Indekss 
Debašu stenogramma
PDF 5775k
Trešdiena, 2019. gada 13. marts - Strasbūra Pārskatītā redakcija
1. Sēdes atklāšana
 2. Sarunas pirms Parlamenta pirmā lasījuma (Reglamenta 69.c pants) (veiktie pasākumi) (sk. protokolu)
 3. Debates par cilvēktiesību, demokrātijas un tiesiskuma principu pārkāpumiem (iesniegto rezolūcijas priekšlikumu paziņošana) (sk. protokolu)
 4. Dokumentu iesniegšana (sk. protokolu)
 5. Apropriāciju pārvietojumi un lēmumi par budžetu (sk. protokolu)
 6. Deleģētie akti (Reglamenta 105. panta 6. punkts) (sk. protokolu)
 7. Īstenošanas pasākumi (Reglamenta 106. pants) (sk. protokolu)
 8. Klimata pārmaiņas (debates)
 9. Sēdes atsākšana
 10. Gatavošanās Eiropadomes 2019. gada 21. un 22. marta sanāksmei un Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanās no ES (debates)
 11. Balsošanas laiks
  11.1. Savienības vispārējā eksporta atļauja konkrētu divējāda lietojuma preču eksportam no Savienības uz Apvienoto Karalisti (A8-0071/2019 - Klaus Buchner) (balsošana)
  11.2. Teritoriālās sadarbības programmu “PEACE IV (Īrija–Apvienotā Karaliste)” un “Apvienotā Karaliste–Īrija (Īrija–Ziemeļīrija–Skotija)” turpināšana, ņemot vērā Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Eiropas Savienības (A8-0021/2019 - Iskra Mihaylova) (balsošana)
  11.3. Uzsākto mācību mobilitātes pasākumu turpināšana programmā “Erasmus+” saistībā ar Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no ES (A8-0082/2019 - Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski) (balsošana)
  11.4. Aviācijas drošība saistībā ar Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības (A8-0061/2019 - Kosma Złotowski) (balsošana)
  11.5. ES un Afganistānas sadarbības nolīgums par partnerību un attīstību (A8-0026/2019 - Anna Elżbieta Fotyga) (balsošana)
  11.6. ES un Afganistānas sadarbības nolīgums par partnerību un attīstību (rezolūcija) (A8-0058/2019 - Anna Elżbieta Fotyga) (balsošana)
  11.7. Norvēģijas, Islandes, Šveices un Lihtenšteinas līdzdalība Eiropas Aģentūrā lielapjoma IT sistēmu darbības pārvaldībai brīvības, drošības un tiesiskuma telpā (A8-0081/2019 - Monica Macovei) (balsošana)
  11.8. ES īpašo pārstāvju darbības joma un pilnvaras (A8-0171/2019 - Hilde Vautmans) (balsošana)
  11.9. Produktu un pakalpojumu pieejamības prasības (A8-0188/2017 - Morten Løkkegaard) (balsošana)
  11.10. Vīzu informācijas sistēma (A8-0078/2019 - Carlos Coelho) (balsošana)
  11.11. Patvēruma un migrācijas fonds (A8-0106/2019 - Miriam Dalli) (balsošana)
  11.12. Finansiāla atbalsta instrumenta izveide robežu pārvaldībai un vīzām (A8-0089/2019 - Tanja Fajon) (balsošana)
  11.13. Iekšējās drošības fonds (A8-0115/2019 - Monika Hohlmeier) (balsošana)
  11.14. Stipro alkoholisko dzērienu definīcija, noformēšana un marķēšana un to ģeogrāfiskās izcelsmes norāžu aizsardzība (A8-0021/2018 - Pilar Ayuso) (balsošana)
  11.15. Ierosinātie grozījumi 3. protokolā par Eiropas Savienības Tiesas statūtiem (A8-0439/2018 - Tiemo Wölken) (balsošana)
  11.16. Ārkārtas pasākumu noteikšana sociālā nodrošinājuma koordinācijas jomā pēc Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanās no ES (A8-0161/2019 - Marian Harkin, Jean Lambert) (balsošana)
  11.17. Kopīgi noteikumi, kas nodrošina kravu autopārvadājumu pamatsavienojamību saistībā ar Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības (A8-0063/2019 - Isabella De Monte) (balsošana)
  11.18. Kopīgi noteikumi, kas nodrošina gaisa pārvadājumu pamatsavienojamību saistībā ar Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības (A8-0062/2019 - Pavel Telička) (balsošana)
  11.19. Noteikumi, kuri saistīti ar Eiropas Jūrlietu un zivsaimniecības fondu, sakarā ar Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības (balsošana)
  11.20. Savienības zvejas kuģu zvejas atļaujas Apvienotās Karalistes ūdeņos un Apvienotās Karalistes zvejas kuģu zvejas darbības Savienības ūdeņos (balsošana)
  11.21. Daži dzelzceļa drošības un savienojamības aspekti saistībā ar Lielbritānijas un Ziemeļīrijas Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības ( - Ismail Ertug) (balsošana)
  11.22. Eiropas nodrošināta aizsardzība: tīrs gaiss visiem (B8-0156/2019) (balsošana)
  11.23. EĀDD veiktie turpmākie pasākumi divus gadus pēc EP ziņojuma par ES stratēģisko paziņojumu pret to vērstas trešo personu propagandas apkarošanai (A8-0031/2019 - Anna Elżbieta Fotyga) (balsošana)
  11.24. Asociācijas nolīgums starp ES un Monako, Andoru un Sanmarīno (A8-0074/2019 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar) (balsošana)
 12. Balsojumu skaidrojumi
  12.1. ES un Afganistānas sadarbības nolīgums par partnerību un attīstību (A8-0026/2019 - Anna Elżbieta Fotyga)
  12.2. ES un Afganistānas sadarbības nolīgums par partnerību un attīstību (rezolūcija) (A8-0058/2019 - Anna Elżbieta Fotyga)
  12.3. Produktu un pakalpojumu pieejamības prasības (A8-0188/2017 - Morten Løkkegaard)
  12.4. Vīzu informācijas sistēma (A8-0078/2019 - Carlos Coelho)
  12.5. Patvēruma un migrācijas fonds (A8-0106/2019 - Miriam Dalli)
  12.6. Finansiāla atbalsta instrumenta izveide robežu pārvaldībai un vīzām (A8-0089/2019 - Tanja Fajon)
  12.7. Iekšējās drošības fonds (A8-0115/2019 - Monika Hohlmeier)
  12.8. Eiropas nodrošināta aizsardzība: tīrs gaiss visiem (B8-0156/2019)
  12.9. EĀDD veiktie turpmākie pasākumi divus gadus pēc EP ziņojuma par ES stratēģisko paziņojumu pret to vērstas trešo personu propagandas apkarošanai (A8-0031/2019 - Anna Elżbieta Fotyga)
  12.10. Asociācijas nolīgums starp ES un Monako, Andoru un Sanmarīno (A8-0074/2019 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar)
 13. Balsojumu labojumi un nodomi balsot (sk. protokolu)
 14. Sēdes atsākšana
 15. Iepriekšējās sēdes protokola apstiprināšana (sk. protokolu)
 16. Ieteikumi attiecībā uz ES un ASV sarunu sākšanu (debates)
 17. Eiropas ekonomikas politikas koordinēšanas pusgads: 2019. gada izaugsmes pētījums - Eiropas ekonomikas politikas koordinēšanas pusgads: nodarbinātības un sociālie aspekti 2019. gada izaugsmes pētījumā (debates)
 18. Sēdes atsākšana
 19. Balsošanas laiks
  19.1. Eiropas Industriālais, tehnoloģiskais un pētnieciskais kiberdrošības kompetenču centrs un Nacionālo koordinācijas centru tīkls (A8-0084/2019 - Julia Reda) (balsošana)
  19.2. Grozījumu izdarīšana Regulā (EK) Nr. 391/2009 attiecībā uz Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības (A8-0004/2019 - Isabella De Monte) (balsošana)
  19.3. Grozījumu izdarīšana Regulā (ES) Nr. 1316/2013 sakarā ar Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības (A8-0009/2019 - Karima Delli) (balsošana)
  19.4. Ostas atkritumu pieņemšanas iekārtas kuģu atkritumu nodošanai (A8-0326/2018 - Gesine Meissner) (balsošana)
  19.5. Savienības Muitas kodeksā paredzēto līdzekļu, kas nav elektroniskās datu apstrādes metodes, pagaidu izmantošanas pagarināšana (A8-0342/2018 - Jasenko Selimovic) (balsošana)
  19.6. Krāpšanas un viltošanas apkarošana attiecībā uz bezskaidras naudas maksāšanas līdzekļiem (A8-0276/2018 - Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann) (balsošana)
  19.7. Iebildumu izteikšana saskaņā ar Reglamenta 106. pantu: vairāku vielu, tostarp klotianidīna, maksimālie atlieku līmeņi (B8-0138/2019) (balsošana)
  19.8. Iebildumu izteikšana saskaņā ar Reglamenta 106. pantu: ģenētiski modificēta kukurūza 4114 (DP-ØØ4114-3) (B8-0141/2019) (balsošana)
  19.9. Iebildumu izteikšana saskaņā ar Reglamenta 106. pantu: ģenētiski modificēta kukurūza MON 87411 (MON-87411-9) (B8-0140/2019) (balsošana)
  19.10. Iebildumu izteikšana saskaņā ar Reglamenta 106. pantu: ģenētiski modificēta kukurūza Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 (B8-0142/2019) (balsošana)
  19.11. Iebildumu izteikšana saskaņā ar Reglamenta 106. pantu: aktīvās vielas, tostarp tiakloprīds (B8-0139/2019) (balsošana)
  19.12. 2018. gada ziņojums par Turciju (A8-0091/2019 - Kati Piri) (balsošana)
  19.13. Eiropas ekonomikas politikas koordinēšanas pusgads: 2019. gada izaugsmes pētījums (A8-0159/2019 - Tom Vandenkendelaere) (balsošana)
  19.14. Eiropas ekonomikas politikas koordinēšanas pusgads: nodarbinātības un sociālie aspekti 2019. gada izaugsmes pētījumā (A8-0162/2019 - Marian Harkin) (balsošana)
 20. Balsojumu skaidrojumi (sk. protokolu)
 21. Balsojumu labojumi un nodomi balsot (sk. protokolu)
 22. Sēdes atsākšana
 23. Zaudējumu seguma minimums nerezultatīviem riska darījumiem (debates)
 24. Eiropas Monetārā fonda izveide (debates)
 25. Konkurences aizsardzība gaisa transportā (debates)
 26. 2020. gada budžeta pamatnostādnes — III iedaļa (debates)
 27. Stāvoklis Nikaragvā (debates)
 28. Jurisdikcija, lēmumu atzīšana un izpilde laulības lietās un lietās par vecāku atbildību un bērnu starptautiskā nolaupīšana (pārstrādāta redakcija) (debates)
 29. Nākamās sēdes darba kārtība (sk. protokolu)
 30. Sēdes slēgšana


  

PŘEDSEDNICTVÍ: PAN PAVEL TELIČKA
místopředseda

 
1. Sēdes atklāšana
Visu runu video
 

(The sitting opened at 9.00)

 

2. Sarunas pirms Parlamenta pirmā lasījuma (Reglamenta 69.c pants) (veiktie pasākumi) (sk. protokolu)
Visu runu video

3. Debates par cilvēktiesību, demokrātijas un tiesiskuma principu pārkāpumiem (iesniegto rezolūcijas priekšlikumu paziņošana) (sk. protokolu)

4. Dokumentu iesniegšana (sk. protokolu)

5. Apropriāciju pārvietojumi un lēmumi par budžetu (sk. protokolu)

6. Deleģētie akti (Reglamenta 105. panta 6. punkts) (sk. protokolu)

7. Īstenošanas pasākumi (Reglamenta 106. pants) (sk. protokolu)

8. Klimata pārmaiņas (debates)
Visu runu video
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on climate change (2019/2582(RSP)).

For this debate there will be no catch-the-eye procedure, and no blue-card requests will be accepted.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Melania Gabriela Ciot, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I would like to thank the European Parliament for letting me take the floor to speak on behalf of the Council on this vital topic.

We are all aware of the scale and urgency of the challenges posed by climate change, as witnessed by the lively debates on the issue in both the Council and Parliament. Yet, global action to fight it remains insufficient, as confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report, Global Warming of 1.5°C.

The European Union is determined to lead the way in the global response to climate change. It stands firmly behind its commitment to fully implementing the Paris Agreement and the objective of holding the global temperature increase to well below 2°C. The EU also remains committed to maximising contributions in the fight against climate change from other relevant multilateral processes, notably in the areas of aviation and shipping.

The EU is broadly on track to achieve its 2020 greenhouse gas, renewable energy and energy efficiency targets. Furthermore, it has already translated into legislation its own ambitious commitments for 2030, which will enable it to achieve emission reductions of at least 40% by 2030 compared to 1990. The finalisation of the main elements of the 2030 climate and energy legislative package was the result of work which started in 2015 and recently culminated in intensive negotiations and agreement between the two co—legislators.

In particular, the rules of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) were revised to ensure the necessary emission reductions in the industrial and power sector, and ambitious, binding reduction targets for 2030 were set for all EU Member States in other sectors, such as buildings, transport and waste. In the land use and forestry sector, Member States have to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions on their territory do not exceed removals by sinks.

Combined with other sectoral policies, among others, on the deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, CO2 emissions from cars, vans and trucks, as well as from fluorinated gases, it is estimated that these policies will have an impact on our level of achievement. In addition, robust overall governance rules were recently agreed at EU level to help ensure coherence between Member States’ long-term energy and climate policy plans and to facilitate reporting on and monitoring of progress.

However, we know that more needs to be done to contribute to the long-term temperature goals set in Paris. In line with the Paris Agreement, the EU will submit a long-term strategy to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change by 2020, while calling on all other parties to submit their long-term strategies on time. With this in hand, both the European Council and the European Parliament invited the Commission to present a proposal for a strategy for long-term EU greenhouse gas emissions reductions by early 2019, which resulted in the Commission’s November 2018 communication, A Clean Planet for all.

The Council welcomes the communication and underlines the need to focus discussions on different pathways to achieve climate neutrality, in line with the Paris Agreement. The communication has already been discussed at the meetings of the Ministers responsible for environment, energy and competitiveness, and further sectoral debates are planned to take place in the coming weeks and months. The debates held so far have highlighted the shared recognition of the need for action and of the importance of developing the EU long-term strategy in a comprehensive and holistic manner.

Indeed, the Council believes that concerted and transformative action must extend to multiple levels of governance, with an essential role for non-state actors and regional and local governments in implementing ambitious solutions on the ground. The preparation of the EU’s long-term strategy should also take into account the integrated national energy and climate plans of Member States, which in turn have to be consistent with their long—term strategies.

Let me recall here that the Paris Agreement recognises just transition as an imperative to ensuring that the consequences of climate change actions for the workforce are taken into account in regions and communities which stand to be particularly affected by them. This should be taken into account when preparing long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies at EU and national level.

Despite undeniable challenges, the transition to low—greenhouse—gas—emission and climate—resilient economies has already created – and has the potential to create – additional employment opportunities, for example, in renewable energy, construction and building renovation. Technological innovations will need to be scaled up in all sectors. Research, development and demonstration are expected to reduce the cost of breakthrough technologies significantly, but an enabling framework is needed to support them, and private investments need to be scaled up and the right signals provided to the markets, with the mobilisation of finance from a variety of sources. To achieve further emissions reductions, in line with the EU’s commitment to fully implementing the Paris Agreement, major changes will need to be made at society level in our choices, investments and consumption and production patterns for the next decades.

The Presidency looks forward to further discussions on the Commission’s communication, including at the highest political level. The European Council will discuss the topic at its meeting next week in order to provide guidance on the overall direction and political priorities. Based on that guidance, the Council will continue and deepen the focus of debates in order to contribute to the overall process. The Council also looks forward to the high-level events planned at international level in 2019, which provide an opportunity to mobilise political will to raise global ambition, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretary-General’s climate summit, A Race We Can Win. A Race We Must Win, in September 2019.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Once again, for those colleagues who arrived slightly late, no blue-card requests will be accepted, and there will be no catch-the-eye procedure.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, it is a pleasure to address you this morning in this priority debate on climate change. Your action and commitment has brought to wider public attention the necessity and urgency to act on climate change. As the world’s leading climate scientists told us in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on 1.5 degrees, we must act urgently and collectively now. And political will is vital in driving this action.

In this year of European Parliament elections, we should look ahead at what else can be done. In Europe we can be proud of what we have achieved so far. The campaign for the European Parliament elections offers a great opportunity to tell our citizens what has already been achieved and have each European political party present their individual positions for the future.

As you know, but probably the majority of our citizens are not yet aware, we have adopted an ambitious legislative framework for 2030. This would not have been achieved without the excellent work, commitment and determination of the Members of this House. The Energy Union, with a forward-looking climate action, is now in place. This was one of the priorities of the Juncker Commission that you endorsed almost five years ago.

The correct implementation of the European Union’s climate and clean energy legislation should allow the European Union to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 beyond our current 40% target to around 45% compared with 1990. But targets are not ceilings. With the right incentives we can reach even more. This will be achieved thanks to the clean energy transition framework recently adopted, based on a greater deployment of renewable energy sources and by putting energy efficiency first on the agenda: our target of 32.5% of energy savings by 2030 could even be revised upwards in 2023.

This shows our citizens that climate and energy issues are on top of the European Union agenda, that this priority is making real progress in Europe; then to our international partners that the European Union is leading by example and that we turn our pledges into concrete action.

But now is also the moment to look ahead to 2050. We will have to upscale further our policies beyond 2030. The crucial thing is that we can only do it within a deep transformation of our model of economic development, one that delivers both climate neutrality and prosperity and fairness for European citizens. A model that is just for our citizens and fair for our industries.

That is why the Commission adopted in November last year its Communication ‘A Clean Planet for all: A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy’. By proposing this vision, we have responded to the call by the European Parliament and the European Council. The Commission’s vision intends to set a clear direction of travel for the European Union’s climate policy and contribute to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement.

To see what the European Union should do we studied eight scenarios in detail. Five scenarios achieve at least 80% reductions by 2050 with varying different technologies or introduce circularity and energy efficiency. Let’s be clear, these are not enough to meet the 1.5°C objective, and they are not what the Commission proposes to do. To get to the 1.5°C objective we will need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. That is why we have developed two scenarios that effectively reach this aim of climate neutrality. One is focused on technology deployment. The other contains more elements of behavioural change, circularity and increased natural sinks.

The analysis clearly shows that a climate neutral economy by 2050 is possible, following different pathways, but that it will require an ambitious combination of technologies and action. This is not only to protect our environment, but also to modernise the European Union economy for a sustainable future, increase investment in competitive technologies and defend our citizens’ better quality of life. It means investing in a much more efficient economy, an economy that relies less on imported energy, an economy that provides for more local, higher-quality jobs.

I am happy to see that the resolutions adopted in the parliamentary committees confirm this long-term ambition. I hope this is also the case in the plenary vote tomorrow. It is a big responsibility for all of us to lead and demonstrate that a socially fair transition to climate neutrality is not only possible, but also opens enormous economic opportunities.

A transformation on this scale requires an open and inclusive debate. We all need to engage widely with citizens and civil society across Europe to reach a common understanding on the way forward. Together with my team I have already started our outreach to all European countries to launch the public debates, and I invite all of you to contribute to our 2050 vision for Europe. Here is where the impulsion that our young Europeans are giving us comes in and is a fundamental part of this debate. It is really the moment to speak out.

We are all beginning to suffer the consequences of climate change. Many of us will not be here to see what a profoundly changed planet will look like in 2050. But the young Europeans that are taking to the streets, and are doing so in growing numbers and in more and more cities across Europe, will be in the prime of their adult life in 2050. I welcome their engagement – they have the biggest stake in the fight against climate change.

We must embark in a process of transformation with a much greater sense of urgency than I see today. We have a little time left to stabilise climate change and fulfil the goals of the Paris Agreement. We have not yet run out of time, but we cannot afford to hesitate anymore. The actions and the words of these young Europeans are a precious spur to action now, and we have a duty to act. We have sketched out how this can be done and presented a solid analysis of why and how Europe can achieve climate neutrality; why this model can be replicated by other countries in the world; how climate neutrality, economic prosperity and social fairness can and must go together.

We must listen to what the very great majority of Europeans – and especially our future generations – are telling us. We must agree on the objective of a climate neutral, prosperous and fair Europe in 2050, and on that basis, take the measures and actions that we know can make it happen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Peter Liese, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der frühere sozialdemokratische deutsche Bundeskanzler Helmut Schmidt hat einmal gesagt: Wer Visionen hat, soll zum Arzt gehen. Ich finde aber, in der Politik brauchen wir Visionen, und gerade in der Europapolitik brauchen wir Visionen. Die Europäische Kommission hat eine Vision vorgelegt: Wir wollen bis 2050 klimaneutral werden. Und das Gute an dieser Vision ist, dass sie durch Fakten und Szenarien untermauert ist. Die Aussage der Kommission ist klar. Wir können sogar zusätzliche Arbeitsplätze schaffen und zusätzliches Wachstum in Europa generieren, wenn wir dieses Ziel anstreben.

Europaweit gehen Schülerinnen und Schüler für den Klimaschutz auf die Straße, und ich glaube, sie haben, wenn wir morgen diese Entschließung annehmen und das Ziel der Klimaneutralität mit großer Geschlossenheit unterstützen, schon einen ersten Erfolg errungen. Aber ich fürchte, die Schülerinnen und Schüler müssen weiter demonstrieren – ich hoffe, dann auch außerhalb der Unterrichtszeit –, denn wir sind ja nicht allein entscheidend. Der Rat muss dieses Szenario annehmen, und das wird sicherlich sehr viel schwieriger als hier im Parlament. Gerade um den Rat zu bewegen, dieser Strategie und dem Ziel zuzustimmen und auch konkrete Schritte einzuleiten, müssen wir jetzt sehr genau überlegen, was wir tun. Wir als EVP sind kritisch, dass wir ein 55 %-Ziel für 2030 jetzt beschließen, denn wir haben gerade die Klimagesetzgebung angenommen. Planungssicherheit ist auch ein wichtiges Gut. Einen Beschluss, den man gerade gefasst hat, sofort über Bord zu werfen, hilft uns nicht. Und ich fürchte eben auch, dass, wenn wir jetzt bei dieser Entschließung übertreiben, die Mitgliedstaaten im Rat, die die Klimaneutralität eben grundsätzlich nicht wollen, Argumente bekommen, die wir ihnen nicht geben sollten. Deswegen glaube ich, wir haben einen guten Kompromiss gefunden in den Verhandlungen zwischen den Fraktionen, und wir sollten den morgen durchtragen.

Ganz wichtig ist für die EVP ein gerechter Übergang zu Klimaneutralität – just transition. Wir müssen den Menschen in den Kohleregionen helfen, Ersatzarbeitsplätze zu finden. Wir müssen die energieintensive Industrie in den Stand versetzen, CO2-frei zu produzieren, zum Beispiel die Stahlindustrie in den Stand versetzen, CO2-frei Stahl zu produzieren. Das ist technisch möglich, aber wir brauchen sehr viel Unterstützung. Unser Berichterstatter, Christian Ehler, verhandelt gerade heute im Trilog über dieses Thema, nämlich, dass wir von der Europäischen Union diese Technologien auch wirklich unterstützen. Wir sollten ihm dabei den Rücken stärken.

Ich habe die Schülerinnen und Schüler, die in meinem Wahlkreis demonstrieren, zu einer Diskussion eingeladen, und selbstverständlich haben die Schülerinnen und Schüler dabei das erste Wort. Selbstverständlich findet diese Diskussion nachmittags statt und nicht während der Unterrichtszeit.

Mir ist es wichtig, dass wir da auch mit den Unternehmen in einen Dialog kommen. Ich treffe immer noch viele Unternehmer, die sagen: Wir schaffen das nicht, wir können das nicht leisten. Deswegen müssen wir zusammenarbeiten. Denn wir sind auch kein Vorbild für die Welt, wenn wir dann am Ende zwar klimaneutral sind, aber die Industrie in anderen Teilen der Welt produziert. Deswegen kann die Devise nicht „Klimaschutz statt Arbeitsplätze“ oder „Arbeitsplätze statt Klimaschutz“ sein. Wir als EVP wollen Klimaschutz und Arbeitsplätze, und deswegen kämpfen wir dafür, dass die Entschließung, die jetzt auf dem Tisch liegt, morgen ohne wesentliche Veränderung angenommen wird. Ich glaube, dann geben wir das richtige Signal.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Udo Bullmann, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, we have guests in this House today, 60 young people from 20 countries up there on the Tribune. We welcome them because they are great and they are the representatives of the Youth For Climate movement.

(Applause)

It’s good that all parliamentarians have the chance to see young people in their constituencies but today we have the chance to see them here, which is even better. The movement was started last August by schoolgirl Greta Thunberg, who decided to strike in front of the Swedish Parliament, holding up a hand-painted sign, but today it’s a social movement. Hundreds of thousands, in more than 70 countries, in more than 700 cities, are going to manifestations on the movement’s Fridays For Future. This is a social revolution that has now started everywhere and we the politicians, we the parliamentarians, have to be part of that. This is my firm conviction.

One element more: I think they should be here in our place today and talk to us. They should come forward with their demands, they should question us and we should be giving answers. Indeed this was also the idea of some Groups, to invite them to speak today, but unfortunately it was not possible to have a majority for that in the Conference of Presidents. I regret very much that Conservatives, Liberals and the far right denied us this chance for an open debate today.

(Applause)

Unfortunately, they blocked an open discussion with the young people who are going on the streets each week. Perhaps we can do better sometime.

So the conclusion was that the Groups who supported that – we the Socialists and Democrats, the Greens and the GUE/NGL Group – invited them to our group meetings this week and we listened to them. We wanted to know what indeed they are longing for and the answer was completely clear. It was a call to action. It’s highly urgent that we do something. ‘Please do not postpone. Please don’t be cheap in your political answers. Please, no more delays because you are dealing with the biggest threat in human history’. And yes, the young people are right because they want to have a life without fear, a perspective for themselves and their future families, and a life without devastation.

Deswegen will ich den jungen Leuten sagen: Es reicht nicht, dass wir hier lächeln, es reicht nicht, dass wir so tun, als würden wir zuhören und keine Konsequenzen ziehen. Nein, Konsequenzen müssen radikal gezogen werden, wenn wir diesen Planeten retten wollen und wenn wir dafür sorgen wollen, dass alle auf diesem Planeten eine Zukunft haben. Wir nehmen das sehr ernst. In meiner Fraktion haben wir dafür gesorgt, dass wir unsere politischen Programme überprüfen, und heute sind wir felsenfest entschieden, unsere Politik jetzt, heute und morgen an den Nachhaltigkeitszielen der Vereinten Nationen auszurichten.

Das bedeutet, es darf nie mehr eine Debatte über Wirtschaft geben ohne Umwelt. Aber es darf auch keine Debatte über Umwelt geben, ohne die soziale Sicherheit in unseren Gesellschaften mitzudenken und dafür zu sorgen, dass alle Menschen etwas davon haben, von dem zukünftigen Bild unserer guten Gesellschaft, die wir zusammen bauen wollen. Das heißt, Ökologie ist nicht nur für die happy few. In der Tat, dort wo Arbeitsplätze wegfallen, müssen wir uns kümmern. Wir müssen investieren, mit einer engagierten Regionalpolitik, mit einer engagierten Sozialpolitik, und wir müssen dafür sorgen – fragen Sie Herrn Macron, der gerade dabei ist, seine Lehrstunde zu bewältigen –, dass Gerechtigkeit einkehrt in unserer Gesellschaft. Es kann nicht sein, dass die arbeitenden Menschen alleine die Transformation bezahlen müssen. Ganz im Gegenteil, wir werden die ökologische Wende nur schaffen, wenn wir die soziale Wende mitdenken und mitpraktizieren, und es wird nur eine gute soziale Zukunft geben, wenn wir eine vernünftige Transformation unserer Industriegesellschaft schaffen und wenn wir dafür sorgen, dass diese Welt in Frieden mit ihren natürlichen Ressourcen leben kann. Das muss unser Programm sein.

Ich habe gehört, was die Kommission gesagt hat, ich habe den Kollegen Liese gehört, der sich in der Tat engagiert für diese Themen, aber, Freundinnen und Freunde, das ist doch ganz einfach! Wenn Ihr alle entschieden seid, dann machen wir das im neuen Mandat. Dann machen wir ganz einfach aus dem Stabilitäts- und Wachstumspakt einen Nachhaltigkeitspakt. Dann machen wir aus dem Semester nicht mehr nur eine Wirtschaftsüberlegung, sondern wir machen eine Nachhaltigkeitspolitik. Und den jungen Leuten: Keep on fighting! We are with you!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – If I may, on behalf of the President’s Office and on my own behalf, I can easily imagine that once the next Parliament is sitting we can have a special event here in the Chamber, with young people, on climate change issues. I am sure the vast majority of us would support it, and had it been brought to the attention of the Bureau I would definitively have supported it.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jadwiga Wiśniewska, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Porozumienie paryskie wyznacza drogę do czystego środowiska. Potrzebujemy strategii opartych na niskoemisyjności. Jest to trudne, ale też stwarza nowe możliwości. Musimy stawiać na badania i innowacje, starać się o odpowiednie finansowanie dla regionów przechodzących transformację klimatyczną, szczególnie dla regionów węglowych, takich jak mój region – Śląsk.

Dlatego mam nadzieję, że socjaliści i ALDE poprą moją rezolucję, w której mówię o sprawiedliwej transformacji – transformacji, która nie wyklucza nikogo, nie wyklucza państw członkowskich mających bardzo trudny mix energetyczny, zdominowany przez węgiel. Polski mix energetyczny w osiemdziesięciu procentach opiera się na węglu, francuski zawiera tylko dwa procent węgla. Chcemy czystego środowiska? Dajmy więc szansę krajom, które mają mix energetyczny obciążony węglem. Proszę poprzeć poprawkę mówiącą o sprawiedliwej transformacji i o wsparciu regionów górniczych. W przeciwnym razie nasze dyskusje będą jałowe, będą umizgiwaniem się do młodzieży, podkręcaniem jej nastrojów. A ja wiem, że młodzież jest mądra. Jeśli powiemy, że mamy wykluczenie energetyczne, to oznacza ono biedę, nędzę, bezrobocie. Z tego powodu Francuzi wychodzą dzisiaj na ulice. Stawiajmy na sprawiedliwą transformację, bo tylko ona ma sens. Proszę o poparcie mojej rezolucji.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, today is a very special day because not only is the future generation literally knocking on our doors but they’re watching us, they’re looking over our shoulders to see if we are taking care of their future. By organising the climate marches for children they made it clear to us that it’s their future that we are destroying at the moment. And are we fully aware of that and do we act accordingly? I’m afraid the answer is no – and not only on climate but also on the systematic destruction of nature. The EU will by far miss its own objectives on the biodiversity strategy but neither the Commission nor the Council have taken any measures in order to turn the tide.

But then climate – yes, we have legislation in place, and yes, we do increase the part of the EU budget dedicated to climate change, but is that sufficient? No, we all know it’s not. We should move towards the 55% in 2030. That is something that is absolutely clear. But we should also act in all other policy areas and this Monday, I’m afraid, again, we proved that we are letting the future generation down.

We voted on sustainable finance and I’m afraid that, by the right-wing parts of this House, we voted out all ambition and that is extremely important because all human action starts with investments and we applaud every percentage of green investments. But it’s worth nothing if we do not green all the other investments; it’s fighting a running battle. As we say in the Netherlands, it is mopping up with the tap open. We will only succeed if all investments are green and that is the way forward.

Today, the future generation is sitting there. We only have a limited amount of time. In a few years’ time they will be sitting here and let’s avoid that we will be sitting there and shamefully watching how they are trying to clean up our mess.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, thank you for this debate. It’s about time we talked again about climate change. But I think a lot of people who are here now are getting a bit tired of people saying ‘Oh, we want to thank you, thank you for being here, thank you for telling us’. They don’t want thanks. They want action. They want politicians to act.

Ten years ago, I went into this European Parliament – coming from science, going into politics – because I noticed that politicians were not acting, and I thought it’s about time that they started acting.

And sorry, Commissioner, sorry, Council, you were only talking about 2050. If I follow all those marches on the street, the last time I checked I didn’t see anyone ask: ‘We want a 2050 vision’. All are asking: ‘We want action now’.

We need to do more as Europe, we need to step up our ambitions now and what we hear is only: ‘we are going to talk about a long-term strategy’. Mr Liese is even saying: ‘Let’s do first a long-term strategy, don’t talk too much about action, because maybe that will shake up some countries!’ That’s the purpose! We’re talking about a climate crisis here. We are talking about action that needs to be done.

(Applause)

As one of the slogans says: if climate had been a bank, it would have been safe by now.

(Applause)

So it really is about time also that we need to do more and I think this is really what we can see – it’s the climate marches we see on the streets, not just the strikes by the youth, but also the big marches. Last Sunday in Amsterdam, 40 000 people on the street; in Brussels two times 70 000 people; people on the streets asking for more action. That is a social movement, a social movement that we should not let down. They are calling on Europe to do more. And if you want to talk about the future of Europe, this is about the future of Europe. The future of Europe is green jobs and that is another comment to my dear colleague Peter Liese.

When you are talking about future jobs you should talk about the green transition.

(Applause)

Other regions in the world are moving, are investing – look at California, but also look at the solar investments in India. Look at the electric transportation in China. They are moving. The German car industry is investing more in electric transportation in China than in Germany and that’s because there they do policies and not in Germany.

(Applause)

So we need to step up and we need to take action and we don’t only need to talk about targets – and by the way it’s good that people are getting annoyed because this is the debate, right? Because everyone is always saying that we do the same and we all have the same targets, but this shows we don’t, because if we go beyond the targets then suddenly you see that the vested interest of the fossil industry is still hugely protected by this side of Parliament.

(Applause)

As my colleague said, on finances we still only try to say ‘okay, don’t talk about the negative impact of our financing, only talk about a little green corner’. On agriculture we don’t manage to really make sure that agriculture becomes green. On transportation, we are still lagging behind on new and future transportation, and on climate proofing of our investments we’re not delivering.

We really need to step up. Tomorrow is our first vote for higher targets. But after that, these elections, these European elections, will be about climate – about real action, because it’s time to act instead of talking.

(Sustained applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lynn Boylan, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, Greta Thunberg was blocked from addressing this Parliament because she speaks truth to power, and that truth is that we are failing on climate change – failing to take the bold steps that are required, failing to lead.

There are some in this Chamber who are more upset that young people would strike from school than they are about the fact that we have 12 years left to sort this mess out. Our Paris Agreement targets are already behind the science. Two degrees is no longer adequate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has told us that we need to stay under 1.5 degrees if we want to limit climate catastrophe.

Rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented change is what is required. Rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented is not what we are offering in this joint resolution. We might as well have a meteor heading straight for us, and we’re putting up an umbrella. It goes nowhere near far enough to setting out what we need to do.

This is not about political compromise, it’s about following science, and failure tomorrow to support the amendments calling on the EU to reduce emissions by at least 55% is not only an insult to the activists who are watching us from the gallery but it is also telling them that their future is irrelevant. Colleagues, it’s time to lead.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Eleonora Evi, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la metafora della rana bollita ormai la conosciamo tutti, e la conoscono molto bene i cittadini fuori dalle istituzioni europee, che stanno manifestando per proteggere il loro futuro. Tuttavia è la metafora che meglio descrive quello che sta succedendo, perché stiamo letteralmente cucinando il nostro pianeta a fuoco lento.

La domanda che dobbiamo porci è la seguente, dal momento che le responsabilità sono molteplici, a livello globale: ma noi, l'Europa, abbiamo fatto abbastanza? Abbiamo fatto a sufficienza per garantire un futuro a questo pianeta e per garantire una vera transizione verso un'economia che sia davvero a zero emissioni, in termini di produzione e di consumi, in termini di società intera? Io purtroppo non credo. Non lo credo, anche perché gli obiettivi che ci siamo dati fino ad oggi sono solo ancora sulla carta e non sono sufficienti a garantire un abbassamento della temperatura, e quelli da venire devono ancora essere decisi.

Io faccio solo un appello: chiedo ai colleghi, alla Commissione e al Consiglio di dire basta alle politiche del rigore, basta limitare gli investimenti in efficienza energetica e in rinnovabili, perché sono quelli che ci salveranno per il futuro, basta contabilizzarli come debito, dobbiamo scorporarli dal patto di stabilità. Io venerdì sarò in piazza a manifestare insieme a tutti i giovani.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Joëlle Mélin, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, les changements climatiques constatés posent un problème crucial à tous les habitants de la planète.

Il faut donc les aborder de manière responsable pour les anticiper et les traiter. Et pour être efficace, il convient d’être conscient de l’intrication de deux phénomènes. Le premier relève de la seule responsabilité humaine, après 200 ans d’industrialisation sauvage et de course à la productivité, avec une débauche d’énergie carbonée incontrôlée. L’autre relève des cycles climatiques naturels prouvés par l’étude des glaces polaires et a provoqué, à la fin de la dernière glaciation, une hausse de la température de plus de 4°C et une montée des mers de 120 mètres. L’homme n’y était pour rien. Alors que faire?

Cesser de dire que l’homme et les organismes vivants sont responsables de tout; sortir de l’angélisme de l’accord de Paris; rattraper le retard phénoménal de l’Union européenne en matière technologique et de solutions alternatives innovantes; cesser de nouer des accords de libre-échange non écologiques; refuser la mondialisation et la marchandisation de l’eau, de l’air, de la terre et anticiper leur gestion; limiter les contraintes pseudo-environnementales qui plombent les coûts des voitures, des logements et de la nourriture, et qui justifient des taxes de plus en plus insupportables pour les peuples.

Sortons en urgence du dogmatisme et passons à des... (le Président retire la parole à l’oratrice)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank all the Members for their contributions, their ambition and their capacity to listen to young people. But when we speak to young people we have to put things straight on the table. To say that there has been no action from the Commission on climate change during these past five years is simply not fair. In these five years more has happened on climate action than ever. We agreed in Paris the first binding international climate treaty and the European Union was instrumental in delivering that agreement, leading the high-ambition coalition.

The first point is that we have an agreement which establishes the objectives needed to stop climate change. We have delivered all the necessary legislation, with the support of this House, which has raised the level of ambition, for sure, and I thank all the Members of the parliamentary political groups for having raised ambition levels in relation to renewables, energy efficiency, sustainable mobility, and CO2 targets for cars and light vans, and for heavy-duty vehicles. Good work. A good job done. We are on track.

And the Commission framework for 2030 has review clauses. Action will be enhanced, but to enhance action you need a sense of direction of travel. Young people are saying that they want fast action and ambition. What the Commission has proposed in this communication is that we will become climate neutral by 2050. That’s at least 10 years before what science is saying. The International Panel on Climate Change says that climate neutrality globally will have to be achieved by 2061, and developed countries have a responsibility to act faster, I fully agree. But now we are in a situation where we have legislation and we have review clauses.

It is not enough, and the next Parliament and the next Commission, have a huge responsibility. I expect that the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ and the political groups in the campaign will be ambitious in their electoral programmes, because if we all agree that we have to raise the level of ambition there should not be problems in the Council when it comes to taking decisions supporting the 2050 climate neutrality objective. If we have that objective, the next Commission will have to raise the level of ambition beforehand. That is the exercise in which we are engaged here.

I expect there to be a huge debate in the campaign for the European elections – and that young people, industry and workers will be listened to, because this has to be a fair, social transition. We cannot fight climate change when there are so many people unemployed. It is impossible. We need the involvement of citizens in order to change behaviour patterns, to have electric mobility accepted, and to change the way we are using resources. And that is a revolution. I am conscious that what the Commission has proposed is very ambitious. It touches all sectors of the economy. It requires structural changes that are bigger than those of the industrial revolution. It has to have the support of all our citizens.

So now we have the opportunity to answer the demands of the young people, and the European Council has to endorse ambitious trajectories that will be the guidelines for the policies that the next Commission and the next Parliament will have to agree.

In the street, people are making demands, but we have to answer our young people, the workers in the automotive industries, the workers in the steel industry, the workers in the coalmines, in order to engineer a fair and social transition. The energy transition, fighting climate change, will be achieved with success if nobody is left behind – and that is our responsibility during the campaign, after the campaign and in the future.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Melania Gabriela Ciot, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, again let me thank the honourable Members for this useful debate and for their comments, and to greet the young people in the gallery. I note that, in general, Parliament and the Council share many of the same aspirations and the same concerns on this topic. It is essential to reflect on how we can transform the EU’s economy in a way that ensures the best possible future for our environment, our citizens, businesses and industry.

The EU has long been a front-runner on climate action and it should continue to lead by example. Under the Romanian Presidency, the Council will continue its work on all aspects of the vision presented by the Commission, with a view to providing clear, coherent and focused inputs to facilitate further discussion.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – I have received nine motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 123(2).

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday, 13 March 2019.

Written statements (Rule 162)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Adam Gierek (S&D), na piśmie. – Mniej „ambicji”, a więcej skuteczności. Myślę, że obecne propozycje są zbyt „rewolucyjne”, a to odwrotnie, wbrew zamiarom, może jedynie opóźniać celowe działania zamiast je przyspieszać. Potrzebne jest myślenie, a następnie działanie o charakterze ewolucyjnym, tj. takie, które będzie budowało swoiste pomosty w dochodzeniu do skutecznych dla ochrony klimatu celów. Transformacja energetyczna UE nie może być tak chaotyczna, jaką jest teraz, zaś odchodzenie od paliw kopalnych winno być stopniowe. Chodzi również o mniej błędów merytorycznych ze strony KE utożsamiających efektywność energetyczną z ograniczaniem konsumpcji energii. Trzeba zainwestować w rzeczywistą efektywność energetyczną, ale to kosztuje. Nie można nierozważnie doprowadzać do ubóstwa energetycznego, a ono przecież rośnie i będzie rosnąć, m.in. w związku z narzucanymi w UE rozwiązaniami np. w obszarze ETS. Zbliżający się w sposób wykładniczy kryzys cywilizacyjny pokrywa się wprawdzie z kryzysem klimatycznym, ale generalnie rzecz biorąc również z kryzysem demograficznym i wymaga nie tylko transformacji energetycznej Europy i świata, ale całkowitego odejścia od dotychczasowej cywilizacji konsumpcyjnej. Wniosek - ochrona klimatu to nie tylko problem Europy, ale całego świata i wymaga innego, bardziej kompleksowego niż dotychczas wspólnego podejścia wszystkich państw.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE), napisan. – Statistički podaci pokazuju da oko 90 % Europljana žive u gradovima izloženi razinama onečišćenja zraka koje se smatraju štetnim za zdravlje ljudi. Svjetska zdravstvena organizacija i da Europska agencija za okoliš (EEA) procjenjuje da se svake godine u EU-u zabilježi oko 400 000 slučajeva prerane smrti koji se mogu pripisati onečišćenju zraka. Smatram da su to alarmantni podaci na koje trebamo obratiti pozornost i djelovati što efektnije. Upravo sam zato podržao ovaj dokument koji apelira na Europsku komisiju da bi trebala postrožiti uvjete kontrole te poziva države članice da na svim razinama i u okviru svih sektora prednost daju provedbi koordiniranih djelovanja i politika za poboljšanje kvalitete zraka u gradovima i urbanim područjima kako bi se postigao krajnji cilj zaustavljanja preranih smrti i bolesti prouzročenih izloženošću onečišćujućim tvarima u zraku.

Trenutačno se u 20 država članica vodi 29 postupaka zbog povrede graničnih vrijednosti kakvoće zraka EU-a. Oko dvije trećine država članica trenutačno ne poštuje granične vrijednosti PM10 i NO2 te jedna od pet država prelazi ciljnu vrijednost PM2.5.

Onečišćenje zraka ima lokalnu, regionalnu, nacionalnu i prekograničnu dimenziju te iziskuje djelovanje svih razina upravljanja, što duboko vjerujem da će se poboljšati jer druge alternative nemamo.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), kirjallinen. –Tapasin 10-vuotiaan Lillyn äitinsä kanssa Strasbourgissa. Satuimme majailemaan samassa hotellissa. Olimme molemmat iloisia toistemme tapaamisesta. Lilly asuu Hollannissa, ja hän on yksi nuorimmista ilmastolakkoilijoista, jotka ovat osoittaneet mieltään viikko toisensa jälkeen perjantaisissa koululakoissa. Hän oli yksi Euroopan parlamenttiin tällä viikolla kutsutuista kuudestakymmenestä nuoresta ilmastoaktivistista.

On kertakaikkisen hienoa ja upeaa, että nuoret tekevät tätä – lakkoilevat ja ottavat kantaa ilmaston puolesta. Lasten ja nuorten pitäisi pystyä luottamaan tulevaisuuteen, asennoitua siihen myönteisesti ja suunnitella valoisalla mielellä omaa elämäänsä. Poliitikkojen vastuulla on taata tämä. Politiikan kyvyttömyydestä kertoo se, että riittävät päätökset jäävät vuodesta ja vuosikymmenestä toiseen tekemättä, jolloin nuorten on otettava vastuu ja osoitettava mieltään maapallon pelastumisen puolesta.

Tiedämme hyvin, että ilmastopolitiikan kunnianhimo pitää tuplata nykyisiin päätöksiin verrattuna ja että tältä pohjalta vuoden 2030 ilmastotavoitteet on korjattava vastaaviksi. EU:n tulisi asettaa vähintään 55 prosentin päästövähennystavoite vuoteen 2030 mennessä.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carolina Punset (ALDE), por escrito. – Aunque el Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos sobre el Cambio Climático (GIECC) advirtió al mundo de la necesidad urgente e imperiosa de atajar las emisiones de GEI, en la UE gastamos toneladas de papel y ríos de tinta en negociaciones interminables para llegar a acuerdo mínimos que apenas cumplen con el Acuerdo de París. Además, nos ponemos una venda en los ojos y, en aras de proteger el libre mercado, aceptamos los productos de terceros países, sin tener en cuenta las emisiones generadas en su fabricación o transporte, al mismo tiempo que se deslocaliza nuestra industria porque es más barato producir sin impuestos al CO2 que pagar el precio exigido en Europa por contaminar. La acción demanda no solo autoimponer a nuestras economías limitaciones en sus emisiones; se debería iniciar el ajuste de carbono en frontera en cualquier transacción, lo que evitaría la deslocalización de nuestros sectores productivos y promovería una reducción de emisiones en los países origen de estas mercaderías. Nadie paga los efectos adversos del consumo barato, por lo que estas medidas deberían aparecer en una estrategia real que pretenda limitar el calentamiento global, más allá de los escenarios planteados por la Comisión en su comunicación.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), schriftlich. – Zehntausende junge Menschen gehen für den Schutz unseres Planeten auf die Straße, und das zu Recht. Wir müssen uns ein Beispiel am Verantwortungsbewusstsein der jungen Generation nehmen, denn es geht um ihre Zukunft. Wäre das Klima eine Bank, wäre es inzwischen gerettet worden. Ein „Weiter so“ kann es nicht mehr geben. Im Jahr 2017 war der CO2-Ausstoß so hoch wie noch nie zuvor. Wir brauchen radikale Maßnahmen in allen Bereichen, vom Verkehr über die Industrie bis zur Energieversorgung – und das auf europäischer Ebene. Denn der Klimawandel macht nicht an der Grenze Halt. Die EU muss Klimaschutz-Superpower werden. Die EU-weite, sozial ausgewogene CO2-Steuer muss rasch eingeführt werden, Plastikmüll wesentlich reduziert werden und Glyphosat endlich komplett verboten werden. Außerdem können Sie sich ein Vorbild an Österreich nehmen – 70 % unseres Stroms kommen aus erneuerbarer Energie ohne Atomstrom.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), írásban. – A fiatalok tüntetnek a klímaüggyel kapcsolatban. Azt üzenik, hogy nem elég 2050-es célszámokat lobogtatni, most kell látható és hatékony lépéseket tenni! Nagy örömömre szolgál, hogy az MSZP 2019-es európai parlamenti választási programja és az általam kezdeményezett Okosfalu program is összhangban vannak ezekkel. Az okosfalvak koncepció EU szinten egy fenntartható keretet kíván biztosítani, a technológia vívmányok vidéki területekre történő kiterjesztésével. Sajnálatos, hogy míg az EU-ban hosszútávú célokat, programokat és forrást rendelünk a klímaügy mellé – Európai Tanáccsal együtt –, ugyanezen tagállamok és gyakran a magán-szektor mégsem támogatja egyhangúan a fenntartható átmenetet. Szavak szintjén igen, gyakorlatban nem teljesen. Gyakorlatban ez Magyarországon például uszítást, az EU-s források teljes pályás lerohanását és lenyúlását, az oktatás és a szociális ellátás elhanyagolását jelentik. Európai szintű megoldások és azonnali tagállami válaszok kellenek a globális kihívásokra! Támogatok egy igazi és okos fenntarthatósági paktumot, amely a fiatalokat és a dolgozó embereket, az okos és fenntartható technológiát, az innovációt, körforgásos gazdaságot helyezi középpontba. Javaslom az okosfalvak újabb fázisainak azonnali indítását, és egyetemben az indítvánnyal a fosszilis üzemanyagok igen magas támogatásának eltörlését, valamint ezen összeg megújuló energiára fordítását. Helyesnek tartom továbbá a következő többéves pénzügyi ciklus sorai klíma-próbájának a bevezetését is.

 
  
 

(The sitting was suspended at 9:48)

 
  
  

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ANTONIO TAJANI
Presidente

 

9. Sēdes atsākšana
Visu runu video
 

(La seduta è ripresa alle 10.01)

 

10. Gatavošanās Eiropadomes 2019. gada 21. un 22. marta sanāksmei un Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanās no ES (debates)
Visu runu video
MPphoto
 

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulle dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione sulla preparazione della riunione del Consiglio europeo del 21 e 22 marzo 2019 e recesso del Regno Unito dall'UE (2018/2976(RSP)).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Melania Gabriela Ciot, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, the European Council will hold important discussions on a number of strategic challenges and opportunities facing the Union.

Let me start with the economy. Leaders will discuss the current economic situation and will set priorities for the 2019 European semester. The European Council will also endorse the euro area recommendation. Europe, like the rest of the world, faces the systemic changes brought about by such issues as digital transformation, the rise of the data economy and the transition to a greener economy. Harnessing these opportunities will be key to our future prosperity. To strengthen our economic base, we need to make sure that our different policies, whether digital, industrial, single market or trade policies, are mobilised in unison to meet these challenges and advance the strategic interests of the Union. The European Council will hold a cross—cutting and forward—looking discussion on the issues.

Another critical issue is climate change, which we have just discussed in this session. As was noted in this debate, we, as a Union, need to help raise global ambition and continue to lead the way on climate action. This means implementing the current 2030 framework, but also engaging in the long—term transition to a climate-friendly future. We know that we need to provide the right incentive for this transformation and we will have to make sure that we leave no one behind, taking into account regional specificities and different socio-economic circumstances. The European Council will discuss the issue and provide guidance for further work in the Council.

