Az ülések szó szerinti jegyzőkönyve

2022. május 3., Kedd - Strasbourg

12. Az Európa jövőjéről szóló konferencia utánkövetése (vita)

  Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Folgemaßnahmen zu der Konferenz zur Zukunft Europas (2022/2648(RSP)).

Ich weise Sie darauf hin, dass mit Ausnahme der ersten beiden Reihen, die den Fraktionsvorsitzenden vorbehalten sind, freie Sitzplatzwahl besteht.

Sie können mithilfe Ihres Abstimmungsgeräts spontane Wortmeldungen beantragen und blaue Karten einsetzen, nachdem Sie Ihre Abstimmungskarte eingeschoben haben.

Ich weise Sie auch darauf hin, dass Wortmeldungen im Plenarsaal weiterhin vom zentralen Rednerpult aus erfolgen. Dies gilt allerdings nicht für spontane Wortmeldungen, blaue Karten und Wortmeldungen zur Geschäftsordnung.

  Paulo Rangel, em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, naturalmente que nós temos de considerar que a Conferência sobre o Futuro da Europa foi um grande sucesso. Foi e vai ser, porque a Conferência não termina aqui. Ela tem que ter um seguimento, tem que ter aquilo a que nós chamamos em inglês um follow-up.

Em primeiro lugar, é preciso dizer que nós conseguimos fazer este exercício de participação democrática com a presença ativa dos cidadãos, com uma pandemia que quase que matava a Conferência e com uma guerra agora nesta fase final. Isto foi uma prova da resistência, da resiliência democrática da União Europeia.

É verdade que a generalidade dos painéis de cidadãos produziu recomendações que eu diria muito estimulantes, muitas delas a precisarem, naturalmente, do contributo dos parlamentos nacionais, das instituições europeias, mas que, claramente, estão em linha com um avanço da integração europeia.

Penso que isso é um balanço claro e diria aqui, até, que isso nos veio trazer na saúde, na segurança e defesa, na democracia e no Estado de direito, nas alterações climáticas, na economia digital, verdadeiros impulsos para progredir no processo de integração europeia.

Claramente também, assistimos a uma valorização da democracia participativa, mas à vontade de reforçar a democracia representativa a todos os níveis. Esta é uma mensagem clara dos cidadãos e esta é uma mensagem clara das instituições e dos parlamentos nacionais, bem como de outros parceiros: parceiros sociais, o Conselho Económico e Social, o Comité das Regiões. Todos eles dão esta mensagem muito positiva.

Por isso, creio que o caminho natural como solução resultante desta Conferência é convocarmos uma Convenção para rever os tratados. Há muitas matérias que não precisam de uma revisão dos tratados, mas há outras decisivas para o futuro da União que precisam de uma revisão dos tratados e, por isso, o Parlamento deve propor às restantes instituições e, designadamente, ao Conselho, uma Convenção que possa tratar destas questões que foram levantadas pelos cidadãos, que as possa enquadrar e que possa terminar com um Tratado da União que a possa preparar para os próximos dez anos.

A pandemia, por um lado, e o momento de Kiev, por outro, mostram bem que quem resolveu avançar com a Conferência tinha razão. A Conferência foi confirmada pela História. Compete-nos agora estar à altura desses desafios.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam Chair, I’m very grateful for this debate on the follow-up of the conference, because I think, in fact, that we cannot allow this conference, after one year of work, after this innovation, of the involvement of the citizens, and with the publication of a beautiful document – that is then classified vertically, I should say. That is also what the co-chair, Dubravka Šuica, and myself said at the end of the conference.

Therefore, I think that what we as Parliament need to do is to keep the lead in this and to see where the conclusions of the conference can be implemented immediately, as we already did today with the vote on the transnational lists. Let’s remember that. Because let’s be honest, it was a recommendation of the citizens and it was a conclusion of the conference. Let’s not forget it!

But OK, OK, we will not redo the vote from a few moments ago, but we need to do that on every topic and there are a number of topics that require treaty change. When you talk about the health union, to make it a shared competence, you need the treaty change. That was also in the recommendation of the citizens. When you want a real energy union, you need a change of the treaties – because an energy union, we don’t have one. We have not one energy mix that is decided at European level and we don’t have a common purchase of energy decided at European level. So therefore, we also need a change. When you want to end unanimity in a lot of areas, you need to change. When you want to give the right of initiative to the European Parliament, you need a change.

So, I think it’s obvious that the only way to be true to the conclusions of the conference is to call for a convention – a convention, Article 48, a convention in which we are going to say exactly what articles need to change and how they need to be changed. I hope that, if Parliament votes in favour of this with a big majority tomorrow, then on 9 May, there will also be a positive response from the Council, and that we can go in the direction that is absolutely key and needed: a real union, capable of acting and not always acting too little too late, as has been the case until now.

So I hope anyway for a big majority in the House, for the follow-up, the approval of the results of the conference and the goal of the convention, Article 48.

  Daniel Freund, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Was kommt dabei heraus, wenn man zufällig ausgewählte Bürgerinnen und Bürger über die Zukunft der EU befragt? Es gibt in diesem Haus gerade rechtsaußen ja einige, die immer vollmundig behaupten, sie würden den wahren Volkswillen repräsentieren und sie wüssten, was man eigentlich will; die bei jeder Gelegenheit sagen, dass das, was wir hier tun, nicht dem entspricht, was die Leute draußen wollen.

Jetzt haben wir es ausprobiert, das ganze letzte Jahr. Wir haben Europas größtes Demokratieexperiment gemacht. Wir haben auf grünen Vorschlag hin 800 Bürgerinnen und Bürger repräsentativ ausgewählt und eingeladen und sie zur Zukunft der EU befragt, welche Art von Politik sie sich wünschen.

Und was ist herausgekommen? Na ja, jetzt zeigt sich, dass das Abschaffen nationaler Vetos, transnationale Listen bei der Europawahl, dass eine wirkliche europäische Staatsbürgerschaft, dass Investitionen in Europas Zukunft und eben nicht in korrupte Autokraten, dass ein sozialeres, ein transparentes Europa nicht irgendeine föderalistische Verschwörung ist, sondern das, was die Mehrheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger will. 70, 80, 90 % Zustimmung gab es von den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern für die Vorschläge, die auf dem Tisch liegen. Und nicht nur die Bürger und Bürgerinnen, sondern auch die nationalen Abgeordneten, die Zivilgesellschaft, die Regierungen haben am Ende diesen Vorschlägen zugestimmt.

Da wäre es jetzt eigentlich gut, wenn gerade die Schreihälse von rechts das zum Anlass nehmen würden, ihre nationalistische Hasspropaganda über den Haufen zu werfen und das zu vertreten, was die Mehrheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger wirklich will. Und auch die Regierungen müssen jetzt klar Farbe bekennen. Stehen sie auf der Seite von Demokratie und Bürgernähe? Denn wenn diese Schlussfolgerungen jetzt nicht umgesetzt werden, wenn man das jetzt blockiert bei den Regierungen, dann fügt man Europa wirklich irreparablen Schaden zu – das kann nicht sein.

Und gerade an den ambitioniertesten Vorschlägen wird sich jetzt zeigen, ob man diesen Prozess ernst nimmt. Es geht also gerade um die Vorschläge, die man nicht einfach mit einem Gesetz ändert, sondern bei denen wir die Verträge ändern müssen. Und deshalb ist es so essenziell, dass wir jetzt in den Konvent gehen, dass wir die ambitioniertesten Vorschläge in den nächsten Monaten wirklich umsetzen. Dafür braucht es den Konvent. Es ist für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Es ist für die Zukunft der Europäischen Union.

  Hélène Laporte, au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Président Verhofstadt, chers collègues, tout d’abord, je constate que les propositions finales retenues par le Bureau exécutif ont éliminé plus des deux tiers des propositions des panels de citoyens, risquant d’accentuer la défiance et l’éloignement des citoyens envers l’Union européenne, après toutes les promesses affichées.

Emmanuel Macron avait fait de cette conférence une priorité de la présidence de l’Union, mais l’échec est patent à plusieurs niveaux. L’organisation, de l’avis de tous, a été quelque peu chaotique, il y a une absence de dynamique participative - il faut rappeler qu’il y a eu moins de 53 000 citoyens européens inscrits à la plateforme numérique -, de nombreux citoyens issus des panels ont été déçus par le format en l’absence de dialogue direct avec les députés, et les députés eux-mêmes étaient mécontents en raison d’un très faible temps de parole.

Tout d’abord, je suis naturellement favorable à la démocratie participative pour ce qui est de donner un rôle accru aux citoyens, mais pas dans ce contexte. Le groupe Identité et Démocratie avait conditionné son soutien à la CoFE au respect des idées suivantes: que toutes les forces politiques soient représentées, que les conclusions ne soient pas écrites à l’avance et que, si changement de traité il y a, il soit soumis à référendum.

Force est de constater que le contrat n’a pas été rempli. Nous ne pouvons pas accepter l’existence de multiples conflits d’intérêts entre les citoyens tirés au sort ou encore des recommandations qui proviennent en réalité de certains groupes politiques ou de certaines ONG. Il y a également le coût de cette grande messe européenne, qui est évalué à plus de 200 millions d’euros. Nous sommes en pleine crise du pouvoir d’achat, nous devons le rappeler. Le timing n’était pas le bon - en pleine pandémie - et surtout, pour être mises en œuvre, plusieurs recommandations nécessiteront des modifications des traités, ce qui entraînerait des conflits avec la Commission européenne, qui a déclaré qu’elle n’était pas disposée à prendre de telles mesures. C’est la raison pour laquelle nombre de recommandations ont été éliminées.

Nous pouvons, par contre, rejoindre certaines propositions, comme une politique de traitement des données plus protectrice ou la souveraineté numérique. En revanche, d’autres propositions sont dangereuses, comme la création d’une armée commune, même à des fins d’auto-défense. La défense doit rester une prérogative nationale. D’ailleurs, le panel citoyen a lui-même eu du mal à justifier le doublon avec l’OTAN.

J’ai averti dès le lancement de cet événement que des résultats étaient connus à l’avance, c’est à dire plus de fédéralisme, plus d’intégration européenne et la fin de la règle de l’unanimité au Conseil. Cette conférence s’achève malheureusement sur un constat d’échec, et je ne peux que le regretter pour nos concitoyens européens, qui seront les premiers déçus.

  Michiel Hoogeveen, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, as strong believers in democracy, we are always open to new initiatives to engage the citizens. The Conference on the Future of Europe was an interesting experiment; however, used to legitimise a predetermined outcome. The ideas on a digital platform barely used, the representatives of the national citizens panels, outspoken views in favour of EU integration. Eight hundred randomly selected citizens, steered and guided by experts – experts appointed by the Common Secretariats who didn’t hide their own views. Don’t take my word for it. Ask Professor David van Reybrouck, a renowned expert on citizen participation. He called the conference ‘amateuristic and not representative’.

Looking at the recommendations, we see a federalist wish list, an excuse to trigger a convention, to transform the EU into a centralised federal union. Transnational lists, a European migration policy, EU taxes, you name it. It’s all there. But based on what legitimate grounds? I appeal to you my colleagues, because I spoke to many of you during the conference from the left to the friends of the EPP, even to colleagues from Renew. You know, this conference has no legitimacy, and I know many of you think as I do.

There is always a time and place to discuss the future of the EU; but this conference has failed. Reject the conclusions and reject the call for a new European Convention.

  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Dubravka, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! 79 Jahre nach Spinelli hat die Konferenz hier etwas geliefert, nämlich zum ersten Mal, 20 Jahre nach der letzten großen EU-weiten Aussprache, damals zur Grundrechtecharta der Europäischen Union in einem Konvent, hat sie eine Antwort darauf geliefert: Wie wollen wir künftig zusammenleben in dieser Europäischen Union?

Und ich erinnere an unsere Aussprache hier vor anderthalb Jahren oder vor zwei Jahren bereits, wo wir gesagt haben, es muss alles auf den Prüfstand gestellt werden: Ergründen wir, warum so viele Bürgerinnen und Bürger quer durch alle 27 EU-Mitgliedstaaten frustriert sind, enttäuscht sind von dem Hier und dem Da, von politischen Lösungen bei ihren Alltagssorgen.

Die Linke hat immer gesagt: Die EU muss sozial und demokratisch sein, oder sie wird keinen Bestand haben in der Geschichte. Und ich finde, die Antworten, die mir in dem Schlussfolgerungsdokument vorliegen – 48 Seiten –, geben eine eindeutige Antwort. Die Bürgerinnen und Bürger erwarten konkrete Veränderung im Sozialen – Guy Verhofstadt sprach von der Energieunion und von der Gesundheitsunion. Und der junge Botschafter der Arbeitsgruppe Gesundheit, Nicolas Moravek, hat gesagt, als das Telefon klingelte und die Frage kam, ob er bereit ist, an einer solchen Konferenz teilzunehmen, dachte er, es sind Fake News.

