Istungi stenogramm

Esmaspäev, 21. november 2022 - Strasbourg

1. Istungjärgu jätkamine

PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA
President

  President. – I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday 10 November 2022.

2. Istungi algus

(The sitting opened at 17.01)

3. Presidentuuri avaldused

  President. – Good afternoon, dear colleagues, welcome back. I have a few announcements from my side before we go to the adoption of the agenda. This will take quite a while.

First of all, on Afghanistan, 15 months after the fall of Kabul, women are increasingly being squeezed out of public life and refused entry to public spaces. Reports from Kandahar indicate that the world will soon bear witness to a return of public executions, stonings, floggings and punitive amputations. Despite initial promises to protect women’s rights, years of progress are being rolled back. The European Parliament is committed to the people of Afghanistan, not to its rulers. The Taliban want women to be invisible. We want them to thrive. And until they can regain their rightful place in society we will continue to amplify their voice.

Last week, we saw a death sentence imposed on arrested protesters in Iran. The European Parliament strongly opposes capital punishment and violent oppression of legitimate protests. I urge the Iranian authorities to stop, here and now. The European Parliament welcomes the addition of 29 individuals and 3 entities to the list of those subject to restrictive measures or sanctions. We call on Member States to keep the pressure up. In response to the unacceptable Iranian sanctioning of Members of this House, let me announce that there shall be no direct contact between European Parliament delegations and committees with official Iranian counterparts until further notice. We will not look away from those who look to us from the streets of Iran. We are with you. We will stay with you.

Dear colleagues, the Turkish airstrikes we are seeing in northern Syria and Iraq after the bomb attack in Istanbul are claiming more lives and causing more bloodshed. Let me, from here, call on the Turkish authorities to exercise restraint and respect for international law and standards.

Also, last week’s explosions and casualties in Poland are proof that we must not let down our guard. Russia’s continued illegal invasion of Ukraine continues to cause innocent lives to be lost. Our thoughts and solidarity are with the victims, their loved ones, the people of Poland and all the victims of Russian attacks in Ukraine.

This week we also mark the 90th anniversary of the Holodomor, the Great Famine of 1932 and 1933, when millions of people in Ukraine were starved intentionally by the Soviet regime. Ninety years later, Ukrainians have to fight again to preserve their lives, identity and freedom. We will not forget the fate that Stalin had in store for Ukrainians during Holodomor. Nor will we forget Russian crimes committed in Bucha, Irpin, Mariupol, Izium and in so many other places in Ukraine.

Dear colleagues, the attack on two police officers in Brussels last week – killing one, wounding the other – reminds us of the risks our police forces face daily. We must remain vigilant to threats to our internal security, and the European Parliament works so closely with the Belgian police that it is difficult for this not to feel personal to all of us. Our thoughts are with the families of the victims.

4. Eelmiste istungite protokollide kinnitamine

  President . – The minutes and the texts adopted of the sittings of 9 and 10 November are available.

Before I give the floor to some colleagues, I see there are no comments and therefore the minutes are approved.

  Antonius Manders (PPE). – Madam President, I have a point of order. In addition to your remarks, on Article 120 on Human Rights, last weekend FIFA didn’t allow the captains of the national teams to wear the ‘One Love’ armband, and this is a breach of their position. I ask you and the European Parliament to condemn this behaviour strongly, because we are talking about human rights everywhere, and yet when you want to show something at a very big event then it is not allowed by the organisation.

  Pina Picierno (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, anch'io per un richiamo al regolamento.

Il 21 novembre di nove anni fa i giovani ucraini scesero in piazza avvolti dalle bandiere europee per protestare contro il mancato accordo di associazione all'Unione europea, che non fu firmato al tempo dal Presidente filorusso Janukovyč.

Così, Presidente, nacque Euromaidan, un movimento che per tre mesi nella piazza centrale di Kiev chiedeva a gran voce un futuro europeo, chiedeva di poter scegliere autonomamente la propria strada all'interno dell'Unione europea e chiedeva che l'Ucraina fosse una democrazia e non un paese sottomesso ad un autocrate.

Questa voglia di libertà è stata frenata nel 2014 dall'occupazione della Crimea e poi dall'inizio della guerra nel Donbass, ma ancora oggi questa voglia di libertà è salda davanti alle bombe, davanti ai morti che la Russia sta infliggendo alla popolazione ucraina ormai da nove mesi.

E allora vorrei che il pensiero di quest'Aula, oggi, fosse rivolto alla memoria di quei giovani che hanno pagato con la vita, perché molti furono ammazzati. La loro adesione al sogno è la prospettiva europea. E vorrei che ricordassimo quanti ogni giorno resistono alla guerra criminale di Putin. Il posto di Kiev è dentro la nostra comunità e dobbiamo ribadirlo ogni giorno con forza.

5. Parlamendi koosseis

  President. – Following the election of Søren Gade, Linea Søgaard-Lidell and Peter Kofod as members of the national parliament of Denmark, Parliament takes note of the vacancy of their seats from 15 November 2022, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

6. Puutumatuse kaitsmise taotlus

  President. – Nikos Androulakis has submitted a request for defence of his parliamentary immunity in the context of the complaint he has made against the Greek authorities on phone tapping.

That request is referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs.

7. Fraktsioonide koosseis

  President. – Hervé Juvin is no longer a member of the ID Group and sits with the non—attached Members as of 10 November 2022.

8. Parlamendi komisjonide ja delegatsioonide koosseis

  President. – The Renew Europe, Verts/ALE and ID groups have notified me of decisions relating to changes to appointments within committees and delegations. These decisions will be set out in the minutes of today’s sitting and take effect on the date of this announcement.

9. Parlamendi esimesele lugemisele eelnevad läbirääkimised (kodukorra artikkel 71) (võetavad meetmed)

  President. – In relation to the decisions by the TRAN and LIBE committees to enter into interinstitutional negotiations pursuant to Rule 71(1) announced on Wednesday 9 November, I have received no request for a vote in Parliament. The committees have therefore started their negotiations.

10. Delegeeritud õigusaktid (kodukorra artikli 111 lõige 6)

  President. – I was also informed that no objections have been raised within the Conference of Committee Chairs to the recommendations by the ECON Committee not to oppose two delegated acts pursuant to Rule 111(6) of the Rules of Procedure. The recommendations are available on the Plenary webpage.

If no objections are raised by a political group or Members reaching at least the low threshold within 24 hours of this announcement, the recommendations shall be deemed to have been approved; otherwise, they will be put to the vote.

11. Seadusandliku tavamenetluse kohaselt vastu võetud õigusaktide allkirjastamine (kodukorra artikkel 79)

  President. – I would like to inform you that, together with the President of the Council, I shall today sign eight acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure in accordance with Rule 79 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

The titles of the acts will be published in the minutes of this sitting.

12. Tööplaan

  President. – We now come to the order of business.

The final draft agenda as adopted by the Conference of Presidents on 17 November pursuant to the Rule 157 has been distributed.

I would like to inform you that I have received three requests for urgent procedure from BUDG Committee and from the Commission pursuant to Rule 163 on the following legislative files:

– amending Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027;

– amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 as regards the establishment of a diversified funding strategy as a general borrowing method; and

– ‘Macro-Financial Assistance+’, the instrument for providing support to Ukraine for 2023.

The vote on these three requests will be taken tomorrow. If adopted, the vote will be held on Thursday.

We now move to changes requested by political groups. For Monday, the Renew Group has asked that the title of the Commission statement entitled ‘State of play of the negotiations between the Commission and the Hungarian Government linked to the Conditionality Regulation and the RRP’ be changed to ‘Freezing of European funds to Hungary under the RRF and the Conditionality Regulation’ with resolution.

I give the floor to Moritz Körner to move the request on behalf of the Renew Group.

  Moritz Körner, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, we had some talks with the other groups on the title because right now it states: negotiations between the Commission and Hungary. To be very honest, it’s what happens right now but it should not be this way. The rule of law in Europe should not be negotiable. That is very clear from our side. We call on the Commission not to negotiate, but to assess, and that’s why I would propose a new wording, President: ‘assessment of Hungary’s compliance with the rule of law conditions under the conditionality mechanism and state of play of the Hungarian RRP’. Let’s make clear it’s about assessing, it’s about the guardianship of the Treaties, and it’s not about negotiating about the rule of law. Be very clear about that.

  President. – Moritz, just to be clear, you are proposing the change of title to this: ‘Assessment of Hungary’s compliance with the rule of law conditions under the Conditionality Regulation and the state of play of the Hungarian RRP’. Does anybody want to speak against? I don’t see that to be the case. So we put the request to the vote by roll call.

(Parliament agreed to the request)

So the title is changed.

Also for today, The Left Group has requested that the Commission statement on the ‘Situation of human rights in the context of the FIFA World Cup in Qatar’ be wound up with a resolution to be voted on Thursday. I give the floor to Manon Aubry to move the request on behalf of The Left Group.

  Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, au nom de notre groupe de la Gauche, je demande en effet l’adoption d’une résolution sur les violations des droits de l’homme liées à la Coupe du monde au Qatar. Cette Coupe du monde, vous le savez, se joue sur le corps et le cadavre de 6 500 ouvriers exploités sur les chantiers qatariens, et dont les familles ont été abandonnées sans compensation. Des milliers de violations des droits humains ont été documentées, du quasi-esclavage aux arrestations arbitraires.

Plusieurs groupes de ce Parlement, je m’en félicite, acceptent le débat, mais refusent pourtant une résolution. Alors, chers collègues, face à ce massacre, on ne peut pas se contenter de juste discuter. Notre rôle est de prendre une position sur la création d’un fonds d’indemnisation pour rendre justice aux familles endeuillées, à défaut de leur rendre la vie de leurs proches; sur la responsabilité des entreprises européennes complices; sur la caution diplomatique donnée par nos dirigeants à cette publicité géante pour un régime autoritaire; sur les conditions d’attribution des événements sportifs; sur l’interdiction de la FIFA, Monsieur Manders, de porter le brassard en faveur des LGBT… Alors que les citoyens et les amateurs de foot, dont, je pense, nous sommes assez nombreux ici, n’ont que le dilemme de boycotter ou non, nous avons les moyens d’agir pour ramener la Coupe à la raison. Alors votons cette résolution.

  President. – Does anybody want to speak against? I see that’s not the case. So we will put the request to a vote by roll call.

(Parliament agreed to the request)

Therefore, we will have the debate, which will be wound up with a resolution. The vote will be on Thursday.

So I’ll give you the deadlines. For the motions for resolutions, the text has to be available by Tuesday 22 November at noon. Amendments to the motions for resolutions and the joint motion for resolution, Wednesday 23 November at noon. Amendments to the joint motion for resolution, Wednesday 23 November at 13.00. Split votes and separate votes, Wednesday at 19.00.

Also for Wednesday, the PPE Group has asked that the title of the Council and the Commission statements on ‘Eliminating violence against women’ be changed to ‘Eliminating violence against women and combating sex crimes, including in the case of the recently adopted Spanish law that effectively reduces sentences of convicted offenders’.

I give the floor to Rosa Estaràs Ferragut to move the request on behalf of the PPE Group.

  Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señora presidenta, el 25 de noviembre es el Día Internacional de la Eliminación de la Violencia contra la Mujer. Es una prioridad para la Presidencia, para todas las instituciones europeas y para todas las mujeres y los hombres de Europa y del mundo.

Vamos a tener un debate al respecto el miércoles. Unánimemente, todos estamos de acuerdo; sin embargo, en España se ha publicado y se ha aprobado una ley que reduce las condenas a los violadores y a los que atentan contra la libertad sexual de las mujeres. Se han producido más de cinco excarcelaciones de pederastas y violadores de mujeres, puestas en libertad, reducciones de condena de seis a ocho años y, así, una tras otra. Es urgente que debatamos este asunto ese día para detener esta cascada de excarcelaciones y el despropósito de esta ley.

No es ideología lo que estoy pidiendo en este Parlamento; apelo a las conciencias de los hombres y mujeres de este Parlamento. Hemos dicho en reiteradas ocasiones que la violencia contra la mujer es un atroz atentado contra los derechos humanos. Hemos dicho que ni una más. Ahora podemos demostrarlo. Por favor, paremos esa ley.

  President. – I now give the floor to Iratxe García Pérez to speak against.

  Iratxe García Pérez (S&D). – Señora presidenta, cierto, el 25 de noviembre se conmemora el Día Internacional contra la Violencia de Género. Desde que yo soy diputada, este Parlamento ha tenido un debate al respecto para unir nuestras voces desde la diferencia, pero con un mensaje claro de solidaridad y apoyo a las mujeres víctimas de violencia de género, a las mujeres que han sido asesinadas por el mero hecho de ser mujeres. El terrorismo machista mata: mata en Europa y en el resto del mundo. Y es necesario hacer un debate como todos los años hemos hecho.

Pero esta propuesta que plantea el Grupo popular me parece que contiene pocos escrúpulos y ningún respeto. Pocos escrúpulos, porque las leyes nacionales se cambian en los Parlamentos nacionales. Este es un Parlamento europeo y debemos de respetar los debates que aquí tenemos. Y, por lo tanto, tengamos en cuenta que hay que demostrar mucho más respeto al Parlamento Europeo. Y respeto a las víctimas, a las mujeres que han sido asesinadas. No se puede permitir que se mienta de esta manera. Más respeto a las mujeres víctimas de violencia de género.

Pido el voto en contra de esta propuesta del Grupo popular, que lo único que intenta es hacer un debate partidista en lo que merece ser un debate en apoyo de todas las mujeres europeas.

  President. – Mr Séjourné, do you want to come in?

  Stéphane Séjourné (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, ce n’est pas un vote, je ne vais donc pas faire une explication de vote, mais peut-être plus un rappel à l’ordre et un rappel au règlement. On va fêter les 70 ans du Parlement européen. Ce Parlement européen est un parlement transnational. On a des questions énergétiques à traiter, on a des questions de pouvoir d’achat.