China is a key global player in all these issues. Leaders will have an in-depth exchange of views on our relations with China in preparation for the upcoming EU-China summit.

Finally, a cornerstone of our democracies is that citizens should be able to vote in a well-informed and safe manner. Ahead of the European elections, the Presidency will report on the latest developments to protect the democratic process from manipulation and interference from inside and outside the EU. Leaders will also be informed of ongoing efforts to tackle disinformation more broadly, following the joint action plan presented last December by the Commission and the High Representative. Next week, the European Council will also meet in its Article 50 format to discuss the latest developments regarding Brexit.

To be, or not to be, a member of the European Union, to exist or not to exist – this is the question that the British Parliament should address as we speak. Unfortunately, we are not dealing with theatre, but with the real lives and jobs of EU and UK citizens. At this very late stage, we are still determined to facilitate the conclusions of the Withdrawal Agreement provisionally agreed last year. However, this should not be to the detriment of solidarity among Member States, especially as regards Ireland. To be frank, given the additional assurances we provided in December and January, and on Monday, it is difficult to see what more we can do.

Within the limits of our principles and positions, notably as regards citizens’ rights and the Irish backstop, we nevertheless remain open to talks and clarifications, if this can help the ratification process in the UK. These clarifications should not, however, contradict the very intention of the backstop, but only confirm that it is indeed intended to be of a temporary nature.

On the EU side, we are as advanced as possible regarding the conclusion of the Withdrawal Agreement, on which I understand the consent of the European Parliament could be given in a matter of days, should all the clarity needed on the UK side be provided. It is, however, very likely that even if the British Parliament were to vote in favour of the Withdrawal Agreement in the coming days, this would have to be accompanied by a request for a technical, time-limited extension. This would mean amending the Agreement and possibly delaying the consent process, as this extension would have to be agreed by the upcoming European Council. When considering such a request, we would expect a credible justification for a possible extension and its duration. However, I am confident that our institutions will be able to complete this process in good time and consequently ensure the timely entry into force of the agreement.

As I said before, we remain open for talks, as long as there is an end in sight and a purpose to these talks, which means that the UK Government and the British Parliament have to come out with a clear sense of direction as to where there is a majority and of timing as to when it will materialise. In the meantime, the only certainty we have is increased uncertainty for citizens and for businesses, with a clear economic impact in terms of levels of activity, investment and, more importantly, jobs.

It is therefore all the more necessary to continue our preparations for all outcomes, including a no-deal scenario. In this context, the Council and the Member States at national level are intensifying their work on preparedness and contingency, building on the solid work already underway. I am very much encouraged by the large number of contingency and preparedness—related measures that our institutions have been able to agree, in spite of the heavy workload at this late stage of the mandate.

The President is confident that, with your cooperation, it will be possible to complete the adoption of the remaining contingency measures in due course, but is hoping, at the same time, that they won’t be needed.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, so here we are. After another vote in the House of Commons, the withdrawal agreement has been voted down. Regardless of the extra clarifications given, regardless of the tremendous effort by Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker to help Theresa May clarify the issues, still the withdrawal agreement was voted down.

So again, today, we will be waiting for the next vote in the House of Commons, because the only ones who can give us any direction on where we need to go from here are the Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom. I believe that this House and the Commission remain on the same line – seeking to do as little harm as possible to Europeans, whether they live in the United Kingdom or on the continent.

This is our duty: to think about our citizens, to think about our enterprises, to think about our interests, broadly, on both sides of the Channel. I say this because what we have tried to do – what, mainly, Michel Barnier has tried to do – is to make sure that the red lines put on the table by the British Government, and the need for us to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and to maintain the integrity of the internal market, are brought together. And I do not see any better solution than the withdrawal agreement with all the clarifications given.

So now, this is where we are. Of course, we will remain in this position of wanting to do as little harm as possible in a very harmful process – because Brexit is very harmful, to the United Kingdom and to the European Union. But it is our duty, on the basis of a vote by the British people, to work towards a Brexit that does as little harm as possible. This position will not change.

Today, however, we are in the hands of the British political system. They should tell us where they want to go from here. The solution will have to come from London, and we’ll take it from there. And, of course, there are many other issues Europe has to deal with in the next couple of years, and that is why the European Council is also focusing on other issues.

Industrial policy: our industry is strong and it is the engine of our economy. It employs 32 million people and accounts directly for more than two-thirds of our exports. It is one of the main reasons we have partners lining up at our door to secure free and fair trade agreements. But we must do more. We want to see strong European companies, bolstered by fair competition at home, leading in the world and addressing major challenges such as climate change.

In particular, we urge Member States to make the most of major common European projects that matter to all of us, for instance in strategic areas such as next-generation batteries to store clean energy, or the work on artificial intelligence.

Most importantly, we want to make sure that, as industry and technologies develop, we continue to defend our values because ultimately we are doing all of this in the interest, and for the wellbeing, of all Europeans. That is why we are proposing action on work-life balance, equal pay for equal work in the same place and the European Labour Authority, to give but a few examples.

It is all part and parcel of our consistent effort to make our single market of 500 million informed consumers and thriving businesses deeper and fairer. It’s high time to deliver on all its dimensions, particularly in services, the digital economy and energy and also, importantly, the capital markets union.

Ce Conseil européen sera aussi l’occasion de parler de notre relation avec la Chine, à quelques jours du sommet Union européenne-Chine.

La Chine est à la fois, dans différents domaines politiques, un partenaire de coopération, un partenaire de négociation, un concurrent économique, un rival systémique promouvant des modèles alternatifs de gouvernance. Les autorités chinoises ont exprimé, à maintes reprises, leur volonté de contribuer à un avenir qui soit celui d’une mondialisation économique plus ouverte et plus inclusive.

L’Union européenne, pour sa part, est l’une des économies les plus ouvertes au monde, mais elle n’est pas offerte. Elle est un ardent défenseur du multilatéralisme, sur la base de valeurs qui profitent à tous et de règles qui doivent être équitables pour tous, sans pour autant être un adepte naïf du libre-échange. Et c’est la raison pour laquelle nous avons notamment proposé de mettre en place un instrument international sur les marchés publics, afin de promouvoir un accès ouvert aux marchés publics dans le monde entier. C’est dans notre intérêt mutuel de faire en sorte qu’il y ait entre la Chine et l’Union européenne encore plus de confiance et plus de coopération, plus de réciprocité aussi, afin que nos investisseurs et nos entreprises bénéficient en Chine des mêmes conditions d’ouverture que celles offertes aux investisseurs et aux entreprises de Chine en Europe. Malheureusement aujourd’hui ce n’est pas le cas.

Il va sans dire que nous avons l’obligation de défendre nos valeurs, nos intérêts stratégiques et de protéger nos industries, nos travailleurs et nos citoyens contre toute concurrence déloyale. C’est pourquoi nous avons proposé d’établir un nouveau cadre pour le filtrage des investissements étrangers, afin de préserver nos actifs stratégiques européens.

Je tiens ici à saluer le travail remarquable du Parlement pour l’adoption de cette initiative en un temps record. Il est tout aussi clair que nous avons intérêt, non seulement à préserver, mais aussi à améliorer le système multilatéral existant, notamment sur les questions des aides et des subventions d’État. La Chine doit aussi assumer sa part de responsabilité.

Echte Souveränität kann die Europäische Union auch als weltweite Vorreiterin im Klimaschutz zeigen. Bis zum Jahr 2050 können wir der erste große klimaneutrale Wirtschaftsraum der Welt werden und damit Leuchtturm für andere sein. Verantwortung für die Klimaziele zu übernehmen, das heißt für die Kommission, ein Viertel des zukünftigen mehrjährigen Finanzrahmens den Klimazielen zu widmen, unsere Energieeinfuhren bis 2050 mehr als zu halbieren und dafür in erneuerbare Energien zu investieren, niemandem die Existenzgrundlage zu entziehen, denn es ist möglich, Emissionen zu senken und gleichzeitig innovative, hochwertige Arbeitsplätze zu schaffen.

Ich danke diesem Hause für seine Unterstützung unserer Vorschläge für nachhaltige Investitionen, auf die wir stolz sein können. Europa übernimmt damit weltweit eine Führungsrolle, wenn es darum geht, private Investitionen umzuorientieren, damit sie zu der Verwirklichung der Ziele des Pariser Abkommens beitragen und damit einen klimaneutralen Weltwirtschaftsraum schaffen.

Es bewegt mich, dass viele junge Menschen wieder auf die Straße gehen, um für noch ambitioniertere Ziele zu kämpfen. Das ist wirklich ein Europa, das mir Mut für die Zukunft macht, und ich danke wirklich Greta und allen anderen jungen Leuten für diese Inspiration.

(Beifall)

Mut brauchen wir auch, um eine der größten Herausforderungen für unsere Demokratien zu bewältigen: die bewussten Versuche, unsere Debatten und unsere Wahlen zu manipulieren. Unsere Botschaft ist: Europa bleibt offen. Die Meinungsfreiheit ist weiterhin unser höchstes Gut. Aber wir sind nicht naiv. Wir sind uns bewusst, dass es Kräfte gibt, die unsere Demokratie untergraben wollen, und das wird im Wahlkampf eine große Herausforderung sein; wir müssen darauf achten. Ich begrüße daher, dass das Europäische Parlament und die Mitgliedstaaten die Maßnahmen der Europäischen Kommission unterstützten, um gegen Desinformation und Eingriffe in unsere Wahlen vorzugehen.

Aber wir stehen erst am Anfang, es gibt noch viel zu tun. Denn souverän bleiben wir als Europäische Union nur, wenn wir kompromisslos für unsere Werte aufstehen – innerhalb der Europäischen Union und auch draußen.

(Beifall)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michel Barnier, négociateur en chef. – Monsieur le Président, bonjour à chacune et chacun d’entre vous, en cette matinée particulière et grave, au cours de ce long processus de négociation.

Mes premiers mots, Madame la Ministre, Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs, seront pour vous redire, au nom de l’équipe que j’ai l’honneur d’animer avec la confiance du président Juncker, ma gratitude, et elle est sincère et durable, pour la confiance que le Parlement nous témoigne, me témoigne. J’ai dit tout à l’heure, devant la Conférence des présidents, que cette confiance ne tombe pas du ciel, elle n’est pas artificielle, elle n’est pas non plus donnée comme un chèque en blanc: c’est une confiance qui est fondée sur le dialogue, la transparence, depuis le premier jour, et qui restera fondée sur cette transparence et ce dialogue.

Le vote d’hier soir – que le vice-président Timmermans et vous-même, Madame la Ministre, avez évoqué – prolonge et aggrave une incertitude majeure qui a été créée il y a maintenant presque trois ans par la décision souveraine, que nous respectons, même si nous la regrettons, du Royaume-Uni de quitter l’Union européenne. Cette incertitude touche, bien sûr, le Royaume-Uni et l’Irlande du Nord en particulier, mais elle touche aussi chacun de nos pays et nous-mêmes.

Mesdames, Messieurs, je veux rappeler que la responsabilité de la décision du Brexit appartient uniquement au Royaume-Uni. Aujourd’hui, pour sortir de l’impasse dans laquelle se trouvent ces négociations, la première responsabilité appartient au Royaume-Uni. C’est ce qu’a rappelé clairement et fortement, hier soir, aussitôt après le vote, le président du Conseil européen, Donald Tusk.

Nous avons cherché ensemble des solutions pour chaque problème créé par le Brexit – et ils sont innombrables: problèmes humains et sociaux, problèmes juridiques et techniques, problèmes économiques et financiers –, afin d’en gérer toutes les conséquences et d’accompagner le Royaume-Uni dans une sortie ordonnée – c’est notre ligne depuis le début et cela restera notre ligne.

Depuis le premier jour des négociations, l’objectif de l’Union européenne est en effet de réduire cette incertitude en assurant un retrait ordonné. Ensuite, grâce à ce retrait ordonné et à la base de confiance que nous créons, nous devons prendre le temps nécessaire – mais un temps qui sera forcément encadré, entre 21 mois et 4 ans – pour une autre négociation. J’ai toujours dit que cette autre négociation serait la plus importante, au-delà du Brexit et de la séparation: celle de la future relation que nous voulons construire avec le Royaume-Uni, qui restera, évidemment, en toutes circonstances, un pays ami, un pays allié et un pays partenaire.

Voilà ce que nous avons fait en négociant pendant des mois avec le gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, et jamais contre lui, un accord de retrait qui est évidemment dans l’intérêt des citoyens, des entreprises et de toutes les parties prenantes de part et d’autre de la Manche et de part et d’autre de la mer d’Irlande.

Mesdames, Messieurs, je voudrais rappeler un fait à tout le monde. Si le Royaume-Uni veut toujours quitter l’Union européenne, et la quitter de manière ordonnée, si telle est toujours sa volonté, le traité que nous avons négocié pendant un an et demi avec le gouvernement de Theresa May est et restera le seul traité disponible. Je voudrais que ce soit bien compris.

Ces derniers jours, nous avons à nouveau beaucoup travaillé, à la demande du gouvernement britannique, pour donner des explications, des éclaircissements et des garanties, sous la forme de deux documents sur lesquels nous sommes tombés d’accord lundi soir, ici même, Monsieur le Président, dans les locaux du Parlement européen à Strasbourg qui nous ont accueillis. Mme May nous a indiqué qu’elle souhaitait également publier de son côté une déclaration unilatérale.

De quoi s’agissait-il lundi, dans cette ultime discussion entre l’Union européenne et le gouvernement britannique? Il s’agissait de fournir au Parlement britannique, à la Chambre des communes, de nouvelles clarifications, de nouvelles assurances concernant un point particulier, qui est celui du caractère temporaire du filet de sécurité.

Nous sommes allés au bout de ce que nous pouvions faire pour aider le gouvernement britannique à obtenir le soutien de la Chambre des communes, dans le souci permanent, que j’ai exprimé aussi en votre nom, celui de préserver, en toute hypothèse, la paix et la stabilité sur l’île d’Irlande. Celui de respecter, dans toutes ses dimensions, l’accord du Vendredi saint. Celui également, pour nous, de préserver l’intégrité de notre marché intérieur, qui est celui de chacun de nos 28 pays aujourd’hui, bientôt de nos 27 pays, c’est-à-dire de préserver la qualité et la sécurité auxquelles ont droit les consommateurs pour les produits qu’ils consomment, notamment la nourriture, la sécurité alimentaire, la préservation contre tous les risques de santé animale, la préservation des budgets nationaux et européens (ce qui nécessite des contrôles fiscaux pour les droits de douanes et les droits de TVA), et la sécurité ou la protection que nous devons à toutes les entreprises de chacun de vos pays s’agissant du respect des normes imposées aux produits importés. Je veux rappeler devant vous qu’il ne s’agit pas, pour l’Irlande du Nord, d’une question théorique ou dogmatique: il ne s’agit pas de savoir si on fait preuve de flexibilité ou pas, il s’agit d’une question extrêmement pratique qui touche à la paix en Irlande, la paix qui doit être définitive, et qui touche à la protection du marché intérieur. Après le Brexit, toute marchandise, tout animal vivant qui entrera en Irlande du Nord en provenance de Grande-Bretagne entrera également en Pologne, en Slovénie, en Belgique, en Allemagne, dans chacun de nos pays, puisqu’il s’agit du marché unique et qu’il n’y aura pas de frontière. Nous devons donc trouver le moyen – et nous prendrons le temps de le faire – de rendre ces contrôles opérationnels sous les trois aspects que j’ai évoqués – consommateurs, budget, entreprises –, sans évidemment recréer une frontière «dure».

À propos du vote d’hier, j’ai constaté que certains députés voulant un deuxième référendum, d’autres préférant un scénario de no deal, ont banalisé les nouvelles garanties juridiques que nous avions trouvées dans notre discussion avec Theresa May. Je pense pourtant que ces garanties, ces explications, dont nous sommes convenus lundi soir avec le soutien du gouvernement britannique, sont significatives. Le président Juncker l’a dit aussitôt: il n’y aura pas d’assurances ni d’interprétations supplémentaires. Nous ne pouvons pas aller plus loin.

En conclusion, un mot sur ce qui va se passer à partir de maintenant. Où en sommes-nous ce matin? Les votes annoncés par la Première ministre sur le no deal ce soir, sur une possible demande d’extension, auront lieu au sein de la Chambre des communes. À l’issue de ces votes, ce sera au gouvernement britannique de nous dire je l'espère, de manière positive comment il souhaite procéder pour réunir enfin une majorité constructive sur une proposition. Le Royaume-Uni, c’est sa responsabilité, doit nous dire ce qu’il veut pour notre relation future, quel est son choix, quel est, comme vous l’avez dit, Madame la Ministre, la ligne claire qui doit être la sienne. Telle est la question qui se pose maintenant et à laquelle nous attendons une réponse. Et cette question-là se pose avant même celle d’une décision sur une éventuelle extension.

Prolonger cette négociation, pour quoi faire, puisque la négociation sur l’article 50 est terminée? Nous avons le traité, il est là. Si cette question est posée, nous attendrons la réponse.

Je voudrais redire que l’heure est très grave, puisque le risque du no deal n’a jamais été aussi élevé: le risque d’une sortie du Royaume-Uni de l’Union européenne sans accord, de manière désordonnée, y compris par accident. Je recommande de ne pas sous-estimer ce risque, ni ses conséquences. Nous appelons ensemble, solennellement, tous les acteurs concernés à s’y préparer. De notre côté, la Commission européenne, notre secrétariat général, le président Juncker a donné des instructions extrêmement claires dans ce sens, tous les États membres, grâce au travail de toutes les présidences et de la vôtre, Madame la Ministre, en particulier, s’y préparent également.

Nous ne souhaitons pas ce scénario. Nous n’avons jamais travaillé pour cette option d’un accord absent ou d’une absence d’accord, d’un no deal, jamais. Nous avons toujours travaillé pour trouver un accord et un retrait ordonné, mais nous sommes prêts, l’Union européenne est prête à affronter cette situation. Je veux rappeler qu’en l’absence d’une autre solution convenue, par défaut, par la simple opération des traités, c’est bien ce risque de no deal qui est devant nous.

I am asked sometimes, as I was asked this morning, ‘Are you disappointed after this vote?’ My answer, our answer, shall always remain the same. We remain respectful of the UK and its people. We remain determined, calm and united and we will remain respectful, calm, determined and united until the end of this extraordinary negotiation. We shall defend the Union’s interests and those of all its citizens. That will remain the line of your negotiator.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Le Président. – Merci beaucoup Michel, en particulier pour ton travail en ta qualité de négociateur du Parlement européen. Je remercie également le groupe de pilotage du Parlement sur le Brexit, coordonné par Guy Verhofstadt. Je remercie tous ses membres pour le travail qu’ils sont en train de réaliser pour essayer de résoudre ce problème très compliqué et très important pour nous tous.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, what a disaster after yesterday’s vote!

I want to speak about an impression I got when I was in Porto recently and I spoke with young people who had been working for a few years in London. After the political problems and the economic problems in Portugal, they had left the country and had worked there, and then they came back to Portugal because they had so much uncertainty in Great Britain. They are enjoying life again in their home country. They spoke about their friends in Great Britain, and they told me how frustrated the young generation is in Great Britain, how helpless they feel and how angry they are about the failure of the whole political class in Great Britain.

A whole generation will suffer because of what is happening today in London. A whole generation has fewer chances for the future. A whole generation will not enjoy the same benefits as the previous generation had, and a whole generation is victim of the political failure of a political class in London.

That’s why my message, first of all, is that we, as Europeans, are on the side of the young generation in Great Britain: we won’t leave you alone in this difficult situation. The first message is this.

The second concerns what to do now. Preparation is needed for the worst-case scenario. We cannot rescue Great Britain – it’s up to them to decide what they want to do – but we have to prepare for the worst-case scenario. The second thing is that, if the political class fails and there is no majority possible in the UK parliament, the logical next step is to ask the people again. That is, from a democratic point of view, the logical next step.

The third option on the table is a debate about prolongation – but for what purpose? We need reasonable arguments for any kind of prolongation. That is why – let me be clear, from my point of view, and from the European People’s Party (EPP) point of view – there is no need for, and no option of, a single day of prolongation if we get no clarification from the British side as to what they want to achieve in that period of time.

Those are the three options on the table, but I want to add a further important element. Firstly, the young generation; second, what to do; and the third element is a kind of a fireball. We, as Europeans, are, for the moment, very stable thanks to the work of our representatives: Jean Claude Juncker, Michel Barnier, and, here in the House, President Tajani and Guy Verhofstadt. We are stable, we are strong, we are united. We have a clear opinion of we want to achieve and what we want to do. But there is a risk, in the next few weeks, that the political uncertainty in London could also infect the European decision-making process. There is a risk of this, and we need to bear two aspects in mind.

One is that, again and again, discussion in the European Council is mainly about Brexit, and not about China, not about trade or Trump, and not about the real issues which are important to the citizens of this European Union. That’s why we cannot continue like this, with political space occupied only by the political uncertainty in London.

The second thing is that the European elections are ahead of us. We are all preparing the campaign, indeed a few of us are already in it, and what we have to clarify is that the European elections are a place and a moment where Europeans will decide about their future. That moment cannot be occupied by legal and political uncertainty with the Brexit situation, and that’s why I think we are running out of time. That’s why the Brits must clarify – hopefully by the next Council meeting – what they want to achieve, what they want to have in the future.

For those in the European Union who believe in the project of the European Union, this development is certainly an important wake-up call. We see the economic and political uncertainty in London, and those who don’t want to follow that path now need to fight against the populists and the extremists on this continent.

Brexit was made by populism, by easy answers, and they cannot give us any kind of answer now as to how they want to deal with this Brexit outcome. That is why, for the European elections, we now need to form a strong coalition: a confirmation of partnership in Europe, a confirmation about the common basis for the future of this continent, a confirmation that we believe in the European project.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Udo Bullmann, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Frühjahrsgipfel ist klassischerweise der Ort, an dem wir uns über die wirtschaftliche Lage in der Europäischen Union verständigen. Heute Morgen haben wir bereits über den Klimawandel gesprochen, und ich habe einen Appell an die Kommission und einen Appell an die Ratsvertreter: Wir haben keine Zeit. Lasst uns schon diesen Frühjahrsgipfel zu einem Nachhaltigkeitsgipfel machen! Franz Timmermans hat doch Recht. Wir dürfen nicht warten mit dem Kampf gegen den Klimawandel, wir müssen unsere Instrumente überprüfen, wir müssen den Stabilitäts- und Wachstumspakt zu einem Nachhaltigkeitspakt machen, und die Instrumente, die wir haben, um zu messen und zu empfehlen – das Semester und wie die Dinge technisch heißen –, müssen Nachhaltigkeitsinstrumente werden. Das muss die Antwort auf die Situation in diesem Frühjahr sein. Und ich bitte Sie alle, die Einfluss haben, von Herzen, sich dafür zu verwenden, dass dieser Paradigmenwechsel, den wir dringend brauchen, endlich einzieht.

Wir müssen wieder da anknüpfen, wo António Guterres vor 20 Jahren – heute trägt er die zentrale Verantwortung für die Vereinten Nationen – begonnen hat mit dem Vorschlag – damals unter portugiesischer Präsidentschaft –, Ökonomie, Ökologie, sozialen Zusammenhalt, Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zusammen zu denken. Wir haben zwei Jahrzehnte verloren. Es wird Zeit, diese Zeit aufzuholen mit einem neuen Wurf für Politik, für die Europäische Union. Und wenn es so ist, Manfred Weber, dass junge Menschen aus London plötzlich wieder in Portugal sind, dann hat das etwas mit der Entwicklung dieses Landes zu tun. Antínio Costa, der jetzige Regierungschef, hat Portugal zu neuer Blüte geführt mit einer Politik des sozialen Zusammenhalts, der wirtschaftlichen Modernisierung und der Umweltpolitik. Das sind nämlich keine Gegensätze. Und das hat er geschafft in einer Zeit, in der die Europäische Volkspartei und andere Hardliner Sanktionen gegen Portugal verhängen wollten. Diesen Wandel brauchen wir. Lasst uns uns ehrlich machen! Unsere Gesellschaften brauchen frische Energie, unsere Wirtschaft braucht Luft zum Atmen, und unsere Köpfe brauchen frisches Denken. Seid bereit dazu! Dann brauchen wir uns über den Brexit nicht mehr zu unterhalten und auch nicht über Folgescharmützel, die andernorts stattfinden. Das ist die Antwort auf den Brexit – egal, was nun jetzt konkret passieren mag in diesen vielen technischen Details. Das muss die europäische Antwort auf den Brexit sein: Habt frischen Mut und kommt zu einem neuen Konzept – mit den Menschen und nicht gegen die Menschen! Das ist jedenfalls das Programm, für das wir uns als sozialdemokratische Fraktion einsetzen.

Der Brexit ist eine extrem kritische Situation geworden. Wir wissen das, wir können nur appellieren, dass das House of Commons eine vernünftige Entscheidung gegen den harten Brexit fällt. Alles andere wäre eine Entscheidung gegen die Menschen in Großbritannien. Wir können nur hoffen, dass sich das Parlament über die einzelnen Fraktionen hinaus verständigen kann für eine Politik, ja, Großbritannien eng an der Europäischen Union zu halten. Aber wenn das nicht funktioniert, wenn dieses Parlament blockiert bleibt, dann ist es den Menschen in Großbritannien etwas schuldig. Take back control, Theresa May, heißt dann: Die Menschen müssen entscheiden dürfen. Wenn Parlamentarier ihre Arbeit nicht mehr machen können, weil sie sich nicht mehr verständigen können, müssen die Menschen eine Chance haben, eine neue Entscheidung zu treffen. Denn es ist ihre Zukunft und nicht nur die Zukunft der Parlamentarierinnen und Parlamentarier. Das muss auf die Tagesordnung gesetzt werden, das muss diskutiert werden. Der Gipfel sollte sich mit zwei wichtigen Themen befassen: mit dem Umstand, dass unsere Europawahlen frei und fair sind. Ich appelliere, hier mehr zu tun. Es reicht nicht aus, was bisher getan worden ist. Selbstverpflichtungen der Internetkonzerne werden nicht genügen.

Und ein Letztes: Das Asylpaket gehört zurück auf die Agenda. Es ist eine richtige, wirkliche Unverschämtheit, dass wir hier nicht reagieren und dass wir weiter sterben lassen im Mittelmeer, ohne dass wir aktiv werden. Und die Stellungnahmen, die die Entscheidungen des Europäischen Parlaments ernst nehmen: Bitte sorgen Sie dafür, dass das zurückkommt auf die Agenda.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hans-Olaf Henkel, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I would like to say to Mr Timmermans that he did say that there is no better solution.

Monsieur Barnier, vous avez dit qu’il n’y avait aucun autre traité possible que le vôtre.

I don’t think this is true. I think there is a better solution and that better solution is to keep Britain in the European Union.

(Applause)

Let me tell you, please, how you can help do this. First of all, let’s stop bashing London. There are experts in this House who continually bash London. Here’s one, Mr Farage; and there’s one, Mr Verhofstadt. There’s no difference in their approach and their criticism of London. Secondly, I think it is time that the Commission finally admits that they have some responsibility for Brexit. Britain was always in favour of subsidiarity, decentralisation and competitiveness, and Brussels has continuously violated these principles. It is like a country joining a football club that then decided to play golf or hockey. So, finally, who has really left whom?

Thirdly, from a business perspective, we have to recognise that Brexit is not only a disaster for Britain, it is also a disaster for the European Union. Let’s face it, Britain is today the largest single customer of the European Union and Britain leaving is the equivalent of 19 small or medium—sized countries leaving at the same time.

Let’s also recognise that, in this House, Britain has always been the advocate for freedom, self—reliance and competitiveness. Without Britain in the European Union, I tell you that this European Union will remain uncompetitive compared to other regions like North America, Asia, China, Japan, South East Asia, and so on.

So I think the Commission now has a historic chance to do something. Help the Remainers in Britain to go for a second referendum, and help the Brexiteers to change their mind so they can save their face. I ask you not only to support, but to offer an extension to, Britain without any conditions. That is number one. Number two: offer them some more autonomy over controlling their own immigration. That would be the trick to get Britain successfully to organise a second referendum and to stay in the European Union. The European Union will never be complete without Britain.

(Scattered applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all I have to tell Mr Henkel that personally I have always said the exit of Britain from the European Union is a failure of the European Union. When a big country like the UK leaves the European Union, it’s difficult to say ‘Oh, what a fantastic thing’. It is the opposite. I think that the place of the UK is inside the European Union, and I’m also pretty sure that there will be a generation in the coming years, in the coming decades, who will return to the European Union. I am sure that this young generation already exists in the UK and that they will take a decision other than that taken by this government and this majority.

But, Mr Henkel, may I ask you to tell this to your own friends in your own group, in the ECR, who are the main people in favour of a Brexit for the moment. It is rather easy to give lessons to us here, and especially to me, and to say ‘Yeah, you don’t like Britain’ – and in fact the opposite is true – but not to be capable of convincing your own people in your own group, who are not here for the moment to applaud you, I see. Nobody is there.

Secondly, the reality, Mr Henkel, is the following. What started this whole Brexit was, in fact, an attempt by the Conservative Party – and you’re working with the Conservative Party, you know them very well – to ‘take back control’. That was the big slogan of the Brexiteers and it is still their big slogan. It seems to me that Britain is spinning out of control, instead of being back in control.

I think, Mr Henkel, that the only reasonable way to solve this problem – and you didn’t talk about it unfortunately – is through cross-party cooperation in British politics, as soon as possible, through a compromise, a common view, between Labour and the Conservatives. How you do you go about solving an existential problem like Brexit if it is used by both parties to kill each other? For them, Brexit is a bullet in a weapon and not an existential problem of a country and of a whole continent, and that’s a shame.

(Applause)

So our appeal, and yours, in this plenary has to be not to attack one or other of our colleagues but to say this to the British political class: start to make an agreement between the two big parties and start to have an opinion that we can support here in this Parliament, and that opinion will be for a close relationship between the UK and the EU. That is the way forward. What is needed is that, in British politics, Queen and country should be put first, instead of the party politics that are governing the UK and the House of Commons for the moment.

And that brings me to the next question, of an extension. I don’t want a long extension and I say that to you very openly. Why go beyond the European elections? If we do so, the European elections will be hijacked by the Brexiteers and by the whole Brexit issue. We will talk only about that, and not about the real problems and about the real reforms that we need in the European Union. The other thing we will do is to give a new mandate to Mr Farage: that’s the only thing that we going to do.

(Noise)

That’s exactly what he wants, and why does he want it? For two reasons. First of all, he can continue to have a salary that he can transfer to his offshore company.

(Murmurs)

And, secondly, he can continue to do his dirty work in the European Union: that is to try to destroy the European Union from within. That is the real purpose.

And that is absolutely what we don’t need. What we do need now is certainty from the House of Commons, from a majority in the House of Commons, as Mr Henkel has also asked for. That is what we need. I am against every extension, whether of a day, a week or even 24 hours, if it is not based on a clear opinion of the House of Commons on something so that we know they want. Is that less ambitious than the deal? Okay, it is less ambitious than the deal, that’s your opinion. If it is a customs union, it is a customs union. If it is the deal, it is the deal. If it is a Norway-plus, it’s a Norway-plus. But, please, make up your mind in London because this uncertainty cannot continue, not for us, not for Britain, and certainly not for our citizens.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Philippe Lamberts, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, une fois de plus, le président du Conseil européen a décidé de snober notre assemblée. Est-ce vraiment étonnant étant donné le bilan particulièrement maigre des chefs d’État ou de gouvernement, ceux que Donald Tusk aime à nommer les leaders?

Depuis 2015, pas une réunion du Conseil ne se passe sans que soit discutée la question de l’asile et des migrations, dont Donald Tusk a voulu faire la priorité des priorités. Après plus de trois ans, nous aurions pu légitimement attendre du Conseil qu’il apporte une réponse concertée à ce défi. Que nenni! Le Conseil vient de conclure qu’il ne conclurait rien. Les chefs d’État ou de gouvernement donnent en spectacle leur incapacité ou plutôt leur manque de volonté de s’entendre. Pour rappel, il a fallu moitié moins de temps au Parlement pour trouver une majorité de plus des deux tiers autour d’une approche commune combinant solidarité et responsabilité. Nous les attendons encore, les leaders.

Où est le leadership, lorsque le monde scientifique nous donne douze ans, pas plus, pour agir de manière décisive afin de sauver le climat et guère plus pour sauver la biodiversité? Là encore, les leaders sont tout simplement sourds, aveugles et muets face à la colère de la jeunesse européenne. Nous attendons toujours la première réunion du Conseil qui mettra ce point au cœur de ses débats.

Où est le leadership, quand de plus en plus de nos concitoyens se lèvent pour refuser une société où les richesses sont concentrées dans un nombre toujours plus restreint de mains? Ces inégalités sont le fruit de la concurrence fiscale et sociale entre les États membres, de la flexibilisation du marché du travail, de la révolution numérique et d’une mondialisation sauvage. Nous attendons toujours que ce sujet soit mis à l’ordre du jour des leaders. Ils n’en sont même pas encore au point de la prise de conscience.

Où est le leadership, quand au sein même du Conseil européen, un nombre croissant de leaders – toujours eux – choisissent délibérément de mettre à mal les fondements de notre démocratie: séparation des pouvoirs, indépendance de la presse et de la justice, respect de la vie privée, respect des principes de nécessité et de proportionnalité dans les restrictions aux libertés publiques ou individuelles ou dans le recours à la violence pour réprimer des manifestations? Alors que ce Parlement dénonce ces graves dérives et a, par exemple, enjoint au Conseil d’ouvrir une procédure contre le gouvernement hongrois, nous attendons autre chose, Madame, qu’une réponse polie.

Quoi qu’il en soit du Brexit – et que ce sujet arrête d’être une distraction –, chers collègues, attendre n’est plus une option. Nous ne pouvons pas perpétuellement attendre le bon vouloir de ceux qui se présentent leaders mais qui sont en fait des followers dans la meilleure hypothèse. Le vrai leadership aujourd’hui, Mesdames et Messieurs, consiste à mettre la préservation de notre environnement, la justice sociale et économique et la défense de la démocratie et de nos libertés au cœur de l’action politique et de la construction européenne. Telle est notre ambition.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren, Sie kennen ja sicher alle den Film „Und täglich grüßt das Murmeltier“. Daran fühle ich mich erinnert, wenn ich an den bevorstehenden Ratsgipfel denke, der wiederum überlagert werden wird von der Diskussion um die Folgen des Brexit und der Art und Weise, wie die Verhandlungen zwischen der EU und Großbritannien vorwärtskommen oder eben blockiert werden.

Dabei stehen wichtige Themen an: Die EU ist selber einer der Initiatoren und Hauptakteur gewesen beim Zustandekommen des Pariser Klima—Deals. Die EU ist verantwortlich mit dafür eingetreten, dass es ein UN—Abkommen über nachhaltige Entwicklung geben wird. Das müssten die Themen sein, mit denen wir uns beschäftigen, weil wir dann nämlich als EU in der Lage wären, sowohl innerhalb der EU, aber auch mit Blick auf das, was um uns herum passiert, wirklich Fortschritte zu erzielen, die Dinge zu beeinflussen und letztendlich lebenswerte Grundlagen für Bürgerinnen und Bürger, für Menschen global mit zu beeinflussen. Das wäre unsere Verantwortung als Europäische Union.

Stattdessen sind wir wiederum damit konfrontiert, dass zum zweiten Mal das withdrawal agreement im britischen Unterhaus gescheitert ist. Die Strategie der britischen Regierung von Theresa May ist total gegen die Wand gelaufen. Wir haben keine politische Mehrheit für einen geordneten Austritt aus der EU. Das ist das Fazit. Wir haben keine Mehrheit für einen geordneten Austritt aus der EU. Die Folgen haben in erster Linie die Menschen in Großbritannien, in der EU, die UK—Bürger in der EU, die EU—Bürger in Großbritannien und die irischen Bürger sowohl in der Republik Irland als auch im Norden Irlands zu tragen, weil die meisten von denen nämlich nicht die Chance haben, mal kurzfristig den Sitz ihrer Firmen von London nach Belfast zu verlagern – offensichtlich weil sie ja damit rechnen, dass Belfast irgendwie weiter in der EU bleiben wird. Die meisten haben auch nicht die Chance, ihre Vermögen oder Investitionsmöglichkeiten mal einfach woanders hin zu verlagern. Und die meisten haben auch nicht die Chance, mal schnell im Rahmen ihrer eigenen Familie dafür zu sorgen, dass Familienangehörige die Staatsbürgerschaft eines EU—Mitgliedstaates bekommen – das geht für die meisten nicht. Die meisten haben darunter zu leiden, und zwar wegen ihres Zugangs zum Gesundheitswesen, wegen der Auswirkungen für Bildung, wegen der sozialen Auswirkungen, wegen der Auswirkungen die das Ganze für die Menschen auch gerade in wirtschaftlicher und struktureller Hinsicht der Entwicklung ihrer Regionen haben wird.

Ihnen, den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern, sollten wir uns als EU vor allem verpflichtet fühlen. Nicht der Regierung in London, nicht dem Unterhaus in London, sondern den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern müssen wir Angebote machen. Das ist unsere Verpflichtung, und deshalb sollten wir auch hier mit dafür einstehen, und da gibt es aus meiner Sicht zwei Konsequenzen, über die wir reden müssen: Wenn wir uns nämlich auf den 29. März vorbereiten, auf den nicht geordneten Austritt, nämlich diesen mad Friday, den wir offensichtlich bekommen werden, dann heißt es, wir müssen auf eine Einfriedung der Bürgerrechte setzen. Das heißt, wir müssen etwas dafür tun, dass die Rechte der Bürgerinnen und Bürger in Großbritannien und derer in der EU nicht gefährdet sind. Wir stehen hier in der Pflicht. Wir haben hier Verantwortung übernommen und Zusagen gegeben, und jetzt müssen wir die einlösen. Es ist höchste Zeit, dass wir das auch klar und deutlich sagen.

Und wir müssen weiterhin feste Unterstützung der Republik Irland signalisieren und klar und deutlich aussprechen, dass wir gegen eine harte Grenze und gegen jede Veränderung des Good Friday Agreement in all seinen Bestandteilen sind und dass die Rechte und Sicherheit der Menschen in diesem Teil Europas nicht gefährdet werden dürfen.

Es gibt allerdings eine ganz einfache Lösung für das Backstop—Problem: Keine Grenzen auf der irischen Insel, keine Kontrollen, keine Schlagbäume. Die irische Einheit wäre die einfachste Lösung. Dann hätte die EU kein Problem mehr, die Iren hätten kein Problem mehr, und die Brexiteers hätten gar keins. Das wäre eine Lösung. Die britische Regierung hat ja heute damit angefangen zu erklären, dass es keine Kontrollen zwischen der Republik Irland und dem Norden Irlands gibt. Vielleicht setzt sie ja selbst inzwischen auf diese Lösung. Vielleicht ist ihr ein kleineres Großbritannien wichtiger als die eigenen Interessen, die von einigen Parteien vertreten werden, und ich finde, da sollten wir sie doch einfach beim Wort nehmen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I’m very much hoping after nearly 20 years that this is my penultimate speech in this Parliament, and that I won’t be coming back here again in July. I’m sure many of you here would share that sentiment. Mr Barnier, I told you that treaty wouldn’t go through the House of Commons, you didn’t believe me, it’s been rejected and I think you pushed your luck too far. You ask for too much and this morning you find yourself short of GBP 39 billion, so I’m sure you’re feeling a bit sore about that, but don’t worry, help is at hand – because the House of Commons today will do I’m sure their utmost to betray the Brexit vote. They’re even going to vote against what Article 50 said, which is of course that we leave on 29 March with or without a deal.

I have to say I think the gap now between our political class in the UK and public opinion is a gaping chasm because be in no doubt, public opinion is hardening. There is a greater sense of unity in the country than I’ve seen for some years. We simply want to leave. That applies to many who voted remain as well – because they respect the very principle of democracy. We’ve had enough. We’ve seen the snarling anger towards our country of Mr Verhofstadt, the bureaucratic intransigence of Mr Barnier, the constant stream of insults that come from Mr Tusk, and we’re of one mind: we don’t want to be governed by you. We want to govern ourselves.

I’m sure the next instalment of this will be the British Prime Minister, next Thursday, going to the European summit in Brussels and another humiliating display where she begs for an extension to Article 50. Well, I’ve got a solution to all of this. When I heard you, Mr Barnier, say this morning that if this Withdrawal Agreement gets passed and the next phase of negotiations could last for up to four years, I thought, ‘enough’. We don’t want to waste four more years of our lives – four more years of agony. You don’t want to waste another four years. You’ve got your plan – you want a ‘United States of Europe’, you want your army, you want everyone to join the euro, you want to get rid of the nation states – we’re just a damned nuisance. Add to that, as Mr Verhofstadt said, the European elections. You don’t want me coming back here, or hordes of eurosceptics coming back here, so there is a simple solution and that is that the British request to extend is vetoed at that European summit and we leave on 29 March. Most of the preparations have been done. Even if there are a few short-term bumps in the road, we leave and both you and we can get on with the rest of our lives. That is the only neat solution ahead of us.

(Applause from certain quarters)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the ENF Group. – Mr President, now, Mrs May may be totally incompetent, but she is following a plan. Right from the start, the plan was to delay Brexit, impede Brexit and, finally, to overturn Brexit. The whole leaving process has been built on false arguments. The principal one being that we cannot leave without the mythical good deal.

Now, the deal is appallingly bad and it has been rejected by the Commons – not because it was bad, but because it wasn’t bad enough for them. Later today, Parliament will reject leaving on the so-called no deal option. On Thursday, it is likely to vote in favour of an extension of Article 50, but what for? Mr Juncker has already told Her Majesty’s Government – like naughty schoolchildren – that there will be no third chance to renegotiate. In the UK, we have a government and a parliament that does not want to leave the European Union and it intends to betray the democratic decision of the referendum.

Now, Vice-President Timmermans has expressed his exasperation with the UK in rejecting the EU’s deal. Mr Timmermans said that only the UK Parliament can give direction in this matter. But this is not so. The Council and Commission can give direction. When the Commons asks for an extension to Article 50 then you must reject it. Article 50 says that if no agreement is reached by 29 March then the Treaties automatically cease to apply.

Do nothing and ensure that the UK is ejected from the European Union on 29 March. Do yourselves a favour, do us a favour, and kick us out!

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, last night MPs from all parties voted again to reject the Withdrawal Agreement. I regret that sufficient progress has not been made in this respect. The Attorney General’s advice is clear: the legal risk remains unchanged. Without evidence of Brussels bad faith, the UK would have no internationally lawful means of exiting the backstop. My party has always been clear. We want an orderly exit from the EU and a Brexit deal that works for both the United Kingdom and the European Union, and indeed for our closest neighbours in the Republic of Ireland, but that agreement must respect the constitutional and economic integrity of Northern Ireland.

Can I also respond to a couple of things that have been raised from the floor. There’s been much talk of the rights of citizens and I agree that citizens should not be a bargaining chip in this negotiation. The House of Commons has already said that we should move to protect the rights of citizens in all eventualities. That is a challenge for this House to take up and to stop talking about.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE). –Pani Przewodnicząca! Lubię brytyjskie seriale, ale tego serialu – brexit – długiego serialu – nie da się lubić, budzi coraz większy niesmak.

Z rosnącym niepokojem i zdumieniem nawet obserwuję chaos polityczny na Wyspach, a daję temu wyraz między innymi dlatego, że jak już kiedyś mówiłem – w tej dawnej części komunistycznej Europy środowiska opozycyjne szukały wzorca dobrej demokracji i dla mojego środowiska, w którym był również Donald Tusk, tym wzorcem była dojrzała i sprawna demokracja parlamentarna Wielkiej Brytanii. Im większy podziw kiedyś, tym większe rozczarowanie dzisiaj, bo dwa tygodnie przed datą mamy partyjne rozgrywki, imposybilizm w wyłonieniu większości na rzecz pozytywnego rozwiązania. Większość na nie to nie jest żadna polityczna sztuka. Nie rozumiem polityków, którzy wykreślają bezumowne rozstanie ze scenariuszy, a jednocześnie głosują przeciw porozumieniom – jedynym, które są na stole. Rośnie więc niepewność, jako koszt, po obu stronach kanału – ludzka i biznesowa, w tym niepewność losu około miliona moich rodaków, którzy na Wyspach Brytyjskich znaleźli lepsze życie, lepszą pracę.

Nie wiem, jaki jest sens w ewentualnym wydłużaniu tego okresu, bo jak wypełnić go pozytywną treścią, skoro nie udało się przez dwa lata? Trzeba się niestety szykować na najgorszy scenariusz. W agendzie najbliższej Rady jest również przeciwdziałanie dezinformacji. Jedno z drugim ma wiele wspólnego, bo referendum brytyjskie było wypełnione po brzegi dezinformacją – własną i importowaną, głównie z Rosji.

Uważam, że przed przyszłym Parlamentem, przed przyszłą Radą i przyszłą Komisją staje wielkie zadanie przeciwdziałania czy też umocnienia bardzo szeroko rozumianego cyberbezpieczeństwa. Ochrona danych, przeciwdziałanie trollom, ale także w części zupełnie militarnej – przeciwdziałanie niebezpiecznym najazdom z zewnątrz.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – Madam President, for the second time, the UK Government has not been able to find a positive majority in the House of Commons. It has been a big mistake not to try to bring all the forces in the House together in the interests of the country. Instead, the UK Government has decided to appease the Tories’ hard Brexiteers, a strategy that backfired spectacularly last night.

Mr Henkel, you are wrong. As Michel Barnier said, the EU has always been a fair, transparent and constructive partner in this negotiation. We have done all we can to guarantee an orderly withdrawal of the UK that protects citizens. We have a specific and particular responsibility to keep protecting all the European citizens in this process and to preserve the peace process in Northern Ireland.

We have also taken into account, of course, the UK Government red lines. Let me repeat this: this is the only withdrawal treaty that is possible and the only one that could command an approval in this House. So what’s next?

First, we still trust the UK parliamentarians today to reject a no-deal Brexit. That would be catastrophic for the UK. Second, we need a clear direction on how, concretely, to avoid the no deal scenario. We always said that a closer EU-UK relationship based on a customs union would not only benefit our economies, but would also solve many of the concerns associated with the backstop. It is time to stop party politics and to work constructively in the interests of citizens and the country and if this is not possible, it is clear that the only alternative is to give the people the chance to change the government or to say no to Brexit.

This is the debate we need to have, not the debate on the length of the extension. This, for us is clear: the extension is a tool and all the options are on the table as long as there is a clear political reason and perspective. We will keep working constructively, openly and responsibly, including our UK citizens, who remain European citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Colleagues, I am conscious that this is a difficult debate and speakers want to make their points very clearly, but I am duty-bound to try and pull the time back a little because we have lengthy votes. So please, Mr Nicholson, do not let me down. You have one-and-a-half minutes.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  James Nicholson (ECR). – Madam President, don’t count on it! I have listened this morning with a heavy heart to what I have heard in this Chamber. I have listened to nothing positive, in fact it will all be negative. People are stuck in trenches, and nothing constructive is coming forward. Mr Timmermans said, so here we are, solutions must come from London. Do you not think, Mr Timmermans, that you and Mr Juncker have a part to play as well, that you have got to find a solution also? Ms Zimmer let the cat out of the bag: you will not annex Northern Ireland, Irish unity is not at stake here, even nationalist parties do not want a referendum on the border, they accept the Good Friday Agreement – put that all to bed. And can I say something to you, Mr Barnier? You said that the responsibility lies solely with the UK. But what I say to you, sir, is that you also have a tremendous responsibility and it is not good enough for you to simply consult with people from Northern Ireland who tell you what you want to hear. There is another voice in Northern Ireland, and you should be listening to that as well.

And I’m sorry to have to say it to you, but, with the greatest respect, your Treaty is flawed. It’s damaged and it’s not going to work. We need to find another way, and we do need an extension on Article 50. Yes, we do need an extension to find that other way, and it’s not good enough to be told that we need to have a reason for an extension. We need an extension to move forward and get a good deal: I personally and my party and the people that I represent, we want a good deal. And let me tell you, Mr Barnier, this morning the UK Government announced that all goods flowing from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland will come unhindered. Can you say the same?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Thank you, Jim. I’m afraid you failed the test on time!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, Prime Minister May profoundly regrets the defeat. I, like many of you, profoundly regret that the UK seems to have lost its way. Since 1973, we have had our differences with the UK, sometimes influenced by history, by different perceptions and by fake news. We must also remember that what matters is the future and we mustn’t forget – 1992: Denmark; 2001 and 2008: Ireland; 2005: France and the Netherlands, when European citizens said no to certain EU proposals.

As individual countries and a Union, through listening, consultation and protocols, our citizens were able to find a way forward, to work together and, despite what Mr Farage said, I believe that can still happen with the UK. I also profoundly disagree with him when he speaks about snarling anger and bureaucratic intransigence. As always, he seeks to shift responsibility for a divided country onto the shoulders of others.

I agree with Mr Michel Barnier. We have been – and we need to remain – patient, supportive and respectful, while remaining true to our principles and I thank him and his team for their loyal and dedicated work.

Finally, I agree with Mr Gualtieri. An extension is just a tool to find a way forward and all options still need to be explored.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, we have witnessed another crushing defeat for the UK Government in its second meaningful vote on a deal that would have been disastrous for Wales, taking us out of the single market and the customs union. It’s clear that the UK Parliament cannot come to a meaningful conclusion and so it’s time to turn back to the people. The concentration of wealth in London has got us into this mess and the concentration of power in Westminster is keeping us trapped in it now.

Democracy is the way forward. We must give people a final say on their future now that we are seeing the real facts. Things have changed. When events change, people change their minds. That is their right. Wales, my constituency, has done that: 55% now back remain, a 14% increase on 2016. We need an extension of Article 50 and we need that for a people’s vote.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, people in the north of Ireland have had enough of this shambolic mess. Our clear will to remain in the EU has been ignored. The utter chaos in Westminster – not just last night, but throughout the entire Brexit process – has left communities in despair. This farce is Tory designed, but it is being delivered to the people of the north of Ireland, via partition, by the DUP.

We consider the withdrawal agreement and its backstop to be the ‘least worst’ option that the people can accept. That has been totally rejected – again by the reckless political establishment in Britain.

The European Union has committed to supporting the Good Friday Agreement, in all of its parts. That includes the legitimate, democratic pathway to Irish unity and, despite what Jim Nicholson said, it is a provision of the Good Friday Agreement. The British Prime Minister herself believes that Brexit is increasing support for Irish unity. The European Council said, in April 2017, that if Ireland is reunited then the whole island will remain a part of the EU. I remind the Council and the Commission of that.

The EU has said that we need to prepare for a no-deal, for a crash. Who in their right mind would sit on a train that is going over a cliff or being dangerously delayed or derailed? So the people want to get off that train, and the only way off it is Irish unity. My appeal to the Council and the Commission is that you advocate the holding of a referendum on Irish unity. It is legitimate, it is democratic, it is in the Good Friday Agreement. If you are going to uphold it in all of its parts, then uphold that part too.

