attacks in Salisbury. It’s a long list in one decade. So what is next? Next may be to corrupt our ballot boxes in the elections in 2019.

That is the most important point that you have made, Jüri, in your intervention, for the moment, our only response is in fact sanctions, and then there are the counter measures by Putin, and everything goes on and on and on. I think that will be not enough in the future and certainly not enough also to defend the sovereignty of all our European countries.

I think that we need something more powerful, which is credibility in foreign policy and credibility in our defence policy, in our defence capabilities. A little bit in the words of Theodore Roosevelt who said ‘speak softly but carry a big stick’. That was his opinion. We in Europe for the moment are doing exactly the opposite. We preach loudly on human rights, on democracy, but we carry no stick at all, in Europe, not even a small twig I should say.

So, my appeal to you – and in your intervention you have mentioned this – is that the first thing we do when we talk about the future of Europe, is to stop and abandon naivety and our self—imposed weakness and to show you have to build up a position of power. That means a lot of things. First of all to abolish the unanimity rule in the Council. Certainly in the field of foreign policy. You cannot have a foreign policy if you continue with the unanimity rule. Defence capabilities. Let’s build a European defence community, with intelligence services that are capable and have the instruments and giving also, for example, to Europol a real mandate and not what it is today – a post box between Member States, but to make it a real federal police force that can conduct investigations on the whole European territory.

That’s my conclusion. Peace through strength, you know this word. Peace through strength – that is how the West brought down the Soviet Union in 1991. Well peace through strength is what our Union needs again today. Thank you, Jüri, because in your interventions and proposals you have led the way.

  Philippe Lamberts, fraktsiooni Verts/ALE nimel. – Dear Prime Minister Ratas, tere tulemast tagasi Euroopa Parlamenti!

Mr President, I would say to the Prime Minister that it is always a pleasure for us to engage in dialogue with representatives of the Baltic States. Estonia was the last of the three to complete its first Presidency of the Council.

Prime Minister, your work, like that of your predecessors, demonstrated not only your strong commitment to our common goals, but also that leadership qualities do not depend on the size of the Member State. Nowadays, it has become too commonplace to hear a parallel being drawn between the European Union and the defunct Soviet Union. Even though I was lucky enough not to have been born under Soviet rule, these comments are really outrageous to me. But not nearly as much though, as to those who had to endure occupation by the Red Army. I am thankful to all those that Guy mentioned in Central and Eastern Europe who are fiercely standing up against this malignant propaganda. No European Member State is immune against the rise of the logic of ‘us against them’ and the drift away from pluralist democracy and the rule of law. Estonia is no exception, but we are with you in fighting against a polarisation of society and in defending the principles of equality and social inclusion.

Before being economic and monetary, our Union is one of values and giving up on them means giving up on the European dream. In that respect, the Council cannot ignore the European Parliament’s call to launch Article 7 proceedings not against Hungary, but against measures taken by the current Hungarian Government. Beyond our shared fundamental values, the very idea of the European Union is to build the world’s first transnational democracy, one in which we resolve all differences and find common ground through negotiation and compromise, rather than through conflict. And yes, Prime Minister, we have differences with you. We are disappointed that Estonia is still amongst the OECD’s most carbon—intensive economies as it still produces the vast majority of its energy from shale oil, with disastrous results in terms of emissions and toxic waste. At the same time, a significant share of your country’s forest resources have already been irresponsibly and unsustainably depleted, most often to get some quick cash. Sadly, we see similar developments elsewhere in Europe, like in Białowieża in Poland and Hambach in Germany.

You also like to highlight the potential of the digital revolution, or transformation as you call it, for future welfare, and I will agree with you that we should not shy away from innovation. However, we should keep in mind the significant risks this revolution carries in terms of civil liberties or, again, ecological impact. Indeed, far from being dematerialised, the digital universe is hungry for scarce resources whose extraction proves very damaging for the environment.

In our view, it is absolutely vital for the European Union to become a world leader in the ecologically and socially just transition of our economies. Of course, the fight against climate change demands it, but our jobs, our balance of payment, our strategic independence and our competitiveness depend on it. Giving up on this objective also means giving up on the European dream.

  Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Πρωθυπουργέ, θα ήθελα και εγώ να σας καλωσορίσω εκ μέρους της Ομάδας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενωτικής Αριστεράς/Αριστεράς των Πρασίνων των Βορείων Χωρών. Συζητάμε και πάλι για το μέλλον της Ευρώπης, αλλά δυστυχώς η εκτίμηση παραμένει η ίδια. Η κατάσταση στην Ένωση οξύνεται συνεχώς και καθημερινά βαθαίνει η οικονομική, πολιτική και θεσμική κρίση. Αυξάνεται δραματικά και το δημοκρατικό έλλειμμα της Ένωσης και δεν χρειάζεται να ωραιοποιείτε αυτή την κατάσταση.

Οι νεοφιλελεύθερες πολιτικές λιτότητας που εφαρμόστηκαν, αν και απέτυχαν, συνεχίζουν να προωθούνται και να θεσμοθετούνται, με αποτέλεσμα οι λαοί να οδηγούνται στην ανεργία και στη φτωχοποίηση. Αυτή είναι η πραγματικότητα σήμερα και για την Εσθονία που, παρά τις επιτυχίες στην ψηφιακή οικονομία, σημειώνει ανησυχητικά ποσοστά υψηλής ανεργίας και φτώχειας.

Το κοινωνικό κράτος διαλύεται, οι εργασιακές σχέσεις απορρυθμίζονται και οι οικονομικές, κοινωνικές και περιφερειακές ανισότητες στην Ένωση διευρύνονται συνεχώς. Κυριαρχεί πλέον η ασυδοσία της αγοράς και, προκειμένου να εξυπηρετηθούν τα συμφέροντα των πολυεθνικών και των μονοπωλίων, στον βωμό του κέρδους καταστρέφεται ανεπανόρθωτα το περιβάλλον και εντείνονται οι κλιματικές αλλαγές.

Έπειτα, η προσφυγική κρίση οξύνεται όλο και περισσότερο, όσο η Ένωση αρνείται να υιοθετήσει μια στρατηγική στηριγμένη στην αλληλεγγύη και τον ανθρωπισμό. Η πρόσφατη απόφαση των ηγετών στο Σάλτσμπουργκ δυστυχώς προμηνύει πως θα συνεχίσουν τα ίδια μέτρα καταστολής, οι αυξημένοι έλεγχοι στα εξωτερικά αλλά δυστυχώς και στα εσωτερικά σύνορα και η ενίσχυση της λογικής της Ευρώπης-φρούριο.

Αυτές οι νεοφιλελεύθερες πολιτικές είναι που λειαίνουν το έδαφος για την άνοδο της ακροδεξιάς και την υιοθέτηση ρατσιστικής και ξενοφοβικής ρητορικής και πολιτικής από αρκετές κυβερνήσεις κρατών μελών. Εάν η Ένωση συνεχίσει να προωθεί τις ίδιες πολιτικές, οι ακροδεξιές δυνάμεις θα ενδυναμωθούν ακόμη περισσότερο και ελλοχεύουν πολύ μεγάλοι κίνδυνοι για τους λαούς της Ευρώπης. Η άνοδος της ακροδεξιάς επιχειρεί ένα πισωγύρισμα της Ένωσης στον σκοταδισμό και απειλεί βασικές ελευθερίες, δικαιώματα και κατακτήσεις των λαών και λυπούμαι να πω ότι είναι σχήμα οξύμωρο σήμερα με το κλίμα ανόδου του φασισμού και της ακροδεξιάς να μιλούμε για τη Σοβιετική Ένωση. Οι βίαιες επιθέσεις που σημειώθηκαν ακόμα και ενάντια σε ευρωβουλευτές στο Μπάρι της Ιταλίας, στο Κέμνιτς της Γερμανίας, αλλά και σε άλλα κράτη αποδεικνύουν πως η ακροδεξιά αποθρασύνεται και επιβάλλεται η άμεση συνεργασία και συμμαχία των προοδευτικών δυνάμεων για την αναχαίτισή της. Είναι αδήριτη ανάγκη να συσπειρωθούν ευρύτερες δημοκρατικές και προοδευτικές δυνάμεις και όλοι μαζί να αντιπαλέψουμε την ακροδεξιά, τον φασισμό, τον ρατσισμό και την ξενοφοβία.

Η κατάσταση δε γίνεται ακόμα πιο επικίνδυνη με τη νέα στροφή της Ένωσης προς τη στρατιωτικοποίηση, την επένδυση στην άμυνα με το νέο ευρωπαϊκό ταμείο και την ενίσχυση της στρατιωτικής βιομηχανίας, σε συντονισμό με την επιθετικότητα του ΝΑΤΟ. Η στροφή αυτή της Ένωσης στους πολέμους θα είναι καταστροφή για το μέλλον της Ένωσης.

Αγαπητέ κύριε Πρωθυπουργέ, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, ο κίνδυνος για την Ευρώπη δεν είναι οι πρόσφυγες και οι μετανάστες· είναι οι πόλεμοι και οι ιμπεριαλιστικές επεμβάσεις τις οποίες στηρίζουν έμπρακτα η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και τα κράτη μέλη της· είναι οι αυξανόμενες οικονομικές και κοινωνικές ανισότητες· είναι ο ρατσισμός και η ξενοφοβία. Για να υπάρξει ελπίδα για το μέλλον των λαών της Ένωσης, πρέπει να ανατραπούν αυτές οι νεοφιλελεύθερες πολιτικές λιτότητας. Χρειάζεται ακόμα, πάνω απ’ όλα, μια δίκαιη αναδιανομή του πλούτου, χρειάζεται στρατηγική ανάπτυξης, χρειάζονται δημόσιες επενδύσεις που θα δυναμώνουν το κοινωνικό κράτος. Ναι, χρειάζεται αναβάθμιση της ψηφιακής οικονομίας, αλλά παράλληλα να δημιουργηθούν αξιοπρεπείς, μόνιμες, ποιοτικές θέσεις εργασίας. Έτσι θα δημιουργήσουμε πραγματικά μια Ευρώπη των λαών, της κοινωνικής δικαιοσύνης και της ειρήνης.

  Rolandas Paksas, EFDD frakcijos vardu. – Estija dažnai apdovanojama įvairiais epitetais, kurie dažniausiai išreiškia šalies veržlumą. Vienas iš jų anksčiau dažnai kartotas – Baltijos tigras. Tigro išminties, sumanumo ir ryžto kaip niekad šiandien reikia visai Europos Sąjungai. Gebėjimo laviruoti tarp bendrų Europos Sąjungos ir atskirų nacionalinių valstybių interesų, sumanumo tariantis su didžiausiomis pasaulio valstybėmis, ryžto priimant valstybių, kurių politikai ir piliečiai pasisako už suverenumą, tautų Europą, nacionalines o ne internacionalinės kultūros pariteto pozicija, kaip tiesioginės demokratijos išraiška. Juolab kad daugelis iš šių Rytų Europos ir Vyšegrado šalių išgyveno sovietinio federalizmo patirtį ir puikiai supranta kuo gali tapti globalistų siekis federalizuoti Europą. Dialogas, o ne konfrontacija. Tautų valstybių sąjunga, o ne federalizacija. Ekonomikos augimas, socialinės atskirties mažinimas, o ne išlaidų karo pramonei didinimas. Santarvė, susitarimo paieškos, bet ne supriešinimas ar susipriešinimas. Tai dalykai, kurie turi tapti kertiniais naujos Europos Sąjungos pamato akmenimis. Nejaugi, ministre pirmininke, manot, kad turėtų būti kitaip? Tada Bendrijos šalyse surenkime referendumus dėl Europos Sąjungos ateities krypties. Ar žmonės nori stiprinti valstybių savarankiškumą ir nepriklausomybę? Ar nori naujos Europos federacijos be savarankiškų valstybių? Esu įsitikinęs, kad referendumo rezultatas būtų labai nepatogus šiandieninės Europos Sąjungos politikos architektams, kurie jos ateitį mato kaip unifikuotą Europos valstybių federaciją. Taip pat aš manau, kad naujos Europos Sąjungos ateities mes sulauksime gerokai greičiau, negu paskutinio Europos Sąjungos valstybės prezidento ar premjero pasisakymų šia tema. Ta ateitis prasidės po Didžiosios Britanijos pasitraukimo kitų metų kovą. Ir ne taip jau labai svarbu, ar sutars pusės dėl sąlygų, kuriomis išsiskiria, ar ne. Virsmas yra prasidėjęs. Mes dar turime laiko padaryti taip, kad tai netaptų visos Europos Sąjungos griūtimi, eidami konstruktyvaus dialogo, o ne primityvių įžeidinėjimų ar asmeniškumų keliu.

  Marcel de Graaff, namens de ENF-Fractie. – Voorzitter, ik heet de minister-president van Estland, de heer Ratas, van harte welkom in dit Parlement om te debatteren over de toekomst van Europa. Estland kent een historie van vrijwel uitsluitend overheersing, eerst door Duitsland, vervolgens door Zweden en daarna door Rusland. Na een korte periode van onafhankelijkheid werd Estland vervolgens ingelijfd bij de Sovjet-Unie. Estland weet wat het is om overheerst te worden. Na het einde van de Sovjet-Unie heeft het uit angst voor de Russische buurman aansluiting gezocht bij de NAVO en de EU.

In 2004 leek de EU nog een vriendelijk, vriendschappelijk verbond. Maar inmiddels moeten bij de bevolking van Estland toch de schellen van de ogen zijn gevallen? De EU introduceerde de afgelopen jaren voorstellen voor een EU-leger, een EU-politiemacht en een Europese openbare aanklager, naast voorstellen voor internetcensuur en voor inperking van de vrijheid van meningsuiting. We horen de heer Verhofstadt, die het pand inmiddels verlaten heeft, zojuist pleiten voor een EU-KGB. Steeds meer kleinere lidstaten worden vervolgd vanwege hun EU-kritische beleid. Landen die hun bevolking willen beschermen tegen de verwoestende effecten van het opengrenzenbeleid.

Meneer Ratas, herkent u niet de contouren van een nieuwe Sovjet-Unie? Waar denkt u dat een EU-leger werkelijk voor nodig is? Niet voor het beschermen van de buitengrenzen, want daar hebben we de NAVO voor. De liberalen in dit Parlement zijn de grote voorvechters van een EU-leger en het waren de liberalen die de gewapende pro-EU-staatsgreep in de Oekraïne stonden toe te juichen. Straks zijn het de liberalen die de tanks opnieuw Hongarije laten binnenrijden.

U dacht dat alle landen in de EU vetorecht hadden? Wat een vergissing. Het is de oorspronkelijk Oost-Duitse communiste Angela Merkel die dicteert, en de EU volgt. Estland heeft in 2004 zijn soevereiniteit ingeleverd door te tekenen bij het kruisje. En u dacht dat de dreiging uit het oosten kwam? Nee, de dreiging komt uit het westen. De agressieve Ost-politiek van de EU is een terugkeer naar een oude Duitse doelstelling. U zou dat toch moeten herkennen? Daarom raad ik de heer Ratas aan aansluiting te zoeken bij de Visegrád 4, bij het Hongarije van Viktor Orbán, dat net als Estland diep gebukt is gegaan onder communistische overheersing, bij het Italië van Matteo Salvini en het Oostenrijk van Heinz-Christian Strache, want daar zijn de schellen inmiddels van de ogen gevallen.

U denkt wellicht nog dat een liberale democratie staat voor een democratie waarin de vrijheden gelden die ooit zo treffend zijn verwoord in de Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen. Nee, meneer Ratas, liberaal is hier slechts een ander woord voor communistisch. Wanneer in dit Parlement gesproken wordt over liberale democratie, dan bedoelt men de socialistische heilstaat, dan bedoelt men een nieuw Sovjet-imperium. En dat wil ik u in dit debat meegeven, minister-president Ratas, opdat u Estland kunt leiden op de weg naar echte vrijheid en echte soevereiniteit.

  Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ja chcę przede wszystkim wyrazić uznanie dla narodu estońskiego, który w sposób szczególny – tak jak wiele narodów ujarzmionych przez Związek Radziecki – objawił pragnienie wolności, wolę życia, wolę niezależności. Narodu szczególnie inteligentnego i mądrego. Mogę przyłączyć się do tych pochwał w stosunku do przemówienia pana premiera, przede wszystkim dlatego iż to przemówienie wyraża motywy istotne dla przyszłości Europy.

Uważam, że pan premier zaprezentował proeuropejski pragmatyzm. Proeuropejski pragmatyzm, a nie proeuropejski centralizm, bo proeuropejski pragmatyzm jest chyba najbardziej zasadną odpowiedzią na współczesne wyzwania stojące przed naszymi krajami i Unią Europejską jako całością. To jest stawka na bezpieczeństwo, na bezpieczeństwo Europejczyków, to jest stawka na wzmocnioną współpracę w zakresie polityki obronnej, ale jednocześnie kooperację z Paktem Północnoatlantyckim. Mogę podpisać się bardzo jednoznacznie pod tymi poglądami.

Jednocześnie pan premier wyraził sceptycyzm wobec tego, co prezentuje często na tej sali pan przewodniczący Verhofstadt, sceptycyzm wobec centralizmu unijnego, wobec takich reform, które postawią kraje mniejsze w gorszej pozycji. Bazą solidarności europejskiej jest partnerstwo, poszanowanie wszystkich, a więc i mniejszych krajów Unii Europejskiej. Absolutnie podzielam obawy przed formalnymi reformami, przed nową formą rewizji traktatów, która by mogła skutkować tym niebezpieczeństwem: niebezpieczeństwem pomniejszenia europejskiego partnerstwa, europejskiej solidarności, pomniejszenia pozycji krajów mniejszych.

I wreszcie jeszcze jeden bardzo istotny element: to stawka na konkurencyjny rynek, na otwarty konkurencyjny rynek, na liberalizację usług. I trzeba powiedzieć, że nie tylko populizm, o którym pan premier mówił, jest siłą ograniczającą konkurencję gospodarczą w Europie. Protekcjonizm jest czymś znacznie szerszym, on jest obecny także w politykach unijnych partii głównego nurtu. Bardzo się cieszę, że pan premier postawił na ten motyw, na konkurencyjny rynek, który da siłę gospodarce europejskiej.

  Presidente. – Ora il Primo ministro Ratas può rispondere alle prime domande, poi ci sarà il catch-the-eye e poi le risposte alle domande che verranno dal catch-the-eye sempre da parte del Primo ministro Ratas.

  Jüri Ratas, Prime Minister of Estonia. – Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission and leaders of the political groups. First of all, I would like to thank you for your kind comments on Estonia and also on our Members of the European Parliament. It is important that we have diverse views, even if I cannot agree with some of them. Just as diversity of views is important, so is our ability to provide answers and solutions and, most importantly, to make compromises.

I would like to react to some of your comments and your views. First of all, Commission Vice-President Ansip, thank you for the kind references to our country – and our best wishes to you and also to Commission President Juncker! It is true that it is very important to have good connections with the centre of Europe. Connectivity is one of our priorities, and, if I am talking on a somewhat broader scale, I include here the Baltic countries and the Nordic ones. It is true that one of our targets will be the synchronisation of our energy market with the centre of Europe and, of course, digitalisation, which was a cornerstone during our Presidency, is still one of our most important themes in relation to unity and good cooperation between the Member States.

Our slogan during our Presidency was ‘Unity through Balance’, and I think it is so important today to achieve better cooperation, for example in the digital sphere. In terms of cooperation across borders, and in terms of concrete benefits for our citizens and for our businesses in doing business with different Member States, we must go forward and find a solution.

One very concrete wish is for free movement of data. I agree with those leaders who have mentioned artificial intelligence and self-driving cars, and, yes, it is true that in Estonia we have a lot of different e-services, more than 2 500. But our goal must also be to be very good and very active in talking to the private sector: this means the fourth industrial revolution.

During our Presidency we were really happy that today we have much closer cooperation in terms of defence and security, with Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), for example. In relation to the digital world, or digital society, the first step must always be cybersecurity. It is true that more than ten years ago we had some very serious cyberattacks but now we have more skills and much better cooperation.

Some words about what Mr Bullmann said: I agree 100% about sustainable development. It is so important here to strike the balance between the environment, the economy and the social sphere. Thank you too, Mr Verhofstadt, for your kind words about Estonia and the Baltic states. I agree with you that this united Europe is, for us, 100% important.

Now, some more about our environment. Estonia has more than half of its territory covered by forest and we take sustainable forest management very seriously. Estonia is meeting all the European climate goals: that was a priority during the Presidency, and my Government has a 50% renewable energy target. I also would like to say that Estonia is a nature-loving society. We care deeply about the environment today and about what we leave for our children. We are on track with climate policy and energy efficiency goals and Estonia has already reached the renewable energy goals for 2030.

As regards the Soviet Union and the EU, I think they are at 180 degrees in terms of difference: having lived under the brutal Soviet regime, I strongly reject any comparison with today’s or, for that matter, tomorrow’s European Union.

Once more, I agree with Mr Weber on the importance of a level playing field and of creating the biggest digital market. It is also important that digital Europe works for the many and not the few – well said, Mr Bullmann!

As a member of the Liberal family, I can only agree again with Mr Verhofstadt and I can only say thank you to Sweden and the Swedish people for supporting Estonia and our fellow Estonians, for example during the 1940s and 1950s, and today as well.

I thank you all for your views and comments, and I would like to make some comments at the end of the debate.

Procedura “catch-the-eye”

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to thank Prime Minister Ratas.

Prime Minister, suur tänu, you have brought the feeling of Europe from Estonia to Strasbourg and this unites us all. But, actually we are not debating Estonia today, but the future of Europe.

In 1992, just after Maastricht, which turned an economic community into a political union, the then President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, a great socialist, voiced his vision of the European future. He said that each of the 12 Member States now faced a challenge to make the biggest polity leap in post—war history to make this political union successful. Delors said that, if we did not succeed in giving Europe a soul, spirituality and inner meaning in the next ten years, this battle would be lost.

Today, 26 years have passed since then and I wonder if many of our problems today have emerged from this void which is still haunting us. In other words, man does not live by bread alone. Member States do not live only by feeding their national interests and we need to agree on what really keeps us together. It’s not only economic, social and security interests.

What is our European identity? It is not subsidies, consumption or social media, but a spirit of togetherness, rediscovering and revaluing our roots, and our spiritual and cultural continuity. Prime Minister Ratas has brought us this feeling of togetherness, of family and of solidarity. Aitäh.

  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor primer ministro, he escuchado con atención sus palabras y observo en su discurso una ausencia y una contradicción.

La ausencia que más me ha sorprendido es que no hablemos —cuando hablamos del futuro de Europa— de la Europa social, de la política social, del pilar social, porque hay muchos europeos que solo creen en Europa si hay una Europa social.

Y la contradicción es que todas las aspiraciones que usted señalaba para una Europa que protege, para una Europa que hace frente a la guerra cibernética, que avanza en el mercado digital, para esa Europa que resuelve los temas migratorios, etcétera, necesitan más recursos económicos, señor primer ministro, y, en el marco plurianual, en el marco de las aportaciones de los Estados, hay una voluntad de no aportar más dinero.

Mi preocupación es: ¿cuál es su opinión sobre un marco plurianual tan corto para lograr tantos objetivos tan importantes?

  Urmas Paet (ALDE). – Mr President, first, I’d like to make one clarification, and it is that Estonia is not a small country – Estonia is a compact country.

I will continue in the beautiful Estonian language

Kõigepealt aitäh ettekande eest! Täielikult võib toetada plaane liikuda edasi kaitsepoliitikaga Euroopa Liidus. Oluline on teenuste siseturu areng ja palju muid asju, kuid Euroopa üks suuremaid muresid on tegelikult kehv demograafiline olukord paljudes riikides, kus inimesi sureb rohkem, kui neid sünnib. Elanikkond vananeb ja väheneb. Sellises olukorras on järjest keerulisem tagada ka majanduskasvu ja inimeste elatustaseme tõusu. Seega ka meie siin Euroopa Liidus peame väga tähelepanelikult vaatama, millised on need poliitikameetmed, mis saaksid seda olukorda parandada, sest ilma demograafilise olukorra paranemiseta pole suurt mõtet ka paljudel teistel toredatel asjadel.

Samas pean ma ütlema, et selle olukorra parandamisel on kõige olulisem muidugi inimeste endi käitumine ja isiklik panus. Seetõttu on meie tänane esineja, Eesti peaminister Jüri Ratas, hea eeskuju, kelle perre sündis kolm nädalat tagasi neljas laps. Palju õnne!

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for the remarks he made with regard to our foreign and security policy. I was very happy to hear what I considered an extremely realistic approach.

I have two questions on the basis of what you said, Prime Minister. Number one: when you emphasise the necessity for Europeans to take a shared initiative, to carry a bigger part of the burden of making sure that we can contribute to our own security, then we should also look to the fact that we’re not spending too little at the moment, but we are spending in a very ineffective way. We’re duplicating, triplicating and quadruplicating all our defence expenditure. The focus should be on making effective measures our number one priority and not just raising expenditure, without being more effective.

The second question I have for you, Prime Minister, is very simple: are you in favour of abandoning the unanimity rule on foreign policy?

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Ratas, άκουσα με πολύ ενδιαφέρον την ομιλία σας. Συμφωνώ μαζί σας ότι χρειαζόμαστε περισσότερη Ευρώπη και καλύτερη Ευρώπη. Και τώρα κινδυνεύει αυτό το ιστορικό εγχείρημα από όσους ανιστόρητα και ανόητα παρομοιάζουν την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση με τη Σοβιετική Ένωση. Είναι οι ακροδεξιοί αντιευρωπαίοι εθνικιστές και λαϊκιστές που θέλουν να γυρίσουμε πίσω στα σύνορα, τον εθνικισμό και τον πόλεμο.

Αλλά, αν θέλουμε να αντιμετωπίσουμε τον κίνδυνο της ανερχόμενης άκρας δεξιάς που θέλει να μας γυρίσει πίσω σε ένα εφιαλτικό παρελθόν, οφείλουμε να καταπολεμήσουμε και τις ανισότητες, γιατί οι ανισότητες τρέφουν τον λαϊκίστικο ακροδεξιό εθνικισμό.

Γι’ αυτό χρειαζόμαστε όχι μόνο περισσότερη Ευρώπη, αλλά και καλύτερη Ευρώπη, με ισχυρότερες πολιτικές κοινωνικής συνοχής, με περισσότερη ανάπτυξη για τους πολλούς και όχι για τους λίγους. Ανήκετε σε μια νέα γενιά πολιτικών και πιστεύω ότι αυτή η νέα γενιά οφείλει να αναλάβει ακόμη πιο ισχυρές ηγετικές πρωτοβουλίες για μια καλύτερη, δημοκρατικότερη, κοινωνική Ευρώπη.

  Jiří Payne (EFDD). – Pane předsedající, pane premiére Ratasi, bavíme se o budoucnosti Evropské unie a Vy moc dobře víte, že Evropská unie se rusky řekne „Европейский союз“. To zní velmi podobně jako Sovětský svaz a já bych se chtěl teď omezit na jednu podobnost v právní oblasti.

Dobře víte, že všechny komunistické státy měly ve svých ústavách článek, který hovoří o vedoucí úloze komunistické strany, podle kterého nemohla existovat žádná legální opozice, podle kterého nemohla existovat férová soutěž politických stran. A my máme podobné ustanovení v Lisabonské smlouvě. V čl. 17 odst. 3 se říká, že členové Komise jsou vybíráni na základě požadavků evropanství, to znamená, že v Evropské unii nikdy nemůže existovat férová soutěž politických stran. To znamená, že v Evropské unii vždycky bude diskriminována opozice, která si myslí jenom trochu něco jiného, než je ten hlavní proud. A já Vás chci poprosit: tento příklad, který jsem tady citoval, je jedním z mnoha desítek příkladů demokratického deficitu v Evropské unii. Hrozného demokratického deficitu. Já Vás chci poprosit, aby Estonsko se přičinilo o to, abychom okamžitě, důsledně a definitivně odstranili demokratický deficit z evropského kontinentu.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Καλώς ήρθατε, κύριε Πρωθυπουργέ. Έχω τρία ερωτήματα: αναφέρατε ότι οι χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως θα πρέπει να διαθέτουν το 2% του ΑΕΠ για την άμυνα, προκειμένου να αισθάνονται ασφαλείς. Με εξαίρεση την Ελλάδα και την Κύπρο, οι οποίες δέχονται άμεσες και συνεχείς απειλές κατά της εδαφικής ακεραιότητάς τους από την Τουρκία. Καμία άλλη χώρα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως δεν δέχεται τέτοια απειλή. Παράλληλα, λόγω του ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση συνεργάζεται με το ΝΑΤΟ, ο οποίος είναι αμυντικός οργανισμός, ποιος ο λόγος να υποβληθούν τα κράτη σε αυτή την οικονομική θυσία σε μια περίοδο άγριας λιτότητας;

Σε ό,τι αφορά το μεταναστευτικό, η πολιτική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως έχει αποτύχει παταγωδώς, με αποτέλεσμα η Ιταλία και η Ελλάδα να έχουν κατακλυστεί από εκατοντάδες χιλιάδων παράνομους μετανάστες. Ειδικότερα η Ελλάδα προορίζεται να γίνει μόνιμος καταυλισμός αυτών των ανθρώπων. Συμφωνείτε ότι τα hotspot θα πρέπει να δημιουργηθούν στις χώρες που προωθούν παράνομους μετανάστες στην Ευρώπη, και κυρίως στην Τουρκία;

Τέλος, θεωρείτε ότι η κατάργηση της αρχής της ομοφωνίας στη λήψη αποφάσεων στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση με τη δημιουργία Ευρώπης δύο ή και τριών ταχυτήτων προάγει την ενότητα της Ευρώπης και εξυπηρετεί τα συμφέροντα των μικρών κρατών, όπως είναι και η χώρα σας;

  Ева Майдел (PPE). – Г-н Премиер, Европа е в трудна глобална ситуация. Традиционните партньори променят политиката си и заплахите за благоденствието и мира в света стават все повече, като миграцията към Европа или промяната на производствата и търговските войни.

Много хора смятат, че ние можем да променим тези глобални процеси, като се опитваме да върнем крачка назад историята. Аз смятам, че за да успокоим нашите граждани, за да гарантираме техния живот и благоденствие, няма смисъл да гледаме назад. Вместо да опитваме да контролираме нещата, които не могат да се контролират, ние трябва да се обърнем към други цели.

Трябва да изградим силна икономика, която да ни гарантира висока добавена стойност, за да имаме ресурси да създаваме нови политики или партньорства. Трябва ни икономика, която да отваря нови достъпни работни места на нашите граждани, които са загубили работата си. Трябва ни икономика, която да ни прави независими в случай на глобални кризи.

За мен отговорът е налагането на технологиите и засилването на цифровата икономика. Естония е един от символите на този подход и затова Ви поздравявам и се надявам, че Европа все повече ще приема този модел на развитие.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – Aš labai trumpai norėčiau paklausti apie energetinę nepriklausomybę. Aš esu iš Lietuvos ir kartu su kitais savo kolegomis iš Baltijos šalių ir kitų valstybių per devynis metus sukūrėme gana nemažai įvairių dokumentų, kurie lygtai apibrėžtų mūsų Europos Sąjungos energetinę nepriklausomybę nuo trečių šalių, tame tarpe ir nuo Rusijos. Tačiau realybė, aš manau ir Jūs sutiksite, yra kita. Todėl, kad mes prieš keletą metų visiškai nesusitarėm – trys Baltijos šalys – dėl bendro projekto, atominės elektrinės statybos. Labai bijojome, kad mus užterš, kad mes patys užteršim ir per tuos metus dabar, kai mes nesusitarėm, iškilo Astravo atominė elektrinė. Taip pat mes labai daug išnaudojom savo politinio potencialo ginčydamiesi dėl Nord Stream 1 projekto, bet jis yra šiandien pastatytas. Taip pat Nord Sream 2 projektas jau bus praktiškai įgyvendintas. Todėl energetinė nepriklausomybė susideda ne iš to, kiek mes dokumentų sukuriame, o priklauso nuo to, kokie yra generavimo pajėgumai. Todėl aš norėčiau Jūsų vizijos, jūsų išsakytos minties, kaip mes ateityje gyvensime būdami dar labiau priklausomi nuo vieno tiekėjo – Rusijos tiek dėl elektros energijos, tiek dėl dujų.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, cuirim fáilte roimh Phríomh-Aire na hEastóine agus, a Phríomh-Aire, comhghairdeas as ucht an aithisc bhreá a thug tú dúinn agus go háirithe gur úsáid tú do theanga dhúchais féin san aitheasc sin.

Estonia has played a very important role in the European Union since it joined. We’ve had many fine Members, and none more so than my great friend and EPP colleague, the Estonian hero Tunne Kelam. It is a joy to work with him. In your speech, Prime Minister, you made some very interesting points. You said that unity doesn’t have to mean uniformity. Well said. By way of illustration, you said that different levels of taxes in different Member States are normal for you. Well said again. My question to you is: have you found pressure to harmonise taxes? How would you deal with that? How should countries like Ireland and Estonia deal with that pressure if it were to come up again in the future?

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Sehr geehrter Premierminister! Wer an Estland denkt, denkt an Digitalisierung, und wer an Digitalisierung denkt, denkt an Estland. Das ist ein wunderschönes Image, das Sie haben, das aber auch mit viel Verantwortung verbunden ist. Denn wir brauchen Rechtssicherheit, wenn wir uns für einen offenen Binnenmarkt in dieser Hinsicht einsetzen.

Wie schaut aber die Realität aus? Die ist oftmals sehr schwierig. Wenn man per Mausklick ganz schnell ein Unternehmen gründen kann, passiert es auch sehr flott, dass vielleicht Steuerrecht, Sozialrecht umgangen wird. Hier passiert sehr viel Schindluder.

Und daher ist jetzt meine Frage an Sie: Was machen Sie ganz aktiv? Wie schaut Ihr estnischer Beitrag aus, aktiv gegen Briefkastenfirmen, aktiv gegen Geldwäsche vorzugehen, in einem Land, das sehr positiv offen ist, aber natürlich auch aufpassen muss, dass im Rahmen dieser Offenheit nicht auch diejenigen, die es mit den positiven Dingen nicht so gut meinen, entsprechend agieren? Daher, setzen Sie sich in dieser Hinsicht ein, dass mehr Rechtssicherheit besteht, online wie offline!

  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, just to save my colleagues time, I will not start to repeat my proposals about the future of Europe and how to reform its institutions, etc. I will send them to you, Prime Minister, in written form. I hope you will take them into your campaigning platform, and I can guarantee with those proposals you can win the elections.

Thank you for coming here and for your good speech, and I wish you all the best. Just a final remark to the colleagues who have amused me by comparing the European Union to the Soviet Union: it’s an insult to all the people who suffered in the Soviet Union. Let me tell you that the difference is clear: if you had made that kind of remark in the Soviet Union, if the EU were the Soviet Union, you’d been in a Gulag or, in the worst case, shot extrajudicially. So please stop making such comparisons. You will also save our time.

  Νικόλαος Χουντής (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Πρωθυπουργέ, η χώρα σας είναι από τα αγαπημένα παιδιά της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Θεωρείται χώρα-υπόδειγμα, γιατί έχετε ευθυγραμμιστεί τελικά με τις νεοφιλελεύθερες απαιτήσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και με τα επιθετικά σχέδια του ΝΑΤΟ. Κύριε Πρωθυπουργέ, δεν μπορεί να συνδέεται το μέλλον της Ευρώπης με μοντέλα ανάπτυξης που συνθλίβουν το κοινωνικό κράτος, οδηγούν στην ανεργία, ελαστικοποιούν τις εργασιακές σχέσεις και οδηγούν χιλιάδες νέους στο εξωτερικό της χώρας, ενώ στοχεύουν στην υπερσυγκέντρωση του πλούτου.

Δεν μπορούμε να μιλάμε για χώρες-υπόδειγμα όπου το ένα τέταρτο του πληθυσμού είναι κάτω από το όριο της φτώχειας και ο κατώτατος μισθός δεν ξεπερνάει τα 500 ευρώ. Δεν μπορούμε να μιλάμε για χώρες-υπόδειγμα που, για να περάσουν αυτή την πολιτική, χρησιμοποιούν και αυταρχικές πολιτικές και διώξεις αντιφασιστών αγωνιστών.

Κύριε Πρωθυπουργέ, η συνέχιση αυτής της πολιτικής, η εμμονή σε αυτή την πολιτική, η στήριξη αυτών των νεοφιλελεύθερων πολιτικών και των επιθετικών σχεδίων του ΝΑΤΟ δεν θα έχουν καλά αποτελέσματα για τις νέες γενιές, για τη δημοκρατία σήμερα και για την ασφάλεια της Ευρώπης.

  Patrick O’Flynn (EFDD). – Mr President, Mr Ratas, your country has adapted well to EU membership, but I hope you will acknowledge the problems afflicting larger countries in Europe. European citizens in their millions wish to protect their social and cultural values and their stable communities, yet the ideology of the EU treats human beings as just another factor of production. Hence the unlimited commitment to free movement as part of the single market. EU leaders are also insensitive to the way that allowing millions of young men from Africa and Asia to migrate under the guise of refugees is putting those values and those communities under strain.

This may not affect you much in Tallinn, but it does affect people in Toulon, Turin and many other cities and towns across Europe. If the EU is to convince populations that it will protect their communities and their way of life, it will have to place strict limits both on internal migration between Member States and migration from outside the bloc. It shows no sign of stepping up to the mark on either, so I’m afraid we must all stand by for a bumpy ride.

  Lara Comi (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Primo ministro, ho ascoltato il Suo discorso e volevo porre l'attenzione su quel concetto al quale si è rivolto per l'aspetto fiscale. Nel mercato interno, il mercato unico per noi è la chiave dell'Europa, un'Europa che vogliamo come unione politica, come unione fiscale. Ecco, da questo volevo capire da Lei se veramente ci crede in un'unione fiscale e perché, ad esempio, dai costi dell'energia noi abbiamo una non competitività all'interno dei vari Stati membri, quindi all'interno del mercato unico, a differenza invece di altre realtà.

Io arrivo dall'Italia, dove il costo dell'energia è molto alto e questo non ci permette di essere competitivi e di avere, tra virgolette, dei nemici all'interno dell'Unione europea. Lei crede in un'armonizzazione del sistema o in un'Europa a due velocità?

  Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, usted ha hablado de la cuarta revolución industrial y a mí me gustaría saber qué propuestas tiene encima de la mesa para combatir el enorme desempleo que ya se ha dicho, ya se ha reconocido que va a generar, o que está generando.

Me gustaría también que me contestara si tiene algún proyecto para trabajar en cultura de paz. He oído hablar mucho de reforzar el militarismo, de reforzar la seguridad, pero no ha hablado nada de qué va a hacer para generar la cultura de paz.

