Пълен протокол на разискванията

Четвъртък, 21 октомври 2021 г. - Страсбург

14. Предложение за създаване на „единен пазар за филантропия“ (разискване)

  Der Präsident. – Wir fahren mit den Aussprachen fort.

Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Erklärung der Kommission zu dem Vorschlag zur Schaffung eines „Binnenmarkts der Philanthropie“ (2021/2937(RSP)).

  Mairead McGuinness, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I’m here on behalf of Commissioner Gabriel. But of course, we all have an interest in this topic. And by way of background, in Europe, we have more than 147 000 philanthropic organisations with an accumulated annual expenditure of nearly EUR 60 billion. Just last year, global philanthropic giving, in all its forms, topped EUR 660 billion, the highest amount ever.

The field of arts and culture is at the core of philanthropy, and it is amongst the most important areas of funding for philanthropic organisations in Europe. Data shows that nearly half of the European Foundation Centre’s members have a main focus on arts and culture, and this is welcome. The cultural and creative sectors and industries have been hard hit by the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Even at a time when the sector is gradually reopening again all across Europe, many challenges remain as the financial impact on the sector has been huge.

On top of this, natural disasters and the extreme weather we’ve seen this summer has added strain on venues and cultural heritage sites. Artists have seen venues closed and not always re-opening. Even with steady public funding, the sector remains vulnerable. Eurostat data shows that in 2018, cultural services represented, on average, 1% of governments’ expenditure. The amount remains unchanged since 2013.

But the story these figures do not tell is that amounts vary greatly from State to State. Some Member States increase their expenditure, often responding to challenges from the 2008 economic crisis, but others have reduced it, putting greater pressure on a sector that is so important to our economy, to people’s livelihoods and to our sense of community.

Most countries put in place extraordinary measures just to support their cultural and creative industries during the recent pandemic and confinement. Indeed, so did the European Union, with the unprecedented NextGenerationEU package and a new MFF, which allows a higher number of EU funding sources for the cultural and creative sectors than before. But we know that this support cannot meet all needs.

A few examples: a recent survey shows that during the second wave of the pandemic, almost 7 in 10 museums expected budget cuts in the coming years, and they expect that it will be a long time until visits will be back to pre-COVID levels. In addition, half of the surveyed museums stated that they had not considered looking into alternative funding sources. So, on the one hand, we have pressure on the horizon. On the other hand, we have no clear, widely implemented way of relieving this pressure, and this brings me directly to the topic of our debate of philanthropy.

This philanthropy can help us catalyse a more holistic response to the vast challenges that lie ahead, from climate change to vaccination and social innovation. There is a great disparity amongst legal frameworks relating to philanthropy with regard to arts and artists across Europe. Corporate giving or donations as tools for corporate philanthropy are considered to be one-sided business transactions where donors contribute with money, time, information, goods and services to another organisation. Reasons to donate are therefore largely moral, expected to contribute to social welfare and understood as a pre-social spending or pro-social spending. For instance, in Romania, some of the largest private companies have included cultural heritage in their corporate social responsibility support programmes. Donations in general are covered by the Treaty, and these rules on free movement of capital apply, which create rights both for the donor and the recipient of a donation. This means that donors can donate cross-border and beneficiaries can accept foreign funding. Any restrictions by Member States need to pursue a legitimate public interest. The Commission will ensure that national measures, which restrict capital movements are risk and evidence based and proportionate.

Two forms of donations can be distinguished. Pure donations in which donors stay anonymous and public donations where donors are publicly announced and receive indirect benefits from the promotion of their name in public. Donations are generally considered as a deductible expense for corporate income tax purposes. In some environments, the subcategory of patronage is employed as a mechanism to provide support to good causes with some degree of expected return.

In public donations and patronage, there is an element of societal recognition and reputation. However, these forms of contribution display a deeper, altruistic dimension than sponsorship actions and do not imply the generation of an immediate and tangible output.

In these cases, the boundary amongst public corporate donations and sponsorships may be difficult to draw. The regulatory and strategic frameworks of corporate-giving and patronage are key factors to promote and encourage these practices. In many European countries, donations are encouraged through a variety of different income tax deductions. Special fiscal schemes and tax benefits vary widely from state to state. Considerations upon legal entities, eligibility and general interest of the activities are important aspects to achieve social and institutional convergence.