(The President cut off the speaker)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Piernicola Pedicini (EFDD). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io credo che sia arrivato il momento di chiedersi quali sono le ragioni profonde della Brexit, perché anche oggi abbiamo sentito dichiarazioni in quest'Aula, ma abbiamo sentito anche le dichiarazioni di Macron, di Juncker, di tutto il mainstream, che addossavano la responsabilità della Brexit a un'informazione che avrebbe deviato e che avrebbe confuso la volontà popolare del popolo del Regno Unito.

Ma il popolo del Regno Unito si è sempre espresso molto consapevolmente quando ha deciso di non aderire alla moneta unica, quando non ha aderito al trattato di Schengen, al fiscal compact. Il popolo del Regno Unito ha sempre reagito consapevolmente contro le politiche di austerità e contro i vincoli di bilancio di una politica europea a trazione franco-tedesca.

È su questo che bisognerebbe ragionare: sulle responsabilità di una politica europea che è una vera e propria colonizzazione da parte di Francia e Germania. Se si continua in questa direzione, nella direzione dell'austerità, allora la Brexit rischia di essere soltanto un semplice precedente di una dissoluzione dell'Europa definitiva.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Janice Atkinson (ENF). – Madam President, I apologise to the British people for the lies told by our politicians. Mr Tajani, an Italian, tells a German newspaper that the British people did not want Brexit. In the 2017 general election, 80% of our people, the British people, voted for parties to deliver Brexit. They lied.

Ms May said no deal is better than a bad deal. She then asked the UK parliament to vote on a bad deal. Tonight she will ask parliament to vote again, but this time for a no deal Brexit. She will vote against no deal. Tonight a Conservative Prime Minister, backed by Labour, will cancel Brexit. They lied to you. This is DINO: ‘democracy in name only’.

As for Messrs Tusk, Barnier and the rest of you, and the useful Leo Varadkar, there’s a special place in hell reserved for DINOs, and Ms May will be joining you too.

So I call on the British parliament, join me on 29 March in Parliament Square and, this time, let’s really take back control.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Steven Woolfe (NI). – Madam President, two days ago, doctors diagnosed my uncle with a terminal illness and he will die this weekend. He spent his life in public service, protecting children from abusers, paedophiles and violence. He was a great Welsh democrat. He voted to leave in June 2016 and he will die not seeing Brexit. He will die not seeing Brexit because of a political class that despise him and voters in Britain, a class who believe that they are far superior in the way that they think they should control our lives and do not wish to listen to the voters who wanted to get rid of them. He will die because he will not get a Brexit before his death because of traitors like Tony Blair and Dominic Grieve who collude with foreign leaders to stop the democratic vote of the British. My uncle, I hope, will have God on his side and bless his soul, but for those of you who have denied him the right to Brexit and denied those 17.4 million people Brexit, God will not be on your side when they unleash their anger in the ballot box.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Timmermans, lieber Udo Bullmann, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Da ist eine Koalition im House of Commons, die nicht in der Lage ist, zu einer gemeinsamen positiven Mehrheit zu kommen. Da sind die Remainer, die keinen Vertrag haben wollen, weil sie auf ein Referendum hoffen, und das hart spielen. Da sind diejenigen, die Farages dieser Welt, die überhaupt keinen Deal mit der Europäischen Union wollen. Und da sind diejenigen, die dies aus parteipolitischen Gründen betrachten. Es waren drei Labour-Leute, die mit Ja gestimmt haben. Auf dieser Grundlage gibt es gegenwärtig keine Mehrheit für eine konstruktive Lösung im House of Commons. Deswegen müssen beide großen Parteien endlich miteinander reden. Sie müssen uns beweisen, wo es eine Mehrheit gibt, eine konstruktive Mehrheit, über die zu reden es sich lohnt.

Ich glaube, dass wir eine Verlängerung der Frist nicht machen können, wenn nicht diese Klarstellung da ist. No extension without clarification. Hier muss es klar geregelt sein. Einfach nur zu verlängern und mal zu gucken, was dann passiert, scheint mir nicht sachgerecht zu sein. Und ich glaube, dass das House of Commons in den nächsten 14 Tagen zu einer Klärung kommen muss, um auf dieser Grundlage voranzukommen. Wir brauchen diese Sicherheit, nachdem wir diese zwei, zweieinhalb Jahre so verhandeln mussten, wie wir verhandelt haben, weil niemals die Voraussetzungen in Großbritannien da waren.

Michel, herzlichen Dank für die Arbeit, die du gemacht hast, die die Kommission gemacht hat, euer Team gemacht hat. Aber ich bin der Auffassung, wir hätten uns auf die Hände stellen können, dennoch wäre im House of Commons nichts angenommen worden, weil es aus den genannten Gründen diese negative Mehrheit gibt. Mehr war nicht möglich und mehr kann nicht geliefert werden, wenn nicht die Interessen der Europäischen Union verletzt werden sollen. Und es muss auch klar sein, was jetzt mit den offenen Grenzen kommt. Großbritannien kann sich nicht in den Binnenmarkt schleichen, ohne die Bedingungen des Binnenmarkts zu erfüllen, ohne die Obligationen des Binnenmarkts einzugehen. Diese Aussagen von heute Morgen sind populistisch und bösartig und können in der Art und Weise nicht akzeptiert werden. Das wäre ein Hineinschleichen in den Binnenmarkt, das nicht akzeptabel wäre.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mercedes Bresso (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Vice-président, Monsieur Barnier, Madame la Ministre, chers collègues, à quelques jours de ce Conseil européen, beaucoup de questions se posent et, parmi elles, au moins deux revêtent une importance cruciale pour l’avenir de l’Union européenne.

Le Brexit, d’abord, avec la défaite de Theresa May hier et la prolongation probablement inévitable de l’article 50. Je pense que nous ne devons pas faire durer un supplice qui dure depuis 2016. Il faut donc redonner la parole aux citoyens britanniques. Je lance un appel aux collègues membres de la Chambre des communes, afin qu’ils affrontent la question fondamentale, qui est de redonner la parole aux citoyens britanniques, d’entendre leur voix, de savoir dans quelle direction ils veulent aller. Il est clair que les Communes sont bloquées, elles n’arrivent pas à définir ce qu’elles veulent. La seule issue, c’est de rendre la parole aux citoyens et d’entendre leur opinion, même si beaucoup de nos collègues pro-Brexit ici ont peur de redonner la parole aux citoyens.

La deuxième question qui est très importante, et sûrement plus que le Brexit, pour l’avenir de l’Union, c’est celle du changement climatique. Nous allons adopter des mesures essentielles, mais je crois que nous devons aussi apprendre à modifier nos règles de fonctionnement. Nous devons intervenir sur le Semestre européen, afin de l’axer autour des objectifs écologiques du développement durable de l’Union européenne et des Nations unies, sans le transformer en semestre sur l’austérité.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – Voorzitter, de Britse onderneming New Financial heeft gisteren bekendgemaakt dat al meer dan 250 bedrijven uit de financiële sector uit het Verenigd Koninkrijk zijn vertrokken of gaan vertrekken. Een verandering dus van 5 000 banen. Daardoor zal ongeveer 1 000 miljard pond het Verenigd Koninkrijk verlaten. Hierbij gaat het alleen om getallen die we kennen. Wat er buiten ons gezichtsveld gebeurt, weten we niet eens. Dit is een groot probleem voor het Verenigd Koninkrijk.

Ook aan deze zijde van het Kanaal gaan klappen vallen bij een brexit. Denk bijvoorbeeld aan de visserijsector of de transportwereld. Tegelijkertijd zien we dat in het parlement in Londen er voor geen enkele aanpak van de brexit ook maar enige meerderheid te vinden is. Dat betekent dat het tijd is voor een nieuwe benadering, voor omdenken. Het Verenigd Koninkrijk moet in de Europese Unie blijven. We need a new deal, not a no deal. Make the UK an offer, it can't refuse. Merci.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, I hear the word solidarity used over and over again. Solidarity can come in many forms, political, but also financial.

Commissioner Timmermans, you talked about continuing preparation for a new deal, continuing the solid work already done. So, what are the plans in place to financially help the Irish economy in the case of a no deal? I really would like an answer.

Solidarity up until now has not cost the European Union a single cent. Also, while people talk about solidarity, we have a situation in which Ireland borrowed and burnt EUR 3.5 billion last year on the orders of the ECB. As part of the financial help needed in the case of a no deal this obscenity must end.

Mr Barnier, you said that we remain respectful and calm. You do indeed. People in Ireland cannot control the diplomatic disaster that is the Conservative Party. However, when it comes to respect and calmness, I am glad that Tusk and Juncker are not here today: they have not remained calm and have at times put their own personal prejudice before diplomacy. You must think of this with every word that is used. Remember that.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bernard Monot (EFDD). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Vice-président Timmermans, le Conseil européen du 21 mars accordera à la Commission européenne le mandat qu’elle demande afin de négocier à toute allure un accord de libre-échange avec les États-Unis.

À toute allure, car l’Allemagne craint de voir le gouvernement américain lui imposer, dès le mois de mai prochain, des droits de douane de 25 % sur ses précieuses exportations automobiles. De quoi s’agit-il? De l’adoption de droits de douane nuls sur les produits industriels permettant à l’Allemagne de maintenir ses excédents commerciaux vis-à-vis des États-Unis, ce qui va néanmoins plomber un peu plus la croissance économique des autres, en particulier celle de la France.

Il s’agit également de se mettre d’accord sur des normes communes en matière de nouvelles technologies. Les États-Unis vont donc encore nous imposer leurs conditions.

Enfin, il s’agira d’abaisser les barrières douanières agricoles. Les États-Unis y tiennent absolument et l’Allemagne donnera consigne à la Commission, qui cédera, car les agriculteurs et éleveurs français ne pèsent pas grand-chose face aux industriels Mercedes, BMW et Audi.

Et comme toujours les négociations sur ce nouveau traité seront menées dans le dos des Européens, qui le découvriront trop tard.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Harald Vilimsky (ENF). – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Wer gestern im britischen Unterhaus die Debatte mitverfolgen konnte und in erschreckender Art und Weise die Zerrissenheit der britischen Politik gesehen hat, der kann nur schockiert sein. Schockiert deswegen, weil es eine klare Auftragslage einer Mehrheit der britischen Bevölkerung gibt, eine Mehrheit dafür, die Europäische Union entsprechend zu verlassen. Und es ist völlig unerheblich, ob Sie es als gut oder schlecht empfinden, es ist auch unerheblich, ob ich es als gut oder schlecht empfinde. Es ist eine Frage des Respekts vor der Demokratie und vor Mehrheitsentscheidungen einer Bevölkerung, die eine klare Richtung vorgegeben hat.

Und bitte, ich kann nur an Sie appellieren: Hören Sie auf mit Tricksereien, über den Umweg und über die Hintertür ein zweites Referendum in die Wege zu leiten. Entscheidungen sind zu respektieren. Und selbst wenn wir ein zweites Referendum hätten: Nehmen wir an, es ginge jetzt für den Verbleib Großbritanniens aus, wie geht das Spiel weiter? Ändert sich in wenigen Monaten erneut die Meinungslage? Haben wir dann ein drittes Referendum? Nein. Wenn wir uns selbst ernst nehmen wollen und auch diese Europäische Union reformieren wollen, dann müssen wir die Spielregeln beachten und müssen einen klaren, sauberen und fairen Weg gehen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η αποχώρηση του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου δεν αποτελεί απλά ένα διαδικαστικό γεγονός. Σημαίνει ουσιαστικά την απόρριψη της όποιας σχεδιαζόμενης ομοσπονδοποίησης και την απαρχή μιας νέας Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, που θα αποτυπωθεί και στις επερχόμενες εκλογές. Μια μετεξέλιξη βασιζόμενη στην άνοδο των υγειών πατριωτικών δυνάμεων με στόχο την ορθή λειτουργία της Ένωσης όπως θα έπρεπε να υφίσταται, επαναπατρίζοντας αρμοδιότητες υπό την κυριαρχία των κρατών μελών.

Ο εκφοβισμός των εναπομεινάντων μελών, διά του δήθεν παραδειγματικού τρόπου αντιμετώπισης του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου, θα καταρρεύσει. Οι κρατούντες την εξουσία τώρα, αρνούμενοι να αποδεχτούν την εθελοντική και αμφίδρομη συνεργασία μεταξύ ανεξάρτητων κυρίαρχων κρατών, αργά ή γρήγορα θα εξαναγκαστούν είτε σε απομάκρυνση είτε στον σεβασμό της εθνικής κυριαρχίας και της έννοιας του κράτους-έθνους.

Είναι καιρός να αναλάβουν σοβαροί άνθρωποι που υπηρετούν τους πολίτες ως πραγματικοί εκπρόσωποι, απότοκος ευρείας συσπείρωσης και συνεργασιών πατριωτικών δυνάμεων σε κάθε ευρωπαϊκή χώρα. Για μια Ευρώπη προσαρμοσμένη στα κράτη έθνη και όχι υποταγμένη στα οικονομικά συμφέροντα και την εξυπηρέτηση ολίγων και εκλεκτών.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señores representantes del Consejo y de la Comisión, señor Barnier —ha hecho usted un trabajo desde luego impecable—, el acuerdo alcanzado la noche del lunes por la primera ministra Theresa May y la Unión Europea era una oportunidad. En realidad, era la oportunidad para facilitar una retirada ordenada: daba garantías suficientes sobre la preocupación del Reino Unido de quedar atrapado indefinidamente en la Unión Aduanera. Pero, pese a todo, fue rechazado por el Parlamento británico.

Ha sido una nueva decepción por su falta de realismo y por su falta de responsabilidad, la falta de responsabilidad de esa mayoría de diputados británicos que están bloqueando permanentemente una solución.

Es probable que en el Parlamento británico hoy se vote en contra de que no haya acuerdo y que mañana se vote a favor de prorrogar el artículo 50 y aplazar su entrada en vigor, pero ya lo que no va a cambiar la Unión Europea son los términos del acuerdo de salida. De modo que, antes o después, el Reino Unido tendrá que tomar la decisión: acuerdo o no acuerdo, deal o no deal... Esa es la cuestión.

Y, en este escenario de incertidumbre, hay una serie de lecciones que el Brexit va dejando y de las que debemos tomar nota. La primera es que pertenecer a la Unión Europea supone una honda transformación en la economía y el funcionamiento de un país y, por eso, dejar el grupo resulta una tarea tan ardua y tan titánica. Decisiones como esta no se pueden tomar alegremente.

La segunda es que abandonar significa afectar diariamente, directamente a la vida diaria de las personas, a las pequeñas cosas que son muy importantes en la vida cotidiana: la manera de poder adquirir los productos más baratos y más variados, la tarjeta sanitaria para poder viajar por toda Europa, los costes del roaming...

Y la tercera lección es la profundidad de la fractura que genera en los países en los que esto se pueda producir, como está ocurriendo en el Reino Unido.

Hoy día, la Unión Europea es más necesaria que nunca para poder afrontar los retos globales que tenemos. El que no actúe conjuntamente, corre el riesgo de quedarse en la irrelevancia.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – I am now going to break some bad news to people who will be very angry with me, but I have no choice. We will have to drop catch-the-eye procedure because we are exceeding our time. So apologies, but that is the case.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D). – Voorzitter, je hebt van die Straatsburgweken waarin hoop en wanhoop samenvallen. Dit is een van die weken.

De wanhoop, daar hebben bijna alle andere leden al heel veel over gesproken, over de stemming van gisteren, en wat dat ons nu brengt en waar dat ons naartoe moet brengen. Ik ben het eens met heel veel collega's, vooral uit mijn fractie, die menen dat het nu tijd is om het volk opnieuw aan het woord te laten, want het Britse parlement komt er niet uit. Ik denk dat we terug naar het volk moeten om uit deze impasse te komen.

Er was ook heel veel hoop deze week. Ik zal u zeggen waarom. Er waren 60 jonge mensen in dit Parlement die geprobeerd hebben een heel parlement aan te zetten om eindelijk het klimaatbeleid bovenaan de politieke agenda te zetten. Niet alleen om de veel te lage ambities van 2030 uit te voeren, maar vooral om die ambities hoger te leggen. Als we Parijs willen doen, als we Parijs willen nakomen, dan zullen we 55 % moeten doen in 2030 en volledig koolstofneutraal moeten zijn tegen 2050. Om dat te realiseren is het ook belangrijk dat we op Europees niveau tot een klimaatwet komen waarin onze in Parijs gedane verbintenissen worden opgenomen en die voor alle lidstaten belangrijke verplichtingen met zich meebrengt, zodat er geen freeriders kunnen zijn. De jongeren hebben gelijk dat ze dit soort acties van ons vragen. Dat was deze week absoluut een teken van hoop.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Richard Sulík (ECR). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, po včerajšom chaose v britskej Dolnej komore vieme, že dohoda o vystúpení je mŕtva. Briti o nej nemôžu a nebudú hlasovať donekonečna a treba si naliať čistého vína: sme opäť na začiatku, len sme prišli o čas.

Rozhodnutie Britov o opustení Európskej únie však musí byť rešpektované. Ignorovanie tohto rozhodnutia by bolo trestuhodné, úvahy o druhom referende alebo o stiahnutí žiadosti sú úplne nereálne.

A preto je jediným logickým riešením príprava na tvrdý brexit, na „No deal”. Nemusí to byť koniec sveta ani pre Britániu, ani pre Európsku úniu, ak pristúpime k situácii s chladnou hlavou. Budú platiť pravidlá Svetovej obchodnej organizácie a iné.

Ak zajtra naši britskí kolegovia požiadajú o odklad vystúpenia z Európskej únie, vieme ho predĺžiť bez väčších problémov a za tento čas je možné urobiť nejaké základné kroky a opatrenia, aby došlo k takzvanému tvrdému brexitu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicolas Bay (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, le changement climatique sera de nouveau à l’ordre du jour du prochain Conseil européen, les 21 et 22 mars.

Voilà un dilemme cornélien pour l’Union européenne: d’un côté, on prétend sauver la planète en réduisant les émissions de gaz à effet de serre, de l’autre, on encourage un libre-échange effréné avec la terre entière, ce qui entraîne mécaniquement une hausse des mêmes émissions de gaz à effet de serre.

 

Les traités de libre-échange cumulés à des normes insoutenables imposées par l’Union européenne à nos entreprises ont abouti à la casse de nos industries. Nous en sommes réduits à importer des produits fabriqués dans des pays qui ne répondent pas aux mêmes normes environnementales, ni d’ailleurs sanitaires et sociales. De plus, tout est acheminé par des supercargos, qui sont aussi de superpollueurs: oxyde de soufre, oxyde d’azote, particules fines, etc. Bref, nous sommes perdants sur tous les tableaux.

 

Il est temps de repenser tout notre modèle économique. L’avenir est à la protection, aux relocalisations et aux circuits courts. Produire, consommer, recycler dans un périmètre géographique raisonnable: c’est là la seule manière de concilier nos exigences écologiques avec nos intérêts économiques.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Madam President, the rejection of the withdrawal agreement means several crucial things. First, an orderly withdrawal in two weeks is not going to happen and, secondly, the Union’s – and indeed the UK’s – priorities of protecting citizens and businesses most affected by the withdrawal and of avoiding a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and safeguarding the Good Friday Agreement have not been delivered, a mere two weeks before 29 March. They are indeed under serious risk, and that is very bad.

If the result of the possible vote tomorrow is to request an extension, then what for and for how long? A short technical extension would only make sense with a positive meaningful vote, which is not the case anymore. A longer extension would not only bring the legal and political problem into the context of the European elections, but it will also provide for a period when a future partnership cannot been negotiated. The withdrawal agreement will not be re—opened. A longer extension means a longer period of uncertainty. The Union has said many times how important an orderly withdrawal is on the basis of an agreement concluded under Article 50 of the Treaty. This is indeed a precondition for creating the trust necessary for the negotiations of a deep and ambitious new relationship. We must repeat that today.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tanja Fajon (S&D). – Gospa predsednica, evropski voditelji bodo pretresali gospodarstvo. Ampak to ni dovolj. Skrajni čas je, da gospodarstvo povežemo z varovanjem okolja in zavarujemo delavce tam, kjer izginjajo delovna mesta. To nam sporočajo mladi, ljudstvo. Po glasovanju v britanskem parlamentu lahko tudi samo upamo, da ne bo trdega brexita.

To bo, kolegi, zadnji vrh pred evropskimi volitvami in odgovornost je zato še večja. Naši državljani pričakujejo ukrepanje, a bojim se, da bo priložnost znova zamujena. Poglejmo samo spodletelo migracijsko politiko.

V Parlamentu smo sprejeli vso zakonodajo, ki bi zagotovila učinkovito upravljanje z migracijami in varne meje, krivci so v evropskih vladah in nacionalističnih politikah. In na te moramo pokazati s prstom.

Voditelje držav, ki so največji zaviralci evropskih rešitev za migracije, poznamo. Njihovi razlogi so populistični, preostanek Unije jemljejo za talce – vse na podlagi ustrahovanja.

In kakšna je vest teh voditeljev, ki ignorirajo skrbi ljudi? Migracije so že pet let zaporedoma največja skrb Evropejcev. S kakšnim obrazom stopajo pred volivce?

Želim si, da bi tokrat volivci izbrali pogum in s svojim glasom za razumno, drugačno, napredno, socialno pravično Evropo dokazali, da nevarni populizem, nacionalizem in strahopetnost niso vrednote Evrope in da si resnično zaslužimo drugačno prihodnost.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, Brexit se pretvorio u potpuni kaos jer ni jedna strana nije nastupala u dobroj vjeri niti je željela doista ispoštovati ono za što su ljudi glasovali.

Bruxelles je ovo vidio kao priliku da nama ostalima pošalje poruku da nema stabilnosti ni prosperiteta izvan Europske unije, a želje Londona uglavnom su artikulirali političari koji osobno nisu željeli izlazak pa su kroz ove pregovore pokušali ostvariti nemoguće – izvesti Britaniju van, ali da praktički ostane unutra.

Komplicirana politička situacija i u Britaniji i u ostatku Europe dodatno je otežala stvar i ovaj se vrlo kompleksni proces, koji obje strane od prvog dana dodatno kompliciraju, nije mogao uredno završiti. Sad ćemo vjerojatno gledati natjecanje u upiranju prstom i traženju krivca, ali krivica je na objema stranama.

Nema sad smisla žaliti za prolivenim mlijekom, treba se pripremiti za budućnost. Budućnost u kojoj ćemo, vjerujem, surađivati na ključnim pitanjima i trgovati bez barijera na obostranu korist.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Madam President, just one short remark on Brexit. A so-called bad deal was negotiated not just by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission, but also by the Prime Minister of the UK and the UK Government. The problem, in my opinion, is not the deal, but the political crisis that is taking place in London, which has actually been supported by the activity of many people who have already spoken here today and disappeared, as usual. But let me talk about some other business at the summit. I guess it’s very important to focus on economy. After the good times, the times to come may not be so good. This could be triggered by the trade war, by Brexit or by other events. It’s up to Member States to consider how robust our economies are and how ready are they for an adverse economic environment, a slow-down in economic growth and possibly other implications.

The second important thing for me is China. Our representatives should be more assertive. They should more clearly articulate our legitimate interest and negotiate accordingly. Just yesterday we talked about cybersecurity and we should know what Chinese law on national security means. Obviously, there are huge topics such as fair trade, climate change and Chinaʼs involvement in in resolving this issue, and also human rights, and we should pay attention to those issues.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Es ist tragisch, was gegenwärtig im Vereinigten Königreich passiert. Eine Nation, die mit berechtigtem Stolz auf ihre Geschichte zurückblicken kann und der Europa so unendlich viel verdankt, ist dabei, sich selbst zu zerstören und der Lächerlichkeit preiszugeben. Orientierungslos und ohne politische Steuerung droht die Britannia auf Grund zu laufen. Das ist ein emotionaler Moment für viele von uns, der uns fassungslos, traurig, ja wütend macht. Eine ganze Generation wird an den Folgen dieser Vorgänge leiden. In diesem historischen Moment dürfen wir keine weiteren Fehler mehr machen. Unser Handeln sollte sich vielmehr an einer Eigenschaft orientieren, die man zu Recht den Briten zuschreibt: Pragmatismus.

Daher müssen wir unseren britischen Freunden eine letzte Chance geben, alles andere wäre ignorante Rechthaberei. Dieses Signal muss von London kommen. Der Verbleib des Vereinigten Königreichs ist nach wie vor die vernünftigste Option. Das braucht meiner Meinung nach aber eine Legitimierung durch ein Referendum, das diesmal im Gegensatz zum früheren einen verbindlichen Charakter haben muss. Und vor allem müssen wir alles tun, um endlich Klarheit für die drei Millionen Unionsbürger im Vereinigten Königreich und die 1,5 Millionen Briten auf dem Kontinent zu schaffen. Nach wie vor ist hier vieles im Unklaren. Hier geschieht viel zu wenig. Diese Menschen verdienen viel mehr Respekt. Sie haben ihre Lebensentscheidungen auf einer anderen Grundlage getroffen und dürfen nicht zum Spielball werden.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, οι δραματικές εξελίξεις με αφορμή το Brexit κλυδωνίζουν τη Γηραιά Ήπειρο. Πρέπει να αντιληφθούν όλοι στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ότι το Brexit έστειλε ένα μήνυμα ισχυρό, ότι οι ευρωπαϊκοί λαοί αναζητούν έναν άλλο δρόμο για την Ευρώπη, μια Ευρώπη των εθνών και των πατρίδων, μια Ευρώπη που να σέβεται τις εθνικές παραδόσεις και τους λαούς, μια Ευρώπη δημοκρατική και αποκεντρωμένη, μια Ευρώπη της αλληλεγγύης και όχι του σκληρού πυρήνα, μια κοινωνική Ευρώπη και όχι μια Ευρώπη των τραπεζών.

Οι ευρωπαϊκοί λαοί δεν αντέχουν τη λιτότητα και τη βίαιη δημοσιονομική προσαρμογή που έχουν επιβάλει το Εurogroup και η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα και σύντομα θα στείλουν ισχυρό μήνυμα, στις επικείμενες ευρωεκλογές. Γιατί για την Ευρώπη υπάρχει άλλος δρόμος, ο δρόμος της ανάκτησης της εθνικής κυριαρχίας των κρατών μελών της, ο δρόμος ενάντια στην κινεζοποίηση των μισθών, ο δρόμος ενάντια στη γερμανική Ευρώπη.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Julie Girling (PPE). – Madam President, last night we saw another manifestation of the inability of the British Parliament to reach a consensus. A reduced majority, but still the fourth most devastating defeat in history for a UK government.

Last night Theresa May set out three options. The first was to revoke Article 50 – possibly the first time those words have passed her lips in public. Secondly, she talked about holding a second referendum. Ditto. And don’t underestimate the significance of her saying those words. The third option was to negotiate a new deal.

I think, though, that the message has finally got through in Westminster that the third option is not possible in any sensible timeframe. So now it’s down to no deal or no Brexit. It seems very likely that tonight the UK parliament will reject no deal. They will not reject no Brexit.

Of course, we have a limited direct role here, we have to choose our language carefully, we’re giving signals. So let me assure colleagues here that there is a strong will in the UK for a second vote. The People’s Vote campaign is the biggest grassroots pro-EU European movement. Polls show a majority in favour of a second referendum.

Like all things Brexit, it won’t be easy, but don’t believe the voices you’ve heard from the Brits here today. Seven out of nine speakers today represent only 1.5% of the seats in the House of Commons. They are spouting their usual rot and nonsense. They are not the patriots. They are the ones advocating a no-deal Brexit, and that’s an act of unparalleled harm to the British people and the European Union. They are not the patriots. Nobody calling themselves a patriot would advocate that kind of harm. No one laying claim to the title unionist would advocate a no-deal Brexit. No one who wants to support the Good Friday Agreement would advocate a no-deal Brexit. They are not in the majority – actually they are all in the bar coalescing around a beer now. They don’t even bother to stay and listen.

So I say to them: you are not today’s people. You are yesterday’s voices. We are the voices of today, and young people support my position completely.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Richard Corbett (S&D). – Madam President, after the first rejection of the deal by the House of Commons back in January, Theresa May tried to renegotiate just one point, the Irish backstop, in order to appease the right wing of her party. But for a majority in the House of Commons that was not the main problem with her deal. There were other problems and she made no attempts to address those issues. She only tried to appease the right wing of her party and she failed.

So where does that leave us? A majority in the House of Commons does not want to leave without a deal, but the only deal on the table has been rejected. Where do you go from there? Logically, there are only two possibilities: either you negotiate an alternative deal or you reconsider Brexit. The chances of an alternative deal look vanishingly small at the moment. Reconsidering Brexit needs a referendum and, as we just heard from Ms Girling, there is a majority in public opinion that wants another referendum and opinion polls show that, if there were another referendum, the British people would vote to remain in the European Union.

It’s absolute folly to proceed with Brexit on the ground that it is the will of the people when it may very well no longer be the will of the people. It’s at least worth checking.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren, es ist wohl für uns alle klar: Wenn es zu keiner Haltungsänderung im Vereinigten Königreich kommt, kommt es am 29. März zu einem chaotischen, zu einem harten Brexit. Und wir müssen auch klarstellen: Wer nicht bereit ist, parteiübergreifend miteinander zu reden, kann kein Problem der Gegenwart und der Zukunft lösen. Die ökonomischen, die ökologischen, die sozialen, technologischen, demokratiepolitischen Herausforderungen können wir nur gemeinsam in Europa parteiübergreifend und durch ein geeintes Europa in der Welt bewältigen. Darum geht es bei der Wahl zum Europäischen Parlament. Darum geht es bei der Zusammensetzung der nächsten Kommission. Und diese Realität steht im krassen Widerspruch zu dem politischen Versagen der politischen Verantwortungsträger im Vereinigten Königreich, aber auch in anderen politischen Parteien und Ländern innerhalb der Europäischen Union.

Schauen wir uns die Journalistenmorde in Malta und der Slowakei an, dem blockierten Rechtsstaatsverfahren gegenüber Ungarn und Polen, dem EU bashing der Populisten und Nationalisten in Ungarn, Italien, Tschechien und Rumänien. Die europäische Idee wird von innen heraus gefährdet. Der Gefährdung von innen müssen wir bei der Wahl zum Europäischen Parlament eine Absage erteilen. Mit Schuldzuweisungen, Lügen, Antisemitismus, Nationalismus und Abschottung lösen wir kein Problem in Europa, auch nicht den Brexit, sondern nur mit einer neuen Form des Grundkonsenses miteinander.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, following the rejection of the withdrawal agreement in the House of Commons last night, there is a grave sense of trepidation in Ireland, especially among the farming community and the agri—food sector – because they know that a crash—out, a hard border, reverting to WTO rules, will send them to the wall. They will go out of business.

Also, we all know that if there’s a crash—out then the hard—won peace which we’ve enjoyed for the last 20 years is also in mortal danger.

Therefore, I hope that today in the House of Commons they will vote to avoid a ‘no deal’, a crash—out. If they do, I think that we should immediately offer an extension – and not be putting conditions on it. We should offer it. Because we can do so for three months without interfering in any way with our elections. As my colleague, Jim Nicholson, said, this will help them to find another way – and maybe that way will be to stay. Now wouldn’t that be a countenance devoutly to be wished? Wouldn’t any extension be worth that?

So I am appealing to the European Commission to act in good faith by saying ‘yes, we’re going to help you’. We’re going to give you the time and the space to get your own house in order to avoid a hard Brexit, to avoid a crash—out; if you are serious about it, then we will give you the time and the space.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Dubravka Šuica (PPE). – Gospođo predsjedavajuća, evidentno je da se rasprava o pripremama za Europsko vijeće pretvorila u raspravu o Brexitu. Ne govorimo danas o Pariškom sporazumu, ne govorimo o zelenim tehnologijama, ne govorimo o europskoj industriji, europskom gospodarstvu, o nezaposlenosti, ni o dezinformacijama koje nas pritišću sa svih strana u osvit europskih izbora.

Na žalost, današnja rasprava pretvorila se u raspravu o Brexitu. Jasno je da je Brexit jedna od najvažnijih tema. Bilo bi mi drago kad bi oni u Westminsteru danas obratili pažnju na nas ovdje u Europskom parlamentu i čuli što govorimo. Očekuje se da donesu razboritu odluku, očekuje se odgovornost od strane britanskih političara.

Moje osobno mišljenje ide uz one koji su danas govorili o drugom referendumu, ja smatram da još uvijek ima prostora za drugi referendum, ja smatram da još ima prostora da Ujedinjena Kraljevina ostane u Europskoj uniji, jer smatram da je Velikoj Britaniji mjesto u Europskoj uniji i žao mi je što je došlo do takvog populističkog izraza na referendumu. Vjerujem da se to još uvijek može promijeniti i da će britanski političari biti dovoljno odgovorni i shvatiti u kojem se trenutku nalaze i da neće raditi protiv mlade generacije, protiv mladih koji se posebno, kao što smo čuli od gospođe Girling, zalažu za ostanak u Europskoj uniji i pridružujem se svima onima koji zagovaraju drugi referendum.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, having listened very carefully to the speakers, I come to the conclusion that there is very broad support in this Parliament for the way the Commission is negotiating on behalf of the European Union, its Member States and this Parliament to try and reach an agreement with the United Kingdom on a withdrawal that would do as little harm as possible to both sides. This has been the intention of the Commission from the start, this has been the way Michel Barnier has been negotiating from the start, and we feel strengthened in our approach by the debates here today.

Having listened to Mr Farage and his colleagues, and seeing the hubris with which he stands here and the self-gratification of his position, I sometimes wonder whether he has gone to Sunderland and talked to the workers at the Nissan plant and said to them, ‘It might cost you your job, sorry, but I’ll get my pipe dream of so—called sovereignty’. Has he done that?

Has he gone to Oxford to the Mini plant and said, ‘I know what BMW are thinking if there’s a no—deal Brexit, but I want it so badly, this no—deal Brexit, that I really don’t care about your job’. Has he done that? That would have been the honest thing to do, I suppose.

(Applause)

Has Dr Liam Fox ever said, ‘Well, I said it would be the easiest trade deal in human history but, on second thoughts, it’s much more complicated than I promised before the referendum’? Has Boris Johnson gone to the doctors and nurses of the NHS and said, ‘I did promise you an extra GBP 350 million a week but, sorry, I can’t deliver on that promise’? Have they done that?

I think, frankly, if we want to come out of this situation, we would need a bit more modesty and honesty on all sides.

(Applause)

I just referred to a report by the UK Government, published in November last year, where it said that a no—deal Brexit would cost approximately 9.3% of economic growth. Are you willing to pay that price? I ask the Brexiteers: are you willing to pay that price? Are you willing to sacrifice all those jobs for your pipe dream of so—called sovereignty? What is that sovereignty going to bring to you if you live that pipe dream?

(Interjection from Mr Coburn: ‘Freedom is irreplaceable, sir, freedom is essential’)

(The President interrupted the speaker)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Mr Coburn, you and I have a special relationship. I am special, and I do not know what you are, so please, don’t interrupt. And I know Ms Atkinson takes issue with me on occasion, but please listen with respect. You may disagree but I would urge you to listen and maybe learn.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, well I did! I did listen to Mr Coburn and he says ‘liberty is more important’. Then have the courage and go to Sunderland and talk to the workers in the Nissan plant. Talk to the workers in Oxford in the Mini plant and tell them, ‘My so—called liberty is more important than your jobs’. Have the courage to do that, sir. Then also go to Ireland and go to a place where, since 1998, peace reigns and violence has disappeared and tell the people there ‘My pipe dream is more important than your peace and quiet. My pipe dream is more important and I will accept a hard border if that gives me my no—deal Brexit’. Have that courage.

Do you know the number 16.1 million? I never hear it mentioned. I always hear 17.4 million. Yes. But 16.1 million are also British citizens who voted to stay. They haven’t disappeared. Isn’t the essence of European democracy that we also respect the position of minorities in our countries? Isn’t the essence of democracy that we try to build bridges and to find solutions that can be carried by most people in our society? Should those not be the next steps we take in this?

To be very clear: why does the Commission stand so firm for the integrity of the internal market? Why don’t we simply say ‘let’s have open borders’? I give you one example. If for some reason the United Kingdom would decide to have a trade deal with the United States on their terms and chlorinated chicken would be coming into the United Kingdom and we would not be able to check that at the European border, then we would not be able to say to European citizens that we could protect them against something they didn’t want. We could never do that. That’s why we have always to protect the integrity of the internal market. We’ve been bending over backwards and we spared no effort – and I do pay tribute to Michel Barnier – to try and reconcile Mrs May’s red lines and her demands with our firm duty to protect the European Union and the integrity of the internal market. The withdrawal agreement is the best and only possible solution to that dilemma and I hope that this is something that will be well understood. This is a position the Commission defends on your behalf. The vast majority of this Parliament supports this and we will continue to do that: to protect the interests of European citizens, whether they live on the continent or in the United Kingdom.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Melania Gabriela Ciot, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for their remarks and comments. I will inform the President of the European Council accordingly. It is clear that Brexit will be a pressing issue for leaders next week. Beyond dealing with these immediate concerns, it will be important also to address those strategic challenges that will define our common future in the years ahead. In that spirit, the different topics on the leaders’ table will help to inform reflection on our next strategic agenda.

The next rendezvous will be the informal summit in Seville, which will be a key moment to discuss and start shaping that long-term agenda.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 162)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D), por escrito. – Los líderes del Consejo Europeo deben ser valientes y convertir la cumbre de primavera en la cumbre de la sostenibilidad. No es aceptable que sigamos posponiendo la lucha contra el cambio climático. Necesitamos orientar el Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento, el Semestre Europeo y el resto de instrumentos técnicos de la Unión hacia un modelo de sostenibilidad. Si queremos evitar la repetición de tristes episodios como el Brexit, tenemos que ofrecer a nuestras sociedades un soplo de aire nuevo que traiga consigo una política de cohesión social y de modernización económica, acompañadas ambas de una política medioambiental. La cumbre no debe olvidar otros dos retos urgentes. El próximo 26 de mayo tenemos la obligación de garantizar unas elecciones europeas justas y libres. Y para ello, los dirigentes de la Unión tienen que hacer un esfuerzo mayor. Las obligaciones asumidas por las plataformas de internet resultan insuficientes. Además, la reforma de la política de asilo tiene que estar en el orden del día. Es un escándalo que se pierdan más vidas en el Mediterráneo y que los dirigentes de la Unión ignoren las decisiones que este Parlamento ha tomado para poner fin a esta tragedia humana.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Blanco López (S&D), por escrito. – Los líderes del Consejo Europeo deben ser valientes y convertir la cumbre de primavera en la cumbre de la sostenibilidad. No es aceptable que sigamos posponiendo la lucha contra el cambio climático. Necesitamos orientar el Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento, el Semestre Europeo y el resto de instrumentos técnicos de la Unión hacia un modelo de sostenibilidad. Si queremos evitar la repetición de tristes episodios como el Brexit, tenemos que ofrecer a nuestras sociedades un soplo de aire nuevo que traiga consigo una política de cohesión social y de modernización económica, acompañadas ambas de una política medioambiental. La cumbre no debe olvidar otros dos retos urgentes. El próximo 26 de mayo tenemos la obligación de garantizar unas elecciones europeas justas y libres. Y para ello, los dirigentes de la Unión tienen que hacer un esfuerzo mayor. Las obligaciones asumidas por las plataformas de internet resultan insuficientes. Además, la reforma de la política de asilo tiene que estar en el orden del día. Es un escándalo que se pierdan más vidas en el Mediterráneo y que los dirigentes de la Unión ignoren las decisiones que este Parlamento ha tomado para poner fin a esta tragedia humana.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Soledad Cabezón Ruiz (S&D), por escrito. – Los líderes del Consejo Europeo deben ser valientes y convertir la cumbre de primavera en la cumbre de la sostenibilidad. No es aceptable que sigamos posponiendo la lucha contra el cambio climático. Necesitamos orientar el Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento, el Semestre Europeo y el resto de instrumentos técnicos de la Unión hacia un modelo de sostenibilidad. Si queremos evitar la repetición de tristes episodios como el Brexit, tenemos que ofrecer a nuestras sociedades un soplo de aire nuevo que traiga consigo una política de cohesión social y de modernización económica, acompañadas ambas de una política medioambiental. La cumbre no debe olvidar otros dos retos urgentes. El próximo 26 de mayo tenemos la obligación de garantizar unas elecciones europeas justas y libres. Y para ello, los dirigentes de la Unión tienen que hacer un esfuerzo mayor. Las obligaciones asumidas por las plataformas de internet resultan insuficientes. Además, la reforma de la política de asilo tiene que estar en el orden del día. Es un escándalo que se pierdan más vidas en el Mediterráneo y que los dirigentes de la Unión ignoren las decisiones que este Parlamento ha tomado para poner fin a esta tragedia humana.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nicola Caputo (S&D), per iscritto. – Una massima di Einstein che mi ha sempre divertito diceva: "due sono le cose infinite: l'universo e la stupidità umana. E non sono tanto sicuro della prima". E difendere le posizioni di principio è la cosa più stupida che si possa fare. Toyota, Bmw e Nissan sono solo le ultime imprese, in ordine di tempo, ad aver minacciato in questi giorni di lasciare il Regno Unito in caso di Brexit e la May e il Parlamento britannico continuano a difendere la poltrona mentre il Titanic affonda. Basta con la politica che si gioca nella camera dei comuni! E i politici britannici si occupino dei veri interessi del Regno Unito. Agevoliamo un accordo tra i due gruppi di maggioranza affinché venga sottoposto qualcosa di accettabile per l'Unione europea per concedere una proroga. Agevoliamo un'uscita di scena onorevole. Quest'incertezza non può continuare per noi, per voi e per i nostri cittadini.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE), schriftlich. – Ich hoffe noch immer – auch wenn die Zeit immer knapper wird –, dass es zu einem geregelten Austritt des Vereinigten Königreichs aus der EU kommen wird. Eine Verschiebung des Austrittstermins dürfen wir nicht generell ausschließen. Ohne eine Regelung fällt das VK auf den Status eines Drittlandes zurück. Dies würde für den gesamten Warenverkehr Zollkontrollen an der EU-Außengrenze zwingend mit sich bringen. Und es würde zu einer Grenze zwischen Nordirland und Irland führen. Aber wir müssen auch unsere eigenen Interessen im Auge behalten: Im Mai stehen die Wahlen an, und bis dahin muss das Verfahren um den Austritt beendet worden sein. Das VK muss dann das verhandelte Ergebnis akzeptieren oder den Antrag auf Austritt zurücknehmen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Iratxe García Pérez (S&D), por escrito. – Los líderes del Consejo Europeo deben ser valientes y convertir la cumbre de primavera en la cumbre de la sostenibilidad. No es aceptable que sigamos posponiendo la lucha contra el cambio climático. Necesitamos orientar el Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento, el Semestre Europeo y el resto de instrumentos técnicos de la Unión hacia un modelo de sostenibilidad. Si queremos evitar la repetición de tristes episodios como el Brexit, tenemos que ofrecer a nuestras sociedades un soplo de aire nuevo que traiga consigo una política de cohesión social y de modernización económica, acompañadas ambas de una política medioambiental. La cumbre no debe olvidar otros dos retos urgentes. El próximo 26 de mayo tenemos la obligación de garantizar unas elecciones europeas justas y libres. Y para ello, los dirigentes de la Unión tienen que hacer un esfuerzo mayor. Las obligaciones asumidas por las plataformas de internet resultan insuficientes. Además, la reforma de la política de asilo tiene que estar en el orden del día. Es un escándalo que se pierdan más vidas en el Mediterráneo y que los dirigentes de la Unión ignoren las decisiones que este Parlamento ha tomado para poner fin a esta tragedia humana.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D), por escrito. – Los líderes del Consejo Europeo deben ser valientes y convertir la cumbre de primavera en la cumbre de la sostenibilidad. No es aceptable que sigamos posponiendo la lucha contra el cambio climático. Necesitamos orientar el Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento, el Semestre Europeo y el resto de instrumentos técnicos de la Unión hacia un modelo de sostenibilidad. Si queremos evitar la repetición de tristes episodios como el Brexit, tenemos que ofrecer a nuestras sociedades un soplo de aire nuevo que traiga consigo una política de cohesión social y de modernización económica, acompañadas ambas de una política medioambiental. La cumbre no debe olvidar otros dos retos urgentes. El próximo 26 de mayo tenemos la obligación de garantizar unas elecciones europeas justas y libres. Y para ello, los dirigentes de la Unión tienen que hacer un esfuerzo mayor. Las obligaciones asumidas por las plataformas de internet resultan insuficientes. Además, la reforma de la política de asilo tiene que estar en el orden del día. Es un escándalo que se pierdan más vidas en el Mediterráneo y que los dirigentes de la Unión ignoren las decisiones que este Parlamento ha tomado para poner fin a esta tragedia humana.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Grapini (S&D), în scris. – Am avut ca temă de dezbatere ,, Pregătirea reuniunii Consiliului European din 21-22 martie 2019 și retragerea Regatului Unit din UE”. Cu toate acestea mai mult de 80 % s-a discutat despre Brexit. De doi ani consumăm mii de ore pentru acest subiect care a creat o criză în UE. Prelungirea crizei aduce efecte negative pentru ambele părți. Liderii europeni și instituțiile europene trebuie să învețe din Brexit. Liderii UE trebuie să înțeleagă că este nevoie de un management diferit în viitor în care să se țină cont de subsidiaritate. Și așa cum a spus reprezentanta Consiliului trebuie ca „NIMENI SĂ NU FIE LĂSAT ÎN URMĂ”. Avem nevoie de coeziune, de politica industrială și socială, de respect al deciziilor democratice și constituționale în statele membre. Avem nevoie de o piață echitabilă pentru toți cetățenii europeni. Doar așa putem asigura un viitor pentru UE. Consiliul trebuie să dezbată subiecte importante, cum ar fi cele economice, noul Cadru Financiar Multianual, viitorul politicii de coeziune, spațiul Schengen - lărgirea lui cu statele ce întrunesc condițiile Regulamentului, România și Bulgaria. O mai mare transparență și evitarea dublei măsuri aplicate de către Comisie și Consiliu pot consolida viitorul UE.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D), por escrito. – Los líderes del Consejo Europeo deben ser valientes y convertir la cumbre de primavera en la cumbre de la sostenibilidad. No es aceptable que sigamos posponiendo la lucha contra el cambio climático. Necesitamos orientar el Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento, el Semestre Europeo y el resto de instrumentos técnicos de la Unión hacia un modelo de sostenibilidad. Si queremos evitar la repetición de tristes episodios como el Brexit, tenemos que ofrecer a nuestras sociedades un soplo de aire nuevo que traiga consigo una política de cohesión social y de modernización económica, acompañadas ambas de una política medioambiental. La cumbre no debe olvidar otros dos retos urgentes. El próximo 26 de mayo tenemos la obligación de garantizar unas elecciones europeas justas y libres. Y para ello, los dirigentes de la Unión tienen que hacer un esfuerzo mayor. Las obligaciones asumidas por las plataformas de internet resultan insuficientes. Además, la reforma de la política de asilo tiene que estar en el orden del día. Es un escándalo que se pierdan más vidas en el Mediterráneo y que los dirigentes de la Unión ignoren las decisiones que este Parlamento ha tomado para poner fin a esta tragedia humana.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Светослав Христов Малинов (PPE), в писмена форма. – През тази седмица всички ние в Европейския парламент проследихме с особен интерес поредицата от гласувания във Великобритания. Въпреки че все още не знаем какви ще са последните резултати в Камарата на общините, можем да кажем, че бяхме свидетели на опасно доближаване до Брексит без споразумение.

Винаги съм твърдял, че това е най-лошият сценарий за България и нашите граждани. В момента сме на крачка от окончателното му избягване и преминаване към варианта за удължаване на срока. След като беше взето решението да не се допуска излизане без споразумение, трябва да видим какъв мандат ще се даде на правителството за срещата на върха през следващата седмица. Британското правителство може, разбира се, да поиска отсрочка, но въпросът е при какви условия и колко продължителна да е тя.

Мога само да кажа, че Великобритания е на крачка отново да участва в евроизборите, което със сигурност ще създаде проблеми на Европейския съюз. Очакваме отговорите на всички тези въпроси през следващата седмица.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D), por escrito. – Los líderes del Consejo Europeo deben ser valientes y convertir la cumbre de primavera en la cumbre de la sostenibilidad. No es aceptable que sigamos posponiendo la lucha contra el cambio climático. Necesitamos orientar el Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento, el Semestre Europeo y el resto de instrumentos técnicos de la Unión hacia un modelo de sostenibilidad. Si queremos evitar la repetición de tristes episodios como el Brexit, tenemos que ofrecer a nuestras sociedades un soplo de aire nuevo que traiga consigo una política de cohesión social y de modernización económica, acompañadas ambas de una política medioambiental. La cumbre no debe olvidar otros dos retos urgentes. El próximo 26 de mayo tenemos la obligación de garantizar unas elecciones europeas justas y libres. Y para ello, los dirigentes de la Unión tienen que hacer un esfuerzo mayor. Las obligaciones asumidas por las plataformas de internet resultan insuficientes. Además, la reforma de la política de asilo tiene que estar en el orden del día. Es un escándalo que se pierdan más vidas en el Mediterráneo y que los dirigentes de la Unión ignoren las decisiones que este Parlamento ha tomado para poner fin a esta tragedia humana.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alfred Sant (S&D), in writing. – It is likely that a request for extension of the Brexit negotiations will soon materialise. But to fulfil the objective of the extension and end this impasse, the UK Government has to bring to the EU Heads of State and Government a clear vision of the form of the future relationship that is sought. This is currently lacking. The length of any extension should depend on this vision, and also on the extent to which the European block would want to negotiate. The European side still needs to make its position more transparent. For instance, regarding the backstop for Northern Ireland, is it true that an approach modelled on the situation between West and East Germany in the past has been ignored? If so, why? However, if the withdrawal agreement is indeed not negotiable, it would not make sense to allow the continuation of the negotiations for a much longer period going, say, beyond EU election day. The ongoing controversies within the British political system will not help. Using the possible extension to push for a second referendum could push the country towards more chaos. On the other hand it would be disastrous if the extension serves merely to postpone a no-deal Brexit.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elena Valenciano (S&D), por escrito. – Los líderes del Consejo Europeo deben ser valientes y convertir la cumbre de primavera en la cumbre de la sostenibilidad. No es aceptable que sigamos posponiendo la lucha contra el cambio climático. Necesitamos orientar el Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento, el Semestre Europeo y el resto de instrumentos técnicos de la Unión hacia un modelo de sostenibilidad. Si queremos evitar la repetición de tristes episodios como el Brexit, tenemos que ofrecer a nuestras sociedades un soplo de aire nuevo que traiga consigo una política de cohesión social y de modernización económica, acompañadas ambas de una política medioambiental. La cumbre no debe olvidar otros dos retos urgentes. El próximo 26 de mayo tenemos la obligación de garantizar unas elecciones europeas justas y libres. Y para ello, los dirigentes de la Unión tienen que hacer un esfuerzo mayor. Las obligaciones asumidas por las plataformas de internet resultan insuficientes. Además, la reforma de la política de asilo tiene que estar en el orden del día. Es un escándalo que se pierdan más vidas en el Mediterráneo y que los dirigentes de la Unión ignoren las decisiones que este Parlamento ha tomado para poner fin a esta tragedia humana.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Henna Virkkunen (PPE), kirjallinen. – Britannian EU-eroprosessi muuttuu päivä päivältä sekavammaksi. Millekään rakentavalle esitykselle ei tahdo löytyä enemmistöä. Eilinen äänestystulos brittiparlamentissa ei ollut yllätys. Pääministeri Mayn neuvottelema erosopimus kaatui toistamiseen nurin selvin luvuin. Britanniassa on edelleen voimassa laki, jonka mukaisesti ero astuu voimaan kahden viikon kuluttua perjantaina 29.3. klo 23. Neuvotteluaika on nyt tuhlattu loppuun, ja sopimuksellinen ero ei enää ole mahdollinen määräaikaan mennessä. Riski hallitsemattomaan sopimuksettomaan eroon on kasvanut jo niin suureksi, että peli tulisi viimeistään nyt viheltää poikki.