Y, finalmente, me gustaría preguntarle qué proyecto tiene para combatir la desigualdad de las mujeres, para combatir la brecha —enorme brecha— de género, para luchar contra la violencia machista y, también, contra la pobreza, y si va a hacer alguna propuesta para repartir la riqueza.

  Κώστας Μαυρίδης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρωθυπουργέ, καλωσορίσατε. Συζητάμε για το μέλλον της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και θα επικεντρωθώ σε αυτό. Η κυριότερη αιτία της αποστασιοποίησης των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών, που έχει πολιτικό νόημα και βάση, είναι το γεγονός ότι υπάρχει χάσμα ανάμεσα στις αξίες που δηλώνουμε ότι μας δεσμεύουν και στις πολιτικές που ακολουθούμε. Αυτό αφορά και την ίδια την Επιτροπή. Μπορεί λοιπόν ο Ευρωπαίος πολίτης να βρεθεί στο κέντρο της λήψης των αποφάσεων με την καθιέρωση άμεσης δημοκρατικής εκλογής των Επιτρόπων από τους λαούς της Ευρώπης ανά κράτος μέλος; Θα ήθελα να ακούσω την τοποθέτησή σας.

Δεύτερον –και απευθύνομαι και στην Επιτροπή–, χτες ψηφίσαμε αποκοπή κονδυλίων προς την Τουρκία και πριν μερικούς μήνες διαπιστώσαμε ότι κράτος δικαίου δεν υπάρχει στη χώρα αυτή. Δεν υπάρχει κράτος δικαίου και ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα, αλλά υπήρξαν δημοκρατικές εκλογές, κύριε Επίτροπε; Απαντήστε μας, σας παρακαλώ.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Mr President, Mr Prime Minister, Tallinn is the capital in Europe closest to Stockholm, yet for decades it was still very far away. The first time I arrived in Tallinn I met KGB police border patrols. I had to pay with roubles, there was surveillance and – I can confess today – I did smuggle three Ericsson mobile phones.

(Laughter and applause)

I confess to that criminal act.

I met with dissidents and heroes under the dictatorship.

Today, we are closer than ever thanks to the European Union – open markets, freedom of movement, freedom of expression. Those who compare this European Union, which Estonia is an outstanding example and part of, to the Soviet Union, don’t know what the Soviet Union was.

(Applause)

But, worse than that, they don’t know what freedom is and I want you, Prime Minister, to show, with strength, how we can develop our Union with digitalisation, open markets, the dynamic economies making Europe strong versus Russia, versus China and versus all those who would like to undermine the international order of law and justice.

(Applause)

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to say the following to Prime Minister Ratas.

Prime Minister, you started your speech this morning with a reminder of former times in which the Baltics were under someone else’s influence. But then came the day when when Estonians were eager to embrace the values of the European Union: the rule of law, democracy and unity in diversity. You made a case for the future – the digital single market, foreign policy, defence – but the near future is the upcoming elections of 2019. Let us face it, the European Union is more divided than ever: north, south, east and west; and winners and losers.

So we urge you, Prime Minister Ratas, to make the case to uphold the political will for Estonians to be part of the enhanced cooperation to make a better Europe than this, to make it better, to make it right, to push the European Union forward in the coming elections of 2019, and to fight populism, just as you said.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE). – Gospod predsednik vlade, hvala za vaše jasne in odločne proevropske besede in čestitke k odličnemu predsedovanju.

Kot človek, ki se posebej posveča vprašanjem zdravja, bi vas rad vprašal, če ima Estonija tudi kakšne posebne nove ideje, kako bi izboljšali zdravje v Evropski zvezi, mi ne moremo narediti več Evrope z več bolniki.

In zdravje je eden od ključnih izzivov in jaz bi želel, da Evropa tudi tu pokaže več enotnosti.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, complimenti al Primo ministro estone per quanto sta facendo.

Tra poco più di 7 mesi i cittadini europei si recheranno alle urne per esprimere un giudizio sull'Europa, sarà un vero e proprio referendum e anche se il sogno europeo è l'unico orizzonte politico di lungo respiro, il vento della paura e dell'incertezza potrebbe condizionare l'esito delle elezioni.

"Primum vivere deinde philosophari" diceva Hobbes. In questa legislatura i progressi si sono avuti in materia ambientale e in pochi altri settori, ma se in periodi di crisi non prestiamo la dovuta attenzione alla costruzione di un welfare effettivo, vuol dire decidere intenzionalmente di creare un'Europa a più velocità, non capendo che è un errore lasciare qualcuno indietro. O camminiamo fianco a fianco, o il progetto europeo non esisterà più.

Non so se le elezioni europee rifletteranno gli esiti delle elezioni nazionali, ma il vento non lo si può fermare a mani nude, occorrono proposte concrete per il lavoro, l'economia e l'immigrazione.

Primo ministro Ratas, Lei cosa ne pensa?

  Arne Lietz (S&D). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Premierminister! Ich bin Visegrád-Deutscher, ich bin Ostdeutscher. Dieser Tag heute ist ein besonderer Tag, denn wir haben heute den Tag der deutschen Wiedervereinigung.

Estland hat durch die singende Revolution mit dazu beigetragen, dass wir in diesem freien Europa leben können und dass wir Europa jetzt gestalten können. Estland ist Vorreiter der digitalen Revolution, im Handhaben der Situation, dass wir die Bürgerinnen und Bürger in einer ganz anderen Art und Weise mit dem E-Government, aber auch mit Internetsicherheit betreuen können.

Mich würde interessieren, wie Sie den Europäischen Verteidigungsfonds sehen. Sehen Sie es ähnlich, wie es oft und auch bei Ihnen in Estland bei einer Diskussion der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz diskutiert wurde, dass wir den Fonds nutzen sollten für mehr digitale Sicherheit, dass wir ein europäisches Netzwerk aufbauen und dort sozusagen die Sicherheitsinfrastruktur in Richtung Digitales verstärken, und nicht auf konventionelle Waffen?

(Fine della procedura catch-the-eye)

  Jüri Ratas, Prime Minister of Estonia. – Mr President, first of all, thank you for all the kind words and comments, especially from my Estonian colleagues. I will try to focus and give as many concrete answers as I can. Tunne, I really appreciate what you said about Estonia, our country. I would like to thank you especially for your personal commitment and support.

Regarding the social pillar, I am proud that we agreed the proclamation of the European Pillar of Social Rights during the Estonian Presidency. We did so in Gothenburg in Sweden. It was a very important achievement and now is the time to move on with the implementation of the pillar principles.

Regarding the question about the Baltic States and our energy market, it is so important today that we have good connections between Finland and Estonia – I mean two Estlinks. It is very good that we will have the Balticconnector and of course we need good cooperation if we are adopting the LNG. As I said before, for all three Baltic States it is very important to synchronise our energy market with the rest of Europe and with the middle of Europe.

As regards defence, both quality and quantity are important. Efficiency is important, but we also must spend to percentages. Regarding EU defence cooperation, we have taken big steps forward with European defence initiatives and I am proud that during the Estonian Presidency we achieved a lot in this area. Now is the time to implement the decisions taken, for example, the PESCO projects. In this way, we can deliver more security for our citizens. In addition, I cannot stress enough the importance of preserving transatlantic unity and the need to advance EU and NATO cooperation.

As for foreign policy, the proposal on the table is worth exploring, but we remain cautious. Regarding different speeds, when it comes to the question about one, two or three speeds, we always answer with a sense of unity and the same direction. I do not like a divided Europe and more divisions. Regarding taxation, I can only repeat that it is a national matter, but in digital tax, I think that we really need global solutions.

Regarding energy security, our views on Nord Stream 2 are well known. In our opinion, the interconnections between the Union and third countries must be subject to the rules covering the Energy Union. The interconnectors with third countries should seek to diversify the Union’s energy sources and increase the Union’s security of supply. Nord Stream 2 does not meet those criteria. It is a political project of the Russian Federation. This opinion is shared by a number of EU Member States.

As I said, the Energy Union is the key to Estonia’s connections. The Nordic energy market has brought down energy prices and provided more services and opportunities. I would like to thank Mr Hökmark for his support. I am one hundred percent in agreement with you. We believe in digital solutions in health issues as well. We introduced our ideas during our Presidency and stand ready to discuss them.

We are not in denial regarding the debate over taxes. It is important that we fight tax evasion, cooperate closely and have similar tax bases. I know that your next discussion here in Parliament, in the afternoon session, will be about the risks of money laundering. If I may, I would like to share my views about money laundering. There was a question about this as well. Estonia has zero tolerance for money laundering. Combating these kinds of crimes is a clear priority for us and it is important that the Estonian financial supervision authority discovered suspicious transactions in the Estonian branch, for example, of Danske Bank. As a result, in 2015 the branch had to close its high-risk non—resident portfolio. However, since Danske Bank is a Danish credit institution, its banking supervision is primarily carried out by the Danish authorities. In recent years, we have significantly broadened the fight against money laundering in Estonia. However, this is a continuous process and a major challenge for the European Union as well. Currently, the Estonian authorities are working with Denmark and other countries to investigate whether the requirements for combating money laundering in 2009 to 2014 were fulfilled or were not met at the Estonian branch of Danske Bank. The prosecutor’s office has commenced criminal proceedings.

In conclusion, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we are building a future every day. What unites us in the EU is much more that than what divides us. By having common policies, we have been able to make a difference. We Europeans are stronger together and I hope we will spare no efforts in securing our collective interests and values in the world. I am very appreciative of all the Members of the European Parliament and the President of Parliament, Mr Antonio Tajani.

(Applause)

  Presidente. – Grazie Signor Primo ministro. Ancora una volta il Parlamento è stato al centro del dibattito sul futuro dell’Europa, andiamo avanti in questa direzione. Grazie ancora.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)

  Krystyna Łybacka (S&D), na piśmie. – Szanowny panie premierze! Zwracam się do pana, aby w dyskusji na nowymi ramami finansowymi spróbował pan przekonać szefów państw i rządów o konieczności potrojenia finansowania programu Erasmus+ na lata 2021–2027. Program ten jest najbardziej popularną i cenioną inicjatywą unijną, która wspiera działania w dziedzinie edukacji, szkoleń, młodzieży i sportu. Miliony obywateli mogło dzięki Erasmusowi zarówno uczyć się i szkolić za granicą, jak również pracować nad wspólnymi międzynarodowymi oraz międzysektorowymi projektami na rzecz nowych, innowacyjnych rozwiązań w obszarze kształcenia i szkolenia.

Program ten w znaczący sposób przyczynia się do rozwoju osobistego oraz podnoszenia wiedzy i umiejętności jego uczestników i przez to stanowi ważne narzędzie w walce z bezrobociem młodych. Dzięki wymianie dobrych praktyk oraz doskonaleniu pracowników szkolnictwa i osób pracujących z młodzieżą Erasmus jest także motorem podnoszenia jakości edukacji w państwach członkowskich.

Panie premierze! Kształcenie i szkolenie to najlepsza inwestycja w przyszłość Unii Europejskiej. Erasmus funkcjonuje już od 30 lat, a popyt na wzięcie w nim udziału znacznie przekracza jego możliwości budżetowe. Dlatego co najmniej trzykrotne zwiększenie jego budżetu jest niezbędne, abyśmy mogli utrzymać sukces Erasmusa i zwiększać poparcie obywateli dla naszych działań.

(La seduta è sospesa per alcuni istanti in attesa del turno di votazioni)

PRESIDE: RAMÓN LUIS VALCÁRCEL SISO
Vicepresidente

5. Възобновяване на заседанието

(Se reanuda la sesión a las 12.33 horas).

6. Състав на Парламента

  El presidente. – Las autoridades competentes de Suecia han comunicado al presidente la elección del señor Sellström como diputado al Parlamento Europeo en sustitución del señor Adaktusson, con efectos a partir del 3 de octubre del presente 2018.

Doy pues la bienvenida al nuevo compañero y recuerdo que tomará posesión de su escaño en el Parlamento y en sus órganos con plenitud de derechos en las condiciones establecidas en el Reglamento interno.

  Angelo Ciocca (ENF). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mi appello a tutta la sensibilità dell'Aula parlamentare per immedesimarsi nei panni di una madre e di un padre che hanno visto un figlio di 33 anni, Alessandro Fiori, perdere la vita ad Istanbul e chiediamo davvero alle autorità europee di interessarsi presso le autorità turche per capire come questo ragazzo di trentatré anni ha perso la vita.

Inizialmente si è detto per suicidio, poi si è detto per un malore, adesso si è scoperto che è stato assassinato. Penso che sia un dovere del Parlamento europeo nei confronti dei nostri popoli, delle nostre famiglie, di questa madre e di questo padre chiedere alle autorità turche di scoprire realmente chi ha assassinato questo trentatreenne.

7. Преговори преди провеждане на първото четене в Парламента (член 69в от Правилника за дейността)

  El presidente. – Señorías, en relación con las decisiones de la Comisión ECON de entablar negociaciones interinstitucionales, anunciadas en la apertura de la sesión del lunes 1 de octubre, no he recibido ninguna solicitud de votación al respecto en el Parlamento con arreglo al artículo 69 quater, apartado 2.

Por consiguiente, la Comisión ECON puede iniciar las negociaciones.

  Giulia Moi (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io vorrei chiedere ufficialmente come mai questo Parlamento non mi ha mai permesso di licenziare 2 assistenti nei quali non ho più fiducia da molto tempo e che ora sono costretta a mantenere e strapagare per non fare niente a causa di un intervento improprio …

(Il Presidente toglie la parola all'oratrice)

  El presidente. – Señora Moi, no ha lugar al uso de la palabra para abordar este asunto.

8. Поправкa (член 231 от Правилника за дейността): вж. протокола

9. Време за гласуване

  El presidente. – Pasamos ahora al turno de votaciones.

(Para los resultados y otros detalles de la votación: véase el Acta).

9.1. Хармонизиране и опростяване на някои правила от системата на ДДС (A8-0280/2018 - Jeppe Kofod) (гласуване)

9.2. ДДС: срок на прилагане на механизма за обратно начисляване и на механизма за бързо реагиране (A8-0283/2018 - Sirpa Pietikäinen) (гласуване)

9.3. Административно сътрудничество в областта на акцизите, що се отнася до съдържанието на електронния регистър (A8-0285/2018 - Ivana Maletić) (гласуване)

9.4. Оценка на здравните технологии (A8-0289/2018 - Soledad Cabezón Ruiz) (гласуване)

- Después de la votación:

  Soledad Cabezón Ruiz, ponente. – Señor presidente, gracias al Pleno por el apoyo que ha dado al informe, y me gustaría solicitar su remisión a la Comisión de Medio Ambiente para comenzar las negociaciones interinstitucionales.

(El Parlamento aprueba la devolución del asunto a la comisión competente con vistas a la celebración de negociaciones interinstitucionales).

9.5. Стандарти за емисиите от нови леки пътнически автомобили и от нови леки търговски превозни средства (A8-0287/2018 - Miriam Dalli) (гласуване)

- Después de la votación:

  Miriam Dalli, Rapporteur. – Grazzi Chair, ippermettili, l-ewwelnett nixtieq nirringrazzja lix-Shadow Rapporteurs għaliex hija bl-attitudni tagħhom li qegħdin hawnhekk illum, u grazzi lil din il-Kamra li fehmet li din hija liġi fejn verament irridu nkunu ambizzjużi. F’dan ir-rigward, nixtieq għalhekk nitlob il-mandat biex, abbażi tal-Artikolu 59, paragrafu 4, subparagrafu 4, tar-Regoli ta’ Proċedura, inkunu nistgħu nagħtu bidu għan-negozjati interistituzzjonali.

Grazzi

(El Parlamento aprueba la devolución del asunto a la comisión competente con vistas a la celebración de negociaciones interinstitucionales).

9.6. Ставки на ДДС (A8-0279/2018 - Tibor Szanyi) (гласуване)

9.7. Международни стандарти за финансово отчитане: МСФО 17 „Застрахователни договори“ (B8-0442/2018) (гласуване)

9.8. Технологии на разпределен регистър и блокверигите: създаване на доверие чрез премахване на посредничеството (B8-0397/2018) (гласуване)

9.9. Програма на ЕС за селските, планинските и отдалечените райони (B8-0399/2018) (гласуване)

  El presidente. – Con esto concluimos el turno de votaciones.

10. Обяснение на вот

10.1. Хармонизиране и опростяване на някои правила от системата на ДДС (A8-0280/2018 - Jeppe Kofod)

Explicaciones de voto orales

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Mamy sytuację dość prostą, jeżeli chodzi o głosowanie. Przyjęto ambitne zadanie ujednolicenia podatku VAT w obszarze gospodarek rozwijających się, nowych technologii, ale także ze szczegółowymi zadaniami. Chcę podkreślić trzy szczególnie: konieczność obniżenia kosztu przestrzegania przepisów i złożoności procedur dla firm, obniżenia strat w przychodach państw członkowskich związanych z nieprzestrzeganiem przepisów oraz, po trzecie, zapewnienie, że przedsiębiorstwa w Unii Europejskiej nie są w niekorzystnej sytuacji wobec przedsiębiorstw spoza Unii Europejskiej. Na te trzy elementy chciałem zwrócić szczególną uwagę.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τα νησιά του Αιγαίου ανέκαθεν είχαν χαμηλό φόρο προστιθέμενης αξίας. Και αυτό διότι έπρεπε, λόγω του ότι ήταν απομακρυσμένα, να έχουν στήριξη για την οικονομική τους ανάπτυξη. Ταυτόχρονα αντιμετώπιζαν και αντιμετωπίζουν ανταγωνισμό από την Τουρκία, όπου ο ΦΠΑ είναι 5%. Δυστυχώς η τρόικα και η κυβέρνηση Τσίπρα έχουν πλέον δώσει τη δυνατότητα να αυξηθεί ο ΦΠΑ, δηλαδή επί της ουσίας επέβαλαν αυξημένο ΦΠΑ 24% στα νησιά του Αιγαίου, με αποτέλεσμα να καταστρέφεται οικονομικά όλη περιοχή, η οποία πλήττεται αυτή τη στιγμή και από αθρόες, τεράστιες ροές παρανόμων μεταναστών και προσφύγων.

Ζητούμε να ισχύσει ό,τι ψήφισε χθες το Κοινοβούλιό μας: ειδικό καθεστώς για τα νησιά του Αιγαίου, όπως ισχύει για τον ΦΠΑ στον ιταλικό δήμο Καμπιόνε ντ’ Ιτάλια και στα ιταλικά ύδατα της λίμνης του Λουγκάνο. Εκεί επιτρέπεται να έχουν χαμηλό ΦΠΑ, διότι έχουν ανταγωνισμό από την Ελβετία. Τελικά τα νησιά του Αιγαίου, τα οποία είναι απομακρυσμένα, δεν πρέπει να έχουν χαμηλό φόρο προστιθέμενης αξίας;

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem podpořil tento návrh, který byl schválen. Já podporuji obecně veškeré harmonizační a zjednodušující postupy v oblasti nepřímých daní, to bych chtěl zdůraznit. Zde je důležité učinit harmonizační kroky takové, aby nedopadaly na evropské podniky, aby neoslabovaly jejich konkurenceschopnost, a to si myslím, že se i tímto návrhem podařilo.

Odlišuji tento návrh od přímých daní, kde si myslím, že je zase výrazná ingerence členských států. Já v přímých daních nepodporuji přílišný aktivismus Evropského parlamentu nebo institucí obecně.

Ale chtěl bych upozornit, že se DPH bude měnit, zdá, se ještě několikrát do roku 2022. Už včera byla na český návrh schválena další změna novely u DPH, je to tzv. reverse charge. Český premiér označuje tuto změnu za bombastickou. Já si naopak myslím, že dopadne velmi nepříjemně právě na administrativní náročnost pro plátce daně a chtěl bych vyzvat členské státy, aby se nad tím ještě skutečně zamyslely, protože neustálé změny v oblasti nepřímých daní nepochybně nesvědčí o dobrých postupech v oblasti harmonizace.

  Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök Úr! Az áfa a tagállamok meghatározó bevételi forrása, jelentős probléma, hogy a megállapított áfa és a befizetett áfa nem egyezik, a különbség folyamatosan növekszik. Mindez megköveteli, hogy egységes szabályozást vezessünk be, ami segíti a határokon átnyúló áfacsalások kockázatának a mérséklését, valamint az egységes piac kialakítását. Lényeges változás, hogy a termékek egyik tagállamból a másikba történő értékesítését úgy adóztassák meg, mintha terméket ugyanabban a tagállamban vásárolnák meg, ahonnan származik. Ehhez harmonizált, határokon átnyúló informatikai rendszert kell működtetni. A módosításokkal együtt az irányelv segítséget nyújthat az adórendszer harmonizációjában, miközben a nemzeti adóhatóságok szerepét továbbra is fontosnak tartja. Mindezekre tekintettel igennel szavaztam.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, which seeks to introduce important measures that will simplify cross-border trade, reduce VAT fraud and minimise compliance costs for businesses. This update to the current EU VAT system will be particularly needed in years to come, as fraud continues to increase and to become an even more pressing issue.

It is crucial for businesses across the EU that excessive compliance costs be reduced, and I welcome the fact that this is reflected. Additionally, it is extremely important that the heavy administrative burden on Member States, due to lack of harmonisation, is eased, and this text will help to ensure that this is the case. I also welcome the text in relation to the new status for certifiable taxable persons, which, once effectively harmonised across the EU, should be a significant step in simplifying the VAT system across the Union.

I was also pleased to vote in favour of musical instruments being able to qualify for reduced rates of VAT should a Member State choose to make provision to that effect. It is important that we recognise and help the creative industries.

10.2. Оценка на здравните технологии (A8-0289/2018 - Soledad Cabezón Ruiz)

Explicaciones de voto orales

  Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE). – Mr President, there are well—grounded concerns about the functioning of the EU medicines system, as new medicines are very expensive and a large proportion of them do not bring better results than the ones previously circulating in the market. The EU-wide health technology assessments will be an evidence-based and uniform criteria-based process of evaluation and comparison of health standards and technologies in the Member States. This assessment should speed up access to medicines for patients, provide guarantees on medicines’ quality and reduce the bureaucratic burden, as only one assessment would be needed instead of one assessment per Member State.

Finally, I also supported proposals for the text to include the necessary additional flexibility so that Member States can meet certain national requirements, thus respecting Member States’ subsidiarity.

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Parlament Europejski w sprawozdaniu wskazuje na liczne działania sugerujące, że nie tylko jest potrzebna nowa dyrektywa umożliwiająca harmonizację czy też dodatkowe uregulowania pomiędzy rozmaitymi stronami w tym wielkim biznesie farmaceutycznym. Zwracam na to uwagę dlatego, że według mojej oceny to, co przegłosowaliśmy, nie daje nam gwarancji na satysfakcjonujący postęp. Natomiast uznaję, że podjęcie tego wyzwania było konieczne, choć następuje zbyt późno.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η τρόικα έχει φτωχοποιήσει τον ελληνικό λαό, με αποτέλεσμα να υπάρχει αδυναμία των Ελλήνων για σοβαρή ιατροφαρμακευτική περίθαλψη. Έχουμε τεράστιες τιμές πλέον ακριβών φαρμάκων. Τα αντικαρκινικά φάρμακα είναι απλησίαστα. Δεν μπορούν οι ασθενείς να αγοράσουν αυτά τα φάρμακα. Αντιλαμβάνεστε λοιπόν ότι έχει αφεθεί η Ελλάδα σε αυτό το μεγάλο πάρτι των πολυεθνικών του φαρμάκου, με ακριβά φάρμακα, με φάρμακα τα οποία είναι ιδιαίτερα προβληματικά. Και αναγκάζονται πλέον οι ασθενείς να προσφεύγουν σε αυτά τα ακριβά φάρμακα χωρίς να έχουν τα χρήματα. Πρέπει λοιπόν να υπάρξει παρέμβαση για να σταματήσει το πάρτι των πολυεθνικών του φαρμάκου, να σταματήσουν οι υπερτιμολογήσεις και φυσικά να σταματήσει η πολιτική της βίαιης δημοσιονομικής προσαρμογής, που έχει διαλύσει τον τομέα της υγείας στην Ελλάδα.

  Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök Úr! A javaslat alapvető célkitűzése az egészségügyi technológia európai szintű, közös klinikai értékelése. Az egészség az európai polgárok számára a legfontosabb értéket jelenti, amint arra az Eurobarométer felmérés több ízben is rámutatott. Egyébként az egészségügyi kiadások az unióban az össz-GDP 10 százalékát teszik ki. A javasolt intézkedések közé tartozik az egészségügyi technológia terápiás értékének vizsgálata és a gyógyszerek klinikai vizsgálati szempontjainak összehangolása. Ez növeli a megbízhatóságot, ösztönzi a minőségi innovációt, és lehetővé teszi a technológiák megkülönböztetését. Így a szükségtelen átfedések megszüntetésével is növeli az európai gyógyszeripar versenyképességét. Mindezekre tekintettel a jelentés elfogadását támogattam.

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Od ponad sześćdziesięciu lat budujemy wspólnotę. Wydaje się więc, że jest już najwyższy czas na harmonizację wielu dziedzin, branż i sektorów, także jeżeli chodzi o technologie medyczne. No zwłaszcza, że dotyczą chyba wartości najważniejszej dla człowieka, a więc jego zdrowia. Tak, jak było to już mówione, zdrowie często jest uzależnione od leczenia, od stosowania technologii medycznych, a więc i leków, wyrobów medycznych, a te niekiedy są mało efektywne. Najczęściej są bardzo drogie. Harmonizacja oceny skutków, nie tylko działania, ale także efektywności wyrobów medycznych i leków może doprowadzić do tego, że zmniejszymy biurokrację, jeżeli chodzi o dopuszczanie do rynku nowych leków, a z drugiej strony zwiększamy być może efektywność ich działania. I o to chodzi.

  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, votei a favor deste relatório porque considero que a avaliação das tecnologias da saúde é um ponto fulcral da promoção e da inovação, que pode disponibilizar verdadeiros ganhos em saúde para os doentes e para a sociedade como um todo.

É com base nesta avaliação que se podem vir a estabelecer preços e comparticipações, ponto de suma importância para a sustentabilidade dos sistemas de saúde. Esta proposta é equilibrada e assenta no espírito colaborativo entre os Estados—Membros que compõem a União, mas deixa ainda espaço de manobra para as decisões nacionais. A centralização evita duplicações de avaliações, com poupanças de recursos, e criará uma Europa menos assimétrica no acesso aos cuidados de saúde.

Apesar de se tratar da reunião de esforços técnico-científicos combinados das agências nacionais, saúdo a inclusão de representantes de doentes no processo de avaliação no sentido de se considerar a mais valia de uma terapêutica como indo além de meras estatísticas clínicas ou farmacológicas, podendo ser considerada a contribuição da tecnologia para a facilidade de tratamento ou para a qualidade de vida do doente.

Para tanto, é essencial que o processo seja o mais transparente possível para transmitir confiança a toda a cadeia de valor do medicamento.

10.3. Стандарти за емисиите от нови леки пътнически автомобили и от нови леки търговски превозни средства (A8-0287/2018 - Miriam Dalli)

Explicaciones de voto orales

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já bych chtěla vysvětlit, proč jsem v konečnémhlasování nehlasovala pro změnu emisních norem pro nová osobní auta. Snižování emisí CO2 je důležité v boji proti změnám klimatu a Evropská unie je v tomto lídrem. Komise navrhla změnu emisní normy na snížení emisí CO2 do roku 2030 o 30 %.

Já se domnívám, že to bylo rozumné rozhodnutí. Byla jsem ochotna hlasovat i pro kompromis 35 % a i to je již velmi ambiciózní plán. Ovšem přesto, že jsme řada z nás z PPE hlasovali proti pozměňovacímu návrhu, tak nakonec Parlament schválil závazek na 40% snížení emisí, a to je již pro mě nepřijatelná ambice, kontraproduktivní, protože evropský automobilový průmysl bude méně konkurenceschopný, vyklidíme prostor čínské konkurenci. Já doufám, že toto rozhodnutí bude napraveno v jednání s členskými státy.

  Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE). – Mr President, Parliament today has pushed further on the Commission’s proposal to reduce CO2 emissions from new cars in the EU market by at least 40% by 2030. I am really happy with the political will and ambition shown by Parliament in this regard. I fully support the aim of the proposal to help Member States to reach the EU climate commitments under the Paris Agreement for the transport sector by incentivising the best use in production of new technologies such as electric vehicles.

The vote was motivated in part by a reading of the impact assessment which estimated that this proposal could possibly create up to 70 000 new jobs in the European Union and that it will allow our citizens to save up to EUR 17 billion a year on fuel.

Lastly, the decision to reduce environmental pollution will also significantly reduce the EU’s geopolitical dependence on transport fuel imports, and it carries a very clear geopolitical message.

  Tania González Peñas (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, quiero manifestar mi alegría por la aprobación del informe Dalli sobre el control de emisiones, que es un hito en la contribución de la industria del transporte por carretera a la lucha contra el cambio climático.

Quiero destacar la importancia de que se ponga fin a las trampas en las mediciones de emisión de CO2, porque las mediciones no se circunscribían solamente al laboratorio, y espero que no vuelva a haber, en ese sentido, ningún dieselgate más.

Y, en ese sentido, es positivo que hayamos aprobado premios para quienes cumplen con creces los objetivos mínimos de venta de vehículos con cero o bajas emisiones, y castigos, también, para quienes no lo hagan.

Por otro lado, es importante que esta transición sea gradual, sea realista y que evitemos que nuestros constructores vivan ese temible efecto Nokia o momento Nokia, por el que una industria, o bien da un salto hacia adelante, o bien se condena irremisiblemente a morir.

Y querría destacar, en último lugar, la importancia para la creación de empleo verde. Esta transición supone una reducción del 1 % de los puestos de trabajo en este sector, pero supone la creación de decenas de miles de nuevos puestos en la industria, más sostenibles.

  Morten Messerschmidt (ECR). – Hr. formand! Det var lidt af en skønhedskonkurrence at se, hvad der foregik i Miljøudvalget her i løbet af processen op til afstemningen i dag, med alle de utrolig ambitiøse forslag, som de forskellige grupper fremsatte. Vi endte med et godt kompromis, og det har vi også i vores delegation og gruppe kunnet tilslutte os, dels fordi det selvfølgelig er vigtigt at gøre noget for klimaet, men det handler jo også om vores strategiske og storpolitiske uafhængighed, hvilket er et overset tema i denne debat. Når vi importerer store mængder af kul og gas og olie, så sker det fra regimer og stater, som vi i almindelighed ikke ønsker at være forbundet med og slet ikke være i lommen på - i Mellemøsten, Rusland osv. Jeg synes, det er vigtigt, at vi også taler om denne dimension af hele energiforsyningsvirksomheden, at det i virkeligheden også handler om, hvem vi allierer os med - og det skal selvfølgelig være den vestlige alliance med USA i spidsen, Nato osv. Ikke diverse regimer i Mellemøsten.

  Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! To kolejna nieodpowiedzialna uchwała tego Parlamentu. Po raz kolejny uchwalacie prawo, nie znając się na rzeczy, a potem inni muszą się martwić, jak się z tego wywiązać. Jeśli celem tego Parlamentu jest doprowadzenie do sytuacji, w której tylko posłów i urzędników europejskich będzie stać na jeżdżenie samochodem, to chyba właśnie zmierzamy w tym kierunku. Jeśli to jest wasz pomysł na rozwiązanie problemu korków na moście w Strasburgu, to naprawdę serdecznie gratuluję. Głosowałem przeciwko.

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ochrona środowiska naturalnego, w tym powietrza, to chyba jeden z najważniejszych celów naszej cywilizacji. Warto poświęcić więc tak ważnemu zadaniu bardzo dużo uwagi i działań, także i środków finansowych. Wszystko jednak musi być podejmowane w odpowiednich przedziałach czasowych, racjonalnie, rozsądnie, tak aby jedno dobro nie godziło w inne dobro. Jednym z tych dóbr, o którym wspomniałem na początku, jest właśnie środowisko naturalne, czyste, zdrowe środowisko naturalne, ale drugim równie ważnym dobrem jest człowiek, jego rodzina, jego praca, jego życie, możliwości rozwoju. Tym dobrem jest także państwo i wspólnota międzynarodowa, dlatego też cele, które sobie wyznaczamy, jeżeli chodzi o ochronę środowiska, powinny uwzględniać potrzeby człowieka, społeczeństwa, państw wspólnoty międzynarodowej. Mnie się wydaje, że mielibyśmy tutaj szansę na to, gdybyśmy przyjęli kompromisowe rozwiązanie, natomiast poszliśmy jako Parlament dużo dalej i to nie jest rozwiązanie racjonalne i rozsądne.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem tento návrh nakonec nemohl podpořit, ten původní návrh Evropské komise snížit emise u nových automobilů a dodávek o 30 % do roku 2030 ve srovnání tedy s rokem 2021 jsem považoval za realistický, i ten zostřený návrh – 35 % –, společný návrh ECR a naší skupiny jsem pokládal za rozumný a akceptovatelný. Nicméně já bych si už nechtěl dávat ambiciózní cíle, od kterých se stejně bude ustupovat, a toto je myslím, že jeden z těch cílů, který byl schválen. 40% snížení je jeden z těch cílů, který je velmi ambiciózní, ale není realistický.

Stanovení těchto limitů musí reflektovat podle mého názoru jak potřebu těch změn, které vyvolává tedy klima a jsou dány v Pařížské úmluvě, tak i možnosti automobilového sektoru, který nejen v České republice, ale i v celé EU zajišťuje tisíce pracovních míst. Musíme automobilky motivovat k investicím do vývoje nízkoemisních a elektrických automobilů, zároveň se nesmíme uchylovat k opatřením, která by se měla ve výsledku dramaticky projevovat v ceně automobilu a dopadat tak výrazně na koncového spotřebitele.

  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, votei a favor deste relatório porque o ambiente não pode esperar mais. As metas de emissões têm de ser ambiciosas para conseguirmos, até 2030, reverter a situação calamitosa do aquecimento global causado pelos casos de efeitos de estufa. Temos de estabelecer um valor pelo menos superior a 40 %.

As metas apresentadas no texto da Comissão são insuficientes e preveem um cenário excessivamente positivo. A história mostra que o setor automóvel tem estado sistematicamente em incumprimento das metas traçadas com o abuso de exceções e subterfúgios. É altura de darmos um forte sinal político que indique claramente uma trajetória de fim aos combustíveis fósseis, uma aposta nas tecnologias elétricas das fontes de energia renováveis e exigir uma maior transparência nas medições de gases emitidos. Carros eficientes trazem enormes benefícios. Além das emissões reduzidas, trazem mais competitividade à indústria europeia, trazem mais emprego e trazem menos dependência das importações de petróleo.

Ao privilegiar cotas de veículos ligeiros de baixas emissões e de emissões zero e, por outro lado, ao penalizar os restantes, estamos a permitir uma maior acessibilidade deste tipo de veículos com poupanças óbvias para o consumidor e para a qualidade do ar.

Caros Colegas, só há futuro com ar puro.

  John Howarth (S&D). – Mr President, I am delighted to support this report today, particularly the 40% reduction target for 2030 for both cars and light vans. It’s a big step forward in the ambition of the European Union and everyone who has, as I have, dealt with transport policy and looked at emissions from transport, knows that without serious action on emissions from vehicles, you will not meet climate targets and you will not address key problems of air quality in urban areas.

Every time we’ve had a step forward on this we’ve had to have the automotive industry dragged, kicking and screaming, in the direction of reform. But they have nothing to fear, because this will make the industry more competitive in the future and it is essential that we have just transition funding for workers who would otherwise, potentially, be thrown out of work because of these changes. I believe they have nothing to fear if we do this properly.

10.4. Ставки на ДДС (A8-0279/2018 - Tibor Szanyi)

Explicaciones de voto orales

  Morten Messerschmidt (ECR). – Hr. formand! Det er fuldstændigt centralt for en nations selvstændighed at have styr på det økonomiske, dvs. på skatteopkrævninger, på finansloven og også på den måde, som vi skattebelægger handlen på. Derfor stemte vi imod denne betænkning. Vi vil ikke være med til, at man fra EU’s side lægger en top-grænse på momsbetalinger. Helt grundlæggende bør det være sådan, at det er et medlemsstatsanliggende, hvordan man finansierer sine budgetter - og når EU skal have finansieret sine budgetter, så bør det være medlemslandene, som opkræver skatterne, og ikke EU selv. Så hele den linje, som denne betænkning lægger, er vi grundlæggende imod, fordi den fører til en øget føderalisering af hele finansieringssystemet, hele finanslovsystemet i Europa. Jeg tror ærligt talt ikke, at det er det, europæerne ønsker. Derfor stemmer vi nej.

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Korekty techniczne do dyrektywy VAT są niezbędne. Obserwuję tę dyrektywę przez pryzmat ogromnych kłopotów dotyczących e-publikacji. Trzeba pamiętać, że ponad dziesięć lat temu w różnych krajach usługi świadczone drogą elektroniczną zostały objęte bardzo różnymi stawkami: stawką zero, 5 %, 22 %, a nawet 23 %. Kilka dni temu Rada zgodziła się, aby właśnie na usługi świadczone drogą elektroniczną, w tym wypadku e-booki, obowiązywały stawki obniżone. Natomiast ta debata obejmująca właśnie tę dyrektywę pokazuje, jak wiele mamy do zrobienia w tym temacie. I bardzo się cieszę, że to zadanie zostało podjęte. Poparłem dyrektywę, poparłem sprawozdanie i mam nadzieję, że tempo reagowania na zmieniające się warunki prowadzenia działalności gospodarczej w przypadku VAT będzie szybsze i lepsze.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, οι χαμηλοί συντελεστές του φόρου προστιθέμενης αξίας συμβάλλουν στην ενίσχυση της ανταγωνιστικότητας, στην αντιστάθμιση του προβλήματος που υπάρχει λόγω της γεωγραφικής απομάκρυνσης των περιοχών, καθώς και του μεταφορικού κόστους. Και ενώ στα νησιά του Αιγαίου θα έπρεπε να υπάρχει χαμηλός συντελεστής φόρου προστιθέμενης αξίας, την ώρα που στην Τουρκία ο ΦΠΑ είναι μόνο 5%, όπως είπα και σε προηγούμενες παρεμβάσεις μου, η κυβέρνηση και η τρόικα επέβαλαν τον πιο υψηλό συντελεστή ΦΠΑ 24%, τη στιγμή που τα νησιά του Αιγαίου έχουν κατακλυστεί από χιλιάδες πρόσφυγες και παράνομους μετανάστες και διαλύεται o τουρισμός.

