Az ülések szó szerinti jegyzőkönyve

2019. április 17., Szerda - Strasbourg

7. A képviselőcsoportok tagjai

  President. – Mr David Borrelli leaves the non-attached Members and joins the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) with effect from 17 April 2019.

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, citing Rules 1 and 115 of our Rules of Procedure, I want to call the attention of the House to an issue that is of grave concern to our European democracy. Facebook has been enforcing, since the beginning of this week, a new advertising policy that is hampering the possibilities and the capabilities of the European Parliament, as well as European political parties, to do EU-wide advertising. The President of this House and sections of the Parliament and the Commission and the Council have written letters to Mr Nick Clegg protesting against this new practice, but so far Facebook is not reacting.

I believe that it is completely unacceptable that a private company acting from a boardroom somewhere in the United States would decide how European elections are being run. It’s arrogant and completely unacceptable, I repeat, that Facebook tries to dictate the democratic organisations and institutions like the EP and the European political parties that have legitimate grounds for EU-wide campaigning, and EU-wide advertising rules that make this impossible. I would call upon colleagues to join forces, and I propose that the European political parties get together and write an open letter to Mr Zuckerberg protesting and demanding an immediate change to the rules.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). – Mr President, many of my colleagues have asked me why I distribute those yellow daffodils. Tomorrow they will also be distributed in the corridors. Many of you have got them already.

Please listen for a second. 19 April is the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. In Warsaw we always commemorate this day with those daffodils. Thousands of people in Warsaw wear those daffodils or carry fresh ones. On the last day of this mandate, let us give a very clear signal that we remember together and that we are here in order not to allow such horrors to happen ever again. Never again.

(Applause)

  Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Da ja das Dossier von INTA von der Tagesordnung abgesetzt worden ist, wollte ich diese Minute wahrnehmen, um mich nach 30 Jahren Anwesenheit und Mitarbeit hier in diesem Parlament zu bedanken. Wir haben, speziell was Handelsfragen angeht, in den letzten Monaten, in den letzten Jahren viel erreicht. Ich habe angefangen, da waren wir 12 Staaten; jetzt sind wir 28. Ich habe angefangen, da gab es noch nicht mal einen Plenarsaal für uns; jetzt sitzen wir hier.

Ich möchte mich vornehmlich bei meinem Bundesland – Niedersachsen – und bei Deutschland bedanken, dass ich als nicht geborene Deutsche, mit 25 Jahren nach Deutschland gekommen, 30 Jahre haben dienen können. Das ist echt europäisch!

Ich wünsche allen meinen Nachfolgern jetzt das Beste für die nächsten Jahre. Liebe Kollegen, lasst uns stolz sein auf das, was wir gemeinsam oder gegeneinander erreicht haben – aber jedenfalls erreicht haben! Vielen herzlichen Dank für alles! Ich hoffe wirklich, dass es ein Leben nach dem Parlament gibt.

(Beifall)

  President. – Thank you, colleague, and let me also wish you the very best. The very last speaker under this Rule of Procedure’s point of order is Mr Castaldo, then we will vote.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Mr President, I would like to make a point of order on Rules 226 and 227. The interpretation we are going to vote on today is in fact a full amendment to the Rules of Procedure. This is the last attempt to have an old proposal adopted by simple majority. This is precisely what is required for interpretation. It is the same proposal that, as an amendment to the Rules of Procedure, did not reach an absolute majority in this House last January. Indeed the proposed text raises new, crucial legal questions, which would remain open, giving rise not only to different interpretations but also to highly discretionary assessments.

What are the parameters for defining the substantive, distinctive and genuine character that are required for a Group’s political statement regarding the common political orientation? Who decides whether these are respected? The President of Parliament alone or with the consent of the Conference of Presidents? By majority, by consensus? Again, what are the consequences of an assessment of non—compliance? Finally, what are the legal remedies? There are no answers to any of these questions.

Once again, at the end of the parliamentary term and in a hurry, we witness an attempt to change the rules about group formation, definitely a most sensitive issue. The proposal not only leaves important legal issues open, but above all jeopardises the democratic functioning of our common House. This vote is a real attack on the heart of the concept of democracy and I strongly ask you to join me in rejecting that. Say no to this interpretation. Say yes to democracy.

(Applause)

  President. – Mr Castaldo, we have followed the Rules of Procedure. I will not quote provisions three and four of Article 226. There was a full debate and, after all, this is a question of guidance.