Toivon brittiparlamentin seuraavaksi päätyvän hakemaan lyhyttä lisäaikaa neuvotteluille. Euroopan unionin tulisi myöntää tuo muutaman kuukauden lisäaika sillä ehdolla, että briteillä olisi esittää jonkinlainen suunnitelma jatkosta. Järkevä suunnitelma olisi järjestää uusi kansanäänestys, sillä nyt brittikansalaisilla on parempi käsitys siitä, mitä ero EU:sta heille oikeasti tarkoittaa. Jo pelkkä eron valmistelu on tuonut paljon epävarmuutta monien EU-kansalaisten arkeen. Eroneuvotteluissa on käynyt selväksi, että Britannia haluaisi jatkossakin olla mukana lähes kaikissa EU:n toiminnoissa. Siksi EU:ssa pysyminen olisi yhä paras vaihtoehto.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D), por escrito. – A saída do Reino Unido da União Europeia é um direito legalmente protegido. Face aos resultados do referendo realizado naquele Estado-membro e à decisão tomada pelo seu governo de acionar os procedimentos de saída, a UE participou unida num processo negocial fundamentado na salvaguarda dos seus valores e na proteção dos seus cidadãos e empresas sem hostilizar os cidadãos, as instituições ou a sociedade civil do Reino Unido.

Ao longo do processo, os povos europeus deixaram claro o seu respeito pela vontade do povo britânico, e em simultâneo, deram nota do desejo de conseguir um bom acordo ou de manter a integridade do território da União. A avaliação de impacto de uma saída eventual sem acordo revelou que esse cenário, a ocorrer, será altamente pernicioso para ambas as partes.

Foi com esse pressuposto que os negociadores europeus tentaram até ao último momento responder com abertura e bom senso às solicitações dos negociadores britânicos. O parlamento britânico optou por rejeitar claramente a proposta de acordo. A União Europeia em geral e o Parlamento em particular devem manter uma atitude de firmeza nos valores e abertura nas soluções, de forma a defender os interesses de todos os seus cidadãos.

 
  
  

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. DAVID-MARIA SASSOLI
Vicepresidente

 

11. Balsošanas laiks
Visu runu video

11.1. Savienības vispārējā eksporta atļauja konkrētu divējāda lietojuma preču eksportam no Savienības uz Apvienoto Karalisti (A8-0071/2019 - Klaus Buchner) (balsošana)
 

- Prima della votazione:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Klaus Buchner, Rapporteur. – Mr President, over a year ago we adopted a position on the Dual-Use Regulation that would restrict the export of spyware to dictatorships and ease the export of encryption software: 92% of us did this because democracy, freedom and human rights are being violently attacked all over the world. New dictatorships in Africa and the Middle East are developing, and old ones like China are getting more and more oppressive. Horrific cases involving journalists – like Jamal Khashoggi being dismembered and burned in a furnace by Saudi Arabia for defending freedom and democracy – are in the news.

These and other crimes have been made possible with European spyware in the wrong hands. We have decided, for moral and security reasons, that we, the European Union, cannot be part of this process. We strive to protect people all over the planet who wish to improve their society, who speak truth to power and who want to live in freedom and safety. We strive to protect our values.

The European Council disagrees with us and has refused to adopt a common position in order to start discussions on this. It was, especially, a last-minute change of heart by Mr Macron himself that stopped us: France, Sweden, Finland and other Member States believe that European companies should be accomplices to these crimes and make a little profit as well.

(Muted heckling)

I call on the Council to listen to all the NGOs, the Commission and the European Parliament, and to put values before profit. And now let us vote on this and other safeguards against a hard Brexit.

(Applause)

 

11.2. Teritoriālās sadarbības programmu “PEACE IV (Īrija–Apvienotā Karaliste)” un “Apvienotā Karaliste–Īrija (Īrija–Ziemeļīrija–Skotija)” turpināšana, ņemot vērā Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Eiropas Savienības (A8-0021/2019 - Iskra Mihaylova) (balsošana)

11.3. Uzsākto mācību mobilitātes pasākumu turpināšana programmā “Erasmus+” saistībā ar Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no ES (A8-0082/2019 - Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski) (balsošana)

11.4. Aviācijas drošība saistībā ar Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības (A8-0061/2019 - Kosma Złotowski) (balsošana)

11.5. ES un Afganistānas sadarbības nolīgums par partnerību un attīstību (A8-0026/2019 - Anna Elżbieta Fotyga) (balsošana)

11.6. ES un Afganistānas sadarbības nolīgums par partnerību un attīstību (rezolūcija) (A8-0058/2019 - Anna Elżbieta Fotyga) (balsošana)

11.7. Norvēģijas, Islandes, Šveices un Lihtenšteinas līdzdalība Eiropas Aģentūrā lielapjoma IT sistēmu darbības pārvaldībai brīvības, drošības un tiesiskuma telpā (A8-0081/2019 - Monica Macovei) (balsošana)

11.8. ES īpašo pārstāvju darbības joma un pilnvaras (A8-0171/2019 - Hilde Vautmans) (balsošana)

11.9. Produktu un pakalpojumu pieejamības prasības (A8-0188/2017 - Morten Løkkegaard) (balsošana)

11.10. Vīzu informācijas sistēma (A8-0078/2019 - Carlos Coelho) (balsošana)

11.11. Patvēruma un migrācijas fonds (A8-0106/2019 - Miriam Dalli) (balsošana)

11.12. Finansiāla atbalsta instrumenta izveide robežu pārvaldībai un vīzām (A8-0089/2019 - Tanja Fajon) (balsošana)

11.13. Iekšējās drošības fonds (A8-0115/2019 - Monika Hohlmeier) (balsošana)

11.14. Stipro alkoholisko dzērienu definīcija, noformēšana un marķēšana un to ģeogrāfiskās izcelsmes norāžu aizsardzība (A8-0021/2018 - Pilar Ayuso) (balsošana)

11.15. Ierosinātie grozījumi 3. protokolā par Eiropas Savienības Tiesas statūtiem (A8-0439/2018 - Tiemo Wölken) (balsošana)

11.16. Ārkārtas pasākumu noteikšana sociālā nodrošinājuma koordinācijas jomā pēc Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanās no ES (A8-0161/2019 - Marian Harkin, Jean Lambert) (balsošana)

11.17. Kopīgi noteikumi, kas nodrošina kravu autopārvadājumu pamatsavienojamību saistībā ar Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības (A8-0063/2019 - Isabella De Monte) (balsošana)

11.18. Kopīgi noteikumi, kas nodrošina gaisa pārvadājumu pamatsavienojamību saistībā ar Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības (A8-0062/2019 - Pavel Telička) (balsošana)

11.19. Noteikumi, kuri saistīti ar Eiropas Jūrlietu un zivsaimniecības fondu, sakarā ar Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības (balsošana)
 

- Prima della votazione:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alain Cadec (PPE), président de la commission PECH. – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, nous allons voter sur deux mesures d’urgence dans le domaine de la pêche, pour être prêts au cas où il n’y aurait pas d’accord entre l’Union européenne et le Royaume-Uni avant le 29 mars 2019. La Chambre des communes a encore rejeté la proposition de Theresa May hier soir.

Je rappelle que ces mesures d’urgence sont uniquement applicables en cas de no deal. Cependant, si, comme nous le souhaitons tous – en tout cas une grande partie d’entre nous –, un accord est trouvé, cet accord de libre-échange ou d’union douanière devra être conditionné à un accord réciproque d’accès aux eaux et aux ressources tel qu’il est fixé aujourd’hui. Ce n’est pas négociable! Je parle au nom de la commission de la pêche, qui tient à rappeler cette position sur la future relation entre l’Union européenne et le Royaume-Uni.

 

11.20. Savienības zvejas kuģu zvejas atļaujas Apvienotās Karalistes ūdeņos un Apvienotās Karalistes zvejas kuģu zvejas darbības Savienības ūdeņos (balsošana)

11.21. Daži dzelzceļa drošības un savienojamības aspekti saistībā ar Lielbritānijas un Ziemeļīrijas Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības ( - Ismail Ertug) (balsošana)

11.22. Eiropas nodrošināta aizsardzība: tīrs gaiss visiem (B8-0156/2019) (balsošana)

11.23. EĀDD veiktie turpmākie pasākumi divus gadus pēc EP ziņojuma par ES stratēģisko paziņojumu pret to vērstas trešo personu propagandas apkarošanai (A8-0031/2019 - Anna Elżbieta Fotyga) (balsošana)
 

- Prima della votazione sul paragrafo 1, lettera ae:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Anna Elżbieta Fotyga, Rapporteur. – Mr President, it was obviously a technical mistake. The description in the text refers to the other EU institution, namely the Commission, and therefore I propose that the words ‘next’ and then ‘and her successor’ be eradicated because we refer to the Council now.

 
  
 

(L'emendamento orale è accolto)

 

11.24. Asociācijas nolīgums starp ES un Monako, Andoru un Sanmarīno (A8-0074/2019 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar) (balsošana)
MPphoto
 

  Presidente. – Con questo si conclude il turno di votazioni.

 

12. Balsojumu skaidrojumi
Visu runu video

12.1. ES un Afganistānas sadarbības nolīgums par partnerību un attīstību (A8-0026/2019 - Anna Elżbieta Fotyga)
Visu runu video
 

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem podpořil tuto dohodu mezi Evropskou unií a Afghánistánem. Jsem přesvědčen, že musíme podporovat vládu Afghánistánu, která se snaží stabilizovat situaci v této zemi a uklidnit občanskou válku. Říkám to i jako Čech, který je hrdý na to, že stovky českých vojáků přispívají a jsou součástí mírových misí, které dnes v rámci NATO působí v Afghánistánu, a za mír v této zemi nasazují i své životy. Jsem tedy rád, že Evropský parlament přijal dnes tuto dohodu a doufám, že přispěje k tomu, aby se v této zemi konečně podařilo najít klid a nějaký kompromis s Tálibánem, byť jsem osobně skeptický a domnívám se, že najít dohodu a kompromis s touto organizací bude velmi obtížné.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem hlasoval pro uzavření této dohody. Chci říci, že je skutečně důležité napomáhat rozvoji této země, protože destrukce této země se nám vrátí, a to hned v blízké budoucnosti a vrátí se nám u nás doma. Takže je pro mě velmi důležité podpořit instituce v Afghánistánu, které tam dnes bojují s terorismem, s drogovým průmyslem, samozřejmě se zločineckými gangy, podpořit nejen vojáky, kteří tam dnes udržují alespoň jakýsi pořádek, ale také samozřejmě napomáhat civilní správě této země a bezpečnostním složkám. To považuji za zcela důležité a zároveň jsem toho názoru, že je třeba podporovat právě tyto řádné afghánské instituce, aby modernizovaly zemi, přinášely konkrétní reálné benefity pro občany, protože toto jsou přesně ty hmatatelné výsledky činnosti, kterou můžeme těmto lidem v Afghánistánu přinést.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, Afghanistan is, according to almost all of the UN league tables, one of the worst governed, poorest and most corrupt places on the planet.

The interesting thing is to ask why. Why has it developed that way? I don’t want to over—simplify as there’s more than one factor in play, but at least part of the answer is that Afghanistan was never a nation state. No single ethnic group constituted a majority. The demography is a mixture of Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks and so on. It was created, if you like, artificially, as a buffer state and therefore its history has been a series of coups, dictatorships, invasions and revolutions.

One of the most warm and profound and important developments of the last half century has been the multiplicity of new states in the world. The world has gone from having around 80 sovereign countries when the European Union was formed to 200 today, and this move towards smaller states has coincided with a move towards more democracy and more prosperity. How sad to see this continent alone going in the opposite direction.

 

12.2. ES un Afganistānas sadarbības nolīgums par partnerību un attīstību (rezolūcija) (A8-0058/2019 - Anna Elżbieta Fotyga)
Visu runu video
 

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Wyjaśnienia głosowań rozpoczął Pan od sprawozdania pani Fotygi, od rezolucji pani Fotygi. Wcześniej jest sprawozdanie pana Zdrojewskiego dotyczące programu Erasmus i twardego brexitu. Czy to znaczy, że tego tematu nie będziemy wyjaśniali? Zostałam do tego tematu zgłoszona i nie bardzo rozumiem, dlaczego nie ma go w porządku obrad.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Presidente. – Per quanto riguarda la relazione Zdrojewski non possono esserci dichiarazioni di voto perché non c'è stata una discussione. Quindi non è previsto.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Morten Messerschmidt (ECR). – Hr. Formand! Når jeg tager ordet på denne beslutning vedrørende Afghanistan, så er det sådan set ikke et forsøg på at få EU til at føre en udenrigspolitik eller engagere sig i verden, som jeg ved, mange rundt i salen her ønsker det.

Det er sådan set for at slå ned på et meget centralt område i forhold til de ønsker, jeg ved, der er i Kommissionen om at udvikle en EU-hær. Det er jo drømmen fra Parlamentet, Kommissionen og vel også et par enkelte medlemslande, at EU en dag skal være dem, der tegner hele sikkerhedspolitikken, udenrigspolitikken og forsvarspolitikken. Men i denne betænkning, som er skrevet af kollega Fotyga, er der en lidt højere grad af forståelse for virkeligheden. Her taler man nemlig om den vigtige alliance til NATO. NATO, som er forsvarsalliancen, der binder Europa sammen med USA, og som er den alliance, der har skabt freden og fremgangen i hele den vestlige verden siden anden verdenskrig. Det er vejen frem! Ikke at opbygge nye forsvarsmodeller under Juncker som en eller anden form for politisk leder, men at holde fast i det, der har virket, nemlig NATO, som har været vejen mod frihed for hele Europa.

 

12.3. Produktu un pakalpojumu pieejamības prasības (A8-0188/2017 - Morten Løkkegaard)
Visu runu video
 

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lucy Anderson (S&D). – Mr President, despite no one disagreeing on the urgent need for better EU—level laws for the benefit of disabled people, this proposed legislation is a disappointment. The UK Government worked hard behind the scenes to water down its ambition and should be ashamed of its role. In particular, mandatory access requirements for buildings and physical infrastructure were excluded, including for transport and vehicles. The implementation periods concerned are also far too long. On the other hand, I welcome the positive elements to improve access for all to electronic services such as online banking and self—service terminals, as well as the technical annex and the strong penalties requirements and working group involvement of disabled people’s representatives. For this reason I voted for the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem podpořil tuto zprávu. Samozřejmě, mohla by být v některých aspektech ambicióznější, ale pro mě je důležitý ten směr, kterým jde, to znamená to, že Evropská unie řeší postižené osoby, postižené spoluobčany a chce, aby výrobky a služby, které se uvádějí na evropský trh, byly i pro tyto osoby použitelné a užitelné. Já si myslím, že to je mimořádně důležitá myšlenka, důležitý signál.

Proto jsem tuto zprávu podpořil, byť – jak jsem řekl –, v některých aspektech bych si dovedl představit, že bude ambicióznější a že bude vycházet postiženým lidem více vstříc. Je to dobrý směr a třeba příští Evropská komise, příští Evropský parlament tuto zprávu zpřesní a vytvoří ještě další podmínky pro to, aby lidé, kteří trpí určitým zdravotním postižením, se k výrobkům, které se uvádějí na evropský trh, mohli lépe dostat a tyto výrobky mohli lépe užívat.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem tuto zprávu rovněž podpořil, protože podle mého názoru Evropa, pokud je bez překážek, tak by neměla trpět ani překážky pro právě osoby se zdravotním postižením. Musíme odstranit právní překážky v těch právních předpisech, které tato zpráva definuje, je jich celá řada a také nevytvářet překážky nové. Jde samozřejmě o tu základní evropskou svobodu.

Na druhou stranu si myslím, že musíme ctít i požadavek proporcionality, a to zejména s ohledem na udržitelnost určitých pravidel pro malé a střední podniky, což ta zpráva rovněž odráží. Nejsem si zcela jist stanovováním úplně stejné povinnosti pro všechny, například se uvádějí webové stránky malých a středních podnikatelů. To může skutečně velmi zásadním způsobem ovlivnit podnikání. Takže musíme najít přiměřenou váhu a proporcionalitu těch opatření. Proto jsem také tuto zprávu podpořil.

 

12.4. Vīzu informācijas sistēma (A8-0078/2019 - Carlos Coelho)
Visu runu video
 

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, sistemul de informații privind vizele, pe care-l numim VIS, ajută la eliberarea vizelor și ajută autoritățile competente în materie de azil, de vize, de frontiere, de migrație, să verifice rapid și eficient cetățenii țărilor terțe care vin în Uniunea Europeană. Noul regulament VIS adaptează normele privind interoperabilitatea bazelor de date, sistemelor de informații ale Uniunii, tocmai pentru a colabora direct, eficient și inteligent, deci, pentru a vorbi unele cu altele foarte rapid, în secunde. Protejarea frontierelor externe ale Uniunii, gestionarea migrației și îmbunătățirea securității interne sunt esențiale pentru noi toți, știm bine.

Noul regulament introduce obligația de a amprenta copiii începând cu vârsta de 6 ani, verificând astfel identitatea unui copil care solicită viză. Așa se vor depista și copiii furați, de exemplu, și traficați.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Morten Messerschmidt (ECR). – Hr. Formand! Folkevandringen til Europa er ubetinget vor generations største udfordring. Og vi har allerede igennem de seneste år set, hvilken katastrofe det har påført vor lande, at man fra EU’s side – EU hvor man har lovet vælgerne/ borgerne at løse dette problem – ikke har været i stand til at løfte opgaven.

Vi har set, hvordan de åbne ydre grænser har ført til syrienskrigere, terrorister, som kommer ind i vore lande. Vi har set hvordan de åbne interne grænser gør, at de kan bevæge sig frit rundt imellem landene og udføre deres udåder rundtomkring, hvor end det nu må være det letteste for dem. Alt sammen fordi man her i dette system har sagt, at man vil løse en opgave, men ikke har formået det. At man nu prøver at få styr på visumreglerne er selvfølgelig et skridt i den rigtige retning, men det er et skridt, som kommer helt ufatteligt sent. Og hvor man vil sige: Hvor ville Europa være i dag, hvis ikke lande som Danmark og andre havde gennemført den nationale grænsekontrol? Så ville det være et endnu større morads end det, som Kommissionen har skabt.

 

12.5. Patvēruma un migrācijas fonds (A8-0106/2019 - Miriam Dalli)
Visu runu video
 

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Morten Messerschmidt (ECR). – Hr. Formand! Det burde efterhånden være gået op for de fleste europæere, at europæerne ikke ønsker, at huset her, at Kommissionen eller EU’s agenturer afgør, hvordan befolkningssammensætningen skal være i deres lande. Udlændingepolitikken er utvivlsomt det største, det varmeste og det vigtigste spørgsmål, fordi det kommer til at afgøre, hvordan vores lande kommer til at se ud om en generation og om to generationer - om vi ønsker at holde fast i den arv, den kultur, den tradition, som generationerne før os har givet os i dåbsgave, eller om vi ønsker at omdanne vores fædrelande til en slags laboratorier for folkevandring. Jeg tror ikke, at europæerne ønsker det sidste. Derfor er dette et dårligt forslag. Det eneste gode forslag, den eneste gode måde at håndtere folkevandringen på, er at lade de enkelte medlemslande selv bestemme, hvordan de ønsker at indrette sig. Er der så et eller andet skørt, venstreorienteret flertal, som kommer til regeringsmagten, jamen så lad da dem føre deres politik. Men det skal da ikke trækkes ned over hovedet på europæere, der ikke ønsker det!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ritengo che il nuovo Fondo Asilo e migrazione per il periodo 2021-2027, con il suo budget di dieci miliardi e mezzo, abbia introdotto importanti novità, inserendo ad esempio il principio di solidarietà nella base legale. Viene data più specifica attenzione alle politiche di integrazione oltre alla prima accoglienza, con risorse dedicate minime al sistema europeo di asilo, all'integrazione, alla solidarietà e anche allo sviluppo verso i paesi terzi, ma nel rispetto dei diritti fondamentali.

Credo però che la Commissione, a questo punto, debba garantire che queste indicazioni siano rispettate dai diversi governi, in particolare dal nostro governo, dal governo italiano, che in questo momento sta tagliando i fondi per l'integrazione, per la seconda accoglienza, per la solidarietà e per i comuni e le organizzazioni non governative.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, гласувах против предложения текст, въпреки че миграцията е част от най-големите проблеми на Европейския съюз в днешно време. Направеното предложение е напълно неприемливо, тъй като вместо да се стремим да се постигнат реални резултати, отново говорим за инструмент, който се фокусира върху т. нар. интеграция на навлезлите на територията на държавите членки имигранти, както легално пребиваващите, така и тези, които са влезли нелегално. Това за мен е неприемливо и недопустимо, навлизане в чужди култура, традиции, обичаи.

Солидарността би трябвало да е един от принципите, върху които Европейският съюз се основава. Но самото предположение да се изразходват средства за вписване на хора, които са влезли нелегално или незаконно, или такива, на които им е отказано правото на пребиваване на територията на Европейския съюз, за мен е напълно недопустимо. Освен това няма как да не се отбележи, че в консултациите за създаването на фонда основно вземат участие разни неправителствени организации, които обикновено са замесени в трафика на хора.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE). – Mr President, there is no doubt that in order to manage the ongoing migration crisis on its borders the EU needs to reform profoundly its migration policy and for Member States to share responsibility and show political will. This is the only way through which we can save thousands of human lives and stop human trafficking in Europe. The establishing of the Asylum and Migration Fund is just such a positive step towards the efficient management of migration by the EU. I welcome the fact that, under the proposal, the Member States will fulfil their obligations to centralise and develop all aspects of the common European asylum system, develop legal migration channels, promote the integration of third country nationals, ensure effective and sustainable returns and give meaning to the notion of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, migračná kríza spôsobila na európskej pôde politické zemetrasenie. Odkrýva rozdielne chápanie zahraničných a vnútrobezpečnostných politík jednotlivých členských štátov a tento schválený azylový migračný fond dokazuje, že Európska únia sa vydala na cestu politického pretláčania agendy bez snahy rozdielne prístupy zlaďovať.

Slovensko podobne ako aj ďalšie členské štáty deklarovalo vôľu riešiť migrantskú krízu tam, kde vzniká. Finančné prostriedky z tohto fondu budú pôsobiť presne opačným efektom, teda ako magnet pre ďalších žiadateľov o azyl.

Z mojich pracovných ciest, a bol som vo viacerých utečeneckých táboroch alebo prístavoch, kam migranti prichádzajú, môžem povedať, že s výnimkou priamych vojnových konfliktov ľudia chcú ostať vo svojich krajinách a budovať ich, rozvíjať ich.

Prezident Macron vo svojom liste Európanom načrtáva pakt s Afrikou, podpora rozvoja, investície, univerzitné partnerstvá. Podobne aj Európske kresťanské politické hnutie, ktorého som predsedom, navrhuje udržateľný ekonomický model, v ktorom sa najviac cenia vzťahy. Naše politické úsilie by malo smerovať presne tam. Zasahovanie Únie do národných kompetencií členských štátov je slepá ulica.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já tedy podám vysvětlení k Azylovému a migračnímu fondu. Myslím, že se stala nějaká chyba v tom systému. Děkuji za Vaši laskavost.

Z migrační krize plyne jednoznačné poučení, že systémové řešení musíme hledat jak uvnitř Evropské unie, tak také mimo Evropskou unii a je potřeba spolupracovat se třetími zeměmi, abychom odbourávali příčiny nelegální migrace přímo ve zdrojových zemích. Z tohoto důvodu je zastropování části rozpočtu, který může být vynaložen ve třetích zemích, na pět procent naprosto nelogické. Proto jsem hlasovala pro pozměňovací návrhy, které bohužel nebyly přijaty, a bylo odsouhlaseno zastropování pěti procent. Proto jsem nakonec v konečném hlasování nemohla podpořit pozici Evropského parlamentu k tomuto Azylovému a migračnímu fondu.

 

12.6. Finansiāla atbalsta instrumenta izveide robežu pārvaldībai un vīzām (A8-0089/2019 - Tanja Fajon)
Visu runu video
 

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Гласувах против този доклад, защото Европейската комисия предлага създаването на нов фонд за интегрирано управление на границите в рамките на следващия многогодишен финансов период, което дотук е добре. Но безспорно е необходима подкрепа на държавите членки, сред които и моята родина – България, която е външна граница на Европейския съюз със страна, която трудно вече можем да наречем наш партньор – Република Турция. Налице са доста спорни предложения, които за пореден път показват бюрократичен маниер и подход на работа за прокарване на крайни либерални политики и практики, замаскирани под един вид привидно полезни инструменти.

Навсякъде в документа незаконното преминаване на държавна граница е уредено с термина „неуредена“. Двата термина са напълно и коренно различни и това, че някой е влязъл незаконно на територията на държава – членка на Европейския съюз, не би предположило неуредици или каквато и да било нефункционалност на граничните органи към пограничните държави на Европейския съюз.

В доклада са внесени редица изисквания и препратки към инструменти за гарантиране на правата на човека на мигрантите, които в ситуация на заплаха за националната сигурност не биха могли да бъдат поставени над правата на гражданите на граничните държави – членки на Съюза.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE). – Mr President, as we all know the main goal of the European Union’s policy in the field of external border management is to develop and implement European integrated border management. However, this has to be done within defined limits and subject to the appropriate safeguards, hand—in—hand with the free movement of persons within the Union – a fundamental component of an area of freedom, security and justice. In this context, I warmly welcome the proposed regulation for the establishment of the instrument for financial support for border management and visas. I’m in favour of a financial framework with which to help address the evolving challenges more effectively. It is the right step towards real management and security of EU external borders.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem tuto zprávu podpořil, protože schengenský prostor a jeho existenci pokládám jednoznačně za jeden z největších úspěchů Evropské unie. Proto finanční podpora správy hranic je samozřejmě krok správným směrem. Společné řízení hranic a dostatečné financování je strategické rovněž pro případy bezpečnostních rizik, jakým byla například nebo stále je migrační krize. Dobrá správa hranic je také základních kamenem bezpečnosti schengenského prostoru a Evropské unie jako celku. Proto musím poněkud litovat, že nebyl schválen návrh, podle kterého prostředky tohoto fondu mohou být použity i na migrační krizi samy o sobě.

Do budoucna bychom se měli zaměřit i na systém koordinovaného sdílení policejních a celních sil na území Evropské unie. Já tento návrh pokládám za krok velmi správným směrem, a proto jsem ho podpořil.

 

12.7. Iekšējās drošības fonds (A8-0115/2019 - Monika Hohlmeier)
Visu runu video
 

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, Fondul pentru securitatea internă a Uniunii a fost instituit în 2014 pentru a facilita cooperarea transfrontalieră și schimburile de informații între statele membre. Acest Fond de securitatea internă a Uniunii va continua să existe și va fi alimentat din bani europeni și în perioada 2021 – 2027, tocmai pentru că securitatea internă și lupta împotriva criminalității organizate sunt foarte importante pentru toți cetățenii Europei. Trebuie să subliniez că a crescut, în ultimul timp, criminalitatea transfrontalieră.

De aceea, acești bani trebuie cheltuiți pentru a întări frontierele externe și, mai ales, pentru a cumpăra acea aparatură care să poată scana documentele de călătorie, pașapoartele, altele, pentru fiecare cetățean UE sau non-UE care intră și iese din Uniunea Europeană. Vorbim de scanare în baze de date, care se face foarte rapid, într-un minut și scanarea imaginii vizuale a feței. Toate astea înseamnă protecție și pentru toate astea există bani în acest fond de securitate, pe care statele membre trebuie să-i cheltuiască. Din păcate, nu toate statele membre i-au cheltuit.

 

12.8. Eiropas nodrošināta aizsardzība: tīrs gaiss visiem (B8-0156/2019)
Visu runu video
 

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Момчил Неков (S&D). – Г-н Председател, подкрепих настоящата резолюция, защото смятам, че околната среда е грижа на всеки един от нас. Отношението към нея е въпрос на възпитание в семейството, на социален пример, но и на политики.

За мое голямо съжаление по последни статистики столицата на моята родна страна България – София е на петнадесето място по замърсяване на околната среда и на въздуха в световен мащаб. Проблемите варират от горенето на неекологични суровини за отопление, което в немалко случаи е продиктувано и от социална бедност, и от ниско образование, до използването на стари автомобили и наличие на скъп градски транспорт.

Освен глобалните аспекти като справяне с вредните емисии от индустрията, идващи от фабрики и заводи, и с тези от транспортния сектор, трябва да се справим и със социалния фактор на неинформираност, бедност и неразбиране на проблема. Смятам, че трябва да инвестираме в информираност за състоянието на околната среда, за да не се налага да инвестираме после много повече в здравеопазване.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Urszula Krupa (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Wstrzymałam się od głosowania nad rezolucją „Czyste powietrze dla wszystkich” mimo zawartych ważnych problemów wymagających rozwiązania. Dla nas nie do zaakceptowania jest rezygnacja do 2030 roku z wykorzystania węgla do produkcji energii, gdyż energetyka w Polsce jest oparta na węglu ze względu na dostępność surowca w kraju i uzasadniona względami gospodarczymi i społecznymi. Nowoczesna niskoemisyjna energetyka jest potrzebna także Europie, stanowiąc gwarancję bezpieczeństwa w związku z energetyką jądrową oraz ze stron dostaw prądu wobec rozwoju niestabilnych i trudnych do prognozowania źródeł odnawialnych.

Konieczne i u nas obecnie prowadzone są badania naukowe w celu ograniczenia zanieczyszczeń i innowacyjnych technologii zmiany reżimu pracy bloków energetycznych o mocach powyżej dwustu megawatów do nowych wymagań związanych z poprawą elastyczności pracy i ograniczeniem emisji takich zanieczyszczeń jak tlenki, halogenki, bor czy rtęć.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Μαρία Σπυράκη (PPE). –Kύριε Πρόεδρε, υπερψήφισα τη στρατηγική για τον καθαρό αέρα παρά τις αντιρρήσεις του Ευρωπαϊκού Λαϊκού Κόμματος για δύο σοβαρούς λόγους. Πρώτα από όλα, τα εθνικά ανώτατα όρια για τους έξι βασικούς ρύπους που καταστρέφουν την υγεία μας, την υγεία των πολιτών και προκαλούν πολλές ασθένειες μειώνονται. Δεύτερον, γιατί η ρύπανση, όπως ξέρετε, δεν ξέρει σύνορα, δεν γνωρίζει σύνορα και γι’ αυτό οφείλουμε να επιμείνουμε οι διεθνείς κανόνες για τη διακρατική ρύπανση να έχουν ακόμη μεγαλύτερη απαίτηση από την πλευρά της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Κυρίως, όμως, πρέπει να κινητοποιήσουμε τους πολίτες και τις τοπικές αρχές ώστε να υιοθετούν φιλικές προς το περιβάλλον μεταφορές, και να αντικαθιστούν παλιά οχήματα με τη συμβολή της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Το παράδειγμα προς αποφυγήν σε αυτή την περίπτωση είναι το μοντέλο του ΟΑΣΘ στη Θεσσαλονίκη. Λεωφορεία που μολύνουν τον αέρα μας, δεν εξυπηρετούν τους πολίτες και, αντί επενδύσεων σε νέα οχήματα, μόνο προεκλογικές προσλήψεις.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Гласувах „въздържал се“ по този доклад, защото от една страна подобряването на качеството на въздуха следва безспорно да бъде приоритет за всеки един от нас. Проблемите с изискванията за качеството на въздуха са важни и тяхното обсъждане следва да бъде поставено на първо място в дневния ни ред.

Въпреки че качеството на въздуха в Европа се подобрява с времето, все още на много места има превишаване на стандартите за качество на въздуха, по-специално за прахови частици и азотен диоксид. Съюзът се справя с качеството на въздуха чрез редица специфични правни мерки: приложение за мобилност с ниски емисии, енергиен съюз, реформа на общата селскостопанска политика, нови национални тавани за емисии, нови ограничения на замърсяването на въздуха на големите горивни инсталации.

Съюзът отделя значителни средства за проекти за намаляване на замърсяването на въздуха. Въздухът в Европа няма да се подобри без съвместни, съгласувани усилия. И решението не е залагане на нови правила, при положение че две трети от държавите на Съюза имат проблеми с прилагането на сегашните правила и нормите, заложени през 2008 г., но и преповтарящи тези от 90-те години. Трябва да се намери равновесието между действията и социалните разходи. Основният приоритет на България е намаляване на замърсяването на въздуха от нискокачественото битово отопление, особено в циганските махали.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nel mondo ogni cinque secondi muore una persona a causa dell'esposizione all'inquinamento atmosferico: ogni ora muoiono più di 700 persone. Le conseguenze di queste condizioni climatiche sono senza appello, visto che il 90 % della popolazione mondiale è esposta all'inquinamento atmosferico. L'inquinamento dell'aria causa 7 milioni di morti premature ogni anno nel mondo, di cui 600 000 bambini di cinque anni o meno: più vittime di quante ne possono fare le guerre, le uccisioni, la tubercolosi, l'AIDS e la malaria messi insieme.

Ricordo le parole del presidente americano Trump all'indomani dell'insediamento: quando ritirò gli USA dall'accordo di Parigi, disse: "A me stanno a cuore gli interessi dei cittadini di Pittsburgh". Assurdo! A me, invece, stanno a cuore gli interessi di tutti quei miliardi di persone che non inquinano, ma subiscono gli effetti dell'inquinamento atmosferico e dei cambiamenti climatici.

Ho un figlio dell'età della piccola Greta e uno ancora più piccolo. Ho paura che un giorno mi diranno: "Papà, la vostra generazione è ancora più stupida di quella precedente", quella della bomba atomica, per intenderci.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, hyvä ilmanlaatu on olennainen asia meidän kaikkien hyvinvoinnille, minkä johdosta oli helppo äänestää tämän tärkeän asian puolesta.

Olen erittäin tyytyväinen siihen, että päätöslauselmassa huomioidaan myös sisäilman epäpuhtaudet. Ihmiset viettävät valtaosan ajastaan sisätiloissa, joissa ilmanlaatu voi olla huomattavastikin saastuneempaa kuin ulkona. Meillä on paljon ihmisiä, jotka joutuvat loppuelämänsä sairastamaan altistuttuaan huonolle sisäilmalle. Erään arvion mukaan esimerkiksi Suomessa on jopa kahdeksansataatuhatta ihmistä, jotka altistuvat päivittäin sisäilmaongelmille niin kodeissa kuin työpaikoillakin. Monet altistuneista ovat menettäneet jopa työkykynsä.

Home- ja kosteusvauriot vaivaavat lukuisia julkisia ja yksityisiä rakennuksia, kuten esimerkiksi päiväkoteja, kouluja, toimistokiinteistöjä, sairaaloita ja asuntoja. Puhdas ilma on tärkeä osa meidän kaikkien terveyttä ja hyvinvointia, minkä johdosta kannatan ilmanlaadun parantamiseen tähtääviä toimia.

 

12.9. EĀDD veiktie turpmākie pasākumi divus gadus pēc EP ziņojuma par ES stratēģisko paziņojumu pret to vērstas trešo personu propagandas apkarošanai (A8-0031/2019 - Anna Elżbieta Fotyga)
Visu runu video
 

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jiří Payne (EFDD). – Pane předsedající, i na evropském kontinentě se potýkáme s dezinformacemi, s propagandou, s falešnými informacemi. I v Evropské unii se pokoušíme s tím něco dělat, ale otázkou je, jak to máme vlastně dělat.

Evropská unie se už před časem rozhodla, že bude řešit situaci regulacemi, ukládáním dalších povinností těm, kdo poskytují prostory na serverech, těm, kdo provozují sociální sítě, chce regulovat vlastně veřejnou diskusi na internetu. Zásadní problém totiž je, jak určit, co to je vlastně propaganda. Kdo to má určovat? Je odvěkým pokušením všech autoritativních a totalitních režimů určovat, řeknu-li to biblicky, dobré a zlé. A dokonce se dá říci, že zpravidla proti propagandě nějakou regulací bojují právě ty režimy, které samy svou vlastní propagandu provozují. Na řešení tohoto problému existuje jedna jediná možnost, známe ji od dob antického Řecka. Je to svobodná a férová diskuse. Jedině tak se lze dobrat pravdy, jedině tak se můžeme zbavit nějaké propagandy. A proto jsem nemohl souhlasit s regulací, která jde proti férové diskusi, která se snaží podporovat regulace.

 

12.10. Asociācijas nolīgums starp ES un Monako, Andoru un Sanmarīno (A8-0074/2019 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar)
Visu runu video
 

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cécile Kashetu Kyenge (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, con questo voto arriva una conferma dall'Europa. Abbiamo colto l'opportunità offerta dai negoziati di associazione con la Repubblica di San Marino e dimostrato il valore di un rafforzamento delle relazioni e dell'integrazione con l'Unione europea.

I nostri amici di San Marino sono sempre stati al centro della storia europea e il partenariato con l'Unione si basa, da sempre, su un complesso di valori politici e culturali comuni. I negoziati devono proseguire. Concluderemo prima della fine di questo mandato una dichiarazione politica congiunta raccomandando alla Commissione e al Servizio europeo per l'azione esterna di concludere i negoziati quanto prima e comunque entro i prossimi due anni.

 

13. Balsojumu labojumi un nodomi balsot (sk. protokolu)
Visu runu video
 

(La seduta è sospesa alle 13.44)

 
  
  

VORSITZ: EVELYNE GEBHARDT
Vizepräsidentin

 

14. Sēdes atsākšana
Visu runu video
 

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

 

15. Iepriekšējās sēdes protokola apstiprināšana (sk. protokolu)
Visu runu video

16. Ieteikumi attiecībā uz ES un ASV sarunu sākšanu (debates)
Visu runu video
MPphoto
 

  Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zu den Empfehlungen für die Aufnahme von Verhandlungen zwischen der EU und den USA (2019/2537(RSP)).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the joint agreement between President Juncker and President Trump of last July outlined a focused and positive trade agenda with the USA, our first and most important trade and investment partner, and it has helped to de-escalate tensions in this very critical relationship.

Since last July, I have met my counterpart, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, five times to review the implementation of the work programme identified in the joint statement. At our meeting last week, we evaluated progress in the work streams of the executive working group and I debriefed him on the process for adoption of the EU’s negotiating authorisations. I conveyed to him that there is momentum in the Council to conclude, in the weeks ahead, the discussions on authorisation for both negotiations – one on elimination of tariffs on industrial products and the other one on conformity assessment. I expressed our commitment fully to respect the implementation of the joint statement as it stands, and reiterated that future negotiations would not touch upon agriculture.

I am sure that this House is fully aware of the importance of the transatlantic trade relationship, which has been and will remain a central artery of the world economy.

The carefully defined, narrow and meaningful agenda of the working group can be to our mutual advantage. Given the size of the EU-US trade relationship, elimination of tariffs, even though they are today already moderately low, will lead to important cost reductions for economic operators. Many industrial sectors on both sides of the Atlantic operate with small profit margins due to the size and efficiency of our respective markets. A limited yet very meaningful agreement on industrial goods and tariffs would give transatlantic companies of all sizes a comparative advantage and would support their global capacity to compete. We estimate an increase in bilateral EU-US export of 8%, and respectively 9%, and that is around EUR 26 billion, so quite a lot of money.

In a different strand, our work on conformity assessment, standards and regulatory issues could leverage the resulting economic benefits for a free-trade agreement for industrial products. We launched consultations with stakeholders last week, inviting them to come forward with proposals, and we’re looking forward to receiving their support for our discussions with the USA in this field.

I am fully aware that some of you here fear we will be negotiating under threat. In that regard, I would like to assure you that I have conveyed a very clear message to our counterparts – as late as last week and also before that – that unilateral trade actions from the USA on EU imports would risk damaging our efforts to strengthen transatlantic relations at a critical time. I’ve also made it clear that, while it would not be of our choosing, if the USA did take unilateral trade measures against us we would immediately respond. Indeed, the negotiations would stop – that is clearly provided for in the draft negotiating directive – and we would also promptly adopt rebalancing measures. I hope, of course, that wisdom will prevail, and that this will not happen, so we can continue to work towards a mutually beneficial outcome to build this relationship.

The timely adoption of these mandates would be an important signal of the EU’s good faith in relation to honouring the joint presidential statements last July: no more, no less. Delay in the adoption risks initiating an unconstructive cycle of exchanges and allegations on the EU’s commitment to the joint statement. So I sincerely hope that you will support our negotiations with the USA. Your support is, of course, very important. It would show unity among the EU institutions, and unity is our strength.

In contrast, and this is important, a vote by this House against these limited negotiations would be a vote against the well-balanced and proportionate approach of the July statement, which we deployed to reduce trade tensions. It would therefore be a vote in favour of maintaining current trade tensions with the USA at a time when ideas to bring down these tensions are on the table.

Especially regarding cars, as we have included that in our proposal, it is much better for the transatlantic relationship to bring car tariffs down to zero percent. It’s better for the producers, for the workers and consumers: much better than slapping additional tariffs on cars and car parts.

Let me assure you that I will listen very carefully to this debate, to your ideas and recommendations, and I would reiterate that, once we have started negotiations, we will actively be informing this House on a regular basis on all aspects of our discussions, as we always do.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, zunächst möchte ich Ihnen meinen Respekt ausdrücken. Ihre Bemühungen, die transatlantischen Beziehungen wieder zu normalisieren, sind wichtig, und sie können nur durch konstruktive Verhandlungen zu nachhaltigen Resultaten führen. Deshalb empfehle ich diesem Haus, sich in der morgigen Abstimmung verantwortungsvoll zu verhalten und sich für ein solches Mandat auszusprechen.

Es ist in unser aller Interesse, mögliche Gemeinsamkeiten mit den USA auszuloten und diese für eine Entschärfung der Handelsspannungen auch zu nutzen. Wer jetzt jedoch plötzlich verlangt, die Kommission sollte harte Kante zeigen, nur diese Sprache könnte Trump verstehen, schert sich nicht um all diejenigen, die durch mögliche Sanktionen, sei es auf Autos, sei es auf andere Produkte, den Schaden tagtäglich zu tragen hätten. Stattdessen sollten wir gerade aufgrund der Unstimmigkeiten zwischen der EU und den USA wieder an den Verhandlungstisch zurückkehren. Was haben wir denn zu verlieren?

Sollten diese Verhandlungen erfolglos verlaufen, war es zumindest ein konstruktiver Versuch, die Beziehungen auf neue Beine zu stellen. Sollten sie zu Resultaten führen, haben wir nicht nur einen Handelskonflikt entschärft, sondern auch noch Zölle und Handelshindernisse abbauen können. Und letztendlich möchte ich noch einen einzigen Satz hinzufügen: Die Welt bewegt sich, sie schreitet voran, ob wir verhandeln oder nicht, und ich glaube, es ist die Pflicht der großen Demokratien, zusammenzuarbeiten.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bernd Lange, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! „We won’t negotiate with a gun to our head“ – das war in vielen Pressestatements in der letzten Zeit das Prinzip der Europäischen Union: wir verhandeln nicht unter Erpressungsdruck. Nun frage ich mich: Was hat sich geändert? Die Zölle der USA auf Stahl und Aluminium sind in Kraft, es gibt zusätzliche Zölle auf spanische Oliven. Wir haben die Drohung unter Herrn Trump für zusätzliche Zölle auf Autos und Kraftfahrzeugteile, er hat gerade eine Untersuchung abgeschlossen. Es hat sich hinsichtlich des Drucks der USA nichts geändert.

Auf unserer Seite haben wir viele Zugeständnisse gemacht. Der Import von Flüssiggas aus den USA ist um 180 % gestiegen, der Import von Sojabohnen ist um 112 % gestiegen. Die Kommission hat im Eilverfahren die Nachhaltigkeit der amerikanischen Sojabohnen bestätigt, zwei Monate nur, und die dürfen jetzt auch in Biodiesel eingemischt werden, also zusätzlich eine Importsteigerung für amerikanische Sojabohnen. Also wir haben als Europäische Union schon eine ganze Reihe von Zugeständnissen gemacht. Ich frage: Wo sind die Zugeständnisse der Vereinigten Staaten? Wo wird der Druck der Vereinigten Staaten abgebaut? Ich sehe da nichts. Und solange das so ist, müssen wir sehr selbstbewusst unsere Position formulieren.

Und zum Zweiten: Im Juli letzten Jahres haben wir beschlossen, kein Abkommen abzuschließen, in dem keine Referenz und Umsetzung des Pariser Klimaschutzabkommens vorhanden ist. Heute, wenige Stunden vor dieser Debatte, haben wir über Klimaschutz diskutiert. Alles das findet sich in den Mandatsvorschlägen nicht wieder, nicht mal ein impact assessement über Klimaauswirkungen dieses Abkommens. Nein, lassen Sie uns unsere Anforderungen selbstbewusst formulieren! Denn für mich gilt immer noch: Die Geltung des Rechts wollen wir durchsetzen und das Recht des Stärkeren ablehnen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, transatlantic trade is a cornerstone of the global trading system. Our political group supports the Commission’s two draft mandates, one on tariffs on industrial products and another on conformity assessments. They will not only help to de—escalate rising tensions but also, and more importantly, would bring substantial benefits to EU businesses and consumers.

For instance, the elimination of high tariffs on manufactured goods, such as clothing and footwear, would open up opportunities for EU exporters and increase the international competitiveness of our industries. In addition, our SMEs would benefit from the elimination of duplicate testing, inspection and certification requirements that would be possible with a conformity assessment agreement.

I would add, however, one crucial condition for these negotiations: they cannot be successfully concluded without the tariffs on steel and aluminium being removed. More clarity is also needed on the inclusion of the automotive sector, as it is key to ensuring World Trade Organisation compatibility, and on how the rules of origin will work.

I believe too that the EU and the USA must both build on and learn from the four years of negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, especially in relation to possible ‘quick wins’ on tariffs, customs facilitation, standards and regulatory cooperation. The ECR Group hopes that this agreement can be the foundation to build on in years to come.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, rules-based trade is important for our open economies, especially because the majority of growth in the next decades will take place outside of the EU.

But when we look at China, we see a country not respecting trade rules and sadly now, when we look at the United States, we also see an administration that has unjustly labelled the EU as a national security threat in order to justify steel and aluminium tariffs, while, of course, reminding us of our obligations under the NATO alliance. It doesn’t quite add up, and the escalations in our trade relations with the US have serious consequences. It is therefore crucial to keep talking and to try to come to agreements. Somebody has to be the adult in the room. For those in the House who do not want to support the European Commission here, I hope you understand that it will be gladly explained by Ambassador Sondland and other officials of the Trump administration as proof of the EU’s inability to make decisions, and that is not in our interest. Instead, by supporting the Commission opening negotiations on the basis of a limited scope (this is not the defrosting of TTIP, it is the consequence of the agreement between Juncker and Trump) but spelling out very clear conditions on our part before closing them, we engage in the most meaningful way.

I would also like to remind colleagues that they should not use the agreements we make with third countries as the weapons to beat those countries with, while we in fact lack the foundations of a bilateral agreement or negotiations with countries that we do trade with – think about China.

Let us be clear about what is to gain here, but also be very very mindful of what we could lose. My group will support the European Commission, and I believe we have to be strong and united as Europe, especially when dealing with the confrontations of the Trump administration.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Yannick Jadot, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, Donald Trump est celui qui, il y a quelques années, disait «le réchauffement climatique est un canular total. C’est un concept inventé par et pour les Chinois, afin de rendre le secteur manufacturier américain non compétitif».

Il y a encore quelques semaines, lorsque le Congrès américain a rédigé un rapport sur le climat, avec 300 scientifiques qui soulignaient les effets dramatiques du changement climatique, y compris pour les États-Unis, le président Trump disait «je n’y crois pas».

Ce même président Trump, durant tous ces derniers mois, n’a cessé de souffler sur les braises du Brexit, soutenant le Brexit le plus dur, critiquant même Theresa May dans sa volonté de trouver un accord avec l’Union européenne.

Et c’est avec ce président que vous voulez aujourd’hui négocier, c’est à ce président que vous donnez une partie de notre souveraineté, une partie de nos valeurs, cela a été dit. J’entends même nos amis sociaux-démocrates retrouver, dans cette période électorale, la raison, le bon sens.

On ne négocie pas avec un président qui nous met un revolver sur la tempe! On ne négocie pas avec un président qui nous taxe le matin, qui nous menace l’après-midi sur la sidérurgie, sur les voitures et demain sur je ne sais quoi!

Donc, si nous avons du courage, si, dans cette période, nous voulons montrer que l’Union européenne est une puissance économique, une puissance politique, si nous voulons montrer que l’Union européenne défend ses valeurs sur le climat et sur tous les sujets sociaux, environnementaux, nous ne pouvons pas amorcer de négociations avec les États-Unis. C’est de la tartufferie de dire: «Commençons, et on verra bien ce qui se passera au fil du temps». Non, on ne peut pas négocier aujourd’hui avec les États-Unis, parce que président Trump ne représente pas nos valeurs, n’incarne pas nos valeurs, est un danger pour notre souveraineté économique et donc pour notre souveraineté démocratique.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin Malmström, Präsident Trump drohte uns kürzlich als Europäische Union: „I will tariff the hell out ouf you“, wenn wir uns nicht auf ein Handelsabkommen zu seinen Bedingungen einlassen. Das klingt wie ein Spruch aus einem schlechten Western. Sie selbst sagten im Spiegel noch vor einem Jahr: „Wir verhandeln erst, wenn Trump uns die Pistole wieder von der Brust nimmt“, und jetzt wollen sie kapitulieren?