Ζητούμε ειδικό καθεστώς ΦΠΑ για τα νησιά του Αιγαίου, όπως αποφάσισε το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο για την περίπτωση του ιταλικού Δήμου Καμπιόνε ντ’ Ιτάλια και των ιταλικών υδάτων της λίμνης του Λουγκάνο, που έχουν εξαιρεθεί και έχουν χαμηλό ΦΠΑ, διότι χαμηλό ΦΠΑ έχει και η Ελβετία με την οποία γειτνιάζουν. Ζητούμε ειδικό καθεστώς ΦΠΑ για τα νησιά του Αιγαίου, για να μπορέσουν να σταθούν τα νησιά, να μπορέσουν να επιβιώσουν. Είναι η έκκληση την οποία απευθύνουμε.

10.5. Международни стандарти за финансово отчитане: МСФО 17 „Застрахователни договори“ (B8-0442/2018)

Explicaciones de voto orales

  Morten Messerschmidt (ECR). – Hr. formand! Et af de områder, hvor globaliseringen for alvor er slået igennem, det er selvfølgelig den finansielle sektor. Det tror jeg, vi alle er opmærksomme på og har været gennem de seneste ti år, begyndende med finanskrisen, som var noget af en øjenåbner, og hvad der er sket efterfølgende. Derfor giver det også god mening at lave disse nye regler, at få forsikringsaftaler, som sikrer et mere gennemskueligt og sammenligneligt system. I takt med den internationale udvikling og den finansielle globalisering vil stadig flere forbrugere have behov for instrumenter, som giver mulighed for nemt at sammenligne de ydelser, der bliver tilbudt på tværs af landegrænser. Her tror jeg på, at det, som ECON-udvalget er kommet op med i forhold til forsikringsaftaler, er noget, som vil være til gavn for rigtig mange forbrugere. Derfor har vi stemt for.

  Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök úr! Az indítvány az IFRS nemzetközi számviteli sztenderd kibővítését kezdeményezi a biztosítási szerződésekre. Jelenleg ezt a számviteli sztenderdet az EU-ban használják olyan vállalatok esetében, amelynek értékpapírjai az EU szabályozott piacán, a tőzsdén megjelentek. A jelentés kiemeli, hogy a biztosítási számvitelben jelentős különbségek vannak, többek között a bevételek és a nyereség megjelenítésében. Az indítvány több olyan pontot is tartalmaz, amelyek harmonizálják a biztosítási szerződésekre vonatkozó számviteli szabályokat a különböző országcsoportok között. A cél a biztosítási ágazaton belül, a pénzügyi kimutatások valósághű leírása, és jobb összehasonlíthatósága. Ezek alapján támogattam a jelentés elfogadását.

10.6. Технологии на разпределен регистър и блокверигите: създаване на доверие чрез премахване на посредничеството (B8-0397/2018)

Explicaciones de voto orales

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Pane předsedající, je velmi dobře, že se Evropský parlament začal zabývat novými fenomény v digitálním prostoru, ať už jsou to blockchainy nebo technologie sdílení, replikace a synchronizace dat. To jsou všechno fenomény nové, jsou to fenomény, které opravdu mají přeshraniční globální charakter, a tudíž svým způsobem patří do agendy minimálně Evropského parlamentu a jsou to také fenomény, které zcela jistě ovlivní digitální prostor v budoucnu. Budou mít vliv na tok informací, a tudíž i na ekonomiku.

Já jsem tuto zprávu podpořil, jenom bych se přimlouval za to, abychom při jakýchkoliv úvahách o kontrole nebo vytváření legislativy v případě těchto nových fenoménů byli opatrní a abychom se nepustili na tenký led. Jsou to citlivé věci a jak jsme viděli v několika minulých případech, když jsme zacházeli s internetem, s pokusy o regulace nejrůznějších záležitostí s tím spojených, tak to nebylo vždy dobře uchopeno.

10.7. Програма на ЕС за селските, планинските и отдалечените райони (B8-0399/2018)

Explicaciones de voto orales

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já bych chtěla vysvětlit, proč jsem podpořila zprávu o agendě Evropské unie pro venkovské, horské a vzdálené oblasti. Tato zpráva se zabývá územím, které je většinové v Evropské unii, 70 až 80 %, ale žije tady v tomto porovnání mnohem méně obyvatel, zhruba 20 %. Přesto, že se tedy jedná o tak velké území, týká se menšího počtu obyvatel. I tak je to území velmi důležité z hlediska zabezpečení potravin, svojí zemědělskou produkcí, z hlediska kvality životního prostředí, z hlediska produkce kyslíku, zadržování vody.

To všechno jsou velmi důležité funkce, které tyto oblasti mají a zaslouží si naši pozornost, naši ochranu. Také lidé, kteří v těchto oblastech žijí, potřebují stejně kvalitní služby. Proto považuji za důležité, aby Evropská unie neoslabovala politiky, které se týkají právě zajištění infrastruktury a kvality služeb v těchto územích, ať už je to společná zemědělská politika a další specifické programy.

  Момчил Неков (S&D). – Уважаеми г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, селските, планинските и отдалечените райони съставляват 80% от територията на Европейския съюз, като повече от половината от населението на Съюза живее в тях. Същевременно обаче голяма част от тях са лишени от редица услуги, като например социални услуги, качествена физическа или дигитална инфраструктура.

Не е тайна за никого, че населението, особено в планинските региони, е застаряващо поради липсата на перспективи и възможности за икономическо развитие. За това обаче трябва да се търси вина у правителствата на тези държави, които не предприемат необходимите мерки нашите препоръки да достигнат до хората.

В България преди близо две години беше изготвена целенасочена инвестиционна програма в подкрепа на развитието на Северозападна България, Родопите, Странджа и Сакар. За съжаление, явно тази стратегия остана в нечие бюро. Затова призовавам в най-кратки срокове българското правителство да предприеме конкретни мерки, насочени към създаването на икономически възможности за развитието на тези български региони. Хората от Смолянско, Странджа–Сакар и Северозападна България са също толкова европейци колкото всички останали в Европа.

  Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL). – Portugal, com a situação dos incêndios vivida recentemente, é o exemplo acabado do fracasso da política de coesão da União Europeia que, objetivamente, promoveu a desertificação do mundo rural com o encerramento de serviços públicos e com uma destruição em massa de milhares de explorações agrícolas e agora, lamentavelmente, a proposta de quadro financeiro plurianual, com menos verbas para a coesão, menos verbas para a Política Agrícola Comum e mais verbas para a Segurança e Defesa mantém as orientações políticas fundamentais da União Europeia, o que irá agravar a anemia social e económica vivida pelas zonas rurais e montanhosas.

Mas, sejamos sérios, pela parte do PCP, o combate às assimetrias regionais vai muito para além da política de coesão. Implica romper com os constrangimentos que decorrem das políticas da União Europeia, ao nível do euro, ao nível do mercado único. Só então será possível implementar em Portugal uma política de desenvolvimento regional equilibrada e ao serviço das populações.

  Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! To sprawozdanie to jest po prostu koncert życzeń. Chcecie dofinansowywać wszystko na koszt podatnika. Nie ma rzeczy, których byście ludziom nie obiecali, ludziom, którzy mieszkają daleko od innych ludzi. Nie wiadomo w imię czego, bo przecież jeśli mieszkanie na jakimś odludnym terenie się nie opłaca, to niech ludzie przeprowadzą się tam, gdzie się to opłaca, a nie siedzą nadal na odludziu, gdzie na koszt podatnika będziecie wysyłać im teraz transport miejski. Dopiero co uchwaliliśmy na tej samej sesji ograniczanie emisji, a teraz będziecie tam puszczać autobusy, żeby zamiast po mieście jeździły po górach i emitowały dwutlenek węgla. Po prostu sami nie wiecie, czego chcecie. Zastanówcie się ludzie, do czego tak naprawdę zmierzacie. Głosowałem przeciwko.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem tento návrh usnesení podpořil, já se na rozdíl od svého kolegy a předřečníka, pana Sośnierze, domnívám, že je velmi podstatné těm lidem, kteří žijí v těchto oblastech, ukázat naši pomocnou ruku. Já si rozhodně nepřeji, aby 80 % evropské populace do 10 let bydlelo v těch největších aglomeračních centrech. Představuje to velké riziko pro naši budoucnost. Pokud se skutečně sestěhují obyvatelé pouze do aglomerací a jejich prstenců.

My bychom měli investovat i do těchto horských oblastí právě proto, že tato krajina si to zasluhuje, že si to zasluhuje zemědělská výroba, která se tam provádí, a musíme investovat do infrastruktury, to znamená do dopravní obslužnosti toho území, ale i do služeb. Tam musí být dostupné zdravotnické, školské služby, služby sociální péče. Myslím si, že to území, o kterém hovořila kolegyně Šojdrová, je poměrně rozsáhlé a vypustit jej tak, jak naznačoval můj kolega, pan Sośnierz, to si myslím, že skutečně není žádný respekt k těm lidem, kteří tam žijí.

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Pane předsedající, já jsem tuto zprávu podpořil, myslím, že je částečnou starostí a zdůrazňuji částečnou starostí Evropské unie také péče o odlehlé, hornaté a zemědělské oblasti.

Na druhou stranu víme, že Evropský rozpočet je omezen, že v budoucnu určitě neporoste, a proto celá tato problematika musí být spojena také s revizí a reformou společné zemědělské politiky, která je doposud založena stále na podpoře produkce. A my ji musíme přetransformovat na podporu všestranného rozvoje právě těchto oblastí, to znamená tak, aby tam se rozvíjela infrastruktura, sítě, rostla kvalita života, také aby byla chráněna příroda, vodní hospodářství. To všechno spolu souvisí, a proto to musí jít ruku v ruce s restrukturalizací rozpočtu a s reformou společné zemědělské politiky. Já doufám, že v této zprávě se vydáváme právě tímto směrem.

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Wiele uwagi poświęcamy w Parlamencie Europejskim, ale nie tylko, polityce miejskiej. I trudno się dziwić – absolutna większość ludzi, zwłaszcza w państwach rozwiniętych, żyje w miastach. Także udział terenów wiejskich czy górskich w PKB w poszczególnych państwach jest minimalny, śladowy. Ale równość, równouprawnienie, zrównoważony rozwój – te wartości wymagają od nas odpowiedniego traktowania terenów wiejskich, górskich, oddalonych oraz ludzi, którzy tam żyją, społeczności lokalnych.

Chciałbym tylko zaznaczyć jedną kwestię, żeby z naszej dyskusji nie wynikało, że nie uwzględniamy potrzeb tych terenów i tych ludzi. Proszę spojrzeć, ile pieniędzy każdego roku i w każdej perspektywie finansowej zabezpieczane jest, czy to w ramach polityki spójności, czy to w ramach wspólnej polityki rolnej, właśnie na te cele, właśnie na te tereny, właśnie na te społeczności.

  El presidente. – Con esto concluimos las explicaciones de voto.

11. Поправки на вот и намерения за гласуване: вж. протокола

(Se suspende la sesión a las 13.46 horas).

Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA
varapuhemies

12. Възобновяване на заседанието

(Istuntoa jatkettiin klo 15.00.)

13. Одобряване на протокола от предишното заседание: вж. протокола

14. Минимални доходи за една справедлива Европа: право на гражданите (разискване по актуални въпроси)

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana työjärjestyksen 153 a artiklan mukainen ajankohtainen keskustelu vähimmäistulosta: kansalaisten oikeus oikeudenmukaisessa Euroopassa (2018/2864(RSP)).

  Laura Agea, autore. – Signora Presidente, Commissaria Thyssen, onorevoli colleghi, siamo molto soddisfatti che in questo Parlamento si discuta su nostra richiesta di reddito di cittadinanza. Già qualche mese fa, grazie al nostro lavoro, quest'Aula approvò un nostro testo sul reddito minimo come misura per ridurre la povertà.

Colleghi, per noi questo è un tema molto caro per due motivi. Uno, siamo italiani e in Italia non esiste il reddito di cittadinanza. È presente in 26 paesi europei su 28 ma non nel nostro. Due, siamo espressione di una forza politica, il Movimento 5 Stelle, che oggi è al governo del paese, una forza giovane fondata soltanto il 4 ottobre 2009.

Il reddito di cittadinanza è nel nostro DNA, da quel 4 ottobre del 2009. È stato fin da subito il sogno di Beppe Grillo e di Gian Roberto Casaleggio. C'è rimasto in tutti questi anni, è entrato nel nostro programma, lo abbiamo portato in tutte le piazze. Abbiamo fatto più volte a piedi il cammino da Perugia ad Assisi, e lo abbiamo fatto diventare un tema al centro del dibattito politico.

Ricordo ancora quei primi anni, si trattava di un'idea semplice, ma è anche vero che le cose semplici sono le più straordinarie. Non ci sembrava neppure qualcosa di nuovo, togliere dalla disperazione e dalla povertà milioni di poveri. In tutti questi anni lo abbiamo vissuto come un obbligo morale, e vi dirò di più, ci sembrava una battaglia di civiltà in cui le appartenenze politiche dovevano scomparire. Pensavamo che chi si oppone al reddito di cittadinanza si oppone agli italiani, non al Movimento 5 Stelle, e invece in Italia è stata fatta una stupida, devastante guerra ideologica alla nostra proposta. Credevano di colpire noi, ma non si accorgevano di fare del male ai milioni di poveri che le loro politiche sociali continuavano a far aumentare.

In quegli anni, noi lo continuavamo a dire "state tranquilli, quando andremo al governo faremo il reddito di cittadinanza", lo voglio dire a tutti i cittadini che vivono in povertà assoluta, come Anna che qualche anno fa mi scrisse per raccontarmi la sua storia. La sua è una storia come tante, moglie e marito con un'attività lavorativa fallita per colpa della crisi, la ricerca di un lavoro che non si trova, la disperazione, il dramma infinito di non sapere come arrivare a fine giornata e la vigliaccheria di uno Stato che non dava risposte, che girava la testa dall'altra parte, perché ad alcuni politici le tabelle e i numeri scaldano il cuore più che la sofferenza di una persona.

La tua storia, Anna, l'ho portata con me al Parlamento europeo, la tua esperienza di vita è stata la mia agenda di lavoro. Te l'avevo promesso, anzi te l'avevo giurato, a te e a tutte le persone che non riescono a trovare un posto di lavoro. A tutte le Anna figlie e vittime di una devastante crisi economica. In questi anni ho desiderato che arrivasse questo momento come nulla al mondo per abbracciarti e poterti dire "non ti abbiamo lasciato sola, abbiamo mantenuto la promessa".

Con il governo del cambiamento, in Italia ci sarà il reddito di cittadinanza per più di sei milioni di cittadini. È una misura epocale, stiamo cancellando la povertà in Italia, ridando stimolo ai consumi e rilanciando l'economia. Non si può vincere con chi non si arrende mai, diceva Gian Roberto Casaleggio, noi non ci siamo mai arresi, e il sogno che nove anni fa era di pochi, oggi è il sogno di tutti. In alto i cuori dei più deboli.

  Juliane Bogner-Strauss, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to contribute to your debate on minimum income. Our joint commitments to the European people are to protect those most vulnerable, to create adequate jobs and to lift up those who have fallen behind. Less than a year ago, we reaffirmed the basic principles – the European Pillar of Social Rights, Principle 14 states that everyone lacking sufficient resources has the right to adequate minimum income benefits, ensuring a life with dignity at all stages of life.

In 2008, the banking crisis and the ensuing sovereign debt crisis tested our economies, shocked our labour markets and put a strain on our social protection system. Unemployment rates and at-risk-of-poverty rates soared throughout the EU. In the past decade, we have had to tackle manifold emergency situations. However, with determination and hard work and by taking difficult decisions, we have managed to restore our economies. In 2017, the EU average unemployment rate stood at 7.3% and employment exceeded its pre-crisis peak. Albeit with some delay, youth unemployment and long-term unemployment also continue to decline.

Today, thanks to our combined efforts, the Europe 2020 strategy target of 75% employment rate for men and women seems again to be within reach.

While the picture looks positive from certain angles, there is no place for complacency. The total number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion remains very high. In 2016, 118 million European citizens, 23.5% of the total population, were at risk of poverty, even after social transfers. It is clear we still have a long way to go before we reach the Europe 2020 target of lifting at least 20 million people out of poverty.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are all increasingly aware that economic growth must be to the benefit of all and must be socially sustainable. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that almost all Member States have made a real effort and have established schemes for minimum income or benefit in one form or another. Furthermore, Member States are making good use of the open method of coordination (OMC), to cooperate and to exchange best practices.

The European Semester equally has provided an excellent platform for cooperation in this area. However, minimum income schemes do not exist in a vacuum. The real challenge is to establish inclusive labour markets to make sure that people don’t fall through the social net and, at the same time, to ensure that national social security systems remain sustainable. Balancing these elements is not an easy task, especially if we look at the wider context of an ageing population and increased digitalisation and robotisation.

Again, I am grateful for your invitation to contribute to this debate. It was with great interest that we took note of Parliament’s latest resolution on minimum income policies as a tool for fighting poverty. I’m looking forward to hearing your input on this important matter.

  Marianne Thyssen, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I am very glad that this House keeps social issues high on its agenda and debates them regularly. As President Juncker said in his State of the Union address, Europe has largely turned a page on the economic and financial crisis, and this is well reflected in the employment and social situation in Europe.

Employment has indeed been growing for more than five years in a row and there are now 239 million people at work in the European Union. This is more than ever before. The unemployment rate has dropped to 6.8%. These are the figures from Eurostat for August 2018. In 2016, there were 5.6 million fewer people at risk of poverty or social exclusion than at the peak of 2012, and there are clear signs that the situation has further improved since. For instance, severe material deprivation declined in almost all Member States, falling to an all—time low of 33.4 million in 2017. This is a reduction of 16 million people since 2012.

Having said this, we should not be complacent. Thirty—three million materially deprived people is still too many, and we know that income inequality has stabilised in the last few years, but at higher levels in the European Union than before the crisis. Moreover, the overall number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion, albeit reduced relative to 2012, is still higher now in 2018. This is, as we all know, far from the Europe 2020 target of taking 20 million people out of risk of poverty and social exclusion, and that is why the Commission has proposed to act.

A year ago we all proclaimed the European Pillar of Social Rights, which recognises that everyone lacking sufficient resources has the right to adequate minimum income benefits ensuring a life in dignity at all stages of life, and effective access to enabling goods and services. For those who can work, minimum income benefits should be combined with incentives to integrate or reintegrate into the labour market. That is what the Pillar says. In other words, the provision of adequate minimum income schemes is non—discriminatory and should go hand—in—hand with access to services, with employment in line with the active inclusion approach.

However, I would like to recall that the setting—up of minimum income benefits is the responsibility of Member States. Since the introduction of minimum income schemes in Greece and Italy in the last two years, now all Member States have some form of minimum income scheme. However, their design and implementation vary greatly.

For this reason, the Commission and Member States have decided to deepen the analysis. A benchmarking framework has been agreed with Member States for minimum income schemes supporting a thorough across—country comparison of national practices. It looks in particular at adequacy, coverage and activation and it will feed into the country—specific analysis in the 2019 European Semester.

The European Semester has proved to be an effective framework to monitor and provide guidance to Member States. It is now the main instrument for monitoring the implementation of the Pillar. In 2018, some Member States received country—specific recommendations addressing minimum income. And, of course, the European Semester framework allows us to have a comprehensive view, including the availability of fiscal space to expand social provision.

In addition, the Commission has already put forward proposals and initiatives that want to make sure no one is left behind. To ensure the rights for the most vulnerable workers we presented the proposal for a directive on transparent and predictable working conditions to tackle women’s under—representation in employment and to create a more balanced distribution of caring responsibilities between women and men we put forward the work—life balance for parents and carers initiative.

So this is just to mention a few of our initiatives on the table. They now need to be adopted and implemented and, honourable Members, I count on your support to make sure that they will be adopted within the current mandate of this Parliament.

  Sofia Ribeiro, em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, este é, de facto, um assunto que tem de envolver toda a União Europeia. Nós estamos a falar de cerca de 120 milhões de cidadãos europeus que estão em risco de pobreza e de exclusão social. Estamos a falar de 25 % de cidadãos europeus nesta situação, o que é inadmissível e que urge corrigir de imediato.

Se queremos prosseguir o modelo social europeu, este sonho de que possa haver progressão social, temos efetivamente que dirigirmo-nos a esta questão, que é absolutamente emergente. É, sim, é um facto que há diferenças substanciais entre os vários Estados-Membros, mas temos que garantir, temos de orientar as políticas públicas em toda a União para que os apoios sociais, o rendimento mínimo possa ser, de facto, um rendimento, um apoio, que seja devidamente adequado às situações sociais dos vários Estados-Membros.

No meu caso, em especial, nos Açores, a situação é dramática, nós falamos de cerca de 25 % dos beneficiários em idade ativa estarem dependentes de rendimentos sociais de inserção, que é assim que eles são se chamam no meu país. Mas no último ano, pasmemo—nos, já não estamos em crise económica e social, e os números de beneficiários do rendimento social de inserção dos Açores e em Portugal têm vindo a aumentar dramaticamente e, portanto, alguma coisa não está a correr bem quando nos dirigimos às questões dos apoios públicos e aqui há que trabalhar em várias dimensões, há que trabalhar numa dimensão da prevenção que, obviamente, tem que estar munida dos devidos apoios a nível do mercado de trabalho para que estas pessoas possam estar devidamente colocadas e, obviamente, terem a formação e educação necessária para não estarem nestes regimes de dependência e é preciso, obviamente, que o rendimento mínimo seja essencialmente uma política de inserção e não uma política de subsidiodependência e é aqui que nós temos que melhorar as respostas públicas que nós damos com equipas multidisciplinares para que, efetivamente, não estejamos apenas a dar um apoio social às nossas sociedades mas a garantir a tal progressão social, este tal sonho europeu que todos nós almejamos e que possa efetivamente ter sucesso, garantindo que estas pessoas, efetivamente, passam por uma situação melhor.

O pilar europeu dos direitos sociais é um bom instrumento para que isso aconteça, mas é preciso que o implementemos nos nossos Estados-Membros de forma a que, efetivamente, as pessoas sintam que têm uma Europa melhor.

  Mercedes Bresso, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, come gruppo dei Socialisti e democratici abbiamo voluto fortemente il pilastro europeo dei diritti sociali, che prevede, tra l'altro, misure di sostegno al reddito per le persone in difficoltà e a rischio di povertà, perché crediamo che nessuno debba essere lasciato indietro e che tutti i cittadini abbiano diritto a condizioni di vita, sociali ed economiche dignitose.

Abbiamo sostenuto, in particolare, proposte per i più deboli come la Youth Guarantee per i nostri giovani, la Child Guarantee per i nostri bambini, e abbiamo promosso concreti aiuti alle famiglie, in particolare a quelle monogenitoriali con a capo una donna che sono quelle che hanno quasi il 50% di rischio di cadere nella povertà.

Crediamo, tuttavia, che il primo diritto di una persona sia quello di un lavoro, un lavoro dignitoso, sicuro, stabile e tutelato, un lavoro che consenta a ciascuno di essere parte attiva della società e contribuire alla sua crescita. Crediamo che il lavoro vada pagato e pagato il giusto. Per questo il nostro gruppo ha lanciato per primo la proposta di un salario minimo garantito a livello europeo. E parliamo di salario minimo garantito, non solo di reddito.

Crediamo che un salario minimo per tutti i lavoratori consenta di condurre una vita serena con un lavoro vero per tutti, ed è questo il nostro principale obiettivo. Tutto questo, ovviamente, nel quadro di investimenti capaci di far crescere l'economia e stimolare la partecipazione delle persone alla società, soprattutto con forti politiche attive del lavoro, di formazione e un supporto continuo.

Tutele e diritti non devono però trasformarsi in forme di assistenzialismo che guarda al passato, ma devono fare in modo che tutti abbiano l'opportunità di contribuire alla crescita della società e di non esserne esclusi. Il dibattito in corso è però molto legato a un dibattito politico interno italiano che sta predisponendo una misura che ci pare discriminatoria e punitiva, visto che ad esempio sarebbe riservato solo ai cittadini italiani, contro le regole europee, che dicono invece che deve essere riservato a tutte le persone a rischio di povertà che vivono nei paesi.

  Bernd Lucke, im Namen der ECR-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Meine Damen und Herren! Diese Debatte, die wir hier führen, ist wieder ein Beispiel dafür, wie die Kommission und wie der Rat mit Begriffsbildungen die Bürger irreführen. Denn wir sprechen hier jetzt plötzlich über ein Mindesteinkommen. Aber das ist falsch, meine Damen und Herren. Frau Bresso hat darauf eben schon hingewiesen. Wir sprechen nicht über ein Einkommen, wir sprechen über eine Mindestsozialunterstützung.

Ein Einkommen ist etwas, das mit Erwerbsarbeit verbunden ist. Ein Einkommen ist etwas, das mit Anstrengung und auch mit Erfüllung verbunden ist, weil man eben arbeiten kann und weil man arbeiten darf. Wer hier von einem Mindesteinkommen gesprochen hat – die Vertreterin der Kommission, die Vertreterin des Rates, die Vertreter bestimmter politischer Parteien –, hat die Bürger irregeführt, weil sie den Eindruck erwecken, dass ein Problem gelöst wird, das tatsächlich dadurch verdauert wird, dass man eine Mindestsozialunterstützung zahlt und damit die Menschen in der Beschäftigungslosigkeit zu halten versucht. Oder zumindest besteht die Gefahr, dass sie in der Beschäftigungslosigkeit bleiben, eben weil sie diese Art von Unterstützung bekommen.

Es ist ja eine Selbstverständlichkeit, dass wir ein Mindestniveau an sozialer Unterstützung für diejenigen leisten, die arbeitslos sind. Ganz klar, das bestreitet niemand. Ich finde es eigentlich geradezu lächerlich, dass wir darüber heute noch einmal sprechen müssen. Das eigentliche Problem ist doch aber: Wie bekommen wir denn die Menschen, die eine soziale Unterstützung kriegen, weil sie keine Arbeit haben, in die Arbeit hinein? D. h. wir müssen noch darüber reden, welche Anreize wir den Menschen setzen, in die Arbeit zu wechseln, wenn sie soziale Unterstützung bekommen.

Da gibt es dann beispielsweise diese Vorstellung von einem bedingungslosen Grundeinkommen, die durchaus eine interessante Vorstellung ist, die aber natürlich immer die Frage beantworten muss, wie groß die Verlockungen sind, sich auf diesem Grundeinkommen dann irgendwie auszuruhen und gerade nicht in die Erwerbstätigkeit hineinzuwechseln, und die auch die Frage beantworten muss, wer das denn eigentlich finanzieren soll und wann die Steuerpflicht einsetzt. Diejenigen, die nur über die soziale Unterstützung reden und nicht darüber reden, welche Anreize für Erwerbstätigkeit geschaffen werden, die führen die Bürger in die Irre, weil sie nicht die richtigen Fragen stellen.

  Enrique Calvet Chambon, en nombre del Grupo ALDE. – Señora presidenta, señora Thyssen, muchas gracias por hablar de nuestros asuntos. La renta mínima o renta mínima de inserción, o algún modelo de renta mínima, que hay muchos, ya está reconocida en el pilar de los derechos sociales y hace un año, casi todos los días, el Parlamento dijo que es un instrumento fundamental para luchar contra la pobreza. Por tanto, ahí hay poco de lo que hablar. Lo que hay que hacer es ponerse manos a la obra.

Por supuesto que la Comisión ha hecho cosas, pero a lo mejor, dentro de todo lo que hay que desarrollar del pilar social, debe intensificar sus esfuerzos, y debe intensificarlos porque lo que hace la renta mínima es atacar un problema muy duro, que es la pobreza. Es inadmisible que las zonas ricas del mundo seamos capaces de mantener todavía bolsas de pobreza. Y hay que atacar esto. Se demuestra, por los estudios, que los sistemas de renta mínima son eficaces en eso.

Y dicho esto, y que el Grupo ALDE apoya totalmente ese derecho y la puesta en práctica inteligente de ese derecho, sí es menester hablar precisamente de que eso está en manos de los países y de qué puede hacer la Comisión, y yo diría que de manera urgente. En ese campo, es evidente que la renta mínima es solo una medida más para ayudar a la inclusión de las personas. ¿Por qué?

Porque el segundo punto que le digo es evidente para el Grupo ALDE: no creemos en las sociedades asistidas. Son indignas. No creemos en las personas asistidas. Tiene que ser transitorio y todo tiene que ir a sacarlas de ahí.

Segundo punto. Evidentemente, las rentas mínimas tienen que estar al servicio de la cohesión de las naciones y de Europa porque, si no, económicamente es un desastre. Ha hecho usted muy bien en señalar en el Semestre Europeo para España cómo la regionalización, por ejemplo, de las rentas mínimas es un factor de exclusión y desigualdad brutal. Y eso tiene que estar sometido a la vigilancia de la Comisión.

Y, finalmente, la financiación. No hay que temer hablar de una financiación solidaria europea en estos temas.

  Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, we’re coming up to the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty on 17 October, so this is a very timely debate, and I thank my colleagues for proposing it. The minimum income scheme that we’ve been talking about in Parliament is about the last resort income so that people are not left destitute. We should also be aware in this that we’re not talking here about unemployment benefit, because not everybody is in a position to be able to work.

This is, as people have said, an ongoing problem for the European Union. It’s really disturbing to hear the Commissioner remind us about the stabilising of income inequality. Even in my own region, London, which is just about the richest region in the European Union, we have over one—in—three children who are living below the poverty line. So when we’re looking at questions about minimum income, adequacy is a key point. Many of our Member States’ systems don’t ensure adequacy; they don’t keep up with the rising cost of living; they cap systems; they have harsh criteria in many cases, and they certainly have an increasingly harsh public perception of people who are on these schemes.

When we’re looking at what else the European Union can do, we should come back to an idea that was floated some time ago by the Anti—Poverty Network, which is about putting in place a directive setting out the principles upon which minimum income schemes should be based within our Member States.

  Tania González Peñas, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora presidenta, señorías, parece que queremos producir, producir y producir más, y luego no le damos a nadie los medios para que consuma lo que producimos. Parece que estamos atrapados en una especie de chiste de los Hermanos Marx.

Queremos proteger y proteger nuestras fronteras, pero luego no nos protegemos entre nosotros y entre nosotras.

Hay mucha gente a nuestro alrededor, hay mucha gente en Europa —decenas de millones de personas— que no puede pagar una vivienda digna, que no puede permitirse una alimentación adecuada, que no puede pagar los libros de texto de sus hijos, o que no puede pagar la calefacción en invierno.

La renta mínima no es ningún privilegio, es una urgencia. Desde luego, no debe ser una limosna, sino que es un derecho.

Porque, señorías, seamos conscientes: Europa solamente tiene futuro si no nos vamos dejando por el camino a millones de personas. Garantizar el derecho a la vida, que nuestra gente tenga la existencia garantizada, debe ser la columna vertebral de la Unión, de nuestra Unión.

  Laura Ferrara, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la richiesta di dignità e giustizia sociale proveniente da milioni di cittadini che vivono il dramma della povertà, della mancanza di lavoro e dell'esclusione sociale ha bisogno di immediate risposte, non si può più attendere di fronte ai fallimenti, agli alti costi sociali delle politiche di austerity per le quali a pagare il prezzo più alto è sempre la parte più debole della società.

Abbiamo alimentato economie di cui non beneficiano tutti, ma pochi, che tendono a smantellare il sistema di tutele dei lavoratori e delle categorie più vulnerabili, lasciando insoddisfatti i bisogni di chi vive situazioni di estremo disagio sociale, economie che consentono lo sfruttamento del lavoro, sconfinante in forme di neoschiavismo, ad esempio il caporalato.

La ricchezza continua a concentrarsi nelle mani di pochi e non riesce ad arginare la diffusione dell'indigenza, della mancanza di opportunità lavorative, di diseguaglianze prodotte in nome di manovre che devono tener conto di riduzione del debito, di pareggio del bilancio, di fiducia dei mercati. È arrivato il momento per l'Europa di cambiare rotta e di rimediare alle politiche sbagliate che hanno prodotto tutto ciò.

È in questo contesto che si inserisce la concessione di un reddito minimo, accompagnato da misure dirette all'inserimento nel mondo del lavoro, a programmi di istruzione e formazione e che facciano ripartire l'economia reale. Ne è un esempio il reddito di cittadinanza che il governo italiano vuole realizzare attraverso la manovra del popolo.

Non stiamo parlando di forme di carità o di assistenzialismo, ma di uno strumento di riscatto sociale, di inclusione e di partecipazione alla società, che assicuri il pieno esercizio dei diritti fondamentali, uno strumento che servirà anche a contrastare l'azione di mafie e di corruzione, che si alimentano della condizione di ricattabilità economica per colpire e limitare le libertà individuali, i diritti e per attrarre nel mondo dell'illegalità chi versa in stato di bisogno.

Il reddito minimo di cui ha bisogno un'Europa che vuole essere più equa e giusta deve essere uno strumento di civiltà, che dia pari dignità e pari opportunità a tutti i cittadini e non faccia rimanere nessuno indietro.

  Joëlle Mélin, au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, le revenu de citoyenneté ou le revenu minimum, tel que présenté aujourd’hui, est un essai de réponse à un des aspects les plus flagrants de l’échec de soixante ans de construction européenne. Celle-ci n’a en aucun cas apporté de suite au mouvement de prospérité issu des années fastes de la reconstruction d’après-guerre. Elle n’a pas non plus empêché ni amorti la grande crise de 2008.

Aujourd’hui, il ne suffit plus de travailler pour échapper à la pauvreté. Cela est bien sûr inacceptable. De plus, presque tous les pays européens ont un salaire minimum et/ou un minimum vieillesse et/ou des minima sociaux. Pourtant, tous ces minima sont eux- mêmes en dessous du seuil de pauvreté.

C’est donc une politique globale européenne de relance économique formant les individus et libérant les entreprises qui devient urgente, mais aussi de grandes politiques globales de responsabilité directe des États membres, qui devraient permettre de préserver leur système social.

Cessons donc de traiter les conséquences et attaquons-nous enfin aux causes!

  Σωτήριος Ζαριανόπουλος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το ελάχιστο εγγυημένο εισόδημα, καύχημα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, ακροδεξιών, φιλελεύθερων, σοσιαλδημοκρατών, νεοαριστερών και οπορτουνιστών, που ομόθυμα το στηρίζουν, είναι κοροϊδία και παγίδα. Μοιράζει φτώχεια. Το πληρώνουν με φόρους οι λιγότερο φτωχοί, ποτέ όμως οι επιχειρήσεις που φοροαπαλλάσσονται, εισφοροαπαλλάσσονται και επιδοτούνται. Προβάλλεται σαν δίχτυ ασφάλειας για τα θέματα των απελευθερωμένων πλέον απολύσεων, της υψηλής ανεργίας, της ακραίας φτώχειας, για να προληφθούν κοινωνικές εκρήξεις, κυρίως για να συμπιεστούν προς τα κάτω όλοι οι μισθοί, να καταργηθούν κοινωνικά επιδόματα. Χτυπά τις συλλογικές συμβάσεις: βλέπε Γαλλία του Μακρόν, Ελλάδα του Τσίπρα, που δήθεν βγαίνει από τα μνημόνια, αλλά ξαναψηφίζει και εφαρμόζει μνημονιακό νόμο για ουσιαστική κατάργηση των συλλογικών συμβάσεων, ορισμό του κατώτερου μισθού από το κράτος με κριτήριο τα κέρδη και την ανταγωνιστικότητα των επιχειρήσεων· ό,τι απαιτούν οι καπιταλιστές.

Οι εργαζόμενοι πρέπει να απορρίψουν αυτό τον δούρειο ίππο, τις ελεημοσύνες και το μικρότερο κακό που αποδεικνύεται πάντα μεγαλύτερο. Με την πανελλαδική απεργία τον Νοέμβρη στην Ελλάδα, να διεκδικήσουν συλλογικές συμβάσεις, αναπλήρωση των απωλειών, αυξημένα επιδόματα σε όλη τη διάρκεια της ανεργίας για όλους τους ανέργους.

  Romana Tomc (PPE). – Hvala lepa za besedo, gospa predsedujoča.

Ideja o minimalnem dohodku seveda ni nova. V mnogih državah jo že uspešno izvajajo in tudi sama jo zagovarjam, pri čemer pa naj takoj povem, da ne govorim o univerzalnem temeljnem dohodku niti o minimalni plači, kajti ti pojmi se med seboj prepogosto mešajo. In to moramo razčistiti, da ne bomo imeli napačnih predstav, kajti tudi danes v tej dvorani je bilo kar nekaj zmešnjave. Govorim o tem, da bi morali imeti vsi državljani možnost, da dobijo pomoč, ki lahko rečemo tudi minimalni dohodek ali pa socialni transfer, kadar to pomoč utemeljeno potrebujejo. Ko pa se o tem pogovarjamo na evropski ravni, moramo biti seveda pozorni na subsidiarnost, upoštevati moramo različno ekonomsko razvitost med državami in ne moremo izvajati prisile, lahko pa spodbudimo države članice k temu, da določijo primeren minimalni dohodek v svojih nacionalnih zakonodajah. Vendar minimalni dohodek ne sme biti le pravica, ki je samoumevna. Ta pravica mora biti povezana tudi z obveznostmi in odgovornostjo in velikokrat sprejemamo tudi tu v Parlamentu predpise, kjer pozabljamo na to vzajemnost. V Evropi želimo ohraniti socialni standard, ki smo ga navajeni, in naš standard je najvišji na svetu. To je dobro. Hkrati pa moramo biti pozorni na to, da na račun visokih socialnih pravic ne razvrednotimo pomen dela in dostojnega plačila za delo, razmerja med minimalnim plačilom za delo in minimalnim dohodkom, ki je, kakor lahko razumemo tudi iz te razprave, pravzaprav socialna pomoč.

To razmerje je v nekaterih državah, med drugim tudi v moji državi, povsem neprimerno

in to seveda ne spodbuja ljudi, da aktivno iščejo delo, ampak jih spodbuja v pasivnost. Pri naših politikah moramo biti na to pozorni.

  Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, al hilo del debate, ¿pretendemos crear una ayuda universal para las personas por el hecho de ser ciudadanos? No.

¿Qué pretendemos? Pretendemos crear una nueva red de seguridad que proteja a la gente ante la adversidad; que, cuando una persona ha perdido el desempleo y toda ayuda económica, mediante la redistribución de la riqueza a través de los poderes públicos creemos una nueva red de seguridad para evitar que caigan en la pobreza.

Pretendemos eso, ¿desde cuándo? Precisamente desde que se crea una situación de vulnerabilidad cercana a la pobreza. ¿Hasta cuándo? Hasta que se es capaz de encontrar un puesto de trabajo y, por supuesto, vinculado a la voluntad de encontrar un puesto de trabajo.

Pero yo creo que tenemos que ser conscientes de que crear una renta mínima es un nuevo instrumento ⸻que es verdad que hemos consagrado en el pilar social⸻ que lo que hace es dar más dignidad a las sociedades democráticas, porque no solo es una medida de justicia social, también es una medida de eficiencia económica y una medida que impide que mucha gente se desvincule de los sistemas democráticos precisamente porque la democracia les ha quitado la última oportunidad, les ha dejado caerse por el barranco de las crisis económicas o de las recesiones económicas.