Je sais qu’on va aller vers les élections européennes de 2024 et que, de plus en plus, les groupes politiques seront tentés d’intégrer dans ce Parlement européen les polémiques nationales. Mais, chers collègues, au vu des enjeux qui sont les nôtres dans les prochains mois et dans les prochaines années qui arrivent, évitons ces modifications d’ordre du jour. Et en cela, Madame la Présidente, c’est plus un rappel au règlement qu’autre chose. Mon groupe votera systématiquement contre − sans entrer dans la polémique et sans entrer même dans le bien-fondé des polémiques des parlements nationaux −, contre les demandes de modification de l’ordre du jour sur des questions uniquement nationales. C’en est une, et ce sera le cas également avec la demande d’ID sur une question électorale en Allemagne, qui n’a rien à faire dans le débat démocratique et politique du Parlement européen.

  President. – I put the request to a vote by roll call.

(Parliament rejected the request)

The agenda therefore remains unchanged.

For Wednesday as well, the ID Group has asked that the Commission statement on ‘Judicial annulment of the 2021 Berlin state election due to numerous irregularities’ be added as a third item in the afternoon. As a consequence, the sitting would be extended until 22.00. I give the floor to Christine Anderson to move the request on behalf of the ID Group.

  Christine Anderson, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Bei der Wahl zum Berliner Abgeordnetenhaus gab es gravierende strukturelle Fehler, der Vorwurf des Wahlbetrugs steht im Raum: Stimmzettel fehlten, wurden vertauscht, Wahllokale hatten zeitweilig geschlossen, andere wiederum waren lange nach dem offiziellen Wahlende noch geöffnet. Der Landeswahlleiter ist inzwischen zurückgetreten. Der Berliner Verfassungsgerichtshof hat die Wahlen inzwischen für ungültig erklärt.

Faire und freie Wahlen sind das Fundament einer jeden Demokratie, und es wird darüber zu sprechen sein, wie es überhaupt zu derartigen Zuständen kommen konnte – im besten Deutschland aller Zeiten.

Zeigen wir, dass sich dieses Haus grundsätzlich mit Verstößen gegen Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit befasst, und zwar unabhängig davon, ob sie sich nun in Deutschland oder in Ungarn ereignen.

  President. – Would anybody like to speak against?

I see that not to be the case, and therefore we open the vote by roll call.

(Parliament rejected the request)

The agenda therefore remains unchanged.

The agenda is adopted, and the order of business is thus established.

(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)

IN THE CHAIR: DITA CHARANZOVÁ
Vice-President

13. Hinnang sellele, kuidas Ungari täidab õigusriigi tingimuslikkuse määruse kohaseid õigusriigi tingimusi ning Ungari taaste- ja vastupidavuskava hetkeseis (arutelu)

  President. – The next item is the Commission statement on the assessment of Hungary’s compliance with the rule of law conditions under the Conditionality Regulation and state of play of the Hungarian RRP (2022/2935(RSP)).

  Didier Reynders, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for your organisation of this debate, and I just ask for your attention.

If I have well followed the previous discussions is an important debate about the rule of law that we will have. So the European Commission is highly appreciative of the commitment of this Parliament in promoting and defending the rule of law in all the Member States. In this perspective, it is important for us to have a constructive dialogue on the enforcement of the Conditionality Regulation and on the opportunity that the recovery and resilience plans offer to drive change in the Member States – in this case Hungary – to improve and strengthen the rule of law situation.

Today, within the European Union, we have a whole range of instruments that the Commission is ready and has proven to be able to use effectively to protect the EU budget from breaches to the principles of the rule of law.

Different instruments apply different methodologies and are subject to different rules. The Conditionality Regulation aims at protecting the EU budget and the financial interests of the Union against breaches of the principles of the rule of law, compromising the correct use and management of EU funds. This concerns breaches of the principles of the rule of law that have a sufficiently direct link with the implementation of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union. This requirement is clear from Conditionality Regulation and it has also been stressed by the Court of Justice.

The case in relation to Hungary is the first case under the Conditionality Regulation. It was launched in April this year, when the Commission notified Hungary of its concerns relating to breaches of the principles of the rule of law. Serious deficiencies and irregularities in the public procurement framework, and Hungary’s inability to tackle corruption directly affects or risks affecting the sound financial management of the Union.

In its finding, the Commission considered that in Hungary there are systemic irregularities, deficiencies and weaknesses in public procurement, insufficiencies in detecting, preventing and correcting conflicts of interest, concerns related to the use of Union funds by public interest trusts, weaknesses in the effective pursuit of investigations and prosecutions in cases involving Union funds, and shortcomings in the anti-corruption framework. These issues and their recurrence over time demonstrate a systemic inability and failure on the part of the Hungarian authorities to prevent decisions from being in breach of applicable law.

To address all these concerns in a sustainable manner. Hungary committed to 17 remedial measures that would address the risk to the EU budget related precisely to those breaches. These remedial measures were carefully assessed by the Commission. In fact, on 18 September, when adopting the proposal for the Council implementing decision, the College considered that if these remedial measures are correctly specified in enacting laws and implementing rules, and that the implementing steps are fully and effectively implemented, then taken together, in principle, they could be capable of addressing the issues at stake. However, pending the assessment of the details and implementation of the key implementation steps, the College considered that a risk remains for the EU budget. It was in view of this that the Commission proposed budgetary protection measures to the Council.

Since then there have been intense discussions with the Hungarian authorities at technical and political level to monitor the steps taken by Hungary in the implementation of its commitments. As set out in the Commission’s proposal to the Council, Hungary committed to fully inform the Commission about the fulfilment of the key implementation steps by 19 November. On that date, the Commission received details of the measures taken by Hungary so far. The Commission is now carefully analysing all the information received, including the available versions of the legal text, to verify the full and correct implementation of the commitments by Hungary. The Commission will finalise its assessment on the basis of the information that it has received by that deadline.

The intention of the Commission is to come with its assessment without delay and to inform the Parliament and the Council. Ultimately, the final decision on whether to adopt budgetary protection measures or not lies with the Council. The assessment of the Commission will feed into the process of the Council and is meant to support the Council in its decision.

On 13 October, the Council decided to extend the power to decide on the measures proposed by the Commission by two months, namely until 19 December. This will allow for consideration of the fulfilment of the commitments by Hungary. The Council could then adopt, amend or reject the Commission’s proposal by qualified majority.

Rest assured that, as has been the case since the adoption of the regulation and the start of this process, the Commission will continue to provide Parliament with information on the relevant developments and remains available to update you as needed. Our ultimate objective under this mechanism is that the Union budget is no longer at risk and we hope to achieve this as soon as possible through the adequate reforms in Hungary.

Concerning the Hungarian recovery and resilience plan, the Commission had many discussions with Hungary on their proposed plan. We have made progress on a number of issues over the past months. As for all the Member States, the Commission assesses the plan against the 11 criteria set out in the RRF Regulation. The same criteria apply to all the Member States. The criteria require notably an assessment of whether the measures address the challenges identified in the country-specific recommendations of the European Semester or a significant subset of those recommendations and whether the plans provide an adequate control and audit mechanism.

For Hungary, the country-specific recommendations refer to the need to address challenges concerning the rule of law situation, in particular as regards anti-corruption measures and the independence of the judiciary. The Commission has therefore been discussing the setting of milestones and targets in the Hungarian plan that would cover these country-specific recommendations. We are now aiming to conclude our assessment on the recovery and resilience plan as soon as possible. The idea is that the milestones of the recovery and resilience plan also fully reflect the remedial measures proposed by Hungary under the conditionality procedure. Furthermore, the disbursement of funds to Hungary should be linked to the fulfilment of milestones covering those remedial measures, as well as those linked to strengthening the independence of the judiciary. And about the independence of the judiciary, I have asked the Minister of Justice of Hungary, Judit Varga, to implement completely the country-specific recommendations coming from the European Semester and the recommendation that we have put in the last rule of law report, published in July 2022.

We apply the tools at our disposal in good faith and with the firm intention to raise the rule of law standards and improve the situation on the ground. We will continue monitoring the legal and practical implementation of Hungary’s commitments and will not let go until we are satisfied that the EU budget can be protected. So we are working on our own assessment. I thank you for this opportunity to explain what we are doing for the moment in those procedures. And, of course, thank you for your attention. I am looking forward to our debate.

  Petri Sarvamaa, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, honourable Commissioner, dear colleagues, almost four and a half years ago, we began the work here in Parliament on the Commission proposal on the Conditionality Regulation. And now – I mean, really, this time – we can talk about historical days and weeks because now we are finally here. The timeline set by the regulation is running to its end and, as the Commissioner just explained, we are waiting for the final assessment from the Commission – as far as the chosen criteria that, by the way, was mainly and also only about corruption, about public procurement, about conflict of interest – as to whether those criteria have now been met by Hungary, whether the 17 remedial measures have been implemented by the deadline of 19 November.

But the unified message from this Parliament to the Commission is actually the following. The real question, regardless of the exact text on the 17 measures, that everybody is waiting to get an answer to is: has Hungary done enough so that there is no risk anymore or risk of affecting or seriously affecting the sound financial management of the EU budget? This is the real question. This is the assessment that everyone is now waiting for from the Commission. This is because the conditionality mechanism is now at stake. This is a test of this mechanism. And, Honourable Vice—President, this is not against the Hungarian people. This is to defend basic values of the European Union. So, this is what we are doing here.

  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, señor comisario Reynders, podemos partir de diferentes puntos de vista, podemos tener diferentes apreciaciones o matices, podemos tener incluso diferentes estrategias, pero no hay nada que pueda justificar una conclusión diferente. Escuchando muy atentamente cuál ha sido la valoración de la Comisión, entiendo que hemos llegado a la misma conclusión: el Gobierno húngaro no respeta el Estado de Derecho y eso está afectando gravemente a los intereses financieros de la Unión, objeto del Reglamento que hemos votado en esta Cámara. Por lo tanto, no hay mucho margen de maniobra, no hay mucho margen para el matiz. Solo podemos tomar una única decisión correcta: aprobar la congelación de los fondos.

Y ¿por qué digo esto? Podemos empezar directamente por el final. De las diecisiete medidas acordadas con el Gobierno húngaro, tan solo se han puesto en marcha tres, y la mitad de ellas, además, no pueden evaluarse, dado que se van a poner en marcha dentro de un tiempo y, por lo tanto, ahora no tenemos información suficiente. Así pues, no se está cumpliendo y, por lo tanto, el presupuesto sigue corriendo peligro. Esto es lo que tiene que evaluar la Comisión Europea.

Pero es que, además, si analizamos las diecisiete medidas, podemos concluir que son claramente insuficientes y muchas de ellas, inadecuadas. Si a esto le añadimos que solo estamos hablando de contratación pública, es decir, de una pequeña área donde hay problemas, evidentemente, obtenemos una fotografía de la situación nada positiva.

En conclusión: tres medidas cumplidas no pueden justificar la liberación de los fondos. Porque ¿qué mensaje estaríamos enviando si cedemos al chantaje de Orban?: ¿que no nos importa lo que está pasando en un Estado miembro?; ¿que doce años de despropósitos se pueden arreglar en dos meses?; o ¿es que estamos de Black Friday y, además de regalarle los 7 500 millones de euros de los fondos de cohesión, les vamos a aprobar también el plan de recuperación? Esto no sería ni comprensible ni aceptable ni justificable. Tenemos que ser consecuentes con lo que llevamos tanto tiempo defendiendo.

  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear absent Council, the Commission is assessing Hungary’s compliance with the 17 very weak conditions for the release of funds. A child can see that they have not remotely been met. So the conclusion can be fairly simple: no compliance, no money.

Now, this is the view of the vast majority of this House. But Orbán wields massive power because the European Council – absent – has failed disgracefully for many years to suspend his voting rights under Article 7. And Viktor has been using his veto power as a tool to blackmail and extort the European Union at every turn in the road.

After 12 years of Orbán, government leaders still naively or opportunistically believe they can buy him off. They should know better. He will not back down but, on the contrary, step up his game, encouraged by his success. The rule of law conditionality mechanism was explicitly designed to overcome this stalemate. But again, we see horse trading with our values instead of the Commission and the Council standing up to defend our common European values.

It’s time for the Commission and the European Council to show some backbone. Giving in to blackmail by a kleptocrat will be a historic failure. Commissioner, don’t miss your appointment with history; the European Council has already missed it.

  Daniel Freund, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, sehr geehrter Herr Reynders! Die Stunde der Wahrheit ist gekommen. Akzeptieren wir den ersten EU-Autokraten, Viktor Orbán, und seine unfassbare Korruption, oder frieren wir ihm die EU-Gelder ein? Das Ganze entscheidet sich jetzt anhand von 17 Maßnahmen.

17 Maßnahmen, von denen Sie, Herr Reynders, eigentlich wissen sollten, dass sie den Rechtsstaat in Ungarn nicht richten, dass sie die Korruption nicht stoppen. Und warum? Weil Viktor Orbán diese Korruption im Grunde in die ungarische Verfassung geschrieben hat. Seit sieben Jahren regiert er nur noch per Dekret. Er hat 1083 Projekten nationale Bedeutung gegeben; das heißt, es gelten überhaupt keine Regeln mehr. Zum Beispiel das Lipizzaner-Reitsportzentrum in Szilvásvárad, gebaut von seinem Oligarchenfreund Mészáros. Dieser Mészáros hat allein in der letzten Woche Ausschreibungen über 120 Millionen Euro gewonnen. Wo ist denn da der Reformwille?

Herr Reynders, Sie glauben doch nicht, dass man diese Korruption jetzt mit Weiterbildungsmaßnahmen für Beamte stoppen kann, mit einem Aktionsplan, mit der Förderung von kleinen Unternehmen? Die meisten Maßnahmen sind nicht umgesetzt, und sieben haben allein Deadlines, die teilweise bis Mitte 2026 gehen.