Ich bin enttäuscht, dass Sie dem Rat vorgeschlagen haben, Ihnen trotz verschärfter Drohkulisse mit Strafzöllen auf Autos ein Verhandlungsmandat für ein Abkommen zu erteilen. Sie werfen dafür sogar eigene Prinzipien über Bord: Obwohl das substanzielle Abkommen mehr als 90 % aller Güter betreffen soll, die zwischen der EU und den USA gehandelt werden, verweigern Sie eine Studie zur Abschätzung der ökonomischen, sozialen und ökologischen Folgen. Es ist nicht einmal ein Standardkapitel mit Regeln für den Schutz von Beschäftigten und Umwelt in der Produktion dieser Güter vorgesehen. Es gibt keine Konsultation mit der Bevölkerung. Zudem verschließen Sie die Augen vor Trumps Entscheidung, das Pariser Klimaschutzabkommen zu verlassen – meine Kollegen haben schon dazu gesprochen. Nach unseren Grundsätzen hat sich die Regierung Trump damit als Verhandlungspartner selbst disqualifiziert. Sie wissen, was Trump vorhat. Er will die Öffnung unseres Marktes für amerikanische Agrargüter erzwingen. Das wäre aber das Ende für Tausende unserer Bauern, und für unsere nachhaltige Landwirtschaft auch. Haben Sie denn die TTIP—Proteste von Millionen Europäern vergessen? Im Gegenzug will er nichts geben, sondern nur auf die Verhängung von Strafzöllen auf Autos zu diesem Zeitpunkt verzichten. Frau Kommissarin, ich werbe für eine Mehrheit für unsere Anträge in der morgigen Abstimmung, dem Rat zu empfehlen, kein Mandat für diese Verhandlungen zu erteilen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tiziana Beghin, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, la nostra posizione su questa seconda versione del TTIP non è cambiata, ma quella della Commissione evidentemente sì, visto che da fonti americane l'agricoltura sarà inclusa nell'accordo. E certo! Lo sappiamo, fa troppa gola agli americani. Ma vede, non siamo noi a dover tendere la mano agli Stati Uniti. La nostra parte l'abbiamo già fatta importando il 77 % in più della loro soia e il 181 % in più del loro gas naturale. Ora è il momento che siano loro a venire incontro a noi. Prima di iniziare anche solo a negoziare, vogliamo che l'amministrazione USA sospenda i dazi su acciaio e alluminio e interrompa ogni azione ostile sulle nostre auto.

Vogliamo fare un nuovo accordo? Benissimo! Annulliamo, però, il mandato negoziale di quello vecchio, ripartiamo da zero e cancelliamo per sempre quel famigerato TTIP che ha terrorizzato per anni i cittadini europei. E, per carità, non svendiamo la nostra agricoltura.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  France Jamet, au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, cette résolution est une véritable mystification.

L’esprit du texte d’origine a été complètement perverti en commission par une alliance d’ultralibéraux composés du PPE, de l’ALDE et de l’ECR, puisque certains de nos collègues ont choisi de sacrifier la nécessité politique à des intérêts boutiquiers. Là où nous devions exiger des garanties solides face aux États-Unis avant de songer à négocier, nous voulons maintenant négocier avant d’obtenir des garanties solides sur le secteur automobile, sur l’exclusion de l’agriculture avant les négociations et enfin sur une étude d’impact concernant le secteur de la pêche.

Qui peut croire qu’un accord que nous mettrons 10 ans, 15 ans, 20 ans à négocier ne sera pas signé, si une seule de ces conditions n’était pas remplie à la fin des négociations? Personne. Nous devons impérativement poser nos conditions aux États-Unis avant de nous mettre à la table des négociations, et surtout pas l’inverse!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, la Comisión Juncker ha tenido que rectificar el tiro de su política comercial después de la decisión de los Estados Unidos de retirarse del acuerdo de comercio e inversión. La verdad es que las sanciones o los aranceles sobre el aluminio, el acero y la aceituna negra española que tienen que ser erradicados no son el mejor comienzo. En ese contexto, la declaración de julio del año pasado y estas directivas de negociación para los acuerdos de reducción de los aranceles de los productos industriales y de las barreras no arancelarias son un giro interesante.

Pero, señora comisaria, es importante mantener los principios —por cierto, hay aquí colegas que invocan los principios de nuestra política comercial cuando no han creído, no creen y los utilizan como excusa para rechazar los acuerdos de libre comercio—. Es importante, señora comisaria, luchar por un comercio basado en reglas sobre la reforma de la Organización Mundial de Comercio, preservar los principios de París y, sobre todo, señora presidenta, no renunciar a los acuerdos en curso: Mercosur, Australia y Nueva Zelanda.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – Madam President, I would like to say to Madam Commissioner that we all agree here that the transatlantic relationship is facing an important number of challenges and disruptions in the short term. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that the long-term fundamentals remain, and have to remain strong. It is important today for the EU to take all necessary safeguard measures to protect the EU internal market, our workers and our industries. That means being firm and rapid in counteracting any new tariffs and measures taken by the US administration, but at the same time to do our utmost to appease the tensions and avoid a trade war, which could escalate and heavily impact on both sides.

We know well that there is no better way to avoid new tariffs than through dialogue and negotiations. This is why I trust the Commission to do the right thing and I welcome the efforts of President Juncker and Commissioner Malmström and support starting talks for limited sectorial negotiations with the United States. I will conclude with one question, Madam Commissioner. If we say no to the talks with the United States, with whom will we say yes in the future?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Dita Charanzová (ALDE). – Madam President, the US and European have always been natural partners. We champion common values and face common threats together. As in any relationship, there have been highs and lows. Despite the occasional obstacle, the fundamental common interests of our relationship remain strong.

Last year was clearly a low for our trade. While responding firmly to the tariffs on steel and aluminium, the EU at the same time showed it is willing to cooperate to find solutions. The message was clear: we need to work together; we need this for our businesses and the jobs they create in Europe. Our markets, resources, security and citizens are highly interdependent, and this will only increase. Therefore I hope this Parliament will clearly support the launch of the negotiations. We can always win through negotiations, but we will only lose if we close the door to the US.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, Kollegen! Der Besuch von Präsident Juncker im Juli im Weißen Haus war ein Geniestreich. Hätte die Kommission auf der Basis der Ergebnisse dieses Besuchs schnell ein Mandat vorgelegt, wir stünden heute besser da. Aber mit einer falschen Taktik haben sie politisches Kapital und Zeit verplempert, und dies aus großer Furcht vor einer öffentlichen Debatte und aus unrealistischer Einschätzung der Hartleibigkeit der US-Administration. Sie sagen gerade, Frau Kommissarin: ...

‘unilateral trade actions would risk damaging our efforts of strengthening transatlantic trade relations’.

So sprechen furchtsame Seelen. Herr Lighthizer dagegen spricht zu uns im Kommandoton. Und da kann ich nur sagen: Wenn man sich benimmt wie ein getretener Hund, dann wird man viele Fußtritte erleben. Ich bin fürs Verhandeln, aber nicht auf der Basis eines so schwachen Mandats. Deswegen müssen wir das ablehnen und zurückkommen und Sie zwingen, ein besseres Mandat vorzulegen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lola Sánchez Caldentey (GUE/NGL). – Señora presidenta, esta mañana hemos debatido sobre el cambio climático y la derecha se ha llenado la boca de compromisos vacíos. Hasta el comisario Cañete parecía preocupado por el futuro del planeta.

Digo yo que tan preocupados no estarán cuando han vetado ustedes a Greta Thunberg, de solo 16 años. Les da miedo a ustedes escuchar la verdad.

La mayoría de las políticas europeas profundizan en la dinámica suicida de acelerar el cambio climático, y aquí tenemos el ejemplo perfecto: resucitar el TTIP. Le cambian el nombre, lo trocean y piensan que así nos pasará desapercibido.

Comisaria Malmström, ustedes se comprometieron a que la implementación del Acuerdo de París fuese una condición sine qua non para firmar tratados comerciales. Todos sabemos aquí lo que Trump piensa del cambio climático y que reniega del Acuerdo, pero los negocios son los negocios y parece que eso a ustedes les pesa más que el futuro del planeta.

Como ya hemos vencido una vez al TTIP, ya sabemos cómo hacerlo: con información y con movilización. Pero hoy, además, hay una juventud en pie junto con un movimiento feminista que no van a permitirles sacar adelante políticas que comprometan nuestro futuro.

Necesitamos otro modelo comercial, hagámoslo mientras estemos a tiempo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFDD). – Madam President, German car manufacturers exported cars to the USA to the value of more than USD 20 billion in 2017. In 2015, the figure was over USD 26 billion, and this notwithstanding the fact that German car manufacturers have little or no input in the formulation of US regulations. Nonetheless, they export very successfully.

But let me come to the key point, that US tariffs on imported cars are 2.5%. EU tariffs on cars exported from the USA, by comparison, are 10%. It is asymmetric. The US administration has a point, whatever colleagues may say. And, in consequence, US exports of cars to the EU are a tiny fraction: only USD 48 million, as against USD 20 billion.

Now to the resolution. The resolution criticises the USA for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement but, Mr Jadot, you cannot have the government that you want in someone else’s country. Indeed, you can’t always have the government that you want in your own country. I certainly know that now and I have known it for some years.

What we’re looking at here is the politicisation of trade. The politicised paraphernalia in this resolution shows how difficult and tricky it is for the EU to finalise trade agreements, and that is the penalty that the people of the EU Member States pay for the politicisation of trade, which is aided and abetted by so many colleagues and is something I deplore.

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Yannick Jadot (Verts/ALE), question «carton bleu». – Cher collègue, je n’ai pas bien compris si vous étiez convaincu du dérèglement climatique ou si vous n’étiez pas convaincu du dérèglement climatique. Je n’ai pas bien compris si la Grande-Bretagne, qui a été un très grand pays dans la communauté internationale, croyait toujours aux valeurs universelles de cette communauté internationale. Et puis je n’ai pas bien compris si le gouvernement en Grande-Bretagne était aujourd’hui, dans ces moments de vote, votre gouvernement!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFDD), blue-card answer. – I think that’s two questions. If you don’t mind, I’ll just answer one. In this debate we’re discussing trade, not climate change, and this is a serious point that I’m making. It is simply that you should not, with your considerable political expertise, tack irrelevant things about climate change – or, for that matter, other irrelevant things – onto what should be basic ‘plain vanilla’ trade agreements. If you do so, it will be costly to the peoples of Europe whom you claim to represent.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Christophe Hansen (PPE). – Madam President, trade conflicts begin when one country decides to violate international trade rules to undercut another country’s industries. This is exactly where we stand in our relations with the United States. Our aim here should be to stand up strongly for our export jobs. Those who seek to torpedo negotiations with the US are playing poker with the jobs of our people. Let’s not forget that 88% of the EU companies exporting to the United States are SMEs. The European Commission should pursue a win-win agreement, strictly within the scope of the negotiation mandate, and respect the July conditions for concluding an agreement; and we should resist any American effort to include agriculture. As JFK once said, we should never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate, and that’s what we should do if we have the political courage, Mr Jadot.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jeppe Kofod (S&D). – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, I think this question as to whether we should restart negotiations is very important for us. I think it’s clear to everybody that the Trump White House is undermining all that we stand for, not only in Europe but also in much of America. I am vice-chairing the delegation to the US and I have many colleagues in Congress who have the total opposite opinion of Mr Trump, Robert Lighthizer, Wilbur Ross and all these people who are occupying the administration in what they think.

Should we then start discussions with people that we don’t agree with? People who are undermining the rule of law on trade, people who are undermining the World Trade Organisation. I think we should do it because Europe is a strong superpower when it comes to trade. We are the ones who are in the driving seat and we would never accept, in trade negotiations with the US, any deal before they lift their unilateral tariffs on us.

If you can restore some sensitivity and the rule of law, then we should take it, but we should not do it under pressure.

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bill Etheridge (EFDD), blue-card question. – I just want to clarify from your speech, Mr Kofod, whether I am right in characterising what you said as being that the European or EU superpower, as you put it, should not talk trade with an administration that it disagrees with, even if that administration happens to be in the one real superpower in the world – the USA – and that you would rather talk to the people in opposition than to those currently in a position to do a trade deal? Surely – and, believe me, I understand what it’s like to see a government in place that I disagree with – if we’re talking about trade that affects all of our constituents, all of our countries, there should be discussion about trade for jobs and employment and careers?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jeppe Kofod (S&D), blue-card answer. – Well, I think you misunderstood me. I think we can talk to the US administration, despite all of the differences we have, because the US is much more than the current administration, the Trump Administration; the US is Congress, where a lot of people fiercely disagree on the trade policy that this White House under Trump is doing. What I said is that Europe is a trade superpower: we uphold the rule of law when it comes to trade. We want to ensure that the World Trade Organisation continues. We want to ensure a level playing field in trade. We want to integrate sustainability. We want to integrate and fight against climate change in our trade agreements. We should talk from a position of strength, not be too weak to talk to the people we disagree with.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mireille D’Ornano (EFDD). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, voici que l’Union européenne a décidé de rouvrir des négociations pour passer un accord commercial avec les États-Unis. Pourtant, les peuples rejettent avec vigueur les traités de libre-échange qui les appauvrissent. L’accord global prévu avec les États-Unis se trouve dans une véritable impasse depuis l’élection de Donald Trump.

Au lieu de prendre acte de cet échec, les technocrates essaient de trouver des astuces de remplacement. Cet accord dont nous discutons aujourd’hui en fait partie. Or, il n’y a rien de positif à attendre de cette négociation. Comment croire que l’agriculture en sera réellement exclue, alors que M. Juncker a déjà accepté d’augmenter les importations de soja américain pour pouvoir vendre des voitures allemandes. Il est temps d’opter pour un autre modèle, plus durable, plus social, plus respectueux des hommes et de l’environnement.

Chaque jour, l’Union européenne démontre qu’il n’y a qu’une chose à faire, en sortir pour s’en sortir.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Die Präsidentin. – Für das nun folgende Verfahren der spontanen Wortmeldungen habe ich eine große Bitte: Ich habe zehn Anmeldungen und möchte sie alle wahrnehmen. Die Grundvoraussetzung hierfür ist allerdings, dass Sie sich bitte an Ihre Redezeiten halten. Sonst werde ich nicht alle zehn zu Wort kommen lassen.

Spontane Wortmeldungen

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Mamy porozumienie z Kanadą, z Japonią, niedawno uchwaliliśmy także porozumienie, które będzie wdrażane z Afganistanem, a nie chcemy porozumienia ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi.

Skrajna lewica i skrajna prawica uważają, że negocjacje należy zaczynać od zera lub ich w ogóle nie prowadzić. Dlaczego? Bo nie podoba im się Donald Trump. Ale Amerykanom się spodobał. Może się pomylili. A czy w Europie nie było pomyłek wyborczych? Brytyjczycy nie pomylili się z brexitem? Obserwując parlament brytyjski, mam wrażenie, że posłowie grają w piłkę nożną na boisku do koszykówki, tylko jeszcze o tym nie wiedzą.

Błędy się zdarzają. Natomiast tak poważny partner, z którym mamy bardzo ważne powiązania w zakresie bezpieczeństwa i obrony, musi być naszym partnerem strategicznym także w umowach handlowych. Chcę na to zwrócić uwagę, podkreślając wagę i znaczenie stosunków handlowych ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, defiendo las relaciones transatlánticas y el diálogo como mecanismo para resolver los problemas a los que hacemos frente, pero, sinceramente, no creo que se den las condiciones para negociar un acuerdo comercial con los Estados Unidos en los términos planteados por la Comisión.

Creo que en política lo más importante es la coherencia entre lo que se dice y lo que se hace. Y me quiero dirigir a todos los jóvenes que están aquí, que están firmemente comprometidos con la lucha contra el cambio climático y que nos piden a los políticos acción para resolver ese futuro. Y si nosotros decimos y aprobamos en este Parlamento —y las instituciones europeas han manifestado el firme compromiso con la lucha contra el cambio climático—, no podemos hacer una excepción con un acuerdo comercial con los Estados Unidos porque se basa en la industria ―que es la que tiene efectos más contaminantes― para excluirlo de esta situación.

Y no podemos negociar con quien no nos ha considerado un socio fiable, con quien nos ha atacado imponiendo aranceles basados en leyes que no se justifican porque amenazan la seguridad —se supone que la Unión Europea amenaza su seguridad—; esas no son las condiciones para establecer un diálogo como debería ser en el futuro.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjedavajuća, Sjedinjene Američke Države naš su glavni globalni partner i u tom smislu logično je očekivati dugoročnu obostranu posvećenost olakšavanju i povećanju trgovinske razmjene.

Drago mi je da se novo poglavlje u trgovinskim odnosima otvara relativno brzo nakon kraha pregovora o TTIP-u. Nadam se da ovoga puta nećemo ponoviti stare pogreške i da će novi sporazum obuhvaćati sve industrije te da nećemo robovati uzaludnim pokušajima harmonizacije standarda proizvodnje, nego otvoriti prostor međusobnom priznavanju postojećih standarda uz posebnu oznaku na proizvodima.

 Također se nadam da naši pregovarači neće za pregovarački stol donijeti europske predrasude o predsjedniku Trumpu i njegovoj administraciji. Budemo li kroz ove pregovore slali političke poruke o Trumpovoj vladavini umjesto da se fokusiramo na biznis, sigurno nećemo uspjeti. Pitanje je onda hoće li, i kada, biti trećeg pokušaja. Zato, budimo mudri.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, quiero expresar mi acuerdo con este mandato negociador por tres razones. Nuestra economía va a crecer más en los próximos años gracias a lo que estamos facturando en el exterior.

Las tres razones: una, prepararnos para esta situación es obligatorio para la economía europea y fundamental para que las pymes puedan operar en aquel país; dos, estos acuerdos son la única vía para defender y extender nuestros estándares medioambientales y sociales; y tres, esta no es una actuación aislada.

Europa ha respondido a la amenaza del neoproteccionismo y las guerras comerciales con la firma de acuerdos muy importantes, como el recientemente cerrado con Japón y los que se negocian con otros actores que obligan a todos a moverse.

Quiero subrayar que si todo esto es posible es porque se está gestionando en femenino. Las listas de agravios, las palabras gruesas, la testosterona le encantan a Trump —es verdad, le encantan—, pero esconde en ese ruido el fracaso que han cosechado las recetas que defiende.

Y la comisaria Malmström atesora, además del currículum, una capacidad para negociar, pero conduce esto con inteligencia emocional. Por eso la política espectáculo, la del titular cortoplacista y tuitera que se lleva hoy, no va a conseguir que usted se levante de la mesa y yo...

(La presidenta retira la palabra a la oradora).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, entering trade negotiations with the US at this time would mean colluding in their attempt to smash up the institutions of multilateral trade cooperation and joining Trump in the new global game of ‘bully thy neighbour’. It would make a mockery of the idea of trade for all, and would put the final nail in the coffin of the vision of an EU trade policy based on environmental and social justice. With the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stating that we have only 12 years to solve the climate crisis, it is simply impossible to open trade negotiations with a country that is the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and yet is reneging on its climate commitments at every opportunity.

How can we be considering offering the US improved trade terms a year after they introduced punitive tariffs on our steel industry, while failing to make their own steel industry compliant with the Paris Agreement? Rather than feeding Trump’s ego, we should develop a strong industrial policy that defends European workers and supports the move towards a low-carbon economy.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Rosa D'Amato (EFDD). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, facciamo molta attenzione, perché non vi permetteremo di aggirare il parere di quest'Aula e dei popoli che essa rappresenta, e quindi di aprire dei negoziati commerciali con gli Stati Uniti d'America che siano in realtà una sorta di "trattato-escamotage" che metta a rischio salute e ambiente, che permetta l'ingresso incondizionato dagli USA di prodotti agricoli e della pesca, ad esempio. Una decisione, questa, che sarebbe davvero illogica, che affosserebbe ancor di più i nostri pescatori e tutto il settore ittico, inondando il mercato europeo di pesce a basso prezzo. Una minaccia contro la quale noi ci opporremo con tutte le nostre forze.

Quante volte abbiamo detto che gli accordi commerciali vanno fatti, sì, ma nell'interesse, prima di tutto, dei cittadini europei e a patto che creino mercati interessanti, utili, di sbocco per i nostri produttori? Non importa quante volte ce lo chiederete, la nostra risposta sarà sempre la stessa: no ad un nuovo TTIP.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Rozpoczęcie negocjacji ma na celu powstrzymanie dalszej eskalacji napięć handlowych i politycznych pomiędzy USA i Unią Europejską. Dopóki toczą się rozmowy, USA zobowiązały się do niewprowadzania ceł na import samochodów z Unii Europejskiej. Motoryzacja stanowi 12% całkowitego polskiego eksportu, a 85% procent polskiego eksportu motoryzacyjnego skierowane jest na europejski – głównie niemiecki – rynek. Z kolei Niemcy są głównym eksporterem na rynek amerykański, zatem w polskim interesie gospodarczym jest unikanie ceł na samochody, a negocjacje z USA mogą przyczynić się do realizacji tego celu.

Muszę też wspomnieć o zabezpieczeniu wrażliwości w sektorze energochłonnym. Chodzi o różnice w cenach gazu, energii i kosztach regulacyjnych w USA i w Unii Europejskiej – zwłaszcza w Polsce. Nie mniej ważna jest eliminacja licencji eksportowych dotyczących LNG w USA, która przyniosłaby większą stabilność warunków handlu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, doamnă comisar, stimați colegi, sigur, avem multe motive să fim supărați pe administrația Trump. Personal, am luptat foarte mult să introduc în TTIP foarte multe amendamente. A căzut acel TTIP, dar relația a Uniunii Europene cu Statele Unite ale Americii nu poate fi ignorată. Trebuie să ne gândim în ansamblu ce pierdem și ce câștigăm. Eu am încredere în doamna comisar și eu cred că, pe un mandat limitat, trebuie să deschidem negocierile. Nu sunt pierdute decât acele bătălii pe care nu le începi niciodată, spunea un mare scriitor din țara mea, Mircea Eliade.

Doamna comisar, trebuie să țineți cont de ce s-a spus aici. Avem nevoie de evaluarea conformității, avem nevoie de standarde de produs care să fie recunoscute, avem nevoie să nu ni se impună unilateral tarife la anumite grupe de produse și cred foarte mult că dumneavoastră puteți să duceți această sarcină și să ne raportați ce se întâmplă cu această piață. Pentru că nu putem cu Rusia să nu avem, cu Turcia să nu avem, cu China să nu avem, cu Statele Unite ale Americii să nu avem! Cum să dezvoltăm piața unică?

Eu vă doresc succes și sper să treacă acest mandat de negociere.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire Malmström, je rêve encore d’une Europe où l’on mette de la cohérence entre nos politiques sociales, agricoles, de développement, d’échanges commerciaux et d’environnement. Madame la Commissaire, expliquez-nous l’intérêt d’augmenter les importations de soja américain, en vertu des accords de Blair House de 1992, sur le continent européen, plutôt que d’augmenter la production des protéines agricoles, végétales, au niveau européen.

Expliquez-nous l’intérêt de continuer à sacrifier l’agriculture, qui est la variable d’ajustement de toutes les autres politiques, dans les accords de libre-échange que vous promulguez. L’importation massive de soja contrevenait déjà au protocole de Kyoto, et elle contrevient aux accords de Paris. Madame la Commissaire, vous qui venez du très beau pays de Greta Thunberg, allez-vous arrêter de faire semblant d’écouter? Allez-vous enfin mettre en cohérence la politique des échanges commerciaux avec la nécessaire lutte contre le réchauffement climatique, qui devient une urgence?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria Arena (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, j’ai vraiment l’impression que tout fait farine au moulin de la Commission européenne quand il s’agit de libéraliser les échanges commerciaux.

Vos arguments, en général, sont des arguments qui peuvent être entendus, par exemple: nous faisons des accords avec des pays qui sont des pays amis, avec des pays qui partagent nos valeurs et qui partagent nos règles. Mais, dites-moi, en quoi M. Trump et son gouvernement partagent-ils nos valeurs?

Nos valeurs en matière climatique? Il a décidé de sortir des négociations et de la table des négociations de la COP21. Les valeurs en matière de commerce international? M. Trump a décidé de ne pas respecter les règles de l’OMC. Vous qui êtes la défenderesse des règles de l’OMC, pourquoi voulez-vous vous mettre autour de la table avec le gouvernement Trump, alors que ce même gouvernement ne respecte pas les règles qui doivent, selon vous, être respectées?

Je vous demande donc de citer un seul argument qui permette de dire que vous seriez en mesure de changer la politique actuelle du gouvernement Trump, une politique qui ne respecte pas l’Europe.

Je n’y crois pas et je ne pense pas qu’il serait opportun, aujourd’hui, que le Conseil autorise le mandat que vous proposez.

 
  
 

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the agreement that President Juncker made in July with President Trump was to try, despite our disagreement in several areas, to find ways in which we could cooperate.

We talked about liquefied natural gas (LNG). There is a desire for many European countries to buy American LNG instead of LNG from other important partners and the Americans agreed to facilitate that. That is a decision to be taken by every Member State and their companies. Of course, it is not the Commission buying gas. The increase of soya beans is also a result of markets. The Commission is not buying soya beans and stocking them in the Berlaymont building. This is market policy because it has changed quite considerably. We agreed to accept the American sustainability scheme in full compliance with the directive.

We also agreed that we would cooperate to reform the World Trade Organisation (WTO). We have disagreements there as well, but we also have a process where we work with the Americans and the Japanese to try to write new WTO rules in order to counter some of the state capitalism from China, for instance. That work is ongoing. We also agreed that we would cooperate on some regulatory matters in full transparency, voluntarily, with full respect for our respective protective systems.

We agreed that we would seek negotiations on two limited – but still important – agreements. One on the conformity assessment – and I haven’t heard anybody question that here today – and the other one would be on a limited agreement, a tariff on industrial goods. This is what we are asking you to give your opinion on here. In the proposed mandates, there are clear conditions. We could not conclude anything if the tariffs on steel and aluminium were not lifted before we try to conclude. There would be no additional tariffs under 232, for instance, on cars.

In the course of these negotiations, we will also do an external study on an impact assessment on sustainability. We will – and we have already started to – consult with civil society. It is crystal clear in this mandate – and by accepting it, you would make it even clearer in writing – that agriculture is not included in the negotiations. It is a limited agreement that we are asking for on industrial goods, including fisheries and cars. That would make it WTO compatible and the sums are not negligible for the European Union either, so we are not giving anything away.

It is not, however, a full free trade agreement. It is not taking TTIP out of the freezer. TTIP is really far down in the freezer. For different reasons, it was not possible to advance under the Obama administration and it is not possible in any foreseeable future to advance now either and, of course (you too have mentioned it), also because the US have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement.

As I said, there are several disagreements with the Trump administration, but the US – the US people, the US elected assemblies, the US nation – is a friend of the European Union and we have every interest to try to find areas where we can cooperate, where we can talk, and where we can have a dialogue. This is the unanimous will of the European Council as well. That’s why we are asking you to agree on these two negotiating mandates. The Council is ready and I hope that you too can vote in favour tomorrow.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Die Präsidentin. – Danke schön, Frau Kommissarin.

Herr Etheridge, ich muss Ihnen sagen, dass ich Ihnen nicht noch einmal das Wort geben konnte, da Sie schon eine blue card hatten und Zeitgründe auch dazu geführt haben, dass ich Ihre Wortmeldung nicht noch einmal annehmen konnte.

Gemäß Artikel 123 Absatz 2 der Geschäftsordnung wurde ein Entschließungsantrag eingereicht.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Donnerstag, 14. März 2019, statt.

 

17. Eiropas ekonomikas politikas koordinēšanas pusgads: 2019. gada izaugsmes pētījums - Eiropas ekonomikas politikas koordinēšanas pusgads: nodarbinātības un sociālie aspekti 2019. gada izaugsmes pētījumā (debates)
Visu runu video
MPphoto
 

  Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die gemeinsame Aussprache über

– den Bericht von Tom Vandenkendelaere im Namen des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Währung über das Thema „Europäisches Semester für die Koordinierung der Wirtschaftspolitik: Jahreswachstumsbericht 2019“ (2018/2119(INI)) (A8-0159/2019) und

– den Bericht von Marian Harkin im Namen des Ausschusses für Beschäftigung und soziale Angelegenheiten über das Thema „Europäisches Semester für die Koordinierung der Wirtschaftspolitik: Beschäftigungspolitische und soziale Aspekte im Jahreswachstumsbericht 2019“ (2018/2120(INI)) (A8-0162/2019).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tom Vandenkendelaere, Rapporteur. – Voorzitter, geachte commissarissen, collega's, discussies over het Europees Semester zijn telkens opnieuw heel erg politiek geladen. Nu de verkiezingen naderen, worden ze zo mogelijk nog politieker.

De vragen die we onszelf moeten stellen in het kader van het Semester zijn namelijk precies die vragen die ons politiek kleur doen bekennen: "Wat is de staat van onze economie?", "Wat zijn de grote uitdagingen?", "Welke prioriteiten stellen we voorop?" en vooral "Hoe zorgen we ervoor dat we de welvaartsstaten die we hebben, kunnen doorgeven aan onze kinderen?".

Collega's, sommigen van jullie zullen willen ijveren voor meer investeringen. Anderen van jullie zullen vragen om meer begrotingsdiscipline. Weer anderen zullen voorstellen om de teugels sterker te laten vieren.

Als rasechte christendemocraat begin ik het debat alvast. Ik denk dat de beste koers een verstandige combinatie inhoudt van al deze opties. Aan halve waarheden en makkelijke oplossingen hebben onze burgers vandaag echt geen boodschap. Het is belangrijk dat we aan hen én aan onze kinderen het volledige verhaal vertellen.

Toevallig is mijn zoon van twee hier vandaag en morgen op bezoek. Het is ook voor hem dat ik hier vandaag sta. Ik wil ervoor zorgen dat in de toekomst het die welvaartsstaat is die hem en zijn geliefden, ook als het even moeilijk gaat, kan beschermen, en als hij ziek wordt, kan genezen, en een billijk pensioen kan garanderen, op het moment dat hij zijn leven dat hij opgebouwd heeft, opnieuw kan afsluiten.

Het is die toekomst, dit grote verhaal, die erfenis van decennia van bouwen aan welvaart en welzijn van onze burgers, die op het spel staat. De vergrijzing is immers een van de belangrijkste demografische ontwikkelingen van de 21e eeuw. Op zich is er een geweldige vooruitgang, maar deze gaat gepaard met gigantische uitdagingen.

Ten eerste, de kosten van de pensioenen, de gezondheidszorg en de ouderenzorg zullen in de komende decennia enorm toenemen en dat gaat onze schatkist enorm onder druk zetten. Ten tweede zorgt de vergrijzing er ook voor dat er proportioneel minder mensen aan het werk zijn en dat er dus minder mensen al die kosten zullen kunnen helpen financieren. Daardoor komt onze schatkist een tweede keer onder druk.

Het is dus tijd om in te grijpen, en volgens mij op drie fronten tegelijk. We moeten én investeren, én structureel hervormen, én onze begrotingen op orde krijgen.

Ten eerste, – ik denk dat het daar echt begint – een gezonde schatkist. We moeten fiscale buffers opbouwen om onszelf te beschermen tegen die stijgende kosten van de vergrijzing. Meer ouderen betekent automatisch meer pensioenen, meer kosten voor de gezondheidszorg en meer kosten voor de ouderenzorg. We moeten ons echt hierop voorbereiden. Zo niet, dan wentelen we de hele factuur af op de volgende generatie.

Ten tweede is het belangrijk om structurele hervormingen door te voeren die de kosten van de vergrijzende samenleving zullen verminderen, en waardoor de proportioneel kleinere groep op beroepsactieve leeftijd zoveel mogelijk aan het werk komt.

Werkgevers moeten werknemers sneller kunnen aannemen en ontslaan. Werknemers moeten makkelijker kunnen switchen tussen verschillende vormen van werk. Mijn ouders komen zijn nog van de generatie waarin men heel zijn leven voor dezelfde werkgever werkte. Dat model staat nu al onder druk. Dat zien we vandaag al. En onze kinderen, denk ik, die zullen eenvoudigweg dat model niet meer kennen. De politiek moet daarom een kader creëren opdat die transitie makkelijker kan verlopen. Om werknemers flexibeler en weerbaarder te maken, zullen constante training, omscholing en levenslang leren de nieuwe standaard moeten worden, of we dat nu willen of niet.

Tot slot, als we de vergrijzing echt willen aanpakken op dit Europese continent, dan zijn investeringen in de toekomst cruciaal, niet alleen in menselijk kapitaal, zoals ik juist aangegeven heb, maar ook in toekomstige productiviteit, om onze economische groei te verzekeren. We hebben behoefte aan investeringen in onderzoek en ontwikkeling, in innovatie en digitalisering, in infrastructuurprojecten.

Verstandig investeren vandaag betekent oogsten morgen.

Dat is het pad dat we moeten uitstippelen met het Europees Semester. Een sociaaleconomisch kompas dat ervoor zorgt dat we niet van het pad afraken en dat een echte garantie biedt op een duurzame toekomst.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marian Harkin, Rapporteur. – Madam President, first of all, can I thank the shadow rapporteurs for their good cooperation, which I believe has led to a balanced report. There are a few amendments submitted and I think that, with the exception of one, I can support all of them. They don’t significantly change the content or the tone of the report, but they do improve it.

So, first of all, can I say how important it is for the Employment Committee to have its own separate report on the Annual Growth Survey, because we have a different perspective to that of the Economic Committee. They are complementary, but they have a different emphasis, and this report, as well as the previous two reports from the Employment Committee, I believe contribute to rebalancing the importance of the social and economic issues. The economy must work for society. It must contribute to social cohesion, social inclusion and decent jobs. It must be the springboard from which individuals and families can plan their future with confidence. Many of the headline figures for the EU are positive, and I want to list some of them because they are important: the EU economy continues to expand, providing a record number of jobs for people; we are making progress on the social scoreboard; household incomes continue to rise in most Member States; the share of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion decreased up to 2017; and there are more women in the workforce.

All of this is positive, yet there are very significant challenges that persist. For me, one of the major challenges is that household incomes have grown more slowly than GDP, from something like 10.9% to 15.5% over a period of 12 years. This clearly indicates to me that much of our growth is not fully inclusive. This is a key issue for citizens and for the EU as a whole and I believe it will play a role in ensuring the cohesion, and therefore the future, of the EU.

Youth unemployment averages at 18.6% across the EU, which is unacceptably high. While the youth guarantee has certainly helped, the issue as regards resources is that it is woefully underfunded. Precarious work is a huge challenge, given that workers are unable to enforce their rights, with no social security and work in security as a major issue. That’s one of the reasons why I will be supporting the amendment calling for the banning of zero hour contracts. We have challenges around increasing life expectancy, with 80% of the care in the EU being provided by informal family carers, 75% of whom are women. Yes, we have our Directive on Work-Life Balance, but unfortunately on the aspect of carers’ leave, that part of the Directive is weak and allows Member States to choose not to make a real choice for carers.

We have stated clearly in the resolution that the EU’s social goals and commitments are just as important as its economic goals and are not just a means of guaranteeing economic growth, but must be a specific target in themselves.

This perspective underpins our approach to all the proposals in this report on the Annual Growth Survey. This report sends a strong message to citizens that we in the Parliament recognise the essential need to ensure that our citizens can look to the future with confidence. And once again, thank you to all who have contributed to this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Melania Gabriela Ciot, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the European semester today, a topic of particular relevance in these times. The Council attaches great importance to the semester and I’m pleased to exchange views with Parliament on the subject.

If we are all to make Europe relevant to people’s daily lives, we need to deliver on growth and jobs, high-quality education, social protection and inclusion, as well as environmental sustainability. We should stress here that it is a question of ownership for the Member States. By streamlining reforms, the European semester aims to improve the situation in each Member State and in the EU as a whole. An agreement on common objectives is therefore important. Your report shows that we recognise these common objectives. I’m glad we have this opportunity to discuss them with you today, and that you have also discussed them recently with national parliaments.

To start on a positive note, evidence suggests that Europe’s economy is strengthening. Employment is growing. Investment is recovering and public finances are improving. Yet, clearly, many challenges remain. You have identified a number of them in your report. Long-term challenges remain, such as population ageing, digitalisation and its impact on work, climate change and unsustainable use of natural resources. Boosting investment remains a priority in order to promote a more robust recovery and to secure a healthy growth rate in the long run.

The extension of the European Fund for Strategic Investments, in terms of financial capacity, is an important step towards achieving this goal. Let us continue to work together to spur social investment and human capital, to lift the remaining barriers and to foster a truly favourable investment climate.

Furthermore, we need to support growth with smart fiscal policies, while paying close attention to the long-term sustainability of our budgets and debts. We also need to implement the necessary structural reforms in our product and labour markets in order to prepare our economies for the challenges ahead.

We must provide our young citizens with high quality education and invest in their skills today.

Madam President, honourable Members, as we are now leaving crisis times behind us, the legacy of the crisis remains a serious concern. Some citizens are trapped in a cycle of poverty and social exclusion, which they cannot easily escape from. This is an important issue for the Romanian Presidency. Our policy efforts need to be oriented towards the most vulnerable categories of our citizens. They also need to be oriented towards those regions and sectors that are undergoing the greatest difficulties.

We need to think of new solutions to new problems whilst seizing the opportunities ahead of us. The collaborative economy represents a huge potential, but it cannot be a reason to backtrack on employment and social rights. Employment and social policies need to adapt to the changes in the labour market, whilst workers rights should remain protected. Environment policy, together with greening the economy and greening the European semester, can contribute in a very significant manner to the broad policy objective of stimulating sustainable growth and creating jobs. What is key is to focus on the full implementation of the reforms and carefully to monitor the progress in each Member State.

We should share our experiences and use best practice examples to learn from each other. Only by working together closely, to push consistently for reforms and to keep supporting inclusive growth and job creation, will we be successful in creating tangible benefits for every citizen and in rebuilding trust in a strong and prosperous European Union.

Thank you very much for your attention and for the contribution of the European Parliament, in particular the rapporteurs, on this important topic.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, Europe is set to grow for a seventh year in a row. Employment figures stay at record highs and unemployment at record lows. The average levels of both budget deficit and public debt continue to go down. Our strategy based on three priorities, investment, structural reforms and fiscal responsibility, is working.

Yet growth is moderating and risks are mounting. We face trade tensions and a slowdown in emerging economies. Concerns about banks, sovereign loans and debt sustainability are resurfacing in some countries. Amongst homemade reasons for the slowdown, we also see stalling reform momentum in some Member States. Some countries still have high unemployment, while others face skills shortages. Unresolved structural issues continue to hamper productivity and investment. There are still high levels of inequality within and among EU Member States. Long-term challenges, such as population ageing, remain pressing. Rapid technological change and digitalisation are changing our daily lives and the world of work.

That is why decisive action is needed. At national level, we need well-targeted investments and reforms to increase productivity and to foster inclusive growth. Good times must be used to reduce high debt and rebuild fiscal buffers. This, unfortunately, is not happening in some Member States.

At EU level we have made progress on the banking union and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) reform, but some proposals, on the capital markets union, for example, still await adaptations.

At the Eurogroup meeting earlier this week we continued discussions on how to support reforms and investments for the sake of competitiveness and convergence. The Commission is open to amending our proposal on the reform support programme to serve this purpose.

We have just issued our assessment of the economic and social challenges in all Member States and, where relevant, of macroeconomic imbalances. We also identified priority areas for investment, providing a basis for a new programming of cohesion funds. Regarding macroeconomic imbalances our conclusion is that Bulgaria, Germany, Spain, France, Croatia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Sweden experienced imbalances and Cyprus, Greece and Italy experienced excessive imbalances. For Croatia, this is an improvement. We found this year that Croatia still has imbalances, but they are no longer excessive. So this is good news, including with regard to preparations for participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) II and eventually for euro area membership.

We also found imbalances in the case of Romania. This was not the case last year. The reasons are competitiveness losses, widening current account deficits and pro-cyclical expansionary fiscal policy.

We remain concerned about Italy’s public debt ratio, which is not set to decline, and reform momentum has stalled. In spring we will once again assess Italy’s policy steps and the commitments to address imbalances, as well as the level of ambition of the national reform programme.

Overall, since 2011, Member States have made at least some progress on two-thirds of the recommendations but, as I said before, momentum has been slowing. To regain this momentum, Member States can count on our structural reform support service that has been providing support for 500 reform projects in 25 countries, with a further 260 projects to be financed this year.

To conclude, our focused approach has helped us to steer the recovery and it must serve to keep us on the path of sustainable and inclusive growth. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Vandenkendelaere, and the shadow rapporteurs, for the report and I am looking forward to a constructive debate.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marianne Thyssen, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank both rapporteurs, Ms Harkin and Mr Vandenkendelaere, for the two reports on the Annual Growth Survey. The positive economic developments continue to translate into sustained job creation. Two hundred and forty million people have a job in the European Union and this is the highest number ever. Unemployment is at 6.5% and this is now the lowest it has ever been in this century. The number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion is dropping and now, for the first time, it is below the level of what we recorded in 2008.

However (there is also a ‘however’), we must not forget that growth in Europe is not benefiting all citizens in the same way, as the rapporteur of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs told us. Real household income is still below the 2008 level in some countries. There is still very high youth unemployment in some areas or a high level of poverty, including high in-work poverty in some Member States. This is why your report, Ms Harkin, strongly resonates with our analysis. We take note of your calls to do more on skills, in-work poverty, regulation of new forms of work, labour market inclusion of people with disabilities, work-life balance and housing.

Since the publication of the Annual Growth Survey last autumn, we have published the country reports on 27 February and those provide a more detailed analysis of the economic and social situation in the Member States. For the second year now, we look at the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights. The country reports provide an idea of where we stand and of the challenges ahead and they assess policy response by Member State.

We also look at the social scoreboard. This year, we see progress on all 14 indicators of the social scoreboard. Moreover, for the first time, the country reports reflect on the investment needs in each Member State and also, more specifically, as regards European funds. Our aim is to achieve greater synergies and complementarity between the economic policies, reforms and the cohesion policy funds, and I am confident that the combined efforts of European legislation, coordination of economic policies and European funds will help to make the European Pillar of Social Rights a reality for all citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Андрей Ковачев, докладчик по становището на комисията по околна среда, обществено здраве и безопасност на храните. – Г-жо Председател, икономиката на Европейския съюз навлиза за шеста година в растеж в резултат на провежданите структурни реформи, инвестициите и отговорните фискални политики. Тези добри икономически условия са възможност да насочим вниманието си към създаване на предпоставки за траен икономически растеж, който е социално справедлив и екологично устойчив.

Ние имаме отговорност към бъдещите поколения не само да не ги обременяваме с дългове, но и да не излагаме на риск способността им да посрещат своите нужди. Големите предизвикателства пред нас остават. Застаряването на населението или неустойчивото използване на природните ресурси са рискови фактори за дългосрочния ни потенциал за икономическо развитие.

Комисията по околна среда смята, че екологично съобразената икономика и инвестициите в по-ефективни системи за здравеопазване са ключови за благосъстоянието на европейските граждани. Препоръките в рамките на европейския семестър са добър инструмент, за да се насърчат необходимите структурни реформи в тази посока.

При наблюдението и оценката на реформите трябва да бъде възприета по-дългосрочна перспектива, защото често се дават резултати след няколко години. Ние подкрепяме отпускането на финансови средства през следващия програмен период за подкрепа на държавите членки в изпълнение на препоръките за структурни реформи.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Искра Михайлова, докладчик по становището на комисията по регионално развитие. – Г-жо Председател, уважаема г-жо Комисар, г-н Комисар, уважаеми колеги, комисията по регионално развитие в своето становище приветства положителната динамика на икономическия растеж и инвестициите, но изразява загриженост, че тяхното въздействие върху производителността и работните места не е достатъчно. И затова е необходимо по-добро фокусиране на инвестициите на политиката на сближаване и допълването им с други програми на Съюза, както и с публични и частни инвестиции.

Необходимо е Комисията и държавите членки да засилят сътрудничеството си и да предприемат по-нататъшни мерки за привличане на частни и публични инвестиции, изграждане на партньорства и сближаване, за да достигнем до допълняемост на фондовете и инструментите на Европейския съюз.

Приветстваме предложенията за следващата многогодишна финансова рамка и тясната връзка между европейския семестър и бъдещите структурни инвестиционни фондове. В заключение бих искала да изтъкна ролята на програмата за подкрепа на структурните реформи, предоставяща адаптирана към конкретните обстоятелства помощ, за да подпомогне държавите членки да провеждат своите структурни реформи.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Iratxe García Pérez, ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Derechos de la Mujer e Igualdad de Género. – Señora presidenta, si queremos abordar los retos y desafíos de la Unión Europea debemos entender que es necesario que el Semestre Europeo deje de ser un instrumento que le diga a los países dónde tienen que gastar más o menos, dónde tienen que ahorrar o recortar y convertirse de verdad en un elemento de política europea para garantizar la sostenibilidad económica, social y medioambiental.

Y para eso también es necesario que seamos capaces de escuchar fuera de estas cuatro paredes y de entender que es necesario que entendamos que la gente está cansada de la política de austeridad. Escuchemos a los millones de mujeres y hombres que el pasado viernes 8 de marzo salieron a las calles de Europa para pedir una Europa más justa, más social y más igualitaria; escuchemos a los jóvenes que van a salir el próximo viernes pidiendo una Europa que sea capaz de comprometerse con la lucha contra el cambio climático. Si de verdad queremos recuperar la confianza de la ciudadanía en el proyecto europeo debemos pasar de la política de austeridad a la política de crecimiento justo e igualitario para todas y todos.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ernest Urtasun, ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Derechos de la Mujer e Igualdad de Género. – Señora presidenta, estamos a día 13 de marzo, cinco días después del 8 de marzo, cuando millones de mujeres europeas volvieron a salir a la calle a reclamar sus derechos. Hacemos un debate sobre las perspectivas de crecimiento y económicas de la Unión Europea en el marco del debate del Semestre Europeo y la cuestión está totalmente ausente.

No he escuchado prácticamente de la boca de los comisarios referirse para nada a ello, ni al Consejo tampoco, y en el informe sobre el Estudio Prospectivo Anual sobre el Crecimiento las palabras «igualdad de género» aparecen una vez, simplemente para mencionar de pasada la brecha en materia de pensiones.

Mire, yo solo tengo un ruego en el debate de hoy: esto no puede seguir así en el próximo mandato. Francamente, que tengamos cada seis meses un análisis de la política económica, recomendaciones por países, y que no analicemos ni el impacto de género de ninguna de las reformas estructurales que hacemos, ni miremos cómo podemos reducir la brecha salarial y la brecha en pensiones o avanzar hacia una sociedad igualitaria se vuelve insoportable.

Así que, de cara al próximo mandato, francamente, espero que esto cambie de arriba a abajo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Agnieszka Kozłowska-Rajewicz, w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Panie Komisarzu! Przede wszystkim chciałabym, jako kontrsprawozdawczyni sprawozdania posłanki Marian Harkin, podziękować sprawozdawczyni za znakomite, wyważone i wrażliwe społecznie sprawozdanie, a także za świetny styl, w jakim przeprowadziła negocjacje nad tym dokumentem.

Sprawozdanie przywołuje dane i liczby, które potwierdzają, że sytuacja na rynku pracy stabilizuje się i poprawia. Rok 2018 to już siódmy z kolei rok wzrostu gospodarczego w Unii Europejskiej. Spada bezrobocie, rośnie liczba nowych miejsc pracy, kluczowe wskaźniki gospodarcze są pozytywne, zadowalające.

Jednak – na co zwracamy uwagę – ten dobrobyt nie dotyczy wszystkich obywateli Unii. Grupa osób ubogich i zagrożonych ubóstwem wciąż liczy ponad sto milionów. Mamy też grupę młodzieży z kategorii NEET, którzy nie pracują, nie uczą się, nie dokształcają. To jest wciąż ponad 6 milionów osób. Istnieje też luka emerytalna między kobietami i mężczyznami wynosząca prawie 40 % i brak równowagi praca–dom. Kwestie te wciąż stanowią wyzwania.

No i wreszcie Unia Europejska jest w trakcie transformacji cyfrowej, która jest podstawą naszej przyszłości i konkurencyjności w świecie. Tymczasem deficyt pracowników w kluczowych dla przyszłości sektorach liczymy w setkach tysięcy, a 40 % obywateli Unii Europejskiej nie posiada podstawowych umiejętności cyfrowych. Potrzebna jest natychmiastowa reakcja ze strony systemu edukacji na miarę wyzwań przemysłu 4.0 oraz wielokulturowej, proekologicznej i mobilnej Europy, aby zapewnić trwały i zrównoważony rozwój naszej gospodarki.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria Arena, au nom du groupe S&D. – Madame la Présidente, l’examen annuel de la croissance fait partie du Semestre européen des coordinations des politiques économiques de l’Union.

Vous savez qu’à nos yeux, socialistes et démocrates, ce semestre est trop orienté sur les questions purement économiques et budgétaires et pas suffisamment sur les questions sociales. En effet, à quoi bon créer des emplois si ceux-ci sont mal payés et mal protégés, comme des contrats zéro heure? À quoi bon avoir un budget à l’équilibre, qui s’interdit d’investir dans l’avenir, dans l’éducation, dans la formation, mais aussi dans la transition écologique? À quoi bon avoir de la croissance si celle-ci génère des inégalités de plus en plus présentes aujourd’hui en Europe?

N’est-il pas vrai que les inégalités sociales et culturelles sont le principal danger de la démocratie? Nous le vivons aujourd’hui dans beaucoup de pays européens. Dans la proposition qui est devant nous aujourd’hui, ces préoccupations sociales ont pu être entendues et ont été soutenues dans le cadre de la commission de l’emploi. J’en citerai quelques-unes: un meilleur accès à l’éducation et à la formation; l’importance donnée aux salaires décents et à la négociation collective; des réformes qui ne mettent pas à mal la solidarité et la redistribution des richesses, et enfin les investissements dans la transition écologique.

J’en viens à un amendement que le PPE veut déposer au moment du vote et qui concerne les pensions. Selon le PPE, la seule solution pour disposer de pensions décentes, c’est de disposer de pensions privées. J’aimerais dire au PPE que les pensions privées sont le principal obstacle à l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes. Les femmes, aujourd’hui, ne bénéficient pas des piliers des pensions privées. Prétendre, dès lors, que l’on va régler le problème des pensions par les pensions privées, c’est renforcer l’inégalité vis-à-vis des femmes à l’intérieur de l’Europe. Nous nous opposerons à cet amendement, car il existe d’autres solutions pour régler la question des pensions.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ralph Packet, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Dank u wel, voorzitter. Bedankt, Tom Vandenkendelaere, rapporteur, voor uw interessante verslag. We kennen elkaar nog van toen we jongerenvoorzitter waren, Tom van zijn partij en ik van de mijne. Toen al waren we bezig met de vraag of mensen van onze generatie ooit nog een pensioen zullen krijgen. Veel jongeren geloven namelijk niet meer in het sociaal contract zoals we het kennen en zoals we het nodig hebben. De pensioenen van nu worden betaald door de actieve, werkende mensen. Door de vergrijzing hebben we echter steeds minder inkomsten voor steeds meer uitgaven. In België zullen die kosten oplopen tot meer dan 15 miljard.