Pero, señora Thyssen, comparto sus buenas palabras, pero necesitamos no solo buenas palabras. Necesitamos actividad política, iniciativa política. Hemos creado y consagrado la renta mínima dentro del pilar social y eso nos permite, también, consagrarla como una política europea pidiendo una directiva que regule, que obligue a los Estados miembros a desarrollar los sistemas de rentas mínimas.

No podemos consagrar el pilar social, la renta mínima dentro del pilar social y abocarlo a la inactividad política en la Unión Europea. Tenemos la posibilidad de crear una directiva que permita el desarrollo en toda la Unión Europea, en el conjunto de los Estados miembros, de sistemas de rentas con cierta homogeneidad.

Porque, señora comisaria, necesitamos corresponsabilidad. Todos estamos de acuerdo en que es un buen instrumento para promover la justicia social y la eficiencia económica. Si todos estamos de acuerdo, hagamos entre todos que las palabras se conviertan en hechos.

  Bernd Kölmel (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin! Egal, wie wir den Gegenstand dieser Debatte nennen, ob wir es Bürgereinkommen nennen oder bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen oder Mindesteinkommen: Wir reden stets über Umverteilung, und Umverteilung führt regelmäßig nicht dazu, dass die armen Menschen reicher werden, sondern dass die Reichen ärmer werden. Das heißt, es ist der völlig falsche Weg, um hier irgendetwas Vernünftiges, Nachhaltiges erzielen zu können. Denn bei einem bedingungslosen Grundeinkommen wird man immer die Frage beantworten müssen, in welcher Höhe dieses gezahlt werden soll. Soll es tatsächlich jeder erhalten, auch ein Millionär? Oder muss ich Bürokratie dafür einführen?

All das sind ungeklärte Fragen, die man aber vorher beantworten muss. Aber ganz entscheidend ist daneben auch noch: Diese Frage gehört nicht im Europäischen Parlament beantwortet, denn das ist eine Frage, die die Staaten der EU in souveräner Entscheidung für sich definieren müssen. Und dabei müssen sie entscheiden, was sie sich an sozialen Wohltaten leisten können und wollen. Das darf jedes Land für sich entscheiden.

Man darf doch aber hier nicht die Augen verschließen, dass speziell die Staaten der Eurozone hier ganz besondere Verpflichtungen haben. Wer an einer gemeinsamen Währung partizipiert, muss sich auch an die gemeinsamen Regeln halten, z. B. an die Verschuldungsgrenzen. Wenn wir jetzt zum Beispiel Italien nehmen, weil nun mal die Begründung dieses Antrags von einer Vertreterin Italiens kommt, da haben wir 134 % Verschuldungsgrad bezogen auf das Bruttoinlandsprodukt. Wenn also Italien sich so etwas leisten will, dann ist es ja wunderbar. Aber die Frage muss doch dann in Italien gestellt werden: Kann man sich das leisten?

Deshalb meine ich, dass wir nicht auf europäischer Ebene solche Maßnahmen beschließen können, die dann dazu führen, dass im Ergebnis die Solidarität beschädigt wird, weil wir ansonsten Transfers einführen, die in keinster Weise gerechtfertigt sind.

  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Madam President, coming from Sweden, I can only reassure my colleagues that I am very committed to keeping a strong safety net that can alleviate the impacts of poverty and social exclusion. However, listening to this debate, I have a feeling that some of you are proposing the basic income guarantee, which is a completely different thing. There, I have to say the basic income guarantee undermines the incentive to participate in society.

The help and minimum income connected to it should be designed to help overcome unemployment and find work for those able to work. Help can never be an unconditional free ride for healthy adult people to live off other people’s incomes. On the contrary, if you design it that way, you are likely to lead to high rates of inequality and poverty. Reallocating welfare payments from targeted transfers, those for unemployment, housing disability, etc. to a generalised transfer for everyone, means that the amount that goes to the most deserving will be lower. Do we really want less for everybody? Do we really want less for those who need more?

Therefore, I urge you, we have to have a minimum income in a certain way, designed to help overcoming the troubles and the poverty that exist, but if you design it as an income guarantee you will end up stripping people of the incentive to participate in society and make it worse for the needy.

  Florent Marcellesi (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, Europa es una de las sociedades más ricas del mundo; por eso, no podemos permitir que haya gente que aquí viva en la pobreza.

Para terminar con este escándalo social, Europa tendría que dar un paso adelante, a la altura del que dio con la seguridad social después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. ¡Pues sí! Apostemos a nivel europeo por una renta básica universal como señal de identidad de la Europa del siglo XXI.

Hay personas en situación de pobreza que no tienen trabajo, y trabajos, como los cuidados, que no son reconocidos. Además, hay profundos cambios tecnológicos que cambian el concepto de trabajo, y también otras formas de aportar a la sociedad que van más allá de la producción y del consumo.

La renta básica universal es una respuesta a estos desafíos y, sobre todo, es una gran oportunidad para cohesionar nuestro continente después de la crisis de 2008, darle un nuevo impulso justo y sostenible y ser, de nuevo, un ejemplo para este mundo.

Espero que la Comisión Europea, señora comisaria, lo estudie.

  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL). – Madame la Présidente, plus de 120 millions de pauvres, dont des travailleurs, c’est une profonde balafre au fronton de l’Union européenne.

Nous devrions agir pour que tout citoyen vivant au sein de l’Union européenne bénéficie d’un revenu minimum décent, c’est-à-dire bien au-dessus du seuil de pauvreté, combiné à un droit effectif à la santé, au logement et à une formation débouchant sur la garantie d’un travail pour lequel il ne devrait plus y avoir de salaire en deçà de 60 % du salaire médian européen.

Mais la question principale est celle du travail et de sa rémunération. Madame la Commissaire, vous devriez lancer une directive-cadre pour une sécurité sociale professionnelle combinant une garantie du travail et de la formation tout au long de la vie pour chacune et chacun des citoyens européens ainsi que le droit à la santé et au logement. Les moyens financiers des grandes entreprises aujourd’hui, ceux des banques, les crédits de la Banque centrale donnés aux banques privées, existent aujourd’hui pour cela. Bref, il est urgent de créer une Europe du travail.

  Michał Marusik (ENF). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Proszę Państwa! Musimy popatrzeć na nieuchronną zależność przyczyn i skutków w gospodarce. Jeżeli w dobrowolnie zawarte kontrakty zaingerujemy w ten sposób, że ktoś jest zmuszony do wypłaty większych kwot, niż wynegocjował na rynku, to niektóre kontrakty nie zostaną zrealizowane. Będą zerwane niektóre umowy i ludzie przejdą na utrzymanie tych nielicznych, którzy zostaną w pracy. Ale w wypadku tych kontraktów, które zostaną utrzymane po wyższych cenach wymuszonych, po prostu zwiększą się koszty wytwarzania i zwiększą się ceny towarów i usług. Będziemy mogli mniej kupić. Będziemy ubożsi. A jeżeli będziemy mogli mniej kupić, spada popyt konsumpcyjny, to spadnie i produkcja, więc, proszę państwa, apeluję o rozsądek, bo ignorancja w ekonomii prowadzi do sabotażu. No nie bądźmy tym miejscem, które powoduje katastrofę gospodarczą całej Europy. Myślmy trochę rozsądniej. Niektóre demagogiczne słowa pięknie brzmią, ale tym się nikt nie naje.

  Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το ελάχιστο εισόδημα δεν είναι παρά ένα ευχολόγιο που χρησιμοποιείται, διότι ακούγεται όμορφα στα αυτιά όσων δεν έχουν τα μέσα για να επιβιώσουν ή να συντηρήσουν τις οικογένειές τους. Η πραγματικότητα όμως είναι πολύ πιο διαφορετική από τις εξαγγελίες σας.

Αρχικά ο στόχος θα έπρεπε να είναι η δημιουργία και η εξασφάλιση αξιοπρεπώς αμειβόμενων θέσεων απασχόλησης σε όσους επιθυμούν να εργαστούν και όχι αόριστα η εξασφάλιση κάποιου εισοδήματος. Πώς όμως αποφεύγεται ο κίνδυνος να ενισχυθούν περιπτώσεις εκμετάλλευσης των κρατικών επιδομάτων, κυρίως από μετανάστες, οι οποίοι γιατί να εργαστούν, αφού το ελάχιστο εγγυημένο εισόδημα τους εξασφαλίζει εύκολα τα προς το ζην; Η λογική των επιδομάτων και των ευέλικτων μορφών απασχόλησης με μισθούς πολύ χαμηλούς δεν εξασφαλίζει την αξιοπρεπή διαβίωση των εργαζομένων, εξαιρουμένων βέβαια των ΑΜΕΑ, τα οποία δικαιούνται προστασία αυτοδικαίως.

Προστατεύστε την εργασία, δημιουργήστε νέες θέσεις πλήρους απασχόλησης και τότε δεν θα χρειαστεί κανένα θεσμοθετημένο ελάχιστο εισόδημα. Όσοι επιθυμούν πράγματι ενιαία αγορά θα πρέπει να μας εξηγήσουν γιατί δεν υπάρχει και ενιαίος βασικός μισθός σε ολόκληρη την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Μήπως για να εξυπηρετηθούν τα συμφέροντα της Γερμανίας, άλλων μεγάλων κρατών και των πολυεθνικών;

  Geoffroy Didier (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, on parle beaucoup aujourd’hui des revenus de l’inactivité. J’aimerais aussi vous parler des revenus de l’activité. En Europe, nous le savons, les écarts entre les différents revenus minimums peuvent varier d’un facteur allant de 1 à 8. Il est par exemple de 2 000 euros au Luxembourg, alors qu’il est de 260 euros seulement en Bulgarie.

De telles différences constituent un terreau idéal pour les adeptes du repli, les adeptes de l’europhobie, car les conséquences économiques et sociales de tels écarts salariaux peuvent être désastreuses pour les usines, qui sont toujours plus nombreuses à fermer, comme pour les travailleurs qui subissent, malheureusement, la concurrence déloyale de travailleurs détachés. Et ce sont en effet les moins avantagés qui paient le prix des dysfonctionnements du marché intérieur. Ils sont ainsi des millions à penser que l’Europe est non seulement responsable de certaines faillites de nos tissus industriels, mais aussi responsable du chômage et de la précarité.

Une première étape a ainsi été franchie grâce à l’apport décisif de notre collègue du PPE, Élisabeth Morin-Chartier qui, en révisant la directive sur les travailleurs détachés, a imposé ce principe fondamental: «à travail égal, salaire égal».

Mais moi, je propose que nous allions plus loin, et concernant les écarts de salaire minimum, je souhaite proposer aujourd’hui quelque chose de très concret. Au même titre que nous envisageons de conditionner l’attribution des fonds structurels au respect de l’état de droit, je propose de conditionner l’attribution de ces mêmes fonds au respect de certains critères salariaux comme, par exemple, la mise en place d’un salaire minimum suffisamment élevé pour donner de la dignité et pour combattre la concurrence déloyale et le dumping social.

Mes chers collègues, si nous ne voulons pas que les différences entre les salaires nourrissent les différends entre les peuples, nous devons impérativement harmoniser nos régimes sociaux. Il en va là de la crédibilité du projet européen.

  Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è fondamentale insistere per strumenti europei per combattere la povertà e l'esclusione sociale più forti.

La povertà e l'esclusione sociale sono ancora a livelli allarmanti oggi in Europa. Il Partito Democratico, il gruppo dei Socialisti e Democratici sono da anni in prima linea su questa battaglia con proposte come l'assicurazione europea contro la disoccupazione, la direttiva quadro per le misure di sostegno al reddito.

Speravo, però, devo dire di avere con questo dibattito promosso dai colleghi del Movimento 5 Stelle una maggiore specificità nelle proposte che riguardano il cosiddetto reddito di cittadinanza, perché non ho ancora mai visto un testo, non c'è un decreto, non abbiamo nemmeno il documento di economia e finanza, oggi, disponibile.

Ho sentito dalla collega Ferrara parole chiare sull'inserimento lavorativo, misure contro un assistenzialismo privo di sbocchi invece per una misura che vada a inserire le persone nel mondo del lavoro, ma per oggi invece abbiamo sentito parlare di "card" sociali per comprare pane e latte, di lavori socialmente utili, abbiamo visto bruciare milioni di euro di risparmi degli italiani con la confusione di questi giorni e abbiamo sentito l'idea di escludere i cittadini europei non cittadini italiani, cittadini europei residenti da questa misura. A me sembra che rispetto all'Italia si stia nascondendo, con questo dibattito sul reddito di cittadinanza, invece, misure di destra molto chiare: la flat tax, il condono fiscale, su cui si sono impegnati gli alleati dei 5 Stelle, Salvini e la Lega.

Allora io dico, oggi, noi abbiamo in Italia il reddito d'inclusione, il REI, che ci diano un supporto per mettere i fondi anche del Fondo sociale europeo plus per sostenere con quella dotazione finanziaria questa misura.

  Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Zabierając głos w tej dyskusji, chcę zwrócić uwagę, że skuteczność prowadzonych w Europie i na świecie eksperymentów polegających na wypłacaniu bezwarunkowego dochodu podstawowego czy innych form dochodu gwarantowanego nie została do tej pory dostatecznie pozytywnie zweryfikowana. Eksperymenty prowadzone w Finlandii, we Francji, także przez nowy rząd włoski, który chce wypłacać od 1 stycznia każdemu bezrobotnemu czy też osobie żyjącej w ubóstwie kwotę 780 euro miesięcznie, nie zostały do tej pory ocenione pozytywnie.

Należy także przypomnieć, że 2016 roku Szwajcarzy w referendum w sposób zdecydowany odrzucili koncepcję wypłat gwarantowanego dochodu, uznając ten pomysł za zbyt kosztowny i szkodliwy dla gospodarki. Eksperci zwracają uwagę na negatywne cechy tej koncepcji: silną presję płacową ze strony już zatrudnionych oraz mniejszą motywację do pracy i poszukiwania zatrudnienia, a także mocną zachętę do nasilenia się procesów imigracyjnych do Europy. Co więcej, żeby tego rodzaju programy sfinansować, należałoby wprowadzić zdecydowanie większą niż do tej pory progresję podatku dochodowego, bo ten podatek wskazuje się powszechnie jako źródło...

(Przewodnicząca odebrała mówcy głos)

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señora presidenta, la mejor respuesta contra los populismos que desintegran Europa es convertir nuestra Unión en un proyecto útil para las personas, poner a las personas en el centro de las políticas públicas. Y eso significa desarrollar el pilar social, combatir el riesgo de exclusión y pobreza y mantener la cohesión social. En definitiva, valores que están desde el principio en el proyecto europeo.

Principios que el partido al que pertenezco patrocinó como seña de identidad de este proyecto, como lo certifican nuestras aportaciones en el Congreso de la Haya y en los Nuevos Equipos Internacionales. Los defendió un político, el lehendakari Aguirre, represaliado por el franquismo, que predicaba política social con el ejemplo. Convirtió en referencia de gestión social avanzada en la década de los treinta del siglo XX su propia empresa, Chocolates Bilbaínos.

Hoy, si queremos ser fieles a esa seña de identidad del proyecto europeo, hay que apostar por las rentas de inserción. Son programas que ayudan a rescatar a las personas con la misma determinación con que se ha rescatado a los bancos. Así lo describió el actual lehendakari del País Vasco. Euskadi, fiel a esa vocación social, invierte anualmente casi el 40 % de la cantidad total que se gasta en el Estado español en programas de este tipo cuando apenas representamos el 4 % de la población total.

La experiencia de más de veinticinco años de funcionamiento de nuestra renta de garantía de ingresos demuestra que ofrecer este apoyo a las personas sin ningún recurso, a trabajadores con empleos precarios o pensionistas con bajos ingresos reduce al mínimo la exclusión, la marginación y el riesgo de pobreza. Incentiva el acceso o la inserción en el mercado laboral y mitiga la quiebra social y protege la integración. Por eso, apoyamos que haya un proyecto europeo.

  Puhemies. – Kiitos edustaja, Te olette nyt käyttänyt puheenvuoronne. Te ylititte puheaikanne melkein puolella minuutilla, ja se on tietysti joltain muulta pois.

  Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE). – Skurdas ir socialinė atskirtis yra viena opiausių didelės dalies Europos Sąjungos šalių problemų. Nepaisant ekonominio augimo ir toliau skursta atskiri žmonės, šeimos ir net ištisi regionai. Socialinė politika neretai aukojama sprendžiant kitas problemas, o kalbos apie gyvenimo ir gerovės standartus dažnai pamirštamos. Nors neseniai Europos Parlamentas priėmė rezoliuciją dėl politikos, kuria užtikrinamos minimalios pajamos kaip kovos su skurdu priemonė, susirūpinimą kelia nacionalinių valdžių įsipareigojimo ir atsakomybės prieš pažeidžiamiausius visuomenės narius klausimas. Pavyzdžiui, Lietuvoje dabar baigiamos taisyti skaudžios prieš dešimtmetį padarytos neatsakingų socialinių karpymų problemos. Sakome: „Neatsakingus politikus nubaus rinkėjai“. Tačiau jau dabar turime ieškoti būdų, kaip padaryti, kad socialinės politikos ir socialinių investicijų klausimai užimtų deramą vietą Europoje tiek nacionalinių valstybių, tiek Parlamento darbotvarkėje.

  João Pimenta Lopes (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, entendemos que os Estados—Membros devem ter a capacidade soberana de definir os seus instrumentos de resposta às crescentes desigualdades económicas e sociais, à pobreza e à exclusão, entre outras. O rendimento mínimo deve ser condicionado a uma medida temporária, transitória, de dignificação da condição daqueles que se encontram em situação de maior privação e vulnerabilidade. Uma resposta que exige medidas complementares de inclusão, através de políticas públicas de emprego, de apoio e de promoção da capacidade produtiva nacional com vista à criação de emprego, respostas que não podem comprometer outros instrumentos já em vigor e que não devem ser confundidas com propostas de aparente modernidade, como o salário de disponibilidade ou o rendimento mínimo universal. Falsas soluções que rejeitamos.

O reconhecimento das causas que justificam tais instrumentos e o aumento da exploração e da pobreza e de ruturas com constrangimentos impostos pela União Europeia são determinantes para a definição de políticas alternativas que determinem uma mais equitativa redistribuição da riqueza, a promoção do trabalho digno com direitos, a valorização salarial e a garantia de serviços públicos gratuitos, universais e de qualidade.

  Auke Zijlstra (ENF). – Voorzitter, voor economen is er geen discussie. Minimumlonen zijn fijn voor mensen met werk en slecht voor mensen zonder werk. Het "insider-outsider"-effect is een duivels dilemma. Het vrij verkeer van personen heeft echter een extra dimensie aan deze discussie toegevoegd. Doordat volledige werkgelegenheid in de Europese Unie een illusie is, onder andere omdat de euro niet functioneert, zijn er nu eindeloze hoeveelheden mensen beschikbaar die de lokale arbeidsmarkt ontwrichten door tegen hongerloontjes te willen werken in een andere lidstaat.

De Europese Unie grijpt niet in door dit probleem aan te pakken, maar door de sociale agenda van de lidstaten te kapen en minimumlonen op te dringen. Fundamenteel is dat echter geen antwoord. Immers, het minimumloon in Nederland is een miljonairslosgeld in Slowakije. Bovendien tast de Europese sociale agenda de wettelijke onderhandelingsvrijheid van vakbonden en werkgeversorganisaties aan. Het moet dus anders, tenzij het een Europese waarde is om de armoede gelijkelijk te verdelen. Want het zijn niet de werkgevers die hier de lagere lonen veroorzaken. Lagere en dalende lonen zijn inherent aan de interne markt en het vrije verkeer van personen.

Voorzitter, van werk moet je kunnen leven. De arbeidsmarkt moet dus toegankelijk zijn voor lokale werknemers en ontwrichting moet worden bestreden. Ik kan dan geen andere conclusie trekken dan dat het vrije verkeer van personen ter discussie moet worden gesteld.

  Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Jeśli ktoś ma prawo do jakiegoś dowodu, to ktoś inny ma obowiązek mu ten dowód zapewnić. Obiecywanie pomocy na cudzy koszt, pani Agea, to nie jest dobroczynność, tylko złodziejstwo. I gdyby to szło z Pani wynagrodzeń, to ja rozumiem. Ale jeśli Pani obiecuje na koszt podatnika, to jest po prostu wstyd, że Pani znajduje się we frakcji, która w nazwie ma wolność. Jaka to jest wolność? Jeśli jeden człowiek musi pracować przymusowo na drugiego człowieka, to jest niewolnictwo, a nie wolność. To jest niewolnictwo. Jednocześnie przyznajecie się, że 23 % ludzi w Europie nadal jest zagrożonych ubóstwem. To znaczy, że wasze polityki socjalne nie działają, tylko zachęcają ludzi do tego, żeby byli ubodzy, albo przynajmniej się takimi wydawali. Bo jeśli nagradzamy jakieś postępowanie, to mamy tego więcej w społeczeństwie. Jeśli nagradzamy ludzi za bezczynność, za nieróbstwo, za lenistwo, za udawanie biednych, to będziemy mieli więcej takich ludzi. A jednocześnie karzemy ich za rzetelną pracę, bo wtedy zabieramy im pieniądze dla tych, którzy nie pracują rzetelnie.

  Ádám Kósa (PPE). – Elnök Asszony! A gyors technológiai változásoknak, illetve az automatizálásnak köszönhetően komoly kihívásokat láthatunk a foglalkoztatás területén. Több becslés alapján, globálisan 75 és 375 millió közötti személynek kell majd 2030-ra szakmát váltania az automatizálásnak köszönhetően. Csak az én országomban, Magyarországon, körülbelül ötszázezer munkahelyet veszélyeztethet az automatizáció, különösen az alacsony képzettségű személyek körében.

A feltétel nélküli alapjövedelem zsákutca. A nemes szándék ellenére a bevezetésre irányuló kísérleti projektek megbuktak, mert költségesek, mert inaktivitásra ösztönöznek, és mert igazságtalanok. Meggyőződésem, hogy a feltételes, tanulásra és munkára ösztönző támogatási rendszer a megfelelő válasz ezekre a kihívásokra. Felelős gazdaságpolitika csakis feltételekhez kötődő támogatási formákat választhat, amelyek figyelembe veszik az adott ország sajátosságait is. Éppen ezért személyesen azt sem támogatom, hogy kötelező uniós szabályok szülessenek a megfelelő minimumjövedelem fogalmára, annak ellenére, hogy Magyarországon már van minimálbér. Egy egységes és kötelező uniós szabály a tagállamok foglalkoztatáspolitikáját rugalmatlanná teszi, illetve hosszú távon éppen ellenkező hatásokat ér el, hiszen nem vehetők figyelembe ezentúl a sajátos nemzeti körülmények és helyzetek sem.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin, sehr geehrte Frau Ministerin! Zum Thema Mindesteinkommen kurz und klar von mir: Menschen sollen von ihrer Arbeit leben können. Darum geht es. Egal, ob sie Klickarbeiter sind, ob sie Lkw-Fahrer sind, ob sie in einem Büro arbeiten, ob sie im Norden, Süden, Osten oder Westen Europas leben.

Der beste Garant dafür sind starke Gewerkschaften, eine funktionierende Sozialpartnerschaft, ein Nationalstaat und eine Europäischen Union, die die Rahmenbedingungen dazu schaffen. Und dazu gehören soziale Mindeststandards, dazu gehören Mindesteinkommensschemata und die Unterbindung von Lohn- und Sozialdumping, die Kindergarantie, die Jugendgarantie. Also ein soziales Netz, an dem wir hier alle arbeiten sollen.

Das ist es, was letztlich die Basis bietet, um den Menschen auch wirklich zu ermöglichen, dass sie von ihrer Arbeit leben können. Und im Übrigen brauchen wir jetzt sogar eine Lohnerhöhung, denn die Wirtschaft brummt.

  Joachim Starbatty (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich höre hier zum Grundeinkommen, zum Mindestlohn immer nur normative Sätze. Das können Sie so lange wiederholen wie Sie wollen: Die Welt ändert sich nicht! Mindesteinkommen sind von der Produktivität der Volkswirtschaft abhängig. Entscheidend ist, ob Arbeitsplätze zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Und dann möchte ich mir mal die Zahlen von Frau Thyssen anschauen. Das sind die Zahlen, die ich ja immer habe. Sagen Sie doch bitte mal ihrem Stab, dass er richtige Zahlen präsentiert. Wenn Sie aus der Arbeitslosenziffer für Europa die Nordländer herausnehmen, dann sehen Sie, wie dramatisch die Situation immer noch ist.

Und schauen Sie sich doch mal an, wo Arbeitsplätze entstanden sind. Das haben wir hier in diesem Haus diskutiert. Das sind prekäre Arbeitsplätze. Wir haben mehr Arbeit für weniger Geld. Schauen Sie sich das bitte einmal an, dann sehen Sie, dass ein Riss durch Europa geht, dass der Norden gut dasteht, weil er einen unterbewerteten Euro hat, und wir haben mit einem überbewerteten Euro zu tun. Solange Sie dieses Grundphänomen nicht beseitigen, werden wir immer wieder sagen, was wir brauchen, und werden nichts ändern.

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). – Spoštovani, današnja razprava je zgodba o ljudeh, ki jim evropski steber socialnih pravic in resolucija Evropskega parlamenta iz oktobra lanskega leta

ponujata zaščitno mrežo, takšno kot jo uporabljajo akrobati, le da gre za mrežo, ki naj ljudi obvaruje pred padcem v globino revščine. Da, revščine. Kajti tudi danes se moramo spomniti podatka Evropske komisije, da 119 milijonov državljanov Unije ali četrtina vseh njenih državljanov tudi po prejemu socialnih podpor živi na pragu revščine in socialne izključenosti.

Pretirana dohodkovna neenakost škoduje socialni koheziji in tudi ovira trajnostno gospodarsko rast. Sama rast ne rešuje problema socialne izključenosti. V času kriz bodo osebe z najnižjimi dohodki veliko bolj prizadete kot tisti, ki jim je gospodarska rast omogočila materialno varnost in bogastvo. Različna stopnja razvitosti držav Evropske unije se kaže tudi v kritičnem položaju dohodkovno najbolj prikrajšanih državljanov. Problemov ni mogoče reševati s politikami na ravni Evropske unije, to vemo, jasno pa je, da za človeka vredno in dostojno življenje potrebujemo bolj usklajene in državljanom razumljive opredelitve pojmov in usmeritev.

Te naj bodo Uniji, in ne samo posameznim državam, opomin, da je dostojno življenje, tudi z minimalnimi dohodki, človekova temeljna pravica.

  Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, os números estão claros, há riqueza no mundo suficiente para garantir a dignidade das pessoas, só há que reparti-la melhor. Eu apoio o rendimento básico, universal, europeu, para que nenhuma pessoa seja condenada a viver na pobreza ou a aceitar empregos em condições cada vez mais precárias, apoio serviços públicos gratuitos, universais, de qualidade para todos e para todas, políticas para fornecer habitação a preços acessíveis, pôr fim à fraude fiscal e à evasão fiscal, pensões de reforma decentes garantidas pelos orçamentos públicos, a redução da jornada laboral e uma melhor repartição do trabalho, salários dignos e preços agrícolas decentes para os agricultores e para as agricultoras também.

Assim, conseguiremos combater a pobreza a nível europeu porque a pobreza também, Senhora Comissária, tem um rosto de mulher, de pessoas desempregadas, jovens, crianças ou pessoas reformadas.

  Steeve Briois (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, c’est bien connu, à chaque fois qu’elle craint la montée de la contestation, l’Union européenne s’aventure sur un terrain qu’elle n’affectionne guère: le terrain social. Car incapable d’apporter la prospérité et le plein emploi dans tous ses États membres, l’Union européenne tente de se donner bonne conscience en ressortant cette vieille chimère du revenu minimum européen.

Mais plusieurs questions se posent: comment imposer un revenu minimum alors que la politique sociale relève de la compétence exclusive des États membres? Et quand bien même, comment le calculer? Doit-on le fixer à 60 % du revenu médian, comme indiqué dans le rapport d’initiative voté il y a un an? S’il est trop bas, cela ne changera rien et cela ne réduira en rien la pauvreté, ni les inégalités sociales. S’il est trop élevé, cela provoquera à court terme une hausse des déficits publics et une baisse de la compétitivité des entreprises, en totale contradiction d’ailleurs avec les injonctions de Bruxelles en matière d’assainissement des finances publiques.

Comme d’habitude, l’Union européenne tente de résoudre en vain des problèmes dont elle est pourtant à l’origine.

  Agnieszka Kozłowska-Rajewicz (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Gwarantowany dochód minimalny to taka koncepcja, zgodnie z którą każdy obywatel w wieku produkcyjnym, niezależnie od tego, czy pracuje, czy nie pracuje, powinien mieć zagwarantowany i, jeśli trzeba, wypłacony przez państwo minimalny dochód, który zapewni mu bezpieczeństwo socjalne, pewne minimum potrzebne do przeżycia.

Minimalny dochód gwarantowany jest to więc taka koncepcja społeczna i polityczna, która ma przeciwdziałać ubóstwu, i de facto w różnych formach w większości krajów Unii Europejskiej takie minimalne bezpieczeństwo socjalne jest zapewnione. Ono nie ma charakteru uniwersalnego – zazwyczaj różnego rodzaju świadczenia socjalne, mieszkania socjalne, zasiłki wymagają spełnienia określonych warunków. System jest często skomplikowany, ale jest, i pojawia się pytanie, czy w związku z tym trzeba iść w kierunku dochodu gwarantowanego.

Dostrzegam oczywiście pozytywne, pragmatyczne cechy tego rozwiązania, prostotę tej koncepcji. Jednak to rozwiązanie, wychodzące naprzeciw postulatom sprawiedliwości społecznej i europejskiego filaru socjalnego, ma swoje wady. Zagwarantowanie minimalnego dochodu każdemu niezależnie od statusu zatrudnienia może działać demotywująco i zniechęcać do wchodzenia i pozostawania na rynku pracy całe grupy społeczne. Pytanie, kto za to zapłaci. W związku z tym uważam, że w pierwszej kolejności należy rozmawiać o minimalnych standardach zatrudnienia i wynagrodzenia, zaś politykę społeczną odnoszącą się do niepracujących obywateli pozostawić w gestii państw członkowskich.

  Julie Ward (S&D). – Madam President, with robotisation and digitisation, the labour market and work environment as we know it will change sooner than people realise, so we should explore the possibilities of a minimum European income as a matter of urgency. As a champion of social justice, I think that adopting a minimum income is an issue of fairness that would solve many issues, including child poverty, which is unacceptable in the 21st century.

In order to efficiently fight inequalities, poverty and social exclusion, we must take a rights—based approach, and minimum income is one of the key tools we could have at our disposal. It is also time that we had a collective discussion on the possibility of having a universal basic income. To consider income that is not linked to work is often perceived as undermining the value of work but I believe, on the contrary, that we must change our traditional mindset so as to realistically address the existing and future revolutions affecting the labour market. This would allow us to approach social and economic policies from the perspective that individuals are not only workers but also rights holders and active citizens.

  Richard Sulík (ECR). – Vážená pani predsedajúca. Ctení kolegovia. Musíme bojovať proti chudobe. Jedno, čo to stojí. Navrhujem, aby sme každému obyvateľovi Európy vrátane miliónov migrantov sľúbili minimálny príjem vo výške 100 % priemernej mzdy. 60 % je rozhodne málo na dôstojný život. Garantujme tento príjem bez ohľadu na to, či pracuje alebo nepracuje. Prestaňme skúmať, či je niekto lenivý, neschopný, pracovitý. Garantujme každému minimálny príjem vo výške 100 % priemernej mzdy. Takto zrušíme chudobu priamo v ústave. Dosiahneme sociálnu spravodlivosť. A zrušíme sociálnu exklúziu. Konečne budeme mať skutočný komunizmus. Budeme sa učiť od severnej Kórey. Čína, Kambodža nám budú závidieť. Toľkoto môj príspevok k tejto jalovej, nezmyselnej a utopistickej debate.

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem se nepřipojila k potlesku pana Sulíka, protože myslím, že nepochopil, o čem ta debata měla být. Pokud čteme název dnešního bodu jednání, tak je o minimálním příjmu. Minimální příjem tak, jak ho tady představila paní Ageaová, má být v Itálii zaveden jako forma sociální podpory. Již to tady také mnozí řekli.

Já nebudu hovořit o zaručeném minimálním příjmu, tedy o té plošné dávce, o které tady možná někteří také hovořili. Evropská unie je založena na konceptu sociálně-tržního hospodářství. Tento koncept počítá se sociální podporou jako výrazem solidarity pro ty, kteří nemohou pracovat nebo přišli o práci. Pro ty, kteří jsou nemocní nebo pečují o osobu blízkou.

Sociální podpora musí být odvozena od životních nákladů a musí být podmíněna aktivitou, protože cílem je důstojný život a ten počítá s prací. Proto sociální politika musí být solidární, ale také motivační samozřejmě a myslím, že o tom tady paní komisařka velmi důrazně hovořila. Rozhodující je samozřejmě činnost členských států, které rozhodují o míře té solidarity, o míře sociální podpory, o míře minimální mzdy, o té se tady dnes nemělo hovořit. Skutečně se má hovořit o sociální podpoře. Evropská unie má pouze roli doplňkovou a tu plní formou Evropského sociálního fondu. Pomáhá tam, kde je vysoká nezaměstnanost, protože jedině řešení nezaměstnanosti umožňuje skutečně důstojný život pro všechny.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – Mes, socialdemokratai, ne kartą raginome Komisiją, valstybes nares nustatyti Europos Sąjungos minimalių pajamų standartus, nes tai tikrai būtų konkreti priemonė kovoti su skurdu. Pirmiausia su moterų skurdu, vaikų skurdu, vyresnio amžiaus žmonių skurdu, pensininkų skurdu ir tikrai tai būtų suteikta tiems mūsų Europos Sąjungos gyventojams bent jau šiokia tokia galimybė patenkinti savo minimalius gyvenimiškus poreikius. Tačiau ar ne pernelyg dažnai mes sulaukiame atsakymo „ne, tai yra valstybių narių reikalas, tai mūsų neliečia“? Bet gi taip būti negali. Tai mūsų visų, tai mūsų Europos Sąjungos bendros šeimos reikalas ir mūsų politikų, ir mūsų komisarų, ir valstybių narių yra bendra atsakomybė už mūsų Europos Sąjungos piliečius, už mūsų Europos Sąjungos gyventojus. Pažiūrėkim realybei į akis – kiek žmonių gauna minimalų atlyginimą? Kiek žmonių gauna mažas pensijas? Kaip šeimos su vaikais sunkiai išgyvena. Todėl tikrai reikalinga bendra Europos Sąjungos direktyva dėl minimalių pajamų ir europinė vaiko garantija.

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Уважаема г-жо Председател, уважаеми представители на Комисията, моите уважения – нека никой не се засяга, но обсъждането на безусловен базов доход е един вид комунистическа утопия. То е напълно неосъществимо, неприложимо и неразумно.

Далеч по-големият проблем на Европейския съюз в момента е огромната разлика в стандарта на живот между източната и западната част на Европейския съюз. С това трябва да се борим ние, а не да си говорим за утопии. И е много странно и необяснимо, когато точно социалистите, левите в тази зала, които подкрепят кражбата на бизнес, които подкрепят нарушаването на свободния пазар, които подкрепят въвеждането на рестриктивни мерки в сферата на автомобилния транспорт, които ще откраднат бизнес от стотици хиляди хора в Източна Европа, да искат безусловен базов доход.

Това, което трябва да правим в тази зала, е да не позволяваме да бъде нарушавана идеята за общ пазар, която би позволила на хората от Източна Европа да работят на общия пазар и да живеят нормално и достойно. А не да си говорим утопии, не да си говорим несъществуващи и невъзможни неща.

  Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Madam President, minimum income was a floor below which income should not fall and it can vary for different countries. It could be a wage supplemented by state support; state—provided targeted benefits, such as those for persons with disabilities; unemployment support in housing, or indeed schooling and education; or it could be for carers. Child poverty is one of the real targets in this area to address to ensure that we bring all children out of that. In my own country, it is still the case that child poverty levels are quite high, and they are not keeping pace with the growth in the economy and growth in employment. Nevertheless, the way to address child poverty is to help parents, through employment and through support that can ensure adequate living standards.

Today, we had a report published in my country on the minimum wage. Whilst I know that’s not a solution to everything, the study said today that of those on minimum wages one-in-three would move on to a higher wage in a matter of nine months. It acts as a stepping stone to jobs with better pay. However, those on minimum wage are most likely to lose their jobs; they are more likely to have poor education, be part-time employees and be on temporary contracts. That all ties in with the Commission’s pillar of social rights and, indeed, transparent and predictable working conditions, which I fully support. I hope we see progress through this Parliament.

So, income guarantee is not a guaranteed minimum income, but it’s certainly at a level below which we should recognise income should not fall, particularly for those with families.

  Michael Detjen (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Arbeit ist ein sinnstiftendes Element im Leben. Arbeitslosenhilfe oder Sozialhilfe umzubenennen in Grundsicherung, ist wenig sinnvoll. Ein gerechter Lohn muss Ziel für die Politik in Europa sein. Lohnpolitik ist ein zentrales Element zur Angleichung der Lebensverhältnisse in Europa. Die Aushandlung von Löhnen ist Aufgabe von Arbeitgebern und Gewerkschaften. Dort, wo es keine starken Gewerkschaften und Arbeitgeberverbände gibt, muss der Staat für einen fairen Mindestlohn sorgen und Tarifverträge und die Vertragsfreiheit schützen.

Hohe Lohnunterschiede in Europa sind ein Spaltpilz für die Gesellschaft. Deshalb brauchen wir einen europäischen Mindestlohn, der sich am Lebensstandard und an den mittleren Einkommen der europäischen Regionen orientiert.

Auch Deutschland ist hier kein Vorbild. Mit dem deutschen Mindestlohn von 8,84 EUR bekommt der Arbeiter nur etwa 47 % des mittleren Einkommens. Im europäischen Vergleich liegt der deutsche Mindestlohn gemessen am mittleren Einkommen auf Platz 14. Dabei liegt die Armutsgrenze beim Mindestlohn bei 60 % des mittleren Einkommens. Der niedrige Mindestlohn trägt zu Altersarmut und Kinderarmut bei.

Wir müssen in Deutschland weiter dafür kämpfen, dass wir mindestens 12 EUR Mindestlohn haben. Wir möchten, dass alle Menschen in Europa gut von ihrer Arbeit leben können.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjedavajuća, zajamčeni minimalni dohodak riješio bi onoliko problema koliko bi stvorio novih.