Und trotzdem müssen Sie jetzt sagen, wo Sie stehen. Es muss endlich Geld eingefroren werden. Es ist die einzige Sprache, die Viktor Orbán versteht. Wir können zu jedem Zeitpunkt wieder Geld freigeben, wenn wir wirklich Veränderungen sehen. Aber es kann nicht sein, dass man jetzt nichts tut, weil Orbán uns das Blaue vom Himmel verspricht. Ich will, dass er endlich liefert. Also legen Sie ein ehrliches Assessment vor und einen daran angepassten neuen Vorschlag für Sanktionen! Das ist der einzige Weg, wie wir jetzt endlich das bekommen können, was wir alle unbedingt wollen: keine Steuergelder für Autokraten in der EU.

  Gilles Lebreton, au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, au nom du respect de l’état de droit, l’Union européenne a désormais le pouvoir exorbitant d’exercer une tutelle idéologique sur ses États membres. Quand le règlement sur la conditionnalité, qui lui donne ce pouvoir, a été voté en décembre 2020, j’avais protesté contre cette dérive autoritaire. Les faits me donnent aujourd’hui raison.

L’Union menace la Hongrie de la priver des sept milliards et demi d’euros de subventions auxquelles elle a droit, ainsi que de près de six milliards d’euros d’aides au titre du plan de relance post-COVID. Le motif de cet acharnement est le prétendu manque d’indépendance de la justice hongroise. La Hongrie vient pourtant d’annoncer une réforme de sa justice destinée à rassurer l’Union. Malgré tout, le chantage européen persiste.

Dans ces conditions, j’estime normal que la Hongrie menace de bloquer certaines décisions européennes par mesure de rétorsion. Comme chaque État, la Hongrie a le droit de défendre ses intérêts vitaux. Je soutiens donc sans aucune ambiguïté Viktor Orbán dans son bras de fer contre l’Union.

  Patryk Jaki, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Węgry jak zwykle są przedmiotem Państwa ataków. Ale trzeba się zastanowić, dlaczego. Czy demokracja na Węgrzech wygląda gorzej niż ta w Niemczech, gdzie właśnie trzeba było powtórzyć wybory ze względu na tak liczne oszustwa? Czy coś takiego na Węgrzech się wydarzyło? Czy jest gorzej niż w Słowenii czy w Słowacji, czy Malcie, gdzie zamordowano dziennikarzy? I po tylu latach nie ma do dzisiaj przekonujących wyjaśnień w tej sprawie? Czy uniwersytety i media są bardziej podporządkowane niż te lewicowe u was, gdzie, jeżeli myśli się inaczej, to człowiek jest od razu „kancelowany”?

Powiedzmy sobie wreszcie szczerze, że prawdziwym problemem w przypadku Węgier jest, proszę Państwa, to, że bronią religii, tradycyjnych wartości, na których została zbudowana cywilizacja zachodnia. Bronią dzieci przed demoralizacją, a narodów przed państwem europejskim, w którym demokracja będzie wyglądać właśnie tak, jak widzimy to w tej Izbie. To znaczy Węgrzy nie będą mogli sobie wybierać władzy, nie będą mieli nic do powiedzenia. Tylko administracja europejska tutaj z góry będzie mówiła, w których państwach kto może rządzić, bez żadnych wyborów i bez woli narodów.

To jest wasza demokracja, to jest ta nowa demokracja, proszę Państwa, i dlatego temu trzeba się twardo przeciwstawiać. Właśnie w imię demokracji i praworządności.

  Younous Omarjee, au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, l’heure n’est pas de transiger sur les principes, ni de céder au chantage odieux de M. Orbán, qui utilise la guerre en Ukraine pour nous faire plier.

Rappelons-le, en Hongrie, les voyants sont toujours au rouge, car depuis des années, tous les principes sont un à un foulés aux pieds: liberté de la presse, indépendance de la justice, mise à mal du principe d’élections équitables, violation continue des droits des personnes LGBT, mise en place d’un système clientéliste permettant aux proches du pouvoir d’empocher les marchés publics et les fonds européens, de la PAC au FEDER.

Les mesures récemment proposées par le gouvernement hongrois doivent bien sûr être évaluées, mais nous ne sommes pas dupes. Ces mesures sont insuffisantes. Elles sont pleinement insuffisantes et c’est pourquoi les fonds doivent aujourd’hui être gelés. Ils doivent l’être non pour punir les Hongrois, mais pour faire avancer la Hongrie sur la voie du respect de l’état de droit et du partage du socle des valeurs qui fonde l’appartenance à l’Union européenne.

Renoncer aujourd’hui à défendre cela coûte que coûte, c’est laisser s’étendre le poison distillé par les gouvernements illibéraux et faire courir, en définitive, à toute l’Union de graves dangers pour l’avenir.

  Tamás Deutsch (NI). – Elnök Asszony! A mai immár a tizenegyedik magyar vita a ciklusban. Világjárvány, gazdasági válság, háború, energiaválság. De önök mégis képesek évente háromszor-négyszer Magyarország gyalázásával múlatni a csermelyléptű időt? Ez már beteges politikai elvakultság. A kondicionialitási eljárásban ráadásul nincs jogköre az Európai Parlamentnek arra, hogy a Bizottság mellett értékelje egy tagállam vállalásainak teljesítését. Önöknek nem osztottak lapot, amit csinálnak, az szabálytalan. Önök kétségbeesettek és vagdalkoznak, mert minden jel arra mutat, hogy a magyarok ellen folytatott politikai háborút a baloldal elveszti.

Lesz ugyanis megállapodás az Európai Bizottság és Magyarország között, ezért a hazugságaikat mantrázva most a Bizottságot támadják, hogy ne merjen megállapodni Magyarországgal. A baloldali jogállamisági boszorkányüldözés igazi bolsevik tempó, felsőbbrendűségi tudattól vezérelve kizárólagosságra törekednek, fenyegetnek és büntetni akarnak mindenkit, aki nem ért egyet Önökkel. Mindezzel éppen a baloldal az, aki a demokratikus és jogállami érdekeket, értékeket megsérti, az európai együttműködést aláássa.

  Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Madam President, I never quite understand the position of our Hungarian Fidesz colleagues, because for years they have been telling us that there is nothing wrong in Hungary on the rule of law, on democracy, on anti—corruption, that all is good and that everybody who criticises it is part of an ideological jihad against Hungary, etc. and we are all part of the extreme left here.

Now there is EUR 7.5 billion at stake, and all of a sudden there are so many things wrong in Hungary that they felt the need to do 17 very urgent reforms, and we are expected now to believe that these reforms will actually make a difference in practice.

The Hungarian Government so far has never shown any willingness to make meaningful reforms. But we are expected to believe now that a quick push of some legislation is making a lasting difference on the ground. This for us, as the EPP, is the key bottom line: only significant, tangible and lasting reform can enable the release of EU taxpayers’ money. Nothing less will do.

But this is not only about the Hungarian Government and its reforms, it’s about Europe. It’s about the kind of European Union we want to be, and there is a clear choice. We can be a European Union of shared fundamental values like democracy and the rule of law, a Union that is willing to fight for those values, also when it’s difficult, or particularly when it’s difficult. Or the other choice, we can be a Union that falls at the first bit of pressure and bows to blackmail.

These are our options, and only one of them will have a viable future for the European Union. So, Commissioner, please take that into consideration when you assess these Hungarian reforms. This is about the future of our Union, so please act wisely.

  Lara Wolters (S&D). – Madam President, I see that we have visitors here, and I think it’s Parliament’s sad honour to welcome you to this end of the year budget showdown. It’s brought to you against the backdrop of widespread reports that the Commission will soon be approving Hungary’s recovery plan.

So, for our visitors, on the one hand, you’ve got the European Parliament, on the other you have Hungary. And, frustratingly for us, the outcome of whether Hungary is to receive billions in European funds will be determined by EU Member States and the European Commission and not by us. Which is why, once again, we urge them to take a long—term view here that is respectful of those Hungarians who are hoping for a return to democracy and respectful to the foundations of our Union.

Now, the British have this great phrase and it’s ‘putting lipstick on a pig’ and, in this case, the pig is a captured, illiberal state that is deeply dependent on and intertwined with corruption and the lipstick is the proposed Hungarian Integrity Authority. Now, let us be clear that no hastily put together anti—corruption body can be effective without an independent judiciary, and especially not if credible civil society organisations are being sidelined.

Being blackmailed into submission by Hungary would not be embarrassing only but it would be short—termist. And I urge the European Member States and the Commission to take this very seriously because whether or not we unlock billions in taxpayer money for Hungary, that’s not so much a test case for Hungary, that’s a test case for the European Union itself and how seriously we take the rule of law.

  Katalin Cseh (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, whenever I talk to constituents on the ground, one question tends to come up over and over again, which is: does the European Commission really believe that a new authority and a couple of new laws would change anything in Hungary? Because Hungarian people on the ground know from years of experience that systemic deficiencies with the rule of law have never been about a lack of a new authority, because this is a government that hollows out the institutions and acts in bad faith. They are never going to feel bound by a set of adjustments created by themselves as opposed to a credible, already existing authority like the EU Prosecutor’s Office.

And please answer me this: why is the Orbán government so insistent on creating new authorities instead of joining the EPPO? We have said it so many times, this is a real chance. This can be a historic chance, a historic moment to slow down or even reverse Hungary’s rapid slide into authoritarianism. This Parliament worked long and hard to achieve more efficient rules. And we have reiterated our call. Let’s help the people, not the government. Direct EU funds to local governments, to civil society, to schools and hospitals, to those who need it the most. Commissioner, it’s time to make this happen. Not only the EU’s financial interests are at stake, but also the rights of Hungarian citizens.

  Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, there cannot be – in no place in the world because it’s just not possible – a true, efficient, anti—corruption system where there is not independence of the judiciary. And it feels bizarre to have to say it out loud, but because we have to state the obvious, let’s imagine.

Let’s imagine a Member State where the son—in—law of the leader of the country has just been awarded a tender in the context of public procurement concerning European funds. All very fictional, of course. And all of this was done in mysterious ways. There are a number of important problematic failures in the procedures, and there’s this new tool that has been created and implemented in this country. We could name it the ‘Integrity Authority’. And it’s just been created and it’s a really independent monitoring body. It has serious expertise and good staff, and it will bring the case to court. Plenty of fact, plenty of evidence.

And then the president of the highest level of justice in this country, let’s call it the Supreme Court, decides to allocate himself the case to a judge because, you know, he is a friend of the leader of the country, he has been nominated at this job by friends of the leaders and he has the power to overrule on political cases. Still, very theoretical. And so he gives the case to a specific judge, another friend of all of these people, all friends, all sharing the same interests, the same money. And then, of course, the case drags on and drags on and justice is never made. End of story.

How we can be studying, on one side, the- 17 measures to fight anti—corruption in Hungary and, on the other side, not requesting a true plan of reforms for judiciary bewilders me.

  Nicolaus Fest (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Um diese Diskussion einschätzen zu können, muss man sich mal die Kritiker angucken. Das gilt vor allem für Herrn Körner, der ein Angehöriger der FDP ist, und die FDP gilt in Deutschland nun geradezu als ein Synonym für Käuflichkeit: Das geht bei den Mehrwertsteuersenkungen für Hoteliers los und endet bei den E-Fuels für Porsche noch lange nicht.

Herr Freund von den Grünen wiederum sagt mit viel Pathos: Keine Steuergelder für Autokraten in der EU. Aber für linke NGOs sind alle Steuergelder natürlich immer in ausreichender Menge vorhanden – selbst wenn Interpol inzwischen davor warnt, dass viele dieser NGOs nichts anderes sind als Geldwäscheunternehmen.

Ich glaube auch, dass es in Ungarn sehr viel zu verbessern gibt und dass wir nicht allzu große Beträge immer an korrupte Länder geben sollten. Aber man muss eben sehen, dass das Hauptproblem darin liegt, dass die EU einfach mit dem Geld wirklich nur so um sich wirft und ja auch immer mehr Gelder aufnimmt. Ich glaube, da müsste man ansetzen: Man müsste die Budgets der EU deutlich zurückschneiden, dann wird auch die Korruption deutlich zurückgehen.

  Mislav Kolakušić (NI). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, poštovani kolege, dragi građani, zadovoljan sam zbog činjenice da se Komisija Europske unije i Mađarska približavaju stajalištima.

Međutim, jedna me stvar još više veseli, a to je da je Mađarska iznimno suverena država i da ona u svojim odlukama u Vijeću čuva ne samo svoju suverenost, nego suverenost i drugih članica Europske unije. Čuva također i proračun Europske unije. Posljednjim odlukama i samostalnim glasanjem u Europskom vijeću sačuvano je i 20 milijardi eura građana Europske unije i na tome sam im zahvalan.

Lijepo je vidjeti da se država može sama braniti i zbog toga je nužno da zauvijek ostane da se sve bitne odluke u Europskom vijeću moraju donositi jednoglasno. U suprotnom ulazimo u Sovjetski Savez koji se je raspao, a raspast će se i Europska unija ako ukinemo pravo svake države na glasanje o bitnim stvarima.

  Siegfried Mureşan (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, this year, the European Union is spending more money than ever from the budget of the European Union and from NextGenerationEU, the Recovery and Resilience Facility. We have a duty to make sure that this money is well spent. We have to make sure that this money is protected.

We see that these budgets are already creating positive results in many countries. In most of the countries of the European Union, these two categories of budgets are flowing. We are seeing hospitals being modernised, schools being digitalised, we are seeing infrastructure being made more competitive, more modern, greener, we are seeing it renewed. But the principle is clear. Money can only flow if rules are respected and the rule of law is fundamental. It is the most important of them all.