Dit verslag gaat daarover. Welke maatregelen moeten we nemen om ervoor te zorgen dat de jongere, werkende generaties nu niet uitgeperst worden om dan later zonder pensioen achter te blijven. Hervormingen zijn dringend nodig, want de huidige situatie is niet vol te houden. Als we zo verder gaan, dan zal iedereen uiteindelijk namelijk zelf moeten zorgen voor een appeltje voor de dorst, als ze hun oude dag met een gerust hart tegemoet willen treden.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Enrique Calvet Chambon, au nom du groupe ALDE.Señora Presidenta, chère Madame Thyssen, merci de venir nous écouter. Je vais être très bref et vous exposer une vision politique. En espagnol, après vous avoir salué.

En primer lugar, hemos de reconocer que, por fin, en este mandato se ha puesto el acento en la sociedad, en la salida social de la crisis y, en particular, en el Semestre Europeo social y de empleo. Eso tiene que utilizarse mucho más en el mandato siguiente.

En segundo lugar, se dice que el empleo está mejor que nunca, y es verdad, pero, ojo, no perdamos de vista la idea de que, cuando hay una bolsa de desempleo importante en una nación, es un problema europeo. El reparto del desempleo también es un problema europeo. Otra cosa, las desigualdades. Queda muchísimo o todo por hacer. Aunque ahora venga una crisis, las próximas políticas económicas y sociales no pueden dejar de tener prioridad para combatir el crecimiento de las desigualdades.

Y, finalmente, dos cosas indispensables para el futuro, para conseguir una Europa social. En primer lugar, habrá que tener una política económica fiscal concertada, y eso permitirá una redistribución a nivel europeo. En segundo lograr, hay que admitir que hará falta solidaridad financiera europea, por ejemplo, en el paro y la ayuda contra el paro a nivel europeo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I would also like to thank our rapporteur from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs for the very good work that she did on this report, and I welcome the growing attention that we’re now seeing being given in the semester process to climate change. The report recalls the need to modernise and decarbonise our industry, our transport, our energy sectors and, as we just heard from the Council, environmental sustainability matters. If we fail to respond properly, we’re going to see our economy and our societies pay an ever-increasing cost, as we struggle to deal with the development and effects of extreme climate events. If we think of the costs over the last year of forest fires, floods, storms, et cetera, and what that has taken out of the public budget and our public services, the need to invest in resilient infrastructure and good strong public services and utilities is absolutely crucial. For that, we need the fiscal space to be able to carry out real investment.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paloma López Bermejo, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora presidenta, hemos perdido una oportunidad, una más. La ciudadanía europea no quiere seguir escuchando que las mismas políticas que nos han conducido hasta la situación crítica en la que nos encontramos deben seguir siendo la referencia para los próximos años.

La austeridad ha sido un error y un fracaso. Las políticas de gestión de la crisis económica nos han conducido al mayor incremento de la desigualdad en Europa desde el final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

El euro se ha convertido en una máquina de crear divergencia económica y social entre nuestros países y, como resultado de esta tormenta perfecta, ha aumentado de manera perceptible y crítica la cólera de una parte de la ciudadanía y un malestar sordo que amenaza no solo a las instituciones europeas, sino a la democracia misma.

Y, frente a la evidencia de esta situación, nuestros informes siguen diciéndoles a millones de personas empobrecidas, excluidas y asustadas que todo va bien. Esto no es posible, no es razonable, y parece que es evidente la falta de interés en seguir creyendo en este cuento.

Noticias como la llamada «tasa Google» confirman lo que millones de personas han comprobado: no todos son tratados de la misma manera. Algunos países de la Unión muestran una dureza inmisericorde con los trabajadores y una servidumbre deplorable con las multinacionales y las élites económicas. Este, desde luego, no es el camino.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Auke Zijlstra, namens de ENF-Fractie. – Voorzitter, bij elk beleidsprobleem – en daar hebben we geen gebrek aan – heeft de EU maar één draaiboek. De bevoegdheden moeten naar Brussel en de regelgeving moet gedetailleerder en dwingender.

Dat beeld wordt met dit verslag over het Europees Semester voor coördinatie en economisch beleid weer eens bevestigd, nu ook het hele sociaaleconomische terrein naar Brussel schijnt te moeten.

De in het verslag beschreven problemen laten ook zien dat de introductie van de eenheidsmunt, de euro, heeft geleid tot een lagere economische groei en een hogere werkloosheid dan buiten de eurozone. De eurozone doet het domweg slechter dan de andere lidstaten, inclusief het Verenigd Koninkrijk. De oplossing voor dit probleem is dan ook heel simpel. Neem gewoon afscheid van de euro en daarmee ook van het daarvoor opgezette systeem van een centraal gestuurde economie. Een dergelijke simpele oplossing ontgaat Brussel echter en lijkt ook een beetje contrarevolutionair.

Men vindt dat, nu de centrale sturing faalt, er dus meer centrale sturing nodig is uit Brussel. Bijvoorbeeld door het opzetten van een Europees investeringsprogramma voor banen en groei, maar dan wel onder voorwaarde van allerhande maatschappelijke doelen, zoals duurzaamheid en inclusiviteit en klimaat-mijdend gedrag. Dit alles om te voorkomen dat er daadwerkelijk groei ontstaat.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök Asszony! Egy átlag európai polgárnak az európai szemeszter kifejezés semmit nem mond. Megpróbálom definiálni: a tagállami költségvetés fő számainak EU általi meghatározása. A tagállamok minden év áprilisában be kell hogy nyújtsák a maguk stabilitási, illetve konvergencia programját. Ezt követően a Tanács véleményében felkéri a kormányokat programjuk kiigazítására, az országspecifikus ajánlások beépítésére, azt ellenőrzi, majd felügyeli a programok végrehajtását.

Gyakorlatilag tehát, az európai szemeszter keretében meghatározzák az adott ország költségvetésének fő számait, így a nemzeti parlamentek már csak ezen a kereten belül hozhatnak részletdöntéseket, és ez már önrendelkezési kérdés. A költségvetés megalkotásának érdemi részét elvonják a szuverén parlamentektől. Ennek bevezetése egy lépés volt a nemzetek felett álló szuperállam megteremtése irányában.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Markus Ferber (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, Frau Ratspräsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, das Winterpaket zum europäischen Semester war an vielen Stellen ernüchternd. Die zentrale Botschaft war, dass sich das Wachstum in den kommenden Monaten deutlich abschwächen wird. Die Konjunktur schwächt sich ab, der Umfang der erwarteten Abschwächung und ihre Auswirkungen auf die europäische Wirtschaft werden von unserem Handeln abhängen: einerseits von unserem politischen Handeln in den vergangenen Jahren, in denen wir von einer sehr erfreulichen konjunkturellen Entwicklung profitiert haben, aber auch von unserem politischen Handeln in den kommenden Monaten.

Wenn ich mir die Länderberichte genauer anschaue, gewinne ich doch den Eindruck, dass viele Mitgliedstaaten nicht ausreichend auf eine sich abschwächende Konjunktur vorbereitet sind. Die fetten Jahre wurden nicht genutzt. Frankreich laviert seit Jahren an der Grenze zum Defizitverfahren, und der Länderbericht zu Italien ist ein Dokument des Scheiterns. Dieser sehr beunruhigende Befund wirft für mich einmal mehr die Frage auf, warum die Kommission die Umsetzung der länderspezifischen Empfehlungen und die Einhaltung der Fiskalregeln nicht vehementer durchsetzt. Wir sehen immer wieder dasselbe Schema: Die Länderberichte fallen katastrophal aus, die Empfehlungen werden nicht umgesetzt, und die fiskalischen Spielregeln werden ignoriert. Wenn wir so in eine wirtschaftlich schwierigere Zeit starten, zudem, wie es sich seit gestern andeutet, mit einem ungeregelten Brexit, der uns nochmal Wirtschaftsleistung kostet, dann haben wir in der Tat ein Problem. Wenn die Kommission nicht bereit ist, hier für die Umsetzung zu sorgen, sollte auch darüber nachgedacht werden, andere Institutionen zu beauftragen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, caros Colegas, a discussão neste Parlamento sobre as orientações da política económica e orçamental é sempre um momento importante do chamado Semestre Europeu, mas é-o ainda mais no atual contexto dos enormes riscos e incertezas e de abrandamento do crescimento económico.

A versão final do relatório que vamos votar esta tarde é, felizmente, bastante diferente da versão inicial. Muitas das propostas apresentadas pelo meu grupo foram acolhidas e, por isso, é com satisfação que posso dizer que a versão final deste relatório terá o voto favorável do grupo socialista.

Agradeço, pois, ao relator, o nosso colega Tom Vandenkendelaere, pela excelente colaboração que mantivemos e que permitiu chegar a este bom resultado.

A mensagem principal deste Parlamento é que a política económica e orçamental europeia precisa de dar um passo em frente para responder ao abrandamento da economia. Precisamos de uma ação concertada para um crescimento mais sustentável e mais inclusivo, precisamos de superar o défice de investimento público e privado e precisamos de garantir que os Estados-Membros com excedentes orçamentais fazem mais pelo crescimento da economia europeia aumentando os salários e o investimento. A responsabilidade na gestão das contas públicas continua evidentemente a ser necessária, mas tem de ser compatível com o investimento para a criação de emprego, com o combate às desigualdades, com a promoção da convergência, com a inclusão social, com a transição energética, com o combate às alterações climáticas, com os objetivos de desenvolvimento sustentável.

É dessa outra visão sobre as políticas de investimento e sobre a ideia de reformas estruturais que precisamos para tornar efetivo o pilar europeu de direitos sociais. São estas as peças fundamentais da estratégia económica e orçamental de que a Europa precisa e por isso votaremos a favor deste relatório.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Czesław Hoc (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Europa przeżywa obecnie okres dobrej koniunktury gospodarczej, pojawiają się jednak zewsząd zagrożenia i nowe wyzwania. Dobra koniunktura nie będzie trwać wiecznie. Już teraz trzeba sprostać wielu wyzwaniom, czyli stałej globalizacji, technologii 4.0, w tym cyfryzacji, zmianom modelu rynku pracy i tendencji demograficznej. Należy potężnie inwestować teraz, by utrzymać to ożywienie gospodarcze i zapewnić wszystkim korzyści, w tym przyszłym pokoleniom. Należy zatem skutecznie przeciwdziałać bezrobociu wśród ludzi młodych w Unii, poprawić los młodzieży NEET, inwestować w umiejętności, niwelować nierówności w sferze socjalnej i społecznej, inwestować w kształcenie dualne łączące naukę i szkolenie, być może także w job sharing, czyli pracę dzieloną, itd.

Warto podkreślić, że w sprawozdaniu Komisji Europejskiej, w ramach mechanizmu ostrzegania i wykrywania zakłóceń równowagi makroekonomicznej, wskazano 11 państw członkowskich, które w 2019 r. zostaną poddane szczegółowej ocenie. Polski wśród nich nie ma, albowiem polska gospodarka jest silna. Aktualna, nowa tzw. piątka Kaczyńskiego wzmacnia rozwój gospodarczy Polski i promuje jej dalszy rozwój na przysłowiowym piątym biegu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, si vous avez un pied dans un congélateur, dans le froid absolu, à moins 273 °C, et si vous avez l’autre pied dans un four à 300 °C, la température est bonne, vous êtes à 27 degrés, mais vous êtes en train de mourir, vous allez bientôt mourir d’une crise cardiaque.

C’est ce qui se passe pour l’Europe et les disparités qui existent entre le Nord et le Sud. Il a fallu huit ans à l’Espagne pour retrouver le chemin de la croissance et son niveau de production nationale antérieur. L’Italie ne l’a toujours pas retrouvé. La France l’a retrouvé en 2013 grâce à un déficit dont elle a perdu la maîtrise.

Nous sommes dans une situation où l’avantage comparatif fait qu’obligatoirement, l’Union européenne monétaire ne fonctionnera qu’à condition de mettre place une agence d’investissement, afin d’investir massivement dans les pays du Sud. Sinon, l’avenir avec l’euro est compromis.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Σωτήριος Ζαριανόπουλος (NI). – Kυρία Πρόεδρε, στην Ελλάδα οι διαψεύσεις των παραμυθιών ΣΥΡΙΖΑ είναι απανωτές. Πανηγύριζε για αύξηση ψίχουλα στον κατώτερο μισθό καταργώντας συλλογικές συμβάσεις εργασίας. Οι εκβιασμοί εργαζόμενων να δεχθούν από πλήρη τη μερική απασχόληση και οι απολύσεις αυξήθηκαν. Σούπερ μάρκετ καλούν εργαζόμενους να ευλογούν το αφεντικό γιατί παίρνουν 300 ευρώ και όχι μηδέν. Πανηγύριζε που δεν έκοψε 23η φορά τις συντάξεις.

Σαν μέλος της οικονομικής επιτροπής του Κοινοβουλίου ρώτησα τον πρόεδρο του Εurogroup, κύριο Centeno: Μήπως θα περικοπούν και πάλι, αν δεν πιαστούν τα πλεονάσματα; Απάντηση ολοκάθαρη: σιωπή.

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Εξάμηνο αποκαλύπτει γιατί: η επιτροπεία είναι εδώ και γεμάτη αντιλαϊκά μέτρα. Βασικός στόχος της Ένωσης η διάλυση της δημόσιας κοινωνικής ασφάλισης, επικαλούμενη τη δημογραφική γήρανση αφαιρεί κρατικά κονδύλια από τα ασφαλιστικά ταμεία οδηγώντας τα στις μεγάλες επιχειρήσεις. Ανταγωνιστικότητα δηλαδή με συντάξεις ελεημοσύνη, δουλειά έως θανάτου με ενεργό γήρανση για όποιον έχει ιδιωτική ασφάλιση. Τα αποθεματικά της; Τζάμπα στις επιχειρήσεις μέσω χρηματιστηρίων.

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση με νεοφιλελεύθερους ακροδεξιούς είτε ψευτοπροοδευτικά μέτωπα όπως του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ μόνο χειροτερεύει και γίνεται πιο επικίνδυνη για τους λαούς.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, Vertreterin des Rates! Ich möchte vorerst einen Dank an meine hochgeschätzte Kollegin Marian Harkin aus dem Sozialausschuss und auch in der Arbeitsgruppe für Pflegende für ihren wichtigen Bericht aussprechen, aber ebenso der Kommission, denn die Kommission leistet hier eine jährliche Arbeit, indem sie ein exzellentes Werkzeug für den Reformbedarf der EU-Mitgliedstaaten liefert.

Faktum aber ist, dass viele Mitgliedstaaten ihrer Verantwortung nicht nachkommen und keine oder viel zu geringe Anstrengungen unternehmen, um die klar aufgezeigten Problemfelder und meist dringlichen Herausforderungen mit konkreten Reformmaßnahmen zu meistern, insbesondere auch, wenn es um die nachhaltige Sicherung der Finanzierbarkeit der sozialen Systeme geht. Ich denke, dass die Kommission zukünftig ein schärferes Instrument haben sollte, um abzumahnen, zu erinnern und auch durchaus härtere Sanktionen zu ergreifen, besonders dort, wo durch Wählergeschenke durch Nichtreform der Strukturen und sogar Misswirtschaft die Budgets in Unordnung gebracht werden, die Stabilität der Länder in Mitleidenschaft gezogen wird und nicht alleine kleinere, finanzschwächere Länder dazugehören, sondern auch große Staaten im Süden und Westen Europas. Jetzt herrscht Reformbedarf!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Stanisław Ożóg (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Trudno nie zgodzić się z wieloma diagnozami i zaleceniami przedstawionymi w tekście sprawozdania. Za szczególnie wartościowe uważam wskazania, że przyszłe programy inwestycyjne powinny w większym stopniu służyć MŚP, a dystrybucja funduszy unijnych musi lepiej uwzględniać równowagę geograficzną i specyfikę regionu.

Zastrzeżenia budzi natomiast bezrefleksyjne podkreślanie roli Paktu Stabilności i Wzrostu. Przypomnę, że ETO zaledwie pół roku temu wytknął wady systemowe tego dokumentu, stosowanego przez Komisję Europejską wybiórczo wobec wielu krajów Unii. Takich niekonsekwencji w tekście tego dokumentu jest więcej i będę zalecał mojej delegacji wstrzymanie się od głosu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Romana Tomc (PPE). – Gospa predsednica, Kot skupnost smo seveda napredovali, pa vendar je situacija od države do države zelo različna.

Recept za uspeh je vzdrževanje dobre kondicije na strani gospodarstva, kar pa seveda lahko dosežemo samo z zelo premišljeno investicijsko in davčno politiko. Pomembno je, da tem usmeritvam sledijo tudi države članice in da poskrbijo tudi za nujno potrebne socialne reforme.

Na ravni Evropske unije bi morali več pozornosti nameniti tudi demografskim spremembam in zagotavljanju družinam prijaznega okolja. Pri tem obžalujem, da stanovanjska politika ni vključena med prednostne naloge Evropske komisije. Dostopnost stanovanj, posebej za mlade družine je namreč v nekaterih državah zelo slaba.

Evropske družine so temelj razvoja in naše družbe. Število rojstev v Evropski uniji pa upada in kar nekaj držav članic še ni sprejelo potrebnih ukrepov na tem področju, kljub temu da je od naslednjih generacij odvisna naša prihodnost. Zato predlagam, da temu posvetimo več pozornosti.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Dariusz Rosati (PPE). – Madam President, I very much share the opinions of other colleagues that have been expressed here during this debate, that the Union faces new challenges. We have an economic slowdown on the horizon. We have an unpredictable Brexit ahead of us, we have trade wars and their implications. We have to be prepared to face these challenges.

Now, most of the postulates here have been addressed to the Commission, but I think that the main responsibility is on the Member States. I mean, issues such as the reform of the labour market, attempts to encourage people to work longer, increase capacity in research and development, in education, and also to work in favour of improving the situation of our banks, especially in some states.

These are all responsibilities of Member States, so I would encourage the Commission, and personally Commissioner Dombrovskis, simply to address this issue in the country specific recommendations. We have to indeed be very ambitious in this regard.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Die Präsidentin. – Bei den nun folgenden spontanen Wortmeldungen werde ich wegen der fortgeschrittenen Zeit nur einer Person pro angemeldete Fraktion das Wort geben können.

Spontane Wortmeldungen

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivana Maletić (PPE). – Gospođo predsjedavajuća, trokut: investicije, strukturne reforme i pametno upravljanje javnim financijama, u teoriji je potpuno jasan. Naravno, na provedbi je potrebno dodatno raditi i zato u novom proračunu pokušavamo pojačati program potpore reformama, utrostručujemo i Europski fond za strateška ulaganja, povećavamo ulaganja u digitalizaciju i jačamo jedinstveno tržište, otklanjajući barijere i stvarajući Uniju jednakih mogućnosti.

Sve to naravno podržavam, ali protivim se prijedlozima Komisije prema kojima je glavni kriterij raspodjele tih povećanih sredstava broj stanovnika. Po toj raspodjeli gubimo iz vida osnovni cilj - smanjenje razlika u razvijenosti država članica. Manje razvijenim državama članicama, koje su najčešće i najviše pogođene demografskim izazovima, koji se uz starenje stanovništva očituju i kroz velika iseljavanja, moramo dodatno pomoći, a ne smanjivati ESI fondove ili alokacije iz programa potpore strukturnim reformama.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, promuovere investimenti, attuare politiche di bilancio responsabile e riforme ben congegnate sono le priorità segnalate dalla Commissione, che qualche settimana fa ha pubblicato la valutazione annuale sulla situazione economica e sociale negli Stati membri nell'ambito del pacchetto d'inverno del semestre europeo.

La Commissione disegna un quadro non roseo per l'Italia e critica gli effetti delle misure contenute nella manovra del Governo Conte, considerate un passo indietro rispetto a quelle precedenti: squilibri eccessivi del quadro economico, debito pubblico elevato, non destinato a diminuire, produttività debole, crescente divario tra Nord e Sud, tasso di occupazione tra i più bassi a livello europeo, disoccupazione giovanile altissima e rischio di effetto contagio nei confronti degli altri Stati membri.

Dal punto di vista economico la situazione in Italia è chiaramente peggiorata. È chiaro che l'Italia (ma anche altri paesi) necessita di un cambiamento di rotta e che devono migliorare i conti pubblici e devono essere fatte le riforme. Ritengo però che la Commissione europea debba incidere maggiormente verso quei paesi che stanno dimostrando di non essere all'altezza delle proprie responsabilità.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). –Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το Ευρωπαϊκό Εξάμηνο είναι ένα σύστημα μέσα από το οποίο η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, κυρίως το Συμβούλιο και η Επιτροπή, παρεμβαίνουν στις αποκλειστικές αρμοδιότητες των κρατών μελών, διότι η οικονομική πολιτική δεν έχει καμία σχέση με τις αρμοδιότητες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Ανήκει στις αρμοδιότητες των κρατών μελών. Και μέσα από το σύστημα του Ευρωπαϊκού Εξαμήνου, αυτό που γίνεται είναι οι Βρυξέλλες, επί της ουσίας, να υπαγορεύουν τη δικιά τους οικονομική πολιτική στα κράτη μέλη. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο συνεχίζουν την πολιτική λιτότητας και βίαιης δημοσιονομικής προσαρμογής.

Έχει άραγε καμιά αρμοδιότητα η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση επί των συνταξιοδοτικών συστημάτων; Καμία.

Και όμως, με τις κατευθύνσεις που δίνει, διαμορφώνει κλίμα. Κι αν υπάρχουν κυβερνήσεις που ενδεχόμενα αντιδρούν, τότε μπαίνουν στην black list των αγορών. Είναι, λοιπόν, ένας τρόπος με τον οποίο παρεμβαίνουν οι Βρυξέλλες σε βάρος των κυριαρχικών δικαιωμάτων των κρατών μελών. Καλό θα είναι οι Βρυξέλλες να ασκήσουν τις δικές τους αποκλειστικές αρμοδιότητες και να αφήσουν τα υπόλοιπα θέματα να τα ασκούν τα κράτη μέλη, και για την πολιτική των μισθών και για την πολιτική των συντάξεων.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Madam President, we hear about high youth unemployment and wages not rising quickly enough, yet would that not potentially be one effect of there being a large supply of labour – supply and demand? A lot of people have entered the EU, many of them looking for work. Obviously, that makes it harder for the people already there.

We hear about slow economic growth, but you say that your social aims and social policies are just as important as the growth policies. Well, if you take that approach then of course you’re going to slow down economic growth. Of course you are.

May I suggest that the best way to raise living standards, to get more tax dollars coming in so you can spend them on really nice things, good things, nice projects, is to grow the economy with serious economic policies. Nobody would have heard of the Good Samaritan if he’d been poor.

 
  
 

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you very much for this debate. We are now continuing as a dialogue with Member States and seek a common understanding of the challenges and policy actions to address them. We expect national reform programmes and stability or convergence programmes by mid-April and, as always, the Commission strongly encourages the close involvement of national parliaments, local authorities and social partners in the preparation of national reform programmes.

Based on this, we will present our country’s specific recommendations in a Spring European Semester cycle, so I’m looking forward to continued, constructive dialogue with you in the coming months.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Melania Gabriela Ciot, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members and the Commissioners for their remarks. They addressed important points and their remarks will provide valuable input for the discussions in the Council that touch upon many aspects of the European Semester, such as the environment, competitiveness and social policies. The country reports published by the Commission in February represent an important step in the current process. They form the basis for the work which will eventually lead to the adoption of the Semester’s country-specific recommendations during the Semester.

When working on the European Semester and debating the country-specific recommendations, we should always remember the importance of reaching as many citizens as possible to increase national ownership. I commend the initiatives taken in this regard, including the increased dialogue in the capitals and the consultation with social partners.

Today’s debate showed that, while there are some differences, there is a lot of common ground to build on. This gives me confidence in our continued cooperation in looking at the challenges ahead of us and identifying appropriate solutions to tackle them. Thank you very much once again for your attention.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tom Vandenkendelaere, Rapporteur. – Dank u, mevrouw de voorzitter. Hartelijk dank ook, alle collega's, voor de opmerkingen. Het Semester opent altijd de deur voor erg politieke debatten, maar eigenlijk ook heel erg interessante debatten. We komen altijd ergens wel tot een consensus over hoe onze economie er nu precies voorstaat, over wat de uitdagingen zijn. Deze zijn hier vanavond allemaal de revue gepasseerd. Terecht! De gelijkheid tussen man en vrouw, het klimaat, de armoede, de gezondheidszorg, de groeiende ongelijkheid, en dan heb ik het zelf ook gehad over de vergrijzing.

Welke prioriteit we ook, volgens u, het eerste moeten aanpakken, met alleen investeringen of met louter begrotingsdiscipline zal het echt niet lukken. Echt niet. We zullen werk moeten maken van én investeringen én hervormingen én begrotingsdiscipline. Die vallen zeker niet altijd makkelijk te rijmen. Ook dat hebben we vanavond gehoord tijdens het debat.

Het wordt echter vooral tijd dat we durven zeggen wat het Europees Semester-traject echt is, namelijk een kans. Een kans, geen vervelend keurslijf, geen testje dat we moeten doen, maar een kans voor de lidstaten om ons voor te bereiden op de grote uitdagingen die ons te wachten staan.

In die zin, beste Raad, reken ik echt ook op jullie om de uitvoering van die voorstellen ter harte te nemen, om deze echt ook te zien als een aanbeveling, niet als een straf die de Europese Commissie uitspreekt. Een kans om de vergrijzing aan te pakken. Een kans ook om aan onze kinderen de geweldige verwezenlijkingen van de 20e eeuw door te geven.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marian Harkin, Rapporteur. – Madam President, as we know, the AGS is published each year. Therefore it is really important that the country specific recommendations are sustained from one year to the next. So we ask the Commission for follow—up on that.

I was also encouraged by the words of Commissioner Thyssen, who replied directly to some of the suggestions in my report, especially on the issue of in—work poverty and the regulation of new forms of work. A few colleagues spoke on the issue of pensions. While we fully support universal access to adequate retirement and old age pensions, we also believe that other avenues need to be explored. One of those is to complement statutory pensions with supplementary pensions.

Three final points. In light of today’s debate on climate change, and indeed the huge challenge we face on the issue, we have called for budgets to be made available to modernise and decarbonise industry, transport and energy. In the context of social inclusion, we call on the Commission and Member States to step up efforts for greater inclusion of people with disabilities in the workplace.

Finally, we deplore the failure to include housing and homelessness among the top priorities for 2019, and call on the Commission to use this semester to monitor and support progress on housing affordability and homelessness as fundamental areas of concern.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet heute, Mittwoch, 13. März 2019, statt.

(Die Sitzung wird für einige Minuten unterbrochen.)

 
  
  

PRÉSIDENCE: SYLVIE GUILLAUME
Vice-présidente

 

18. Sēdes atsākšana
Visu runu video
 

(La séance est reprise à 17 h 03)

 

19. Balsošanas laiks
Visu runu video
MPphoto
 

  La Présidente. – L’ordre du jour appelle l’Heure des votes.

(Pour les résultats des votes et autres détails les concernant: voir procès-verbal)

 

19.1. Eiropas Industriālais, tehnoloģiskais un pētnieciskais kiberdrošības kompetenču centrs un Nacionālo koordinācijas centru tīkls (A8-0084/2019 - Julia Reda) (balsošana)
 

- Après le vote:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Julia Reda, Rapporteur. – Madam President, I rise in accordance with Rule 59 and would like to ask the Chamber to refer the matter back to committee in order to start interinstitutional negotiations.

 
  
 

(La demande de renvoi en commission est approuvée)

 

19.2. Grozījumu izdarīšana Regulā (EK) Nr. 391/2009 attiecībā uz Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības (A8-0004/2019 - Isabella De Monte) (balsošana)

19.3. Grozījumu izdarīšana Regulā (ES) Nr. 1316/2013 sakarā ar Apvienotās Karalistes izstāšanos no Savienības (A8-0009/2019 - Karima Delli) (balsošana)

19.4. Ostas atkritumu pieņemšanas iekārtas kuģu atkritumu nodošanai (A8-0326/2018 - Gesine Meissner) (balsošana)
 

- Avant le vote:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gesine Meissner, Berichterstatterin. – Frau Präsidentin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich wollte nur kurz sagen, worum es hierbei geht. Wir stimmen jetzt gleich darüber ab, dass die Beseitigung von Schiffsmüll in europäischen Häfen ab sofort besser wird. Es ist so, dass man bis jetzt durchaus noch einigen Abfall ins Meer werfen darf.

Das wird ab sofort verboten. Es gibt eine hundertprozentige Müllabfuhrgebühr, die man mit den Hafengebühren bezahlt, sodass es tatsächlich keinen Anreiz mehr gibt, irgendetwas über Bord zu werfen. Das ist eine entscheidende Verbesserung für unsere Meere, und gleichzeitig ist es auch so, dass die Fischerboote, die, nicht weil sie es wollen, sondern weil es im Meer herumschwimmt, z. B. Plastik auffischen, das in den Häfen abliefern können, ohne dafür bezahlen zu müssen, und sogar vielleicht dafür eine Entschädigung bekommen können. Das heißt, das ist gut für die Häfen, und darum bedanke ich mich bei allen – ich schaue gerade Bas Eickhout an –, die hier mitgearbeitet haben, und freue mich auf eine breite Zustimmung.

 

19.5. Savienības Muitas kodeksā paredzēto līdzekļu, kas nav elektroniskās datu apstrādes metodes, pagaidu izmantošanas pagarināšana (A8-0342/2018 - Jasenko Selimovic) (balsošana)

19.6. Krāpšanas un viltošanas apkarošana attiecībā uz bezskaidras naudas maksāšanas līdzekļiem (A8-0276/2018 - Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann) (balsošana)

19.7. Iebildumu izteikšana saskaņā ar Reglamenta 106. pantu: vairāku vielu, tostarp klotianidīna, maksimālie atlieku līmeņi (B8-0138/2019) (balsošana)
 

- Après le vote:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marianne Thyssen, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I take note of this resolution adopted by the European Parliament. Allow me to affirm that the draft Commission regulation is in line with the procedural steps set out in Council Decision 1999/468/EC on comitology and Regulation No 396/2005 and that it is therefore within the implementing powers conferred on the Commission in this latter regulation. I would also like to remind you that the Standing Committee has given a favourable opinion on the draft act and the Council has already decided not to oppose it.

I find it regrettable that Parliament has rejected this measure, which is based on the scientific assessment of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Such decisions undermine the EU’s well-established, science—based approach to food safety.

That is what I wanted to declare in the name of the Commission.

 

19.8. Iebildumu izteikšana saskaņā ar Reglamenta 106. pantu: ģenētiski modificēta kukurūza 4114 (DP-ØØ4114-3) (B8-0141/2019) (balsošana)

19.9. Iebildumu izteikšana saskaņā ar Reglamenta 106. pantu: ģenētiski modificēta kukurūza MON 87411 (MON-87411-9) (B8-0140/2019) (balsošana)

19.10. Iebildumu izteikšana saskaņā ar Reglamenta 106. pantu: ģenētiski modificēta kukurūza Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 (B8-0142/2019) (balsošana)

19.11. Iebildumu izteikšana saskaņā ar Reglamenta 106. pantu: aktīvās vielas, tostarp tiakloprīds (B8-0139/2019) (balsošana)

19.12. 2018. gada ziņojums par Turciju (A8-0091/2019 - Kati Piri) (balsošana)
 

- Après le vote:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kati Piri, Rapporteur. – Madam President, I would like to thank my colleagues for sending a straight signal to the Council calling for the suspension of the accession talks with Turkey, while at the same time also showing solidarity with Turkey’s democrats. This was our final report of the past five years and I would like to thank, too, all the shadow rapporteurs for bringing Parliament together every time on a clear stance.

(Applause)

 

19.13. Eiropas ekonomikas politikas koordinēšanas pusgads: 2019. gada izaugsmes pētījums (A8-0159/2019 - Tom Vandenkendelaere) (balsošana)

19.14. Eiropas ekonomikas politikas koordinēšanas pusgads: nodarbinātības un sociālie aspekti 2019. gada izaugsmes pētījumā (A8-0162/2019 - Marian Harkin) (balsošana)
MPphoto
 

  La Présidente. – Ceci clôt l’Heure des votes.

 

20. Balsojumu skaidrojumi (sk. protokolu)

21. Balsojumu labojumi un nodomi balsot (sk. protokolu)
Visu runu video
  

Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA
varapuhemies

 

22. Sēdes atsākšana
Visu runu video
 

(The sitting resumed at 17.42)

 

23. Zaudējumu seguma minimums nerezultatīviem riska darījumiem (debates)
Visu runu video
MPphoto
 

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana Esther de Langen ja Roberto Gualtierin talous- ja raha-asioiden valiokuntavaliokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö ehdotuksesta Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetukseksi asetuksen (EU) N:o 575/2013 muuttamisesta siltä osin kuin on kyse järjestämättömiin vastuisiin liittyvien tappioiden kattamisen vähimmäisvaatimuksista (COM(2018)0134 – C8-0117/2018 – 2018/0060(COC)) (A8-0440/2018).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Esther de Lange, Rapporteur. – Voorzitter, ik ga mijn best doen in de drukte die er nog is in deze zaal. Ik denk dat het belangrijk is, beste collega's, dat we een akkoord hebben kunnen bereiken in dit moeilijke en politiek zeer gevoelige dossier.

Het is een belangrijk dossier, omdat het om de stabiliteit van onze financiële markten en van de bankensector gaat. Markten en een sector die nog steeds kwetsbaar zijn. In de EU hebben banken – schrik niet, beste collega's, van het bedrag – nog steeds zo'n 820 miljard aan leningen op hun balans staan die moeilijk of niet te innen zijn. Deze leningen zijn flinke, onzichtbare risico's die in tijden van crisis voor instabiliteit kunnen zorgen op de financiële markten. Bovendien hebben banken die veel van dit soort slechte leningen op hun balans hebben staan, natuurlijk veel minder ruimte om ook daadwerkelijk de echte economie te financieren. Dat is misschien een net zo'n groot probleem.

Het is ook een gevoelig dossier, omdat deze 820 miljard voor een deel bestaat uit hypotheken. Uit leningen aan burgers, aan boeren, en leningen aan het midden- en kleinbedrijf. Leningen die jaren geleden wellicht te makkelijk en regelmatig met te weinig informatie werden verstrekt, vaak buiten de schuld trouwens van die burger of van die ondernemer om. En dan gaat het niet om abstracte zaken of abstracte bedragen, maar dan gaat het om iemands huis, om je bedrijf, en om je bestaan.

En het stond voor beide co-rapporteurs dus buiten kijf dat dit probleem met spoed moest worden aangepakt, met ambitie, maar wel op een verantwoorde manier. En ik ben ervan overtuigd dat wij daarin zijn geslaagd.

Wat gaan we doen? Daar waar in het verleden de ECB banken individueel moest aanspreken op wat ze moesten doen en moest vertellen dat ze die slechte leningen moesten aanpakken, worden nu alle banken wettelijk verplicht om voor slechte leningen een buffer op te bouwen om deze risico's volledig af te dekken. Afhankelijk van het type blootstelling ontstaat die 100 %-verplichting al na drie jaar voor ongedekte leningen, na zeven jaar voor gedekte leningen, of na negen jaar voor leningen die gedekt worden met onroerend goed. En zie hoe we daar rekening houden met het feit dat het daar om huizen en om hypotheken en om iemands bestaan gaat.

Uiteraard blijft de ECB daarnaast, daarbovenop, nog de mogelijkheid houden om per bank een extra verplichting op te leggen en het pad waar nodig te versnellen. En ik realiseer mij terdege dat dit voor sommige banken pijn zal doen. Maar de EVP en het CDA nemen liever moeilijke maar belangrijke maatregelen nu, dan die pijn door te geven aan de volgende generatie.

Wat ik persoonlijk wel jammer vind is dat deze wetgeving alleen geldt voor nieuwe leningen, voor de toekomst dus, terwijl banken met name in sommige landen nog een enorme last uit het verleden met zich meezeulen. Ik denk dat die lijken ook nog uit de kast moeten.

We zijn er dus nog niet. Deze verordening moet worden aangevuld door een richtlijn die deze oude oninbare leningen uit het verleden aanpakt door de verkoop ervan te vereenvoudigen en te versoepelen. Aan deze richtlijn werken we met hetzelfde team van co-rapporteurs en schaduwrapporteurs op dit moment, in de hoop ook dat proces nog voor de verkiezingen af te kunnen ronden.

Al met al gaan we dan binnen een jaar van een wetgevend voorstel naar inwerkingtreding. Dat is vrij uniek voor zo'n moeilijk en gevoelig dossier en ik denk dat we daar met z'n allen trots op kunnen zijn. Europa heeft hier geleverd.

Ik dank dus vooral co-rapporteur Gualtieri en de andere schaduwrapporteurs voor de samenwerking, net zoals de Commissie en de Raad, zowel onder Oostenrijks als Roemeens voorzitterschap. En ik dank u voor uw aandacht voor dit lastige, technische, maar o zo belangrijke onderwerp vandaag.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberto Gualtieri, relatore. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il problema dei crediti deteriorati è stato ampiamente discusso e individuato come uno dei problemi necessari a ridurre il rischio nel sistema bancario europeo. È bene dire e ricordare che la causa principale dell'elevato stock di crediti deteriorati è stata la profonda recessione economica che ha colpito diversi paesi membri all'indomani della crisi finanziaria, cui si sono poi aggiunti gli effetti negativi delle politiche di austerità. In alcuni Stati membri è anche vero che a questa principale causa si sono affiancate pratiche creditizie poco trasparenti, malagestione o insufficiente prudenza.

Per quanto riguarda questi aspetti, diverse misure sono già state adottate, tanto a livello nazionale che a livello europeo, e questo sta producendo un significativo calo del livello dei crediti deteriorati. Il testo che abbiamo concordato – e vorrei ringraziare la collega Esther de Lange per la cooperazione, che ci ha portato in tempo di record a concludere una procedura legislativa così delicata – ha due obiettivi principali: da un lato rafforzare le misure volte a prevenire l'accumulo eccessivo di crediti deteriorati, e dall'altro farlo evitando incentivi negativi dal punto di vista della capacità di sostenere l'economia o anche dal punto di vista dei debitori, che naturalmente rispetto a un'eccessiva spinta alla vendita al ribasso dei crediti deteriorati sarebbero negativamente colpiti.

Quali sono i punti principali dell'accordo raggiunto con il Consiglio? Innanzitutto abbiamo deciso di applicare questo backstop prudenziale solo ai nuovi crediti che derivano da nuovi prestiti, in linea con il piano d'azione del Consiglio, che chiedeva appunto questo. E questo è logico, perché occorre un periodo di tempo sufficiente per adattarsi alle nuove norme, da un punto di vista contabile e prudenziale.

Il secondo elemento è che nel testo delineiamo un corretto ed equo bilanciamento dei livelli di accantonamento per le banche. In particolare, a differenza della proposta della Commissione, il provisioning per crediti garantiti o non garantiti ha inizio rispettivamente solo dopo due o tre anni, scongiurando così il rischio che gli accantonamenti prudenziali si vadano ad aggiungere alla contrazione del capitale determinata dalla recessione, creando un effetto prociclico, con effetti negativi sulla concessione del credito e sull'economia reale.

Inoltre abbiamo eliminato gli incentivi potenzialmente negativi (o potremmo dire perversi) presenti nella proposta della Commissione che avrebbero accelerato la messa in liquidazione di imprese solo temporaneamente incapaci di ripagare il prestito, ma in realtà solventi, con conseguenze negative non solo sulle compagnie stesse, soprattutto piccole e medie imprese, ma anche sulla crescita economica e il livello di occupazione.

Da ultimo, ma non per importanza, vorrei menzionare anche un elemento che abbiamo introdotto, cioè un trattamento prudenziale più favorevole per quei crediti deteriorati che vengono acquistati sul mercato secondario da parte di altri istituti di credito, in modo da evitare una ingiusta penalizzazione per gli operatori specializzati e, al tempo stesso, fornire una protezione più elevata per i consumatori, le PMI e tutti gli altri debitori, dal momento che tali istituzioni sono soggette a severi controlli e regolamentazioni.

In conclusione, si tratta di un testo equilibrato che ci aiuta a compiere un ulteriore importante passo avanti nella riduzione dei rischi del settore bancario, evitando nel contempo conseguenze negative sull'economia reale e sui consumatori. Per questo motivo invitiamo a sostenere il testo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, first of all I would like to congratulate you for taking this file from the onset, in July last year, with a strong will and dedication, which helped us reach political agreement on the text you will vote on tomorrow.

We have been working intensively over the past years to reduce risks and to strengthen the resilience of the European banking sector. With a prudential backstop regulation, we are addressing one of the major risks to which European banks are still exposed: non-performing loans.

Non-performing loans had piled up in the banks’ balance sheets in the aftermath of the financial crisis and ensuing economic downturn. As we saw, elevated levels of NPLs, if not dealt with sufficiently quickly, weighed on banks’ liability and capacity to lend to the real economy.

We have certainly made substantial progress in reducing the high levels of NPLs. However, the ratio remains elevated when compared historically and to other regions, and accelerated GDP growth – a key driver behind the reduction in NPLs – cannot be taken for granted.

Preventing the future accumulation of NPLs is hence essential for preserving financial stability and supporting lending to create jobs and growth. To this end, the prudential backstop will put EU-wide brakes on any excessive future build-up of NPLs on banks’ balance sheets, without sufficient loss coverage. It will do so by setting a common minimum coverage level for future loans if they become non-performing across Member States and banks. It will serve as a necessary complement to existing supervisory tools that can only be applied on a case-by-case basis, depending on the individual circumstances of the bank.

The prudential backstop is therefore an important part of the Union’s effort to further reduce risks in the banking system, with a view to completing the banking union. However, our work to address NPLs is not complete yet. As you know, the backstop is part of the package of measures which also aim to improve the conditions for banks to deal with NPLs through more efficient enforcement mechanisms, as well as efficient competitive and transparent secondary markets.

I therefore encourage you to swiftly agree on the outstanding proposal on the NPL Directive, in particular to further develop secondary markets for non-performing loans.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Stefan Gehrold, au nom du groupe PPE. – Madame la Présidente, on m’a demandé de m’exprimer dans ce débat sur la prétendue politique d’austérité et ses effets sur les relations entre les États membres.

Je ne suis certainement pas le seul à avoir l’impression que la crise financière et ses conséquences ont infligé des blessures considérables à l’unité de l’Europe, et que ces blessures ne sont pas encore entièrement guéries. Dans ce contexte, le système financier a considérablement souffert, ce qui a eu des conséquences majeures sur la vie des citoyens. C’est ainsi que la place centrale des institutions financières pour le bon déroulement économique de toute la société s’est vérifiée.

L’intermédiation financière joue un rôle capital. Après tout, telle est la finalité du bon fonctionnement de notre système financier: permettre à tous les Européens de profiter pleinement du potentiel économique de nos entreprises. Il convient donc de souligner que les patients ne sont pas seulement les banques, bien entendu, mais également les individus. Par conséquent, c’est en considérant la réduction des expositions non performantes comme une partie cruciale du traitement qu’on peut, de manière réaliste, parler d’une vraie guérison pour toutes les parties prenantes.

J’aimerais donc féliciter les rapporteurs d’avoir apporté une réponse équilibrée aux défis multiples qui se sont posés. N’oublions pas, néanmoins, qu’afin de garantir le succès de cette partie du traitement, il faut également avaler la pilule amère de la gestion raisonnable des finances publiques. Pourtant, une telle politique ne provoque pas, comme on le lui reproche à tort, une stagnation, mais plutôt une croissance économique durable.

En définitive, la prétendue politique d’austérité n’est pas la conséquence d’un régime sévère imposé aux États concernés, mais la conséquence d’une politique de dépenses irresponsable menée par des gouvernements faibles et sans volonté pendant de longues années.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Neena Gill, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, my congratulations to the rapporteurs Roberto Gualtieri and Esther de Lange. Non-performing loans (NPLs), as we heard, are a legacy from the last financial crisis and a decade later, the EU has not sufficiently reduced the levels, and therefore action is still needed to prevent a worsening situation in the future. Since 2015, NPLs have declined by only 400 billion, down from one trillion. Clearly, there is a long way to go and they remain a big challenge facing banks in the euro area. The only way is to clean up their balance sheet whilst we have a positive economic climate. Therefore, I really welcome the improved text from the trilogue because it ensures adequate provisioning of NPLs in the banks’ balance sheets, and a more gradual provisioning in the earlier years will reduce the potential negative impact on the real economy.

Whilst this agreement and the recently adopted banking package reduce the risk in the banking sector considerably and bring the EU a little closer to banking union, there are three major reforms that are still needed to ensure that the EU banking sector becomes more resilient. Firstly, we need a decisive step towards a pan-European depository scheme to get adequate risk-sharing and equal protection of all EU savers. This is critical. It is a pity that the right side of this House keeps blocking this for ideological reasons, and I hope the next Parliament will address this.

Secondly, sustainable finance should become the norm, not the exception, and as banks are still the main financing source of the EU economy, they have a big responsibility. We have taken steps recently in terms of the sustainable finance package, but my question to the Vice-President is: how will the Commission ensure that banks exercise this responsibility?

Finally, given the massive impact on the economy and taxpayers of the last financial crisis, we can no longer have too-big-to-fail banks. What is the Commission’s view on the upcoming merger between Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank and, in particular, the impact of this merger on financial stability?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bernd Lucke, im Namen der ECR-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Wir haben ein großes Problem in der Eurozone durch den riesigen Bestand an notleidenden Krediten. 600 Milliarden Euro oder mehr, wenn da nicht nämlich vieles versteckt wird in irgendwelchen Stundungsmaßnahmen. Wir haben ein großes Problem, und jetzt debattieren wir in diesem Haus eine Lösung, die das Problem nicht löst. Eine Maßnahme, eine hart umkämpfte gesetzgeberische Maßnahme, die das gesamte Problem, das wir in der Eurozone haben, überhaupt nicht angeht, weil alle notleidenden Kredite, die sich in der Finanzkrise aufgebaut haben, die sich in der Eurokrise aufgebaut haben, die sich in der Staatsschuldenkrise aufgebaut haben, von diesem Gesetz überhaupt nicht erfasst werden. Das Gesetz gilt überhaupt erst für notleidende Kredite ab dem Zeitpunkt, an dem dieses Gesetz in Kraft tritt. Und noch nicht einmal die Kredite, die jetzt im Jahre 2019 notleidend werden, nachdem das Gesetz in Kraft getreten sein wird, werden dadurch sofort irgendwie betroffen, sondern dann wird immer noch eine Frist von drei Jahren eingeräumt, ehe die ersten Abschreibungsmaßnahmen gelten. Erst im Jahre 2022 beginnen wir, notleidende Kredite zu behandeln, die es im Augenblick noch überhaupt nicht gibt. Und den riesigen Berg an notleidenden Krediten, der uns die Bankenstabilität, die Finanzstabilität in der Eurozone gefährdet, gehen wir mit dieser Gesetzgebung überhaupt nicht an. Das ist ein klares Beispiel dafür, wie oft sich Politiker auf die Schulter klopfen und sich gratulieren, dass sie ein Problem gelöst haben, ohne zu erklären, weshalb die Maßnahme das Problem überhaupt löst. Das ist ein vollständiges Versagen dieses Parlaments.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I would like to welcome Commissioner Dombrovskis again to this Parliament.

It was not easy to include our proposals and ideas for this regulation as the two co—rapporteurs held onto this file very tightly. Nevertheless, we have been active through the whole procedure because we are committed to those people who suffered the most due to non-performing loans. We have always said that non—performing loans (NPLs) have an inherent human dimension. They were built up because European law was implemented incorrectly.

At the very beginning of this regulation, the Union acknowledges that there were important laws that were not implemented properly in some Member States: the Late Payment Directive, the Consumer Rights Directive and the Mortgage Credit Directive. Let me warn you that if we do not improve the implementation of EU law in some Member States, we may risk suffering a new wave of NPLs in some Member States in the next few years, even in the event of a new huge financial crisis or another economic crisis. Proper implementation is key. Proper implementation means prevention and commitment to our values, our rules and our Union.

Parliament cannot fail in approving only one law and not the other. Without the directive, the regulation would lose all its meaning and major institutions could not have the legal incentive they need to put their non-performing loans on the market. We consider that this Parliament needs to send a strong message. It is therefore important that the whole NPL legislative package is approved. This is our responsibility.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ernest Urtasun, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señora presidenta, nuestro Grupo comparte la necesidad de reducir el paquete de créditos morosos que hay en los balances —es muy grande—, no tanto porque sean un freno para el crédito ―el crédito funciona cuando hay actividad económica y cuando hay demanda―, sino porque pueden ser y son una fuente de inestabilidad financiera importante. Por lo tanto, es un objetivo que compartimos.

Pero, sin embargo, nosotros creemos que hay dos criterios que deben prevalecer. El primero es que se debe exigir más responsabilidad a las entidades financieras a la hora de dar crédito, y eso significa una exigencia muy grande en la provisión de los créditos morosos. Y, el segundo, una protección muy grande del consumidor y, particularmente, de los consumidores que no pueden hacer frente a sus créditos, porque la reducción de los créditos morosos no puede realizarse al altísimo coste social que se realizó en algunos países, como fue el caso español.

Por lo tanto, esa era nuestra voluntad y estos son nuestros objetivos, con los cuales afrontamos este debate. Tengo que decir que nosotros no estamos satisfechos con el Reglamento que se nos presenta. Por lo tanto, no vamos a votarlo por algunas razones particulares que voy a detallar a continuación.

La primera, porque las provisiones que se establecen para los créditos morosos futuros son excesivamente largas. La Comisión propuso que un crédito tuviera que ser provisional al cien por cien tras ocho años. Ustedes proponen hasta nueve. Nosotros propusimos siete, siguiendo los consejos del Banco Central Europeo, pues nos parecía un calendario razonable pero, desde luego, un poco más exigente. Y, finalmente, porque ustedes dicen que esta norma entrará en vigor tres años después de su aprobación.

Y, finalmente, también nosotros proponíamos que este Reglamento tocara algunos créditos anteriores haciendo que todos los créditos que se volvieran morosos después del 1 de marzo fueran incluidos. Ustedes solo proponen que todos aquellos créditos emitidos a partir del 1 de abril estén cubiertos.

Por lo tanto, no estamos nada contentos. Y nos preocupa, además, que, al haber separado los dos expedientes, con la Directiva toda la parte de protección de los consumidores a ver cómo va a quedar. Porque si la dinámica de negociación es la misma que la que hemos tenido en este expediente, que es básicamente un acuerdo de gran coalición, pues eso realmente no augura nada bueno. Por lo tanto, espero por lo menos que en el desarrollo de la negociación de la Directiva se tenga más en cuenta a los grupos pequeños.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Matt Carthy, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, none of the arguments in favour of the Commission’s package on non-performing loans stand up to scrutiny. Its supporters say that it will contribute to financial stability, but how does moving billions of euros of bad debt into the unregulated shadow banking sector achieve this? Its supporters argue that it will free up banks to lend to small businesses, but all of the evidence shows that it’s the lack of demand in the economy and not credit supply that is limiting lending. Its supporters say that we can achieve strengthened consumer protection in the directive, but in reality the package will encourage the banks to throw their customers to the wolves through the mass sell-offs of mortgages on family homes to vulture funds. This is exactly what’s happening in Ireland right now, and it has fuelled a housing and homelessness crisis on an unprecedented scale. Supporters of this proposal actually cite the Irish example with bad debt as a model to be replicated across the EU when, in reality, it is an example of exactly what not to do.