Političari bi teže socijalnim transferima kupovali glasove kad bi svi od države dobivali isti iznos. Birokracija bi bila manja i, što je još važnije, manje utjecajna. Radnici bi imali bolju pregovaračku poziciju prema poslodavcima i određenu materijalnu sigurnost koja bi im omogućila da traže posao u kojem su najsretniji i najproduktivniji, ali ne nužno i najbolje plaćeni. Siromaštva bi bilo manje, kao i nezadovoljnih radnika, a ljudi bi se više posvećivali obitelji.

S druge strane, zajamčeni minimalni dohodak predstavlja neizdrživo financijsko opterećenje za državu. Negativno bi utjecao na radne navike, a u državama koje muku muče s radom na crno stvorio bi i manjak radne snage, koji bi u ovim demografskim okolnostima bio katastrofalan po gospodarstvo i javne usluge koje se financiraju iz poreza na rad.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Od paru lat dyskutujemy o dochodzie minimalnym, który przysługiwałby wszystkim obywatelom niezależnie od tego, czy pracują, czy też znajdują się poza rynkiem pracy. O doniosłości tego pomysłu świadczy fakt, iż mówią o nim także szefowie takich firm jak Tesla czy Google.

Jeden z argumentów przemawiających za tym rozwiązaniem sprowadza się do przekonania, że robotyzacja i automatyzacja gospodarki doprowadzą do sytuacji, w której nie będzie miejsc pracy dla wszystkich. O ile idea wydaje się szczytna i podyktowana troską o obywateli, to jednak dotychczasowe doświadczenia z gwarantowanym dochodem minimalnym nie nastrajają optymistycznie.

W Finlandii w minionych latach przeprowadzono eksperyment na grupie osób bezrobotnych zamieszkujących wybrane obszary kraju. Projekt niespodziewanie zakończył się w tym roku. Chociaż nie ma jeszcze oficjalnych wyników, to jednak pierwsze informacje wskazują, że był porażką. Przede wszystkim nie przełożył się na wzrost aktywności zawodowej bezrobotnych. Niedobrze, bo tym samym potwierdził argument, że gwarantowany dochód minimalny raczej doprowadzi do trwałego wycofania się z rynku pracy niż do zwiększenia proaktywnego nastawienia. Z podobnymi doświadczeniami mieliśmy do czynienia we Francji i w Szwajcarii.

Zalecam więc rozwagę i ostrożność w dyskusji na ten temat. Minimalny dochód gwarantowany nie zlikwiduje korupcji, prekariatu, nielegalnego zatrudnienia czy bezrobocia przyczyniających się do biedy. Naszą energię powinniśmy skupić na działaniach aktywizujących i włączających osoby bezrobotne, działaniach wymuszających zapewnienie godnych warunków pracy dla każdego, działaniach wspierających szczególnie kobiety, by mogły z powodzeniem godzić obowiązki rodzinne z pracą. Wydaje mi się, że taki pomysł byłby lepszy, gdyby był adresowany do emerytów, którzy przez całe swoje życie pracowali.

PRÉSIDENCE: Sylvie GUILLAUME
Vice-présidente

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è da molti anni che sono convinto dell'utilità, della necessità di uno strumento universale di protezione delle persone quando non hanno un lavoro o perdono un lavoro e dunque sono esposte a dei pericoli, a dei rischi per loro e per la loro famiglia molto consistenti. Per questo serve un reddito minimo garantito.

C'è bisogno di una direttiva europea che generalizzi le esperienze che oggi esistono in alcuni paesi dell'Europa e che le renda praticabili. L'abbiamo proposto nel 2010 e questo Parlamento si oppose, sia pure per poche decine di voti. Bisogna ritornare a proporlo e deve essere universale questo strumento, perché nel momento del bisogno non si possono fare differenze tra chi ha uno strumento che lo protegge e chi non ha nulla e bisogna che le risorse vengano ricercate in primo luogo appunto in questi strumenti diversi e non sempre efficaci, che pure esistono nel mercato del lavoro.

Infine, è chiaro che il reddito minimo garantito deve essere collocato in un quadro generale, dove c'è una politica di welfare che protegge le persone, diversamente diventa solo compensazione, e dove c'è una politica attiva per il lavoro. Il reddito non è in alternativa al lavoro, deve accompagnare il passaggio da un'attività all'altra e coprire il momento del bisogno.

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! W minionym tygodniu, idąc ulicą w Brukseli, spotkałem młodego człowieka, który zbierał pieniądze. Żebrał. Ale miał karteczkę informującą, na co zbiera te pieniądze. On mianowicie zbierał na piwo. Parę dni później w Krakowie, idąc ulicą, spotkałem młodego człowieka, który przepięknie grał na skrzypcach. Zbierał pieniądze. Miał też karteczkę, na której było napisane, że zbiera pieniądze na konserwatorium, na studia wyższe, na to, żeby się uczyć. Jeden i drugi przypadek, można by powiedzieć, podobny. Jeden zbierał pieniądze. Chciał, żeby ktoś dał mu datek i drugi chciał takiej darowizny. Tylko jeden w zamian za tę darowiznę nie oferował nic. Po prostu sobie leżał i czekał na pieniądze, by napić się alkoholu. Drugi oferował za tę darowiznę piękną grę, a ponadto zbierał na szczytny cel – na to, żeby się kształcić, na to, żeby się rozwijać, na to, żeby potem może wszystkim nam dać coś wspaniałego, pięknego, swoje umiejętności artystyczne. Ja się pytam, czy jednemu i drugiemu należało do puszki wrzucić pieniądze? Moim zdaniem nie. Pomoc nie może być ślepa. Pomoc musi być imiennie adresowana, wtedy będzie prawdziwą pomocą. Pomoc musi być też sprawiedliwa i musi być sprawiedliwa tak dla beneficjentów, a więc tych którzy potrzebują tej pomocy. Ja myślę, że równo nie powinni dostać i ci, co leżą na chodniku i chcą na piwo, na alkohol, na wino, i ci, którzy chcą się kształcić, chcą się rozwijać, chcą mieć dzieci i potem pracować na rozwój tych swoich dzieci. Ale także musi być sprawiedliwa wobec tych, którzy te pieniądze dają, a więc tych, którzy pracują.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Muszę przyznać, że jestem trochę zaskoczony tą debatą, bo mówimy tutaj – niektórzy mówią – o rynku, o płacy minimalnej i o sprawiedliwości. My po prostu mówimy w tym momencie o ludzkiej godności i to jest przedmiotem naszej debaty. Ludzka godność, czyli ci, którzy z różnych powodów losowych, życiowych, nieszczęść, kalectwa nie są w stanie uzyskiwać dochodów z pracy, i chcemy im powiedzieć, czy mają zostać pod tym przysłowiowym mostem, czy wydatki typu jedzenie, mieszkanie, odzież mogą być finansowane z tego minimalnego dochodu, który, jak się wydaje, może to minimum godności zapewnić.

Ja rozumiem, że jest to nasze wspólne zadanie. Poziom europejski to są reguły, zasady, a poziom krajowy, narodowy to jest kwota – bo inna jest wartość jednego euro w Luksemburgu, a inna w Bułgarii – i adresaci. Sądzę, że razem możemy ten problem rozwiązać.

  Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, yhteiskunnan vahvuus mitataan sen kyvyllä pitää huolta kaikkein heikoimmista. Eheys, tasa-arvo ja elintasokuilun välttäminen takaavat myös turvallisemman ja kilpailukykyisemmän yhteiskunnan. Euroopassa kuitenkin 120 miljoonaa ihmistä on vaarassa luisua köyhyyteen. Lapset, työttömät, yksinhuoltajat ja vammaiset ovat suurimmassa hädässä. Oman ryhmäni ajama lapsitakuu olisi askel kohti jokaisen Eurooppaa, ja toivon tälle aloitteelle tukea rahoituskehysneuvotteluissa. Riskiryhmään kuuluvia tulee tukea asumiseen, terveydenhuoltoon ja koulutukseen liittyvissä asioissa – köyhyys on periytyvää, halusimme tai emme. Nuoret pääsisivät tällä lailla parhaiten itse huolehtimaan itsestään ja tulevasta perheestään.

Eri eurooppalaiset mallit eivät estä tarvetta vaatia toimeentuloa, jolla tulla toimeen. Nykyjärjestelmä on hyvin pystynyt huomioimaan erilaisia maita, pohjoismaisen mallin sekä minimipalkkamaat. Tulee kuitenkin muistaa, että kestävä järjestelmä vaatii valtion talouden kunnossapitoa. Taloudellinen romahdus tai pankkikriisi ei ole auttanut ainoatakaan köyhää.

Meillä on Suomessa ollut käytössä perusturvakokeilu, joka ei ketään juuri innosta: 560 euroa 2000 henkilölle, mutta me tarvitsemme järjestelmän, joka estää putoamisen reikiin eri sosiaaliturvajärjestelmien välissä.

  Elena Gentile (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la povertà esiste, la povertà esiste perché esistono i poveri, ma chi sono i poveri e perché lo sono. Hanno volti e storie diverse di deprivazione e pongono domande differenti di presente e di futuro. Interrogativi complicati, a cui non possiamo rispondere con la retorica della povertà e della propaganda, capace solo di individuare soluzioni le più semplici, le meno faticose, utili solo a far crescere le percentuali di consenso elettorale.

La scorciatoia della monetizzazione del bisogno non può essere l'unica strada da percorrere. In un contesto nel quale alto è il rischio che una nuova moltitudine di poveri vada ad aggiungersi a quella che bussa, già oggi, alle nostre porte, è necessario che la politica si mostri responsabile e che sia sobria. L'Europa ha già indicato il suo orizzonte, il pilastro sociale e la programmazione del Fondo sociale europeo siano l'occasione per definire strategie e risorse per promuovere gli strumenti di contrasto alla povertà.

Il reddito minimo, il reddito di cittadinanza è utile sicuramente nell'emergenza, ma servono politiche orientate alla crescita e allo sviluppo per il futuro, ma questo passaggio non è ricompreso nell'agenda del governo italiano, la declinazione infatti spetta dunque a ciascuno Stato membro. Coloro i quali inneggiano al principio della sovranità popolare non credo siano in grado di compiere scelte giuste con oculatezza, serietà ed equilibrio. Le scelte, figlie di quel populismo che stiamo imparando a conoscere, condanneranno i poveri a rimanere poveri e trascineranno sotto la soglia di povertà migliaia di nuovi poveri, e non sarà colpa dell'Europa.

  Marianne Thyssen, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, today’s debate has proven how important it is to ensure that the social dimension is well integrated in all EU policy areas and why the European Pillar of social rights is so relevant. The principles enshrined in the Pillar underline the importance to invest in people and to support them through changes stemming from new and emerging challenges. As President Juncker said, Europe’s social dimension should be given the Cinderella treatment no more but should instead be geared towards the future.

Poverty and inequality are not only detrimental to social cohesion, but also to sustainable economic growth. This is why we believe that fit—for—purpose social protection systems can contribute both to the smooth functioning of the labour market and to inclusive growth. This includes, indeed, that minimum income provision has to be accompanied by activation measures and enabling services. An adequate income will always be important for maintaining human dignity and full participation in society and economy. It is important, however, to note that minimum income provisions are only one element in the whole policy mix that is needed to guarantee a decent life for the most vulnerable people in society.

Now on Italy. Italy was one of the few countries not to have a minimum income provision for a long time. We recommended its introduction in country—specific recommendations for many years, and finally the previous government introduced it in 2017. We understand that the current government would like to modify the measure, including by extending its coverage. We will judge it, within the framework of the European Semester and the analysis of the draft budgetary plan, according to the well—established procedures you all know.

Last but not least, Madam President, about the requests for new legislation, for instance on a minimum income directive or the other suggestions made during the debate, I can tell you that right now our focus is on the important legislative initiatives already proposed to implement the Social Pillar. Our goal is to see this completed within this mandate of the current Parliament. In parallel, there are important initiatives underway to ensuring upwards convergence in these areas, and here I am referring in particular to the recently agreed framework for minimum income benchmarking which includes indicators for defining adequacy of benefits. This will for sure be of great help to developing adequate minimum income schemes in all our Member States.

Thank you very much for this debate.

  Juliane Bogner-Strauss, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, I want to thank you for the vibrant but incoherent discussion we are having now. We have to combat poverty, we have to leave no one behind, but I think next time it would be helpful to clarify in advance what we are talking about. In my opening speech I was talking about minimum income as a social system to bridge difficult times.

Nevertheless, thank you once again for inviting me here and allowing me to could contribute to this fruitful and lively discussion. I think though that next time we should decide on whether we are talking about minimum income or minimum wages.

  La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.

Déclarations écrites (article 162)

  Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D), por escrito. – Los socialistas reiteramos nuestra demanda a la Comisión y a los Gobiernos de la UE para la puesta en marcha de una Directiva que regule y obligue a los Estados miembros a desarrollar los sistemas de renta mínima. Es una obligación moral y legal en Europa el asistir a las personas en riesgo de pobreza y un imperativo el implementar el punto 14 del pilar social que recoge esta propuesta. Reclamamos una nueva red de seguridad que proteja a las y los europeos ante la adversidad, y que se aplique en situación de pérdida de desempleo o de toda ayuda económica. Es esencial el desarrollo de un sistema de rentas homogéneo en toda la UE, por ser una medida de justicia social y también de eficiencia económica. Además, conseguiría frenar la desvinculación de la ciudanía de los sistemas democráticos porque evitaríamos a través de los poderes públicos que la ciudadanía caiga en la pobreza. La renta mínima debe estar vinculada a la voluntad de incorporación en el mercado laboral, debe ser aplicable desde que se entra en los límites de la pobreza y hasta que se encuentra un puesto de trabajo.

  José Blanco López (S&D), por escrito. – Los socialistas reiteramos nuestra demanda a la Comisión y a los Estados miembros para la puesta en marcha de una Directiva que regule y obligue a estos a desarrollar los sistemas de renta mínima. Es una obligación moral y legal en Europa asistir a las personas en riesgo de pobreza y un imperativo el implementar el punto 14 del pilar social que recoge esta propuesta. Reclamamos una nueva red de seguridad que proteja a las y los europeos ante la adversidad, y que se aplique en situación de pérdida de desempleo o de toda ayuda económica. Es esencial el desarrollo de un sistema homogéneo en toda la UE, por ser una medida de justicia social y también de eficiencia económica. Además, conseguiría frenar la desvinculación de la ciudanía de los sistemas democráticos porque evitaríamos que la ciudadanía caiga en la pobreza. La renta mínima debe estar vinculada a la voluntad de incorporación en el mercado laboral, debe ser aplicable desde que se entra en los límites de la pobreza y hasta que se encuentra un empleo. Las políticas de renta mínima han de combinarse además con sistemas de protección social universales y de calidad. Esta combinación ha de estar en el centro de las políticas europeas.

  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D), por escrito. – Los socialistas reiteramos nuestra demanda a la Comisión y a los Gobiernos de la UE para la puesta en marcha de una Directiva que regule y obligue a los Estados miembros a desarrollar los sistemas de renta mínima. Es una obligación moral y legal en Europa el asistir a las personas en riesgo de pobreza y un imperativo el implementar el punto 14 del pilar social que recoge esta propuesta. Reclamamos una nueva red de seguridad que proteja a las y los europeos ante la adversidad, y que se aplique en situación de pérdida de desempleo o de toda ayuda económica. Es esencial el desarrollo de un sistema de rentas homogéneo en toda la UE, por ser una medida de justicia social y también de eficiencia económica. La renta mínima debe estar vinculada a la voluntad de incorporación en el mercado laboral, debe ser aplicable desde que se entra en los límites de la pobreza y hasta que se encuentra un puesto de trabajo. Las políticas de renta mínima han de combinarse además con sistemas de protección social universales y de calidad. Esta combinación de protección social y garantía de ingresos adecuados ha de estar en el centro de las políticas europeas.

  Alfred Sant (S&D), in writing. – Private consumption has grown. Exports and investment have increased. Unemployment continues to fall and it has gotten closer to pre—crisis levels. Profits of corporations have increased. Public deficit and debt levels have been largely brought under control. Not so the share of the economic cake being enjoyed by the working and middle classes; there the deficit has continued to grow. In most cases where a national minimum wage exists in Europe, it still falls short of what a living wage should be. Meanwhile, the divergences between the highest income earners and the lowest have continued to increase. This is not fair. At best, Minimum Income schemes play the role of safety nets for the most vulnerable workers and for individuals unable to guarantee an adequate standard of living through their own efforts. They are hardly doing so. The time has come, however, for such schemes to go beyond this minimum. We need to push for the adoption EU—wide of a national minimum wage adapted to the conditions of each Member State. And we need to propose that where this national minimum wage exists, all over the EU, in the current favourable economic context, the minimum wage levels are increased across the board by at least 5 per cent.

15. Агенция на ЕС за сътрудничество в областта на наказателното правосъдие (Евроюст) (разискване)

  La Présidente. – L’ordre du jour appelle le débat sur le rapport d’Axel Voss, au nom de la commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures, sur la proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil relatif à l’Agence de l’Union européenne pour la coopération judiciaire en matière pénale (Eurojust) (COM(2013)0535 - C7-240/2013 - 2013/0256(COD)) (A8-0320/2017).

  Axel Voss, Berichterstatter. – Frau Präsidentin! Frau Kommissarin! Sehr verehrte Vertreterin der Ratspräsidentschaft! Seit der Gründung von Eurojust am 6.  März 2002 unterstützen wir Eurojust und auch die Mitgliedstaaten entsprechend bei der justiziellen Koordinierung ihrer nationalen Behörden. Das Ziel liegt auf der Hand: eine effektivere Bekämpfung von Terrorismus und schwerer organisierter Kriminalität innerhalb der Europäischen Union.

Allein das erste Halbjahr 2018 unterstrich wieder die positive Wirkung von Eurojust. Im April wurde ein Ring von Menschenschmugglern durch Verhaftung in Österreich und Rumänien ausgehoben, im Mai führte die Zusammenarbeit von Belgien, Spanien und Deutschland zu Verhaftungen in Fällen von organisiertem systematischen Betrug bei der Mehrwertsteuer, und im Juni wurde schließlich auch eine deutsch-dänische Gruppe überführt, die Aufenthaltsgenehmigungen im Rahmen von Scheinehen an Migranten verkaufte. Aufgrund dieser neuen Bedrohungslage, aber auch des technischen Fortschritts und der institutionellen Änderungen seit 2002 waren nun die Regelungen aus dem Gründungsakt allerdings so nicht mehr länger adäquat und sollten und mussten auch erneuert werden.

Die Kommission veröffentlichte daher im Juli 2013 einen entsprechenden Verordnungsentwurf. Wir haben als Europäisches Parlament diesen Entwurf natürlich in das ordentliche Gesetzgebungsverfahren gegeben und konnten das aber auch nur in Gänze bewerten. Und das wiederum war deshalb etwas langwierig, weil wir natürlich den Berichtsentwurf über die europäische Staatsanwaltschaft bis zur Aussprache des Rates abwarten mussten, sodass wir eigentlich erst 2017 den Entwurf im Parlament vorstellen konnten und im Oktober dann auch vom Parlament das Mandat bekommen haben, in die Trilog-Verhandlungen einzutreten.

Die Zusammenarbeit mit der estnischen und der bulgarischen Präsidentschaft, aber auch mit der Kommission und mit den Schattenberichterstattern möchte ich hier ausdrücklich loben. Alle Akteure waren hier sehr engagiert, sehr professionell, weswegen der Trilog auch dann am 19.  Juni dieses Jahres erfolgreich abgeschlossen werden konnte – mit einem für alle Seiten befriedigenden Ergebnis, würde ich sagen. Wir haben deshalb auch ein Executive Board zur Entlastung des Kollegiums geschaffen, das administrative Aufgaben übernehmen soll. Das College soll sich dann auf die rein operativen Geschäfte konzentrieren.

Wir haben klare Zuständigkeiten und prozessuale Abläufe festgelegt, und zudem werden die Kommission durch einen Vertreter im College und im Executive Board sowie das Parlament bei der Anhörung des Eurojust-Präsidenten oder auch die nationalen Parlamente bei den interparlamentarischen Sitzungen in die Arbeit dieser Agentur mit einbezogen. Die Aufgaben und der Zuständigkeitsbereich von Eurojust sind im Verhältnis zur Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft EUStA klar geregelt, Lücken und Überschneidungen werden dadurch vermieden. Zudem werden ja auch der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit und das Subsidiaritätsprinzip berücksichtigt. Ferner wird auch sichergestellt, dass die Strafverfolgung weiter auf der nationalen Ebene erfolgen muss.

Ein größeres Problem war noch die Schaffung der Datenschutzrichtlinien. Nunmehr haben wir die sogenannten operativen Daten in den Gründungsakt von Eurojust integriert, während alle weiteren datenschutzrechtlichen Fragen in der Verordnung 45 (EG) Nr. 2001 von der Kollegin Ernst aufgenommen wurden. Somit können auch die Mitgliedstaaten sicher sein, dass ihre Daten bei Eurojust nicht ohne ihre Zustimmung weitergegeben werden.

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Eurojust makes an essential contribution to judicial cooperation in the European Union. It helps Member States to combat serious cross-border crime and to protect our citizens. In recent years, Eurojust has further increased its role in the fight against cybercrime, terrorism and trafficking in human beings. Last year alone, Eurojust supported Member States in more than 2 500 criminal cases and organised 200 joint investigative teams. Eurojust also supports the execution of European arrest warrants as well as judicial cooperation with third countries.

Given this changing and ever more challenging operational environment, the reform of Eurojust was necessary. We had to make sure Eurojust stays fit for purpose in the future. The revision you are about to adopt will, among other things, ensure that the national members of Eurojust can focus more on operational work. It will also allow the European Parliament and national parliaments to be more involved in assessing Eurojust activities.

We also needed to clarify Eurojust’s future relationship with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the so-called EPPO. The EPPO will be a specialised body with investigatory powers dedicated to the fight against crimes against the EU’s financial interests. It will need to cooperate closely with Eurojust. Moreover, Eurojust will continue to be responsible for judicial cooperation in relation to crimes against EU financial interests in respect of those Member States that do not yet participate in the EPPO.

The EPPO will be operational by the end of 2020 and I am pleased that it will have a stronger Eurojust as its partner. In this context, let me also highlight the importance of sufficient resources for Eurojust to do its important work in the forthcoming financial period.

In the meantime, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for the excellent cooperation on this proposal. I would like to highlight three points on which Parliament’s support was decisive in the negotiations. First, Parliament obtained agreement that the regulation on access to documents should be applicable to all Eurojust documents, including those related to operational matters. This will ensure more transparency for citizens. Secondly, Parliament ensured that the harmonised data protection laws for EU institutions and bodies would also apply to Eurojust. Thirdly, Parliament allowed the Commission to have a representative on the management board of Eurojust.

I am convinced that, with this revision, Eurojust will be even more efficient in making the EU a safer place.

The Commission regrets, however, that on several points the co-legislators have decided to deviate from the approach agreed in the joint statement on decentralised agencies. A written statement on this issue has been provided for inclusion in the record of this session.

Honourable Members, thank you once again for your work. I look forward to the vote tomorrow.

Commission statement

(in writing)

"The Commission regrets that on several points, the co-legislators have decided to deviate from the approach agreed in the Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission on decentralised agencies of 19 July 2012, without providing the necessary justification. This relates in particular to the number of Commission representatives in the College/Management Board and the procedure for appointing and dismissing the Administrative Director of Eurojust. The Commission will assess the impact of those deviations on the functioning of the Agency at the appropriate opportunity. They should not be considered as a precedent for other agencies."

  Ingeborg Gräßle, Verfasserin der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Haushaltskontrollausschusses. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich möchte zuerst dem Berichterstatter für die Arbeit, die gemacht wurde, gratulieren. Es ist wichtig, dass wir überhaupt ein Ergebnis bekommen. Aber anderseits eröffnet die jetzige Verordnung natürlich den Schönheitswettbewerb auf der Ebene „wer macht was“ zwischen dem OLAF, dem EPPO und Eurojust. Deswegen bedauere ich manche Ergebnisse außerordentlich. Zum Beispiel ist es für mich völlig unverständlich, warum der Zugang des EPPO zum Case management-System von Eurojust in Artikel 23 gestrichen wurde und stattdessen nur ein indirekter Zugriff vorgesehen ist. Auch der automatische Cross checking-Mechanismus wurde gestrichen. Ich glaube, das wird uns noch leidtun hier im Haus. Ich möchte auch negativ bewerten, dass OLAF in Artikel 51 Absatz 2 an die Kandare genommen wird. Wir werden sehen, wie die Bestimmung sich in der Praxis auswirkt. Wir sind froh, dass sich die Haushaltsentlastung für Eurojust im endgültigen Text auch wiederfindet. Und ich möchte Ihnen sagen, dass wir natürlich die Arbeit von Eurojust und die Frage der Effizienz begleiten werden und auf das eine oder andere sicherlich gerne noch zurückkommen.

Unterm Strich: Gut, dass wir es haben, aber schade, dass wir doch eine unvollständige Arbeit haben und eine Arbeit, die nicht so effizient ist, wie sie eigentlich sein sollte, um der europäischen Ebene zu dem Durchbruch zu verhelfen, den die Bürger von uns erwarten.

  António Marinho e Pinto, relator do parecer da Comissão dos Assuntos Jurídicos. – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, é preciso evitar que o Eurojust se transforme em mais um ninho de burocratas na União Europeia, ou então em mais uma prateleira dourada para premiar, com reformas de luxo, certos magistrados obsequiosos para o poder político dos seus países. Por isso, urge coragem política para reformar a justiça na União, começando por transformar o Eurojust no embrião de uma verdadeira Procuradoria da União Europeia, com competência exclusiva para investigar um catálogo de crimes que deve ser, também, rapidamente definido.

Sra. Comissária, a justiça não é igual em todos os Estados-Membros da União Europeia. É um pouco como o colesterol humano: há uma justiça boa que respeita, valoriza e prestigia o Estado de Direito, mas há outra justiça que faz exatamente o contrário.

É, pois, urgente levar a cabo uma reforma das instituições judiciárias que nivele por cima os padrões de administração da justiça. Esta reforma constituirá também uma forma de ultrapassar o impasse no processo de integração europeia e será um passo decisivo nessa integração.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señora presidenta... ¡Felicidades, Axel!

Eurojust es fundamental para responder eficazmente al reto de la delincuencia organizada transfronteriza, el terrorismo, el tráfico ilícito de migrantes o la ciberdelincuencia. Gracias a esta reforma, Eurojust ganará eficiencia y podrá reforzar la cooperación entre los Estados miembros en materia de justicia penal.

Eurojust ha facilitado la coordinación y la cooperación entre las autoridades fiscales y de investigación de ámbito nacional a la hora de gestionar casos que afectan a varios Estados miembros. Asimismo, ha ayudado a generar confianza mutua y a conectar toda la gama de instrumentos jurídicos existentes en la Unión Europea.

La adaptación de Eurojust a la creación de la nueva Fiscalía, así como a los nuevos reglamentos en materia de protección de datos para las instituciones debe ser plena. El informe sobre el crimen organizado SOCTA 2017 identificó cinco mil grupos de crimen organizado actuando y bajo investigación en la Unión Europea, un incremento de mil cuatrocientos grupos más con respecto al año 2013.

Esto indica que hay que mejorar y dar una respuesta coordinada para la Unión, tanto a nivel policial como judicial, para hacer frente a la amenaza terrorista, el narcotráfico, la ciberdelincuencia, el tráfico de migrantes o la pornografía infantil.

Eurojust es una herramienta fundamental a la hora de la cooperación y de la coordinación mejorada entre las autoridades judiciales de los Estados miembros, la nueva Fiscalía y también con otras agencias —como Europol—, así como con países terceros. Es importante que se realicen acuerdos de trabajo entre Europol y Eurojust para que ambas agencias puedan compartir información y datos, especialmente ahora que entraremos en la etapa de la interoperabilidad y del portal europeo de búsqueda.

Finalmente, Eurojust tiene que seguir siendo una agencia fundamental en la lucha contra todas las formas de crimen organizado y delincuencia.

  Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin Jourová, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Grenzüberschreitende Kriminalität lässt sich nicht nur national bekämpfen. Nein, wir müssen ihr mit grenzüberschreitender Kooperation der Mitgliedstaaten und ihrer Justizbehörden begegnen. Da wir kein wirklich europäisches Strafrecht haben, bedarf es einer Brücke zwischen den Behörden der Mitgliedstaaten, um Straftäter erfolgreich vor Gericht stellen zu können. Diese Brücke ist Eurojust. Die Agentur hat 2002 ihre Arbeit aufgenommen, und die steigende Zahl an Fällen, in denen nationale Behörden Eurojust hinzuziehen, ist ein Beleg dafür, wie notwendig und wichtig die Europäische Agentur für justizielle Zusammenarbeit ist.

Die Bandbreite der Fälle, in denen Eurojust Unterstützung leistet, ist vielfältig – sei es die Aufdeckung von Betrug an Bankkunden mit gefälschten E-Mails in Rumänien und Italien, sei es die Aufdeckung von Überfällen auf Frachttransporter in Frankreich und Polen oder etwa die Aufdeckung von Drogenschmuggel zwischen den Niederlanden und Finnland, um hier nur einige Beispiele aus den letzten Monaten zu nennen. Eines haben all diese Fälle gemeinsam: Die grenzüberschreitende Kriminalität wurde mit grenzüberschreitender Kooperation bekämpft.

Damit Eurojust ihre Aufgaben in Zukunft noch effizienter ausführen kann, ist es gut, dass wir mit unserer Abstimmung morgen die neue Eurojust-Verordnung entsprechend dem Lissabon-Vertrag auf den Weg bringen. Um welche Neuerungen geht es vor allem? Erstens wird die Struktur von Eurojust modernisiert, und dies ermöglicht es den nationalen Mitgliedern von Eurojust nun, sich stärker auf operationelle Aufgaben zu konzentrieren. Ein Exekutivausschuss wird sich federführend um die Verwaltungsarbeiten kümmern.

Zweitens wird bekanntlich ab 2020 die Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft Straftaten zu Lasten des EU-Haushalts ermitteln und anklagen können. Hier war es wichtig, jede Form von Kompetenzlücken oder auch Doppelarbeit zu vermeiden. Damit die Staatsanwaltschaft effizient mit Eurojust zusammenarbeiten kann, sind die Leitlinien der Kompetenzaufteilung klar abgesteckt.

Drittens: Bei der Verbesserung der justiziellen Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten gibt es selbstverständlich noch viel zu tun. Um diesen Prozess zu unterstützen, kann Eurojust künftig schriftliche Stellungnahmen verfassen, um die Behörden eines Mitgliedstaats auf bestehende Probleme hinzuweisen.

Viertens: Wir stärken Transparenz und Rechenschaftspflicht. Die parlamentarische Kontrolle von Eurojust wird dadurch gestärkt, dass die zuständigen Ausschüsse des Europäischen Parlaments und auch der nationalen Parlamente hier zusammenarbeiten.

Und fünftens – der Berichterstatter hat darauf hingewiesen: Der Datenschutz wird an die neuen Regeln auf europäischer Ebene angepasst, und dies ist bei sensiblen Daten im Zusammenhang mit der Strafverfolgung enorm wichtig.

Alles in allem: Eurojust wird durch diese Reform handlungsfähiger, und Eurojust wird die Möglichkeit haben, in Zukunft effizienter zu arbeiten. Ich bedanke mich bei allen, insbesondere bei Herrn Voss, für die gute Zusammenarbeit.

  Nathalie Griesbeck, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, mes chers collègues, discuter aujourd’hui – ce soir – d’Eurojust, c’est évoquer cet acteur devenu central et indispensable en matière de coopération judiciaire et qui participe directement au renforcement de notre espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice.

Par cette réforme, nous avançons d’un pas certain vers une véritable agence européenne pour la coopération judiciaire, une agence modernisée, grâce à cette révision, pour être plus efficace dans la lutte contre ces multiples et différents types de criminalité transfrontalière.

Les discussions relatives à la réforme d’Eurojust ont été longtemps dépendantes de, puis liées à, l’accord sur la création du Parquet européen, création qui constitue une véritable avancée pour notre Union. Dès lors, c’est évidemment en suivant de près les développements relatifs à la mise en place du Parquet européen que nous avons travaillé.

En tant que rapporteure pour mon groupe, l’ADLE, nous avons insisté tout particulièrement sur la relation, justement, entre Eurojust et le Parquet, car cette future coopération est indispensable au renforcement des droits. L’accord final sur notre texte clarifie et améliore les liens avec le Parquet dans le cadre administratif, institutionnel et surtout opérationnel. C’est d’autant plus important que nous étions nombreux à appeler de nos vœux le renforcement du rôle du Parquet européen en étendant sa compétence à la criminalité transfrontalière et au terrorisme, ce qui a été repris par le président Juncker dans son discours sur l’état de l’Union, il y a quelques semaines.

En ce qui concerne plus particulièrement la réforme d’Eurojust, je voudrais saluer le travail fluide de notre collègue rapporteur, Axel Voss, qui s’est montré patient durant les négociations, notamment sur la question du régime de protection des données. Je pense sincèrement que nous avons obtenu un bon équilibre qui respecte la protection des données. Mon groupe soutiendra évidemment cet accord.

  Eva Joly, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, la criminalité ne connaît pas de frontières, surtout la criminalité financière, qui les utilise pour frauder la TVA, pour échapper au fisc et pour blanchir de l’argent sale. C’est pourquoi le travail de notre justice ne peut s’arrêter aux frontières nationales. Nous avons besoin de l’agence Eurojust et du Parquet européen.

La coopération judiciaire au sein de l’Union européenne est essentielle pour mieux combattre la criminalité et le terrorisme. Eurojust facilite l’échange d’informations et contribue au renforcement d’une culture juridique européenne.

Je salue donc l’adoption du nouveau cadre réglementaire pour Eurojust qui clarifie notamment les relations entre cette agence et le nouveau parquet. Ces deux organes devront travailler main dans la main pour combattre efficacement la criminalité transfrontalière. Leur efficacité dépendra aussi des moyens humains et financiers qui leur seront alloués.

Faisons en sorte que l’impunité ne soit plus une option. Donnons-nous les moyens d’avoir une justice européenne digne de ce nom.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, this is the first reading of legislation that seeks to update and enhance the powers of Eurojust. Eurojust has a presence in every Member State, with an unprecedented concentration of judicial and police powers and with no separation of powers between judges, prosecutors and police. It has enormous power and enormous potential for the abuse of power. Eurojust is just one element of the EU’s own evolving system of criminal law, which is superseding the legal systems of Member States.

This legislation will enhance its powers to incorporate cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. It will permit Eurojust to exercise its powers not only at the request of the so—called ‘competent authorities’, but on its own initiative and at the request of the Prosecutor’s Office. This legislation is a step on the way to absorbing Eurojust into the European Public Prosecutor’s office. The UK is a participant in Eurojust but has supposedly opted out of the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor’s Office. However, this opt—out is illusory. The European Public Prosecutor can easily circumvent that opt—out in the UK by using the other legal institutions and instruments to achieve its objectives. The evolving EU system of criminal law may not be alien to some Member States, but it is completely alien to the English legal system. Our freedoms and liberties under our constitution, the common law and statute law, have evolved over centuries. They are being swept away by measures such as these.

It has not been possible to ascertain Her Majesty’s Government’s position on this legislation, but UKIP has proposed a rejection amendment, and we urge every UK MEP to vote for it if they have any desire to protect the freedoms and liberties of British citizens.

  Diane James (NI). – Madam President, well this siren call that I hear so often here in this Chamber of ‘more Europe’ couldn’t be better exemplified by what we have before us in terms of the evolution of Eurojust.

The European Union federal state, mission creep, removes nation control of legal matters – we’ve heard about the European Public Prosecutor, data exchange, etc. – and that is a key pillar and foundation of nation sovereignty. Therefore, when it comes to the vote tomorrow I will be absolutely astounded if any MEP here in this Chamber feels they have have been given a mandate to sacrifice their national judicial control, in the manner that this report sets out, away to the European Union.

I only hope that everyone who opposes Brexit in the United Kingdom will watch this debate to see what European Union judicial control means.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Paní předsedající, paní komisařko, nejdřív mně dovolte se trošku pousmát nad vystoupením mých britských kolegů, kteří tady volají po tom, že má být svrchované právo členských států rozhodovat o trestních věcech, a pak na druhé straně vidět Velkou Británii, která nejvíc využívá agenturu Eurojust a nejvíc volá po spolupráci, protože samozřejmě potřebuje nejvíc koordinovat boj proti trestné činnosti nebo v případě terorismu.

Ale občas tomu tak je. Prostě někdo musí projít brexitem tak, aby si uvědomil, kde a v jaké rodině byl, a já osobně vidím roli Eurojustu především v úrovni koordinační a tam myslím, že musí být posilována. Myslím si, že jste správně ve svém úvodním projevu řekla, že je důležité rozdělit kompetence mezi veřejného žalobce a agenturu Eurojust tak, aby se ty kompetence nepřekrývaly, aby ty úřady byly efektivní a aby spolu dokázaly lépe spolupracovat.

Já si myslím, že to je i smysl této zprávy a to je i smysl našeho jednání, které se tady čtyři roky nebo více než čtyři roky snažíme prosazovat. Myslím si, že agentura Eurojust má v oblasti spolupráce velikánský význam a samozřejmě na rozdíl od kolegů vím, že nebude nikterak zasahovat do národní suverenity jednotlivých členských států. Já si myslím, že k tomu, co jste tady ještě říkala, je také důležité říci, že Eurojust se osvědčil a že je potřeba tuto agenturu, která patří mezi výkladní skříně Evropské unie, neustále chválit a neustále ukazovat výsledky její skvělé práce.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, comisaria Jourová, desde el surgimiento de Eurojust en 2002, era evidente que esta agencia estaba llamada a ser una de las grandes promesas del espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia que consagró de manera decisiva el Tratado de Lisboa en 2009. Por tanto, era hora de que tuviésemos un nuevo Reglamento, que impulsó la Comisión en 2013 para reforzar su eficacia operativa, su modelo de gobierno, pero también la incardinación de los miembros nacionales de Eurojust.

Pero el objetivo es lo que no puede perderse de vista. El objetivo es reforzar la confianza mutua, el reconocimiento mutuo de las resoluciones judiciales en la persecución de la criminalidad grave y, particularmente, de la transnacional.

Y para mantener viva la confianza mutua es muy importante que exista respeto mutuo entre los poderes judiciales de los Estados miembros. Que no se examinen mutuamente en lo que respecta a la calidad de sus resoluciones sino, exactamente, que confíen, salvo razones muy excepcionales, para asegurar el objetivo de la lucha contra la criminalidad grave que mandata el artículo 83. Pornografía infantil, cibercriminalidad, drogas. El objetivo no puede perderse de vista.