Und ich glaube, wir stehen jetzt als Europäisches Parlament in der Verantwortung, dieses Ergebnis in einem Folgeprozess konkret umzusetzen, und dafür brauchen wir den Konvent. Und ich werbe eindrücklich dafür, dass alle Abgeordneten, wenn sie ernsthaft diese Konferenz begleitet haben, sich hinsetzen und sagen: Machen wir was daraus, bleiben wir der Garant für den Erfolg dieser Konferenz! Machen wir die Verschränkung von partizipativer, repräsentativer Demokratie arbeitsfähig!

  Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (NI). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, alors que nous débattions de l’avenir de l’Europe, l’Ukraine devait défendre son avenir après l’invasion russe dans une guerre dévastatrice. Vous avez tous compris que l’Ukraine lutte pour défendre son autodétermination. Le droit d’exister et de décider librement de son avenir est un principe directeur du droit international.

De nombreux pays de l’Union européenne ont ratifié le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, qui place au premier plan le droit des peuples à l’autodétermination. À l’occasion de la CoFE, de nombreux citoyens européens ont demandé que ces droits soient protégés et renforcés dans l’Europe de demain. Mais l’Europe du passé lui a barré la route et a empêché que le droit à l’autodétermination de nations européennes, comme la Catalogne, le Pays basque, la Corse ou la Flandre, soit inscrit dans les conclusions de la conférence. C’est là une façon de décevoir des millions d’Européens qui, en plus, s’expriment dans des langues, comme la mienne, encore interdites dans ce Parlement.

  Iratxe García Pérez, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, casi hace un año, bajo el liderazgo de la Presidencia portuguesa y de nuestro primer ministro, Antonio Costa, nos comprometimos con este proyecto único llamado Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa.

He tenido el honor de presidir el Grupo de Trabajo sobre una economía más fuerte, justicia social y empleo, y sus conclusiones, con las recomendaciones de la ciudadanía en el centro, son muy claras. La ciudadanía quiere un cambio hacia una Unión Europea más inclusiva, más resiliente, más sostenible, donde la transición digital y verde sea posibles, pero que se haga con una dimensión social. En el marco de un renovado contrato social, las propuestas se centran en reformar la Unión Europea para mejorar el bienestar de la gente y el progreso humano, sin agotar los recursos ni destruir nuestro planeta.

Señorías, es el momento de reforzar esta Unión y de convertir las propuestas en realidades. Es el momento de establecer una verdadera Europa social. La ciudadanía demanda unos derechos más fuertes para la infancia y la juventud, salarios dignos, ingresos mínimos, un diálogo social y una negociación colectiva reforzada, viviendas accesibles, centros de día e igualdad de género. Las compañías jamás deberían haber sido permitidas a explotar la libertad económica socavando la protección social. Y es por eso que el pilar europeo de derechos sociales debe ser jurídicamente vinculante y ser integrado en los Tratados conjuntamente con el Protocolo sobre el progreso social. Es el momento de ver los rostros de las personas tras las cifras.

Necesitamos reformar nuestras normas fiscales teniendo en cuenta el impacto de la COVID y las transiciones ecológica y digital. También necesitamos asegurar los recursos necesarios suficientes para hacerlo. El Next Generation EU ha sido un paso importante, pero es el momento también de avanzar en otros sentidos.

Por último, debemos acabar con la tiranía de la unanimidad en el Consejo. Esto debilita nuestra capacidad de respuesta rápida a nivel global. Perjudica a nuestros principios básicos democráticos y el Estado de derecho, así como nuestra lucha contra la evasión fiscal. La Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa ha sido un hito. Hemos conseguido involucrar a la ciudadanía para que exprese su opinión sobre el futuro. No dejemos que las discusiones ahora queden en lo puramente institucional, porque eso poco dice a la ciudadanía.

Déjenme ser clara. Los cambios en los Tratados o en una Convención no pueden considerarse como un fin en sí mismo, sino que son las herramientas importantes y necesarias para mejorar la vida de las personas. No les defraudemos. Trabajemos conjuntamente para mostrarles que este proceso ha merecido la pena.

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Europäerinnen und Europäer! Wir lassen uns das Ergebnis der Konferenz zur Zukunft Europas nicht kleinreden. Es ist ermutigend: 325 konkrete Vorschläge für eine handlungsfähigere, digitalere, sozialere, unabhängigere, zukunftsfitere und stärkere Europäische Union.

Die Vorschläge sind Rückenwind für uns alle, die wir die Europäische Union nach vorne verändern wollen: Ja zur Beendigung des undemokratischen Einstimmigkeitsprinzips. Ja zur liberalen Demokratie. Nein zu Erpressung und Blockade. Ja zum Initiativrecht des Europäischen Parlaments. Ja zur Budgethoheit. Ja zu transnationalen Listen. Ja zur europäischen Bürgerschaft. Ja zur Energie-, Gesundheits- und Sozialunion. Ja zur Sicherheits- und Verteidigungsunion. Ja zu mehr Zusammenarbeit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger Europas.

Wir sind gewillt, die Zukunft zu unserer Zukunft zu machen. Und ich sage ganz deutlich: Jetzt geht es um die Umsetzung; die Arbeit ist nicht getan. Das Europäische Parlament wird sich zum entschlossenen, transparenten Anwalt aller 325 Vorschläge machen. Das Europäische Parlament wird die Initiative für einen Konvent zu den nötigen Vertragsreformen ergreifen. Das Europäische Parlament wird transparent aufzeigen, was wann mit jedem einzelnen Vorschlag geschehen ist. Die Bürger können nachvollziehen, dass wir Wort halten werden.

  Gabriele Bischoff (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich wünschte mir so sehr, dass alle Mitglieder des Parlaments die Gelegenheit gehabt hätten, an dieser Zukunftskonferenz teilzunehmen und die Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu erleben. Die haben sich zusammengerauft, und sie haben wirklich gemeinsam ownership für ihre Vorschläge gezeigt. Auch die Botschafter und Botschafterinnen, die sie ernannt haben, haben sich diesen Ergebnissen verpflichtet gefühlt. Ich hoffe, dass wir als Parlament, die diesen Prozess immer wirklich als Motor betrieben haben, genauso Verantwortung und ownership übernehmen, genauso gute Hüter und Hüterinnen dieser Vorschläge werden wie die Bürgerinnen und Bürger das sind.

Es ist hier gesagt worden – viele Vorschläge in vielen Politikfeldern. Aber man kann jetzt Diskussionen führen – ist man für Vertragsänderungen, ist man dagegen; hier im Haus wissen wir ungefähr, wie sich das aufteilt. Wenn man die Vorschläge der Bürgerinnen und Bürger ernst nimmt, dann muss man Vertragsänderungen machen, weil eine Vielzahl der Vorschläge, die sie gemacht haben, diese erfordern.

Wir können natürlich jetzt sagen: Pah, nach der Konferenz ist alles wieder anders, wir nehmen das nicht so ernst. Aber es wäre ein Schlag ins Gesicht der Bürgerinnen und Bürger, die darauf vertrauen. Und ich muss eines sagen: Wenn mich eines wirklich begeistert hat, ist es, dass diese Bürgerinnen und Bürger das Vertrauen in das europäische Projekt nicht verloren haben. Die wollen Veränderung, die wollen Europa wieder besser aufstellen, handlungsfähiger, demokratischer, sozialer.

Und deshalb, glaube ich, ist es für uns so wichtig, dass wir als Parlament auch diesen ersten Schritt gehen. Wir können doch nicht vom Rat verlangen, das zu tun. Die haben diesen Prozess verschleppt, immer wieder versucht, da irgendwie Steine in den Weg zu legen, damit sich diese Dynamik überhaupt nicht entwickelt.

Wir als Parlament geben dieses Signal zusammen am 9. Mai, dass wir sagen, die Vorschläge ernst zu nehmen bedeutet auch, Vertragsänderungen auf den Weg zu bringen, genauso wie für die Kommission, das beim nächsten Arbeitsprogramm zu berücksichtigen. In diesem Sinne ist ein starkes Votum doch auch ein starkes Signal.

  Pascal Durand (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, on a le droit de temps en temps d’être heureux, on a le droit dans cet hémicycle de se réjouir de certaines possibilités qui nous sont offertes. Il y a un an, quand on avait ouvert la conférence, on ne savait pas trop ce qui allait se passer. Soyons honnêtes. C’était quelque chose de nouveau, c’était un nouveau processus démocratique. La Commission a dit qu’elle allait essayer d’être facilitatrice. Le Conseil était déjà sur les freins. Et puis le Parlement avait dit «allons-y!».

Certains parmi nous avaient un peu peur d’opposer la démocratie représentative à la démocratie participative. Et puis, de quoi est-ce qu’on s’aperçoit un an plus tard? On s’aperçoit que, non seulement on a surmonté dans le dialogue, dans le débat, dans la construction, la terrible crise sanitaire, mais qu’une autre crise est venue depuis, que la guerre est au sein même de l’Europe et que, pour autant, les citoyennes et les citoyens ont commandé, ont commenté et ont demandé plus d’Europe, plus d’intégration, plus de travail.

Alors, effectivement, cela a été dit, et je n’ai pas besoin de le développer plus longtemps, et en plus vous l’avez dit dans le cadre des échanges que nous avons eus: nous devons continuer. Nous devons transformer cette conférence du futur en conférence du présent avec la convention, avec notre capacité à faire évoluer les textes. C’est ce que nous devons faire maintenant. Les citoyennes et les citoyens l’attendent. Le Parlement est prêt, la Commission est d’accord. Alors allons-y, avançons, travaillons tous ensemble.

  Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, lorsque nous avons construit cette conférence sur l’avenir de l’Europe, nous étions un certain nombre dans ce Parlement à insister pour avoir une implication forte des citoyennes et des citoyens. Il y eut des réticences de parlementaires qui pensent que la démocratie n’est que représentative, et surtout, il y eut des résistances au Conseil.

Pourtant, comme à chaque fois qu’un dialogue a été engagé avec des citoyens en Irlande, en Allemagne, en France, ces assemblées citoyennes ont été exemplaires. L’engagement sérieux de ces Européennes et de ces Européens tout au long des mois, leur compréhension rapide des enjeux, leurs interventions argumentées, leur capacité à se confronter à d’autres pour faire émerger des idées prioritaires, leur détermination aussi à se faire entendre, tout cela a été positif et montre qu’une démocratie saine du XXIe siècle exige la participation active des citoyens entre les élections, dans le cadre de certains processus de réflexion ou de travail législatif. C’est la garantie d’un intérêt revigoré dans la société pour la démocratie. Et quand on connaît le désintérêt de beaucoup pour ce qui se passe au niveau de l’Union européenne, par méconnaissance ou parfois à cause de la désinformation de leurs gouvernements, cette connexion avec certains citoyens était d’autant plus importante.

Alors maintenant, nous devons nous inspirer de cet exemple pour continuer à élaborer des temps de démocratie européenne vivante, lors des suites possibles de cette conférence ou pour d’autres sujets pertinents dans notre agenda européen.

  Gerolf Annemans (ID). – Voorzitter, de ID-Fractie kan goed begrijpen dat de ridders en jonkvrouwen van het Europees imperium, de machthebbers in het Europees Parlement en de Commissie, de voorstanders van een verder naar een gecentraliseerde staat evoluerende Europese Unie in de loop der jaren zeer gefrustreerd zijn geraakt. Het besef dat steeds meer Europese burgers hun visie op een samenwerking tussen Europese volkeren afwijzen, moet frustrerend zijn. Het feit dat een grote lidstaat als het Verenigd Koninkrijk het eenvoudigweg voor bekeken hield, sloeg in als een bom en heeft een diep trauma achtergelaten. De frustratie van deze elitaire club over de dreiging die bij de ene na de andere verkiezing opdoemt, namelijk het langzaam ontluikend en groeiend ontwaken van een publieke opinie die kritisch tegenover de gang van zaken staat, is te begrijpen.

Iedereen weet en voelt dat de legitimiteit van de strategie van het imperium slinkt. Toen de machthebbers zich in 2019 verplicht zagen ten bate van hun delicate machtsevenwicht en hun imperatieve machtsbehoud de sleutelposten toe te wijzen aan niet-verkozen EU-fanatici Von der Leyen en Michel vond Macron dat dit grote democratische deficit gecompenseerd moest worden. Naar macroniaanse traditie kon dit uiteraard niet door middel van een referendum gebeuren, maar moest dit, naar het voorbeeld van zijn Grand Débat, een goed en strak geregisseerd stuk theater zijn, dat vervolgens als beslissing van de burgers zou kunnen worden bestempeld.

Van de vierhonderd miljoen mensen op dit continent zijn er zorgvuldig achthonderd geselecteerd, naar het Parlement gehaald en opgesloten met Guy Verhofstadt tot ze de voortzetting van de imperiumstrategie als eigen voorstel hadden goedgekeurd. De verwarring van deze conferentie met dat wat onder de burgers leeft, getuigt volgens de ID-Fractie dan ook van groot cynisme. Stop deze commedia dell’arte. Ze was een mooi stuk macroniaans en verhofstadtiaans theater, maar is niet meer dan dat.

  Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR). – Señora presidente, nos traen para votar como conclusiones de la Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa cinco folios iguales al documento inicial, porque ustedes ya habían escrito las conclusiones. Venga, sean sinceros: a ustedes les importa un bledo los europeos. Ustedes lo que quieren es más poder. Si por ustedes fuera, no habría ni Parlamentos nacionales. Hablan de democracia, pero imponen la soga del silencio al que disiente. Hablan de derechos sociales, pero su elitismo y fanatismo climático les impide ver que su transición verde está llevando al colapso a las clases populares de Europa. Ustedes han silenciado el debate real, pero se han pegado una buena juerga globalista a costa del dinero de los europeos. En plena crisis económica proponen un nuevo tratado. Son auténticos sociópatas. La Europa que dibujan es una Europa servil a la Agenda 2030, sin nervio, sin espíritu, sin naciones que alimenten su riqueza y diversidad, una Europa que traiciona los pilares sobre los que se construyó, rendida a las economías extranjeras. Pero ahora, sean valientes, vayan ahora a la calle y digan que en este documento no se habla ni una sola vez de familia, de empresas, de cultura y tradición europea, de islamismo radical, de violencia sexual desatada en las calles, de paro, de cierre de empresas o de fronteras desprotegidas.

Miren, hace siglos las élites salían los primeros al campo de batalla; ahora ustedes se esconden en la Torre de Babel y mandan a los europeos al matadero.

(El orador acepta responder a dos intervenciónes realizadas con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul»).

  Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE), blue-card speech. – I just have a very simple question. I was here on Saturday and saw the conclusions, I also read the conclusions and my question is: why are you misrepresenting what’s in there, which is actually that we want to strengthen regional parliaments and that we want to strengthen cooperation between national and the European Parliament?

So there’s nothing about abolishment of the national regional parliaments, so why are you misrepresenting the results?

  Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Pues es muy sencillo, porque ustedes, sin haber informado a ninguno de los europeos que nos han votado, hablan ahora de una convención para cambiar los tratados y quieren cambiar, incluso, la regla de la unanimidad, que es el respeto absoluto a la democracia y a las naciones que conforman Europa, a sus parlamentos y a sus gobiernos.

  Niklas Nienaß (Verts/ALE), blue-card speech. – (start of speech off mic) if unanimity was democratic, then probably we should also do it here. What or why do we have a different voting system?

But my extra question is, you have said that there has been no democratic process. I mean, we have invited, for the first time ever, 800 citizens of the European Union. Have you talked to them? Have you discussed actually with them? Because I have the feeling with all the proposals that you have made and that you’ve listed, you have never had the discussion with those people because otherwise it would be quite different.

Last part, there was a website with proposals where every citizen could propose something. None of the things that you have mentioned have been submitted to this website. Maybe, just maybe, you don’t have any democratic backing for your proposals and that is the fact why this has been not discussed at the Conference on the Future of Europe.

  Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Mi grupo político es el único que ha realizado una conferencia sobre el futuro de Europa yendo a todas las capitales de Europa. 800 ciudadanos son representativos del pueblo europeo. Yo, como político, vuelvo a mi país todos los fines de semana y hablo con los agricultores, hablo con los ganaderos, hablo con los pescadores, hablo con los autónomos, y les puedo asegurar que los problemas de los ciudadanos europeos no son la unanimidad ni un nuevo tratado para crear una Europa más resiliente que les está condenando absolutamente al fracaso económico y al colapso de sus vidas.

  Eugenia Rodríguez Palop (The Left). – Señora presidenta, vivimos momentos de incertidumbre, llevamos dos años haciendo frente a la pandemia y hemos logrado que la Europa social salga fortalecida, pero la monstruosidad de la guerra ha hecho que vuelvan los fantasmas de la austeridad económica y la pesadilla ultraderechista de los enclaves seguros (la religión, el Estado nación y la familia convencional).

Europa se tensiona, otra vez, entre la política de la esperanza y la del miedo; entre un mañana luminoso en el que quepamos todos y los atavismos que siempre representan el futuro como amenaza.

La nuestra no puede ser ni la Europa de los mercaderes ni la del temor de su dios, sino la Europa de los cuidados, la democracia y la sostenibilidad de la vida.

Por eso es tan importante que modifiquemos los tratados: para reforzar el pilar social europeo, constitucionalizar las exigencias feministas y ambientales, articular mecanismos reales de participación, evitar los vetos en el Consejo y darle al Parlamento la iniciativa legislativa que merece. Porque es aquí donde se sientan los ciudadanos.

Nunca más las mercancías frente a las personas. Nunca más los pocos frente a los muchos. Ni un gobierno invalidando las decisiones de los demás.

Es el momento de la Europa social, feminista, democrática y federal.

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΕΥΑ ΚΑΪΛΗ
Αντιπρόεδρος

  Kinga Gál (NI). – Tisztelt Alelnök asszony! Ki kell mondanunk, hogy az Európa jövője konferenciasorozat kudarcot vallott. Nem demokratikus, nem pluralista. A módszer, ahogy átnyomták a véleményvezérek nemzeti hatásköröket gyengítő föderalista vízióit pedig nem legitim. A statisztikák szerint az európai polgárok többségét e roppant költséges projekt nem érdekelte, mert ilyen megpróbáló időkben az Európa jövőjéről szóló gondolkodás nem transznacionális listákról kellene szóljon, vagy az egyhangú döntések eltörléséről a Tanácsban. Az olyan nemzeti, például magyarországi eseményeket és véleményeket, amelyek nem találkoztak az előre eldöntött következtetésekkel, egyszerűen törölték a digitális felületekről. Ha a nemzeti parlamentek jelezték, hogy nincs konszenzus a leglényegesebb kérdésekben, akkor megkerülték ezeket a véleményeket. A záró vitákon az EP konzervatív és független képviselői szóhoz sem jutottak. Az intoleráns véleményhegemónia színjátéka ez, nem közös szabad gondolkozás. Ezért nem tudjuk elfogadni sem a módszereit, sem a következtetéseit. Mi még hiszünk a vélemény pluralizmusában és a szabadságban.

  Sara Skyttedal (PPE). – Madam President, I really welcome a thorough debate on the future of Europe. After the United Kingdom finalised its divorce with the EU, this should have sparked some thought on our account on why they left and how we can improve without them. But not unlike some humans that have been left by a long—time partner, we have decided to take on a very destructive path instead. Instead of trying to see what we could have done better in the relationship and do better in the future, we decided to do more of the empty-headed things that were the reason for the breakup to begin with and to blame everything on the other part.

The so—called conclusions from the Conference of the Future of Europe is a clear example on how poor self—perceptions we have. Now we’re asking for more influence over issues where we’ve shown poor judgment before. When I meet citizens and ask them how EU could improve, they don’t mention transnational lists or that they wish for less national influence over the welfare systems. They focus on the aspects that made us an attractive partner to begin with, such as the single market, which is now being jeopardised by these new ambitions in light of the social pillar.

The conclusions of this Conference do not shed much light on how we can be better prepared for the challenges of tomorrow and become an attractive partner again. But rather, it seems to be a self-serving document for the interests of federalists.

  Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il momento della verità per l'Europa è arrivato. Con questa risoluzione, dopo aver approvato oggi le liste transnazionali per le prossime elezioni, il Parlamento europeo recepisce la richiesta dei cittadini emersa nella Conferenza sul futuro dell'Europa. Diamo il via a una convenzione per la riforma dei trattati. Chi dice che non sia una priorità sbaglia.

È un passaggio fondamentale per raggiungere obiettivi concreti come l'Unione della difesa per integrare il protocollo del progresso sociale nei trattati, per l'Unione della salute, per superare il diritto di veto e per approfondire l'integrazione in senso federale per chi può e vuole, ma allo stesso tempo per continuare l'allargamento a partire da una confederazione intorno alla federazione, come proposto dal nostro segretario PD Enrico Letta, per dare una prospettiva europea di pace e sicurezza in breve tempo ai paesi del nostro vicinato come l'Ucraina.

Oggi Mario Draghi ha tracciato questa strada con pragmatismo e idealità insieme. Serve una nuova fase costituente per i popoli europei e mai come oggi vale la massima di un saggio "fare l'Europa o non farla, non esiste provare". Andiamo avanti e non ce ne pentiremo.

(L'oratore accetta di rispondere a un intervento "cartellino blu")

  Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE), blue-card speech. – Mr Benifei, I was just wondering if you would ever run on a transnational list?

  Brando Benifei (S&D), blue-card reply. – Yes. I think the transnational lists will be a good opportunity for all of us. It’s not true that they will put us far from our voters. Instead, we can be really able to Europeanise elections and to not talk only about our national priorities, but also looking from the campaign already to the next mandate, to priorities and what we will fight for. I think it’s a very good improvement. It will be a good change for a European Union that will be more and more united and able to offer European parties with a real system where our heads of the lists can be our Spitzenkandidaten to lead our fight for a more political and so stronger European Commission. So, yes, I could run for that.

  Laurence Farreng (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Vice-présidente, la conférence sur l’avenir de l’Europe, on l’a faite. Oui, c’est vrai, il y a eu des doutes, des défis, des difficultés. Mais aujourd’hui, le résultat est là, avec 325 propositions solides qui sont le fruit d’un exercice de démocratie participative unique, porté particulièrement par le président de la République française, Emmanuel Macron.

Ce que les citoyens nous ont demandé, c’est plus d’Europe et c’est mieux d’Europe. C’est la fin de l’unanimité et du veto au Conseil et c’est une Europe renforcée. C’est une Europe plus humaine par la culture et par l’éducation. À l’heure où nos valeurs sont attaquées, où je vois dans mon propre pays, la France, les partis de droite et d’extrême gauche et même les écologistes, vouloir déstabiliser l’Europe en remettant en cause la primauté du droit européen, il faut écouter ce que les citoyens nous ont dit.

L’avenir de l’Europe, c’est aujourd’hui. Nous le devons aux citoyens, à notre jeunesse qui s’est engagée massivement. Grâce à la détermination de Guy Verhofstadt, le Parlement européen a pris position pour ces propositions et le réaffirmera, je l’espère, à travers le vote de cette résolution de suivi.

Maintenant, c’est le devoir de la Commission et du Conseil de concrétiser, d’agir pour cette nouvelle Europe en ouvrant une convention article 48, comme nous le demandons.

  Eleonora Evi (Verts/ALE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sul futuro dell'Europa i cittadini hanno dimostrato di non avere dubbi. La vogliono più democratica, più trasparente, più giusta, più equa e soprattutto più coraggiosa per affrontare le sfide della crisi climatica e della crisi ecologica.

I cittadini estratti a sorte hanno dimostrato di essere più avanti di chi li rappresenta, presentando in questo straordinario esperimento di democrazia partecipativa che è stata la Conferenza sul futuro dell'Europa, delle raccomandazioni attente e lungimiranti. Faccio un esempio: ci chiedono di abbandonare la pratica dell'allevamento intensivo e di un'agricoltura industriale, perché su questo l'Europa continua a non essere all'altezza delle sfide che ha di fronte.

Ci chiedono quindi un modello agricolo in equilibrio con la natura. Ci chiedono di ridurre drasticamente, ad esempio, il consumo di carne e di prodotti di origine animale, di promuovere diete vegetali. Sono molto più avanti quindi di questa politica europea.

Io chiedo dunque alle istituzioni, in particolar modo ai governi, di non lasciare inascoltato l'appello dei cittadini, ma di farne pietra angolare per quel rinnovamento della nostra casa europea, oggi più che mai necessario. Andiamo avanti con una Convenzione europea.

  Gunnar Beck (ID). – Frau Präsidentin! Die EU-Zukunftskonferenz fordert EU‑Streitkräfte, die Abschaffung des nationalen Vetos und auch des Begriffs illegale Migration. Ihre transnationalen Listen, um Abgeordnete und Wähler voneinander zu entfremden, die bekamen Sie ja heute schon.

Jetzt drängt dieses Parlament auf eine neue EU-Verfassung, nachdem der erste Versuch vor 17 Jahren an Referenden in Frankreich und den Niederlanden scheiterte. Dieses Mal soll es keine Referenden geben, denn die Konferenz sei bereits demokratisch legitimiert durch Beteiligung von 800 Bürgern. Tatsächlich aber weigert sich die EU nach wie vor, erstens die Interessen und Namen ihrer Konferenzbürger offenzulegen. Interessant, denn mein Büro ermittelte: Viele der EU Bürger, die dort teilnehmen, sind Mitglieder von EU-NGOs wie Pulse of Europe.

Zweitens: Ausgewählt wurden die Bürger von Kantar, einem langjährigen EU‑Dienstleister. Die Auswahl sei zufällig, aber begünstigt Selbstselektion, denn die Konferenz begann stets donnerstags, wenn die meisten arbeiten.