The truth is that this package is about returning banks to the situation where they can make massive profits again without any regard to the rights of borrowers who, let’s not forget, are European citizens. We cannot support this package as it won’t solve the problem of bad debt in the EU’s financial system. It will just move it into the shadows while throwing families who find themselves in distress to the vultures.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marco Valli, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io personalmente, e anche il mio gruppo, siamo molto preoccupati per le misure che verranno applicate con questo pacchetto sui crediti deteriorati, innanzitutto perché lo studio di impatto non è stato fatto, e quindi gli impatti che ci saranno sul mercato immobiliare e l'impatto che ci sarà sui consumatori, sulle imprese e sui cittadini europei sono tutto da verificare, perché incentivare la vendita dei crediti deteriorati, in breve tempo, rispetto a una sana gestione che potrebbero fare internamente le banche, comporta appunto anche un meccanismo speculativo.

Sappiamo che ci sono diversi Fondi che hanno fatto anche consulenze alla Banca centrale europea e all'SSM durante gli stress test, che sono molto interessati a mettere le mani su questi pacchetti di crediti deteriorati. Non vorrei appunto che le case, gli immobili, i beni a garanzia dei cittadini vadano, appunto, in mano a questi speculatori. E visto che parliamo di riduzione dei rischi, mi chiedo ora dove sia la riduzione dei rischi sui derivati, ad esempio, che hanno in pancia le grandi banche d'affari europee e quando arriverà questa benedetta condivisione rischi. Aspettiamo con ansia una condivisione del rischio sulla garanzia dei depositi comuni.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Auke Zijlstra, namens de ENF-Fractie. – Voorzitter, dit verslag over verliesdekkingen voor banken sluit aan op de vorming van de kapitaalmarktunie waarbij risico's over lidstaten worden verspreid. De Nederlandse Wetenschappelijke Raad voor Regeringsbeleid (WRR) trekt echter in zijn recente rapport "Geld en schuld" de conclusie dat deze spreiding van risico's juist instabiliteit in de hand werkt. De WRR concludeert dat de stabiliteit van het financieel stelsel niet alleen onderuit wordt gehaald door overmatige kredietopbouw, maar ook door uniformiteit, schaal en verwevenheid van financiële instellingen. Dat is nou net waar de kapitaalmarktunie naar streeft. De WRR is zeker voor Nederlanders een bekend instituut. Dus ik neem aan dat de rapporteurs hiervan ook op de hoogte zijn. Dus, voorzitter, dan blijft alleen de vraag over waarom de rapporteurs dit toch willen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Kυρία Πρόεδρε, δυστυχώς η Επιτροπή προσεγγίζει το σοβαρό αυτό ζήτημα κυρίως από τη σκοπιά των τραπεζών και όχι με γνώμονα την προστασία των καταναλωτών. Οι τράπεζες αποτελούν σημαντικό πυλώνα της οικονομίας των κρατών μελών. Πιθανή κατάρρευσή τους στη δεδομένη χρονική στιγμή θα σήμαινε τρομακτικές δυσκολίες για την καθημερινότητα των πολιτών, αλλά και για τα ίδια τα κράτη. Πρέπει να εντοπιστούν οι στρατηγικοί κακοπληρωτές και να υποχρεωθούν να πληρώσουν. Οι τράπεζες όμως ευθύνονται για την ανεξέλεγκτη χορήγηση δανείων χωρίς εγγυήσεις.

Εκατομμύρια πολίτες στα κράτη μέλη της Ενώσεως εξαιτίας κυρίως της οικονομικής κρίσης, δεν μπορούν να αποπληρώσουν τα χρέη τους και κινδυνεύουν να χάσουν ακόμα και την κατοικία τους. Οι τράπεζες, μέσω των ανακεφαλαιοποιήσεων από τα χρήματα των πολιτών, συνεχίζουν να λειτουργούν. Για τους πολίτες που αντιμετωπίζουν πρόβλημα επιβίωσης λόγω των χρεών τους, θα πρέπει να ληφθούν μέτρα, όπως προστασία της κύριας κατοικίας τους και παροχής ευκολιών για την αποπληρωμή των δανείων τους, ειδικά για τους ανέργους, τους χαμηλόμισθους και τις πιο ευάλωτες κοινωνικές ομάδες.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Κώστας Μαυρίδης (S&D). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, τα μη εξυπηρετούμενα δάνεια είναι ένα ευρωπαϊκό πρόβλημα, για το οποίο αυτό το κείμενο αποτελεί ένα επιπλέον βήμα μπροστά. Επιδίωξη είναι η μείωση, με έναν αποτελεσματικό τρόπο, των μη εξυπηρετούμενων δανείων και, ταυτοχρόνως, χωρίς να δημιουργούνται αρνητικές επιπτώσεις στην πραγματική οικονομία και στους δανειολήπτες.

Ως εδώ, όλα καλά. Τρία σημεία: πρώτον, η προστασία των δανειοληπτών, με δεδομένο ότι η τράπεζα είναι εκ των πραγμάτων ο δυνατός και ο δανειολήπτης καταναλωτής είναι εκ των πραγμάτων ο αδύνατος, όπως καθορίζεται και στη συγκεκριμένη ευρωπαϊκή οδηγία περί καταχρηστικών ρητρών, σημαίνει ότι εμείς θα πρέπει να παρεμβαίνουμε και ιδιαίτερα η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή να διερευνά καταγγελίες για μη αποτελεσματική εφαρμογή της συγκεκριμένης οδηγίας. Σας αναφέρω, λοιπόν, ότι στην περίπτωση ιδιαίτερα της Κύπρου, η συγκεκριμένη ευρωπαϊκή οδηγία δεν εφαρμόζεται με αποτελεσματικό τρόπο και σε άλλα κράτη μέλη δεν εφαρμόζεται με ομοιόμορφο τρόπο.

Το δεύτερο σημείο: risk sharing. Εδώ θα επαναλάβω κάτι που είπε συνάδελφός μου: ιδεολογικοί λόγοι - αλλά και θα προσθέσω: ειδικά συμφέροντα κάποιων κρατών μελών - εμποδίζουν την ολοκλήρωση της Ευρωπαϊκής Τραπεζικής Ένωσης με τον τρίτο πυλώνα που ήταν και παραμένει το ζητούμενο: πανευρωπαϊκή εγγύηση των καταθέσεων. Χωρίς αυτό, δεν μπορούμε να μιλούμε για ουσιαστικό ανταγωνισμό, ο οποίος να είναι δίκαιος, ανάμεσα στις τράπεζες των κρατών μελών. Και το τρίτο σημείο: πρόσφατα στην Κύπρο είχαμε ένα πόρισμα από την ερευνητική επιτροπή που διορίστηκε σε σχέση με την κατάρρευση της συνεργατικής τράπεζας. Το πρόβλημα ήταν, εξαρχής όπως διαφάνηκε, τα μη εξυπηρετούμενα δάνεια. Σας ομολογώ όμως ότι το πόρισμα καταλήγει σε κάτι που αφορά τους ευρωπαϊκούς θεσμούς. Εξαπατήθηκαν από τις συγκεκριμένες αρχές της κυβέρνησης στην Κύπρο.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Stanisław Ożóg (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Instytucje finansowe w Unii poczyniły postępy pod względem jakości portfeli kredytowych, jak i ogólnego wolumenu pożyczek zagrożonych. Aby zapobiec gromadzeniu się kredytów zagrożonych w przyszłości, konieczne są dodatkowe środki, dlatego też z zadowoleniem polska delegacja przyjmuje przedstawioną propozycję legislacyjną i ją poprze.

Chciałbym jednak zwrócić uwagę na dwie kwestie. Po pierwsze, obecne uniwersalne podejście nie uwzględnia istniejących różnic w krajowym prawie cywilnym oraz długości postępowania w sądach cywilnych.

Po drugie, należy przeprowadzić specjalną ocenę skutków, aby oszacować potencjalny wpływ rozporządzenia na banki, na przenoszenie kredytów, na gospodarstwa domowe, na małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa i skutki wzrostu produktu krajowego brutto państw członkowskich.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (GUE/NGL). – Kυρία Πρόεδρε, ασφαλώς πρέπει να μειώσουμε τα μη εξυπηρετούμενα δάνεια γιατί είναι πάρα πολύ υψηλά, 600 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ. Αλλά πρέπει να το κάνουμε εξασφαλίζοντας μια επαρκή προστασία των καταναλωτών απέναντι σε κερδοσκοπικές πρακτικές, και αυτό δεν το κάνει ούτε η πρόταση της Επιτροπής με επάρκεια ούτε η κοινή πρόταση συμβιβασμού ανάμεσα στο Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα και τη Σοσιαλιστική Ομάδα. Και επίσης, αν θέλουμε ένα υγιές τραπεζικό σύστημα, πρέπει να εξασφαλίσουμε και ότι ο μη ρυθμιζόμενος τραπεζικός τομέας θα υπάγεται και θα υπακούει στους ίδιους κανόνες διαφάνειας και λογοδοσίας, και αυτό πάλι δεν εξασφαλίζεται με αυτή την πρόταση, για αυτό και δεν μπορούμε να το στηρίξουμε.

Και επιπλέον, είμαστε αντίθετοι με τη σαλαμοποίηση του προβλήματος και με τις διαρκείς αναβολές. Κυρία Esther de Lange, έχετε επί 4 χρόνια το φάκελο του EDIS στα χέρια σας και κρατάτε καθυστέρηση και δεν έχει γίνει τίποτα και τελειώνει η θητεία. Έχει μειωθεί ο κίνδυνος, αλλά το «risk sharing» (ο επιμερισμός του κινδύνου) δεν έχει προχωρήσει ένα βήμα, ενώ το προτείνει η Επιτροπή, και το υποστηρίζει η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα και ένα μεγάλο τμήμα του Ευρωκοινοβουλίου. Έτσι, με τη σαλαμοποίηση, δεν θα πετύχουμε τίποτα και ο κανονισμός δεν έχει κανένα νόημα χωρίς την παράλληλη οδηγία. Πολύ λίγα, πολύ αργά, αυτά που έχετε προτείνει και για αυτό δεν μπορούμε να τα στηρίξουμε.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Σωτήριος Ζαριανόπουλος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η κυβέρνηση ΣΥΡΙΖΑ, αφού χάρισε 20 εκατομμύρια προχθές στους φαρμακοβιομήχανους, συμφώνησε σε εθελοντική όχι υποχρεωτική φορολόγηση με ψίχουλα των εφοπλιστών, φοροαπαλλάσει τράπεζες και funds επί οκταετία, βγάζει τώρα τα σπασμένα στις πλάτες του λαού. Καταργεί πλήρως την όποια δικαστική προστασία της πρώτης κατοικίας χιλιάδων λαϊκών οικογενειών από πλειστηριασμούς. Το 2019 προγραμματίζουν 20.000 πλειστηριασμοί με μόνη απόφαση των τραπεζών και των funds όπου μεταβιβάζονται χιλιάδες δάνεια και τραπεζοϋπάλληλοι που τους περιμένει η απόλυση.

Λεόντειες ρυθμίσεις δανείων για έναν μόνο χρόνο που είναι αδύνατο να τηρηθούν για τους ελάχιστους που θα μπουν σε αυτές λόγω αυστηρότατων κριτηρίων. Ελεύθεροι πλειστηριασμοί για τα κόκκινα δάνεια από δω και πέρα. Οι συζητήσεις ΣΥΡΙΖΑ Εurogroup δεν αλλάζουν την συναπόφασή τους για 100.000 πλειστηριασμούς σε μια τριετία. Και άλλη δηλαδή ανακεφαλαιοποίηση τραπεζών για να χρηματοδοτήσουν το κεφάλαιο. Μνημόνιο και εποπτεία διαρκείας. Κανένα ψευτοπροοδευτικό μέτωπο δεν κρύβει αυτή τη βαθιά αντιδραστική πολιτική. Άλλωστε, και εδώ μέσα η Χρυσή Αυγή προέβαλε πρώτα από όλα τη διάσωση των τραπεζών και όχι των δανειοληπτών. Το σύνθημα «κανένα σπίτι στα χέρια τραπεζίτη» να κινητοποιήσει τις εργατικές λαϊκές οικογένειες, να γίνει κριτήριο στη στάση τους στις εκλογές.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Madam President, the establishment of a comprehensive strategy to address the issue of non-performing exposures is an essential goal for the Union in its attempt to make the financial system more resilient. While addressing the non-performing loans (NPLs) is primarily the responsibility of banks and the Member States, there is also a clear Union dimension to reducing the current high stock of non-performing exposures, as well as to preventing any expressive build-up of NPLs in the future, and to preventing the margins of system-wide risks in the non-banking sector. I consider that an integrated financial system will enhance the resilience of the European monetary union to adverse shocks, while at the same time reducing the need for public risk sharing. Nevertheless, this proposal is crucial as it aims to ensure sufficient loss coverage by banks for future NPLs by amending the existing Capital Requirement Regulation.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ralph Packet (ECR). – Voorzitter, 714 miljard euro! Dat enorme bedrag aan rommelkredieten en leningen die met afbetalingsproblemen kampen, staat nu tien jaar na de financiële crisis nog steeds op de balansen van de Europese banken. Dat heeft zijn gevolgen. In Italië, waar rommelkredieten een enorm probleem zijn, moest de Italiaanse overheid in januari de bank Carige nog te hulp schieten.

Daarom komen deze nieuwe regels dan ook als geroepen. Ze mogen voor mijn part zelfs nog wat strenger zijn. Ondertussen willen de Macrons van deze wereld immers altijd maar nieuwe Europese fondsen, transfers, een Eurozone-budget, een Europees depositogarantiefonds, enzovoort. Maar moest iedereen eens eerst voor zijn eigen deur vegen en zijn eigen schulden opkuisen, dan zou de Europese Unie er vandaag al een stuk beter uitzien.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Rzeczywiście rozważamy problem, który może być bardzo bolesny i dla banków, i dla kredytobiorców. Argument, że jest opóźnienie i w związku z tym nie powinniśmy udzielić poparcia, mnie osobiście nie przekonuje. Rzeczywiście długo pracowaliśmy, ale materia wcale nie jest taka prosta. Rozumiem, że chodzi nam o podział odpowiedzialności między bank i jego ocenę tzw. poziomu ryzyka oraz kredytobiorcę, który jest, pamiętajmy, zróżnicowany (to nie jest jeden, zunifikowany typ kredytobiorcy) i który również ma prawo do ryzyka, zarówno w części kredytu inwestycyjnego, jak i, ewentualnie, w części kredytu konsumpcyjnego związanego z planem życia.

Potrzebujemy redukcji poziomu zagrożonych kredytów, zapobiegania ich odnawianiu czy wzrostowi stopnia. Pytanie jest oczywiście z naszego punktu widzenia zasadnicze: jak duże powinny być fundusze na pokrycie ryzyka i jaki to będzie mieć skutek także dla systemu bankowego? Pamiętajmy jednak – i banki trzeba chronić, i inwestorom dać szansę prowadzić inwestycje.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, μιλούμε για τα κόκκινα δάνεια στην Ένωση, τη στιγμή που στην Ελλάδα οι φτωχοποιημένοι από τα μνημόνια Έλληνες κινδυνεύουν να χάσουν τα σπίτια τους από τα κοράκια. Παρά το ότι ο ελληνικός λαός, με την υπερχρέωσή του λόγω μνημονίων, έσωσε τους ξένους δανειστές, αλλά και τις τράπεζες, παρότι η Ελλάδα χρεώθηκε με 288 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ, τελικά η τρόικα με επικεφαλής την ΕΚΤ και τον Ντράγκι απαιτούν από τις τράπεζες το ξεπούλημα των κόκκινων δανείων στα κοράκια αντί πινακίου φακής.

Η κυβέρνηση Τσίπρα, αλλά και οι προηγούμενες μνημονιακές κυβερνήσεις, άφησαν το πρόβλημα των κόκκινων δανείων να διογκωθεί. Τώρα η κυβέρνηση Τσίπρα καταργεί την προστασία πρώτης κατοικίας και ρίχνει τους δανειολήπτες βορά στους τοκογλύφους. Μόνη λύση η δημιουργία ταμείου σωτηρίας δανειοληπτών με κρατική παρέμβαση που θα αγοράσει τα κόκκινα δάνεια στην τιμή πρώτης προσφοράς που κάνουν τα κοράκια, πρόταση που υποβάλαμε εδώ και δύο χρόνια.

Stop εδώ και τώρα στους πλειστηριασμούς πρώτης κατοικίας. «Κανένα σπίτι στα χέρια τραπεζίτη». Αυτό θα πρέπει να είναι το κεντρικό σύνθημα και στις επικείμενες ευρωεκλογές. Γιατί για την Ελλάδα υπάρχει άλλος δρόμος.

 
  
 

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Chciałem zwrócić uwagę na fakt, że te 600 czy nawet 700 mld euro niespłaconych czy niespłacanych w terminie kredytów to poważny problem, ale problem nie tak bolesny, gdyż mamy okres rozwoju, niż jakbyśmy mieli do czynienia z okresem stagnacji czy „nie-prosperity”.

Zwracam na to uwagę dlatego, że w całej debacie nie padły bardzo istotne definicje problemu, związane przede wszystkim ze źródłami kłopotów. Czy źródłem kłopotów są luki prawne czy błędy systemowe? Czy są to błędy popełniane przez samych bankowców? Do jakiego stopnia niespłacane kredyty są efektem świadomej aktywności rozmaitych podmiotów prawnych lub osób fizycznych?

Mówię o tym w kontekście swojej pracy w Komisji ds. Terroryzmu. Mówiliśmy tam o bitcoinach, o lukach w podatku VAT, o tworzeniu grup przestępczych także z wykorzystaniem rozmaitych czynności bankowych. Z mojego punktu widzenia powinniśmy zdążyć przed końcem kadencji. Dobrze, że zdążymy, natomiast bardzo istotne jest, abyśmy mieli pełną diagnozę źródeł problemu i jego skali.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). –Κυρία Πρόεδρε, οι τράπεζες αποτελούν τμήμα της οικονομίας ενός κράτους. Eίναι, λοιπόν, λογικό να επιδεικνύεται ενδιαφέρον ώστε να επιβιώσουν, να μην καταρρεύσουν, για να μπορέσουν να χορηγήσουν δάνεια, τα οποία θα συμβάλουν στην ανάπτυξη και την εξεύρεση εργασίας και απασχόλησης.

Πρωτίστως, όμως, αντικειμενικός σκοπός δεν είναι η επιβίωση των τραπεζών, αλλά είναι η βοήθεια των δανειοληπτών, οι οποίοι δεν έχουν τη δυνατότητα να αποπληρώσουν τα δάνεια, τα οποία έχουν λάβει. Λόγω της οικονομικής κρίσεως, ο αριθμός αυτών των ανθρώπων είναι πολύ μεγάλος σε όλα τα κράτη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως. Τραγικές διαστάσεις λαμβάνει αυτό το φαινόμενο στην Ελλάδα, όπου εκατομμύρια Έλληνες, λόγω της οικονομικής καταστροφής της χώρας εξαιτίας των μνημονίων, δεν έχουν τη δυνατότητα να αποπληρώσουν τα δάνειά τους, τα οποία γίνονται κόκκινα και καθημερινά χιλιάδες από αυτούς χάνουν τα σπίτια τους.

Πρόσφατα, πριν δύο ημέρες, ένας άνδρας 54 ετών αυτοκτόνησε, όταν οι κρατικοί υπάλληλοι ήρθαν να κατασχέσουν το σπίτι του. Αυτή πρέπει να είναι η προσπάθεια που οφείλουμε να καταβάλουμε. Να προστατεύσουμε αυτούς τους ανθρώπους, να προστατεύσουμε την πρώτη κατοικία, και να τους δώσουμε τη δυνατότητα να αποπληρώσουν τα δάνεια που έχουν λάβει.

 
  
 

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the co-rapporteurs on their work and dedication and the shadow rapporteurs for their support in the negotiations on this file.

Let me close by stressing that this legislative initiative proves that the Union is indeed united on the need to take decisive action to make its banking sector stronger and more stable, with the capacity to withstand future shocks, wherever they may come from and with the capacity to lend to the real economy. This is an important ingredient in future economic prosperity and also a resilient Economic and Monetary Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Esther de Lange, Rapporteur. – Voorzitter, ik wil op twee punten kort ingaan. Er zijn een aantal collega's die opmerkingen hebben gemaakt over het Europees depositogarantiestelsel.

Ik moet dan even een stapje terugdoen en eraan herinneren dat wij ten tijde van de crisis heel veel van de Europese belastingbetaler hebben gevraagd, als het gaat om het redden van banken, het garant staan voor die redding, en het garant staan voor een aantal lidstaten. En we hebben tijdens die crisis gezegd "dat nooit meer". Dus de volgende keer dat er een bank gered moet worden, is het niet de belastingbetaler, maar de aandeelhouder die daarvoor in eerste instantie de rekening krijgt.

Nu hebben we gezien in de praktijk dat wanneer het in bepaalde landen op een bankenredding of een resolutie aankomt, toch weer de staat garant staat, toch weer de belastingbetaler dat moet ophoesten. En dan kan ik me voorstellen dat, wanneer er zulke grote verschillen zijn tussen lidstaten in het al dan niet gebruiken van overheidsgeld voor het redden van banken, niet elke lidstaat staat te springen om nu al meteen van vandaag op morgen één Europees fonds voor het garanderen van banktegoeden in heel Europa in het leven te roepen.

Dat wil niet zeggen dat we niks kunnen doen. Er ligt een goed voorstel om bij depositogarantie te beginnen met verplichte liquiditeitssteun. Dat is iets wat we, wat mij betreft, morgen kunnen starten. Probleem is alleen dat een aantal fracties nu al de garantie wil dat wij meteen overgaan tot die Europese pot. Een aantal recente bankenreddingen in Italië, het feit dat ook een aantal fracties nu tegen deze wetgeving voor niet—renderende leningen zal stemmen, laat zien dat helaas daarvoor het politieke draagvlak nog niet aanwezig is, gewoon omdat in een aantal lidstaten die risicoreductie en die verantwoorde houding die daarvoor nodig is, nog niet aanwezig is. Dat is één.

Ten tweede wil ik antwoord geven aan mijn collega Auke Zijlstra, die een "Nigel Farage" heeft "gedaan". Hij is namelijk in dit debat tussenbeide gekomen, heeft een verklaring van twee minuten afgegeven en is vervolgens weer vertrokken. Hij vindt de wetgeving te slap. Hij komt uit Nederland en is van de PVV. Hij heeft zich echter in deze onderhandelingen laten vertegenwoordigen door een collega van de ENF—fractie uit Italië, die als signaal namens zijn fractie aan mij gaf: deze wetgeving moet met veel langere termijnen werken en vooral minder ambitieus zijn.

Ik heb het eventjes opgeteld. Ik denk dat wij zo'n twintig uur fysiek onderhandeld hebben, technisch en met collega's. De aanwezigheid van de PVV en van meneer Zijlstra in deze onderhandelingen is welgeteld nul minuten. Ik heb tientallen, zo niet honderden e—mails gehad als input voor deze wetgeving. De input van de PVV en van meneer Zijlstra: welgeteld nul e—mails. Dus als ik nog één zin mag zeggen, namelijk mijn reactie naar de PVV: ofwel doe je werk, schrijf mij aan en meng je in het debat, of hou je mond.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberto Gualtieri, relatore. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, penso che questa discussione abbia mostrato che abbiamo in realtà approvato un testo equilibrato. Abbiamo ascoltato un po' di propaganda, da un lato e dall'altro. C'è chi dice che è troppo duro, e francamente al collega Valli vorrei dire di essere serio, perché tutti sanno che questo è un testo che ha ammorbidito la proposta della Commissione ed è più equilibrato dell'addendum della BCE e quindi adesso accusarci di aver fatto un testo troppo duro lo trovo propagandistico.

Allo stesso tempo, devo dire, concordo con la collega de Lange: non abbiamo visto tutti questi colleghi intervenuti per dirci che invece bisognava fare una cosa più dura al momento dei negoziati, salvo poi adesso naturalmente dire che siamo stati troppo morbidi, troppo laschi.

Quindi la verità è che noi ci siamo presi la responsabilità di affrontare un tema molto difficile, molto delicato e siamo riusciti a farlo bene e in fretta. E questo è un caso positivo di capacità di questo Parlamento di produrre legislazione e anche di essere, in qualche modo, un soggetto che quando qualcosa non funziona bene, qualche autorità, qualche tendenza, qualche posizione, soluzioni che magari possono andare bene per qualche convegno ma poi producono problemi e impatto negativo sull'economia reale, questo Parlamento sa correggere e contemperare la necessaria riduzione del rischio e dei crediti deteriorati, da un lato, con la salvaguardia della stabilità finanziaria, degli interessi dei cittadini, dei debitori, delle piccole e medie imprese e produrre un regolamento che io penso avrà un impatto significativo, da un lato, nella maggiore prudenza e quindi nel disincentivare pratiche che possono portare poi a un accumulo eccessivo di crediti deteriorati, ma al tempo stesso lo fa in misura sostenibile, in misura gestibile, senza impatti negativi sull'economia reale.

Quindi vorrei di nuovo ringraziare la collega de Lange, la Commissione e tutti i colleghi che hanno sostenuto questo lavoro, e anche il Consiglio che ci ha consentito di fare un trilogo a velocità di record (forse il trilogo più veloce della storia), con cui siamo riusciti a inserire rapidamente questa norma nella Gazzetta Ufficiale, come avverrà appunto a breve.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.

Äänestys toimitetaan torstaina 14.3.2019.

 

24. Eiropas Monetārā fonda izveide (debates)
Visu runu video
MPphoto
 

  Puhemies. Esityslistalla on seuraavana Pedro Silva Pereiran ja Vladimír Maňkan budjettivaliokunnan ja talous- ja raha-asioiden valiokunnan puolesta laatima väliaikainen mietintö ehdotuksesta neuvoston asetukseksi Euroopan valuuttarahaston perustamisesta (2017/0333R(APP)) (A8-0087/2019).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pedro Silva Pereira, Relator. – Senhora Presidente, Senhores Comissários, caros Colegas, a reforma do Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade é um dos pilares mais importantes do processo de reforma da União Económica e Monetária, um processo necessário para enfrentar as enormes insuficiências na arquitetura do euro que a crise financeira tão dramaticamente revelou.

Com este relatório, o Parlamento dá um contributo muito oportuno para este processo e quero, por isso, agradecer ao correlator, o nosso colega Vladimír Maňka, pela excelente colaboração que tivemos nos últimos meses de trabalho.

Agradeço também aos relatores-sombra dos diversos grupos pelo excelente espírito de cooperação que nos permitiu chegar, julgo eu, a um bom resultado.

Com este relatório o Parlamento defende uma estratégia em dois passos: quanto ao médio e longo prazo, o Parlamento Europeu reafirma com total clareza a sua visão em defesa de uma plena integração do Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade no direito europeu para que se possa tornar uma verdadeira instituição da União Europeia, com uma governação sujeita ao método comunitário e sob o controlo democrático do Parlamento Europeu.

Não sendo isso imediatamente possível, no curto prazo, defendemos que se avance na reforma do Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade através de uma revisão do Tratado Intergovernamental que o criou. Não nos pareceu conveniente, ao contrário da Comissão, alterar o nome desta instituição para Fundo Monetário Europeu porque isso poderia gerar confusão quanto à competência para conduzir a política monetária, que deve continuar a caber ao Banco Central Europeu, mas há coisas mais importantes que podemos e devemos fazer: primeiro reforçar o controlo democrático do mecanismo por parte do Parlamento Europeu. Propomos, por isso, um protocolo de cooperação entre as duas instituições para reforçar o diálogo, reforçar o escrutínio parlamentar e propomos mais, propomos que o diretor do Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade passe a ser eleito aqui no Parlamento Europeu.

Em segundo lugar, preconizamos o reforço do papel do mecanismo na promoção da estabilidade financeira, na resposta aos choques económicos e financeiros e, portanto, também, com a revisão das suas missões e competências, sem prejuízo das tarefas de vigilância macroeconómica que devem continuar a caber à Comissão Europeia.

Finalmente, deve ser alcançada uma maior autonomia face ao Fundo Monetário Internacional e conferir-se ao mecanismo competências em matéria de tornar operacional o Fundo único de resolução e contribuir, portanto, para a conclusão da união bancária.

Todos sabemos que a agenda da reforma do euro vai para além disto, exige capacidade orçamental, exige muitas outras coisas, mas a reforma do Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade é também um passo importante e esperamos que agora o Conselho dê ouvidos às propostas e às sugestões do Parlamento Europeu para que possamos avançar na direção certa.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vladimír Maňka, Rapporteur. – Vážená pani predsedajúca, vážený pán podpredseda Európskej Komisie, ľudia si pamätajú finančnú pomoc Grécku ako krajinu, ktorú finančná kríza postihla najviac. Krajiny eurozóny vtedy vytvorili Európsky nástroj finančnej stability. Z tohto dočasného mechanizmu sa stal trvalý Európsky mechanizmus pre stabilitu známy ako euroval. Cieľom bolo poskytnúť finančnú pomoc krajinám postihnutým finančnou krízou a krízou štátneho dlhu, ktoré stratili prístup na finančné trhy, a to Írsku, Španielsku, Portugalsku, Grécku, Cypru. Tieto krajiny sa však museli zaviazať, že si urobia domáce úlohy v podobe štrukturálnych reforiem. Opatrenia viedli k ozdraveniu ich hospodárstva, ale aj zabránili obrovským škodám, ku ktorým by došlo nielen v eurozóne, ale v celej Európskej únii.

Pozrime sa dnes na tieto krajiny. Vďaka európskej spolupráci Írsko dosahuje najvyšší hospodársky rast v Európskej únii, Španielsko lámalo svoje historické rekordy v exporte, Portugalsko dosiahlo primárny prebytok. Gréci, ktorí museli podstúpiť najbolestivejšie reformy, dnes už tiež nepotrebujú záchranný program. Opäť sa dokážu financovať na medzinárodných trhoch. Grécko v posledných rokoch vytvorilo stovky tisíc nových pracovných miest a dosahuje solídny hospodársky rast. Pred niekoľkými dňami ratingová agentúra Moody’s zvýšila rating Grécka o 2 stupne na B1. Agentúra si myslí, že reformy sú už pevnejšie ukotvené, pričom je tu vysoká pravdepodobnosť ďalšieho pokroku a nízke riziko vrátenia situácie do predchádzajúceho stavu.

Pritom kvôli pomoci Grécku v roku 2011 – 2012 padla v mojej krajine na Slovensku vláda.

Ale ukázalo sa, že práve vďaka našej spoločnej európskej spolupráci je dnes euro odolnejšie voči kríze viac ako kedykoľvek predtým. Aj podpora pre euro je v eurozóne historicky najvyššia od jeho zavedenia.

Od začiatku vytvárania Európskeho mechanizmu pre stabilitu sme videli, že medzivládny charakter znižuje jeho schopnosť rýchlo reagovať na hospodárske a finančné otrasy.

Preto budúce začlenenie Európskeho mechanizmu pre stabilitu do právneho rámca Európskej únie posilní jeho akcieschopnosť a efektívnosť. Toto začlenenie by sme mali chápať ako súčasť projektu dokončenia hospodárskej a menovej únie.

Je dôležité, aby budúce začlenenie do právneho rámca EÚ zohľadnilo úlohu národných parlamentov. Ak pôjde v budúcnosti o rozpočtové zdroje Európskej únie, mal by mať Európsky parlament politickú právomoc vykonávať v rámci postupu udelenia absolutória všetky práva na kontrolu rozpočtu. V takomto prípade by Európsky dvor audítorov mal mať úlohu v postupe udelenia absolutória.

Finančné zdroje, nástroje reformovaného Európskeho mechanizmu pre stabilitu by mali mať možnosť poskytnúť členským štátom preventívnu finančnú pomoc skôr, ako budú čeliť významným ťažkostiam pri získavaní finančných prostriedkov na kapitálovom trhu.

Finančná pomoc členským štátom môže byť doplnená o rozpočtové nástroje na podporu hospodárskej a finančnej stabilizácie, investícií a vzostupnej sociálno-ekonomickej konvergencie v eurozóne.

Európsky mechanizmus pre stabilitu by nemal zostať uzavretý len pre krajiny eurozóny. Mal by byť otvorený účasti všetkých členských štátov Európskej únie.

Vážené kolegyne, kolegovia, verím, že naše spoločné úsilie vyústi do väčších istôt a stability nielen pre eurozónu, ale pre celú Európsku úniu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, the European Parliament has always played a pioneering role in the debate on deepening the Economic and Monetary Union. It has also showed strong support for the Commission’s initiatives to strengthen its architecture. Today’s debate about the interim report on the Commission’s legislative proposal for the establishment of the European Monetary Fund is another step.

On behalf of the Commission, I would first like to thank the committees and, in particular, the rapporteurs, Mr Silva Pereira and Mr Maňka, and the shadow rapporteurs for their work on this issue. I would also use this occasion to thank those of you with whom the Commission has worked very closely over the past years to complete the Economic and Monetary Union.

The Commission welcomes this interim report and broadly agrees with its most important messages. In particular, we support Parliament in its call for the integration of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) into the Union framework. As you know, this was an objective of our proposal. Since its creation in autumn 2012, at the height of the crisis, the ESM has proved decisive in helping to ensure financial stability in the euro area. Its integration into the EU legal order will not only strengthen its institutional anchoring, but will also enable its accountability to the European and the national parliaments to be increased, as well as making its functioning more transparent, a point Parliament also addressed strongly in your interim report.

Another important point you stress, with which we fully concur, is on the need for Member States to respect the common rules of the economic governance framework in order to ensure that the competences of the ESM do not overlap with or affect those of other EU institutions, and to ensure that any set-up is fully compatible with EU law.

I would also like to welcome your call for an anticipated introduction of the common backstop to the single resolution fund by 2020.

Finally a remark on the name. We proposed ‘European Monetary Fund’, as this was the terminology used in the policy discussion, but we have taken note of the objections of the European Central Bank and of this House and we are open to reconsidering it. Maybe we can just stick with the current name, European Stability Mechanism.

Since the Commission tabled this proposal, we have seen further developments on the various EMU work strands. In particular, Member States have decided to proceed with a revision of the ESM treaty in an intergovernmental framework. Work on the revision of the ESM treaty is ongoing and I trust this will make an important contribution to building a stronger Economic and Monetary Union, not least by adding the backstop for the single resolution fund and increasing the effectiveness of the precautionary instruments, while avoiding duplication of roles.

In the latter respect, I would like to highlight the agreement on cooperation between the Commission and the ESM reached in November last year, which was endorsed by the euro summit. Our ambition is that the new treaty will include a commitment to integrate the ESM into the Community framework at the next possible opportunity.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Danuta Maria Hübner, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. – Madam President, I would like to raise issues which are important from the perspective of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO). There are two points I would like to raise. The first is that of the inclusion of the successor of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) in the European legal framework. It is not a detail, I believe, but a crucial point of the proposal. We in the Parliament had been calling repeatedly for the end of those intergovernmental arrangements established during the financial crisis and their integration into the Union framework and this proposal is an opportunity to do so. Member States are currently working on the basis of an amendment to the ESM Treaty, but we should be very clear here that the integration of the ESM Framework into EU law will have to be addressed soon.

Secondly, the accountability of the successor of the European Monetary Fund (EMF) to the European Parliament and national parliaments will be crucial. We have to establish mechanisms which ensure a high level of accountability of the decisions of the successor of ESM to elected bodies. Access to information is a precondition for the exercise of accountability so there will also be a need to provide for a high level of transparency regarding the decisions of the successor of the ESM.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tom Vandenkendelaere, namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, collega's, de financiële crisis heeft ons allemaal met de neus op de feiten gedrukt. Onze Monetaire Unie is verre van af. Integendeel zelfs. Lidstaten die een bankensector moesten redden, zijn plots zelf in de problemen gekomen. Nationale toezichthouders die elk op hun eigen eilandje hun banken aan het controleren waren, hadden eigenlijk totaal geen flauw benul van de hele systemische ramp die op komst was. Sommige lidstaten konden plots ook geen financiering meer krijgen op financiële markten en zijn afhankelijk geworden van Europese noodleningen. In allerijl hebben we het Europees Stabiliteitsmechanisme, het ESM, gecreëerd. Dat heeft duidelijk gedaan wat het moest doen.

Maar het is belangrijk om te benadrukken dat een Europees noodmechanisme te allen tijde een verhaal van rechten en plichten moet blijven. Lidstaten die dreigen financiering op de financiële markt te verliezen moeten bij dat mechanisme kunnen aankloppen. Daar mag geen twijfel over bestaan. Maar het is natuurlijk even belangrijk dat die steun voorwaardelijk blijft, zodat genoeg geld in het potje overblijft voor het moment dat lidstaten het echt nodig hebben. Ex ante met begrotingsregels en ex post met economische aanpassingsprogramma's. We moeten absoluut vermijden dat een noodmechanisme de druk om de begrotingsregels na te leven, zou verzwakken omdat zogezegd Europa het toch wel zal komen oplossen als het echt nodig wordt. We weten commissaris Dombrovskis dat u persoonlijk dag en nacht klaar staat, weekend- of weekdagen, om de eurozone te redden. Maar u zou het ook niet graag hebben dat we u zomaar zouden komen opbellen zonder enige vorm van voorwaarden.

Tot slot nog dit. Het verdiepen van onze Monetaire Unie moet bovenaan de agenda staan. Samen met het afwerken van de bankenunie, het opzetten van de kapitaalmarktenunie is het invoegen van het Europees Stabiliteitsmechanisme in de Europese constructie, denk ik, een andere belangrijke en noodzakelijke stap om de eurozone "crisisproof" te maken.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pervenche Berès, au nom du groupe S&D. – Madame la Présidente, nous nous réjouissons de l’occasion pour le Parlement européen de dire la façon dont il voit l’évolution du mécanisme européen de stabilité avec ce rapport intermédiaire, alors que manifestement, cette discussion est totalement bloquée au Conseil.

La création du mécanisme européen de stabilité a été un succès lorsque certains États membres avaient besoin d’être renfloués et n’avaient plus accès au marché.

Aujourd’hui, il s’agit de mettre à profit ce succès pour franchir une nouvelle étape, et nous savons bien que cette étape est aussi liée à un nouvel environnement, où la question du partage des risques et de leur réduction a franchi des étapes absolument considérables, que ce soit avec l’adoption du paquet PNP (prêts non performants) et du paquet bancaire.

C’est la raison pour laquelle mon groupe pense que l’évolution de ce mécanisme européen de stabilité ne doit pas conduire à la création d’un Fonds monétaire européen. Nous aurions préféré la création d’un Fonds de stabilité européen. Je comprends que l’accord se fera autour du maintien du nom existant, mais l’essentiel, c’est le rôle que ce mécanisme sera amené à jouer à l’avenir, car nous aurions souhaité qu’il puisse être utilisé pleinement pour assurer la fonction de stabilité dont l’Union européenne, et surtout la zone euro, ont encore indiscutablement besoin et qu’il puisse apporter la garantie dont nous avons besoin pour le «filet de sécurité» du secteur bancaire.

Nous comprenons que certaines choses sont en train d’évoluer au Conseil, mais de ce point de vue-là, je crains qu’un vice de naissance du mécanisme européen de stabilité ne persiste. Lorsque le Parlement européen, au milieu de la crise, a accepté la création de ce mécanisme dans un cadre intergouvernemental, c’était sous le coup de l’urgence, dans l’idée que nous parviendrions à remédier à cette situation. Or, aujourd’hui, le Conseil refuse toute discussion sur la proposition utile que la Commission avait mise sur la table et qui permettait de progresser dans la voie d’une intégration de ce mécanisme dans le cadre des traités, ce que ce Parlement continue à demander et à revendiquer comme étant la bonne voie à suivre pour le futur du mécanisme.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ralph Packet (ECR), namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, met dit verslag wil men het Europees Stabiliteitsmechanisme of ESM, en zo de financiële steun aan lidstaten, voor altijd verankeren in de wetgeving van de EU, met het geven van financiële steun als hoofdtaak.

Wij gaan daar niet mee akkoord. Ik geloof niet in die focus, in bailouts. Gewoon extra leningen geven lost niks op, want zo zullen de schulden in Europa altijd als een zwaard van Damocles boven de eurozone blijven hangen. Zo'n bailoutfonds kost veel te veel aan de belastingbetaler en neemt de stimulans weg bij de lidstaten om verantwoordelijkheid te nemen. Het is ook gewoon veel logischer om de organisatie van het ESM bij de lidstaten te laten, want zij zijn het die zorgen voor het geld in dat fonds. Het zijn de nationale parlementen die hier controle op moeten kunnen uitoefenen.

Wij moeten niet focussen op nieuwe bailouts, maar juist op de preventie van nieuwe crisissen. Dat doen we door de begrotingsregels veel beter af te dwingen. We moeten ook inzetten op het afwikkelen van de schulden. Als een land zijn schulden echter niet kan afbetalen, dan moeten we kijken hoe zij weggewerkt kunnen worden. De Vlaamse belastingbetalers moeten niet zomaar opdraaien voor de problemen van ergens anders. En op termijn moet de oorspronkelijke "no bailout"-clausule in Europa hersteld worden, zodat er geen wilde reddingsplannen zoals deze meer hoeven te worden uitgevonden.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jean Arthuis, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, mes chers collègues, je voudrais saluer l’excellent travail de nos deux corapporteurs et me réjouir de l’entrée de ce mécanisme européen de stabilité financière dans le cadre communautaire.

Il est vrai que lors de la création de la monnaie unique, personne n’avait imaginé la situation de crise dans laquelle la zone euro s’est trouvée à l’occasion de la crise des dettes souveraines et des difficultés de la Grèce. C’est dans ce contexte qu’il a fallu imaginer un instrument pour mutualiser, en quelque sorte, le surendettement de certains pays. Aujourd’hui, il est opportun de faire entrer ce mécanisme dans le cadre institutionnel, et je remercie les rapporteurs d’avoir insisté sur la nécessité de maintenir un lien étroit avec les parlements nationaux. Lorsqu’il s’agit de doter le capital social du mécanisme européen de stabilité financière et d’octroyer des garanties financières, ce sont en effet les parlements nationaux qui mettent les fonds à disposition et qui prennent les engagements.

J’exprimerai un regret car, au fond, il s’agit ici de la gouvernance de la zone euro, et je regrette que l’on n’ait pas cru devoir recommander la nomination d’un ministre des finances, qui aurait pu être un vice-président de la Commission en charge de l’euro.

Je voudrais aussi exprimer un souhait: celui que l’Union européenne utilise sa monnaie comme le font les États-Unis d’Amérique, pour faire respecter les intérêts vitaux de l’Europe sur le plan extraterritorial. Je souhaite qu’un jour nous puissions utiliser cette monnaie, l’euro, comme un instrument dans la guerre économique et commerciale pour préserver nos intérêts vitaux. Mais encore une fois, je remercie nos corapporteurs, car leur rapport intérimaire nous permet d’accomplir un pas important.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ernest Urtasun, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señora presidenta, lo primero que quiero decir es que la intención de introducir el Mecanismo Europeo de Estabilidad en el acervo comunitario era una buena idea, lo que pasa es que realmente no vamos a hacer eso. Lo que vamos a hacer prácticamente es introducir un mecanismo, que seguirá siendo en su funcionamiento puramente intergubernamental, dentro del acervo comunitario, pero no comunitarizamos plenamente el funcionamiento del Mecanismo Europeo de Estabilidad, lo que es una pésima noticia.

También tenemos un problema con el papel del Parlamento en esta reforma. En fin —algunos diputados lo han dicho—, deberíamos estar en pleno procedimiento de codecisión y no simplemente en un procedimiento de aprobación que nos obliga a hacer este informe de medio debate.

El Mecanismo Europeo de Estabilidad ha tenido muchísimos problemas desde el inicio por su opacidad, por la manera en que hacía la condicionalidad, por cómo se firmaban los memorandos de entendimiento... El señor Regling nos daba lecciones sobre todo, pero no venía jamás al Parlamento Europeo a dar explicaciones, y hemos estado trabajando con una institución prácticamente en estado de excepción económica, sin ningún tipo de control democrático.

Desde luego, creo que la experiencia que deja su funcionamiento en los últimos años ha sido una de las más negativas que hemos tenido, con unos rescates que se han realizado a un altísimo coste social y sin ningún tipo de legitimidad democrática.

Por ello, yo creo que era importante no solo incluir este Reglamento —como decía— dentro del acervo comunitario pero sin tocar absolutamente nada, sino hacer una revisión en profundidad del funcionamiento del Mecanismo. Por ejemplo, nosotros habíamos propuesto y queríamos que el informe reflejara que el presupuesto europeo contribuyera a los mecanismos financieros del Mecanismo Europeo de Estabilidad, porque de esa manera nosotros podíamos ejercer control presupuestario sobre su actividad, cosa que no ha sido aceptada, pero que estará en la votación en una enmienda que hemos presentado.

La segunda cosa también que queríamos que estuviera en el texto es que los futuros programas de ajuste fueran actos delegados. ¿Por qué? Porque eso nos permitiría al Parlamento Europeo poder ejercer nuestros derechos legales y rechazarlos. Pero eso parece que tampoco ha querido ser aceptado. Pero, a pesar de ello, lo presentaremos como enmienda también en el Pleno.

O, también, otra enmienda que vamos a presentar es que haya algo que llevamos pidiendo desde hace muchísimo tiempo: análisis de impacto social, sobre todo en las cosas que hace y las políticas que desarrolla el Mecanismo, algo que no se ha hecho. En Grecia no se ha hecho, por ejemplo, y ha sido un auténtico desastre.

Y también más capacidad de control sobre el nombramiento del director ejecutivo. Pedimos capacidad en su nombramiento, pero en un proceso verdaderamente democrático del Parlamento con una terna sobre la que podamos elegir.

Y, finalmente, el tema del mecanismo de protección: está muy bien que el MEDE vaya a funcionar como mecanismo de protección, pero un mecanismo de protección no funciona si requiere unanimidad en el Consejo. Y deberíamos haber introducido también una petición de que el funcionamiento del mecanismo de protección se produjera de forma automática a partir de unos determinados criterios. Un mecanismo de protección sometido a la unanimidad del Consejo, francamente, no es un mecanismo de protección.

Por lo tanto, tengo que decir que no estamos satisfechos ni con el informe ni con la reforma que se plantea.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, χρειαζόμαστε ένα Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Σταθερότητας; Ναι, το χρειαζόμαστε, και γι’ αυτό ακριβώς δεν χρειαζόμαστε, κύριε Ντομπρόβσκις, ένα ευρωπαϊκό αντίγραφο, μια ευρωπαϊκή ρεπλίκα του Διεθνούς Νομισματικού Ταμείου. Και σας το λέω εγώ γιατί στην Ελλάδα ζήσαμε οδυνηρά, στην πλάτη του ελληνικού λαού, τις οδυνηρές συνέπειες από τις λάθος νεοφιλελεύθερες συνταγές και τους λάθος πολλαπλασιαστές του Διεθνούς Νομισματικού Ταμείου.

Και χρειαζόμαστε τώρα ένα Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Σταθερότητας που, όπως είπε η κυρία Hübner, πρέπει να ενσωματωθεί στην ευρωπαϊκή έννομη τάξη, να δουλεύει με την κοινοτική μέθοδο και να λογοδοτεί και στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, και όχι απλώς στα εθνικά κοινοβούλια, γιατί αυτό δεν εξασφαλίζεται με τη μέθοδο τη διακυβερνητική, αλλά την κοινοτική. Και, επιπλέον, πρέπει όχι απλώς να αντικαταστήσει το Διεθνές Νομισματικό Ταμείο, αλλά να αντικαταστήσει και τη συνταγή του Διεθνούς Νομισματικού Ταμείου, το δόγμα Σόιμπλε, τον νεοφιλελευθερισμό. Και γι’ αυτό χρειαζόμαστε να τρέξουμε και θετικές αλλαγές, για να λογοδοτεί όχι μόνο στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, αλλά και στο Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο. Και χρειαζόμαστε και έναν Αντιπρόεδρο της Κομισιόν, αρμόδιο για τα θέματα της ευρωζώνης, όχι μόνο της οικονομίας, αλλά και της κοινωνικής συνοχής.

Αν δεν τα κάνουμε αυτά θα είμαστε πολύ πίσω από τις απαιτήσεις.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marco Valli, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non possiamo come gruppo accettare assolutamente la base del ragionamento che c'è nello stabilire questo Fondo monetario europeo, in quanto è una replica del Meccanismo europeo di stabilità, che viene istituzionalizzato. Nel concetto, quello che viene fatto è dare dei prestiti condizionati che, come ha correttamente detto il collega Papadimoulis, hanno umiliato il popolo greco nella misura in cui il Meccanismo europeo di stabilità, la Commissione e il Fondo Monetario hanno prestato questi soldi in cambio di cosa? Di riforme, di lacrime e sangue, svalutazione dei salari, un impatto sociale devastante: ammissioni della Commissione di colpe su questo tipo di meccanismo.

Voi volete istituzionalizzare questo principio pensando che renderlo più democratico lo renda più morbido. Questo è un grande crimine. Bisognerebbe rivedere totalmente questo tipo di costruzione e partire dall'analisi dei profondi squilibri all'interno dell'Eurozona, perché ci sono gli squilibri e non servono questi strumenti. Serve una democrazia vera, ma voi in questo caso non lo state dimostrando assolutamente, proponendo questo Fondo monetario europeo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michał Marusik, w imieniu grupy ENF. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Mówimy o rynku. Mechanizm wolnego rynku polega na tym, że upadają firmy i przedsiębiorstwa nieprzynoszące dochodu, a równocześnie rozwijają się te, które najlepiej zaspokajają potrzeby odbiorców. I to właśnie dzięki temu mechanizmowi możemy cieszyć się obfitością dóbr. W ramach wolnego rynku o sukcesie decydują właściwie tylko dwa czynniki: zapotrzebowanie konsumentów i niskie koszty produkcji. Wszelkie administracyjne ingerencje w wolny rynek z jednej strony pomagają przetrwać tym, którzy są nieefektywni i powinni upaść, a z drugiej strony obciążają kosztami tych, którzy znaleźli sposób na sukces i mogliby się rozwijać.

Utworzenie takiej instytucji jak fundusz walutowy jest kolejnym mechanizmem bardzo silnej ingerencji w gospodarkę, i to ingerencji dokładnie sprzeciwiającej się wyrokom wolnego rynku. Skutek tego może być – i na pewno będzie – tylko jeden: rozwój efektywnych firm zostanie zahamowany, a na konsumentów zostanie nałożony ciężar finansowania firm, które jako nieefektywne powinny były upaść.