Pero añado, además, que la gran importancia de que Eurojust tenga este nuevo Reglamento que lo relanza como una verdadera agencia de cooperación judicial en materia penal de la Unión Europea la pone de manifiesto el hecho de que, incluso los Estados miembros que han decidido excluirse del instrumento, como el Reino Unido y Dinamarca, están compelidos a firmar acuerdos de cooperación, porque el objetivo ya no puede ser alcanzado por ningún Estado miembro, tiene que ser alcanzado mostrando voluntad política a nivel europeo.

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). – Fru talman! Fri rörlighet är en av grundpelarna i EU, men tyvärr är det inte bara arbetssökande, studerande och företag som drar nytta av den. Enligt Europol finns det tusentals brottssyndikat som opererar inom EU, med narkotikahandel, människohandel, barnsexhandel, penningtvätt, bedrägerier, IT-brott. Detta gör att det är en skyldighet för EU och för alla medlemsländer att göra mer för brottsbekämpandet och lagföringen och därmed medborgarnas säkerhet och trygghet.

En Eurobarometer förra året visar att 92 procent av medborgarna i EU vill att vi ska arbeta strategiskt för att bekämpa grov gränsöverskridande brottslighet. Medborgarna runtom i våra medlemsländer förväntar sig med andra ord att vi ska leverera svar på de utmaningar som vi står inför. Problemet är att samarbetet mellan medlemsländerna när det gäller att dela och tolka information inte fungerar särskilt väl – detta bland annat för att man använder olika system. Eurojust-lagstiftningen som vi nu röstar om är därför ett väldigt, väldigt viktigt steg i rätt riktning.

Ett annat viktigt framsteg vi lyckats med är Europeiska åklagarmyndigheten. Jag beklagar i detta sammanhang att medlemsländer, bland annat Polen, Ungern och Sverige, har valt att stå utanför detta samarbete mot brott och korruption. Vi kan fortfarande gå med, och det vore viktigt.

Det som vi röstar om i morgon är dock ett stort steg framåt i förbättrandet och effektiviseringen av brottsbekämpandet, så låt oss se positivt på möjligheterna att den fria rörligheten också ska fungera när det gäller brottsbekämpningen och lagföringen.

  Caterina Chinnici (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario, l'aggiornamento del regolamento dell'agenzia Eurojust ne modernizza la struttura organizzativa, cosa ormai indispensabile per far fronte alla preoccupante evoluzione della criminalità organizzata transfrontaliera, ma è funzionale anche al nuovo assetto istituzionale che si delinea con l'imminente istituzione della Procura europea, responsabile per i reati a danno degli interessi finanziari dell'Unione.

Direi che il cuore della riforma è rappresentato proprio dalle disposizioni necessarie per disciplinare le relazioni tra Eurojust e la nuova Procura europea. Le competenze di ciascuna istituzione infatti vanno definite in modo chiaro, al fine di assicurare la certezza del diritto, di evitare lacune eventuali nell'applicazione della legge penale e duplicazioni dei procedimenti.

Sono convinta fermamente che l'istituzione della Procura europea non depotenzierà Eurojust ma, al contrario, proprio perché la Procura europea si basa sul principio di cooperazione rafforzata, l'agenzia Eurojust avrà un ruolo di primo piano sia nel coordinamento con gli Stati membri che non hanno ancora aderito, sia per tutti quei reati che non sono previsti nella direttiva PIF, e penso al terrorismo, al traffico di stupefacenti, ai reati informatici o alla pedopornografia, reati tutti di natura transfrontaliera.

Apprezzo poi che la modernizzazione di Eurojust, che ci apprestiamo a votare, rafforzi le tutele in materia di protezione dei dati, oltre ad accentuare la separazione fra attività amministrative e operative, e che si concentri pienamente sulla cooperazione giudiziaria e sul coordinamento tra autorità competenti degli Stati membri.

Ringrazio l'onorevole Voss e i colleghi relatori ombra per il loro lavoro.

  Iris Hoffmann (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Die grenzüberschreitende Vernetzung von Strafverfolgungsbehörden innerhalb der Europäischen Union ist wichtig. Eurojust schafft gegenseitiges Vertrauen, wo es traditionell Unterschiede gibt, und baut Brücken zwischen den Rechtssystemen der Europäischen Union. Mit der Schaffung der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft ist es notwendig geworden, eine klare und deutliche Abgrenzung vorzunehmen. Es ist schade, dass sich nicht alle Mitgliedstaaten zu einem gemeinsamen Vorgehen durchringen konnten, denn das macht es uns nicht einfacher, innerhalb der EU konsequent gegen Kriminalität vorzugehen.

Mit der Reform soll sich Eurojust nun auf ihre wesentlichen Aufgaben konzentrieren, nämlich die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den nationalen Justizbehörden bei der Bekämpfung grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität zu fördern. Die klare Trennung von operativen und administrativen Aufgaben finde ich hier durchaus sinnvoll. Ich finde es wichtig, dass Eurojust weiterhin die Mitgliedstaaten unterstützt und koordiniert, die sich nicht an der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft beteiligen wollen.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamna președintă, doamna comisar, stimați colegi, cred că reformarea Eurojust era necesară. Dacă ne gândim la datele statistice și la rezultatele pe care le avem privind lupta împotriva criminalității organizate și anihilarea organizațiilor criminale, cred că rămâne o provocare și cred că prin reformarea și votarea regulamentului nou legat de organizarea Eurojust, Comisia va avea un instrument mult mai bun de lucru și cred că statele membre ar trebui toate să adere.

Pe mine mă surprinde că avem aici colegi care spun că nu ar trebui să existe un asemenea regulament. Nu îmi imaginez cum se poate, transfrontalier, ca un singur stat să poată să rezolve rețelele criminale și știm bine că - eu, în calitate de membru al LIBE, dar și al IMCO - știm bine că aceste rețele afectează foarte mult piața internă, competiția loială și foarte multe lucruri și până la urmă viața cetățenilor. Nu cred că este normal să ne ceară mandat colega noastră, pentru că eu nu cred că vreun cetățean sau vreo companie este fericită că există aceste rețele de crimă organizată.

Interventions à la demande

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Prawdopodobnie chodzi o mnie. Pan Zdechovský mówił przed chwilą. Zabierał głos w debacie. Tak, dziękuję bardzo. Działając w Komisji ds. terroryzmu, wielokrotnie natrafiam na podstawowy problem współpracy między służbami, a zwłaszcza pomiędzy państwami. Można powiedzieć, że jest to najbardziej wrażliwy, by nie powiedzieć niewystarczający, fragment współpracy związanej z walką z terroryzmem w Europie. Patrząc na przyrost spraw w ciągu 15 lat, ponad dziesięciokrotny, niewątpliwie – podkreślam niewątpliwie – ta debata jest potrzebna, a sam dokument przygotowany związany z reformą tej podstawowej instytucji niezbędny. Tak to bym określił. Chciałem podziękować inicjatorom, jak również powiedzieć, że nie tylko wspieram te aktywności, które reformują instytucje, ale żałuję, że mój kraj, moje państwo – Polska nie podpisała się pod zbudowaniem Prokuratury Europejskiej. Uważam, że wraz z Węgrami i Szwedami powinniśmy zmienić to zdanie.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, negli ultimi anni la criminalità organizzata transfrontaliera è aumentata in modo esponenziale per terrorismo, traffico di stupefacenti, criminalità informatica e pedopornografia. Queste forme di criminalità si esplicano in reati commessi da gruppi estremamente mobili e flessibili, che operano in molteplici giurisdizioni unionali e settori criminali.

È di tutta evidenza che un'azione di contrasto non può essere condotta efficacemente senza adeguati strumenti a livello internazionale. Va implementata sotto la guida di Europol la rete operativa per lo scambio di informazioni tra le forze dell'ordine per superare le difficoltà attuali.

E dico questo anche alla luce delle indagini transnazionali seguite agli attentati di Parigi e Bruxelles, che hanno evidenziato gravi carenze nella capacità di collaborare tra le diverse autorità di contrasto nazionali. La cooperazione amministrativa giudiziaria e di polizia su tutto il territorio dell'Unione europea deve essere valorizzata su più livelli, puntando ad una sinergia efficace tra la rete giudiziaria europea Europol ed Eurojust. Il tutto in attesa di capire il ruolo che si ritaglierà la Procura europea di recente istituzione.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, οι πολλές και ποικίλες δραστηριότητες του οργανωμένου εγκλήματος, σε συνδυασμό με τη δράση των τρομοκρατών, τη διασυνοριακή απάτη, αλλά και τις επιθέσεις στον κυβερνοχώρο, επιβάλλουν τη συνεργασία των δικαστικών αρχών κάθε χώρας με τον Οργανισμό της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στον τομέα της ποινικής δικαιοσύνης, την γνωστό Eurojust, προκειμένου να αντιμετωπιστούν όλες αυτές οι περιπτώσεις.

Πρέπει όμως η Eurojust να λειτουργεί κατά τρόπο ο οποίος δεν θα παραβιάζει την κυριαρχία των κρατών. Γι’ αυτό πρέπει να καθοριστεί η αποστολή της και να οριοθετηθούν τα όρια των δραστηριοτήτων της. Ένα άλλο ζήτημα που είναι ιδιαίτερα ευαίσθητο είναι ότι στα πλαίσια της αντιμετωπίσεως του οργανωμένου εγκλήματος δεν πρέπει να παραβιάζονται τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα. Τέλος, είναι αυτονόητο ότι η λειτουργία της Eurojust δεν πρέπει να υποκύπτει σε πολιτικές σκοπιμότητες.

  Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, σήμερα στην Ευρώπη δραστηριοποιούνται εγκληματικές οργανώσεις, που αποτελούν σοβαρό κίνδυνο για τις κοινωνίες των κρατών μελών. Την τελευταία μάλιστα δεκαετία έχει παρατηρηθεί πως οι οργανώσεις αυτές δεν περιορίζονται σε ένα κράτος, αλλά εκμεταλλευόμενες την ελεύθερη κυκλοφορία προσώπων αναπτύσσονται πανευρωπαϊκά. Ταυτόχρονα δε παρατηρείται και αυξανόμενη συνεργασία μεταξύ εγκληματικών ομάδων των διαφόρων κρατών. Δίκτυα τρομοκρατικά, δίκτυα λαθρεμπορίας, εμπορίας ανθρώπων, αλλά και οικονομικού εγκλήματος εκμεταλλεύονται στο έπακρο την καθυστέρηση που επιδεικνύουν οι εθνικές αρχές.

Δυστυχώς όμως, αντί η Επιτροπή να παρουσιάσει μια ολοκληρωμένη πρόταση με σκοπό τη δημιουργία ενός οργάνου που θα συντονίζει αποτελεσματικά τις διωκτικές αρχές των κρατών, αναλώνεται περισσότερο στη δημιουργία μιας Ευρωπαϊκής δήθεν Εισαγγελίας με περιορισμένες δυνατότητες, με αρμοδιότητες που συγκρούονται με αυτές της Eurojust και ταυτόχρονα με κάποιες δικαστικές εξουσίες. Επιπλέον, επιδεικνύοντας πρωτοφανή αδιαφορία για την αρχή της διάκρισης των εξουσιών, η Επιτροπή επιδιώκει ουσιαστικά να ελέγχει τον διορισμό των προέδρων και αντιπροέδρων της Eurojust . Τελικά η Επιτροπή μάλλον ενδιαφέρεται περισσότερο για τη δημιουργία νέων θέσεων διορισμού ημετέρων και την απορρόφηση κονδυλίων.

(Fin des interventions à la demande)

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you very much for your valuable contributions in this debate. I would like to respond on several of the comments made. It is true that criminals have no borders. Also, criminal creativity has no limits, and criminals are using and abusing several new factors.

Firstly, they abuse the loopholes which we leave in the system. They are abusing new technological tools and possibilities because – while a number of speakers mentioned the Schengen area, which enables free movement – the digital sphere, in fact, has no borders, and we have the statistics from the national police and prosecutors’ offices which show that criminality is shifting to the digital sphere and cybercrime is on the rise. Sadly, another aspect widely abused by international organised criminal networks is the fact that national police and prosecutors have limited powers in relation to cases with cross-border scope. These are the cases which we need to address. We need to reorganise powers and redistribute tasks and competences among the institutions which the EU has established, in order to prosecute these big cross-border cases.

In relation to Europol, and now the reform of Eurojust and the new EPPO, of course I have to mention OLAF, which also needs reconstruction – and all these institutions will need to work without overlap. There must be very strong synergies and it is our duty to fine-tune the tasks and competences of these institutions to work as one in a well-orchestrated way, because if we fail to do that the criminals will be celebrating.

  Axel Voss, Berichterstatter. – Frau Präsidentin! Frau Kommissarin! Zunächst auch mal hier eingehend auf die einzelnen Beiträge, gerade die Beiträge, die ich von dieser Seite eben gehört habe. Da habe ich das Gefühl, da hat man das System und die Plattform Eurojust überhaupt nicht verstanden. Großbritannien ist bislang nicht untergegangen, weil sie eben auch schon seit 2002 an der Arbeit teilnehmen, und sie werden das auch in Zukunft tun. Es geht eben von den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten aus, dass hier eine Kooperation gewünscht wird. Es ist nicht so, dass man hier einfach wahllos irgendwie zugreift. Da müsste man schon sehr die Augen vor den Realitäten verschließen.

Ich danke für die Beiträge insgesamt, und ich glaube, wir bringen jetzt das ganze System hier auch an die aktuellen Herausforderungen einer globalen Verbrechensbekämpfung heran. Organisierte Kriminalität effektiv bekämpfen und die Mitgliedstaaten unterstützen ist eines der wesentlichen Dinge, die wir hier haben – auch wenn die Kollegin Inge Grässle es jetzt sehr bedauert, dass man vielleicht die eine oder andere Chance verpasst hat. So negativ wie sie es sieht, würde ich es allerdings nicht sehen. Wir haben hier eine sehr explizite Zusammenarbeit in den Artikeln 3, 13 und 50 geschaffen, zu OLAF in Artikel 75. Wir haben das dort auch hinsichtlich des Datenaustausches vorgenommen. Wir unterliegen natürlich auch gewissen datenschutzrechtlichen Regelungen, die wir nun allgemein diskutiert haben. Sowohl OLAF als auch die EUStA können mit Eurojust im weiteren Vergleich interne Abkommen abschließen, um die Arbeit effektiver zu gestalten. Von daher sehe ich es nicht ganz so negativ. Vielleicht hätte man es direkt regeln können, ja. Aber ich glaube, das Ganze wird sich einspielen, wenn denn erstmal alle auch ihre Arbeit entsprechend aufgenommen haben und in diesem Rahmen und auf dieser Grundlage zusammenarbeiten können.

  La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu jeudi 4 octobre 2018.

16. Взаимно признаване на решенията за обезпечаване и конфискация (разискване)

  La Présidente. – L’ordre du jour appelle le débat sur le rapport de Nathalie Griesbeck, au nom de la commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures, sur la proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil concernant la reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions de gel et de confiscation (COM(2016)0819 - C8-0002/2017 - 2016/0412(COD)) (A8-0001/2018).

  Nathalie Griesbeck, rapporteure. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, je suis très heureuse de vous présenter ce soir, enfin, notre accord final, après les négociations sur le règlement relatif à la reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions de gel et de confiscation.

C’est vrai que l’Union disposait déjà de règles minimales ainsi que de règles de reconnaissance mutuelle, mais elles étaient largement dépassées. En particulier, elles permettaient aux criminels et aux terroristes d’utiliser très facilement les failles. C’est pourquoi il était important de revenir sur la législation et de travailler assez vite.

Le gel et la confiscation des biens et des avoirs des criminels constituent aussi un outil de lutte contre la criminalité et le terrorisme, en particulier du fait qu’en privant les terroristes des produits de leurs activités illégales, on les empêche d’organiser des attentats. Or, dans ce domaine, notre marge de progression est très large puisque, depuis que nous travaillons sur ce dossier très important actuellement, 98,9 % des profits d’origine criminelle estimés ne sont pas confisqués et restent aux mains des criminels. Autrement dit, on ne confisque que 1 % des profits d’origine criminelle. Ce n’est pas acceptable et on ne peut pas continuer de cette manière. Par ailleurs, n’oublions pas que la confiscation des biens du crime est également un instrument très important lorsqu’il s’agit d’indemniser les victimes.

Nos outils doivent donc être pensés à l’échelle européenne et pour les Européens. J’étais contente lorsque la Commission a immédiatement proposé de travailler sur un règlement, et non une directive. Même si quelques États membres, à cet égard, traînaient un peu les pieds, c’est finalement cet outil juridique qui a été accepté et sur lequel nous voterons demain.

Le Parlement a bien sûr adopté en janvier, à une très large majorité, une position ambitieuse qui simplifie et normalise les procédures, et qui améliore la rapidité et l’efficacité des décisions de gel et de confiscation en resserrant les délais. Évidemment, c’est une position qui donne une place majeure aux victimes et qui a été défendue bec et ongles dans les négociations interinstitutionnelles avec le soutien des rapporteurs fictifs, que je remercie tout particulièrement de leur confiance et pour la bonne ambiance de travail qui a été la nôtre.

Face à l’importance de cet outil, nos partenaires institutionnels ont répondu et œuvré rapidement et minutieusement. À l’issue des négociations, nous avons obtenu un outil équilibré, respectueux des droits fondamentaux et opérationnel. L’accord final repose sur de meilleures garanties procédurales avec une définition du terme «personne concernée» (affected person, en anglais). C’était un point très important puisqu’on ne pouvait pas ignorer qu’il arrive que des personnes innocentes soient affectées par des décisions de gel et de confiscation. Puis, nous avons eu aussi, au sein des négociations, un consensus – c’est important de le dire, quand cela existe, même avec le Conseil – sur la place accordée aux victimes et, en particulier, à l’indemnisation de ces dernières puisque celles-ci, pour nous, doivent être au cœur de notre système judiciaire.

Nous nous sommes battus et nous avons obtenu la réutilisation à des fins sociales des biens confisqués et, enfin, dans un des objectifs clés, le Parlement a été particulièrement uni sur l’objectif de créer un outil qui soit rapide pour être efficace. Les États membres ont été difficiles à convaincre, mais on a instauré un délai de 45 jours pour la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions de confiscation.

Enfin, nous avons lutté d’arrache-pied pour renforcer et encore mieux prendre en compte les droits fondamentaux. Outre l’obligation de respecter les principes clés de nécessité et de proportionnalité, nous nous sommes battus avec succès pour insérer une clause de non-reconnaissance basée sur les droits fondamentaux pour les décisions de gel et de confiscation. Après des semaines de blocage, nous sommes parvenus à un accord et nous avons obtenu une telle clause pour les décisions de gel ainsi que pour la confiscation – ce qui était plus difficile –, avec une mention cruciale faite à la charte européenne des droits de l’homme.

Pour tous ces éléments, je remercie mes collègues pour leur patience, leur détermination et la bonne ambiance et, en conclusion, je remercie évidemment aussi Věra Jourová et ses équipes grâce à qui cet accord a pu être présenté au vote de demain.

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, tomorrow you will vote on the regulation on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. The Commission attaches high importance to the adoption of this regulation as it is part of the action plan to strengthen the fight against terrorism and contributes to completing the Security Union.

First, I would like to congratulate and thank the rapporteur, Ms Nathalie  Griesbeck, for her excellent work and strong dedication on this file. For instance, her determination to maintain this piece of legislation as a regulation was very impressive. Thank you for this. We all understand that it has to be a coherent, reliable and swiftly functioning instrument and with the directive maybe this coherence would not have been as perfect as we need for the practical use of this tool.

With this regulation, we take a big step in the EU criminal justice system. It is the first regulation in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The rules will apply directly in all Member States. Secondly, the instrument will be an important step to facilitate cross—border recovery of criminal assets and lead to more efficient freezing and confiscation of funds from illicit origin in the EU.

As we already heard, at this moment, quite shockingly, 99% of criminal proceeds remain in the hands of criminals and terrorists. This is clearly not acceptable. The regulation will contribute to ensure that criminals and terrorists cannot use loopholes to fund further operations. National authorities will cooperate better and faster, with clear deadlines and standard documents. In cross—border cases, the victims’ rights to restitution and compensation will have priority over the state’s claims. That is also why I like this proposal – because it contains elementary fairness for the victims of crime.

The text includes safeguards ensuring that the mutual recognition of freezing or confiscation orders is, in line with fundamental rights, protected by the EU Charter. It finds the right balance between the need to ensure mutual recognition and the respect of fundamental rights at the same time.

  Pavel Svoboda, zpravodaj Výboru pro právní záležitosti. – Paní předsedající, paní komisařko, předložený návrh Komise o vzájemném uznávání příkazů k zajištění a konfiskaci je typickým příkladem evropské legislativy, která přináší všem občanům Evropské unie nezpochybnitelnou přidanou hodnotu. Proti kriminalitě nadnárodní povahy můžeme efektivně bojovat pouze nástroji nadnárodní povahy. Je třeba si uvědomit, že současná situace a neexistence dostatečné harmonizace ulehčuje financování trestné činnosti.

Je naší odpovědností jakožto unijních zákonodárců neulehčovat zločinu život a přijmout takové procesní předpisy, které umožní konfiskaci výnosů z trestné činnosti přeshraniční povahy. Výbor pro právní záležitosti vypracoval k tomuto návrhu stanovisko, ve kterém především navrhuje upřesnit některé formulace tak, aby výsledný text byl skutečně dostatečně precizní.

  Innocenzo Leontini, a nome del gruppo PPE. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, anch’io mi associo ai complimenti nei confronti della collega Griesbeck per il lavoro svolto come relatrice e io, nella funzione di relatore ombra, successore del collega pugliese, al cui posto sono subentrato, sottolineo che la percentuale del 98,9% di proventi derivanti da attività criminali non confiscate è una percentuale esagerata. La confisca dei proventi da reato e i congelamenti di questi beni è una misura fondamentale nella lotta alla criminalità organizzata e all'attività terroristica.

Fino ad oggi, gli Stati membri hanno attuato in modo carente o raramente le minime misure vigenti negli Stati membri. Il 21 dicembre del 2016, la Commissione ha adottato una proposta di regolamento che disciplina il riconoscimento reciproco da parte degli Stati membri dei provvedimenti di confisca e di congelamento dei beni provenienti da attività criminali. Da oggi un provvedimento emesso dall'autorità di uno Stato membro può essere riconosciuto ed eseguito celermente in tutti gli altri Stati membri. L'ambito di applicazione di questo regolamento si estende a nuovi tipi di confisca, in linea con la direttiva 2014/42/UE, ma andando oltre essa, specie laddove prevede forme meno limitate di confisca non basata sulla condanna.

L'attuazione di questo regolamento consente di utilizzare delle risorse per il risarcimento delle famiglie delle vittime, per attività di contrasto alla criminalità organizzata e per iniziative a scopo sociale, prevedendo l'istituzione di uffici competenti per ogni singolo Stato membro. Il Consiglio e il Parlamento hanno stabilito un testo che prevede 45 giorni per l'esecuzione di provvedimenti di confisca e 96 ore per l'esecuzione dei provvedimenti di congelamento. Il regolamento rende il riconoscimento reciproco degli ordini di confisca di congelamento più efficiente, più veloce e più omogeneo.

  Emilian Pavel, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank Ms Griesbeck for her work. Ms Griesbeck, you were tough and you were efficient when it came to defending Parliament’s position, especially when we fought together to protect human rights. I thank you especially for that because, as you know, it was my number one priority.

This regulation is one of the three measures intended to strengthen the EU’s capacity to fight organised crime and terrorism and to cut off the sources of financing for criminals and terrorists across the Union. It is important that this is a regulation and not a directive. We must deprive criminals of the proceeds of their crime. Moreover, confiscation allows victims to be compensated and provides additional funds to invest in law enforcement activities or other crime prevention initiatives.

In June, the Council, following a provisional agreement with Parliament, agreed on new rules. The general principle of recognition means that all judicial decisions in criminal matters taken in one Member State shall be – and normally will be – directly recognised and enforced by another Member State. The regulation sets out a number of grounds for non—recognition and non—execution based on fundamental rights, which we fought for together and we were successful. I would also like to thank the shadows.

In the final text, thanks to our work, many safeguards have been added and fundamental rights will be fully protected. We asked, and achieved, standards, certificates and procedures to allow speedy and efficient freezing and confiscation actions – a deadline of 45 days for the recognition of a confiscation order and, in urgent cases, a deadline of 44 hours for the recognition, and 44 hours for the execution, of freezing orders. Those limits can be postponed only under the strict conditions detailed in this regulation. Finally, yet importantly, there are provisions to ensure that victims’ rights to compensation and restitution are respected in cross—border cases.

This legislative instrument is the first regulation based on the principle of mutual recognition concerning criminal law proceedings. I encourage you to support it and to vote in favour tomorrow.

  Monica Macovei, în numele grupului ECR. – Doamna președintă, cum stăm cu confiscarea și punerea sub sechestru? Doar 1% din bunurile care provin din infracțiuni sunt confiscate astăzi. Trilioane de euro sunt generate de infracțiuni, dar recuperăm numai 1,2 miliarde de euro pe an, restul le rămân infractorilor. Tocmai de aceea sunt dezamăgită de pașii înapoi făcuți de acest regulament. Deci, eu voi fi partea critică, se pare, a ceea ce vom vota. Sigur că are multe părți bune, dar mă voi referi la cele care pe mine mă dezamăgesc.

În noul text al regulamentului, noțiunea de „terți de bună credință” este înlocuită cu cea de „persoane afectate” - asta îi include și pe cei împotriva cărora au fost emise mandate de sechestru sau de confiscare. Limitele de timp pentru recunoașterea reciprocă și executarea creanțelor, a ordinelor de sechestru sau confiscare cresc, în loc să scadă. Trei - protejarea confidențialității investigațiilor în curs este mult diluată față de propunerea Comisiei și patru - sunt introduse noi motive de nerecunoaștere a ordinelor de confiscare și sechestru.

Ca atare, va fi mai greu să confiscăm și mai greu să punem sub sechestru.

  Lieve Wierinck, namens de ALDE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, beste collega's, in Europa spreken we vaak over de toegevoegde waarde van samenwerking, vanuit het besef dat we sommige problemen alleen maar op het niveau van de Unie kunnen oplossen. Wel, dit dossier is daar een mooi voorbeeld van. In 2010 vloeide er zo'n 110 miljard euro of bijna één procent van het Europese bbp naar criminele activiteiten. Tussen 2010 en 2014 konden we daarvan slechts 2,2 % bevriezen en amper 1,1 % confisqueren. De reden hiervoor is niet dat de bevoegde autoriteiten onvoldoende inspanningen zouden leveren en al zeker niet dat we het geld niet kunnen gebruiken. De echte reden is duidelijk: een gebrek aan samenwerking. Terrorisme en georganiseerde criminaliteit opereren over de grenzen heen. Dankzij deze wetgeving doet onze rechtspraak dat binnenkort ook. Beste collega's morgen sluiten we het net.

  Eva Joly, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, comme cela a été rappelé, la criminalité prive chaque année nos États de 110 milliards d’euros et 99 % de ces profits illégaux ne sont jamais récupérés et restent bien au chaud dans les poches des criminels. Ne laissons pas l’argent du crime prospérer: confisquons-le par-delà les frontières.

Ce règlement sur la reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions de gel et de confiscation des avoirs est le bienvenu. Grâce à lui, un État membre reconnaîtra et exécutera directement sur son territoire une décision de gel ou de confiscation rendue par un autre État membre dans le cadre d’une procédure pénale. Il s’agit d’un progrès important vers un véritable espace européen de liberté, de sécurité et de justice.

Lutter ensemble contre la criminalité ne doit pas se faire au détriment des droits des citoyens. J’apprécie donc que nous soyons arrivés à un compromis avec le Conseil sur la possibilité de refuser la reconnaissance d’une décision de confiscation dans le cas où les droits fondamentaux n’auraient pas été respectés, comme le droit à un procès équitable. Ces précautions sont indispensables à l’heure où plusieurs gouvernements européens portent gravement atteinte aux fondamentaux de la justice.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, the UK’s adoption of the European Union system of criminal law is destroying our freedoms and liberties under English law.

Magna Carta said that the English could not be arrested or imprisoned without evidence laid against them in an English court. The European Union has swept away that ancient liberty. We can now be imprisoned in a foreign jail on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations on a piece of paper.

Under the Bill of Rights 1689, we could not be fined or have our property confiscated without a criminal conviction in an English court. That liberty was swept away under the EU Directive that allows our assets to be frozen or confiscated on the say—so of a foreign court. Now the EU wants to turn this directive into a regulation so that Member States will have no leeway in its application, and it even allows for non—conviction—based confiscation orders.

For centuries the English could not be imprisoned or have their property taken away without a criminal conviction under their own laws in their own courts. Now a court in any corrupt EU Member State can judicially kidnap our citizens and freeze or confiscate their property. Our governments tell us that we have to surrender our liberties so that they can protect us from cross—border crime and terrorism. The same governments open their borders to any organised criminal from around the world that wants to launder their money in our banking systems. They open our borders to any thief or fraudster that can come purely because they are EU citizens and we cannot deny them entry.

Her Majesty’s Government wants to opt into this regulation and Mrs May no doubt intends to incorporate it into her proposed security treaty with the EU after Brexit. UKIP MEPs will vote against this. We protect British liberties and freedoms, not betray them.

  Georg Mayer, im Namen der ENF-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Das ist ein wichtiger Schritt, um illegal erworbenes Vermögen zu bekämpfen. Ich möchte einen Fall etwas ins Licht rücken, der zufälligerweise wirklich auch mit Großbritannien zu tun hat. Da geht es um den Ex-Banker Abljasow aus Kasachstan, der in der Bank, in der er gearbeitet hat, angeblich zehn Milliarden Euro veruntreut hat und dann nach Großbritannien geflogen ist. Ein britisches Gericht hat ihn dann auch verurteilt und hat gesagt: Wir machen hier eine Sicherstellungsentscheidung und lassen dieses Vermögen sicherstellen. Zusätzlich wurde er zu 22 Monaten Haft verurteilt.

Und was macht dieser Ex-Banker dann? Er flieht nach Frankreich. Auch in Frankreich hat er dann eine Haftstrafe bekommen, nach drei Jahren, im Jahr 2016, wurde er allerdings in einer Nacht-und-Nebel-Aktion enthaftet. Seitdem ist er nicht mehr aufzufinden. Man weiß nicht, was mit diesen zehn Milliarden Euro passiert ist. Dies herauszufinden ist natürlich im Interesse dieser Bank, die da massiv dahinter ist. Aber es ist auch, denke ich, in unserem Interesse, dass man dieses illegale Geld auftreibt und dem rechtmäßigen Besitzer wieder zurückgibt.

  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το ισχύον καθεστώς είναι αναποτελεσματικό και πρακτικά ανεφάρμοστο. Η δέσμευση των περιουσιακών στοιχείων εγκληματικών οργανώσεων είναι μηδαμινή, το μήνυμα πως το έγκλημα δεν ανταμείβει ανύπαρκτο και η επιστροφή του προϊόντος και των κερδών εγκλήματος άπιαστο όνειρο. Είναι πέρα από απαράδεκτο να παραμένουν τα κέρδη από παράνομες δραστηριότητες στη διάθεση των εγκληματιών.

Απαιτείται σαφήνεια και ασφάλεια δικαίου με την απλούστευση και αποσαφήνιση του συνολικού πλαισίου της αμοιβαίας αναγνώρισης δικαστικών αποφάσεων και με την ενίσχυση του ρόλου των αρμοδίων εθνικών αρχών.

Όμως κάθε δράση εναντίον των εγκληματιών εν τέλει πρέπει να υπηρετείται υπέρ του συνόλου των πολιτών, δηλαδή με σεβασμό στα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα, ισχυρές δικονομικές εγγυήσεις, πρόνοιες αποζημίωσης, ουσιαστική και αποτελεσματική πρόσβαση σε κατάλληλα ένδικα μέσα και πράξεις δέσμευσης και δήμευσης από διωκτικές, εισαγγελικές ή δικαστικές αρχές έναντι επαρκών ενδείξεων. Διότι διαδικασίες που δεν φέρουν εχέγγυα ανεξαρτησίας, διαφάνειας, αμεροληψίας και αναλογικότητας δύνανται, στα λάθος χέρια, να καταδυναστεύσουν καταχρηστικά και κακόβουλα μεμονωμένους πολίτες.

  Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Voorzitter, beste collega's, het is een mooie dag wat mij betreft. Ik herinner me nog hoe ik drie jaar geleden bij mij in Zuid-Limburg op werkbezoek ging bij politie- en justitiediensten. Ik bezocht er mannen en vrouwen die zich dagelijks inzetten om onze veiligheid in de grensregio te waarborgen. Dat is niet makkelijk, zeker niet in een provincie als de mijne waar we meer grenzen hebben met België en Duitsland dan met ons eigen Nederland. Wat me altijd is bijgebleven van dat werkbezoek, is de frustratie die er leefde over hoe moeizaam het soms is om criminele bezittingen over de grens te bevriezen of te confisqueren. Wanneer een drugsdealer in Nederland opgepakt en vervolgd wordt maar zijn geld of zijn Ferrari aan de andere kant van de grens geparkeerd staat, dan is daar heel moeilijk aan te komen.

Dit is niet alleen een probleem in de grensregio. De commissaris heeft al gezegd dat de illegale markten in de EU een omvang van ongeveer 110 miljard euro hebben. We slagen er niet in om daar meer dan één procent van te confisqueren. Een groot deel daarvan blijft dus gewoon in handen van criminelen. We kunnen die criminelen maar op één manier pijn doen en dat is in hun portemonnee.

Criminelen laten zich niet leiden of tegenhouden door landsgrenzen, dus kunnen politie en justitie zich dat ook niet veroorloven. Dankzij deze nieuwe wetgeving wordt het in de toekomst makkelijker om ook aan de andere kant van de grens beslag te laten leggen op het geld en de middelen van criminelen. Dat is heel slecht nieuws voor criminelen en daarmee heel goed nieuws voor ons allemaal. Het laat vooral ook zien dat de EU dit soort vraagstukken kan aanpakken, dat EU-regels in de praktijk een meerwaarde kunnen hebben en dat wij in staat zijn om de zorgen van burgers in de grensregio te vertalen naar dit soort beleid. Dat is onze belangrijkste opdracht in dit Parlement en ik ben heel blij dat we daar vandaag in geslaagd zijn.

  Caterina Chinnici (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario, ringrazio l'onorevole Griesbeck e i relatori ombra per l'eccellente lavoro svolto su una proposta di regolamento che pone un altro essenziale tassello per il contrasto alla criminalità transnazionale.

Colpire le organizzazioni criminali laddove fa più male, cioè negli interessi economici: il congelamento e la confisca dei beni rappresentano infatti i principali strumenti per deprivare i gruppi criminali organizzati dei profitti e delle risorse necessarie al loro illecito operare.

Il regolamento completa e rafforza il quadro normativo europeo, garantirà un più efficace e celere riconoscimento degli ordini di congelamento e confisca fra gli Stati membri, permettendo di colpire tali profitti criminosi attraverso l'intero territorio dell'Unione, ed è particolarmente importante la previsione del mutuo riconoscimento dei cosiddetti provvedimenti di confisca in assenza di condanna, che con le giuste garanzie e nel rispetto dei diritti fondamentali, rappresentano un significativo passo in avanti nell'azione di contrasto alle organizzazioni criminali.

Ed è importante ancora la previsione del reimpiego dei beni confiscati a fini sociali, misura quest'ultima che promuove il valore e direi il senso della legalità.

  Helga Stevens (ECR). – Voorzitter, collega's, terroristen en criminelen kunnen vandaag nog al te gemakkelijk hun opbrengsten door de EU versluizen, met als resultaat dat nauwelijks één procent van het misdaadgeld uit criminele handen kan worden genomen. Dit is een erg bedroevend cijfer. Om terrorisme uit te roeien is het cruciaal dat we de financieringsbronnen droogleggen. Dit is een terrein waarop de EU echt haar meerwaarde kan en moet bewijzen. De strijd tegen terreur kunnen we alleen maar winnen als we samen een vuist maken. De golf van aanslagen heeft heel duidelijk aangetoond dat er behoefte is aan verdere Europese samenwerking op dit terrein. Ik steun dan ook ten volle deze nieuwe Europese maatregel, die de lidstaten dwingt beter samen te werken om criminele goederen te bevriezen en te confisqueren. Dit is een positieve evolutie in het Europees wetgevend kader die bijdraagt aan de uitbouw van een veiligheidscultuur in Europa.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – Señora presidenta... ¡Felicidades, Nathalie!

El decomiso de bienes producto de actividades delictivas es un instrumento eficaz para combatir la delincuencia y el terrorismo; pero es que no se decomisa nada, casi nada. Por eso resulta esencial asegurar la eficacia, en toda la Unión, del embargo y el decomiso de los bienes de origen delictivo, así como evitar que los delincuentes puedan aprovechar las lagunas existentes en la Unión para trasladar sus bienes y eludir así las órdenes al respecto.

El embargo y el decomiso de los bienes del delito se encuentran entre los medios más eficaces de lucha contra la delincuencia organizada. Sin embargo, es necesario profundizar en una mejora de la coordinación entre Estados miembros. Es imprescindible bloquear con celeridad los flujos de dinero con origen y destino en organizaciones delictivas, así como mejorar la rapidez y la eficacia de los procedimientos de reconocimiento de las resoluciones de embargo y decomiso.

Por eso, el refuerzo de principios propuestos en este Reglamento, como el de reconocimiento y ejecución de resoluciones judiciales en materia penal, resultan fundamentales para mermar la lacra que supone cualquier forma de crimen organizado.

Lo que acabo de decir es la piedra angular de la cooperación penal judicial.

Es importante también mencionar la posibilidad de realizar un decomiso de manera preventiva cuando se tenga seguridad de que existe algún vínculo con una actividad delictiva; y, además, la noción de necesidad y proporcionalidad debe ser una constante, tal y como se incluye en el texto, en las resoluciones que hoy comentamos.

Finalmente, el reconocimiento mutuo de procedimientos y la mejora de la eficiencia en las labores de embargo y decomiso son, junto con la lucha contra el blanqueo y la detección de movimientos ilícitos de dinero en efectivo, los instrumentos esenciales para combatir la financiación del crimen y el terror.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, comisaria, un reglamento, una ley europea directamente vinculante en este paquete de medidas dirigidas a fortalecer a la Unión Europea en su lucha contra la criminalidad en clave trasnacional y contra el terrorismo. Me sumo al reconocimiento del trabajo de nuestra ponente Nathalie.

Pero me centro en la incardinación de esta iniciativa junto a la que antes discutíamos, Eurojust. Y la Fiscalía europea. Y la Directiva de protección de intereses financieros de la Unión, de la que tuve el honor de ser ponente. Pero subrayo, de nuevo, la exigencia de que esto base su eficacia en el reconocimiento mutuo de resoluciones judiciales de decomiso, de confiscación y de embargo de bienes procedentes de la actividad delictiva y de la criminalidad.