So far, everyone has agreed. On Hungary, there were deficiencies with regards to the management of EU funds, with regards to the rule of law, and these deficiencies have to be corrected. Now it is up to the Hungarian Government to implement the measures which it has agreed with the European Commission, and then it is up to the European Commission to assess.

Our expectation is clear: the Commission should only give a positive assessment once the measures are implemented by the Hungarian Government and money should only flow when money is safe. Money should only flow when it is protected. Our position, as the European Parliament, should be we want to help the people of Hungary as we are helping people in other EU Member States. We hope that the Hungarian Government is not an obstacle in the desire of Europe to help the people of Hungary.

  Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner and, indeed, absent Council – regrettably absent Council.

EUR 18 billion of emergency aid to Ukraine, meant to keep hospitals running, to rebuild destroyed railways, and to build new houses for Ukrainians; Prime Minister Orbán has the heart to block this crucial money in order to blackmail us – the EU, everyone – over the funds he himself denies to the citizens of Hungary. And we are supposed to believe that this same person has the genuine intention of improving the rule of law in his own country. I’m sorry, but I can’t.

The creation of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation was historic. Finally, we could connect EU money to the core democratic values of our Union. By risking to release funds to Hungary, against better judgment, the Commission dismantles the mechanism at its first use. The Commission should not give an inch. And this is not a cue for the Council to finally make progress with Article 7 procedure. And I hold all 26 governments accountable because Orbán can only blackmail us if we let him. Naivety with autocrats needs to belong to the past.

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

  Enikő Győri (NI), kékkártyás felszólalás. – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Tisztelt Képviselő Úr! Az Ön frakcióvezetője a napirend elfogadásakor azt mondta, hogy a nemzeti törvényekről a nemzeti parlamentekben kell dönteni és vitázni. Tudja, annak a spanyol törvénynek az összefüggésében hangzott ez el, amelynek értelmében a nők elleni erőszakot elkövetők és pedofilok hamarabb az utcára tudnak kerülni, tehát kevesebb büntetést kell letölteniük. Kérdezem, elfogadja-e, hogy azért ez Magyarországra is igaz, hogy a magyar nemzeti hatáskörbe tartozó ügyekben otthon döntünk? Miért vonja kétségbe, kérdezem, hogy a Bizottság a szerződések és a jogszabályok, így a kondicionalitás jogszabály szerint jár el, és tárgyal a magyar kormánnyal?

Mi lenne Önnek elég, ha nem elég jó az a 17 intézkedés, amelyről közel vannak a felek a megállapodáshoz? Nem arról van-e szó, hogy addig nem nyugszanak, amíg konzervatív kormány van Magyarországon? Nem akarják-e Önök gyámság alá helyezni Magyarországot?

  Thijs Reuten (S&D), blue-card reply. – Yes, beginners mistake to accept a blue-card. Sorry for that but my answer is very simple and very short because we are not talking about all these issues that you mentioned. We are talking about the core fundamentals of the Union, which is enshrined in treaties, and these treaties have been signed by the democratic Hungarian people a long time ago, and these treaties need to be respected. And that’s our job; that’s what we do here.

  Moritz Körner (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Vor einigen Monaten kam die Nachricht, die Europäische Kommission schlage vor, 7,5 Milliarden Euro an Ungarn tatsächlich zurückzuhalten. Und ich habe bei meinen Gesprächen mit Bürgerinnen und Bürgern gehört: Endlich, endlich findet etwas statt. Endlich passiert etwas. Endlich wird gegen den Abbau der Rechtsstaatlichkeit in Europa vorgegangen.

Aber was ist dann passiert? Wir haben gesehen, dass schon die Art und Weise, wie der Mechanismus angewendet wurde, viel zu klein war: Die Verordnung würde viel mehr zulassen – nicht nur Kohäsionsmittel, sondern auch noch andere Mittel betreffend. Um Rechtsstaatlichkeit hat es sich bei diesen Maßnahmen, die die Kommission mit Ungarn verhandelt hat, überhaupt nicht gehandelt. Um Rechtsstaatlichkeit, um die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz ging es gar nicht, sondern nur um Korruptionsbekämpfung. Und selbst dieser kleine Teil wird – wenn man sich die 17 Maßnahmen anschaut – nicht konsequent zu Ende geführt. Schon jetzt ist klar: Die 17 Maßnahmen, die bis zum Wochenende umgesetzt sein sollten, sind größtenteils nicht umgesetzt.

Was passiert jetzt? Wird die Europäische Kommission jetzt trotzdem möglicherweise die 7,5 Milliarden Euro nicht mehr zurückhalten? Ich sage ganz klar: Wenn die Europäische Kommission jetzt die EU-Mittel freigibt, dann macht sich Ursula von der Leyen ganz persönlich mitverantwortlich dafür, Ungarn unwiederbringlich in einen Korruptionssumpf zu verwandeln. Und dann muss man auch so ehrlich sein als Europäische Kommission: Dann wird man diesen Rechtsstaatsmechanismus auch nicht mehr anwenden, dann ist er tot.

Diese Ehrlichkeit, die muss dann auch klar sein; deswegen ist unser Appell hier noch einmal deutlich: Die Gelder dürfen nicht freigegeben werden, Rechtsstaatlichkeit in Europa muss endlich verteidigt werden.

  Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, after three years in politics, I think I have identified the real big threat for humanity: it’s unhinged, uncontrolled men. Uncontrolled individual men who somehow lost it because of their ego, their delusional narratives, their hunger for power, their narcissistic need to feel important. They are the real problem. We have seen it with Donald Trump in the US. We have seen it in China quite recently. We have seen it in Qatar with the Ayatollahs in Iran and with Putin in Ukraine. Uncontrolled men can be deadly.

And sadly, Viktor Orbán, in his own way, is heading in a similar direction. He is unchecked by the media. He is unchecked by the justice system, which he controls. He is unchecked by his party, who would never vote him out of power. He is unchecked by the opposition, who he threatens. And he’s unchecked by the Hungarian people who he lies to, blatantly.

However, Orbán does know that you, Commissioner, could actually rein him in by cutting the funds that oil his corrupt machine. And that’s why he’s blackmailing today. But this time he has gone too far. His blackmail is too outrageous and too dangerous. Today he’s vetoing the NATO membership of two EU countries, effectively putting the citizens at risk. He’s vetoing sanctions against Russian oligarchs. He’s vetoing the 18 billion for Ukraine that they need so urgently. And he’s vetoing the global minimum tax on Apple and co., depriving us of better schools and of higher pensions.

So, Commissioner, as we can see with Trump, the only language that these people understand is the language of hard power. Therefore, I ask you again, stand firm. Once Orbán reinstates the justice system, allows for fair elections, stops stealing EU cash, invites the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and stops this blackmail, we can talk about unblocking funds. Until then, stand firm.

  France Jamet (ID). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, mes chers collègues, nous débattons aujourd’hui de l’état d’avancement des négociations entre la Commission et le gouvernement hongrois pour savoir s’il remplit les conditions pour bénéficier du plan de relance dont tous les autres États ont déjà bénéficié, c’est-à-dire savoir si, selon Bruxelles, il y a bien un état de droit en Hongrie, ce que la Commission et certains semblent lui dénier. Non, non. S’agit-il vraiment de parler de corruption ou de la défense des deniers publics? Il s’agit de sanctionner, en fait, un pays qui ne fait pas ce que la Commission lui demande de faire quand elle le lui demande.

Parce que la Hongrie défend prioritairement la volonté de son peuple, qui s’est clairement exprimé dans les urnes, parce que la Hongrie défend sa souveraineté nationale et parce que la souveraineté nationale est un principe fondamental au cœur de nos identités et de nos démocraties, contester ce droit serait un acte violent et antidémocratique.

  Balázs Hidvéghi (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Akik ezt a mai vitát kezdeményezték, a jogállamiság őrének szerepében tetszelegnek itt, de valójában mára a szabadság legfőbb ellenségeivé váltak. Megtestesítenek mindent, ami elromlott az EU-ban: intoleránsak, agresszívek, kioktatók és lekezelők. Semmibe veszik az emberek döntéseit és akaratát, és nem tudják megbocsájtani, hogy a magyarok, és egyre többen mások is Európában, nem kérnek a maguk politikájából, nem kérnek az életidegen, veszélyes javaslataikból. Azt követelték, hogy Magyarország tárgyaljon. Most pedig, hogy tárgyaltunk, és megállapodtunk, most még frusztráltabbak lettek, mert maguk sohasem a jogállamiságért aggódtak valójában.

Minden vád, amivel Magyarországot évek óta támadják, csak ócska hazugság volt. Egy cinikus eszköz a Daniel Freund-, Katarina Barley- és Petri Sarvamaa-féle rögeszmés politikai bohócok kezében. Maguk azt akarják, hogy a magyar emberek egy fillér uniós támogatás se kapjanak. Elutasítjuk ezt a szégyenletes zsarolást, lábbal tiporják az európai együttműködés alapjait!

  György Hölvényi (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Végre sikerül lezárni egy nehéz, hosszú tárgyalássorozatot. A magyar kormány és az Európai Bizottság egy konstruktív párbeszéd végéhez közeledik. Most, a megegyezés küszöbén az Európai Parlament baloldala mégis egy újabb rohamot indít. Az Európai Bizottság elvárása a kezdetektől és következetesen az uniós források felhasználásának javítása volt. A magyar kormány az elvárt elvárásoknak megfelelően 17 átfogó vállalást tett, ezeknek megteremtette a jogi környezetét. A reformok elkezdődtek, az intézményi változtatások megtörténtek. Az eddigi eredményeket szeretnék most Önök semmissé tenni.

Nem kevesebb a tét, mint hogy tízmillió európai, európai magyar állampolgár hozzájusson a neki járó milliárdokhoz.

Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim! Önök most itt döntési helyzetben vannak: támogatják az elért eredményeket, vagy a vélt egyéni, és láttuk, egyéni és pártpolitikai érdekeiket helyezik szembe a magyar polgárok érdekeivel? Ez most nem a maszatolás ideje. Igen vagy nem? A baloldali tagadás csakis a szélsőségeseket segíti a párbeszéd elutasításával Európában. Hiába mondják, hogy egy kormányt támadnak, döntéseikkel egy országot, annak közel tízmillió lakosát hozzák lehetetlen helyzetbe. Mégis, miért és hogyan bízzanak az egyébként Európa-párti magyarok és ezek után az európai állampolgárok milliói az Európai Parlamentben? Önök közül sokan különböző párteseményeken még ma is éneklik, hogy ez a harc lesz a végső. Na, ezt én is szeretném most remélni.

  Csaba Molnár (S&D). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Ma Magyarországon sajnos nem az a kérdés, hogy jöjjenek-e az uniós pénzek a magyaroknak. Sajnos most az a kérdés, hogy jöjjenek-e az uniós források néhány kiválasztott magyarnak. Mert Orbán Viktor az uniós forrásokat nem a magyar embereknek, az önkormányzatoknak és a kisvállalkozásoknak szánja, hanem a saját üzlettársainak, oligarcháinak, családtagjainak. És ez nem jóslat. Ezt bizonyítja az elmúlt 12 év története, amelyben a magyar miniszterelnök gyermekkori barátja egyszerű falusi gázszerelőből az ország leggazdagabb emberévé vált.

Orbán 12 évnyi lopás után most azt bizonygatja Európának, hogy ő majd egy független hatóságot állít fel a korrupció kiszűrésére, hogy majd lehet pereket indítani a rendszerszintű lopások miatt, hogy majd más lesz a közbeszerzések rendszere. Mintha egy csapat hiéna azt próbálná bebizonyítani, hogy ugyan már felfalták a fél szavannát, de a jövőben majd vegetáriánusok lesznek. Ez szemfényvesztés, ez porhintés. Ez csak az Európai Bizottság átverését szolgálja. Az orbáni korrupció nem megfékezhető Orbán által felállított intézményekkel. 17 álintézkedés helyett egyetlenegy valódi intézkedés kéne, az Európai Ügyészséghez való csatlakozás. Csak az Európai Ügyészség képes eredményt elérni, mert az valóban független ettől a rendszertől.

Csak ez garantálhatná azt, hogy az európai adófizetők pénze oda kerüljön, ahova való, a magyar emberekhez, a magyar kisvállalkozásokhoz és a magyar önkormányzatokhoz. Mi a magyar emberek pártján állunk, őket védjük, és őket képviseljük akkor, amikor ragaszkodunk az Európai Ügyészséghez való csatlakozáshoz.

  Valérie Hayer (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, un bruit court selon lequel la Commission s’apprêterait à céder au chantage de Viktor Orbán en lui offrant douze milliards d’euros pour racheter son veto. Orbán qui méprise tout ce que l’Union défend et représente, sauf son argent.

Monsieur le Commissaire, cette rumeur ne rassure personne dans cet hémicycle et encore moins les contribuables. Alors, pouvez-vous nous confirmer que les dix-sept réformes engagées sont déjà effectives, qu’elles ont réglé tous les problèmes de corruption en Hongrie et qu’elles sont bien irréversibles? Pourrez-vous nous garantir que l’indépendance des juges et des médias sera de nouveau assurée après dix ans de démantèlement des principes démocratiques? Car, en l’état, personne ici n’y croit.

Monsieur le Commissaire, la responsabilité de la Commission est grande, vous le savez. Nous attendons de la Commission qu’elle protège l’état de droit, qu’elle ne plie pas face aux apprentis dictateurs, qui usent et qui abusent de l’argent des Européens. Nous attendons de la Commission et de sa présidente qu’elles ne leur cèdent rien.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Madam President, the rule of law is a key value of our community. It is supposed to guarantee equal treatment to every EU citizen in every EU country. Without a functioning system of the rule of law, citizens, companies and the non—government sector find themselves uncertain about their rights. And that is exactly the current situation in Hungary. For a long time, Europeans have felt the absence of guarantees of the rule of law, state-controlled media, interference in the free status of universities, systemic corruption and clientelism, etc., etc.