For instance, Spain established a set of deductions applicable to the donations supporting the historical Spanish heritage assets. In this framework, the potential impact of non-monetary donations of professional services should also be recognised and encouraged. An additional model to consider is the one based on connecting business with individuals and the arts. A typical scheme is a business to arts found in Ireland, where businesses are matched with arts organizations and artists to develop solutions in areas such as sponsorship, commissioning, brand development, training, leadership development, internal and external communications and events. In this setup, business works with artists and arts organisations, providing a range of training opportunities and coaching to help diversify income streams, to grow audiences and improve efficiencies. Their corporate membership base and network ranges across the business sectors from local family-run companies, SMEs, semi-state companies to corporate foundations.

Another good example can be found in Belgium, where the foundation Prométhéa aims to develop corporate philanthropy and patronage for cultural and heritage. It facilitates exchanges between different sponsorship actors from political, economic and cultural spheres, and supports to businesses in that patronage strategy. Its objective is to increase the number of contributors to, and resources for, patronage, mainly in Belgium.

The idea to have a single market for philanthropy should embrace all topologies of sources of financing I’ve just mentioned. Learning from best practices without prejudice to the possible application of state aid rules.

When it comes to supporting arts and culture specifically, DG EAC hosted in January a complementary funding workshop for cultural heritage with over 100 good practices from our Member States and this included donations and therefore philanthropy, but also many more schemes such as public and private partnerships, lotteries and so forth.

In addition, the Commission is currently preparing two studies to identify barriers for cross-border activities of social economy actors and map the legal regimes of associations in the European Union, including for philanthropy.

The upcoming Action Plan for the Social Economy will look at these issues with a view to facilitating the implementation of the principle of non-discrimination regarding cross-border donations to public benefit organisations.

In this context, the Commission follows closely the ongoing work related to the Parliament’s own-initiative legislative report on a statute for European cross-border associations and non-profit organisations. Thank you, and I look forward to the debate.

  Seán Kelly, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, philanthropy is an important vehicles for supporting and advancing many of the core values of the European Union institutions. Indeed, philanthropy plays a key role in helping to support and uphold community cohesion and our shared values across the European Union.

Many individuals alongside charitable and philanthropic organisations support endeavours from which we all benefit, including improving educational attainment, raising health care standards, advancing scientific development and tackling climate change.

However, while goods and services can travel freely across the EU, philanthropic support does not have such an easy passage to our continent, whether studying, travelling or running a business in Europe, national borders have become a thing of the past. Yet philanthropy does not yet benefit from the full opportunities that a single market creates.

There are a 147 000 public benefit organisations across Europe, with an annual giving of over 60 billion. However, only a small percentage of these funds make it across internal European borders. Establishing a single market philanthropy would enable greater levels of citizens action, while at the same time complementing EU funds, expertise and activities.

In saying this, we are seeing steps being taken in the right direction. The decision of the European Commission to include a partnership with philanthropy in its proposal for the InvestEU fund, of which I was honoured to be a rapporteur, is most welcome.

In 2019, we held a debate in this chamber where a strong, cross-party alliance emerged for the need to support the untapped potential of philanthropic foundations and civil society organisations across the EU. Since then, the need to establish a single market for philanthropy has only strengthened.

Philanthropy can help solve problems that are now more interconnected than ever before, but it could also be more effective if it enjoyed a better operating environment and better protection mechanisms. I want to see philanthropy continue to support European values and collaborate with key stakeholders across society and across borders to tackle rising inequality and help connect with citizens and their needs.

A single market for philanthropy has the potential to build upon the existing ambitions of the InvestEU fund and to deliver on the economy that works for people. To do this, there is need for an EU study on philanthropy. Currently, only two countries in the world, the Netherlands and the US, are engaged in regular macroeconomic research to estimate the overall philanthropic contributions of households, legacies, foundations, companies and charities.