Drittens: Zu Konferenzbeginn hieß es, die Bürger könnten auch online über die digitale Konferenzplattform teilnehmen. Das taten auch viele EU-Kritiker. Deshalb wurde der Plattforminhalt nun entfernt. Die Konferenzvorschläge ignorieren die Plattformnutzer genauso wie die 450 Millionen EU-Bürger, und sie gründen sich einzig auf die 800 Konferenzbürger, das heißt 0,00018 Prozent aller EU-Bürger oder ein 1,8 Millionstel.

Die Konferenzbürger selbst trifft allerdings keine Schuld, denn beraten wurden sie von ausgesuchten Pro-EU-Experten, die ihnen erklärten, was sie dann vorschlagen sollten. Waren die Bürger skeptisch, wurden sie mundtot gemacht. Das bestätigten mir einige junge Bürger, die mich sofort nach Konferenzende ansprachen. Sie konnten das leider nicht öffentlich sagen. Ihnen sei klar: Jeder Kritiker bekomme hier Probleme.

Kein Wunder also, dass die Konferenzvorschläge genau den Plänen entsprechen, die Macron und Merkel Ursula von der Leyen vor knapp drei Jahren in den Tornister legten. Sie palavern hier über Grundrechte, Demokratie und Rechtsstaat, aber Sie beschränken Meinungsäußerungen und offene Debatte. Seit 30 Jahren führt uns mehr Integration in den wirtschaftlichen Abgrund. Sie machen weiter so – wider alle Erfahrung und gegen alle Vernunft.

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, изключително забавно е да се наблюдава как се опитвате да оправдаете несъстоятелната клоунада, която създадохте и гръмко нарекохте „Конференция за бъдещето на Европа“. Каква конференция, какво бъдеще на Европа? Къде ви е представителността? Шайка НПО-та, весела дружинка „Детелинка“. Това ви беше представителността. Трябваше да поканите Мики Маус, Патока Доналд, Патето Яки. Те щяха да бъдат по-представителни и щяха точно да показват това, което вие направихте с тази смешна клоунада, за която изхарчихте страшно много пари, които трябва…. (шум)

(ораторът прекъсва речта си и се обръща към председателя)

Г-жо Председател, дали ще е добре да помолите този колега да се държи прилично, а не като все едно се намира на стадиона в родното си място?

Благодаря. Настоявам обаче да ми върнете времето.

(ораторът възобновява речта си)

Колега, малко превъзбуден ми изглеждате, ако сте се успокоил, да продължим. Въпросът е колко пари похарчихте за тази работа? Кой ги даде и за какво отидоха? Всъщност истината е, че ние се борим за Европа на отечествата: нормална Европа, с нормално организирано общество, семейство, създадено от мъжа и жената, така както върви естественият, хубавият, добрият ред на нещата.

И понеже непрекъснато говорите за европейска идентичност – каквато няма, не е имало, не може да има, ще ви цитирам един голям европеец, Ото фон Бисмарк. Някои от вас, които са любители на книжките, може би са срещали това име. Той казва: „Винаги съм намирал думата „Европа“ в устата на онези политици, които искаха от други сили нещо, което не смееха да изискват от свое име.“

Това е, колеги. Срамота. Тази конференцийка приключи безславно. Трябва да се види обаче колко пари похарчихте за нея.

(Ораторът приема да отговори на три изказвания „синя карта“)

  Niklas Nienaß (Verts/ALE), blue-card speech. – Since you’ve mentioned me so clearly, I think a point of order is definitely due.

I do not think that it’s right to call this honourable House, together with the colleagues from the national governments, together with the colleagues from the national parliaments, together with the Commission, together with 800 randomly—selected citizens, ‘a house of clowns’ or something like this.

I think this is not respectful to the House. And I’m questioning whether you actually have respect for the people that you represent.

  Angel Dzhambazki (ECR), blue-card reply. – Honourable colleague, it was not a question; it is against the procedure, under the blue-card procedure you are expected to ask me a question, not to make a statement. No, it was not a question.

Madam Chair, is it normal for the Member to take the floor for himself?

  President. – He asked you a question. It was the way he felt. We have to be careful of our language in this room.

  Angel Dzhambazki (ECR), blue-card reply. – I am very careful. My hands are over here, just so you know, because maybe someone will misunderstand my gestures.

Dear colleague, it’s not about the people here. It’s about the so-called Conference of Europe itself. It was a charade. It was a Mickey Mouse fake organisation. This is the truth. NGOs ... who picked the people here?

Please, I am answering here. Show some respect.

Do you know how are organised, the people from the NGOs, here? Who picked them? No? You don’t know? Yes, of course you don’t. Nobody knows. That is the answer.

Ah OK. Member States? No, it’s not true.

  Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE), blue-card speech. – Actually, I think I will retract my blue—card because I don’t think I’m getting anywhere.

  Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D), intervención de «tarjeta azul». – Sí, señor Dzhambazki, usted ha dicho (you have it in the podium) que no existe la identidad, europea y le quiero preguntar al respecto. Yo creo que sí existe.

¿No cree usted que personajes como Beethoven, como Molière, como Cervantes, elementos como la cultura grecorromana, como la aportación de los intelectuales del Renacimiento, de la Ilustración, conforman la identidad europea?

  Angel Dzhambazki (ECR), blue-card reply. – No sir, with all my respect, I believe these people were Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Italians, Greeks. And yes, we share this continent, and we need to live together and work together, but we have our differences and we have our own national identity and we must be proud of our identity – respecting the others, of course – but there is no such thing as a European one, because people are different.

What was it? ‘United in diversity’? Isn’t that right? Yes, it is. So there is no European identity. There is a national one, and there is a European Union and we have to work together respectfully for each other.

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η Διάσκεψη για το μέλλον της Ευρώπης έκανε ένα θετικό βήμα. Όσοι είχαμε αμφιβολίες για το αν ήταν όντως ένα θετικό βήμα για μια πιο ενωμένη, πιο δημοκρατική, πιο διαφανή, πιο δίκαιη κοινωνική Ευρώπη δεχτήκαμε κραυγές, ύβρεις και υποτιμητικά σχόλια από την ακροδεξιά πτέρυγα του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και το γεγονός αυτό μας πείθει ότι κάτι καλό έγινε από αυτή τη Διάσκεψη για το μέλλον της Ευρώπης. Και έχουμε τώρα την πρόκληση να κάνουμε το επόμενο βήμα, συνάδελφοι.

Το κοινό ψήφισμα που προτείνεται από τους προέδρους, από το Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα μέχρι την Αριστερά, είναι ένα θετικό βήμα. Σημαίνει ότι ακούμε τη φωνή των πολιτών και ότι η άμεση συμμετοχική δημοκρατία ενισχύει την αντιπροσωπευτική δημοκρατία. Το ζητούμενο, όμως, είναι να προχωρήσουμε παραπέρα και θέλουμε, αντιπρόεδρε Šimečka και κύριοι του Συμβουλίου —που απουσιάζατε και ήσασταν και λίγο «φρένο» σε αυτή τη διαδικασία της Διάσκεψης για το μέλλον της Ευρώπης—, θέλουμε να συνδράμετε και να μην υπονομεύσετε την πρωτοβουλία που θα πάρει το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο για συντακτική συνέλευση για την αναθεώρηση των Συνθηκών, με βάση το άρθρο 48.

Εμείς θα πάρουμε πρωτοβουλίες ως Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο με μεγάλες πλειοψηφίες, και ας κραυγάζει η ακροδεξιά. Και περιμένουμε και από την Επιτροπή και από το Συμβούλιο να στηρίξουν αυτή την πρωτοβουλία.

  Andrius Kubilius (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, the European continent is hit by a huge geopolitical and security crisis – Russia’s war against Ukraine. Such kind of a crisis is showing that we, unfortunately, have been weak in our capacities in foreign and security policy to avoid such kind of crises.

‘Europe will be forged in crises,’ said Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, ‘and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises.’

We need new solutions now.

It’s good that we have had broad consultations with the citizens of EU. It gave several important recommendations for the common and security policy to be improved.

But we need to remember that the EU was created and reformed by intellectual and political leaders of the Union. Let’s not forget about this side of leadership: Robert Shuman, Jean Monnet, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi and others were the leaders, who created and who were changing the Union.

We have responsibility of our generation – the EU needs to adapt itself to the changes and challenges of such kind of a crisis. That requires leadership from us. We need to rise to the demand of the citizens, which was expressed very clearly: qualified majority voting, new security capabilities, and strategic responsibility for the neighbourhood. That is what citizens are demanding from us.

The EU needs to change itself, and Treaty change is an instrument for such a change. And let’s not be afraid of change. As the prominent Irish-British conservative philosopher and politician Edmund Burke said: ‘a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.’

If we want to secure and conserve the state of the European Union, we need to go for change. That is what citizens are asking us to do.

  Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, a Conferência sobre o Futuro da Europa, iniciada na Presidência portuguesa e que se encerra no próximo dia 9 de maio, foi um muito importante exercício da democracia participativa e agora é a obrigação das instituições políticas europeias levar a sério as suas conclusões.

Os cidadãos falaram claro. Pediram-nos uma Europa mais fiel aos seus valores, mais próxima, mais democrática e mais participada, uma Europa mais social, mais solidária e mais justa, com menos pobreza e menos desigualdades, e uma Europa mais forte e mais eficiente, com menos bloqueios nos seus processos de decisão.

Algumas das propostas requerem uma sempre complexa revisão dos tratados e devem ser discutidas no local próprio, que é uma Convenção. Mas muitas outras podem e devem avançar desde já, explorando o potencial disponível no Tratado de Lisboa e consagrando reformas progressistas para uma Europa à altura das expetativas dos eleitores. É o que nos pedem os cidadãos. É o que devemos fazer sem demora.

  Alin Mituța (Renew). – Doamna președintă, a fost multă emoție în acest hemiciclu acum câteva zile, când s-au adoptat concluziile conferinței. Oamenii s-au îmbrățișat și s-au felicitat după un an de muncă. O mamă a venit cu bebelușul ei de câteva luni și ne-a vorbit despre viitorul Europei. Este exact emoția de care avem nevoie ca să dăm Europei un suflet și un suflu nou. Pentru mine, sunt două învățăminte după acest exercițiu de democrație participativă. Primul este că este momentul să permanentizam acest exercițiu de consultare directă cu cetățenii. Al doilea este că avem o datorie acum: să punem în aplicare aceste concluzii ale conferinței, inclusiv prin declanșarea imediată a unei convenții.

  Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, the Conference on the Future of Europe has been an interesting democratic experiment with promising results in terms of further European integration. It has provided a way for citizens, especially those randomly chosen for the panels, to lead the debate and to decide on recommendations for the future. However, it has failed to reach a wider audience and to have a relevant impact on public opinion, and we have to admit it as well.

Many of the proposals are an invitation to reform the Union through changes in the Treaties, increasing the Union’s powers, putting in place better decision-making and allocating a stronger role for our Parliament, and that is good. But I regret that highly endorsed proposals in the digital platform, like the one on a clarity mechanism to apply the right to self-determination, have simply been ignored.

Now, the official ending of the conference should mean the beginning of a reform process, a reform that incorporates the lessons learnt during the last years and brings about a stronger, more federal European Union. Yes, let’s honour the conference results with the convention. If not now, then when?

  Alessandro Panza (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Commissaria, siamo giunti al termine di questo esperimento. Non saprei come altro chiamarlo. Un esperimento che aveva l'ambizione di portare le istituzioni dai cittadini, ma non ha fatto altro che portare i cittadini, o meglio una sparuta minoranza di cittadini, che non sappiamo scelti bene come, dentro il vortice delle istituzioni.

Un esperimento che da subito ha dato l'impressione di non guardare tanto al risultato, ma di fare, un fare compulsivo, disorganizzato e soprattutto senza chiari obiettivi e finalità. Ovviamente con queste premesse, il risultato non poteva essere che quello che oggi è sotto gli occhi di tutti. La montagna ha partorito un topolino. Un topolino fatto di raccomandazioni, in larga parte condivisibili, questo sì, ma che in altrettanto larga parte sono già oggetto di discussioni politiche e che quindi non hanno portato grosse novità.

Un topolino che ha fatto anche raccomandazioni chiaramente etero dirette come quelle sulle liste transnazionali. Se pensiamo che i cittadini europei le considerino una priorità, forse sarebbe meglio che si uscisse un attimo dalla comfort zone di palazzo e si andasse a parlare con la gente vera che in questo momento ha ben altri problemi, ben altre preoccupazioni.

Ammettiamolo, è stato un esperimento che ha completamente mancato il suo obiettivo, a meno che il suo obiettivo non fosse quello di dare una parvenza di legittimità popolare alle posizioni che sono molto ben radicate dentro il palazzo. Ma solo qui. Certo, non sapremo mai con esattezza quanto sia costato questo esperimento, ma ci auguriamo che la lezione sia che la politica torni ad avere il suo legittimo primato decisionale senza vergognarsene, pur coinvolgendo attivamente e concretamente tutti i cittadini, anche e soprattutto quelli più critici, che non hanno avuto alcuna voce all'interno di questa iniziativa, motivo in più per ritenere questo esperimento un fallimento. Peccato. Tutti ci abbiamo creduto, ma abbiamo, avete perso un'altra occasione per avvicinare veramente i cittadini europei a queste istituzioni.