Last week we witnessed the shameful diplomatic action of the Hungarian Government, which started negotiating with the Iranian regime; a regime that murders women, young people, supplies attack drones against Ukraine. In this situation, we offer to Mr Orbán very weak 16 measures, but still we don’t see any progress. The time is ending. We need to act now and we need to act according to the law of our community and protect EU values and taxpayers’ budget funds.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, comisario Reynders, este Parlamento Europeo hace nada menos que seis años adoptó la iniciativa de incoar el procedimiento de sanción contemplado en el artículo 7 por estimar que, ya entonces, el Gobierno que preside Viktor Orbán en Hungría indicaba riesgo claro de violación grave y sistémica de los valores fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Y desde entonces no ha hecho sino empeorar el deterioro de la libertad de expresión, del respeto del pluralismo informativo, del respeto de las minorías y del respeto del pluralismo político y, por supuesto, el asalto a la independencia del poder judicial y del ministerio fiscal.

Pero esta discusión no es sobre el Estado de Derecho, es sobre el Reglamento sobre condicionalidad que este Parlamento Europeo adoptó como ley vinculante para los Estados miembros y que, por tanto, condiciona el acceso a los fondos europeos al cumplimiento de las reglas del Estado de Derecho.

La finalidad no es sancionar a gobiernos ni tampoco, por supuesto, sancionar al pueblo húngaro. La finalidad es proteger los intereses financieros de la Unión. No es congelar los fondos, es asegurar transparencia en el manejo de los intereses financieros de la Unión. Y resulta que la Comisión impone diecisiete condiciones de las cuales el Gobierno Orbán, todavía, solo parece haber puesto en marcha el respeto de tres. Y esas medidas requerirán, en todo caso, tiempo para su implementación.

Por tanto, no puedo sino suscribir el dictamen del equipo negociador, que señala que no hay ninguna razón para que la Comisión Europea, efectivamente, permita el acceso a los fondos europeos y al Fondo de Recuperación, por un importe de nada menos que 7 500 000 000 de euros, al Gobierno de Hungría. Queda mucho trabajo por hacer. No ha hecho los deberes y, por tanto, solo cabe una conclusión: no procede el levantamiento de la condicionalidad del acceso de los fondos al cumplimiento de las reglas del Estado de Derecho.

  Ramona Strugariu (Renew). – Madam President, nobody’s trying to punish Hungary, as the Hungarian Government is saying publicly when discussing the application of the Conditionality Regulation. But we in this House have a responsibility towards the European citizens to protect EU values, to make sure EU funds are used correctly and that there is no risk affecting the EU budget. I know the European Commission is also aware of this huge responsibility.

We cannot base our decisions on vague commitments to rule of law and promises of reforms without long-term monitoring. If we release these funds without true restoration of the rule of law in Hungary, then we will fail our collective responsibility. We will fail the Hungarian and European citizens alike. We will undermine all the work done so far in order to protect the rule of law in Europe.

Then we must make sure that Hungarian citizens do not suffer for the actions of their government and channel EU funds towards the civil society and local authorities. And, finally, freezing money for Ukraine and vetoing NATO’s membership in order to negotiate one’s unique interpretation of the rule of law is a form of international blackmail. If I were you, Mr Orbán, I would never go that far. The boomerang effect could be international, too, and I am not sure that you could ever explain it to the Hungarian people.

  Maria Walsh (PPE). – Madam President, in the past three years of this Parliament, how many times have we discussed the actions or, in most cases, the lack of action by the Hungarian Government? How many?

We have debated the serious consequences of their decisions that have impacted, in my belief, the founding principles of our Union. And yet here we are, again. The Hungarian Government has not delivered in solidarity in protecting the fundamental rights of EU citizens, yet they sit comfortably in protecting their economic assets with their continued push back against sanctions on Russian energy.

The Commission and the Council must understand when a country continues to strike and strip the LGBTI+ community and other minority groups of their rights. We cannot continue to ignore. We cannot. Discrimination against one group festers, it spreads outwards and it can affect more and more communities, and we must pay attention. We cannot turn our backs on EU citizens no matter which EU governments attempt to work against the founding principles. We work to protect the people of Hungary, to protect all citizens. And as shared earlier, the rule of law is not to be negotiated.

  István Ujhelyi (S&D). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Engem egyetlen egy dolog érdekel, méghozzá a magyar emberek, a magyar családok érdeke. Ezen a szemüvegen keresztül tudom csak vizsgálni a mostani helyzetet. Érdeke az a magyar családoknak, hogy a kormány évi egymilliárd euróból most például hazudik arról, hogy mi min vitázunk? Érdeke az a magyar családoknak, hogy megszűnt Magyarországon a jogállamiság? Nem, nem érdeke. Tény, hogy az uniós támogatások járnak Magyarországnak. Az is tény, hogy ezeket az Orbán-rendszer miatt a rezsim korrupt, útonálló, zsaroló, agresszív politikája miatt jelenleg nem kapjuk meg. És az is tény, hogy akkor fog megérkezni a magyar családokhoz és a magyar gazdasághoz a támogatás, ha az Orbán-kormány hajlandó változtatásra.

Kedves Magyar Választó! Erről vitatkozunk, hogy mikor és milyen módon tudjuk rákényszeríteni Orbánékat arra, hogy kevesebbet vagy semennyit se lopjanak, és tartsák be azokat a szabályokat, amelyek a magyar emberek érdekében kell, hogy a jogállamiságot alkossák. Ez az egyetlen kérdés, és magyar európai parlamenti képviselőként a következő időszakban is azért fogok harcolni, hogy a forrásainkat megkapjuk. De azok ne Orbánék, hanem a magyar családok érdekében érkezzenek Magyarországra.

  Tom Vandenkendelaere (PPE). – Voorzitter, wij hebben hard gevochten voor wetgeving die de Europese begroting tegen corruptie beschermt, omdat corruptie in bepaalde lidstaten welig tiert. Zo ging de situatie in Hongarije de afgelopen jaren onder het bewind van Orbán van kwaad naar erger.

In september oordeelde het Parlement dat Hongarije niet langer als volwaardige democratie kon worden beschouwd en dat alle Europese middelen voor Hongarije bevroren moesten worden. Hongarije stemde hiermee in en legde 17 maatregelen voor om de corruptie te bestrijden. Dit volstaat echter niet.

Er is op dit moment onvoldoende bewijs om te kunnen concluderen dat er geen risico’s meer bestaan voor onze Europese begroting. Het zou dan ook een historische vergissing zijn indien de Commissie zou besluiten toch weer Europees geld naar Hongarije te laten vloeien, rechtstreeks in de zakken van Orbán en zijn entourage.

Dit is een test voor het conditionaliteitsmechanisme.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Μαρία Σπυράκη (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, Επίτροπε Reynders, συνάδελφοι, είναι η πρώτη φορά που εφαρμόζεται ο μηχανισμός αιρεσιμότητας για να κριθεί η επίδοση μιας κυβέρνησης, εν προκειμένω της κυβέρνησης Orbán, στην εφαρμογή των κανόνων του κράτους δικαίου. Και είναι η πρώτη φορά που η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση εξετάζει στην πράξη τη σύνδεση της χρηματοδότησης με την εφαρμογή των θεμελιωδών αρχών και των αξιών μας.

Επιτρέψτε μου μια προσωπική αναφορά: όλοι εμείς που υπογράψαμε το αίτημα για την προφορική ερώτηση τον Ιούνιο του 2020 μπορούμε σήμερα να αισθανόμαστε δικαιωμένοι. Η κυβέρνηση Orbán, ο ίδιος ο πρωθυπουργός της Ουγγαρίας, θεωρεί πως μπορεί να εκβιάζει την Ένωση, να περνάει πάνω από τις αρχές και τους κανόνες που καθορίζουν την ευρωπαϊκή ταυτότητα, να χρησιμοποιεί την ψήφο του στο Συμβούλιο ως όπλο εκβιασμού, να απειλεί την ευρωπαϊκή ενότητα στη στήριξη της Ουγγαρίας, να ακυρώσει τις αρχές μας.

Η απάντηση σε αυτή την περίπτωση είναι μία: η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν εκβιάζεται. Κανένας συμβιβασμός σε θέματα αρχής. Ο Orbán και η κυβέρνησή του στερούν από τους Ούγγρους βασικές προϋποθέσεις του ευρωπαϊκού τρόπου ζωής, παραβιάζουν τις αρχές του κράτους δικαίου και, αν δεν εφαρμόσουν μέχρι κεραίας όσα επί της αρχής μάς ενώνουν, θα στερήσουν και κονδύλια για την οικονομική ανάταξη της Ουγγαρίας.

  Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o regulamento é aprovado no Conselho sem o voto de Orbán. Não deu o seu apoio à condicionalidade de Estado de Direito e tudo está a fazer para bloquear, adiar a aplicação deste mecanismo.

Senhor Comissário, a Comissão Europeia é a guardiã dos Tratados. Conheço bem o seu já antigo compromisso com o respeito e fazer respeitar o Estado de Direito. Ouvi explicar—nos os passos que a Comissão está a dar, o calendário, as 17 medidas. A questão é: serão efetivos?

Senhor Comissário, temos de ser coerentes. Não nos podemos deixar convencer por um empacotamento diferente do mesmo produto.

  Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, the story going around here, of course, is that the mighty Hungary is holding the poor EU hostage, demanding billions in exchange for lifting its Council veto on the Ukraine aid deal and on corporate tax rates.

But who’s blackmailing who? Because what’s going on here looks a lot less like Hungary blackmailing the EU and a lot more like the EU extorting Hungary. Get in line on Ukraine. Give us your Council votes or you won’t get your cash.

Both sides, of course, are happily colluding in the pretence that Hungary is actually doing anything about the rule of law and fundamental rights. And the people of Hungary, the ones suffering because of the rule of law crisis in that country, they don’t feature in the calculus anywhere.

It’s absolutely disgraceful that the rule of law has been weaponised by the Commission in this way. The only condition for Hungary getting its money should be that it sorts out its rule of law problems, nothing else. If a filthy deal on Council votes has been cut, the Commission has to come clean about it and the Parliament has to oppose it.

  Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie pośle Jaki, jak to się stało, że sprowadziliście Polskę, 38-milionowy kraj, do roli sługi cztery razy mniejszych Węgier? Jak to się stało? Przedłożyliście sojusz z Orbanem i licencję na łamanie prawa nad interes własnych obywateli? Czy wam nie jest po prostu wstyd? Bo to wstyd i hańba stać ramię w ramię z Orbanem. Po tym wszystkim, po tym jak siał ruską propagandę, po tym jak blokował sankcje na Putina, po tym jak utrudniał transport broni, i dziś, gdy blokuje 18 mld euro unijnej pomocy dla Ukrainy. Nasi przyjaciele zza Odry, z którymi wam nie jest po drodze, zaoferowali nam samoloty Euro Fighter i wyrzutnie Patriot. A co Węgry dały Polsce? Wskażcie chociażby jedną korzyść dla Polski, dla mieszkańców, którą dał wasz sojusz z Orbanem. Wiem, wiem, nie wskażecie, bo jej po prostu nie ma.

Oprzytomnijcie. Po pierwsze wyrzućcie Węgry, ani jednego euro dla Orbana. Po drugie przywróćcie prześladowanych sędziów. Panie pośle Jaki, niech pan porozmawia z szefem. Po trzecie - tu zwracam się do Komisji - fundusze unijne powinny trafić do obywateli i samorządów.

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, Hungary certainly has huge rule-of-law problems, but giving out about Hungary would carry a lot more weight if we were consistent. But sadly, the European Union could sell hypocrisy. You lecture Hungary and Poland, yet in your own Member States, police can beat protesters in the streets and fire rubber bullets at them and that’s OK.

The Commission talks about withholding EUR 7.5 billion from Hungary under the Conditionality Regulation, yet the EU is happy to pour billions and support Ukraine, despite the fact that in 2021 the European Court of Auditors’ report said it was one of the most corrupt countries in Europe.

The EU lectures countries about rule of law, and also on human rights when it suits its geopolitical agenda. We have an Association Agreement with Israel. How come we’ve no problem with the rule of law when it comes to how Israel treats the Palestinians? What about the human rights of the Palestinians? Do they not matter? We’re perfectly happy to do business with them.

  Malin Björk (The Left). – Fru talman! Över tio år av attacker på demokrati och rättsstat, av attacker på hbtq-aktivister, av attacker på försvarare av mänskliga rättigheter. Sedan 17 otillräckliga reformer, och inte ens de här kan Orbáns regering leva upp till. Kommissionen, resultatet måste vara: inga pengar. Inga pengar ska gå ut till den här regeringen. För om inte de här pengarna fryses, så finns det kamrater runtom i Europa som tittar på den här situationen, som gillar Orbán precis för hans brist på demokrati, och som gärna vill se någonting liknande.

Vi har sådana krafter i mitt land också, i Sverige. Sverigedemokraterna heter de. De är imponerade av hur Orbán kan trampa på allas rättigheter, trampa på demokratin, trampa på domstolarnas oberoende. Precis så vill de göra i Sverige också – om vi inte ser upp. Låt inte detta sprida sig. Betala inte ut några pengar till Ungern. Se till att upprätta respekt för demokrati och rättsstat.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Didier Reynders, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for this debate which reflects its important positions and considerations.

The Commission is taking good note of your concerns. Let me recall that the Conditionality Regulation is a preventive tool against risk to the EU budget. We have to approach the problems we can all see with the mind-set of fixing problems.

The ongoing conditionality procedure is an opportunity to prove that triggering the new mechanism brings results. Hungary has committed to substantially reform its system. As I explained, the Commission’s assessment is ongoing and will be finalised without undue delay before the end of this month.