Utworzenie takiego funduszu i przeznaczenie na niego wielkich środków finansowych oznacza też oligarchiczne przywileje dla wielkich korporacji, a przecież każdy przywilej nadany komukolwiek jest w istocie dyskryminacją wszystkich pozostałych. Upowszechnia się więc mechanizm coraz silniejszego karania za efektywność i nagradzania za nieudolność. Tym sposobem Unia zafunduje Europie wzrost, ale ze znakiem ujemnym, niestety. Szkoda.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sophie Montel (NI). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, en 2010, la troïka composée de la Commission européenne, de la BCE et du FMI imposait des mesures d’austérité sans précédent au peuple grec, lequel a évidemment tôt fait de sombrer dans la misère sous les coups de boutoir de ces quelques fonctionnaires internationaux.

Ce spectacle vous a visiblement fait envie, car voilà que vous réclamez désormais votre propre FMI, le FME. Vous l’écrivez, d’ailleurs, noir sur blanc: la mission première de ce FME sera de fournir une assistance financière transitoire aux États membres dans le besoin, mais, évidemment, sur la base de conditions spécifiques convenues dans les programmes d’ajustement. Or, on sait ce que ces programmes d’ajustement signifient: en Grèce, les retraites ont été drastiquement réduites, les salaires ont chuté, les entreprises ont été privatisées et, bien entendu, le chômage a explosé.

Le voilà, l’horizon indépassable de l’européisme, la purge sans fin, ordonnée par une Allemagne qui dirige l’Europe d’une main de fer. Une chose est sûre, chers collègues, si je n’attends plus grand-chose du mouvement souverainiste en France, je peux encore compter sur vous pour rendre l’Europe détestable aux peuples et insupportable aux nations.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Markus Ferber (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! In der Finanz- und Staatsschuldenkrise haben wir, denke ich, eines sehr deutlich gesehen: Der Europäische Stabilitätsmechanismus und sein Vorgänger, der EFSF, haben sich bewährt. Er hat unpolitisch, auf der Basis von Fakten und anhand klarer Regeln entschieden. Das ist deutlich mehr, als man von der Europäischen Kommission behaupten kann. ESM und EFSF haben entscheidend daran mitgewirkt, dass die Programme in Irland, Portugal, Zypern, Spanien und Griechenland ein Erfolg wurden. Daraus ergibt sich für mich erstmal eine logische Schlussfolgerung: Was sich bewährt hat, sollten wir auch grundsätzlich nicht in Frage stellen. Wir können gern überlegen, wie wir den Austausch zwischen Europäischem Parlament und dem ESM oder einem europäischen Währungsfonds verbessern können, zum Beispiel durch ein interinstitutionelles Abkommen. Aber wir sollten den Bogen auch nicht überspannen. Am Ende werden die Mittel von den Mitgliedstaaten zur Verfügung gestellt. Das heißt, dass am Ende auch die nationalen Haushalte haften und die nationalen Parlamente für die Kontrolle zuständig sind. Das gebietet auch das Haftungsprinzip. Und das heißt im Umkehrschluss auch, dass wir einige Vorschläge der Kollegen, wie zum Beispiel, dass wir per Mehrheitsbeschluss über makroökonomische Anpassungsprogramme abstimmen sollen oder dass ein europäischer Finanzminister nach eigenem Gutdünken über die Mittelvergabe nachdenken kann, ablehnen sollten. Das Haftungsprinzip als Leitmotiv ist zentral.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, desde el inicio de la crisis económica se pusieron de manifiesto las deficiencias de la arquitectura del euro y, sobre todo, la necesidad de seguir trabajando y profundizando en la Unión Económica y Monetaria. Y es verdad que se han dado pasos en este sentido, sobre todo en la reducción de riesgos, pero aún nos queda mucho en lo que trabajar como, por ejemplo, completar el sistema europeo de garantía de depósitos o contar con un verdadero presupuesto de la zona euro que permita a los países de la eurozona defenderse de nuevas crisis económicas.

Y bajo este paraguas de la Unión Económica y Monetaria hoy estamos debatiendo sobre la reforma del actual Mecanismo Europeo de Estabilidad, que ya fue puesto en marcha en el 2012 pero que, a juicio de este Parlamento, debe ser modificado. Y en este sentido, por ejemplo, consideramos que este Mecanismo Europeo de Estabilidad debería integrarse en el marco jurídico de la Unión. Esta integración permitiría una gestión acorde con el método comunitario y, además, entre otras cosas, facilitaría la coordinación de las políticas económicas y fiscales y le otorgaría mayor legitimidad democrática.

Por otro lado, también creo que sería interesante que el presupuesto europeo pueda contribuir a este mecanismo, porque así daría al Parlamento Europeo la posibilidad de ejercer el control presupuestario y, además, al Tribunal de Cuentas ser el auditor externo.

Los socialistas hemos denunciado en innumerables ocasiones la condicionalidad abusiva y los ajustes excesivos que se exigieron a los países bajo el mandato de la troika. El daño provocado ha sido incluso reconocido por algunos de los dirigentes de la Unión Europea y por eso, de cara al futuro, también exigimos que en los programas de ajuste se tenga en cuenta el impacto social de las medidas que se proponen para no volver a caer en errores del pasado. Soy consciente de que esto no son más que recomendaciones del Parlamento Europeo y de que, en realidad, no tienen valor jurídico, pero sí tienen un importante valor político, así que espero que las tengan en consideración.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bernd Lucke (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Am Anfang des europäischen Stabilisierungsmechanismus stand ein Vertragsbruch. Die europäischen Verträge wurden gebrochen, als die Nichtbeistandsklausel gebrochen worden ist, und daraus ist der europäische Stabilisierungsmechanismus ESM entstanden.

Heute sprechen wir darüber, den ESM durch einen Europäischen Währungsfonds abzulösen, und das wäre wieder ein Vertragsbruch, denn die Europäische Union hat überhaupt keine Kompetenz dafür, einen Europäischen Währungsfonds einzurichten. Nirgendwo in den europäischen Verträgen ist sie befugt, einen Währungsfonds einzurichten. Das ist erneut ein Beispiel dafür, dass die EU versucht, eine Kompetenz nach der anderen an sich zu ziehen, und die Erfahrung, die wir damit gemacht haben, ist leider immer eine schlechte. Als der EU die Kompetenz für die Währungspolitik übertragen worden ist, dann hat es gleich zu einer großen Eurokrise geführt. Als der EU die Kompetenz für die Asyl- und Flüchtlingspolitik übertragen worden ist, da hat das zu einer Flüchtlingskrise geführt.

Mit welcher Berechtigung wollen wir jetzt eigentlich der EU auch noch die Kompetenz für makroökonomische Stabilisierung, für die Finanzstabilität, überantworten? Es ist rechtswidrig, es widerspricht den Verträgen, und es gibt überhaupt keinen Grund, weshalb wir es tun sollten. Zuständig sind auch nach den europäischen Verträgen die Mitgliedstaaten.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – Madam President, listening to this discussion, I sometimes get the feeling that we are suffering from economic amnesia. We don’t know the history. We are speaking as if the mismatches of the economy appeared with the euro. I’ll give you one example, just one example. Go back in British history to 1956. What you had in Britain in 1956 was a deficit budget and an over-valued pound and then you had the crisis there. Crisis mismatches have been part of the history of Europe since, well, since the beginning of history. There was one good German, even if German bashing has been very popular in this House. Willy Brandt, in 1969, came to a meeting of the European Council and said that Germany was ready to give 30% of its currency surplus to Europe as starting money for a European monetary fund, but on one condition: Europe had to be able to manage its economy and if it couldn’t, it shouldn’t come to this House and blame others for something it had done itself. So, thank you, but read the history and try to understand what this is all about.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Liadh Ní Riada (GUE/NGL). – A Uachtaráin, bhuel, aontaím leis an iar-chainteoir a bhí againn ansin mar i ndáiríre cé gur meicníocht eile í seo atá á cur ar bun againn, agus is cuma má tá tú ag glaoch an Stability Mechanism air nó EMF, is an rud céanna atá ann. Agus i ndáiríre cé go dtuigim go bhfuil gá le meicníocht den tsórt seo, ag an am gcéanna mar Éireannach, a Choimisinéir, chaithfeá tuiscint canathaobh go mbeinn amhrasach mar gheall air agus canathaobh nach mbeinn chomh fabhrach.

Mar nuair a chuimhnímid ar Éirinn ach go háirithe, cosúil le tíortha eile ar nós na Gréige, táimidne fós ag íoc as an bail out uafásach a tharla dúinn roinnt blianta ó shin agus beimid ag íoc as go dtí 2040.

Mar sin, tá sé an-deacair orainn a bheith dóchasach go mbeadh a leithéid de mheicníocht mar seo chun obair ar ár son, go háirithe nuair a chuirimid i gcás, abair an oiread sin daoine atá in Éirinn - tá géarchéim tithíochta againn - níl siad ábalta morgáiste a thógaint amach ón mbanc, tá an ráta úis is airde againn ó thaobh iasachtaí a fháil ón mbanc chun morgáiste a fháil, tá an oiread sin daoine i ngéarchéim eacnamaíoch anois in Éirinn go bhfuil sé an-deacair orthu aon saghas slí bheatha a bhaint amach. Mar sin, canathaobh a bheimis dóchasach go n-oibreodh meicníocht mar seo? Caithfidh sé a bheith trédhearcach agus caithfidh sé a bheith cuntasach chomh maith.

Agus rud amháin eile a chaithfidh mé a rá mar gheall ar na bainc, ach go háirithe aga baile, ní dhíolann siad oiread is pingin chánach - pingin chánach - cé go bhfuilid ag déanamh brabús ollmhór. Agus arís, táimid ag caint ar na cáiníocóirí a bheith fabhrach i dtaobh meicníocht mar seo a chur chun cinn.

Mar sin, nílim ró-dhóchasach agus ní dóigh liom go mbeidh muintir na hÉireann ró-dhóchasach faoi ach an oiread. Tuigim go bhfuil gá leis, ach ag an am gcéanna, ní dóigh liom go bhfuil sé maith go leor.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Piernicola Pedicini (EFDD). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, scusate, ma a che cosa serve un nuovo Fondo monetario europeo? Ci sono per caso altre banche tedesche e francesi che debbono essere salvate? No, grazie, da parte nostra abbiamo già dato. Abbiamo già fatto questa esperienza con il Fondo salva-Stati nel 2010, dove con la scusa di salvare la Grecia e salvare la Spagna, l'Italia ha dovuto sborsare 60 miliardi di euro in tre anni, che sono andati a finire dritti nei caveau e nelle banche francesi e tedesche. Gli spagnoli e i francesi non hanno visto un euro di queste cifre.

Tra l'altro, questo nuovo Fondo monetario aumenterà l'instabilità finanziaria, anziché diminuirla, perché concedere prestiti in cambio di austerità è un vero e proprio ricatto, che Francia e Germania fanno ai paesi in difficoltà, costringendoli ad una ristrutturazione che svuota ancora di più la loro sovranità politica ed economica. Poi torneremo qui, in quest'Aula, tra qualche anno e dovremo ascoltare il prossimo Presidente della Commissione europea che chiederà scusa, ancora una volta, così come è successo con Juncker, alla Grecia, che ha distrutto insieme al Fondo monetario internazionale.

L'esperienza ha dimostrato che le ricette d'austerità hanno bloccato la ripresa e innescato la recessione. Perciò questo è il momento di cambiare direzione e consentire agli Stati membri di fare politiche economiche espansive per combattere la disoccupazione, la povertà e le disuguaglianze sociali ed economiche.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  André Elissen (ENF). – Voorzitter, vandaag spreken we over de instelling van het Europees Monetair Fonds en de zogenaamde zegeningen van de euro. Het lidmaatschap van de gemeenschappelijke munt veronderstelt lidstaten met ongeveer hetzelfde bruto binnenlands product per hoofd van de bevolking en vergelijkbare economische omstandigheden. Daarvan was bij de invoering van de euro absoluut geen sprake.

De invoering van de euro is een grote fout geweest en heeft mede geleid tot economische problemen in de Europese Unie. Voorbeelden hiervan zijn de overmatige schuldenlast en zwakke economische groei. Landen buiten de EU en de euro, zoals Noorwegen en Zwitserland, hebben daar beduidend minder last van gehad. Nederland heeft al voor tientallen miljarden leningen en garantstellingen verstrekt aan bedrieglijke landen als Griekenland en Cyprus, landen die nota bene niet voldeden aan de criteria voor toetreding tot de euro, de zogenaamde convergentiecriteria. Voorzitter, de euro is geen geld, de euro kost ons geld.

Het Europees Monetair Fonds zou een instrument voor crisismanagement moeten worden. Daarom stelt men zelfs voor om het vetorecht van de nationale parlementen de nek om te draaien. Een klein land als Nederland heeft dan helemaal niets meer in te brengen. Voorzitter, voor alle duidelijkheid, wij zijn tegen een Europees Monetair Fonds. Wij stellen voor het Europees Stabiliteitsmechanisme zo snel mogelijk te beëindigen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Is there a problem with the interpretation now? Can we fix it? Okay. Voimme siis jatkaa.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Das Europäische Parlament fordert seit Jahren die Weiterentwicklung des europäischen Rettungsschirms ESM zum Europäischen Währungsfonds. Wir haben das bereits getan in unserem Bericht über die Ursachen und Auswirkungen der größten Wirtschafts-, Finanz- und Sozialkrise. Wir haben das getan bei unserem Initiativbericht zur Überprüfung und Kontrolle der Troika, und wir tun das auch heute aus voller Überzeugung, dass wir damit eine weitere Lehre aus der Finanzwirtschafts- und Staatsschuldenkrise ziehen, eine stärkere Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion schaffen und zur Finanzstabilität in der Europäischen Union beitragen.

Wir wollen diesen Europäischen Währungsfonds aber natürlich auf dem Boden des Gemeinschaftsrechtes unter Kontrolle des Europäischen Parlaments und nicht bloß als intergouvernementales, zwischenstaatliches Instrument. Wir wollen mit diesem Währungsfonds, mit Stabilitätshilfen in Not geratenen Mitgliedstaaten nur unter strengen Auflagen und Reformen unter die Arme greifen. Wir wollen, dass dieser Fonds mindestens 500 Milliarden Euro aufweist und unter Umständen Teil des europäischen Budgets ist und das er als Ultima Ratio auch die gemeinsame Letztsicherung für den Abwicklungsfonds der Bankenunion übernimmt.

Dieser Fonds ist notwendig, um Europa unabhängiger, um Europa stabiler zu machen, um den Euro zu stärken und um in Europa ohne ausländische Hilfe in der Not eingreifen zu können und die Kommission bei der Arbeit für Sanierungs- und Hilfsprogramme zu stärken. Wir stehen zu dieser Entwicklung und bitten die Mitgliedstaaten, alles zu tun, um endlich die Rahmenbedingungen dafür zu schaffen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mercedes Bresso (S&D). – Signora Presidente, signor Vicepresidente, onorevoli colleghi, fa un po' ridere sentire dei colleghi sovranisti che pretendono l'autonomia decisionale dei propri Stati dimenticare che il Fondo monetario europeo – che non si chiamerà così, perché continuerà a chiamarsi SSM – è stato utilizzato finora attraverso decisioni da parte degli Stati membri, essenzialmente, e non attraverso l'inserimento pieno nella legalità comunitaria.

Questa relazione parte proprio da questa considerazione, dalle difficoltà che sono nate nella gestione essenzialmente intergovernativa, e vuole che il nuovo Fondo monetario abbia la legittimità che gli spetta. In questa relazione io vorrei sottolineare proprio l'importanza di riportarlo all'interno del diritto comunitario, anche se non ancora in modo soddisfacente.

In ogni caso, dobbiamo dare al Parlamento un vero diritto di supervisione e di azione. Serve di più? Sì, certo, a cominciare dal nome, che in realtà non è più Fondo monetario europeo, ma continua a chiamarsi come prima. Certamente si crea quella solita confusione sui nomi che le nostre istituzioni producono sempre.

(L'oratrice accetta di rispondere a una domanda "cartellino blu" (articolo162, paragrafo 8, del regolamento))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bill Etheridge (EFDD), blue-card question. – Thank you, Madam, for accepting the blue card. It is a genuine question. You used a word that was very interesting to me: ‘sovereignists’. I have not heard that word used in this kind of context before. Could you explain to me what you mean by ‘sovereignist’ – is it a pejorative term or is it purely a descriptive one? It struck me as soon as you started speaking. I wasn’t going to blue-card tonight, but I just had to ask you, so could you explain ‘sovereignist’ to me?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mercedes Bresso (S&D), Risposta a una domanda "cartellino blu". – Certamente: "sovranista" è colui che pensa che all'interno dell'Unione europea le competenze debbano essere riportate all'interno dei singoli Stati o gestite in modo intergovernativo. Chi è invece federalista, come me, pensa che le sovranità che gli Stati non riescono più a gestire debbano essere portate a livello comunitario e quindi essere veramente gestite. La moneta è certamente una di quelle.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Zabierając głos w debacie dotyczącej rozporządzenia Rady w sprawie utworzenia Europejskiego Funduszu Walutowego, chcę wyrazić nadzieję, że będzie to znaczące wzmocnienie stabilności finansowej Unii, wiarygodności oraz perspektyw wzrostu gospodarczego krajów strefy euro.

Przekształcenie dotychczasowej instytucji międzyrządowej czyli Europejskiego Mechanizmu Stabilności w fundusz funkcjonujący w ramach instytucjonalno-prawnych Unii, ustanowienie mechanizmu współpracy z Parlamentem Europejskim, parlamentami narodowymi, a także uregulowania dotyczące przejrzystości publicznego dostępu do dokumentów – to wszystko rozwiązania zwiększające demokratyczną rozliczalność z podejmowanych decyzji.

Chciałbym przy tym wyrazić nadzieję, że fundusz, a także inne rozwiązania dotyczące zmian w strukturze i funkcjonowaniu Unii Gospodarczej i Walutowej będą zgodne z zasadą otwartości w stosunku do państw spoza strefy euro oraz z zasadami, które stanowią fundament integracji europejskiej, w tym regułami jednolitego rynku. Nie mogą one zakłócać konkurencyjności państw członkowskich i Unii jako całości. Nie powinny także ograniczać praw państw członkowskich spoza strefy euro, między innymi w zakresie procesu decyzyjnego, w tym w szczególności ograniczać dostępu tych państw do środków finansowych w ramach budżetu unijnego.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL). – Madame la Présidente, l’expérience d’une décennie de politiques d’austérité, qui sont un échec cinglant partout en Europe, n’aura visiblement pas suffi.

Et Macron et Merkel n’ont rien trouvé de mieux que d’inventer une nouvelle institution antidémocratique: le Fonds monétaire européen. Sans aucun contrôle du Parlement européen, le FME viendra détruire, comme le FMI, les États en difficulté et organiser le saccage de l’État-providence pour imposer la sacro-sainte doxa ordo-libérale.

En réalité, l’Europe de Macron et Merkel, c’est une machine à broyer la démocratie: rien pour les peuples et tout pour les banques.

 
  
  

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. FABIO MASSIMO CASTALDO
Vicepresidente

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, how helpful – a European Monetary Fund. How helpful. So, when there are countries and organisations and businesses and economies that are struggling, you’re going to pick up taxpayers’ money and throw it over to them. How helpful. It was also really helpful when you got these countries into the eurozone in the first place. That was really, really, helpful of you. The only trouble is, these countries, these organisations, economies and businesses are struggling within the constraints of that zone you so helpfully got them into and now, rather than saying ‘OK, look, it’s not working out here. OK, these economies need to work out for themselves how to do it, these businesses which are unprofitable need to collapse and be replaced’ – because that would be the market, that would be free market capitalism and that’s sinful, isn’t it? – instead, you’re going to get huge sums of taxpayers’ money and prop up things that aren’t working.

I like to be helpful as well. I’m a helpful person in a room of helpful people and what I would strongly suggest to you is that you need to understand you cannot book the market. You’re forcing square pegs into round holes and all this is doing is wasting billions of taxpayers’ money on impossible projects – again.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gilles Lebreton (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, la zone euro est intrinsèquement fragile, car elle regroupe des États dont les niveaux économiques sont trop hétérogènes, à l’image de l’Allemagne et de la Grèce. Le prix Nobel d’économie, l’Américain Joseph Stiglitz, l’a lui-même expliqué. Elle risque d’être balayée par la prochaine crise financière.

L’Union européenne s’efforce ainsi de créer des filets de sécurité de plus en plus contraignants. Au Fonds européen de stabilité financière, créé en 2010, a ainsi succédé en 2013, le mécanisme européen de stabilité. C’est ce dernier, jugé trop intergouvernemental, que l’on envisage aujourd’hui de transformer en Fonds monétaire européen, plus intégré.

Ce nouvel instrument sera en effet un organe européen à part entière. Il s’agit donc d’une nouvelle atteinte à la souveraineté nationale. C’est pourquoi j’y suis hostile. Il est évident que ce FME fera comme son modèle, le FMI, il conditionnera son aide financière aux États à la réalisation d’un programme de privatisations et d’austérité imposé au nom de l’ultralibéralisme, qui tient lieu de pensée à l’Union européenne. Je voterai donc contre, car je ne veux pas que demain la France soit le jouet du FME.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE). – Domnule președinte, de la bun început am subliniat că dacă Uniunea Europeană dorește să creeze un instrument financiar pentru a acorda asistență statelor membre aflate în dificultate financiară, atunci soluția rațională este să transferăm Mecanismul European de Stabilitate din cadrul interguvernamental în cadrul legal al Uniunii Europene. Este un fapt pozitiv că, atât propunerea Comisiei, cât și raportul pe care îl dezbatem, astăzi susțin această transformare.

Regret că Consiliu a hotărât să nu pună în discuție propunerea Comisiei. Doresc să subliniez că susțin propunerea din raport, ca acest nou Mecanism European de Stabilitate să fie deschis și către statele membre care nu sunt în zona euro, dar au obligația de a adopta măsurile necesare pentru a intra în zona euro, dar, cu un amendament: această posibilitate să fie oferită numai statelor membre care au luat decizia să adopte euro și care îndeplinesc programele convenite în acest scop, atât cu Comisia Europeană, cât și cu Banca Europeană Centrală.

De asemenea, salutat propunerea din raport, ca acest nou Mecanism European de Stabilitate să primească și funcția de back stop pentru Fondul unic de rezoluție, astfel încât și pe această cale să întărim și să dezvoltăm pilonul doi al uniunii bancare.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, o nosso debate confirma que este Parlamento quer que a reforma do Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade ajude a tornar operacional o Fundo Único de Resolução de forma a avançar para a conclusão da União Bancária, como está previsto. Mas queremos bastante mais, queremos um mecanismo de estabilidade verdadeiramente europeu, integrado no direito europeu e sujeito ao controlo deste Parlamento. Queremos que tenha mais autonomia face ao FMI e, portanto, que vire a página das tróicas. Queremos que faça mais no apoio aos Estados e aprenda todas as lições dos programas de assistência do passado, isto significa também não deixar de fazer uma séria avaliação do impacto social das medidas a incluir em futuros programas de assistência.

São estas as mensagens do relatório interino que vamos aprovar, e esperamos agora que o Conselho e a Comissão deem ouvidos a este Parlamento que representa os cidadãos europeus.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριοι συνάδελφοι, πολύ μελάνι έχει χυθεί για τη δημιουργία ενός Ευρωπαϊκού Νομισματικού Ταμείου στα χνάρια του μισητού Διεθνούς Νομισματικού Ταμείου, που διέλυσε ολόκληρες χώρες και κοινωνίες με τελευταίο θύμα του το πειραματόζωο η Ελλάς. Αντί, λοιπόν, να αναζητάτε μηχανισμούς τύπου ΔΝΤ που φτωχοποίησε τον ελληνικό λαό, καλό θα είναι να χτυπηθούν οι αιτίες που οδήγησαν τις χώρες της ευρωζώνης στον κίνδυνο και στην πτώχευση. Μία είναι η βασική αιτία και αυτή είναι η δομή αλλά και η πολιτική της ευρωζώνης. Ευρωζώνη που έχει δομηθεί για να εξυπηρετεί τα γερμανικά συμφέροντα. Ευρωζώνη η οποία λειτουργεί με βάση τον ζουρλομανδύα του Συμφώνου Σταθερότητας, που επιβάλλει λιτότητα και βίαιη δημοσιονομική προσαρμογή. Για τον λόγο αυτό, πρέπει να καταργηθεί το Σύμφωνο Σταθερότητας, να μετατραπεί η ΕΚΤ σε ύστατο δανειστή, να αποκεντρωθεί το Ευρωπαϊκό Σύστημα Κεντρικών Τραπεζών, και τα κράτη μέλη να ανακτήσουν τη νομισματική τους κυριαρχία μέχρι του ποσοστού συμμετοχής τους στο κεφάλαιο της ΕΚΤ.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Dariusz Rosati (PPE). – Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate the Commission for preparing this report and I’m convinced that we are taking an important step forward when it comes to the strengthening the Economic and Monetary Union in the EU. The European Monetary Fund (EMF) aims to replace and absorb the European Stability Mechanism as an efficient and key anti-crisis mechanism. It fills a significant gap in the existing system of governance in the euro area, in the first place.

What are the tasks?

First of all the EMF would provide support to Member States in financial distress. One could say that is the ESM’s role, but this, as I will explain, is something which will be provided in a more efficient and prompt way.

The second task is that it will serve as a backstop for banks that fall into financial trouble. So there is a chance that, by providing financing both to states and to the banks, we are finally going to break the vicious nexus of sovereign-bank connection. The mechanism will be fiscally neutral so it does give us a guarantee that it is not going to transform itself into a permanent payment transfer mechanism.

Further advantages include the fact that, in terms of governance, it is going to be much more efficient because, as part of the legal framework of the European Union, the decision-making mechanism will be faster and it will be more willing and able to face crisis situations in Member States.

Lastly, just one reservation: we should not consider the EMF as a competitor of the IMF, and I would urge the Commission to design the whole solution in such a way as to still have access to, and to benefit from, the IMF as an international institution.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, la crise économique de 2008 a mis en lumière les conséquences dévastatrices d’une union incomplète qui organise la libre circulation des capitaux, mais se refuse à la solidarité économique. En ce sens, l’achèvement d’une union monétaire est nécessaire et indispensable à une politique économique et monétaire intégrée.

Je tiens à remercier sincèrement les corapporteurs de leur travail et je salue l’introduction par ce texte d’un filet de sécurité qui permet d’intervenir de manière coordonnée en cas de crise économique dans un État membre, non seulement au bénéfice de cet État membre, mais aussi comme moyen d’éviter les réactions en chaîne dans la zone euro.

Malheureusement, ce Fonds monétaire européen demeure un objet intergouvernemental, guidé par les règles édictées par le pacte de stabilité. Sans mécanisme de décision du Parlement dans la gestion de ce Fonds, ni mécanisme de contrôle, celui-ci s’inscrira dans la droite ligne des politiques d’austérité mises notamment en œuvre dans la gestion de la crise économique grecque. Sans codécision, sans transparence et sans participation démocratique, la logique du payeur-décideur constituera une piètre gouvernance de la politique monétaire et nous connaîtrons à nouveau les conséquences désastreuses de ces politiques sur les services publics et la pauvreté infantile.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, na samom početku ovog izvješća stoji da je uvođenje eura jedno od najznačajnijih političkih postignuća europskog projekta. Kako za koga. Možda da pitamo Grke ili Talijane?

Doduše, istina je da je euro za sami politički projekt bio koristan zato što je dodatno centralizirao Europu i smanjio manevarski prostor državama članicama. Isto će se dogoditi osnivanjem Europskog monetarnog fonda koji predstavlja još jedan integracijski korak. Osnivanje Europskog fonda za financijsku stabilnost i njegova preobrazba u Europski stabilizacijski mehanizam bili su logični potezi u kontekstu strašne financijske krize i potrebe da se eurozonu stabilizira i učini otpornijom.

Inicijativa za osnivanje Europskog monetarnog fonda zapravo želi krizne mehanizme učiniti stalnima i pojačati ulogu supranacionalnih struktura u nadzoru i upravljanju programima financijske pomoći u budućnosti. Za time doista nema nikakve potrebe.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, eurooppalaisen valuuttarahaston perustaminen on looginen jatko sille vakausmekanismille, joka perustettiin finanssi- ja eurokriisin jälkeen, kun selkeästi huomattiin jäsenvaltioiden kyvyttömyys vapaaehtoisesti pitää huolta kasvu- ja vakaussopimuksesta sekä myös kriisin hetkellä rahoituskapasiteetista.

Se muodostaa sixpackin ja twopackin kanssa siis kokonaisuuden, ja olennaista on jatkossa muodostaa siitä itsenäinen toimija, joka toimii unionin lainsäädännön alaisena eikä jäsenmaiden päätösvallan alaisena. Sen tehtäviin tulee kuulua virkavastuulla päätösten ja ratkaisujen tekeminen yhdessä sovittujen periaatteiden ja lainsäädännön pohjalta.

Tämä on mielestäni välttämätöntä, kun katsomme vakautta pidemmällä aikataululla. Vai luuletteko – käsi sydämellä – jäsenmaiden päättävän samoilla kriteereillä ja samalla tiukkuudella tukipaketista vaikkapa Saksalle, Ranskalle, Maltalle ja Kyprokselle? Jos haluamme oikeasti sellaisen mekanismin, jolla on markkinaennustettavuutta ja tätä kautta myös uskottavuutta, tarvitsemme pidemmällä aikavälillä valuuttarahaston, jolla on itsenäinen asema, ilman tapauskohtaista jäsenmaiden harkintaa.

No tässä vaiheessa olemme, missä olemme, päätöksenteossa, ja loogisesti olemme astuneet jo aikaisemmasta kasvu- ja vakaussopimuksen sekavasta tilasta eteenpäin, mutta työtä tämänkin asian osalta, niin kuin koko EMU:n kehittämisen osalta, jatkossa on vielä merkittävästi.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jens Geier (S&D). – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Der Vorschlag der EU-Kommission, den Europäischen Stabilitätsmechanismus in EU-Recht zu überführen, ist gut und richtig, denn nur so kann die demokratische Kontrolle durch das Europäische Parlament auch garantiert werden. Der Rat sollte dieses wichtige Thema nicht weiter auf die lange Bank schieben. Es ist klar, dass die aktuelle Governance-Struktur der Eurozone weiterentwickelt werden muss und dass es eines Eurozonenhaushalts mit Stabilisierungsfunktion bedarf, um asymmetrische Schocks abzufedern. Ein Eurozonenhaushalt muss Teil des Gesamthaushalts der Europäischen Union sein, es darf keine Doppel- oder Nebenstrukturen geben. Deswegen ist aber auch klar, dass es einen sinnvollen Eurozonenhaushalt nur geben kann, wenn der mehrjährige Finanzrahmen entsprechende Mittel dafür vorsieht. Deswegen ist die ideologische Fixierung auf 1 % des europäischen Bruttonationaleinkommens mancher Regierungschefs bei den Verhandlungen für den mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen falsch. Wer will, dass die EU liefert, muss ihr auch die entsprechenden Mittel geben. Es darf kein Tabu sein, den EU-Haushalt auch mit echten Eigenmitteln zu finanzieren. Es wäre ökonomisch sinnvoll und politisch intelligent, die Einnahmen zum Beispiel einer europäisch koordinierten Finanztransaktionssteuer oder einer Digitalsteuer für die Finanzierung des Eurozonenhaushalts zu nutzen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome the work towards the establishment of the European Monetary Fund in order to ensure greater responsibility for the development and monitoring of financial assistance programmes for Member States. A European Monetary Fund should have greater responsibility for the development and monitoring of financial assistance programmes, however, it would be important that decision-making remains firmly in the hands of the Member States.

The next EU budget can help to foster sustainable growth, put in place more effective reforms and help us to build a better society that improves all our citizens’ lives. I think the future of the Economic and Monetary Union should look to strengthen financial stability and regain public trust. Priority should be given to the completion of the banking union and strengthening the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). Additionally, focus must be put on the development of the capital markets union, which has huge potential to provide for a new mechanism for financing our businesses and can be complementary to the EU investment plan.

I welcome a number of provisions in this draft report, including that participation in this initiative should be possible for all Member States and not just for the eurozone. Additionally, I welcome the calls for the ESM to have sufficient expertise and for the governance framework to be assessed to ensure an effective decision-making procedure. I welcome the initiative Parliament is taking in putting forward its position on this issue, given the relatively slow process in Council and again, not for the first time, Parliament is showing initiative in the interests of citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alfred Sant (S&D). – Mr President, progress on the establishment of the European Monetary Fund (EMF) will remain problematic unless the fundamental political divide that underpins the decision is faced and resolved.

Crucially, the eurozone needs to improve and enhance the institutions that oversee its operations and protect it from the effects of crisis. This will inevitably oblige some centralisation of institutions and their functions.

However, there remains a profound mistrust among Member States, not least the smaller ones – but not only they – that proposals being made go in the sense of federalisation, which they do not want or which they consider premature.

Insisting that the European Monetary Fund should be integrated as of now in the Community method exacerbates this tension and hampers forward movement. The report claims that an intergovernmental arrangement would slow down the European Monetary Fund. Perhaps it is better to have a slow EMF, initially, to one that remains work in progress.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Okresy koniunktury i dekoniunktury są standardem w gospodarce wolnorynkowej, ba, one mają także uzdrawiający wpływ na gospodarkę i prowadzenie działalności gospodarczej. Kłopot pojawia się wtedy, kiedy dekoniunktura przekształca się w recesję. Wtedy cierpią już nie tylko firmy i budżety państw, ale przede wszystkim – i to jest największa szkoda – obywatele.

Unia Europejska potrzebuje więc sprawnego, silnego instrumentu stabilizacji okresów, cykli. Ponadto państwa Unii Europejskiej potrzebują wsparcia w okresach dekoniunktury czy, nie daj Boże, recesji. Przekształcenie międzyrządowego Europejskiego Mechanizmu Stabilizacji w Europejski Fundusz Walutowy mogłoby więc być dobrym rozwiązaniem. Osobiście nie kłóciłbym się o nazwę, ważniejsze są inne sprawy: po pierwsze – przeniesienie uprawnień państw członkowskich na szczebel Unii, po drugie – zniesienie wymogu jednomyślności na rzecz kwalifikowanej większości, oczywiście wzmocnionej kwalifikowanej większości, po trzecie – ważne jest także, kto mógłby być beneficjentem wsparcia z tego funduszu. Europejski Fundusz Walutowy powinien również zapewniać wspólny mechanizm ochrony dla Jednolitego Funduszu Restrukturyzacji i Uporządkowanej Likwidacji.

Kończąc, chcę powiedzieć, że jestem przekonany, iż mechanizm, o którym mówimy, musi mieć stały charakter i bardzo silne umocowanie w Unii Europejskiej. Wtedy będziemy mogli liczyć na jego efektywne działanie.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – Godātais sēdes vadītāj! Godātie kolēģi, Vēlos apsveikt ziņotājus un izteikt gandarījumu par to, ka kārtējo reizi esam aktīvi strādājuši arī pie politiski jūtīgiem jautājumiem, pie kuriem Padome vēl nemaz nav ķērusies. Es atbalstu Eiropas Stabilitātes mehānisma (ESM) reformas, kas mums ir ļoti svarīgas, ja vēlamies būt tālredzīgi un domāt par ekonomisko krīžu novēršanas instrumentiem jau savlaicīgi.

No visām dalībvalstīm tikai 19 ir eirozonā. Tas apgrūtina Eiropas monetāro un ekonomikas sadarbību, kad draud ekonomikas lejupslīde vai ir citi nelabvēlīgi makroekonomikas faktori. Jāizveido tāds sadarbības modelis, kurā visas dalībvalstis var pieņemt ātrus un efektīvus risinājumus par palīdzības sniegšanu. Eiropas Komisijas priekšlikums ir labs pamats šāda modeļa izveidei.

Eiropas Monetārais fonds, lai arī kāds būs tā nosaukums, to integrējot Eiropas Savienības likumiskajā ietvarā, būs ļoti nozīmīgs, lai palīdzētu grūtībās nonākušajām valstīm, un ir svarīgi, lai dalībvalstīm par to būtu teikšana. Ir svarīgi arī, lai tā funkcijas nedublētos ar citu institūciju funkcijām.

Tomēr šodien ar to ir pa maz, ja mēs vēlamies efektīvu un pārskatāmu lēmumu pieņemšanas mehānismu. Ir jāpalielina Stabilitātes mehānisma instrumentu kastīte, tai skaitā demokrātiskā atbildība gan pret Eiropas Parlamentu, gan dalībvalstīm.

Paplašinot instrumentu klāstu, būs jāspēj rast zelta vidusceļš starp dalībvalstu solidaritāti un, protams, atbildību. Grūtībās nonākušajām dalībvalstīm būs pašām jāuzņemas lielāka atbildība gan pret savas valsts iedzīvotājiem, gan pārējiem Eiropas pilsoņiem.  Tāpēc piekrītu, ka reformējot Eiropas Stabilitātes mehānismu, lielāks uzsvars ir jāliek uz atbalstu dalībvalstīm, nevis bankām, no kurām prasīt atbildību dažkārt ir problemātiski.

Mums ir jābūt atklātiem gan pret sevi, gan iedzīvotājiem. Diskusijā ir skaidri redzams, ka dalībvalstīm ir atšķirīgs viedoklis par ESM nākotni, tomēr šī diskusija ir labs pamats, lai mehānisms reformu rezultātā tiek pilnveidots.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I have been listening carefully to your exchange of views and it’s another example of the vitality of the discussions on the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) deepening. We can only support such reflections about the future completion of the architecture of the EMU.

The work is far from finished. We believe that our European Monetary Fund proposal is a step in the right direction, and let me reiterate why this is the case.

First, an integration of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) in the Union’s legal framework would bring the benefit of a better articulation of financial stability support to Member States in crisis, with a framework of economic policy coordination and supervision of the financial sector. The Commission, Council and ECB play a key role in that regard. It would also allow for the ESM’s accountability to be enhanced at the European level, next to the national level, and increase its democratic legitimacy. Clearly, the ESM actions not only concern individual Member States in receipt of assistance but the euro area as a whole. Moreover, it would allow for an increase in transparency and a judicial review of its actions, as is the case for Union institutions.

Let me also emphasise that the integration of the ESM in the Union framework would also be an acknowledgment of the importance the ESM has gained since its creation.

Let me conclude by saying that, regardless of how the ESM will work in the short to medium term, it is clear that the Member States and the ESM must respect existing tasks and roles set out in the EU treaties, without this affecting the balance of competences between the Union and its Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vladimír Maňka, Rapporteur. – Vážený pán predseda, ďakujem svojmu spoluspravodajcovi Petrovi Silva Pererazovi za skvelú spoluprácu. Ďakujem tieňovým spravodajcom, rovnako aj našim poradcom a spolupracovníkom za výbornú prácu.

Rád by som zdôraznil, že členské štáty nedokážu sami riešiť systémové riziká, ktoré ohrozujú finančnú stabilitu Európskej únie. To nie je len o profitujúcich firmách, ktoré spomenul pán Marušík, ale aj o otrasoch, ktoré v globalizovanej ekonomike môžu postihnúť aj tieto profitujúce firmy a spolu s nimi stiahnuť do problémov celé regióny, štáty a problémy rozšíriť aj do iných krajín. Na riešenie takýchto ohrození potrebujeme mať nástroje. Súčasný medzivládny charakter Európskeho stabilizačného mechanizmu znižuje jeho schopnosť efektívne reagovať na hospodárske a finančné otrasy. Preto budúce začlenenie Európskeho mechanizmu stability do právneho rámca Európskej únie posilní jeho akcieschopnosť a efektívnosť. Dovtedy, kým sa tak stane, požadujeme, aby sa v krátkodobom horizonte uskutočnila zmysluplná reforma prostredníctvom revízie zmluvy o Európskom stabilizačnom mechanizme bez toho, aby bol dotknutý ambicióznejší vývoj budúcnosti.

Tu nie je na mieste individualizmus. Len spoločným úsilím prinesieme väčšie istoty a stabilitu pre eurozónu a v konečnom dôsledku pre celú Európsku úniu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà giovedì 14 marzo 2019, alle 12.00.

 

25. Konkurences aizsardzība gaisa transportā (debates)
Visu runu video
MPphoto
 

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Markus Pieper, a nome della commissione per i trasporti e il turismo, sulla proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio relativo alla tutela della concorrenza nel settore del trasporto aereo, che abroga il regolamento (CE) n. 868/2004 (COM(2017)0289 - C8-0183/2017 - 2017/0116(COD)) (A8-0125/2018).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Markus Pieper, Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Wir sind ein Europa der Freiheit und der Werte, wir sind ein Europa, das für den fairen Wettbewerb steht, und wir sind eine Europäische Union, die immer dann stark ist, wenn sie zusammenhält. Amerikanische Zölle auf europäische Autos, chinesische Billigimporte bei Stahl und Aluminium. Wenn die Union zusammensteht, werden Trump & Co nichts gegen unsere Industrie ausrichten.

Natürlich funktioniert das nur mit den richtigen Grundlagen, sprich mit Handelsverträgen der Europäischen Union mit allen Teilen der Welt. Eine solche Grundlage haben wir jetzt mit der neuen 868-Verordnung zur Sicherstellung des Wettbewerbs eben auch für den Luftverkehr, also für einen Bereich, für den WTO-Regeln bislang nicht gelten.

Worum geht es? In anderen Teilen der Welt sind Fluglinien staatlich subventioniert, teils in einem Maße, das den Wettbewerb verfälscht. Schon jetzt haben sich globale Marktanteile zulasten der EU-Airlines verschoben, trotz Effizienzsteigerungen und Strukturwandel bei den Fluggesellschaften. Deshalb: Wenn Wettbewerbsverzerrungen zu Beschwerden Anlass geben, dann müssen wir als Europäische Union konkret werden, mit konkreten Maßnahmen gegen subventionierte Dumping-Airlines, aber auch mit geeigneten Reaktionen, wenn außereuropäische Staaten oder Regionen unsere Fluggesellschaften etwa bei Landerechten oder bei der Abfertigung diskriminieren. Die 868-Verordnung ermöglicht das Einleiten von Untersuchungen schon dann, wenn Schäden drohen oder Diskriminierungen nur angekündigt, aber noch nicht eingetreten sind.

Dass die Kommission schon bei einer drohenden Schädigung aktiv werden kann, das wirkt abschreckend. Dass die Generaldirektion TRAN jetzt schon bei einer drohenden Schädigung, also nicht erst bei einer nachzuweisenden Schädigung, aktiv wird, das ist das Verdienst des Europäischen Parlaments. Das haben wir in den Trilog-Verhandlungen durchgesetzt. Und erst damit kriegt die 868-Verordnung Zähne. Es ist jetzt ein echtes Abschreckungsinstrument, das wir, wenn es gut läuft, ja niemals anwenden müssen. Die 868-Verordnung ist damit auch ein diplomatisches Instrument für Europa und seine Mitgliedstaaten, die sich allein eben nicht gegen Diskriminierung wehren können. Wenn wir es aber mit der EU-28 zusammen angehen, dann haben wir den globalen Einfluss auch im Flugverkehr. Die Antwort auf „America First“, „Gulf-Airlines First“ oder „China First“ ist „Europe together“.

Vielen Dank an die Kommission für die gute Vorlage. Danke an den Rat für die schwierigen, aber fairen Verhandlungen. Und danke an Sie, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die hier kräftig mitgeholfen haben. Wir haben jetzt einen starken Baustein für ein starkes und wehrhaftes Europa, einen weiteren starken Baustein für eine wehrhafte Europäische Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Günther Oettinger, Mitglied der Kommission. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren Abgeordneten, meine Damen und Herren! Ich darf in Vertretung meiner Kollegin Bulc die Kommission vertreten, die Kollegin Bulc ist erkrankt, ist aber dankbar, dass heute Abend die Beratungen in dieser konstruktiven Weise hier stattfinden. Ich danke dem Abgeordneten Pieper sehr für seine Funktion, den Bericht dazu und den Inhalt im Parlament voranzubringen, und ich danke dem Fachausschuss für wesentliche Inhalte, die auf seine Arbeit zurückzuführen sind. Sowohl der Berichterstatter als auch die Schattenberichterstatter haben hier wichtige Arbeit geleistet.

Die Annahme der neuen Verordnung über den Schutz von fairem Wettbewerb im Luftverkehr ist ein großer Meilenstein bei der Umsetzung unserer europäischen Luftfahrtstrategie, die von der Kommission vor vier Jahren angenommen wurde und jetzt hier auch eine rechtliche Grundlage finden kann. Diese Rechtsvorschrift ist ein Kernelement unseres Instrumentariums für fairen Wettbewerb in der europäischen Luftfahrt und in der Außenpolitik gegenüber anderen Ländern, wenn es um fairen Wettbewerb geht. Die Veränderungen in diesem Sektor der Beförderung von Menschen, Waren und Gütern in der Luftfahrt auf der ganzen Welt sind beachtlich. Umso mehr geht es um eine gemeinsame europäische Politik und um Instrumente, die uns an die Hand gegeben werden, damit wir für alle Luftfahrtunternehmen fairen Wettbewerb organisieren und garantieren können. Es geht um Luftverkehr in die Europäische Union und aus der Europäischen Union, und dabei haben wir derzeit jeweils zur Hälfte Luftfahrtunternehmen, die in der EU angesiedelt sind, und Mitbewerber, die in Drittländern zu Hause sind. Diesen Wettbewerb akzeptieren und schätzen wir, aber auch die Konnektivität, unabhängig davon, wer sie gewährleistet.

Für die Flüge in die EU haben Luftfahrtunternehmen aus Drittländern unsere Garantie, dass bestimmte europäische Vorschriften für sie genauso gelten wie für die EU—Unternehmen. Wir als EU wollen fairen Wettbewerb zu gleichen Konditionen garantieren. Allerdings stellen wir fest, dass unverändert – zum Teil sich verstärkend – EU—Unternehmen außerhalb der EU nicht immer die gleichen fairen Bedingungen vorfinden, sondern dort Benachteiligung, Diskriminierung stattfinden kann. Wir als Kommission verfolgen mit Unterstützung dieses hohen Hauses die Idee von einem Wettbewerb, der sich auf einem multilateralen Rahmen und auf weltweit harmonisierten Vorschriften stützt, aber weder die WTO noch die ICAO—Richtlinien sind für einen fairen Wettbewerb in naher Zukunft realistisch, und deswegen handeln wir als EU derzeit umfassende Luftverkehrsabkommen mit Drittländern aus, die diesen fairen Wettbewerb zum Gegenstand haben. Bislang werden die Flüge zwischen der EU und Drittländern überwiegend durch entsprechende Abkommen einzelner EU—Mitgliedstaaten geregelt. Aber ein Auftritt mit 28 oder 27 EU—Staaten den Drittländern gegenüber erscheint nicht sehr klug, und deswegen ist mit der jetzt zu vereinbarenden Verordnung für die EU die Grundlage gegeben für ein glaubwürdiges und effizientes Instrument, mit dem wir im Interesse unserer Mitgliedstaaten, unserer Bürger, für die Arbeitsplätze und die Luftfahrtunternehmen unfaire Praktiken abstellen und auch angemessen angehen, bekämpfen können.

Diese Verordnung, die Ihnen heute Abend vorliegt und die Sie federführend mitgestaltet haben, unterscheidet sich grundlegend von ihrer Vorgängerin, die aus dem Jahre 2004 stammt und die ineffizient, in Wahrheit nicht wirklich praktikabel, war. Die jetzige Verordnung ist an die Besonderheiten des heutigen Luftfahrtsektors angepasst und in ihren Verfahren klarer, wirksamer und effizienter. Wir als Kommission legen weiterhin großen Wert darauf, Luftverkehrsabkommen mit Drittländern auszuhandeln. In ihren Beziehungen mit ihren Partnern in Drittländern wird die EU stets den Dialog und Verhandlungslösungen den Vorzug vor unilateralen Maßnahmen geben. In diesem Sinne finde ich ist heute ein wichtiger Tag für fairen Wettbewerb zwischen EU—Unternehmen und Drittunternehmen und auch für unsere Bürger, die mit beiden fliegen können und fliegen sollen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Währung. – Herr Präsident, lieber Kommissar! Seien Sie erneut in diesem Parlament willkommen!

Mr President, in the context of increased competition between air transport operators at global level, fair competition, with a level playing field, is an indispensable general principle that the EU has to push for. Calling for the same rules and fair competition for all carriers cannot be labelled as mere protectionism. Just as I have been calling on some European carriers to restructure and to stop receiving state aid, I now call for more financial transparency and clearer rules regarding third-country carriers’ operations in Europe and their investments in the EU.

Europe represents 500 million potential passengers for third-country air carriers’ routes to Asia. They fly to Europe to feed their respective hubs and fill their planes. Increasing traffic towards Asia should be borne in mind when the Commission is negotiating comprehensive aviation agreements with the rest of the world. I believe the EU should link the financial transparency clause in the aviation agreements to third-country investment in EU airlines. If third-country airlines receive subsidies, why should they be able to control EU airlines achieving the same results? This, to me, is not fair competition.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Wim van de Camp, namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, dank u zeer. Ook een hartelijk welkom aan commissaris Oettinger. Ik hoop dat hij onze groeten wil overbrengen aan Violeta Bulc. Zij is weer aan de beterende hand heb ik vandaag begrepen via de app, maar desalniettemin. Ook dank ik mijn collega Markus Pieper voor de toch wel pittige arbeid die hij heeft moeten verrichten om dit dossier tot een goed einde te brengen. En het grappige is, voorzitter, dat dit dossier nog is beëindigd onder Oostenrijks voorzitterschap. Maar wij zijn blijkbaar wat laat om het resultaat van de trialoog hier te bespreken.

Het is duidelijk, voorzitter – mijn collega van de Commissie ECON, maar ook de commissaris zei het al – we hebben hier een zeer belangrijk dossier bij de kop waar internationaal heel veel over te zeggen is. Het dossier is de afgelopen maanden bovendien alleen maar belangrijker geworden. Wij zien verschillende nationalistische tendensen in de wereld. Het is een grote opdracht, ook voor de Europese Unie, om het internationale vliegverkeer open te houden.

Het is makkelijker gezegd dan gedaan. Maar het openhouden van het internationale vliegverkeer in een eerlijke markt – en daar gaat het hier vanavond over – is wel heel belangrijk. Er is best veel oneerlijke concurrentie. En er is ook illegale staatshulp. Het gaat hier niet alleen over kerosine en over landingsbanen. Het gaat niet alleen over Arabische landen, maar ook als we kijken naar China, Hongkong en zelfs Singapore, dan hebben onze Europese luchtvaartmaatschappijen te maken met oneerlijke concurrentie. Ik hoop dat dit dossier een verbetering van die positie en een eerlijker positie kan brengen.