  Carlo Fidanza (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, sabato scorso in quest'Aula ho annunciato a nome del gruppo ECR il nostro ritiro dalla Conferenza. L'ho fatto con la delusione sincera di chi in questi mesi ha partecipato attivamente ai lavori.

Ho parlato di un'occasione persa, ma in questi giorni ho dovuto ammettere a me stesso che chi ha ideato tutto questo, in realtà è stato bravo, perché ha puntualmente realizzato il proprio piano. Serviva un meccanismo di finta partecipazione con presunti rappresentanti dei cittadini che in realtà non rappresentano nessuno se non le ONG e le associazioni amiche che li hanno indicati.

Servivano il caos organizzativo e meccanismi decisionali non chiari. Serviva a impedire che rimanesse traccia perfino delle proposte di chi, come noi, ha un'idea diversa sul futuro dell'Europa, in modo che la passerella del 9 maggio potesse concludersi dicendo che c'era un consenso, quello stesso consenso che, per paradosso, volete eliminare dai trattati a colpi di maggioranza. In fondo a questo serviva questo costosissimo circo e ci siete riusciti. Fuori però da questa bolla ci sono centinaia di milioni di europei che non sono stati minimamente coinvolti e nemmeno rappresentati.

E concludo, Presidente, queste centinaia di milioni di europei hanno il diritto di esprimere il loro parere nelle loro democrazie nazionali se continueranno ad essere, nonostante tutto, nonostante voi, il sale della democrazia europea.

  Pernando Barrena Arza (The Left). – Señora presidenta, en primer lugar, tenemos que estar agradecidos a los ciudadanos y ciudadanas que han invertido su tiempo en la Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa, a los que participaron en los paneles de ciudadanos y en los plenarios y a todos los que dejaron su opinión en las aportaciones de la web multilingüe.

Estas personas nos han demostrado una vez más que la ciudadanía va por delante de las instituciones europeas, que son más flexibles y eficaces a la hora de detectar qué falla y cómo hay que solucionarlo. Por eso el resultado de la Conferencia, en general, ofrece una visión mucho más progresista que la composición, por ejemplo, de este Parlamento, lo cual es motivo de satisfacción.

En ese sentido, los ciudadanos respaldaron como segunda aportación más votada en la plataforma digital una iniciativa para solucionar conflictos de soberanía en la Unión Europea en base a la aplicación de un mecanismo de claridad que no ha sido incluida en el texto final de la Conferencia. Consideramos que es un error; Europa no puede reinventarse dejando fuera a las naciones sin Estado, e insistiremos en ello.

Por último, nuestro apoyo al llamamiento de la Convención Europea para una posible reforma de los Tratados. Será una oportunidad para separar lo que funciona de lo que no y poner de relieve la Europa de los derechos humanos, la Europa social y guardiana de los derechos de los pueblos, para poder decidir libremente su futuro.

  Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η «διάσκεψη» αποτελεί επιχείρηση χειραγώγησης της δίκαιης αγανάκτησης των εργαζομένων, των νέων σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη, αλλά και ξεπλύματος της αντιλαϊκής Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης των μονοπωλίων, των ιμπεριαλιστικών επεμβάσεων και πολέμων, του διαχρονικού αντιπάλου των εργατικών συμφερόντων. Ανεξάρτητα από το αν θα σηματοδοτήσει ή όχι αλλαγή στις ευρωσυνθήκες, δεν μπορεί να κρύψει τις μεγάλες αντιθέσεις στο εσωτερικό της Ένωσης. Οι προτάσεις της επιδιώκουν να θωρακίσουν το αντιλαϊκό ευρωενωσιακό οικοδόμημα· πριμοδοτούν τα λεγόμενα ευρωκόμματα· θέτουν απαράδεκτα εκλογικά όρια, αλλοιώνοντας τα εκλογικά αποτελέσματα· θεσμοθετούν επιστολικές, διαδικτυακές εκλογικές διαδικασίες· κλιμακώνουν την παραχάραξη της 9ης Μάη, μετατρέποντάς τη από μέρα της μεγάλης αντιφασιστικής νίκης των λαών, εκτός από δήθεν ημέρα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, και σε ενιαία ημέρα διεξαγωγής ευρωεκλογών.

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν βελτιώνεται —μόνο πιο αντιλαϊκή μπορεί να γίνει. Το μέλλον των λαών, επομένως, δεν χτίζεται με ψευδεπίγραφες διασκέψεις στο ναρκοθετημένο έδαφος εξυπηρέτησης της καπιταλιστικής κερδοφορίας, αλλά με ισχυροποίηση της πάλης σε κάθε χώρα ενάντια στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση για αποδέσμευση από τις ιμπεριαλιστικές ενώσεις, με την εξουσία και την οικονομία στα χέρια των λαών, για τη συνεργασία των λαών, για την οικοδόμηση αμοιβαία επωφελών σχέσεων.

  Eva Maydell (PPE). – Madam President, just in a couple of days on the 9th May, we will remember the visionaries who embarked on a project of peace, stability, growth, prosperity. We will also attempt on that day to be looking ahead towards our bright European future together. Today, our continent is struck by war. But we have seen that our freedom no longer lives in fear. And this is because of our unity and of our solidarity.

I hope that one day, very soon, we can offer the same European future to our Ukrainian friends. What this Conference did is to reaffirm those exact values and to root them into fresh ideas. I was one of many colleagues working within the Digital Transformation Working Group, and we have put concrete proposals that aim to make Europe’s tech sector more vibrant, more innovative, safer and full of opportunities for the next generations to come.

I think citizens want a union that understand the needs of its towns, of its villages, of its cities, of its capitals, and that knows how to defend their rights and values on a global stage. A Europe that has the confidence to see itself as one, with pan-European candidates that are able to reflect those values. This is how I believe we are going to be building a European Union, by the citizens and for the citizens.

  Katarina Barley (S&D). – Madam President, so the citizens have spoken and they have spoken very clearly. They want a more social, more sustainable, more democratic Union. Now, there are some in this House who don’t like the results and I understand your frustration. I understand your frustration that there were not as many homophobic, nationalist, chauvinist people within these 800 as you would maybe like to have seen there. But now you were drawing a picture of these people that is simply not correct – and those few of you who were there should know better.

I’ll just give you one example. We had a very strongly discussing Democracy Working Group, and we had a very prominent leader of this group who presented the results, who is the leader of the EPP Group. And these citizens said, no, we don’t feel our proposals are reflected in this, please, let’s do it again. So they were very confident. They were not at all kind of shying away of conflict with the big MEPs or national parliamentarians. They were very confident and they spoke out very clearly. And I actually wanted to give credit to my colleague, Gunnar Beck, which I don’t very often do, because he was there and he was confronted by the citizens – I think he got about four blue cards. Colleague Mara Bizzotto was also there but she didn’t take any blue cards unfortunately; she didn’t confront herself to what they had to say. But Mr Beck did.

So look it up on YouTube and you see what happens to a far—right wing politician who gets confronted by normal citizens. It’s really extraordinary. So the result of this was not only an exercise for them, it was an exercise .... (The speaker was cut-off by the Chair)

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card speech)

  Niklas Nienaß (Verts/ALE), blue-card speech. – Thank you very much, Madam Vice—President. And to you, Madam Vice—President, and to the other Vice—President in the front.

The question is, you have mentioned the courage of the citizens during the Conference. Do you feel that this model is something for the future? Do you feel that this is something that we could take up also maybe in the convention that we are discussing now as a follow—up for the Conference on the Future of Europe?

  Katarina Barley (S&D), blue-card reply. – Thank you for the question. It also gives me the opportunity to say that there were also people with very different points of view, also someone who defended the Russian aggression against Ukraine, by the way. And yes, I absolutely think that this is something that we should carry on doing to listen to the citizens. With this kind of exercise or a different one. I don’t know exactly which format we should choose, but I am very convinced that it should be one where we come together, where it’s not only digital, but where we come together. Because they gave us lessons too. I don’t know how many of you participated.

They sent us a letter, by the way, saying, look, the way you discuss is odd. You come, you give your speech of a minute and then you disappear. And look, I mean, I addressed a few colleagues, none of them are there anymore. This is not how you make a debate. It’s not only that, you know, they contribute something from a content point of view. They can also, I think, make us better parliamentarians.

  Maite Pagazaurtundúa (Renew). – Señora presidenta, señorías, he asistido a todas las reuniones de la Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa y esto, como a ustedes, me ha permitido escuchar, como nunca antes, a ciudadanos que se iban transformando, comprometiéndose al pensar en la política común.

Se ha abierto un camino que no se va a cerrar gracias a las nuevas tecnologías. Y esta nueva forma de participación ciudadana ha venido para quedarse y es muy interesante para todos nosotros.

Hemos podido extraer algunas conclusiones: que solo juntos podemos los europeos hacer frente a los desafíos y que los ciudadanos están pidiendo que seamos ágiles, que seamos eficaces.

Y lo podemos hacer porque la crisis lo ha demostrado: somos capaces de hacer las cosas rápido y hacerlas juntos, y no nos queda otra para el futuro que viene.

Hay una cuestión de la que se ha hablado aquí: se ha negado que exista una identidad europea. ¡Claro que existe una identidad europea! Existe una identidad democrática europea, la da esta Cámara. Entre otras cosas, la dan los Tratados.

Como todas las identidades de las que cada uno de nosotros se compone, se va modificando con el tiempo y se va mejorando. Por eso necesitamos la convención: para ir modificando y mejorando nuestra ciudadanía democrática europea, nuestra identidad democrática europea, nuestro futuro como europeos, nuestro futuro en general.

  Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, fellow Europeans, earlier today, Vladimir Klitschko, who is the mayor of Kiev, wrote that, for Putin, Ukraine is a provocation because it is a democracy. Democracy is a provocation for some people. And we can also see this, sadly, in this Chamber. So what do we have to do? We have to dare more democracy. That’s exactly what they fear. Let us dare more democracy. I said this also on Saturday at the conclusion and I say it now after we voted positively on the transnational list, we need to dare more democracy.

If you look at the conclusions that all these citizens that actually dared more democracy came up with, you see that there’s a lot of very positive stuff in there: abolishing the veto, making the Council more transparent, calling it a Senate to make it a real second chamber, and giving more rights and powers to Parliament, including the right of initiative, budgetary powers and so on.

So we need to seriously follow up on this. I am very happy that from the Constitution Committee we already requested to trigger Article 48, to trigger Treaty change, and I hope that the countries will follow up, but I also hope that we can follow up on all the other ideas that don’t need Treaty change.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card speech)

  Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR), blue-card speech. – Madam President, I thank Mr Boeselager for his explanation on how to dare more democracy. Now we have conducted a poll in the Netherlands, an independent poll amongst 2 400 people. And we conducted the poll on the recommendations of the Conference on the Future of Europe. Only 23% were in favour of transnational lists. 63% of the Dutch people were against European taxes, and 55% are not in favour of a European asylum policy. Just to give some examples.

Now, to give you a sense of that, it was representative. There was some slight majority in favour of more European climate policy. So you can have that. Are you willing to conduct the same poll in your home country?

  Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE), blue-card reply. – So I think it’s very good that you made the effort to go out there. And I think it’s also okay to have a different vision of how Europe should go, which is a vision of where prime ministers and chancellors sit in backroom deals and battle all the deals out on how Europe should work. I just believe that we should fight and I’m fighting for a Europe, where you have a parliamentary democracy, where we can have these debates and where we can fill the government that can then be dis—elected if people don’t like it. I think this gives more voice to citizens also if they’re critical about different policies. But I’m having these conversations and I’m happy to see your study results as well.

  Mara Bizzotto (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, rivoluzionare questa Europa che oggi è un mostro burocratico e un nano politico per costruire una nuova Europa più moderna, più sicura, più democratica, capace di risolvere i problemi dei cittadini: questa era la grande sfida per cui era nata la Conferenza sul futuro dell'Europa, una sfida che andava accolta con coraggio e lungimiranza e che invece è stata clamorosamente mancata.

La Conferenza è stata l'ennesima occasione sprecata, il solito esercizio di propaganda da parte dell'UE che ha coinvolto pochissimi cittadini. Basta citare un dato: solo 52 000 cittadini su 450 milioni di europei si sono iscritti alla piattaforma digitale della Conferenza.

Numeri che dimostrano tutta l'enorme distanza che esiste tra cittadini e palazzi di Bruxelles, che ancora una volta si sono arroccati per difendere un modello di Europa che non funziona. L'esempio lampante del fallimento e degli errori della Conferenza sono le famose liste transnazionali che i cittadini non hanno chiesto e che i soliti politici hanno imposto come un dogma. Liste transnazionali che non sono nemmeno citate nella mozione approvata dal Parlamento italiano e contro le quali si sono espressi i cittadini italiani ed europei pubblicamente e nel gruppo di lavoro sulla democrazia europea.