To answer to your remarks, we are assessing whether the commitments have been correctly specified in the enacting laws and implementing rules, and implemented accordingly and hence put an end to the risk of the breaches of the rule of law for the sound financial management of the Union budget and the Union’s financial interests.

The European Parliament is an important partner in the implementation of the regulation. Let me assure you on the importance we attach to applying the regulation in the soundest way.

The Recovery and Resilience Facility follows a different objective and distinct parameters. It will be important to link the disbursements of funds under the RRF to the milestones of the national plan, including those linked to strengthening the independence of the judiciary. Like in the case of the conditionality procedure, the final decision regarding the approval of Hungary’s recovery and resilience plan lies with the Council.

Concerning the conditionality mechanism, the mitigation of the risks to the sound financial management and the protection of the EU budget remain our ultimate goals.

Moreover, let me recall that the Commission also shares a number of the perceptions relating to the wider rule of law concerns in Hungary, for instance, in the European Parliament’s resolute proposals in the Article 7 procedure. I updated the Council during a hearing relating to the Article 7 procedure on Hungary last Friday.

We also had the opportunity to exchange with Parliament’s rapporteur, Madam Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield. We will continue to use all the instruments at our disposal to protect the rule of law, including the infringement proceedings against different laws containing, for us, some discriminations.

And before concluding, I want to add that we are also concerned by the context: only a month ago, the Hungarian Government launched a national consultation on EU sanctions against Russia after the government itself gave its express approval, like all other Member States. But, for the moment, we assess the efficiency of the measures proposed by the Hungarian Government in the framework of the Conditionality Regulation and the milestones put in the recovery and resilience plan.

So we’ll come, very soon as said, with an assessment, our own assessment of the Commission on all those measures to see if they are efficient enough to go forward.

  President. – The deadline for tabling motions for resolutions to wind up this debate will expire today at 19.00.

The debate is closed and the vote will be held on Thursday.

Written statements (Rule 171)

  Lívia Járóka (NI), írásban. – Magyarország jogállamisági helyzetét számtalan alkalommal vizsgálta már az Európai Parlament. Politikai céloktól vezérelve, az ország helyreállítási és rezilienciaépítési terveinek hátráltatása azonban példátlan, és intézményi szinten is megdöbbenésre okot adó. Az Európai Unió közös értékeinek tiszteletben tartása közös érdekünk, így Magyarország számára is prioritást élvez. Mint az Európai Unió teljes jogú tagjait, bennünket is megillet azokhoz a közös uniós finanszírozási alapokhoz való hozzáférés, amelyek jogszerűen járnak Magyarország számára. Az elmúlt évtizedben számtalan eredményt értünk el, többek között a szegénységfelszámolás és roma felzárkóztatás területén is.

27,8%-ról 8%-ra csökkentettük a súlyos anyagi szegénységben élők számát, és közel egymillió új munkahelyet teremtettünk. A forrásvisszatartás azonban nemcsak eddigi eredményeinket, de jövőbeli vállalásainkat is veszélyezteti. Ezért méltánytalannak tartok minden olyan törekvést, amely politikai nyomásgyakorlásként használva törekszik nehezíteni az uniós források felhasználását és azok tagállami lehívását. Különösen elszomorít, hogy ellenzéki képviselőtársaim itt, az EP-ben, saját állampolgáraik érdekeit figyelmen kívül hagyva asszisztálnak ehhez a politikai akcióhoz. A magyar baloldali képviselők számára láthatóan nem fontos, hogy országunk az EU sikeres és prosperáló tagállamává tudjon válni, segítve ezzel a magyar társadalom felzárkózását és közös európai céljaink megvalósulását.

Javaslom képviselőtársaim figyelmébe, hogy inkább a baloldalhoz köthető, 2022-es országgyűlési választási kampány tiltott pártfinanszírozási gyanúját vizsgálják ki. Higgyék el, sok érdekességre bukkannának.

  Ivan Štefanec (PPE), písomne. – Európska únia je založená na hodnotách, ako sú úcta k ľudskej dôstojnosti, sloboda, demokracia a rovnosť. Zásady právneho štátu a dodržiavanie ľudských práv vrátane práv osôb patriacich k menšinám sú zohľadnené v Charte základných práv EÚ a zakotvené v medzinárodných zmluvách o ľudských právach.

Európsky parlament potrebuje záruky, že to Maďarsko s nápravnými opatreniami myslí naozaj vážne. Nie je možné tolerovať korupciu a pochybné verejné obstarávania pri európskych prostriedkoch v žiadnom členskom štáte Európskej únie. S tým súvisí aj stav súdnictva a právneho štátu v krajine. Nie pozitívnym signálom je aj rozhodnutie Maďarska nezúčastniť sa na posilnenej spolupráci na účely zriadenia Európskej prokuratúry.

Predostreté opatrenia maďarskej vlády nie sú dostatočné na riešenie existujúceho systémového rizika pre finančné záujmy EÚ. Transparentnosť musí byť základom pri prerozdeľovaní európskych finančných zdrojov.

14. ELis diabeedi ennetamine, kontrolli all hoidmine ja parem ravimine ning ülemaailmne diabeedipäev (arutelu)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on ‘prevention, management and better care of diabetes in the EU on the occasion of World Diabetes Day’ (2022/2901(RSP)).

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, more than 32 million people live with diabetes. That is one in ten adults in the EU. This figure has doubled in the last decade and that is an alarm call for us all. Diabetes is one of the greatest health challenges of modern times and this challenge will continue to increase unless we take action and unless we all work together.

Last week we marked World Diabetes Day, and this gives us an opportunity each year to shine a light on diabetes and to relook and examine our efforts, to identify what we need to do better, to prevent, to educate and to raise awareness and to listen to patients and all stakeholders. But we all know that this is not a responsibility that we should be doing just one day a year. So I’m delighted to be part of today’s discussion, and I welcome the European Parliament’s resolution on diabetes.

This resolution is an important signal to European citizens and of course to all diabetes patients. Diabetes cannot be seen as only one disease. It is also a dangerous multiplier. It is important to address the risks of developing diabetes or even having high blood sugar levels, including through nutrition and physical activity. Diabetes, we know, increases the risks of other conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases and stroke. And those with diabetes run a more serious risk of serious disease when affected by COVID.

Diabetes puts a heavy economic strain on health budgets, at about 9% of the EU health expenditure in 2019. But let’s look at the positive side and let’s see what can be done. The burden of type—2 diabetes can be reduced through healthy lifestyles, through better diets, through physical activity, through not smoking and avoiding alcohol use. We need to help citizens live healthy lives with healthy minds and healthy bodies. And this is in order to ensure healthy futures. We need to help them to make healthy choices. The ‘Healthier Together’ EU non—communicable diseases initiative aims to do exactly this. This has a budget for 2022 of EUR 156 million, and through this initiative, we are helping Member States to identify and to implement actions to reduce the burden of non—communicable diseases. We are financing joint actions that address risk factors related to diabetes and of course other non—communicable diseases.

Data on diabetes and prediabetes is often lacking and we’re working to fill this gap. To do this, we’re financing a feasibility study to assess the possibility for the collection of data on non—communicable diseases, and this will start with diabetes as the pilot area. We are financing research to better understand diabetes and to answer important questions such as how can we prevent the development of type—2 diabetes? Or how can we replace insulin for the treatment of diabetes type 1? How can we help those with diabetes in the self—management of their disease? Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe – through the innovative medicines initiative that partners with the pharmaceutical industry – enable this research.

Ladies and gentlemen, on World Diabetes Day, I called on Member States and all stakeholders to collaborate, to work together to improve the lives of all Europeans living with diabetes. With the actions under the EU4Health programme, we will support Member States, patient groups and health professionals, and I want to thank you for the ongoing support of this Parliament for EU4Health.

But more importantly, we can deliver concrete benefits to all diabetes patients and we can strengthen prevention across the EU. Together, I firmly believe we are able to build healthy societies and we are able to look towards a healthier future for all.

  Pernille Weiss, for PPE-Gruppen. – Fru Formand! En resolution om diabetes? Ja, hvorfor ikke. Det er jo ti år siden sidst og udfordringerne, de er hverken blevet færre, ligesom omfanget heller ikke er blevet mindre.

I dag har 33 millioner borgere i EU diabetes, og i 2030 vil 38 millioner have det. De fleste af den type, som hænger sammen med livsstil: Hvor meget vi spiser, hvad vi spiser, sover, bevæger os og så videre. Alt det vi forsøger at forebygge eller forbyde - alt afhængig af politisk ståsted. Men også afhængig af, om vi tør skifte gear i diabetesdebatten og forstå, at diabetes er et symptom på, at vi endnu ikke har forstået, at svær overvægt ofte er årsagen. En årsag, der IKKE handler om, at alle med overvægt selv har valgt det og i øvrigt selv kan ændre på det.

Nej, svær overvægt eller forstadier til det er rent faktisk en kronisk lidelse, som næsten 60 procent af alle voksne i EU har. Det er jo et vildt tal. En kronisk lidelse, som mange aldrig slipper af med igen - uanset hvor meget de lægger deres kost om eller bevæger sig anderledes. En kronisk lidelse, som stadigvæk lever i ly af, at vi har en angst for at tale om overvægt. En kronisk lidelse, som derfor medvirker til, at stadig flere borgere udvikler diabetes, som faktisk kunne være undgået. En kronisk lidelse, der koster kassen! Også i mistet livskvalitet.

Som sygeplejerske - og som europapolitiker – så er jeg simpelthen så træt af, at vi behandler udvalgte sygdomme uden at tage fat i selve årsagen til de over 200 andre sygdomme - udover diabetes - der tynger den enkelte, familien og samfundsøkonomien. Lad os dog i hele EU anderkende - også som det er foreslået af WHO for lang tid siden - at svær overvægt er en kronisk lidelse, og den skal også behandles som en kronisk lidelse.

  Christel Schaldemose, for S&D-Gruppen. – Fru formand! Tak skal du have, fru kommissær. Tak for en god indledning og for at anerkende de store udfordringer, der er med diabetes i EU, hvor næsten hver niende EU-borger har diabetes - enten type et eller type to. Derfor er det også rigtig vigtigt og godt, at vi i dag debatterer det og nu også får vedtaget en ny resolution. For der er meget, vi kan gøre, og der er meget, vi bør gøre. Det er alvorligt for de mennesker, der lever med diabetes. De skal have en bedre livskvalitet. Men det er også alvorligt for vores sundhedsvæsner. Og det værste af det hele er, at vi jo godt kan gøre noget ved det! Efter min mening skal vi have knækket kurven i EU i forhold til antallet af folk med diabetes. Særligt type to er jo mulig at forebygge ved sundere livstil, og vi har faktisk mange ting, vi kan gøre i EU. Vi kan være med til at skabe bedre forbrugerinformation for vores fødevarer, vi kan reducere salt og sukkerindholdet i mange af vores forarbejdede varer osv. Risikofaktorerne, dem har vi et ansvar for i EU. Men først og fremmest skal vi tænke på de patienter, der lever med diabetes, og de skal kunne leve et bedre liv. Diabetes er en alvorlig sygdom. Lad os også tage den alvorligt politisk, tak.

  Frédérique Ries, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, le diabète est l’un des plus grands défis sanitaires de notre époque. C’étaient d’ailleurs les mots que vous avez prononcés dans l’ouverture de vos remarques, Madame la Commissaire. Et j’ajouterais à cela: l’un des défis les plus minimisés.

Un Européen sur dix – cela a été dit – vit avec le diabète et près de la moitié d’entre eux n’arrivent pas à le maîtriser. Le diabète est un facteur multiplicateur d’une série d’autres maladies, cardiaques notamment, mais pas seulement. Et pourtant, un diabétique sur trois en Europe s’ignore.

Dix ans après la première résolution de notre Parlement sur le sujet, on parlait à l’époque d’«épidémie», celle d’aujourd’hui est un véritable signal d’alarme. La Commission a publié en juin une initiative sur les maladies non transmissibles. Parmi les pistes étudiées, mais laissées au bon vouloir des États membres, je recherche les véritables objectifs concrets pour le diabète. Quels sont ces objectifs? Où sont les objectifs de réduction des risques – et pourtant, vous avez évoqué la prévention du diabète de type 2 –, de diagnostic systématique, de contrôle de la glycémie, de lutte contre des préjugés qui sont dépassés et aussi contre une certaine stigmatisation?

Il nous revient donc impérativement maintenant de fixer ces objectifs ambitieux pour susciter une nouvelle vague de plans nationaux et soutenir les patients, souvent délaissés entre deux consultations annuelles, au mieux parfois, accélérer bien évidemment aussi la recherche et l’arrivée d’innovations.

On l’a dit et redit, pendant la pandémie notamment, le traité est peu généreux en termes d’Europe de la santé. Mais même dans cette lecture étriquée, l’Europe a ici encore une valeur ajoutée. Réelle. C’est à nous de l’imposer.

  Tilly Metz, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, la Journée mondiale du diabète était lundi dernier et a malheureusement été l’occasion de souligner le nombre croissant de personnes atteintes de cette maladie. Malgré les différentes initiatives au niveau européen, la coordination pour la prévention et l’accès aux soins reste limitée. Cela doit changer et tel est l’objectif de cette résolution.

Mais plus encore, cette résolution contient trois changements importants. Le premier est la fin des discriminations envers les personnes atteintes de diabète. Non, une personne diabétique ne devrait pas être exclue d’une profession ou d’un cours à l’école du fait de sa maladie. Le deuxième est l’accès aux soins et à l’innovation. Pour cela, la transparence des prix des médicaments ainsi que de l’utilisation des fonds pour la recherche est clé. Le troisième changement que demande cette résolution, c’est la transition vers un environnement et une alimentation saine.

L’Europe a un rôle majeur à jouer pour coordonner les efforts des États membres, au moyen, par exemple, du pacte vert et de la PAC. Encore une fois, je terminerai pour souligner que les enjeux environnementaux et sanitaires sont extrêmement liés et demandent à être traités ensemble.