As it is such a valuable figure representing European solidarity, we should engage in generating qualitative data on this phenomena for the whole European Union. Let’s take the opportunity to mobilise our resources and deliver change.

  Milan Brglez, v imenu skupine S&D. – Gospod predsednik. Spoštovane kolegice, spoštovani kolegi, komisarka. Pozdravljam današnjo razpravo, ker nam omogoča prepoznati, da je civilna družba in da so nevladne organizacije nepogrešljiv del demokratične družbe. V središče namreč postavljajo človeka in družbeno korist v širšem smislu besede in to ne glede na narodno ali kakršnokoli drugo pripadnost, in torej so ključ za družbeno solidarnost in seveda družbeno kohezijo.

Moje izkušnje tako z delom znotraj slovenskega Rdečega križa kot s stikom z drugimi nevladnimi in humanitarnimi organizacijami mi govorijo o tem, da imajo te organizacije izjemen prispevek k družbeni blaginji, ki pa je podcenjen. Breme, ki so ga prevzele od vseh teh kriz, s katerimi se sooča Evropska unija, je izjemno. Začenši s finančno krizo leta 2008, ko so bila pričakovanja ljudi po tem, da se deli hrana, takšna, da je bilo treba te delavce, ki so prostovoljno delali, zavarovati pred tem, ker država in Evropska unija nista uspeli na ustrezen način se odzvati na te izzive.

Enako velja v begunski in migrantski krizi oziroma takrat, ko se je bilo treba soočiti z begunci in migranti, od leta 2015 naprej, ko v bistvu ta sektor prevzame nase velik del skrbi za oskrbo in integracijo migrantov. Torej te človekoljubne organizacije že zaradi tega, ker so bliže lokalnim skupnostim, ker so predstavljene v vseh lokalnih skupnostih, se znajo odzvati tudi na takšne zadeve, kot je sedanja pandemija covida-19. Namreč občutljive so za potrebe in stiske ljudi, ki bi jih drugače država ali pa ki bi jih institucije spregledale, in znajo prepoznati te potrebe in te stiske in se nanje na ustrezen način odzvati.

Zaradi tega bi jim želel tako v lastnem imenu kot v imenu poslanske skupine, kateri pripadam, torej socialistov in demokratov, se najiskreneje zahvaliti za vse delo, ki so ga do sedaj opravile in tudi za vse delo, ki ga bodo opravile v prihodnje. Namreč to delo utemeljuje tisti vidik solidarnosti, ki je del evropskih vrednot, in v bistvu tudi zaradi tega, ker bo ta kriza in prihodnje krize, ki nas še čakajo, imele tako ekonomske, socialne kot okoljske posledice. In te organizacije se na to znajo odzvati.

Seveda je treba upoštevati tudi čezmejni in globalni vidik tega, teh izzivov. Čakata nas dva prehoda: zeleni in digitalni. In tako v kratkoročni viziji, ki je bolj ali manj utemeljena na gospodarski rasti, kot v dolgoročni viziji, ki skuša iti preko tega razumevanja, pomagajo ohranjati evropski razvojni model. Brez kooperacije s temi organizacijami ni možnosti, torej brez sodelovanja s temi organizacijami ni možnosti ustreznega razvoja evropskega razvojnega in gospodarskega modela, ki bo seveda prišel do ljudi, tako znotraj same Evropske unije kot tudi po svetu.

Civilna družba, še zlasti njen humanitarni del, pa mora pri tem, in to je zelo pomembna zadeva, kar moramo pri tem upoštevati, je, da ne sme postati nadomestek socialne države ali pa bodoče socialno-ekološke države. Nikakor ne sme ta del postati nadomestek te države. To je nekaj, za kar morajo poskrbeti tako država kot evropske institucije. Prav tako ne sme postati nadomestek socialnih politik – bom rekel, tisti del, ki je sestavni del tega sektorja, in to je neplačano delo v obliki prostovoljstva ali pa neplačano skrbstveno delo v okviru gospodinjstev oziroma družin. To dvoje nikakor ne sme se zgoditi.