Y ese reconocimiento debe tener lugar sobre la base de la confianza mutua con carácter general de modo que las excepciones sean tasadas, basadas exclusivamente en la excepcionalidad, en la ponderación del caso concreto, en el impacto sobre los derechos fundamentales y en la consulta con el Estado requirente.

Y subrayo, además, la importancia de una gestión eficiente de esos bienes en la indemnización de las víctimas y en la protección de los familiares de las víctimas y la reutilización con fines sociales del decomiso de todos los bienes y activos procedentes de la lucha contra la delincuencia y contra la criminalidad organizada.

  Емил Радев (PPE). – Уважаема г-жо Председател, уважаема г-жо Комисар, уважаеми колеги, приветствам постигнатото споразумение по Регламента относно взаимното признаване на решения за обезпечаване и конфискация. Правната уредба на Съюза в тази област беше доста изостанала и не отразяваше съвременното развитие на европейското и националните законодателства.

Понастоящем 99% от възможните печалби от престъпна дейност не се конфискуват и остават на разположение на престъпниците. Ето защо осъвременяването на законовата уредба за конфискуването на активи, придобити от престъпна дейност, е много нужен и ефективен инструмент за борба с престъпността и тероризма на ниво на целия Европейски съюз.

Чрез новите разпоредби ще се улесни взаимното признаване, което означава, че всички съдебни решения по наказателноправни въпроси, постановени в една държава от Европейския съюз, ще бъдат по принцип пряко признавани и изпълнявани в друга държава членка. Страните от Европейския съюз по искане на друга държава членка вече ще могат да конфискуват активи, които не са преки приходи от престъпление, както и активи, които принадлежат на трето лице.

Считам, че така конфискацията на имущество в други държави членки вече ще бъде по-бърза и ефикасна. Освен това ще може да се конфискува имущество, дори ако все още няма осъдителна присъда, например, ако заподозреният е избягал. Въвеждането на стандартни сертификати и процедури, както и общи за целия Европейски съюз крайни срокове, като краен срок от 45 дни за признаване на решение за конфискация, а в спешни случаи краен срок от 48 часа за признаване и 48 часа за изпълнение на решения за обезпечаване, ще позволят бърза реакция от страна на компетентните органи.

Вярвам, че този европейски инструмент за сътрудничество ще гарантира именно ефективното обезпечаване и конфискация на престъпни активи в целия Европейски съюз. Това ще допринесе за повишаване на сигурността на Съюза чрез борба с финансирането на престъпността, включително на терористични дейности.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamna președintă, doamna comisar, iată, în această după—amiază am dezbătut două regulamente: regulamentul prin care se reorganizează Eurojust, foarte important, și acest regulament. Vreau și eu să subliniez, cum a spus colegul Pavel, că este bine că nu este directivă și este regulament, pentru că nu va mai exista diferență în asimilarea, în implementarea acestui instrument extrem de important, Regulamentul privind recunoașterea reciprocă a ordinelor de înghețare și confiscare. Sunt convinsă că va fi un instrument extrem de important în piața internă a Uniunii Europene. Avem nevoie de mecanisme de supraveghere și cred că regulamentul va fi principalul mecanism.

Prin acest regulament și prevederile lui putem combate, evident, infracționalitatea, așa cum s-a spus, dar putem întrerupe finanțarea terorismului. Există piețe ilegale, s-au dat cifre aici, statistica cred că încă nu cuprinde chiar tot ce înseamnă piață ilegală. Este, de asemenea, alarmant că, de atâta timp, nu reușim să recuperăm un procent foarte mare din profiturile care se estimează a fi obținute prin infracțiuni.

Justiția europeană înseamnă cooperare judiciară atât în materie civilă, cât și în materie penală. Eu cred în acest regulament și sper să fie votat mâine.

PRZEWODNICTWO: BOGUSŁAW LIBERADZKI
Wiceprzewodniczący

  Elly Schlein (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la mafia fa affari con disinvoltura attraverso i confini nazionali e sfrutta le debolezze legislative dei diversi paesi e anche la loro mancanza di cooperazione, quindi anche su questo se siamo un'Unione, ha senso cercare di prendere le buone pratiche sviluppate in uno Stato e renderle patrimonio comune europeo.

È fondamentale, quindi, prevedere misure forti come quella di cui discutiamo oggi, il mutuo riconoscimento degli ordini di confisca anche in assenza di condanna, perché proprio questo aspetto si è rivelato cruciale nel contesto italiano per il contrasto alle organizzazioni mafiose. Tra l'altro, è uno strumento che può essere anche molto deterrente.

L'Unione fa quindi oggi un passo molto importante verso l'armonizzazione delle norme per il contrasto alle mafie, scegliendo di attaccare i forti per tutelare i deboli. Infatti i beni congelati alle organizzazioni criminali potranno essere utilizzati per compensare le vittime e le loro famiglie o per rafforzare la lotta alla criminalità.

Quindi siamo molto felici che questo strumento arrivi finalmente in porto.

Zgłoszenia z sali

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – (początek wystąpienia poza mikrofonem) 99 % majątków przestępców nie jest konfiskowanych, nawet nie jest zabezpieczanych. To absolutnie dramatyczna sytuacja, która pokazuje, jak wymiar sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej jest nieskuteczny i nie radzi sobie z tym problemem. Dodam, że grupy terrorystyczne na same ataki terrorystyczne wydają zaledwie kilka procent uzyskiwanych dochodów. Całość jest konsumowana w kompletnie inny sposób.

To, że dzisiaj podejmujemy się tej decyzji i tej debaty, jest świadectwem naszej determinacji, ale od razu podkreślę – późnej determinacji. Mam nadzieję, że zaakceptowanie jutro w drodze głosowania tego rozporządzenia sprawę ułatwi, że szybciej i sprawniej będzie można po pierwsze – zabezpieczać, po drugie – konfiskować majątek pochodzący z przestępstw.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, izvjestiteljica je odradila sjajan posao i doista unaprijedila prijedlog Komisije te joj ovim putem na tome zahvaljujem. Napredak koji je postignut oko postupovnih garancija važan je kako bi osobe kojima je imovina zamrznuta imale priliku osporiti te naloge pred nadležnim sudovima.

Iako je borba protiv terorizma i organiziranog kriminala iznimno važna, a jedna od ključnih sastavnica te borbe je i zaustavljanje prekograničnog financiranja ilegalnih radnji, ne smijemo zaboraviti presumpciju nevinosti te s tim u skladu moramo stvoriti učinkovit i brz okvir za sudsko rješavanje sporova u ovakvim slučajevima.

Kao bivša policijska službenica, čestitam izvjestiteljici na prijedlogu da se iz oduzete imovine financira nadoknada štete obiteljima policajaca i drugih javnih djelatnika koji su preminuli ili teško stradali na dužnosti.

  Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, εάν θέλουμε να αποκτήσουν οι λαοί της Ευρώπης εμπιστοσύνη στις κυβερνήσεις, αλλά κυρίως στα πολιτειακά συστήματα που ισχύουν στα κράτη μέλη, ένα εξαιρετικό πρώτο βήμα θα ήταν η πάταξη του οργανωμένου εγκλήματος, ιδιαιτέρως δε του οικονομικού.

Η αμοιβαία αναγνώριση των αποφάσεων δέσμευσης και δήμευσης μεταξύ των κρατών έχει ήδη καθυστερήσει σε μεγάλο βαθμό. Πρέπει να διαβεβαιώσουμε τους πολίτες πως οποιοσδήποτε πλουτίζει παραβιάζοντας τους νόμους όχι απλά δεν θα απολαμβάνει τα παράνομα κέρδη του, αλλά αυτά θα κατάσχονται άμεσα και χωρίς εκπτώσεις. Ιδιαιτέρως δε θα επιθυμούσα να επικεντρωθούμε στις δημεύσεις περιουσιών που αποκτήθηκαν μέσω διαφθοράς κρατικών λειτουργών και πολιτικών. Δεν είναι λίγες οι περιπτώσεις που βλέπουμε πολιτικούς να διάγουν βίο πολυτελέστατο, δυσανάλογο με τα εισοδήματά τους.

Τέλος, θα ήθελα τα μέτρα που θα ληφθούν να είναι πολύ πιο άμεσα και αποτελεσματικά, καθώς θεωρώ πως οι δικαιολογημένες μέχρι ενός σημείου πρόνοιες υπέρ των κατηγορουμένων αποβαίνουν εις βάρος του δημοσίου συμφέροντος, όταν ξεπερνούν το μέτρο.

  Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, järjestäytyneen rikollisuuden ja terrorismin rahoituksen torjunta on ala, jossa tarvitaan unionin tasolla toimia, sillä toiminta on luonteeltaan rajat ylittävää. EU-valtioiden tulee tunnustaa vastavuoroisesti jäädyttämistä ja menetetyksi tuomitsemista koskevat päätökset, jotka on tehty toisessa jäsenvaltiossa. Rikoksella saadun omaisuuden jäädyttäminen ja menetetyksi tuomitseminen ovat tehokkaita keinoja järjestäytyneen rikollisuuden torjunnassa. Tällä hetkellä kuitenkin vain 1,1 prosenttia laittomin keinoin saaduista varoista takavarikoidaan.

Käsiteltävän asetusehdotuksen tarkoitus on helpottaa jäsenvaltioiden välistä yhteistyötä rikoshyödyn takaisin saamiseksi siten, että varoja saadaan tuomituksi valtiolle nykyistä tehokkaammin. Pidän erittäin hyvänä sitä, että jäädytetyillä ja takavarikoidulla varoilla voidaan maksaa korvauksia järjestäytyneen rikollisuuden uhreiksi joutuneille sekä ohjata varoja myös järjestäytyneen rikollisuuden torjuntaan.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, μια αποτελεσματική μέθοδος αντιμετωπίσεως του οργανωμένου εγκλήματος και της τρομοκρατίας είναι η δέσμευση και η δήμευση των περιουσιακών στοιχείων τα οποία προέρχονται από παράνομες δραστηριότητες. Η επιβεβλημένη συνεργασία των χωρών, προκειμένου να έχει επιτυχία αυτή η πολιτική, διευκολύνεται από την αμοιβαία αναγνώριση των ενταλμάτων δεσμεύσεως και δημεύσεως τα οποία εκδίδει ένα κράτος. Με τον τρόπο αυτό, όπως είπα και προηγουμένως, δεν θα επιτρέψουμε στους εγκληματίες να χρησιμοποιούν τα παρανόμως αποκτηθέντα χρήματα.

Από την άλλη πλευρά, πρέπει να δοθεί ιδιαίτερη σημασία στο πώς πρέπει να υλοποιείται και να εφαρμόζεται αυτή η αρχή. Είναι ανεπίτρεπτο να παραβιάζονται τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα και να υπάρχει προληπτική δέσμευση και δήμευση. Για να γίνει αυτό, πρέπει να έχει οπωσδήποτε προηγηθεί καταδικαστική και τελεσίδικη απόφαση που να έχει σχέση με κάποιο ποινικό αδίκημα. Σε διαφορετική περίπτωση, είναι απαράδεκτο να δεχόμαστε μια τέτοια κατάσταση. Επιπλέον τα χρήματα που δεσμεύονται πρέπει να επιστρέφονται στο ακέραιο στα θύματα.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η δέσμευση περιουσιακών στοιχείων και η δήμευση των προϊόντων εγκλήματος είναι απαραίτητα, προκειμένου να χτυπηθούν η τρομοκρατία, η διαφθορά κρατικών λειτουργών και πολιτικών, οι κάθε είδους εγκληματικές οργανώσεις, όπως είναι η μαφία, αλλά και οι δουλέμποροι οι οποίοι κυριολεκτικά γεμίζουν την Ευρώπη με παράνομους μετανάστες.

Θα πρέπει λοιπόν να υπάρχει η δυνατότητα επιβολής των αποφάσεων σε άλλο κράτος μέλος, διασυνοριακά, διότι οι περισσότεροι από αυτούς διαπράττουν το έγκλημα σε ένα κράτος και τα προϊόντα του εγκλήματος τα πάνε σε άλλο κράτος. Θα πρέπει φυσικά να υπάρχει κανονισμός, όπως αναφέρθηκε, για να είναι άμεση η εφαρμογή, να πραγματοποιείται η ανάκτηση των παρανόμων εσόδων και να τηρείται η αρχή της προστασίας θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων και δικονομικών εγγυήσεων.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much for this very interesting debate about the regulation on the confiscation and freezing of assets or income from criminal activities. Debating this topic, I am aware that it has a much wider context. I am sure that you also hear from EU citizens that there is decreasing trust among the people in the EU institutions. One of the sources of this distrust is that the people do not see justice delivering enough justice – the justice system delivering fairness. This is something we have to stop, and we have to be much better, and in the EU being better means co-operating better. This is what we are discussing about today.

We spoke before about Eurojust, now we are speaking about freezing and confiscation orders. Later today we will speak about the fight against money laundering. In all these cases we speak about combating organised crime, which has a cross-border scope and which requires perfect and well-orchestrated cooperation at EU level. Of course, as many of you mentioned here, a very efficient way to stop the criminals is to cut them off from the money. That this is exactly what we are trying to do in this proposal.

Back to cooperation, I would have wished to have a good debate. For instance with Mr Batten, who spoke here about the issue of sovereignty. I don’t share this opinion. I think that cooperation is not contradicting national sovereignty. It’s a big misunderstanding, and I am sure that everything that we do in criminal justice cooperation is to create proposals and plans which fully respect the sovereignty of Member States, which fully respect fundamental rights and individual freedoms of people, and which respond to security threats to the extent which is necessary and proportionate from the side of law enforcement authorities.

Also, this proposal which we are debating today is, as I said before, well balanced, balancing the need to deliver more security and, at the same time, more justice and full respect for fundamental rights.

This is my comment on what we heard from the British Member. On this topic, I would like to mention that we have very good cooperation with the British authorities. We speak about future cooperation in the fields of security and justice, because this is of vital importance, both for the EU and the United Kingdom. I would wish for very intensive cooperation in the future, not only within the EU itself and among the Member States, but also between the EU and the United Kingdom.

  Nathalie Griesbeck, rapporteure. – Monsieur le Président, je serai très brève et mentionnerai juste quelques points.

Le premier, c’est de dire combien je partage l’analyse que vient de faire Vĕra Jourová par rapport à la qualité du débat de cet après-midi. Nous avons entendu des positions qui, pour certaines, étaient très différentes, voire opposées, notamment l’une des positions opposées au règlement qui consiste à mélanger – peut-être de manière cynique ou peut-être de manière candide – l’idée de coopération pour lutter contre la criminalité organisée transfrontalière et la possession de la souveraineté des États. Lors du débat cet après-midi, il y avait les tenants de cette position, notamment nos amis et collègues britanniques, et les autres, ceux qui ont envie de tout faire pour que la coopération permette de traquer et de bousculer, tout en leur compliquant la tâche, les organisations criminelles transfrontalières et notamment les terroristes.

Par rapport aux collègues qui ont regretté que cela ne vienne pas suffisamment tôt, je répondrai juste par l’adage «mieux vaut tard que jamais». Il est vrai que cela aurait peut-être pu venir plus tôt, mais ce point de vue fait peut-être fi, aussi, de la difficulté à se mettre d’accord à 27 États membres, donc avec des collègues dont les positions sont distinctes.

Dernier ou avant-dernier point, je pense que nous serons nombreux demain, pour le vote, à nous trouver unis sur cette problématique et ce règlement, cet outil juridique qui permettra d’être efficace et rapide.

En conclusion – je suis dans les temps –, je tiens à remercier Madame la Commissaire, ses équipes et le Conseil, et à remercier chaleureusement aussi et surtout les rapporteurs, les corapporteurs, avec lesquels nous avons passé des heures denses et eu parfois des discussions âpres: je les remercie vraiment du fond du cœur et vous dis à demain pour le vote.

  Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się w czwartek 4 października 2018 r.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD), per iscritto. – Il regolamento sul riconoscimento reciproco dei provvedimenti di congelamento e di confisca è parte del pacchetto di tre proposte legislative (insieme a regolamento sul controllo sui trasferimenti di denaro e direttiva antiriciclaggio), presentato dalla Commissione nel dicembre del 2016 e volto a consolidare la capacità dell'UE di contrastare il finanziamento della criminalità organizzata e del terrorismo. Come dimostra anche l'esperienza italiana, aggredire gli aspetti patrimoniali delle attività delle organizzazioni criminali è uno dei metodi più efficaci per contrastarle, e, dato il carattere ormai intrinsecamente transfrontaliero delle azioni criminose e terroristiche, la cooperazione a livello UE in questi ambiti è assolutamente necessaria.

  Beata Gosiewska (ECR), na piśmie. – Przyjęcie nowego rozporządzenia w sprawie wzajemnego uznawania nakazów zabezpieczenia i nakazów konfiskaty ułatwi władzom krajowym przejęcie i zebranie aktywów na szczeblu krajowym i usprawni transgraniczne egzekwowanie nakazów zabezpieczenia i nakazów konfiskaty. Rozporządzenie to wprowadza zasadę wzajemnego uznawania, która oznacza, że wszystkie decyzje sądowe w sprawach karnych w jednym kraju UE będą zwykle bezpośrednio uznawane i egzekwowane przez inne państwo członkowskie. Uniemożliwi to przestępcom przenoszenie ich aktywów w UE. Zabezpieczenie i konfiskata mienia pochodzącego z działalności przestępczej są bardzo skutecznymi narzędziami w walce z przestępczością i finansowaniem terroryzmu, ponieważ pozbawiają przestępców dochodów z ich przestępstw i uniemożliwiają wykorzystanie tych funduszy na finansowanie nowej działalności przestępczej, w tym terroryzmu. Ponadto konfiskata umożliwia kompensację ofiar i poszanowanie praw ofiar do odszkodowania. Zapewnia także dodatkowe fundusze na inwestycje w działania organów ścigania lub inne inicjatywy prewencyjne. Z tych powodów będę głosować za tym sprawozdaniem.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE), în scris. – În fine, în cele din urmă, Comisia Europeană a venit cu o reglementare europeană pentru a facilita înghețarea și confiscarea averilor ascunse în străinătate de către persoane condamnate penal. Poate că acum nu va mai fi așa de ușor ca persoane condamnate penal să se refugieze în alte țări, unde să trăiască consumând averile transferate și sfidând cetățenii din țările unde au făcut aceste averi prin infracțiuni.

  Janusz Zemke (S&D), na piśmie. – Uważam, że w pełni zasadny jest wniosek, by PE i Rada przygotowały w trybie pilnym projekt rozporządzenia o wzajemnym uznawaniu nakazów zabezpieczenia i konfiskaty. Projekt musi być odpowiedzią na działalność przestępców w Europie, którzy osiągają korzyści materialne, wykorzystując różne luki w prawie europejskim. Praktyka dowodzi, że twarde odbieranie korzyści z działalności przestępczej stanowi najskuteczniejszy sposób zwalczania przestępczości, w tym przestępczości zorganizowanej. Według oceny Europolu różne nielegalne rynki działające w Unii Europejskiej generują rocznie około 110 mld euro, czyli 1 % PKB Unii. Policyjni praktycy wskazują, że z tej puli odzyskuje się tylko ułamek procenta, a zdecydowana większość zysków pozostaje w dyspozycji przestępców. Trzeba z tym oczywiście walczyć. Istotne jest to, że te metody walki zostaną ujęte w rozporządzeniu, które jako akt prawny UE o najwyższej mocy będzie musiało być bezpośrednio stosowane przez wszystkie państwa unijne. Proponowane rozporządzenie nie powinno się odnosić li tylko bezpośrednio do przestępców, ale powinno także obejmować konfiskatę w stosunku do osób trzecich, jeżeli nie ma wątpliwości, że to one dysponują dochodami z działalności przestępczej.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE), na piśmie. – Współpraca między wymiarami sprawiedliwości i wzajemne zaufanie są nieodzownym elementem skutecznej walki z przestępczością, która coraz częściej przenika granice Unii Europejskiej. Dlatego cieszę się, że ta współpraca wspierana jest także solidnymi ramami prawnymi i kolejnymi instrumentami, które utrudnią działalność przestępczą na terenie Unii. Obecnie ocenia się, że 98,9% ewentualnych zysków przestępczych nie jest konfiskowanych i pozostaje do dyspozycji przestępców. Dzięki nowym rozwiązaniom łatwiej będzie zamrażać aktywa i konfiskować mienie pochodzące z przestępstw w całej Unii. Z jednej strony zabezpieczy to te środki przed wykorzystaniem w dalszej działalności przestępczej, z drugiej pozwoli zapewnić poszanowanie praw ofiar do otrzymania odszkodowania i zwrotu mienia w sprawach transgranicznych. W praktyce nakaz konfiskaty wydany przez sąd w jednym z krajów członkowskich będzie w ciągu maksymalnie dwóch dni uznany i wykonany w innym kraju Unii. W ten sposób znacząco przyspieszone zostaną procedury w prawie karnym także w zakresie konfiskaty prewencyjnej.

17. Свободно движение на нелични данни в Европейския съюз (разискване)

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Annę Marię Corazzę Bildt w imieniu Komisji Rynku Wewnętrznego i Ochrony Konsumentów w sprawie wniosku dotyczącego rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie ram swobodnego przepływu danych nieosobowych w Unii Europejskiej (COM(2017)0495 – C8-0312/2017 – 2017/0228(COD)) (A8-0201/2018).

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Rapporteur. – Mr President, the digital revolution is changing all parts of our lives, and we are still only at the beginning of this exciting development. Movement of data will grow in volume and importance, and my vision is for an open, safe and global internet for all. With this regulation we will remove barriers, borders and burdens impeding the free flow of non-personal data. We have, de facto, established the fifth freedom in the internal market – data – next to freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital. It is a game changer for the digital economy.

The Free Flow of Data (FFoD) Regulation is a regulation to deregulate. We are removing national data localisation requirements and facilitating portability of cloud service providers. Step by step, we are creating a legal framework for the future digital economy. We are creating a level playing field for companies to compete globally. With the USA and China moving fast – as you always point out, Vice-President Ansip – and with much more data available than in Europe, access to data for companies and especially for SMEs is crucial. FFoD has the potential to create efficiency throughout the value chain, to enable economies of scale and to boost innovation, paving the way for artificial intelligence, cloud computing and big data analysis. It is a good example of better regulation, with the clear added value of a Europe that delivers concrete results. The estimated associated GDP growth is EUR 8 billion per year – equal to the two free-trade agreements between the European Union and South Korea and Canada.

So what have we achieved? With the new rules, any data that is non-personal can be stored and processed anywhere in the EU – sales data, revenues, profits, stock prices, balance sheets, product design, price lists – to name but a few. We have succeeded in keeping just one exception: in the case of a threat to public security, the Member States may still allow restriction of data localisation. Companies and public administration will have the possibility to outsource data processes anywhere in the EU, but it is not an obligation. We have clarified that this applies at all levels of government – national, regional and local. Also, public administrations which run in-house cloud service systems, like the Bundescloud in Germany, will be able to use them, and we have succeeded in ensuring that the public procurement of cloud services by Member States will be open to operators from throughout the European Union.

We have also facilitated portability of cloud service providers. It has to be as simple for companies, especially for SMEs, to move, for example, from iCloud to Tieto as it is to change telephone operators from Vodafone to Telia. The market players, which are the ones best suited, will have 18 months to develop and implement codes of conduct to ensure easy switching between cloud service providers.

The new law will not affect citizens’ privacy. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will remain untouched. In cases where personal and non-personal data are inextricably linked in a mixed data set, FFoD will not prejudge GDPR. We have clarified the concept and added safeguards to ensure that the rules afford legal certainty and are up to date and fit for purpose, including in the future. We have asked the Commission to present guidelines on how the regulation will apply to mixed data sets, before its entry into force, and we have shortened the review time to four years.

Lastly, competent authorities with a legitimate reason can access company data stored in another Member State via a simplified procedure and a point of single contact. I am proud that we can deliver rules that are simple, net neutral and easy to apply in real life. The time has come to stand up against the data protectionism that is threatening our digital economy and society. And in this case, if I may dare to say so: mission accomplished!

(Applause)

  Andrus Ansip, Vice—President of the Commission. – Mr President, a digital society cannot exist without data. If Europe is to get the best from the opportunities offered by digital progress, data has to flow freely with no obstacles and no constraints. Data feeds into innovation. In turn that makes the kind of technologies possible which bring new jobs and improve our environment and daily lives: the ‘internet of things’, artificial intelligence, fintech, ‘smart cities’ and electronic health systems, to mention just a few.

The new regulation complements the principle of free movement of personal data that is enshrined in the General Data Protection Regulation. It guarantees the free movement of all data and does so by leaving the General Data Protection Regulation completely untouched. This regulation does not cover personal data, but it does for non—personal data what the General Data Protection Regulation has already done for personal data, namely free movement across the European Union.

It has three important elements. Firstly, it prohibits unjustified requirements about where data should be localised. These restrictions are only allowed in exceptional circumstances where this is justified by public security. Secondly, there will be a mechanism to make sure that regulatory authorities still have access to data stored in another Member State. They may also impose penalties on users that do not provide access to data, but they may not deviate from the free flow principle by relocalising the data for a long period without the Commission first giving its permission. Thirdly, the regulation will make the EU market for cloud services more fluid. It allows the industry to develop self—regulatory codes of conduct so that users will be able to move data more easily between IT systems and switch between cloud service providers. This should be done within the next two years.

The Regulation on the Free Flow of non—personal Data has gone through the legislative process at record speed. The Commission only proposed it last September so the time taken to reach this point of conclusion has been a little more than a year. We have been helped enormously by the political will to conclude quickly both in Parliament and the Council, which have been calling for this initiative since the beginning of this Commission’s mandate in office.

  Zdzisław Krasnodębski, autor projektu opinii Komisji Przemysłu, Badań Naukowych i Energii. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Drodzy Koledzy! Bariery w dostępie do danych i w wymianie danych – jak wszyscy wiemy – mogą uniemożliwiać tworzenie innowacyjnych produktów, usług i rozwiązań. Takie praktyki osłabiają wykorzystanie pełnego potencjału gospodarki opartej na danych i tym samym są czynnikiem hamującym wzrost gospodarczy Unii Europejskiej. Dlatego z takim zadowoleniem przyjąłem propozycję Komisji Europejskiej dotyczącą projektu rozporządzenia w sprawie swobodnego przepływu danych nieosobowych, oczekując zdecydowanych kroków mających przeciwdziałać tendencjom zmierzającym do przyjmowania krajowych przepisów zmuszających dostawców do lokowania danych na konkretnym terytorium. Intensywne prace, które prowadziliśmy w Parlamencie Europejskim, to wyraz naszego poparcia dla konieczności szybkiego podjęcia działań legislacyjnych przez Unię, które miały przeciwdziałać nieuzasadnionym przeszkodom dla swobodnego przepływu danych nieosobowych, a także takich jak wymogi lokalizacyjne, oraz popierać samoregulację z określeniem jej ramowych wytycznych w zakresie przenoszenia danych. Dzięki temu projekt rozporządzenia powinien stwarzać bodźce do prowadzenia innowacyjnych rozwiązań, a tym samym zachęcić większą liczbę użytkowników do korzystania z usług dostarczanych przez nowe i małe przedsiębiorstwa wchodzące na nowe rynki.

  Andreas Schwab, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar! Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zunächst einmal freue mich sehr, dass es meiner Kollegin Anna Corazza Bildt gelungen ist, tatsächlich mit großer Geschwindigkeit diesen für den digitalen Binnenmarkt wichtigen Vorschlag im Parlament mehrheitsfähig zu machen und eben auch mit dem Rat die notwendigen Trilog-Verhandlungen zügig abzuschließen. Dafür ihr und allen Schattenberichterstattern ein wirklich großes Dankeschön.

Denn es ist richtig – und Vizepräsident Ansip darauf hingewiesen –, dass wir in der Europäischen Union eben nach wie vor das Problem haben, dass Datenlokalisierungsvorschriften es schwer machen, die wirklich volle Wucht des Binnenmarkts für digitale Anbieter nutzbar zu machen. Mit diesem Vorschlag gelingt es uns, im digitalen Binnenmarkt einen großen Schritt nach vorne zu machen. Wir haben ja in den vergangenen Wochen und Monaten eine ganze Reihe von weiteren Richtlinien beschlossen. Ich glaube, dass wir mit diesem Vorschlag deutlich machen, dass der digitale Binnenmarkt allen gutmeinenden, allen seriös arbeitenden Anbietern eine Chance bietet, noch effizienter zu arbeiten.

Die Datenschutzgrundverordnung, die Grundprinzipien des Datenschutzes werden durch diese Richtlinie nicht etwa geschwächt, sondern gestärkt. Sie bleiben unangetastet. Aber wir fördern eben gleichzeitig den freien Datenverkehr in Europa in einer Weise, die es den Mitgliedstaaten ermöglicht, selbst zu entscheiden, welche übernationalen, welche grenzüberschreitenden Dienste sie in Anspruch nehmen wollen. Aber das Prinzip ist eben, dass grundsätzlich europaweit der Markt abgefragt wird. Und das ist eine sehr, sehr gute Nachricht.

Zum Zweiten halte ich es für wichtig, dass wir diese Vorschläge ergänzen. Die Bürgerinnen und Bürger in Europa sehen natürlich mit wachsender Sorge, dass viele der Daten, die sie in öffentlichen Verzeichnissen einstellen, nicht überall so benutzt werden können, wie dies wünschenswert ist. Deswegen ist es wichtig, dass wir in den kommenden Monaten auch den Vorschlag zur Plattformregulierung noch abschließen, damit das Bild insgesamt für den Bürger in Europa verständlich ist.

  Christel Schaldemose, for S&D-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Hr. kommissær, fru Corazza Bildt, kollegaer. Det er faktisk en stor ting, at vi står her i dag og skal diskutere denne lovgivning om frit flow af ikke-personlige data rundt i EU. Det er et stort skridt fremad, at vi får etableret dette på EU’s indre marked. Det er en del af bestræbelserne på at sikre, at vi også får et digitalt indre marked. Derfor er jeg glad for, at det lykkedes os at finde nogle gode løsninger, der har bred opbakning fra de politiske grupper. Det vil give gode muligheder for rigtig mange virksomheder, og dermed vil det også i sidste ende betyde, at forbrugeren vil få langt bedre valgmuligheder.

Jeg kan nævne, at i mit eget land bygger Apple, Google og Facebook datacentre til den helt store guldmedalje. Der bliver bygget rigtig mange, og det er dejligt, at vi nu også skaber en lovgivning, som gør muligt at tiltrække data til lande, der gerne vil have det - og ikke mindst til lande, som producerer grøn energi. Så jeg er tilfreds. Men jeg vil også gerne sige, at det er vigtigt, at vi i arbejdet med frit flow af ikke-personlige data er meget opmærksomme på at overholde de regler, vi har aftalt. Det er vigtigt, at vi sørger for, at hvor der overhovedet er nogen personlige data involveret, så gælder GDPR. Vi skal også være opmærksomme på - men det har vi også skrevet ind i lovgivningen - at der i stigende grad er mulighed for med teknologi at omdanne ikke-personlige data til personlige data, og her skal vi også sikre os, at GDPR er den lovgivning, der gælder. Men når vi får sikret det, så er jeg meget tilfreds.

Jeg er sikker på, at vi får et bedre velfungerende indre marked, vi får god gang i cloud services, og vi kan være sikre på, at forbrugerne ender med at få bedre tilbud, bedre produkter, fordi de med denne konkurrence også kan få billigere tilbud. Så jeg er vældig tilfreds og takker for det gode samarbejde, ikke mindst til fru Corazza Bildt.

  Daniel Dalton, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I want to thank the rapporteur for her work in driving this dossier forward. This was critical in ensuring that we reached a swift agreement.

Ensuring the free flow of data is vital to create a competitive data economy. Without genuine competition in the data processing market, we will all continue to pay more than we should do for slower quality services. A healthy data market is the first requirement for a successful digital single market. At the moment, the free flow of data is hindered by a series of obstacles. Many public authorities and branches of government have unjustifiable data localisation requirements. Their data sets were huge parts of the market and we need them to lead by example.

There’s also a lot of legal uncertainty about what laws apply in storing data across borders. We know that many customers have difficulties in switching providers for cloud storage and that there are some questionable practices in that market. Underpinning all of these obstacles to free flow of data is a lack of trust, a fear that if you store your data across borders you may have difficulties getting it when you need it.

This regulation should be a game changer for the economy. It creates a clear and unambiguous legal regime for the storage of data across borders. It prohibits data localisation except in specific justified cases of a risk to national security, and it gives legal certainty that data can be accessed across borders. It also fosters a cloud market where switching is easy, encouraging competitiveness of cloud service providers.

Let’s make no mistake, this is the biggest success in the digital single market so far and I very much hope that we can use this as a benchmark also for agreements on the free flow of data in future with third countries.

  Dita Charanzová, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, this is a regulation that I believe the whole Parliament should support. It is a regulation that I personally fought for, sending a letter with my colleagues to the President of the Commission asking the Commission to act and make a proposal.

I am happy today to see the result that we can confirm the new fifth freedom in the European Union: the free movement of data. The free flow of data is vital to the digital economy and the single market as a whole. The free flow of data is what makes cloud computing services work. Everything from email to accountancy software needs the free flow of data to work. Everything from traffic to weather information needs the free flow of data to work. It was clear that at the European level, we needed to prevent actions which would have put our digital future at risk, including ill—advised national measures restricting this free flow.

This regulation is an example of what the European Union is all about. It is about removing barriers and preventing new ones from arising. It is about making the single market work for everyone – businesses and citizens alike. It is about agreeing common European rules and then treating every Member State equally – rules that allow data to be stored anywhere in Europe without discrimination. It is about adopting simple rules and simple legislation that solve real life problems so consumers and taxpayers can get the best value for their money while facing less red tape and pointless barriers in their daily lives. This is why I was proud to be part of the team and I want to say thank the rapporteur, Maria Corazza Bildt, for her work on this file.

  Marco Zullo, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, grazie alla relatrice per l'ottimo lavoro e la celerità dei lavori portati avanti.

Dopo il regolamento sulla protezione dei dati personali, il regolamento sul libero flusso dei dati non personali rappresenta un altro importante passo verso il completamento di un mercato europeo dei dati, dati sempre più trasparenti, accessibili e allo stesso tempo più tutelati.

Oggi le imprese non possono scegliere i luoghi meno costosi dove archiviare o elaborare i propri dati. I numerosi ostacoli amministrativi presenti rendono difficile cambiare fornitore di servizi o ritrasferire i dati sui propri sistemi informatici. Grazie a questa normativa, le imprese potranno invece evitare la duplicazione dei dati in più luoghi, potranno entrare in nuovi mercati e potenziare le loro attività. I dati circoleranno liberamente in tutta l'Unione europea e verranno abbattute le barriere sui servizi di archiviazione, quei servizi che rappresentano la base di partenza per lo sviluppo di una pubblica amministrazione sempre più aperta e digitale, dove i servizi e i documenti sono a disposizione dei cittadini con un solo click.

Per cogliere l'importanza del fenomeno, basta ricordare che in dieci anni la portata dell'economia dei dati crescerà di quasi venti volte e quindi dopo le persone, le merci, i servizi e i capitali, si aprono le porte alla quinta libertà nel mercato unico digitale, quella dei dati, che favorirà settori come l'internet delle cose, la blockchain, l'assistenza sanitaria, la chirurgia a distanza e le soluzioni di mobilità intelligente, come per esempio le auto a guida autonoma.

Tutto questo, però, avverrà senza indebolire il controllo delle autorità nazionali che potranno esercitare il diritto di accesso ai dati in tutta Europa. Questo controllo sarà fondamentale perché un mondo sempre più digitalizzato è un mondo più vulnerabile ed è nostro dovere adoperarci per tutelare le parti più esposte, ovvero i cittadini, i privati e le imprese.

  Mylène Troszczynski, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, encore une fois avec cette proposition, vous anéantissez toutes les chances d’obtenir un texte équilibré qui respecterait les intérêts des États membres et leur indépendance.

L’abolition des frontières numériques est une erreur majeure dans des proportions équivalentes à l’abolition des frontières physiques. La fin du géoblocage, exigée une fois de plus, et l’exigence de localisation des données sont des mesures qui viennent encore limiter la souveraineté numérique des États membres.

Les points positifs et importants du texte sont ainsi relayés au second plan, destin tragique de la plupart des textes débattus ici dans cette assemblée. Les enjeux législatifs réels sont pris en otage par des dispositions idéologiques désastreuses. Par exemple, la question de la protection des données mixtes, qui présentent un caractère à la fois personnel et non personnel, méritait d’être réellement défendue de manière pragmatique et ne méritait certainement pas d’être instrumentalisée au profit d’un projet ultralibéral, comme le fait ici le rapporteur qui manque, encore une fois, l’occasion de se montrer raisonnable.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ja już ponad dziesięć lat żyję w Schengen, jeżdżę sobie po całej Unii Europejskiej, granic nie zauważam, bo one są niewidoczne, ale dalej są. I to właśnie te bariery sprawiają, że rozwijamy się wolniej, niż byśmy mogli, i dlatego musimy je ciągle, systematycznie, krok po kroku znosić. I dziś właśnie stawiamy kolejny dobry krok w kierunku osiągnięcia prawdziwego jednolitego rynku cyfrowego w Unii Europejskiej.

Usunięcie ograniczeń dotyczących lokalizacji danych przyczyni się nie tylko do wzrostu gospodarczego, ale będzie kolejnym elementem łączącym obywateli w bardzo konkretny i odczuwalny sposób w obrębie naszej Unii. Te nowe przepisy, a w szczególności zasada transgranicznego swobodnego przepływu danych nieosobowych, zapewni przedsiębiorcom ułatwienia w prowadzeniu działalności gospodarczej. Tak, przedsiębiorcy będą mogli efektywniej, łatwiej i taniej prowadzić działalność w różnych krajach i nie będzie im już towarzyszył obowiązek powielania systemów informatycznych i magazynowania ich w różnych miejscach.

Tą regulacją sprawimy więc, że przedsiębiorcy będą czuli się pewniej, wchodząc na nowe rynki, i będą coraz częściej korzystać z usług w chmurze, a badania wykazują, że nowe przepisy dotyczące swobodnego przepływu danych nieosobowych sprawią, że unijna gospodarka będzie generować dodatkowo 8 miliardów euro rocznie.

Więc chciałabym tu skorzystać jeszcze z okazji, żeby podziękować sprawozdawczyni Annie Marii Corazzy Bildt za jej nieustające wysiłki na rzecz harmonizowania jednolitego rynku, za niezwykle efektowną pracę nad tym sprawozdaniem razem z kontrsprawozdawcami, z Komisją Europejską, również z Radą, że w tym rekordowym tempie tak efektywnie została ta sprawa załatwiona. To jest naprawdę wielki krok na wspólnym rynku. A wszystkich kolegów i koleżanki proszę, żebyśmy jutro głosowali za tą regulacją.