  Simona Baldassarre, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, ricordare tutti i pazienti affetti da diabete è un obbligo per quest'Aula.

Una malattia con un'incidenza in crescita in tutto il mondo, in particolare per il diabete di tipo 2, per cui è doveroso agire prevenendo i fattori di rischio come il sovrappeso, l'obesità, la sedentarietà, le diseguaglianze socioeconomiche e la scorretta alimentazione. Un'epidemia silenziosa che, solo nel 2021, ha causato oltre un milione di decessi in Europa, classificandosi come la quarta causa di morte nell'Unione europea.

Bene allora programmi come EU4Health, ma non basta. Da medico ribadisco che il primo passo è sempre la prevenzione: identificare attivamente i soggetti a rischio, promuovendo corretti stili di vita, una sana nutrizione e attività fisica, con piani di informazione e screening per intervenire quanto prima. La metà dei diabetici e prediabetici non sa addirittura di esserlo e purtroppo, quando la malattia diventa evidente, i sintomi sono macroscopici, il danno è già fatto e si rischia un fine vita complicato e invalidante, con enormi costi personali, familiari, sociali e sanitari.

Nella lotta contro il diabete, cari colleghi, questo Parlamento deve rispondere "presente".

  Joanna Kopcińska, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! Cukrzyca jest jedną z najgroźniejszych i najczęściej występujących chorób cywilizacyjnych o charakterze przewlekłym. W Unii Europejskiej, o czym wspominała pani komisarz, cierpią na nią ponad 33 miliony osób, a według szacunków w niespełna osiem najbliższych lat ich liczba wzrośnie do 38 milionów. Co więcej, szacuje się, że na pewnym etapie choroby do 80% pacjentów będzie zmagać się również z innymi najczęstszymi powikłaniami cukrzycy.

I choć ostatnie lata przyniosły pacjentom wiele ułatwień w dostępie do nowoczesnych leków i technologii w terapii leczenia oraz zapobiegania cukrzycy, to wciąż pozostaje wiele do zrobienia w kontekście holistycznego podejścia do tego wieloczynnikowego wyzwania zdrowotnego. Dlatego jeżeli rzeczywiście mamy na celu realnie zadziałać na korzyść pacjenta diabetologicznego, podejmijmy kroki do osiągnięcia większej synergii poprzez istniejące programy przekładające się na lepsze skoordynowanie opieki diagnostycznej i lekarskiej. Optymalnie wykorzystujmy tę wiedzę, którą mają już państwa członkowskie, poprzez wymianę doświadczenia, wspólne uwzględnianie danych epidemiologicznych odnośnie zapadalności na chorobę oraz dostępności do zakresu świadczeń lekarskich, włączając w to analizę, ścieżkę oraz prognozę leczenia pacjenta.

Scalenie dotychczasowych programów oraz wysoko wykwalifikowanej pomocy medycznej może sprawić, że leczenie będzie miało cechy spójnego działania, w którym liczy się podstawowa zasada, że dobro pacjenta jest najważniejsze.

  Kateřina Konečná, za skupinu The Left. – Paní předsedající, vážená paní komisařko, vážení kolegové a kolegyně, dovolte mi v prvé řadě poděkovat zpravodajům za příkladnou spolupráci při vyjednáváních této rezoluce, kterým jsem měla tu čest předsedat. Doufám, že se konsenzus, který jsme v průběhu celého procesu měli, podaří přetavit také do hladkého hlasování. Na čem se však shoda nenašla a mrzí mě to, je opětovně otázka patentových práv. Je to téměř 100 let, co se vynálezce inzulinu Frederick Banting vzdal patentu k této látce a pronesl onu slavnou větu: „Inzulin patří světu, ne mně“. A je smutné, že téměř 100 let po obětavém gestu tohoto vědce jsou někteří mí kolegové, zejména z pravice, natolik ideologicky zaslepeni, že odmítají byť i zmínku o tomto kroku v projednávané rezoluci.

Až 32 milionů lidí v EU žije s některým typem cukrovky. Polovina z nich běžně nemá správnou hladinu cukru v krvi, což u nich vede k dlouhodobým a závažným zdravotním problémům. Při příležitosti Světového dne cukrovky a 100 let od nesobeckého gesta jednoho vědce musíme na evropské úrovni prohloubit spolupráci v boji s tímto onemocněním.

  Edina Tóth (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Biztos Asszony! Napjainkban világszerte több százmillió embert érint a cukorbetegség és az inzulinrezisztencia. Én is egy vagyok közülük. Ez lett korunk népbetegsége. Az elmúlt két évben a járvány tovább nehezítette a betegséggel élők helyzetét, és jelentősen csökkentette a megelőzésre irányuló lehetőségeket. Éppen ezért kértem már korábban az Európai Bizottságot, hogy dolgozzon ki a cukorbetegség megelőzésére és kezelésére irányuló cselekvési tervet, de sajnos eddig elutasító választ kaptam. Jó hír viszont, hogy vannak olyan országok, köztük hazám, Magyarország, ahol a kormány kiemelt figyelmet szentel a cukorbetegeket érintő problémák kezelésének, amely során az érintettek több területen kapnak segítséget.

Továbbra is úgy gondolom, hogy az egyre romló tendencia megállítása érdekében sürgető szükség van egy irányelv kidolgozására. Bízom abban, hogy a Bizottság álláspontja a közeljövőben változni fog, és sikerül együtt és hatékonyan fellépni a diabétesszel szemben.

  Ljudmila Novak (PPE). – Spoštovana gospa komisarka, predsedujoča, kolegice in kolegi.

Ob nenehnem povečevanju števila sladkornih bolnikov je jasno, da moramo bolj odločno in učinkovito ukrepati. Največ lahko naredimo na področju izobraževanja in ozaveščanja državljanov na vseh nivojih in pri vseh starostih. Ko zboli en član družine, to vpliva na življenje celotne družine, še posebej, če zboli otrok. Z ozaveščanjem o vzrokih za nastanek bolezni lahko vplivamo na življenjski slog državljanov, da bi bili manj izpostavljeni tveganjem. Preventiva je vedno cenejša in boljša od kurative. V Evropski uniji je veliko znanja, žal pa naši državljani nimajo vsi enakih pogojev in možnosti v boju s to boleznijo. Kadar v Evropski uniji povežemo znanje, izkušnje, ukrepe, in zato namenimo tudi sredstva iz našega skupnega proračuna, lahko naredimo neverjetne premike, lahko veliko stvari spremenimo na bolje.

  Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Fru talman! Kommissionär! Ingenstans i världen är det så vanligt med typ 1-diabetes bland barn och unga som här i EU. Det är ett underbetyg till dagens förebyggande arbete. Nu måste vi öka takten. Vi måste förebygga rökning, minska alkoholkonsumtionen och äta mer hälsosamt. Här har EU en roll, exempelvis genom att vi åstadkommer tydligare märkning på förpackningar av alkohol.

Vi måste också säkra så att EU aldrig hamnar i den situation som 1,3 miljoner amerikaner är i, där man tvingas att hoppa över sitt insulin för att man inte har råd. För oss socialdemokrater är det självklart med lika tillgång till medicin för alla. Jag vill också lyfta fram vikten av att följa den tekniska utvecklingen inom mätning av blodsocker. Inga gamla fördomar ska leda till diskriminering av diabetiker.

  Véronique Trillet-Lenoir (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, 33 millions de personnes souffrent aujourd’hui du diabète en Europe et 90 % d’entre elles d’un diabète de type 2. Il faut dire les choses clairement: le diabète de type 2 est essentiellement une maladie de la mauvaise alimentation, trop riche, trop sucrée et déséquilibrée. La clé de la prévention du diabète, c’est l’éducation à une alimentation saine dès le plus jeune âge et une information simple, compréhensible et basée sur la science des consommateurs sur les produits alimentaires qu’ils achètent. C’est pourquoi, Madame la Commissaire, la révision de la directive sur l’étiquetage nutritionnel est un des éléments clés de l’initiative Healthier Together que vous avez récemment lancée.

Et parce que les facteurs de risque du diabète sont communs, entre autres, à ceux du cancer et des maladies cardiovasculaires, nous avons besoin d’une véritable stratégie européenne de prévention contre les maladies chroniques permettant d’intégrer la prise en compte des déterminants de la santé dans toutes les politiques européennes, d’établir une gouvernance inclusive rassemblant notamment les représentants des consommateurs et des patients, et surtout d’encourager les États membres à mettre en œuvre des mesures de prévention ambitieuses sans jamais céder aux pressions des groupes d’intérêts.

  Aurélia Beigneux (ID). – Madame la Présidente, depuis 30 ans, l’Europe a réussi à maîtriser la propagation du diabète et les décès associés à cette maladie surviennent majoritairement en raison d’un diagnostic trop tardif. Les efforts pour démocratiser les outils de prévention ne doivent donc jamais faiblir. Mais depuis 30 ans, l’Europe a aussi tout fait pour développer les causes du diabète: vous avez provoqué un repli sur les métiers du service, apporté une alimentation hyper sucrée en masse, favorisé un nutriscore inadapté et avez préféré lutter pour les quotas dans les entreprises plutôt que de combattre le stress au travail. En parallèle, le vieillissement de la population européenne fera mathématiquement augmenter le nombre de personnes à risque.

La politique européenne de santé aurait dû faire ses preuves pendant la pandémie. Bien au contraire, elle a montré son incompétence à la face du monde, laissant les frontières ouvertes et faisant venir les masques de Chine et les vaccins des États-Unis. Une remise en cause sérieuse du mode de vie promu en Europe et de votre politique de santé est donc nécessaire. Éliminer les causes à la source, c’est éviter de poignarder une deuxième fois les services hospitaliers de nos pays.

  Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (ECR). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, señorías, cada persona es distinta; su diabetes, también. Se deben dar posibilidades para elegir la forma más adecuada para cada paciente. Existen avances tecnológicos que deben ser aprovechados porque alargan la esperanza de vida y disminuyen las complicaciones. Es imprescindible la monitorización próxima de glucosa con sistemas modernizados, la administración a tiempo real de insulina. Y las bombas. Y ya no es un sueño el implante de liberación sostenida de nanoformulaciones de insulina.

También son muy importantes la concienciación social y la comprensión de la enfermedad y de los enfermos con diabetes, una tarjeta de identificación mundial que permita a quién esté más cerca reconocer los síntomas y dar soporte en hipoglucemias, naturalidad en los controles de seguridad en aeropuertos, facilidades para los niños, formación o las etiquetas de los azúcares de los alimentos. Y, también, fomentar los servicios de enfermería, pues son quienes llevan el manejo habitual de los pacientes, para saber cómo actuar, por ejemplo, en las descompensaciones de la adolescencia: su labor permite que Europa tenga una posición privilegiada.

Y, por supuesto, se necesita inversión en investigación para profundizar y saber el porqué del aumento de las enfermedades autoinmunes como la diabetes. Es necesario crear y compartir conocimiento y buenas prácticas para conseguir mayores logros en el espacio europeo.

  Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, procjenjuje se da u Europskoj uniji svaka deseta odrasla osoba boluje od dijabetesa, a da troškovi povezani s liječenjem iznose devet posto ukupnih troškova u zdravstvu. Dodatno zabrinjava podatak da čak polovica oboljelih osoba nema postavljenu dijagnozu koja je ključna za pravilno liječenje.

U tom kontekstu pozdravljam inicijativu Europske komisije ⹂Zdravi zajedno za borbu s nezaraznim bolestima”. Međutim, za borbu s dijabetesom potreban nam je još ambiciozniji okvir. Zato pozivam na donošenje europskog plana za borbu protiv dijabetesa koji bi sadržavao precizno definirane ciljeve, regulatorne mjere, indikatore i snažno financiranje po uzoru na europski plan za borbu protiv raka. Samo tako Europa može pobijediti dijabetes, bolest s kojom se u Europskoj uniji bori 170 tisuća djece.

Na kraju, želim istaknuti da je za uspješnu borbu s dijabetesom, ali i drugim bolestima, važno uspostaviti europski prostor zdravstvenih podataka. Ponosan sam zato da kao izvjestitelj Europskog parlamenta već radim na ovom fajlu koji će omogućiti razmjenu i pristup zdravstvenim podacima kako u svrhu izravnog liječenja tako i u svrhu istraživanja i razvoja novih oblika liječenja ove teške bolesti.

Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA
varapuhemies

  István Ujhelyi (S&D). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! 100 évvel az inzulin felfedezése után és mintegy 10 évvel az ezt megelőző parlamenti vita után én azt sikernek tartom, hogy ezt a kérdést most ide tudtuk hozni a plenárisra. De vajon mitől lesz ezáltal jobb az inzulinrezisztenciában, a cukorbetegségben szenvedők élete az Európai Unióban? Magyarországon tízezer emberből több mint ezerháromszáz érintett, több mint egymillió-egyszázezer ember. És a kérdés az, hogy egy ilyen vita hoz e nekik valami újat, valami könnyebb életet, vagy azoknak, akik a jövőben esnek bele ebbe a betegségbe. Ezért találtuk ki az európai egészségügyi uniót.

Ezért beszélünk arról, hogy miközben tagállami hatáskör az egészségügy, közben kell legyen egy európai koordinációs, támogató és a politikákat összehangoló szintje az európai egészségnek. Mert számomra a legfontosabb, hogy minden európai polgár ugyanolyan eséllyel jusson hozzá az ellátáshoz, a prevencióhoz, a kezelésekhez, a gyógyszerekhez, az eszközökhöz. Erről szól az egészségügyi unió nemcsak a cukorbetegségek, hanem más betegségek terén is.