I cittadini non hanno bisogno delle liste transnazionali che servono solo a garantire la poltrona a qualche politicante. Il mondo è in fiamme. Stiamo vivendo una crisi economica devastante. Milioni di famiglie e imprese non sanno come pagare le bollette. Tornate con i piedi per terra, tornate a fare i conti con la realtà. Tornate ad ascoltare la gente che chiede di cambiare da cima a fondo questa Europa. I cittadini ci chiedono a gran voce il cambiamento, perché non hanno bisogno di più Europa, ma di un'Europa diversa, nuova, coraggiosa, che sappia costruire un futuro fatto di lavoro, sviluppo, benessere, libertà e democrazia per i nostri popoli.

(L'oratrice accetta un intervento "cartellino blu")

  Katarina Barley (S&D), blue-card speech. – Madam President, my only question would be, if you think that listening to citizens is so important – and I totally agree, why did you not accept any – I think it was three or four blue cards – that citizens gave you in the Conference plenary?

  Mara Bizzotto (ID), risposta "cartellino blu". – Erano due cittadini italiani quelli che mi hanno chiesto il cartellino blu che conoscevo e che avevano la tessera di partito in tasca. Quindi, siccome non era quello il luogo, mi confronterò con loro in un altro momento.

Ho ascoltato un'altra cittadina italiana, invece, che ha parlato all'interno del gruppo Democrazia europea, che ha detto chiaramente che abbiamo discusso delle liste transnazionali, un punto scomodo che non ci trova d'accordo. Questa cittadina è Chiara Alicandro, eppure voi non l'avete ascoltata.

  Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Madam President, the Conference on the Future of Europe is an important opportunity to work together to find creative solutions to make Europe deliver for our citizens.

With the social, economic and geopolitical consequences of the pandemic, of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, and of the growing assertiveness of the Chinese Communist Party, we must ensure that Europe is capable of facing the many challenges ahead. That’s why I find it essential that we return to the heart of the principle of subsidiarity, one of the founding principles of the European Union.

We need to use the conclusions of the Conference not only to focus on where the EU institutions should do more. Instead, we must discuss which levels, including local, regional and state level, can best contribute to addressing specific challenges and bring solutions.

This also means that the EU must not interfere into the exclusive competencies of the EU Member States. We must respect the division of competences between the different levels of governance, and make decisions as close to our citizens as possible, and thus ensure the unity, resilience and future of our Union.

  Andreas Schieder (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich denke mir, diese Konferenz zur Zukunft Europas hat – abseits der Erwartungen – wirklich gute Ergebnisse gebracht, mehr als wir wirklich erwarten konnten, und auch die Diskussion mit den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern.

Die hunderten Vorschläge, die jetzt auf dem Tisch liegen, zeigen eines: Die Menschen, die Bürgerinnen und Bürger erwarten sich von Europa Lösungen für die Probleme der Zeit. Und das kann man jetzt nicht einfach so wegwischen und wieder erlauben, dass wieder mal ein Arbeitskreis tagt, wo die Ergebnisse versanden. Sondern es geht jetzt darum, auch diese Ergebnisse – diesen Schwung – mitzunehmen, um auch Europa handlungsfähig zu machen und das zu ermöglichen, was sich die Bürgerinnen und Bürger von Europa erwarten: nämlich weg mit den Blockiererinnen und Blockierern, hin zu Mehrheitsentscheidungen, weg von diesem Einstimmigkeitsprinzip, das in Wahrheit nur die Antieuropäer innerhalb der Europäischen Union weiter stärkt, eine Stärkung des Europäischen Parlaments als größere Stärke der Demokratie mit Initiativrecht und all dem.

Und es ist doch irgendwie schade und auch bezeichnend, dass es nicht möglich war, einen gemeinsamen Abschlussbericht dieser Konferenz zu schaffen. Aber es ist gut, dass das Europäische Parlament hier einen Abschlussbericht, eine Entschließung beschließt, nämlich nicht als Endpunkt der Konferenz zur Zukunft Europas, sondern als Startpunkt für eine echte Reform der Europäischen Union, die mit modernen Verträgen auch dann letztlich auf den Boden kommt.

  Sandro Gozi (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Vice-présidente, chers collègues, nous avons défendu dès le début et avec force cette conférence proposée par Emmanuel Macron en mars 2019. Et pour cause! Pendant un an, nous avons fait l’Europe autrement, avec un exercice démocratique totalement inédit. Les citoyens demandent un changement radical car le monde a changé, la guerre est revenue sur notre continent, des empires menacent nos vies et nos valeurs.

Et moi, je voudrais dire à nos collègues de l’extrême droite d’être un peu plus respectueux. Mickey Mouse, un cirque! Vous me donnez l’impression d’être comme des enfants qui, lorsqu’ils jouent au foot...

(quelques réactions et applaudissements)

… Absolument, vous êtes de l’extrême droite, vous êtes de la Ligua, donc vous êtes de l’extrême droite. Vous me donnez l’impression d’être comme ces enfants qui jouent au foot, mais lorsqu’ils perdent, ils arrêtent le match, prennent le ballon et sortent du terrain. Votre attitude est exactement celle-ci! Les citoyens ont fait un travail sérieux, un travail respectueux, nous devons les respecter, et maintenant le Parlement est attendu au tournant. Nous avons voulu ce débat citoyen. Nous devons respecter nos engagements et donner suite à la conférence. Nous l’avons fait ce matin avec les listes transnationales, et encore une fois vous êtes de mauvaise foi, et encore une fois vous mentez, parce qu’elles avaient été clairement demandées par les citoyens, et nous devons le faire maintenant en activant la révision des traités sans réticences, sans tabous, en pleine transparence.

(L’orateur accepte de répondre à une intervention «carton bleu»)

  Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE), blue-card speech. – Apparently it’s my democratic right to ask questions, so I will make use of that.

I wanted to ask you, if you, as an Italian running on a French list, believe there is something like a European identity?

  Sandro Gozi (Renew), blue-card reply. – Yes, I will answer in Italian, so I hope she will understand better.

Sono convinto che ci sia un'identità europea. Sono convinto che come cittadini europei noi possiamo esercitare i nostri diritti in qualsiasi posto dell'Unione europea. È per questo che da italiano ho deciso di candidarmi in Francia e l'ho fatto esattamente per portare avanti questa idea di politica transnazionale, di democrazia transnazionale, che noi porteremo avanti insieme. Sono sicuro, caro Damian, attraverso le liste transnazionali, perché questa è l'Europa, questa è la democrazia che vogliamo.

  Monika Vana (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, it has been a very long process from the first announcement of the conference to where we are today, with a concrete set of proposals together with the citizens and institutions for more Europe, but also for another Europe. And as a member of the working group, a stronger economy, social justice and jobs, I really think we can be proud of what we have achieved together and also of the strong role of the European Parliament in this process.

I am personally very impressed at how strong the wish of the European citizens is for a true social Union with a common Europe-wide minimum standards and a social feel to leave no one behind. Framework for minimum income and wages, guaranteeing gender equality and equal access for all to public services, minimum pensions, social housing, fight against youth unemployment, a ban of unpaid internships – and last but not least, of course, a strong focus on the green and sustainable economy and green jobs.

We now simply have to deliver on that, colleagues, we have to deliver on that. And the citizens have to and can count on us. We have to ensure these proposals we formulated together with the citizens must not disappear after the first round of applause on 9 May, and that they are taken seriously. And this is why we, as Greens, strongly support a convention as soon as possible, including Treaty changes, to move forward to a social Union, to a sustainable Union, and to a gender equal Union.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Madam President, thank you very much, dear colleagues, despite the initial scepticism of some Eurosceptical governments, the Conference on the Future of Europe turned out to be a success, empowering participative democracy at its outmost and putting long-sighted proposals on the table.

Now it is time to move forward, to achieve citizens’ goals and hopes, turning them into concrete actions. And there is only one way to do so. We must open a new convention for discussing the much-needed deep revision of the Treaties towards a federal Europe. And as this would be a clear divide in the history of the European integration, there would be no better place than Ventotene Island, where everything began, to do so.

We are in front of a crossroads. We can move towards a genuine political union, a strategically autonomous union, moving to qualified majority, and thus growing into a real player at the global stage. Or we can remain divided, becoming the chessboard where other actors play their geopolitical games as is happening with the criminal aggression of Ukraine.

Only a new treaty of Ventotene can allow us to pursue the first option. And if the main road is the convention, we must also be prepared to cope with certain national reluctances or blockages, thus foreseeing back-up solutions, including the possibility to set up new forms of reinforced cooperations. Let’s finally sit around the negotiation table. There will be an understanding of who wants to be on the right side of history and who does not. We stand for a Treaty of Ventotene, for a free, democratic, sovereign and federal Europe.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card speech)

  Niklas Nienaß (Verts/ALE), blue-card speech. – Madam President, thank you. Mr Castaldo, I have a question. You have mentioned that there are two possibilities to go forward with Europe. One, with a closer Union that will be in the geopolitical sphere, be stronger and have a voice, and the other one, which will be playing ball with the other bigger powers.

However, I would like your position on these two possibilities on the internal matters – which one do you think will improve the life of the citizens in Europe the best?

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI), blue-card reply. – Thank you, my answer is very clear in that regard. I stand for the strengthening of the European integration moving towards a federal Europe because I truly believe that, otherwise, facts will decide instead of us.

As is happening right now with the criminal invasion of Ukraine, as happened many times also with the multiple crisis we were experiencing in the last decades. And I must, of course, underline the fact that we did not always have all the tools we needed to face and tackle these crisis. Sometimes we have been a bit original and creative, we found an ambitious solution, like Next Generation EU, but I am calling for a permanent structural common European debt and a real federal budget to tackle the global challenges in front of us. So, for me, this is the main road that I am going to stand for and defend as well as you. But I also hope that it will be the outcome of the Conference and the Convention, because the citizens were very clear in that regard and their voice must be listened to. Otherwise, we will just fuel and foster frustration instead of more commitment towards European integration.

  Daniel Buda (PPE). – Doamna președintă, Jean Monet spunea „Nu coalizăm state, noi unim oameni”.

Conferința privind viitorul Europei a demonstrat că Uniunea Europeană este formată din oameni care împărtășesc aceleași valori. Dezbaterea a primit o perspectivă clară ca urmare a experiențelor din ultimele decenii.

Din păcate percepția cetățenilor cu privire la leadershipul european nu a fost întotdeauna cea mai bună, iar acest lucru nu s-a datorat politicilor europene, ci faptului că nu am reușit să comunicăm cu aceștia, Brexitul fiind cel mai bun exemplu în acest sens.

Dezbaterea privind reformele necesare a fost consistentă.

Dincolo, însă, de aceste dezbateri, avem preocupări ferme legate de ceea ce înseamnă accesul la un sistem de sănătate eficient care să crească speranța de viață a cetățenilor europeni sau la educație, care pot fi definite ca fiind priorități imediate pentru aceștia: combaterea schimbărilor climatice folosind în mod eficient resursele și ținând cont de particularitățile din fiecare țară ori accesul la alimente de calitate și la prețuri accesibile reprezintă, de asemenea, preocupări ferme ale cetățenilor.

Realitățile din jurul nostru s-au schimbat, însă, de la începutul dezbaterilor și până astăzi. Cu toții suntem martorii agresiunii Rusiei, iar Europa trăiește cea mai mare provocare la adresa securității și păcii de la încheierea celui de-al Doilea Război Mondial.

În același timp, cetățenii noștri au nevoie de garanții de securitate care pot fi oferite doar de către o Europă puternică.

Această conferință a demonstrat că Europa de mâine are viitor.

În toată Europa, cetățenii și-au făcut auzită vocea despre cum poate deveni Uniunea Europeană un loc mai bun pentru toți. Obiectivul nostru major este acela de a consolida o Europă a valorilor în care nimeni să nu fie lăsat în urmă. Acest lucru stă în mâna noastră, a tuturor, iar Conferința privind viitorul Europei ne-a arătat calea de urmat.

Dincolo de orice dispută, stimați colegi, nu uitați să iubiți Europa în fiecare zi.

  Marc Angel (S&D). – Madam President, in the beginning the Conference on the Future of Europe was very abstract and very slow, and it only gained momentum because of the fantastic dynamic in the nine working groups, where finally all components came together to debate. Citizens from the European and national panels, colleagues from the national parliaments, MEPs, representatives of civil society, social partners, regional authorities, Council and Commission Members, all were able to join forces to reach compromise, to make Europe stronger, more resilient, more sustainable, and more social.

Yes, and these citizens represented all the citizens because there was a recent Eurobarometer poll where nine out of ten Europeans said they want a more social Europe, so they were representative of these citizens.

The dynamic of the working groups also translated later into the plenary and last Saturday we concluded this unique democratic process with this fantastic 56-page document containing 325 concrete proposals endorsed by all components.