  Nicola Danti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in apertura fatemi ringraziare la relatrice Maria Corazza Bildt e la nostra relatrice ombra Christel Schaldemose per il lavoro che è stato fatto.

Noi sappiamo che la gestione dei dati, le regole con le quali vengono elaborati, trasferiti, commercializzati e conservati rappresenta una delle sfide più importanti dell'economia digitale. La creazione di uno spazio unico di dati non personali all'interno dell'Unione crea nuove opportunità in termini di occupazione, in particolare per start-up e piccole imprese e, al contempo, aumenta la concorrenza nel settore, accrescendo l'offerta finale a beneficio dei consumatori.

Inoltre, signor Presidente, un quadro giuridico comune renderà più semplice per le autorità pubbliche esercitare controlli di vigilanza a tutela dei cittadini e rafforzerà la disciplina complessiva a protezione dei dati, affiancandosi al regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati personali, che è già in vigore.

Ritengo che l'approvazione di questo regolamento rappresenti un ulteriore passo avanti verso la realizzazione di un mercato unico digitale europeo, necessario per competere a livello globale.

  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Mr President, there have always been many obstacles for movement of data across systems in Europe. Businesses were not able to choose the most cost effective locations for IT resources; it was complicated and it was bureaucratic.

Thanks to this regulation we have improved the mobility of non—personal data and made it possible for professional users to choose and switch service providers while, at the same time, ensuring the security of such data. It shows, once again, that the EU can deliver and can make a difference. Removing data localisation restrictions can make our economy grow by EUR 700 million in 2020. This also means that we treat the freedom of establishment very seriously by allowing companies and public administrations to store and process non—personal data wherever they choose in the EU. This regulation is therefore a small, but very crucial victory, for the citizens and businesses of Europe.

  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, ce projet de règlement veut empêcher nos États de réglementer la localisation des données. Il nous soumet au contrôle de la Commission pour savoir quelles données relèvent de la sécurité du pays ou non.

La Commission, cette Commission à la solde des lobbies et de l’oligarchie cosmopolite, va une fois de plus mettre nos États sous domination étrangère, extra-européenne en plus! Elle ne connaît que le coup de force, prétendant vouloir notre bien et, au nom du bien, détruisant de manière systématique notre souveraineté. Les technologies numériques sont non seulement des technologies de souveraineté, mais aussi de domination.

Libre concurrence et marché sans entraves transforment nos États en colonies numériques de multinationales étrangères. La Chine est indépendante, par exemple, car elle a interdit les sociétés étrangères dans ce domaine sur son territoire. Les technologies numériques sont de la coopération libre des États, un point c’est tout!

(L’orateur refuse une question «carton bleu» d’Anna Maria Corazza Bildt)

  Catherine Stihler (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome this proposal on the free flow of non—personal data, which is essential for the success of the digital economy. With this in mind, just a few weeks ago, the UK Government issued a notice to companies to start drawing up standard contractual clauses for data transfers in the case of a no—deal Brexit. Just hours ago, at the Conservative Party conference, the British Prime Minister is still talking of a no deal.

I think this is irresponsible. UK companies doing business in Europe in the new data economy we want to encourage would be the hardest hit with a no deal because data from the EU would not be able to flow into the UK until adequacy arrangements were put in place. This can only lead to higher costs and more uncertainty in an area of the economy which has the greatest chance of growth.

Brexit is nothing about the national interest, but everything about the Tory party interest. I don’t want my country to leave the EU, but if it does, it needs to remain part of the single market and customs union for certainty, stability and security.

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Żyjemy w czasach, w których musimy zwiększać siłę Unii Europejskiej – siłę, która daje podstawy rozwoju, a więc i dobrobytu państw członkowskich i ich obywateli. Swoboda przepływu osób, kapitału czy usług stała się fundamentem wspólnego rynku, ale 60 lat temu i kilka dekad później wszyscy ci, którzy działali na rzecz Wspólnoty, nie mogli przypuszczać, że taką wagę dla rozwoju będą miały dane. Dzisiaj do tego katalogu wspólnego rynku powinniśmy właśnie dołożyć swobodę przepływu danych. Ona jest w dzisiejszych czasach, w czasach gospodarki cyfrowej, właściwie warunkiem sine qua non rozwoju. Rozwój natomiast buduje dobrobyt obywateli Unii Europejskiej. Bariery, które funkcjonują na rynku europejskim do tej pory, nie mają już swojego uzasadnienia. Mało tego, są barierami rozwoju firm europejskich już nie tylko cyfrowych, ale właściwie wszystkich, które funkcjonują w gospodarce. Są także barierą ograniczającą naszą konkurencyjność w skali globalnej. Dlatego, po pierwsze, popieram to dossier. Po drugie, oczywiście serdecznie gratuluję sprawozdawczyni, a po trzecie, uważam, że potrzebujemy dalszych właśnie tego typu rozwiązań, które będą pogłębiały integrację Unii Europejskiej.

  Virginie Rozière (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, je voudrais remercier la rapporteure ainsi que notre négociatrice pour leur travail sur ce dossier important.

L’économie de la donnée est un secteur qui se développe et qui pèse de plus en plus dans notre économie. J’en veux pour preuve qu’en 2020, dans l’Union européenne, plus de 30 milliards de machines connectées seront en circulation.

L’objet de ce texte, c’est de prendre acte de cette situation et de définir le juste équilibre entre deux préoccupations. D’un côté, la libre circulation – en l’occurrence, ici, la libre circulation des données non personnelles – et de l’autre, la protection des intérêts des citoyens européens. Dans ce cas particulier, on parle bien sûr de la protection des données personnelles.

Dans la proposition initiale du texte, il existait des zones d’ombre quant au champ d’application de ce texte et à celui du règlement général sur la protection des données personnelles. Aussi, je me satisfais vraiment du compromis qui a pu être trouvé sur ce texte. Celui-ci grave dans le marbre l’obligation de toujours appliquer un haut niveau de protection des données personnelles dans les situations où la vie privée des citoyens européens est en jeu.

C’est une question sur laquelle, aujourd’hui, l’Union est leader dans le monde, et je pense qu’elle a tout intérêt à le rester.

  Antanas Guoga (PPE). – Mr President, it is always a pleasure to see the Vice—President on the floor – a voice of reason and forward-looking. I would also like to thank the rapporteur for the great work that you are doing. In fact, you have driven it through like a Ferrari, to quote you. I have heard that language being used before.

So we are all European here today, and we’ve got the fifth freedom in the EU. I am hoping that this will really allow free movement of non-personal data, which is a cornerstone of the digital single market that the Vice—President of the Commission is pushing so well. This regulation gives a chance to European businesses to actually experience the opportunities and advantages of the digital economy in Europe. A Lithuanian start—up working with data analytics now has the same opportunities to scale up and reach bigger markets, like Germany or France, as a German start—up, for example.

We have got some fairness. It has been calculated – we’ve heard EUR 8 billion and I’m hoping it’s more, but we’ll take EUR 8 billion – and it brings an enormous boost to European businesses, especially the ones that are working in an artificial intelligence space. AI is a field where this regulation can really push Europe forward. In the artificial intelligence race with the US, and especially with China, we should really take note and action.

We all agree that AI is the future and can create a lot of good, well—paid jobs in Europe. However, we need to invest in research, education and development, and give funding to European companies working in the AI area. These are the key drivers, and it’s crucial for European SMEs and start—ups, which don’t have access to huge streams of data, like big tech companies do – Google or Facebook for example. The free flow of non-personal data regulation gives this opportunity. It unlocks a huge amount of non—personal data, especially from mixed data sets, which have been like a grey zone. It brings legal certainty, which is a business need. AI technology is already here, and it won’t go away. The regulation of the free flow of non-personal data is a great example of such an approach.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt e i relatori ombra, a cominciare da Christel Schaldemose, hanno lavorato con grande rapidità e soprattutto con estrema sagacia, la materia che dovevano regolare non era semplice, molto delicata, complessa e lo hanno fatto nel modo migliore. Io sono molto contento di quali sono state poi alla fine le soluzioni e i compromessi raggiunti, in particolare per quanto concerne la privacy dei dati personali dei cittadini europei.

L'aver garantito e riconosciuto che hanno questo diritto a priorità rispetto laddove esiste un rapporto di legame con l'insieme dei dati a un diritto di priorità è cosa che dà un senso compiuto al lavoro che è stato fatto, è un po' il cuore della proposta, ma ne esemplifica anche le intenzioni e la capacità conclusiva.

Vorrei dire una cosa da ultimo al signor Commissario, c'è un tema che riguarda la privacy sul posto di lavoro. La raccolta dei dati che avvengono lì e il loro uso non era argomento da affrontare e risolvere in questo contesto, però è molto importante che la Commissione se ne faccia carico e lo affronti rapidamente.

  Eva Maydell (PPE). – Mr President, despite data being one of the most important assets today for a progressive economy, it is only now we are granting the free movement of non—personal data beyond national borders. To be honest, it took us quite some time. Two years ago what was being discussed was non legislative; a cornerstone of the DSM was put into question. For some, the growth generated by the EU data market, which amounts to 7% per year and up to EUR 84 billion by 2020 was not a good enough reason to grant the free movement of non—personal data within the EU. This is why I would like to congratulate Vice—President Ansip for standing firm behind some of us Members of this House, as well as stakeholders, in delivering a very good proposal. My congratulations goes also to the rapporteur and the Estonian and Bulgarian Presidency for their excellent work.

This morning, during the Future of Europe debate, I said something that I want to repeat now: we cannot address people’s concerns and challenges by looking back in time, but only by looking forward. Forward—looking legislation and regulation is what will drive change in Europe and this legislation is one of them – a regulation that will bring innovation to Europe and show that Europe is open for business, for cloud computing and for big data analytics. So stay tuned and watch this space.

Zgłoszenia z sali

  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Vice-Presidente Ansip, as exigências territoriais da União determinadas por disposições nacionais, regionais ou locais têm levado a um viés concorrencial entre prestadores de serviços de armazenamento na “cloud”.

Estas políticas de localização têm também comprometido a capacidade de partilha e colaboração de investigadores e cientistas, perdendo—se um potencial inovador na Europa. Para tanto, entendo que será necessário garantir que haja uma harmonização nos critérios mínimos de segurança dos sistemas de alojamento de dados em todos os Estados—Membros.

Por outro lado, o mercado concorrencial tem de salvaguardar a possibilidade de os cidadãos poderem mudar de prestador de forma fácil e transparente e requisitar a portabilidade estruturada dos dados. Para isto, devem ser estabelecidas boas práticas e requisitos de informação aos cidadãos para evitar negócios fraudulentos.

Por isso, quero saudar a relatora Anna Corazza Bildt, por ter conseguido consagrar na legislação os dados mistos, que abrangem dados pessoais e não pessoais, e a forma como se articula com o regulamento geral sobre proteção de dados para uma clara e devida defesa do direito à privacidade dos cidadãos europeus.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, obveza lokalizacije podataka nekompatibilna je s idejom jedinstvenog digitalnog tržišta, pa je liberalizacija koju predlaže Komisija, a podržava izvjestiteljica, jedini logičan potez. Cilj mora biti potrošačima iz cijele Unije ponuditi bolje usluge za manje novca, što je izravna posljedica povećanja konkurencije uslijed liberalizacije tržišta. Zadovoljna sam što prijedlog nudi i mogućnost izuzeća u iznimnim situacijama ili kad su podaci potrebni javnim tijelima. Pozdravljam i uvođenje kodeksa ponašanja u području prijenosa podataka, ali pod uvjetom da preporuke koje donosi budu obvezujuće, a njihovo kršenje sankcionirano.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η ελεύθερη επεξεργασία και διακίνηση των δεδομένων που δεν είναι προσωπικού χαρακτήρα είναι γεγονός ότι συμβάλλει στην ανάπτυξη του εμπορίου, διότι επιτρέπει την ταχεία κίνηση και εκμετάλλευση των πληροφοριών. Αυτή όμως η εξέλιξη πρέπει να τοποθετηθεί και να εξεταστεί υπό το πρίσμα του εάν και κατά πόσον παραβιάζεται η εθνική κυριαρχία ενός κράτους. Ο προτεινόμενος κανονισμός βεβαίως αφήνει το περιθώριο της μη ροής των πληροφοριών που δεν έχουν προσωπικό χαρακτήρα, πλην όμως παραβιάζουν ή θέτουν σε κίνδυνο τη δημόσια ασφάλεια.

Εκείνο το οποίο προβληματίζει επίσης είναι το γεγονός ότι, εφόσον αναπτυχθεί η τεχνητή νοημοσύνη, δεν γνωρίζουμε με ποιον τρόπο αυτή θα χρησιμοποιηθεί. Τέλος, θα πρέπει να λάβουμε υπόψη ότι ο βασικός ανταγωνιστής μας, η Κίνα, δεν επιτρέπει στη χώρα της την εφαρμογή τέτοιων διαδικασιών.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, firstly, allow me to thank Commissioner Ansip and especially my good colleague and friend Anna Maria Corazza Bildt for her good work on this file. Having been involved as a rapporteur in the Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), I know that time and effort and expertise, indeed, is required to bring a file to this level. Well done to Anna Maria and her colleagues.

One of the things about the GDPR which was very interesting was that initially people didn’t want it, but it was interesting that when Mark Zuckerberg came here to the European Parliament he said that it was setting a global standard. The same will apply to Anna Maria’s work in the non—personal data sector. Obviously, things are moving at a rapid pace. We do, as Mr Guoga said, have to allow for artificial intelligence to develop, data analytics, big data of all sorts.

I think this is a very balanced proposal and that it will serve the European Union and our citizens and services very well, so well done to you all.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, είναι δεδομένο ότι οι νέες τεχνολογίες εξελίσσονται. Έχουμε το υπολογιστικό νέφος, τα μαζικά δεδομένα, την τεχνητή νοημοσύνη και είναι προφανές ότι όλα αυτά συμβάλλουν στην ανάπτυξη της οικονομίας. Γι’ αυτό πλέον μιλούμε για την «πέμπτη ελευθερία», που συμπληρώνει την ελεύθερη διακίνηση προσώπων, υπηρεσιών, κεφαλαίων και εμπορευμάτων.

Τι μέτρα πρέπει να ληφθούν σε σχέση με αυτό; Μα νομίζω ό,τι ισχύει και για τις «τέσσερις ελευθερίες», δηλαδή να υπάρχουν οι δυνατότητες παρέμβασης του κράτους για λόγους δημοσίας τάξεως και δημοσίας ασφάλειας, όπως η ρύθμιση αυτή έχει διαμορφωθεί από τη νομολογία του Δικαστηρίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Τίποτε λιγότερο, τίποτε περισσότερο.

Ταυτόχρονα, είναι προφανές ότι και ο κανονισμός για την προστασία των προσωπικών δεδομένων πρέπει να ισχύσει. Δεν συμφωνώ με το να υπάρχει κώδικας δεοντολογίας για τον έλεγχο που θα κάνουν οι ίδιες οι επιχειρήσεις. Νομίζω ότι η νομολογία του Δικαστηρίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για τις «τέσσερις ελευθερίες» επαρκεί για να εφαρμοστεί και στην «πέμπτη ελευθερία».

  József Nagy (PPE). – Elnök Úr! Gratulálok először is a jelentéstevőnek, Anna Maria, szép munka volt. A személyes adatok védelme mindig nagyon érzékeny téma, ezért is örülök a sikernek, és támogatom az adatok szabad mozgását az Európai Unión belül is. Úgy gondolom, hogy a felesleges és túlzott korlátozások nemcsak rengeteg munkahelyet, de a polgárok szabadságjogát is sérti, és korlátozza, bízom benne, hogy ezen az úton tovább fogunk haladni, és a geoblocking, azaz a mediális tartalmak blokkolását is sikerül eltörölnünk. Ez ugyanis nemcsak a turisták, a külföldi munkavállalók, de a nemzeti kisebbségek érdeke is egyúttal.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)

  Andrus Ansip, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, this regulation is a key pillar of the digital single market. It will bring benefits and immediate business efficiencies, particularly for SMEs, start-ups and scale—ups. It means that there will be no more need to duplicate IT resources across different Member States, a heavy burden for smaller companies. It will be easier for them to enter new markets and scale up. There will be no more constraints on cross-border scaling of innovative technologies that require data storage.

I believe the proposal will have three important effects: legal certainty on the free flow of data in Europe; a higher level of trust between public authorities; and more competitive EU cloud markets. It will lead us closer to a European common data space, in which data is shared, reused and flows freely. However, we still need to update the rules on public-sector information and encourage businesses to share private-sector data. All these elements are necessary to build a strong European data economy. As we all know, the data economy – including artificial intelligence, which was mentioned many times here today – is nonsense without data.

We have to look at the bigger picture. China and global service providers were also mentioned many times today. In China they have huge data sets, they have 1.3 billion images and, of course, it’s much easier for them to create face recognition systems based on artificial intelligence. In the United States they have global service providers. They have Google, Amazon and Facebook. They have huge data sets and they can teach computers.

Even when looking at cloud service providers here in Europe, we have to remember that 50% of those services are provided by Amazon, Microsoft and IBM. They have access to this data and they can teach their computers. Even when thinking about our hospitals or local municipalities, too often global service providers are able to provide services with higher quality at lower prices. The question is about what happens when data is cut off. If they do not get access to a certain data set, that is just another data set for them. The question is how our start—ups and small and medium—sized enterprises will get access to data. In the European Union we already have 56 different rules on data localisation in 21 EU Member States.

Free flow of data is about our jobs. This is about the salaries of our people. It’s a very practical issue. We have to provide access to data, including to our start—ups and our small and medium—sized businesses. I would like to thank Parliament and the Council for their constructive comments and contributions during the negotiation phase of this regulation.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Rapporteur. – Mr President, I am touched and grateful for the amazing support that I received from colleagues, cross-political groups. Let me tell you, Vice-President Ansip, how much I truly appreciate your commitment and cooperation, together with Commissioner Gabriel and Director-General Viola.

I noticed, Mr President, that only the extreme right populists have been against. They want the next generation to live in the past, instead of the future. They have not given us the answer on how France, for example, under the Front National, would compete alone by closing digital borders with China or the US. As usual, they are attacking without giving any answers. Let me tell you instead that I am proud that we have managed to keep the national exceptions restricted to just one. I am proud that we have succeeded in overcoming the Member States’ concerns that data process outside of the territory would be less safe and accessible.

Tell us please, dear colleagues from the extreme right: how would data be safer in a box in a cellar within a national border instead of in the cloud with the most efficient and safe cloud service providers? If they are not efficient, they are out of a job. And let me tell you that we have seen attacks, Mr President, against central government systems, and it is actually decentralisation more than centralisation of data storage and processing that can provide more security at a time when hackers are proliferating. Wake up to the digital realities.

Many sectors directly benefit from the free data flows. Some colleagues mentioned e—health. The transport sector is a good example. The truck industry, from Scania to Volvo, are depending on the free flow of data to deliver environmentally friendly and innovative solutions and to speed up maintenance at a distance. Mr President, we are only at the beginning of seeing the advantages for public authorities and companies. There is already more efficiency, fewer cars and more climate-friendliness in the use of a cloud provider located in another Member State.

Let me finish by telling you how much I have appreciated the cooperation with the Estonian Presidency, which managed to find a common solution quickly in the Council and the precedent set by Bulgaria for good cooperation in quickly finding a final agreement. A warm thank you to all the shadows: Christian, Daniel, Dita, Julie and Marco, the Commission, Mark from the ENCA secretariat, Silva from the EPP, the legal and policy department and stakeholders for their invaluable contribution. Mr President, together we have truly delivered a Volvo and a Ferrari, ready to drive into the new digital area.

  Przewodniczący. – Jeżeli państwo pozwolą na taką nietypową refleksję: z dużą przyjemnością przewodniczyłem tej debacie. Rzadko, naprawdę rzadko się zdarza, żeby były tak jednomyślne wyrazy uznania pod adresem posła sprawozdawcy, tak wysoka ocena przez posła sprawozdawcę współpracy z kontrsprawozdawcami, żeby konserwatyści oklaskiwali socjaldemokratów, a liberałowie oklaskiwali wystąpienia GUE, żeby pan przewodniczący Komisji Europejskiej oklaskiwał – a zdarzyło się, widziałem przynajmniej dwa razy – wystąpienia poszczególnych posłów i żeby pana wystąpienie było tak gorąco przyjęte oklaskami na tej sali. Bardzo dziękuję! Jednak można coś zrobić razem, można coś robić efektywnie i to nam się udaje.

Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się w czwartek 4 października 2018 r.

18. Рискове, свързани с изпирането на пари в банковия сектор на ЕС (разискване)

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego są oświadczenia Rady i Komisji w sprawie ryzyka prania pieniędzy w sektorze bankowym UE (2018/2860(RSP)).

  Juliane Bogner-Strauss, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, the issue of money laundering in the EU banking sector is extremely topical at the present time. The Presidency and the Council as a whole fully share the sense of urgency and the commitment of Parliament and the Commission to addressing this issue. Our three institutions have worked together closely in recent years in a common endeavour to establish an effective regime to counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism. The amendment adopted earlier this year to the Anti-Money Laundering Directive is just the latest example of our good cooperation.

Turning to the issue at hand, the recent cases involving money laundering in some EU banks have shown that, unfortunately, anti-money laundering rules are not always supervised and enforced effectively across the European Union. This is a great cause of concern, and I can therefore only support the Commissionʼs push towards ensuring that anti-money laundering rules are effectively supervised and that authorities cooperate closely with each other.

Ministers at yesterday’s meeting of the Ecofin Council heard a presentation by the Commission on its proposal of 12 September, an important contribution that the Council is ready to consider very thoughtfully. Beyond that proposal, we also need to consider a longer term solution and improvements to the current system. With this in mind, the Council will be considering setting out comprehensive and long—term measures in this area by December. This is something that the Council’s Financial Services Committee is discussing today.

The Presidency is, of course, fully committed to maintaining and promoting the existing cooperation between the institutions. I am therefore naturally very interested in Parliament’s views on the content of this latest proposal, as well as in the legislative approach that Parliament will take. I look forward to hearing your views.

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, like you, the Commission has been shocked by the recent money laundering scandals in European banks and also by the failings that have come to light regarding the quality of national supervision and information sharing. These scandals endanger the reputation and integrity of Europe’s financial system.

While Europe has the strongest anti-money laundering rules in the world, they need to be better enforced. The Commission firmly believes that we need to enhance supervision in the EU. We are using existing powers and have asked the European Banking Authority to immediately investigate whether other supervisors in the Member States concerned have breached EU law. Some investigations have already been concluded, while others are still ongoing. At the same time, we cannot wait for further scandals to emerge. We must ensure the integrity of the EU’s financial system and we need to do so urgently. That is why, on 12 September, the Commission tabled a legislative proposal to strengthen the powers of the EU supervisory authorities in anti—money laundering issues.

As President Juncker made clear in his State of the Union address on the same day, we need to strengthen the enforcement of our anti—money laundering rules. Our legislative proposal is part of a broader strategy to strengthen the EU’s framework for prudential and anti-money laundering supervision for financial institutions. Through our amendments to our European supervisory authorities review proposal, which Parliament is currently considering, we are proposing to concentrate tasks and resources within the European Banking Authority for anti-money laundering purposes, reinforce the tools for carrying out anti—money laundering tasks and strengthen the coordinating role of the European Banking Authority in international anti—money laundering issues.

Our accompanying policy communication also sets out improvements in the way that prudential supervisors reflect anti—money laundering considerations in their work and includes recommendations to the European Central Bank. We are also advocating further enhancement of the prudential framework for banks by improving information exchange and reinforcing the duty of cooperation between prudential and anti-money laundering authorities and bodies. The Capital Requirements Directive is currently under negotiation between the Council and Parliament, and Parliament has tabled useful amendments to that end. Finally, the communication touches on longer term considerations as to whether a greater degree of harmonisation of anti—money laundering rules will be needed and whether we need a centralised anti—money laundering authority at EU level. Alternatives could also be considered in order to ensure seamless information exchange and optimal cooperation between all relevant authorities in the EU, including those in the field of taxation. But, for now, I would again like to stress the need to move rapidly and decisively. In particular we need to quickly agree on the legislative proposal so that it can be adopted before the end of this term and the European Banking Authority (EBA) can quickly assume its new tasks, which means that we have no time to lose.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to commend Parliament for its persistent efforts, especially the work of the PANA and TAXE committees, to highlight the critical importance of the fight against financial crime, including tax evasion and money laundering, and to call to account all actors from both the private and the public sector. It is clear that collectively more can – and must – be done to address these failings and repair the damage that has been done to the EU’s international reputation.

  Luděk Niedermayer, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, we have now less than one hour to discuss a very serious problem – the problem worth billions of dirty money. So let me try to illustrate, in the following 100 seconds, how serious the issue is, starting this some names: ABLV Latvia, Versobank Estonia, Pilatus Bank Malta, Danske Bank branch Estonia, and ING bank.

These are just a few names of banks that showed serious weaknesses in the area of money laundering, and some of them collapsed and some of them suffered significant losses and have had to pay significant fines. But that is not enough: we all remember the ‘Azerbaijani laundromat’ and the problems related to the use of crypto-assets for the financing of corruption or terrorism. Money laundering is a very serious issue that is closely related to the crime, corruption, tax evasion and other acts that are seriously damaging our society – and we have to act.

So far, it doesn’t seem that we are doing so sufficiently. Take the example of insufficient regulation of crypto-asset exchanges, or the fact that the US authorities have to help us to find certain weaknesses in our financial sector. The protection of our financial sector against money laundering is clearly only as strong as the weakest point, and the weakest point seems to be very weak.

In terms of improvement, I guess the focus should not be on approving new legislation, as it often has been. Also, I am not sure that we should establish a powerful new institution. We should focus instead on enforcement and on strengthening the weakest spots in our system. The European Supervisory Authority (ESA) review provides a good opportunity to find the right balance between the responsibility of supervisors and that of other branches of governments, including the police. We should not miss this opportunity, as clocks are ticking and the problem is very serious.

  Jeppe Kofod, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Europe has a huge money-laundering problem, from Denmark to Estonia, Latvia, the Netherlands, Malta, Germany and France. Scandal after scandal has been uncovered, each one bigger than the last. In the Danske Bank case alone, upwards of EUR 200 billion has been laundered through a single branch, in Estonia, and at least some of these funds have been actively used to bribe European politicians to corrupt our institution and to whitewash authoritarian regimes.

EUR 200 billion: that is about ten times the size of Estonia’s GDP.

We have long known that these banks have grown ‘too big to fail’, but now, apparently, what has happened in these banks is that the people supposedly responsible have become too rich to jail – or at least impunity is more the rule than the exception. Take the case of Danske Bank: not one member of the board has been kicked out. Not a single executive has been fired, not even the CEO who was responsible for the Estonian branch. No, they have been stepping down of their own accord, with full pay and a golden parachute.

So, I ask you colleagues, Commission and Council: how is this justice, in the eyes of the people? What message does it send to would-be whistle-blowers who have inside information on illegal activities in European banks but fear to come forward?

In the Danske Bank scandal, the whistleblower wasn’t even contacted by the Danish financial supervisory authority, despite the fact they had his contact information. So, supervision of European banks seem to rely on a trust and honour system, and this clearly isn’t working. Too many banks have abused our trust.

Therefore, we need a dedicated EU authority to supervise and assist national supervisory authorities in these complex money-laundering cases. We need drastically to improve protection of whistle-blowers in Europe and we need to force national authorities to cooperate loyally, effectively and systematically because they are simply not doing that today and they are not implementing the anti-money-laundering legislation.

Bank fines in money laundering cases must no longer be counted in millions, but in billions. And we need to strengthen fit and proper requirements to ensure that those responsible never set foot in a bank boardroom again. We have a lot to do. I look forward to this debate.

  Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner, ECR-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, vuonna 2009 pankeille tuli velvollisuus ottaa selvää asiakkaistaan ja pankin kautta kulkevien rahojen alkuperästä, mutta kyseisen lain täytäntöönpano ontuu edelleen.

On kulunut yli 10 vuotta siitä, kun Viron ja Venäjän viranomaiset varoittivat ensimmäisen kerran Danske Bankin tuottoisan Viron tytäryksikön epäilyttävistä asiakkaista. Viisi vuotta sitten Danske Bank sai sisäisen ilmiannon. Neljä vuotta sitten Viron rahoitusvalvonta ryhtyi toimiin, ja kaksi vuotta sitten Tanskan rahoitusvalvonta määräsi pankille sanktioita. Nyt vasta keskustellaan Danske Bankin mahdollisista jättisakoista.

Tänään Viron pääministeri Jüri Ratas vakuutti omassa unionin tulevaisuutta käsittelevässä puheenvuorossaan, kuinka heillä Virossa on nollatoleranssi rahanpesuun. Jos näin on, niin toivottavasti kaikki EU-valtiot alkavat noudattaa vastaavanlaista nollatoleranssia rahanpesun suhteen.

  Petr Ježek, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, some unbelievably large money-laundering cases have been revealed. At the same time, in hearings and missions of our TAXE 3 Committee, also dealing with money laundering, it was pointed out that some countries, especially smaller ones, are not capable of coping fully with this problem.

Therefore I welcome the Commission proposal to reinforce the role of the European Banking Authority (EBA) in anti-money laundering supervision of the financial sector. Parliament has called a number of times for a more centralised anti-money laundering supervisory architecture. We can see that Parliament is always a step ahead. However, we must get it right. These new tasks need to be followed by reinforced human and other resources. Can we ensure that the EBA will be given sufficient human resources to conduct its new tasks? The numbers I read seem modest to me: from two persons to slightly less than ten. Could the Commission tell us how many more persons should be allocated to these new tasks?

Finally, with this proposal, the EU is obviously putting a lot of effort into fighting money laundering in the banking sector, but we must not forget that money laundering also affects other sectors, for example real estate and gambling services. How will the Commission ensure that we do not lose sight of the rest of the actors?

PRESIDENZA DELL’ON. FABIO MASSIMO CASTALDO
Vicepresidente

  Sven Giegold, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Das Ausmaß der Geldwäsche im Finanzsektor ist ein Sicherheitsrisiko. Es ist auch eine Gefahr für fairen Wettbewerb in der Europäischen Union, und es schadet der Reputation unserer gemeinsamen Währung. Es ist also höchste Zeit, dass wir hier eine andere Härte an den Tag legen. Ich danke Ihnen für Ihre Vorschläge bezüglich der Europäischen Bankenaufsichtsbehörde. Ich danke Ihnen auch für die konkreten Maßnahmen, die Sie jetzt – wie in der Financial Times zu lesen war – gegenüber Malta angewiesen haben. Das ist sinnvoll, das ist richtig.

Wir brauchen in der Umsetzung Ihrer Beschlüsse jetzt ein schnelles Handeln der Ko-Gesetzgeber. Deshalb möchte ich gerne vom Rat wissen: Wie wollen Sie dafür sorgen, dass dieser Beschluss in einem Eilverfahren, was der Sache angemessen ist, jetzt tatsächlich die Institution passiert? Und umgekehrt haben wir die Verantwortung, in einem schnellen Verfahren zu einem Beschluss zu kommen.

Wir wissen aber darüber hinaus, dass außer in Malta wir auch schwere Defizite mindestens in Lettland, Estland und Zypern haben. Ich frage mich: Wann, Frau Kommissarin, leiten Sie Vertragsverletzungsverfahren ein? Die Informationen dazu finden sich fast im Tagesrhythmus in der Finanzpresse.

Zudem findet natürlich Geldwäsche nicht nur im Finanzsektor statt. Wir wissen, dass zum Beispiel im Immobilienmarkt systematisch Schwarzgeld in großem Maße die Preise nach oben treibt. Die Verdachtsmeldungen, die von Verpflichteten wie Immobilienmaklern oder auch Rechtsanwälten, Notaren und so weiter abgegeben werden, sind völlig unter den gesetzlichen Vorschriften. Deshalb frage ich Sie, Frau Kommissarin: Wann werden Sie europaweit dafür sorgen, dass das europäische Recht auch im Immobiliensektor bezüglich Schwarzgeld durchgesetzt wird?

Es ist klar: Sie können das nicht alles auf einmal machen mit so wenig Personal. Herr Juncker hatte uns versprochen, das Personal aufzustocken. Wann stocken Sie in Ihrer eigenen Behörde das Personal deutlich auf? Ich rede hier nicht von ein, zwei Stellen, sondern schaffen Sie eine wirkliche Arbeitseinheit!

Und zu guter Letzt: Diese Sofortmaßnahmen ersetzen natürlich nicht das, was wir langfristig brauchen: eine europäische Institution zur Kontrolle von Geldwäsche.

  Rina Ronja Kari, for GUE/NGL-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Først og fremmest tak fordi vi tager denne debat. Problemer er der rigtig mange af. Flere store banker har igennem de sidste mange år været skyld i stor elendighed. Først kaster de os ud i en finanskrise, der koster hundredtusindvis af arbejdspladser, sender mennesker ud i fattigdom og i det hele taget koster vores samfund dyrt. Derudover har flere af dem aktivt hjulpet skumle personer og virksomheder med at hvidvaske penge og snyde i skat. Bankerne har med andre ord svindlet og bedraget os alle sammen, alt imens de har udbetalt svimlende beløb til den ene direktør efter den anden. For at gøre det endnu værre har vi som samfund hældt milliarder af kroner i lommen på netop de banker. Hvorfor? Jo fordi vi er bange for, at vores samfund ikke kan overleve, hvis bankerne går ned.

Men det er da skammeligt - skammeligt for bankerne, skammeligt for os, og ikke mindst for det system, som tillader det. Et system, som vender det blinde øje til og ser igennem fingre med skatteunddragelse, og oven i købet med, at nogle landes myndigheder har hjulpet til med at omgå reglerne. Nu står vi så her igen med endnu et eksempel på en stor bank, som endnu en gang på alle måder har bedraget os alle sammen. Og svaret? Svaret er nogle vage formuleringer om at stramme lidt op med tilsyn og efterretninger. Men helt ærligt: hvis vi skal kunne se os selv i øjnene, så er vi nødt til at gøre mere end det. Vi er nødt til at tage fat, hvor det gør ondt.

Og løsningen? Løsningen er sjovt nok heller ikke denne gang, at vi bare skal have mere EU. Nej løsningen er derimod at give medlemslandene flere rettigheder, retten til at opdele de største banker, så vi ikke længere behøver at acceptere ”too big to fail”-banker, og vi skal give landene mulighed for at oprette fornuftige statsbanker, så almindelige borgere kan vælge en bank, der ikke spekulerer i profit. Ikke mindst vil jeg lade landene begrænse bankernes uregulerede bevægelighed over grænserne. Det er de store, der vinder på den uhæmmede frie bevægelighed for kapital. Vores samfund står som taber.

  David Coburn, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I have an interesting tale to tell you, so you can all sit up and listen to this one. We’ve all read with concern the substantial allegations against Danske Bank: the long-term, large—scale laundering of Russian funny money – billions of it, apparently. But these are the actions of a regulated bank. Imagine what an unregulated European Investment Bank could get up to in London, where Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement will grant it immunity from UK financial services regulation.

Did you notice that, anyone? I don’t suppose you did. It’s in Articles 105 and 119. Imagine unregulated European bankers let loose in London. Your worst nightmare, I should think!

Of course, this is what the Commission wants. That’s why they snuck it into the Withdrawal Agreement. They want a lawless European Investment Bank in order to pursue and finance their foreign policy, in particular busting American sanctions against the totalitarian, theocratic regime in Tehran. The Commission wants to use the City of London as its own personal Wild West financial centre. Is that what you want, especially you, Mr Giegold: is that what you want? I should think not.

The Withdrawal Agreement is being used to avoid democratic accountability – not just the European Investment Bank’s accountability to UK law, but also its accountability to the European Parliament. The European Investment Bank will be operating large parts of its EUR 500 billion of assets in a post—Brexit London, out of sight and out of mind. This should worry all those here who support democratic accountability and the rule of law.

  Mario Borghezio, a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, c'è una grande discrasia fra gli impegni formali e anche il reiterarsi di queste importanti discussioni al Parlamento europeo e i dati concreti.

Questa Commissione, presieduta dall'ineffabile signor Juncker, che rappresenta, direi in maniera addirittura palese, gli interessi di uno Stato paradiso fiscale, sulla trasparenza delle cui banche, diciamo, tutti possiamo facilmente avere contezza, rappresenta in maniera plastica, direi quasi evidente, direi addirittura arrogante il disinteresse totale di questa Commissione nei confronti di un impegno che dovrebbe essere prioritario, perché è chiesto da coloro che combattono in prima fila, a cominciare dalle forze dell'ordine, le varie Gendarmerie e la Guardia di Finanza italiana.

Vi offro un dato, quello degli accertamenti fatti nel sistema bancario italiano da Bankitalia, la Banca centrale del mio paese, 43 000 segnalazioni, delle quali oltre 41 000 ritenute molto interessati, cioè l'83% sono gravi e nei confronti dell'entità di questa situazione, che cosa fa la Commissione? Ci propone parole, parole, parole, parole, parole.

  Brian Hayes (PPE). – Mr President, listening to Mr Coburn, I thought he was making the point that the UK should remain in the European Union, given the outcome of his logic that all of this dirty money would be sloshing around the City of London, brought about by European oligarchs. Quite extraordinary!

I have a number of points. We have existing law: let’s implement it. I commend the fact that the Commission is taking action against some Member States – little known action that I think will make a difference. We have a huge difference when it comes to the reporting of information by banks to Member States, and on to Europe-wide authorities. We need to improve data exchange. We need to recognise that we have a policing regime which, in some Member States, is not fit for purpose when it comes to investigating and resolving all these issues. And chiefly, we give policing authorities first responsibility here.

So there are weaknesses that we have to resolve. Can they be resolved by a new super-agency? My view is no. If anything, we need to increase the powers of the European Banking Authority and certainly to increase its resources. This is an organisation of fewer than 200 people: if they are really going to tackle this, they need to be brought up to a standard and a number and a level of resources that will have application. The essential point is that, if we don’t tackle this, it is another potential undermining of financial stability in the European Union.

We’ve got to move quickly. We’ve done that with anti-money laundering legislation, in terms of many of the directives there – I think we are up to five at the moment, and I also believe we need a consistency of approach right across the European Union.

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

  David Coburn (EFDD), blue-card question. – Thank you, Brian, very kind of you. I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t saying that it is a good idea for us to stay in the European Union. What I am explaining to you is that there is nothing wrong with banks if they are regulated by the City of London – a great and ancient institution, much older than any other institution in Europe – but the problem I was putting forward was not that of European oligarchs mucking about with money in London. I’m talking about the European Investment Bank, run by this place.

That’s what I’m concerned about. What the European Union wants to do is to have the European Investment Bank using London as a base to do all sorts of strange things, but basically undermining American foreign policy. That’s what I’m trying to get through to you. Do you now understand me or agree with me?