Tisto, kar pa lahko in kako je treba razumeti ta sektor, torej civilno družbo, je pa, da je komplementaren oziroma dopolnilen temu, kar Evropa skuša narediti pri sebi in kar skuša narediti tudi po svetu. Kar pa dokazuje na eni strani tudi študija Organizacije za gospodarsko sodelovanje in razvoj, ki pravi, da so države z nizkim in srednjim dohodkom pravzaprav odvisne od evropskih donacij in prispevka evropskih humanitarnih organizacij in civilnodružbenih organizacij, zato da lahko sploh funkcionalno deluje njihovo javno zdravstvo, izobraževanje, enakost spolov, in sploh realizacija agende 2030 je s tem v marsičem pogojena.

Ta trenutek vsekakor nimamo močne evropske civilne družbe in tudi ne izkoriščamo vseh potencialov, ki jih ta civilna družba ima. Tako neprofitne organizacije in združenja kot nevladne organizacije so sicer zelo različne, ampak v delovanju so si podobne. Nimajo pa pravil skupnih, nimajo v bistvu oziroma drugače povedano, v vsaki državi se srečajo z drugimi pravnimi pravili, z drugimi finančnimi zahtevami in z drugimi upravnimi postopki, in če skušajo delovati kjerkoli drugje, morajo dobesedno znova ponoviti postopke.

To v marsičem onemogoča čezmejno delovanje, ta fragmentacija pravil onemogoča čezmejno delovanje, tudi seveda nepriznavanje statusa onemogoča isto. In zaradi tega se ne morejo ustrezno povezovati, da bi se lahko soočale tudi z evropskimi izzivi.

Torej odsotnost evropskih pravil za neprofitne organizacije glede davkov, glede ustanavljanja je vsekakor v nasprotju s štirimi svoboščinami, ki jih poznamo v Evropski uniji. Onemogoča transparentnost poslovanja in pravzaprav onemogoča izkoristek vsega prispevka, ki bi ga lahko imele k tako trajnostnemu razvoju kot k družbeni blaginji. In to dokazuje tudi študija raziskovalne službe Evropskega parlamenta, ki ugotavlja številna področja, kjer tega ni, tako na izobraževanju, kulturi, zdravstvu, socialnem varstvu, raziskavah, razvojnem sodelovanju humanitarni pomoči, socialni koheziji, torej številna področja, kjer ni izkoriščenega potenciala.

Zato vsekakor pozdravljam iniciativo Evropskega parlamenta in tudi zakonodajno poročilo, ki ga pripravlja Odbor za pravne zadeve, pri čemer utemeljuje svoje delo na preteklih 30-letnih izkušnjah neuspešnega urejanja tega področja na eni strani in na drugi strani to izvaja v dialogu s civilno družbo, ki je bistvena. Ne moremo urejati sektorja, brez da upoštevamo samo civilno družbo.

Zdaj ta razprava in ta politična podpora temu poročilu, temu pravnemu urejanju naj bo spodbuda tudi za Evropsko komisijo, da izgradi močno evropsko civilno družbo, ki bo branik demokracije in evropskih vrednot vsepovsod, v vseh državah, tudi tam, kjer imamo probleme, in zato je to zelo pomembno.

  Ilhan Kyuchyuk, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, speaking about Europe means speaking about solidarity and about potential. Potential we constantly need to free up, to watch, to maintain. This can mean, for example, making private resources available for the public good, informal financial means.

But the nations are unaware of what the term ‘philanthropy’ refers to: it is about time resources, expertise and network. Europe’s success is made of people dedicated, their skills and competences, to the European dream. They do this in diverse forms of expertise and civil engagement in foundations and associations, as corporate and individual donors in small—scale work or actions. They all form the backbone of our society.

But just as a backbone stays under the surface of the skin, philanthropic organisations are mostly working behind the scenes, operating a little bit under the radar. They are often acting in the space where neither government nor commercial sector wants to act.

Moreover, they are ready to take risks when experimenting with innovative solutions, and this played back during the COVID—19 crisis. Foundations and civil society organisations had been quick to respond. They mitigated the crisis in pooling emergency funds, helped bridge the gap in public provision by supporting the most affected communities with medical and food aid, social assistance, as well as research to fight the virus.