Now action is needed. Of course, we must deliver on the citizens’ requests, and this requires, of course, policy change, legislative acts and in a few cases also treaty change. And therefore we need to convene the Convention as this excellent joint resolution with debate suggests.

To conclude, I think we proved during one year that representative democracy and participatory democracy can go hand-in-hand, and we must continue this exercise.

  Ilhan Kyuchyuk (Renew). – Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the European Commission, dear colleagues, I echo those colleagues, saying that the Conference was an enriching exercise of democracy. I couldn’t agree more with that.

But a bigger question is what is next? What kind of change? Because we all mentioned the need for change. First of all, we would like to start with implementing the citizens’ proposals. Certainly, we have to implement what the citizens have proposed us. There must be no excuses, otherwise we are simply leaving it to those on the extreme right and left to do it for us, and we don’t want that.

Secondly, I think the Conference was clear: we need a change. We need a change on health union, on energy union. We have to abolish the unanimity rule. And for that, we need a new Convention.

Thirdly, the Conference was a model and should be a model – perhaps not at the same scale, but a continuous exercise involving citizens, bringing them together with the European institutions. What happens at European level has tremendous impact on people’s lives. So for that reason, we need pan-European solutions for pan-European challenges.

  Niklas Nienaß (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, first of all, when I go to my constituency, yes, I agree. Not all of the citizens tell me we want to get rid of unanimity. Of course not. This is a highly technical question. The majority is just asking me: why is Europe not doing anything on this? Why don’t we solve the migration crisis? Why aren’t we helping people on the borders? Why aren’t we getting support for the low income regions? Why aren’t we getting help for everybody to have the same pension and the same minimal income? And then I have to explain to them – and maybe that’s also a job for my colleagues as well – that there are a lot of proposals on the table, but they’re just not being voted on because there’s the rule of unanimity and that we need to get rid of it in order to be a more concrete European Union.

I think this has been the exercise that we did here. We asked citizens who were, some of them not at all involved in politics, to come here and make up their mind and propose ideas, what they think about the problems, where they see topics to be improved and everything. And then the outcome was, well, we need Treaty change.

One last sentence about this; I will make it brief. Just because we have a convention doesn’t mean that everything that is proposed will come into law. I mean, the important thing is to bring people together and to talk about the society that we want to live in in the future. And that is what the Convention is there for. And if we stop this process from the start, then I think our society has no future.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card intervention)

  Tomislav Sokol (PPE), blue-card speech. – So you said that people want us to resolve issues and problems. I agree with that. You said that people want to have bigger incomes, minimum pensions and things like that. I agree also with that. But why do think that unanimity will achieve that? Why do think that getting rid of unanimity will lead the Member States to actually share more powers with the smaller Member States and that they will be willing to resolve problems. Because I personally think if we have more qualified majority, the Member States will have more powers to decide what is in their interests and not to share the powers and responsibilities with smaller Member States. So why would people in, for instance, Croatia have better results if we get rid of the possibility for Croatia to have veto rights in the Council?

  Niklas Nienaß (Verts/ALE), blue-card reply. – Yes, thank you. I think it’s an excellent question but also leads to the question of what we do exactly at the convention. I believe the power of democracy lies in compromises, lies in the fact that we don’t have referenda where we just have yes or no.

And the same thing is true also for this question as regards unanimity. Of course, I do see the point that smaller Member States need representation and that they need a certain amount of power through the use of unanimity. However, at a certain point it gets ad absurdum and we are at the point where Member States, and we have seen that multiple times, are trying to force their opinion upon everybody else as a minority, which is not what we want in a democracy and bundle up together decisions that have nothing to do with each other.

So I think that we cannot continue with the prospect of unanimity, because it will not solve any problems, because every time your citizens say, for example, you say for your citizens, we want a stronger minimum wage. And then, I don’t know, maybe Malta says, no, this is okay for us, but we want fishing rights here and there, and therefore we block everything on the question of? This is unfair.

So I think what we can come up with in the Convention is also a solution to that. So figure out what is the possible solution that gives the right to the smaller member states to be part of the discussion, but also that enables us to act. That is the strength that we need. Democracies can act, but we are just too slow because we are having too much unanimity.

  Radosław Sikorski (PPE). – Madam President, I would grant the nationalist side of this debate that the process of the conference has not been perfectly democratic. But I’d just like to remind you that the whole idea of the conference was to open up the process to unelected people, to the kind of people that we don’t normally talk to. So that was deliberate. And if your supporters were less active or less persuasive in that process, well, that is your mistake and your failure. But don’t blame the process.

We’ve been through a lot as the European Union in recent years – the financial crisis, the refugee crisis, Brexit, the pandemic and now war. And some of you have argued – correctly, in my view, that we need to take a strong stance. We need energy transformation and financial help for energy transformation. We need strong sanctions on an aggressive power, on Mr Putin. That we need energy security, including a gas Union, purchasing of gas together.

And at the same time, you say the EU should go back to being a Union of fatherlands, a free trade area – some of your supporters have even asked for abolishing this Parliament. I have to tell you, these ideas are not compatible. You have to choose, if you will the ends you have to will the means.

Personally, I want a Union strong enough that can not only stand up to Putin, but send him to hell. And therefore, I believe we need not a superstate, but a super power. And therefore, these proposals should be considered seriously.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card intervention)

  Bogdan Rzońca (ECR), wystąpienie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Chciałem powiedzieć, że oczywiście zawsze dialog jest lepszy niż odwracanie się tyłem do siebie i dyskusja jest zawsze warta dyskusji po prostu. Ale chciałem Pana zapytać, ponieważ był pan ministrem i sformułował Pan kiedyś taki zarzut w stosunku do Niemiec, że Niemcy za mało robią, są zbyt bierne w Unii Europejskiej. Później pański kolega z PPE Donald Tusk powiedział, że rządy niemieckie były błogosławieństwem w Unii Europejskiej pod przywództwem kanclerz Angeli Merkel.

Mam pytanie zatem do Pana: Czy po tej reformie, którą Państwo proponują po tej Konferencji, nie ma Pan obaw, że ta Unia będzie popełniać takie same błędy, jakie popełniła? Bo mamy wojnę, z tym się zgodzimy wszyscy. Mamy wielki dramat wojenny. Ktoś jest winny tej wojnie. Czy nie ma Pan takich obaw? Albo niech Pan wskaże jakiś mechanizm, który pozwoli zapobiec tego typu dramatycznym błędom.

  Radosław Sikorski (PPE), blue-card reply. – I would like to thank the honourable Member for recalling my speech in Berlin in 2011, where I indeed said that I feared German power less than I feared Germany’s inactivity. And you know what? It seems to fit the current attitude of the German coalition to the war in Ukraine. No human institution will be perfect, but when the facts change, I change my view. What do you do? Therefore, we need institutions that would protect people’s identity but enable us to work more effectively together. I think some of those proposals do that.

  Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Madam President, thank you, Vice-President, for your presence in the debate and also for what you have done by co-chairing this conference with these very good outcomes. They are clearly pointing to the need to improve the competencies, the capabilities of the European Union to act in very important fields, but also to improve the degree of democratic legitimacy, and the participation of citizens in the European project.

Many things have been said. I made them my own. Also, what Prime Minister Draghi said this morning about pragmatic and ideal federalism.

Now, I would like to address you directly, because you have been saying, and I understand that as a positive thing, that you believe that the Commission should play an honest broker role in this process. But I believe that maybe the Commission can also join Parliament. Parliament has made clear the position in this resolution about the next step, the convention and the reform of the treaties. And also, by the way, as you very well know, we approved today with a large majority the electoral law, including the union-wide constituency. Why doesn’t the Commission and the Parliament join together? Because we know the Council, they are good guys, but not particularly the vanguard of the European Union. So, the Commission and Parliament working together, what do you think?

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card intervention)

  Mara Bizzotto (ID), intervento "cartellino blu". – Sì, assicuro che difenderò gli interessi dell'Italia anche con le liste transnazionali. Mi chiedo, invece, se un suo collega, un mio collega Gozi, che è stato sottosegretario del governo Renzi, sottosegretario del governo Gentiloni e quindi ha avuto accesso a carte molto particolari e che poi è passato alla corte di Macron, essendo consulente e ora parlamentare, può dire la stessa cosa, di difendere gli interessi degli italiani o dei francesi? Vorrei capirlo. Chiedo la sua opinione.

  Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D), risposta "cartellino blu". – Io conosco, mi chiede Lei, per l'onorevole Sandro Gozi che ho davanti a me, che è un caro compagno e un caro amico e io so che è assolutamente possibile. Lui lo ha fatto: lavorare per l'Europa quando era in Italia e lavorare per l'Europa quando è in Francia.

  Claudia Gamon (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin! Die Konferenz kommt jetzt zu einem Ende, und das sollte der Start sein für echte Reformen in der Europäischen Union. Ich spreche hoffentlich für alle, wenn ich einmal Danke sage: allen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern, die hier teilgenommen haben, die sich dafür Zeit genommen haben und wirklich sehr leidenschaftlich diskutiert haben und – was ich gemerkt habe – bei vielen Kollegen auch etwas bewegt haben, bei ihnen etwas ausgelöst haben, nachdem man wirklich spüren konnte – was lange schon meine Vermutung war –, dass die Bürgerinnen und Bürger der Union oft schon viel weiter voraus sind, als es ihnen manche Politikerinnen und Politiker zutrauen würden.

Ich denke, dass man das auch jetzt ein wenig gehört und gespürt hat, dass doch sehr viele der extremen Rechten in diesem Haus, die immer sagen: „Wir sind das Volk“ jetzt ein bisschen schockiert sind, wenn das Volk herkommt und auf einmal etwas anderes sagt, als man eigentlich gemeint hat. Es muss wirklich frustrierend, enttäuschend sein. Okay, aber es ist nun einmal so.

Die Bürgerinnen und Bürger wollen nämlich ein Europa, das funktioniert, das für sie funktioniert. Und dafür muss Europa stark sein. Und dafür muss auch die Europäische Union gestärkt sein. Und dafür werden wir neue Verträge brauchen.

  François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, la conférence sur l’avenir de l’Europe devait être l’événement marquant de la mandature de ce Parlement. Elle est restée malheureusement trop ignorée du grand public, car elle a été étouffée à la fois par la pandémie et par la faible implication des gouvernements et des partis politiques. Elle a été affectée aussi, malheureusement, par une certaine volonté d’en limiter le contenu.

Cependant, un débat est lancé, et il doit continuer. C’est essentiel pour l’avenir de l’Europe. Parmi les questions cruciales ignorées dans les conclusions adoptées, il y a le droit des peuples à décider démocratiquement de leur avenir. Cette question est posée par exemple en Catalogne ou en Écosse. Elle se pose aussi de façon dramatique en Ukraine, depuis les dernières semaines.

Sur la plateforme numérique qui permettait l’expression libre des citoyens, la proposition de débattre d’un mécanisme européen de clarté démocratique pour contribuer à la résolution d’éventuels conflits de souveraineté a été la deuxième proposition la plus soutenue, mais elle a été écartée des conclusions de la conférence finalement publiées.

Si l’Europe n’a pas le courage de formuler des propositions démocratiques pour résoudre les conflits de souveraineté, y compris contre la volonté d’États membres nostalgiques du siècle dernier, elle prend le risque d’être affectée par des crises politiques graves à l’avenir. Pour ce qui nous concerne, nous continuerons à soutenir une telle proposition. L’Europe doit faire en sorte de contribuer à l’avenir de tous ses citoyens et de contribuer à l’avenir aussi de tous les peuples qui la composent, en leur assurant la possibilité d’exercer leur droit à l’autodétermination, qui est un droit fondamental. Ce droit ne peut être bafoué par le veto opposé par les États membres. Il doit être ouvert à tous les peuples d’Europe qui le désirent.

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Madam President, I hope we all remember that before the conference started, at the beginning, we committed ourselves to deeply engage in it and also to deliver on its outcome. And now we simply need a good plan to transform its conclusions into a real change. And I have two major takeaways from this unprecedented public dialogue, which might be useful.

First, on the value of the process itself, let me say that the more citizens are engaging also emotionally, the more ambitious, courageous and future-oriented were the ideas about the future of Europe. One can also say that the long awaited European demos has been born and it must not be lost. I think participatory democracy worked.

And my second takeaway is that during this conference, citizens have called for ‘more’ Europe. And I read it as a demonstration of the trust and faith in us, as an expectation that the Union that was brought closer to them, thanks to the conference, will remain close and caring. The conference, through well-structured, thoughtful conclusions, prepared a core of reform packages. And European institutions, Parliament, I hope the Commission, Madam Commissioner, also the Council will work now on their implementation. We could see during the last plenary the commitment of all institutions in this regard.

The conference, through the way it worked and the conclusions it provided, paved the way towards European Convention in the meaning of Article 48. And that implies that we need to take the conclusions and start working on potential treaty change content and do what is our right and duty within Article 48. So I trust we learned from this conference how to build the future of Europe in the most participatory way possible.

  Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Madam President, I have attended the Conference on the Future of Europe and citizens have clearly underlined that they want to contribute more to the European project. Contrary to what has been said, their ideas and proposals are valuable. And also we have to acknowledge the fact that important parts of them go beyond the current treaty framework.

I am particularly happy to see that citizens want the European Union to help them get access to quality education and health services and several of our proposals, even of my proposals, have been included in the conclusions.

The pandemic and the war in Ukraine show that we need a European Union that protects its citizens and its Member States, and for that it needs the means and the instruments to act by including even a stronger social dimension.

We therefore call for a convention and the activation of the procedure for the revision of the treaties according to Article 48 of the Treaty of the European Union. And as a member of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, I support the need to start working on this immediately.

Dear colleagues, in these uncertain times, we need to revise the Treaties in order to build a Europe that offers certainty, security and the perspective of a sustainable future for everyone.

  Pascal Arimont (PPE). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin! Zukunft wird aus Mut gemacht. Diese 56 Seiten, diese 353 Schlussfolgerungen der Konferenz haben Stärken und Schwächen. Sie haben aber eine Stärke, und diese Stärke ist, dass sie bestehen und dass sie von ganz vielen Leuten zusammen ausgearbeitet worden sind. Das ist die ursprünglichste Idee der Europäischen Union.

Ich stelle daher drei Fragen an die Vertreter der Mitgliedstaaten, die leider heute hier nicht vertreten sind – aber ich stelle sie dennoch. Erstens: Wollen Sie ein Europa, das seine Bürger zum Beispiel im Gesundheitsbereich besser schützt? Zweitens: Wollen Sie erreichen, dass Europa auf internationaler Ebene ernster genommen wird? Drittens: Wollen Sie ein demokratischeres Europa, in dem dieses Parlament stärker wird, zum Beispiel mit einem Initiativrecht?

Wenn Sie das möchten, dann müssen Sie Veränderungen von Verträgen zustimmen, zum Beispiel im Gesundheitsbereich. Ohne eine Änderung der EU-Verträge bleibt es so, dass die EU nahezu keine Möglichkeit hat, zum Beispiel eine Pandemie effektiv und effizient zu bekämpfen. Glauben Sie mir: Ich komme aus einer Grenzregion und habe dort sehr eigenartige und fast schwachsinnige Situationen erlebt, wenn das eine Land die eine Regel macht und das andere Land genau die entgegengesetzte.

Oder die immer noch notwendige Einstimmigkeit der Mitgliedstaaten in bestimmten Politikbereichen: Sie trägt wesentlich dazu bei, dass wir in ganz wichtigen strategischen Fragen, wie zum Beispiel der Außen- oder der internationalen Steuerpolitik, einfach nicht vorankommen.

Diese 56 Seiten geben uns einen ganz klaren Auftrag: Wir müssen jetzt die Verträge in einigen wichtigen Punkten ändern. Liebe Mitgliedstaaten, seien Sie für einen Konvent, seien Sie für gezielte Vertragsänderungen, seien Sie mutig!

  Peter Pollák (PPE). – Vážená pani predsedajúca. Na jednej strane nás musí tešiť, že napriek kovidu sa podarilo do konferencie o budúcnosti zapojiť množstvo ľudí z celej Európy. Na druhej strane nás nemôže tešiť to, že sa nám nepodarilo vo väčšej miere zapojiť do tejto aktivity najchudobnejších a najzraniteľnejších.

Na jednej strane nás môže tešiť to, že obrovské množstvo ľudí, ktorí sa zapojili do konferencie o budúcnosti, sa cítia byť Európanmi. Na druhej strane si musíme priznať, že v Európe je početná skupina ľudí, ktorí sa necítia byť ani plnohodnotnými občanmi svojich vlastných krajín, nie to ešte Európanmi.

Na jednej strane nás môže tešiť posun a vízie v oblastiach, ako je digitalizácia, umelá inteligencia alebo životné prostredie. Na druhej strane, povedzme si pravdu, obrovské množstvo chudobných ľudí v Európe nemá prístup k pitnej vode.

Ľudia chcú mať istoty, akými sú kvalitné vzdelávanie, dobre zaplatená práca, dostupné bývanie či kvalitná zdravotná starostlivosť. Európania túžia, aby Európa bola spravodlivejšou, demokratickejšou, aby bola bezpečným územím, kde má každý priestor na svoju realizáciu, na plnenie svojich snov.

Dnes je našou najdôležitejšou úlohou, aby sme všetky závery z Konferencie o budúcnosti Európy pretavili do reality. Aby každé dieťa, každý mladý človek, mal možnosť rozvíjať nielen seba, ale aj svoje okolie.

Máme pred sebou mnohé z odporúčaní, dožadujúcich sa rozsiahlych reforiem. Nemôžeme si dovoliť ich odignorovať. Európania chcú Európu sociálnejšiu, dôstojnejšiu, Európu, kde teda ľudia žijú v blahobyte a nie v chudobe.

Catch—the—eye procedure

  Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, Konferencija o budućnosti Europe potvrdila je da građani žele veće ovlasti Europske unije u području zdravstva, stvaranje europskog podatkovnog prostora koji će omogućiti razmjenu zdravstvenih podataka i olakšati prekograničnu zdravstvenu zaštitu, ostvarivanje strateške autonomije Europske unije u proizvodnji lijekova te bolji sustav odlučivanja o uvjetima velikih zdravstvenih prijetnji, prioriteti su europskih građana.

To su problemi koje države članice doista ne mogu same rješavati te je zajedničko djelovanje nužno sukladno načelu supsidijarnosti. Drago mi je zato da stvaranjem europske zdravstvene unije već pozitivno odgovaramo na ove zahtjeve. S druge strane, Konferencija je dala naslutiti da bi se jednoglasnost u odlučivanju trebala skoro u potpunosti zamijeniti odlučivanjem kvalificiranom većinom. Tu treba biti jasan. Pravo veta koristan je instrument koji osigurava državama članicama da zaštite svoje interese u određenim strateškim područjima poput poreza, socijale, vojnih pitanja i slično. To je posebno važno za manje države članice koje, i u zajedničkoj Europi, imaju pravo čuvati vlastita prava i identitet.

Zbog toga se suzdržimo eksperimenata koji mogu jedino i isključivo stvoriti štetu.

  Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, prije svega željela bih zahvaliti potpredsjednici Šuici na njezinom angažmanu i gospodinu Verhofstadtu, hvala vam lijepa.

Međutim, ono na što bih željela skrenuti posebno pozornost je svakako ovaj proces koji nam je pokazao da građane nije uvijek lako zainteresirati za ovakve procese i za politička pitanja ili izravnu participaciju kakvu smo imali u proteklih godinu dana. Ukoliko institucionalnim radom na 325 usvojena zaključka uspijemo unijeti promjene i ukoliko ispunimo očekivanja građana, stvaramo preduvjete trajnijeg jačanja povjerenja zapravo u institucije i političke procese. Uvjerena sam kako će to biti jedan od važnijih doprinosa Konferencije o budućnosti Europe i za budućnost europske demokracije. Svjesni smo da se naša demokracija suočila s mnoštvom izazova proteklih godina ne samo u Uniji, bilo da se radi o rastućem ekstremizmu, o dezinformacijama, manipulativnim informacijama ili o slabljenju vladavine prava. U ovom trenutku važno je objektivno procijeniti koliko prijedloga zaista možemo usvojiti u područjima i koja su u nadležnosti Europske unije.

Završit ću: dinamika globalnih odnosa i promjena je brza a mi ako želimo odgovoriti na njih ne možemo gledati u prošlost jer ono što je u prošlosti ne možemo promijeniti ali ove inicijative znak su da nešto u budućnosti moramo mijenjati.

  Sandra Pereira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, eu gostaria de recordar que, há cerca de 20 anos, foi iniciado um processo semelhante a este que agora termina, até no nome, a chamada Convenção sobre o Futuro da Europa. Esse processo acabou por resultar numa dita Constituição Europeia que consagrava as políticas de cariz neoliberal, federalista e militarista da União Europeia e que foi rejeitada em referendos.

E o que fez a União Europeia? Impôs o Tratado de Lisboa contra a vontade dos povos. Recuperaram agora uma nova Convenção para, uma vez mais, insistirem no aprofundamento das suas políticas que, na verdade, estão na origem das desigualdades sociais, das assimetrias de desenvolvimento entre países ou de relações de domínio versus dependência no seio da União Europeia.

Com a mesma receita, os resultados não serão diferentes. A resposta aos problemas dos trabalhadores e dos povos passa pela rutura com estas políticas e por uma Europa que defenda a soberania e a democracia, os direitos, possibilitando caminhos alternativos de futuro, justiça, progresso e paz.

(End of catch—the—eye procedure)

  President. – Thank you, Ms Pereira. Now for this specific debate, we accepted all blue—cards and all the catch—the—eye requests, I believe maybe we had a record today, but it’s a most important and lively debate and it’s well—deserved as we discuss the future of Europe. I really want to thank our Vice—President, Ms Dubravka Šuica, for staying and listening to the whole debate in the European Parliament from so many colleagues staying with us, and also our Vice—President, Mr Margaritis Schinas, who also stayed and followed all the debate.

I have received also three motions for resolutions to wind up this debate and now the debate is closed.

The vote will be held tomorrow.

Thank you colleagues, we may proceed to the next item.

Written statements (Rule 171)

  Sara Cerdas (S&D), por escrito. – Chegou ao fim o marco histórico representado pela Conferência sobre o Futuro da Europa, desbloqueada pela Presidência Portuguesa do Conselho da UE. Foi um processo baseado naqueles que são os valores desta União: democracia, igualdade, Estado de Direito e solidariedade, que uniu a sociedade civil, parlamentos nacionais, instituições da UE e parceiros sociais, e que assumiu ainda mais significado com a celebração do Ano Europeu da Juventude em 2022, colocando os jovens na linha da frente na construção do projeto europeu.

Reconheceu-se a necessidade de mais coordenação, seja política, económica ou social, de forma a tornar a Europa mais resiliente a atuais e a futuros desafios, seja de conflitos armados, alterações climáticas, desigualdades sociais, entre tantos. É, para isso, vital assegurar que esta Conferência não fica presa na História e que tem resultados concretos na reforma europeia, incluindo a convocação de uma Convenção para se proceder às alterações necessárias aos Tratados. É, assim, desapontante que as Conclusões da Conferência não tenham referido, em parte alguma, as especificidades das regiões ultraperiféricas, que assumem um estatuto especial nos Tratados.

É nossa responsabilidade assegurar que somos uma Europa que chega a todos e que não deixa ninguém para trás.

  Klára Dobrev (S&D), in writing. – The EU has faced unprecedented challenges in the recent decade: an economic crisis; a refugee crisis; a health crisis, and now it is witnessing a war in its immediate neighbourhood. The EU has always managed to find solutions and overcome the challenges. Throughout the year, citizens, civil society, politicians and EU institutions came together to dream: to dream of a shared future for the European Union, a way forward. More than 40 proposals and 300 measures were put down on the table. Citizens want a more social, secure EU based on solidarity, where the rule of law prevails. Our duty now is to translate these proposals into action and be brave and open the Treaties where needed.

  Elżbieta Kruk (ECR), na piśmie. – Konferencję w sprawie przyszłości Europy można było postrzegać jako szansę na prawdziwie paneuropejską debatę, w której wyrażone zostaną różne wizje przyszłości Europy, w tym te przeciwne dalszemu zwiększaniu władzy Brukseli kosztem uprawnień państw narodowych. Szybko jednak okazała się ona narzędziem politycznym w rękach europejskich federalistów. Nie służy jako platforma wymiany pomysłów na przyszłość Unii, a jest narzędziem manipulacji mającym na celu forsowanie programu zwiększenia uprawnień instytucji unijnych i większej centralizacji władzy w UE oraz ograniczenia roli państw członkowskich.

Celem Konferencji jest legitymizacja programu politycznego dla scentralizowanej, federalnej Unii bez zmiany Traktatów, a więc z ominięciem demokratycznych procedur, a co za tym idzie ominięciem demokratycznej woli obywateli. Nie da się pogodzić zasad zapisanych w traktatach założycielskich UE, w tym pomocniczości, proporcjonalności, delegowanych kompetencji i demokracji przedstawicielskiej, z taką inżynierią społeczną, którą w Europie Wschodniej znamy aż nazbyt dobrze z czasów komunizmu. Nie można się zgodzić z tą wizją przyszłości Europy. Przekazywanie coraz większej władzy na poziom europejski jeszcze bardziej oddali Europejczyków od instytucji unijnych, zamiast zbliżyć Unię do obywateli.

Dlatego Grupa ECR wycofała się z Konferencji w sprawie przyszłości Europy. Udział w jej pracach prowadziłby do legitymizacji jej niepokojących założeń.

PREDSEDÁ: MICHAL ŠIMEČKA
podpredseda