Lately, we learned from the COVID—19 pandemic that issues do not stop at borders, so that’s also not philanthropy. Stakeholders, donors and organisations work more and more across borders with partners from all over Europe.

Institutional philanthropy in Europe includes more than 147 000 philanthropic organisations, with a combined annual expenditure of nearly EUR 60 billion. They support a wide range of projects in the field of research and innovation, environmental protection, social care, culture and youth democracy, to name just a few.

Imagine this huge potential, a potential that cannot take full effect even within the European Union; complex rules hinder cross—border philanthropy in the form of multiple legal, administrative and fiscal barriers. These concern larger and old foundations investing their assets across borders by, for example, supporting start—ups or social enterprises with social impact investment.

It concerns the giving of funds by public benefit organisations, but it also hits hard on the donors giving cross—border. Further restrictions to foreign funding still makes it difficult for philanthropic organisations to find formal banking channels to transport philanthropic money across borders.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m grateful that Commissioner Vestager, Commissioners Reynders and Breton, all showed their interest for this truly European topic. And that Commissioner McGuinness, who has been a true ally in this topic since the beginning. I also would like to thank in particular my dear colleague and Vice—President of the European Parliament Nicola Beer for her tireless work. The Parliament, Commission and Council – I think it’s time to act. There is a lot of potential.

  Sergey Lagodinsky, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, it’s a great pleasure to talk to you on this topic. I am, as some of you know, rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs on European associations and non—profits, and it’s of special urgency and special importance for me to address this topic.

Why? – and I think that the chairing President also shares this view and shares this concern and perspective – because if we talk about European civil society, we have to talk about European associations but, yes, we also have to talk about European cross—border philanthropic organisations. They are participants and they are enablers of European cross—border civil societies. Some of them are themselves civil society actors and NGOs, there are many small and large foundations that dedicate their work to combating hate, supporting people in need or fighting climate change, as NGOs being foundations themselves.

In fact, this sector has been growing – and the preceding speakers mentioned this – it’s been especially growing in the post—COVID world where we need sources of finance to support civil society after the crisis. Yet a legal, fiscal and administrative environment for cross—border philanthropy is not there yet, at least not in the form that would enable us to support this sector. Instead, cross—border philanthropy capital is used by some governments of Member States to discriminate against NGOs, which is unacceptable, and therefore we should talk about what needs to be done.

I am grateful to the representative of the Commission, but also to the colleagues from the Parliament that they talked about specific things that then they and we can do. For example, we should emphasise and strengthen the non—discrimination principle based on the free flow of capital principle in our European Union, as the European Court of Justice has strengthened and proposed. We need to lower or to mitigate financial burdens for cross—border finances. Only by doing so will we be able to strengthen cooperation across borders in the European Union.

And, yes, we should also create special, supranational legal forms and regulatory regimes. It is of utmost importance not just to have a European company as a special status and regulatory regime, but also a regime which would help civil society, not just the economy, to be a real European and, yes, real European market player.

So, dear colleagues, let’s start the work. I’m looking forward to continuing our conversation and cooperation.

  Joachim Kuhs, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin McGuinness, liebe Kollegen! Ich muss leider etwas Wasser in den Wein gießen. Und ich möchte Ihnen auch kurz erklären, warum. Ich habe große Bedenken aus mehreren Gründen. Das Erste ist: Wir schaffen ein neues Bürokratiemonster, wenn wir die Philanthropie auch noch regulieren wollen.

Nur eine kurze Erzählung: Vor einigen Wochen hat ein Parteikollege von mir einen Brandanschlag auf sein Familienauto erlitten. Sein ganzes Auto ist komplett ausgebrannt. Wie das so üblich ist: Er ist ein junger Familienvater hat drei Kinder. Er hat keine Versicherung für das Auto. Die Täter werden vermutlich nicht erwischt. Man weiß, wo es herkommt, aber man wird sie nicht erwischen.

Was ist zu tun? Wir haben sofort eine Spendenaktion gestartet, und innerhalb von wenigen Tagen kamen über 10 000 Euro zusammen. Er kann sich ein neues Auto kaufen, und das ist gut. Stellen Sie sich vor: Wäre das möglich gewesen mit solchen Regeln, wo dann alles Spenden auch noch reguliert ist? Wenn ich erst noch ein fünfseitiges Formular ausfüllen müsste, meinen Sie, ich hätte etwas gespendet? Ich habe mich an dem Abend auch hingesetzt und habe natürlich eine Überweisung gemacht.

Und wie ist das mit den anderen Dingen? Als jetzt im Ahrtal und an vielen Stellen hier in Mitteleuropa im Juli das große Hochwasser war – was ist passiert? Innerhalb von wenigen Tagen kamen eine Milliarde, über eine Milliarde Euro Spenden zusammen, und sie können verwendet werden für den Wiederaufbau. Als vor über anderthalb Jahren die Kathedrale Notre-Dame brannte, kamen innerhalb kurzer Zeit auch Spendenzusagen von Großen über 200 Millionen, die anderen noch einmal 250 Millionen. Dann gab es insgesamt, glaube ich, über zwei Milliarden Euro Zusagen. Wäre das möglich gewesen, wenn wir das alles regulieren?

Es wurde gesagt: grenzüberschreitend – alles gut. Aber was ist dann mit der Geldwäsche, die wir bekämpfen wollen? Wie soll das funktionieren? Da werden dann große Spenden vielleicht protegiert. Sie bekommen Spendenbescheinigungen, sie können steuerbefreit arbeiten, und dann am Schluss? Geld wird irgendwo gewaschen bei dieser ganzen Arbeit.

Mein Hauptgrund gegen diesen neuen Vorschlag, den Sie gemacht haben, ist aber etwas ganz anderes. Es ist ein Verstoß gegen unser jüdisch-christliches Erbe. Wir wissen alle: Jesus spricht sehr viel über Geld. Sie kennen die Geschichte vom Kamel und dem Nadelöhr. Eher kann ein Kamel durch ein Nadelöhr gehen, als dass ein Reicher in das Himmelreich kommt. Vielleicht ist das der Grund, warum so viele Reiche so viel spenden? Ich weiß es nicht; kann ja sein.

Aber Geben gehört zur DNA des Christentums. Selbst Gott gibt, an Weihnachten feiern wir das. Gott schenkt seinen Sohn uns Menschen, damit wir erlöst werden. Dieses Geben aber ist nicht zwangsweise. Es ist nicht reguliert, es ist freiwillig, und es macht auch glücklich. Es gibt einen schönen Vers im Korintherbrief, den Paulus schreibt, dort sagt er: „Den fröhlichen Geber hat Gott lieb.“ Also Gott liebt den fröhlichen Geber.

Glauben Sie wirklich, wenn wir das alles regulieren, dass dann noch jemand gerne gibt? Nein, denn am Schluss müssen wir zwangsweise etwas abgeben. Ich habe, was das angeht, kein Vertrauen in die Kommission. Es tut mir leid, Frau McGuinness, aber wenn Sie so etwas regulieren, dann wird daraus ein überbordendes Monster. Und dann wird am Schluss alles auf der Strecke bleiben. Und das, was heute der Mörtel ist, das, was uns zusammenhält, nämlich dieser Christ, dieses Geben, ja, diese Bereitschaft, zu geben – es ist wunderbar, dass es das gibt. Das wird kaputt gemacht, das wird am Ende zerstört, und am Schluss bleibt nichts mehr zurück.

Geben macht auch glücklich. Ich erinnere mich gerne daran, Herr Wieland, vielleicht erinnern Sie sich auch daran: Früher haben wir solche Poesiealben gehabt, und da durften wir auch bei den Mädchen in der Schule etwas eintragen. Und da gab es einen Vers, der ist mir hängen geblieben, der heißt: „Willst du glücklich sein im Leben, trage bei zu anderer Glück, denn die Freude, die wir geben, kehrt ins eigene Herz zurück.“

Geben macht auch glücklich. Wollen wir das kaputt machen? Wollen wir das zerstören? Vertrauen wir doch den Menschen, dass sie beim Geben wissen, was sie zu tun haben, und begraben wir unsere Gelüste nach einer Regulierung der Dinge, die wir letztendlich zerstören, wenn wir sie regulieren.

  Michiel Hoogeveen, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, aan het eind van de jaren 1950 en 1960 schreef de Duits-Amerikaanse politicoloog Ernst Bernard Haas over Europese integratie. Hij schreef dat de gevestigde natiestaat zich volledig zou terugtrekken. Hij voorspelde dat geleidelijk, beetje bij beetje, functionarissen, belangengroepen en grote commerciële bedrijven binnen staten het in hun belang zouden zien om politieke en economische integratie op een hoger, supranationaal niveau na te streven. Door middel van een overloopeffect zou een beperkte samenwerking op enkele economische terreinen uiteindelijk uitlopen op steeds verdere integratie, niet alleen op economisch niveau, maar ook in de politiek, het sociale leven en onze culturen.

En dat is wat wij vandaag de dag met de Europese Unie zien gebeuren, waar een vrijwillige samenwerking met democratische legitimiteit plaats heeft gemaakt voor een bureaucratische managementlaag in Brussel die steeds meer aspecten van ons leven gaat beheersen. Een top-downstructuur die steeds verdere harmonisering, fusering en centralisering nastreeft. Een wetgevende macht die wetten maakt op basis van werkgroepen bestaande uit technocraten, lobbyisten, multinationals en ngo’s. De Unielevers en de Shells, maar dus ook de filantropen van deze wereld, kijken voor hun belangen niet meer naar de nationale politiek, maar naar de Europese Commissie, waardoor de nationale democratie verder buitenspel komt te staan, het midden- en kleinbedrijf de prijs betaalt en de bevolking haar bedrijvigheid en gemeenschapsgevoel verliest.

Wat wij vandaag zien, is weer een stap in die richting – het voorstel om een interne markt op te zetten voor filantropie. Wat is er mis met de gewone gemeenschappelijke markt? En is er niemand hier die zich afvraagt wie hierom heeft gevraagd? Waar komt dit idee vandaan? En wiens belangen worden hier gediend? Die van ons, de gewone mensen, in ieder geval niet.

Wij zijn niet tegen de Europese Unie en als handelsland heeft mijn land, Nederland, veel baat bij een sterke gemeenschappelijke markt. Die voordelen komen alle landen ten goede en landen kunnen daarbij heel veel van hun soevereiniteit behouden. Maar de mensen in het Berlaymont zijn overmoedig en negeren stelselmatig de wensen van de bevolking. Ze weten wel wat er speelt onder de mensen, maar echt begrijpen doen ze het niet. Wij moeten daarom een tegenwicht bieden. Wij willen niet naar een EU die door allerlei managers wordt bestuurd. Wij willen een afgeslankte en flexibele samenwerking met een focus op vrijhandel, en daar is geen bureaucratische filantropiemarkt voor nodig. Alleen zo voorkomen wij dat onze landen afglijden naar alleen maar ja en amen zeggen, waarbij de burgers in hun eigen leven buitenspel worden gezet.

  Clare Daly, on behalf of The Left Group. – Mr President, there’s no doubt about it, our world has many problems. But the one thing that’s definitely not going to fix them is billionaire-funded social change, when it’s the very existence of billionaires like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Denis O’Brien that’s responsible for a lot of the problems that we have in the first place.

So, no, we shouldn’t have a free market in philanthropy. We shouldn’t allow philanthropic capital to flow across borders unimpeded. The point is, there shouldn’t be any billionaires, and we certainly shouldn’t be making it easier for them to hide their fortunes in so-called charitable foundations.

Obscene wealth doesn’t come from working hard earning a wage like a normal person, it only comes from exploiting people on a vast scale or by inheriting it from somebody else who did.

And yet, here we are arguing for them to be able to keep their wealth, use it however they like without oversight and pretending that this is going to make things different. This is nonsense. Of course, what we should be saying is ‘tax them’. Tax wealth and not just income. Close tax loopholes, eliminate tax havens, redistribute wealth, develop public services so people don’t have to fund-raise. But also we should be looking at casting down the system that made them so wealthy in the first place.

But I think there’s a sickening irony that we’re here on a Thursday, discussing how to make the EU a playground for these donors, when we’ve had nothing to say for over a decade about the blank blockade on the donations of ordinary people who wanted to use their money to fund WikiLeaks, an organisation that genuinely challenged society and argued for transformation to change.

Their founder, Julian Assange – hounded, imprisoned, spied on, plots to kidnap and kill him – next Wednesday will go into a London court to fight his extradition to the US where he faces a life sentence for telling the truth.

Why aren’t we talking about that? I’ll be at that court case, where will you be?

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, the structure of philanthropy around the world is increasingly a manifestation of plutocracy. It is government by the wealthy, at a time when actual government is shrinking and when, in many cases, philanthropic funds replace public spending and government functions. It is increasingly an exercise of private power, which often exacerbates rather than redresses inequality.

We need global tax justice, not charitable scraps dictated by the whims of the élite. Non-profit organisations can provide an important function in terms of civic engagement and participation. But many NGOs and non-profits are also deeply politicised. There is a booming human rights industry that instrumentalises human rights for the purpose of Western imperialism, to destabilise governments of sovereign states and to facilitate regime change.

These non-profits are part of the problem, not part of the solution. We need to change tax policy to benefit small donors and those in need. And we should stop allowing the rich avoid paying their taxes by giving money to their pet projects, which usually serve to increase inequality.

Lastly, I’d like to thank the wonderful staff of Santry Sports Clinic, where I had a shoulder operation last Saturday, and the staff were absolutely wonderful. They came from all over the world and they were so good, and I have also a special thanks as well to the magnificent surgeon, Hannan Mullett. Thank you very much and I also will be at the trial for Julian Assange next week in pursuit of justice.

  Mairead McGuinness, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, colleagues, for a Thursday afternoon, this has been a lively debate, and I welcome this, and many different views, but all strongly explored and developed. So I’m glad that I’m here to participate.

I do want to take a slight issue with Mr Hoogeveen, who said that people in the Berlaymont are power-hungry. I’m not. I was of this House, so I understand people and I am still connected, so perhaps not to judge too harshly.

On the point of more bureaucracy, this Parliament wants us to do something with philanthropy, and I think we don’t want to tie it up in red tape and make charity stop because people do give. And I support your point that in giving you receive. But, generally speaking, there are a lot of organisations and institutions who are looking at other ways of funding their work. They need complementary funding tools because they do have financial pressures. And in order for many of them to thrive in the long term, including in the arts and culture that I referenced and the protection of the environment and social innovation, they do need to look at ways in this non—commercial sector of long—term financial strategies that makes them sustainable.

The European non—profit sectors are at a turning point, and this pandemic, the COVID—19 pandemic, revealed both their vulnerabilities, but, as was referenced, also highlighted their importance. So in this new reality, I believe that all sources of funding must be explored and philanthropy will have to play, in my view, a key role. So thank you for the debate.

Mr President, if I can be indulged with the microphone for 30 seconds and I hope I have your support in what I’m about to say. As a former Vice—President of Parliament, I want to thank Julia Glinski for her excellent service to this Parliament. She’s finishing in plenary services after seven years, moving on and I hope with your support you feel it appropriate that I thank her for her service, and I mean that from the very bottom of my heart, Julia, because you are and hopefully will remain a wonderful colleague and a great servant of this Parliament. Thank you and thank you for giving her a well—deserved round of applause.

  Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Frau Kommissarin McGuinness. Ich glaube, sowohl der Kollege Wallace als auch Sie haben gerade ein schönes Beispiel dafür gegeben, dass – bei aller Umstrittenheit eines Binnenmarktes für Philanthropie – Philanthropie nicht immer etwas mit Geld zu tun hat, sondern Ihr Dank an die Leute, die Sie behandelt haben, aber auch der Dank von Frau McGuinness sind ein sehr gutes Beispiel dafür, wo Philanthropie eigentlich anfängt, und wir wünschen uns alle sicherlich mehr davon.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Sitzung ist unterbrochen. Sie wird um 16.30 Uhr mit der Bekanntgabe der Ergebnisse der zweiten Abstimmungsrunde des heutigen Tages wieder aufgenommen.

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.47 Uhr unterbrochen.)