  Danilo Oscar Lancini (ID). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, ogni malattia è grave, ma quando la malattia ci riguarda in prima persona, allora la malattia, per assurdo, diventa ancora più grave. È così per tutti ed è così anche per me. E allora cosa si fa? Si scavano i dati, ci si dà da fare per capire cosa si può fare, come, quando, perché, dove, chi?

La stima mondiale dei diabetici (dati della Federazione internazionale del diabete) cresce vorticosamente. Si passa dai 151 milioni stimati nel 2000 ai 285 milioni stimati nel 2009, per arrivare ai 536 milioni del 2021.

Il diabete è una piaga, colpisce le fasce sociali più deboli. Ma in Europa cosa facciamo? Ho scoperto che in Europa non c'è ad oggi nemmeno una distinzione nella raccolta dei dati tra il diabete di tipo 1 e il diabete di tipo 2. Se vogliamo vincere la battaglia contro il diabete dobbiamo fare gioco di squadra, allineare i dati di tutti gli Stati membri UE, investire in ricerca e sperimentare tutte le possibili innovazioni proposte dalla scienza.

Prevenire è meglio che curare, ma per prevenire bisogna conoscere; conoscenza uguale ricerca, ricerca uguale investimento, investimento significa, ancora una volta, prevenire.

  Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Gerbiama Pirmininke, Komisijos nare, kolegos. Pasaulinė diabeto diena primena, ko nepadarėme ar per mažai padarėme kovodami su diabetu, kaip ir kitomis lėtinėmis ligomis. O kovos su jomis schemos iš tikrųjų yra panašios: nuo sveikos gyvensenos ir rizikos faktorių poveikio sumažinimo iki gydymo paslaugų kokybės suvienodinimo įvairiose valstybėse. Dar 2012-aisiais Europos Parlamente pasiūlyta kurti kovos su diabetu strategiją, o per tą laiką sergančiųjų tik daugėjo. Diabetas siejamas su kitomis lėtinėmis ligomis, su COVID-19, tas ligas komplikuoja, o svarbus esminis faktorius yra nutukimas. Manau, kad keitimosi gerosios praktikos pavyzdžiais nepakanka. Pabrėžčiau europinio masto prevencijos programas, ankstyvą diagnostiką, nacionalinių registrų sukūrimą ir bendrą europinį registrą. Nutukimo temą reikia plačiau įtraukti į „Horizonto“ programą. O Europoje, manau, pats laikas skelbti nutukimo epidemiją. Nelaukdami, kol kokia nors kita pandemija mus užklups. Tada ir kalbos apie Europos sveikatos sąjungą nebus tik proginės.

  Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Gospa predsednica, diabetes, sladkorna bolezen ali pa tudi tihi ubijalec, radi rečemo ti zelo razširjeni bolezni. Tihi ubijalec pa zato, ker mnogi izmed nas ne vemo, ali je naš spremljevalec ali ni.

33 milijonov ljudi je danes že zaznanih v Evropi kot bolnikov sladkorne bolezni, 38 naj bi jih bilo do leta 2030 in tudi sam sem pred enim dobrim mesecem pri zdravniškem pregledu v Evropskem parlamentu dobil diagnozo, da je bolje, da pričnem z jemanjem tablet in da ulovim raven sladkorja blizu mejne vrednosti. Hkrati je logično doktor povedal, kaj je potrebno storiti. Zgubiti med 10 do 15 kilogramov, imeti bolj zdrav življenjski slog, gibanje. Govorim zato, ker mislim, da je najbolj pomembno pri vsem tem, da resnično zagotovimo dostopnost do diagnosticiranja, da ljudje čim prej spoznamo, da je diabetes naš spremljevalec, da imamo v nadaljevanju tudi dostop do zdravljenja, ki je na enakem nivoju širom po Evropi. Zato je prav, da je to evropska akcija, da imamo tudi raziskave na tem področju in da tudi s pomočjo evropskih sredstev, predvsem pa nacionalnih, financiramo preventivne akcije in pa tudi samo zdravljenje te bolezni. Izmenjava dobrih praks je zagotovo zelo pomembna. Zelo sem vesel, da ob svetovnem dnevu diabetesa obravnavamo to pomembno točko tudi v Evropskem parlamentu.

  Luisa Regimenti (PPE). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, in Europa sono più di 33 milioni le persone affette da diabete e tali numeri sono destinati ad aumentare.

Il diabete inoltre è una malattia complessa, perché nella maggior parte dei casi è connessa a patologie associate: malattie cardiovascolari, complicazioni renali, fino alla disabilità permanente. Alla base della cura di questa malattia altamente invalidante e diffusa, i cui casi sono in notevole aumento, vi sono la dieta, l'attività fisica, ma soprattutto i farmaci.

L'Unione europea deve incoraggiare un campo fertile per la ricerca, che non deve fermarsi, al fine di rendere disponibili ai pazienti farmaci efficienti a prezzi accessibili e rendere i nostri sistemi sanitari più resilienti, anche attraverso programmi di screening e di prevenzione.

Questi devono essere gli obiettivi principali dell'impegno europeo per migliorare l'assistenza e la qualità di vita delle tante persone affette da diabete e anche delle loro famiglie.

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot

  Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, we have heard the statistics: 33 million people in the EU living with diabetes, predicted to rise to 38 million in 2030. These are absolutely astounding figures. I mean, one in ten people, hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

Particularly concerning is the fact of the rise of Type 1 diabetes in children increasing considerably, with strong geographical disparities being indicated. Although the reason for the epidemic cannot yet be precisely explained, environmental factors are being put forward.

It’s really clear that in the face of this epidemic, there has to be major investment in this area to ensure scientific advances on the source of the disease, but also – as colleagues have said – to support patients. Type 2 diabetes has been strongly linked to diet, obesity, lack of exercise and so on.

We absolutely have to get to the core of this. But in the face of an already dismal situation in many European health systems, lack of public investment and privatisation of care, diabetes risks once again exacerbating inequalities between different socio—economic groups. We cannot allow that to happen.

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I’m really very pleased that we’re able to have this discussion today and to be part of this debate. I believe that is one of the times that we are all saying and sending the same messages.

All of us here to different numbers of the incidents. Each of these numbers represents a person, represents a family. And as someone that has worked in the area of diabetes, in working with children and their families to then diagnosis of diabetes, I know how important it is that we do bring this topic to the highest of the political agendas and this is what the commission is doing.

And when we speak with people affected by diabetes, they repeat much of what was said here today. I was hearing very carefully a number of the MEPs – MEP Weiss and MEP Kopcińska – saying how important it is to have a holistic approach to all non-communicable diseases. And MEPs Lancini and Mažylis had said we need better data and we do. And Véronique Trillet-Lenoir and MEPs Metz, Ries and others spoke of the multidisciplinary approach we need and the fact that we need to address all the risk factors looking at prevention, looking at nutrition, raising awareness and working with education.

And this is exactly what the Healthier Together Initiative, as many of you mentioned, has done. It has prioritised many of the actions on diabetes that address these very points. And this is very close cooperation with member with Member States.

I also heard MEP Tóth share with us her personal experience of diabetes and asking for it to have a separate strategy. And I just want to say here, because I think that we need to sometimes look at what we are doing to make sure that we are effective, the Health Together initiative was created in coordination with the Member States and the stakeholders, including the patient groups on diabetes. And looking at how we can have effective actions to reduce the burden of most non-communicable diseases in the EU.

This is a holistic approach that looks at prevention and care, and diabetes as one of the five target strands of the Healthier Together Initiative. And there is already a number of projects ongoing which are looking at diabetes in the EU4Health programme of 2021 and this year.

So I believe that we need to look at how this Healthier Together Initiative brings fruit, see how it is being implemented, and then see how we move forward with this. We have actions which are launched which target specifically not only diabetes as a disease but also the risk factors, which all of you today said that this is what we need to do.

This is why Parliament’s work is a very important contribution to this effort. It will galvanise action. It will help us guide, direct our efforts and together, and in the spirit of what we have all worked on for a strong European Health Union, I believe that we can reduce the burden of diabetes on all. So thank you so much for all the interventions.

  Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.

Äänestys toimitetaan keskiviikkona 23. marraskuuta 2022.

Kirjalliset lausumat (171 artikla)

  Sara Cerdas (S&D), por escrito. – No dia 14 de novembro, celebrou-se o dia mundial da diabetes com o lema "Educação para proteger o amanhã”. Em território europeu, estima-se que 1 em cada 3 pessoas com diabetes não estarão diagnosticadas e a prevalência desta doença continua a aumentar. A diabetes tem um impacto muito significativo na vida das pessoas e, se não estiver devidamente monitorizada e farmacologicamente controlada, pode provocar cegueira, amputação de um membro e falência renal, entre outras comorbilidades. Atualmente, é a principal causa evitável destas complicações incapacitantes. A União Europeia tem uma obrigação moral acrescida na definição de políticas de saúde pública de prevenção, mas também de gestão da doença. O tratamento eficaz requer o acesso à insulina e outros medicamentos orais usados para controlar a diabetes tipo 2 e prevenir complicações, bem como intervenções de estilo de vida relevantes, educação para a saúde, para a autogestão da terapêutica e o acesso a dispositivos e tecnologias. Estas são medidas que trazem benefícios muito significativos para a saúde dos cidadãos.

  Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR), na piśmie. – Tegoroczny Światowy Dzień Cukrzycy koncentruje się na edukacji. Odgrywa ona istotną rolę w zapobieganiu nie tylko cukrzycy, ale także jej komplikacjom. Cukrzyca dotyka prawie 10% całej populacji UE. Istnieje również wysokie prawdopodobieństwo, że u 32 milionów obywateli UE zaburzenia tolerancji glukozy mogą doprowadzić do cukrzycy. Koszty cukrzycy ponoszone przez systemy opieki zdrowotnej państw członkowskich stanowią obecnie około 10% wydatków na opiekę zdrowotną w całej UE. Starzenie się i coraz większa nadwaga, niezdrowa dieta i siedzący tryb życia powodują szybki wzrost liczby przypadków cukrzycy typu 2. Cukrzyca stanowi rosnące zagrożenie w UE. Inwestowanie w profilaktykę ma zasadnicze znaczenie dla zapobiegania cukrzycy poprzez zdrowy styl życia rozpoczynający się w dzieciństwie.

15. Volituste kontrollimine

  Puhemies. – Ennen kuin siirrymme seuraavaan asiaan, annan muutamia ilmoituksia:

Parlamentti vahvistaa oikeudellisten asioiden valiokunnan ehdotuksesta valtakirjojen pätevyyden seuraavasti: Eva-Maria Poptcheva 15. syyskuuta 2022 alkaen, Carina Ohlsson 26. syyskuuta 2022 alkaen, Matthias Ecke 3. lokakuuta 2022 alkaen, Theresa Muigg 10. syyskuuta 2022 alkaen ja Johan Nissinen 11. lokakuuta 2022 alkaen.

16. Inimõiguste olukord seoses FIFA maailmameistrivõistlustega Kataris (arutelu)

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana komission julkilausuma ihmisoikeustilanteesta Qatarissa järjestettävien jalkapallon MM-kisojen yhteydessä (2022/2948(RSP)).

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, today’s debate is really a timely opportunity to discuss the situation of human rights in the context of the FIFA World Cup in Qatar. Yesterday, one of the most watched global sports events kicked off in Doha. Over 1 million visiting football fans are expected and billions will be watching worldwide.

Besides the hosting of this important tournament, the country’s human rights record has been in the global spotlight throughout its preparation over the last few months. According to the International Labour Organization, for example, 50 people died in Qatar and some 500 others suffered serious injuries in work related accidents linked to building the World Cup infrastructure in 2020.

Each single one of those deaths is, of course, a tragedy. But Qatar has also made significant progress on labour rights over the past years. It was the first country in the Gulf to dismantle the discriminatory kafala system which kept Qatar’s large migrant worker population at the mercy of their employers. And Qatar has adopted a new law establishing a non-discriminatory minimum wage. In addition, they have ensured a stricter oversight of World Cup infrastructure projects. In many projects, Qatar is a frontrunner in this sense.

What is important to notice is that the organisation of the World Cup and the fact that it has made existing deficiencies become more evident have in fact accelerated labour reform in Qatar.

At the same time, we all know that numerous challenges remain. Segments of the society and business community are resisting the reforms, including certain Western multinationals operating in Qatar. Thousands of migrant workers have seen their wages or work allowances cut or not paid at all, despite the government’s effort under the new minimum wage legislation. Living conditions of migrant workers need improvement and there is a need for better data collection of work—related fatalities and injuries.

There are also concerns around the rights of LGBTIQ persons – either visiting football fans or, more importantly, those residing in Qatar, where homosexuality is still illegal.

So, yes, the human rights path for Qatar is far from complete and, as for any other country, it is a continuous journey that will never be finished. Human rights – and in particular labour rights – are key elements of the EU’s bilateral engagement with Qatar at all levels. Qatar has been open to this and welcomed this engagement. In fact, Vice-President Schinas and Commissioner Schmit regularly discuss labour rights with Qatari leaders, and the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, Eamon Gilmore, has also engaged extensively on this matter, including through his field visit to the construction site of one of the World Cup stadiums in Qatar in February of 2020 and through his follow—up meetings earlier this year.

More recently, last week, the European Parliament DROI Committee held a constructive public hearing in the presence of the Qatari labour minister, providing the opportunity to raise openly all pertinent concerns about the situation of labour rights in that country. It is important that we remain engaged and continue to encourage the Qatari authorities to address those remaining challenges, with a view to ensuring the sustainability of the ongoing reforms beyond the World Cup and to the benefit of the Qatari people and all those residing in the country.

Qatar has now a chance to show the world that it is ready and that it is willing to continue on the path of openness, the path of tolerance and the path of modernisation. This will encourage human rights reforms elsewhere in the region as well as in other countries hosting big sports events.

  Tomasz Frankowski, w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Tuż po rozpoczęciu jednej z najważniejszych imprez sportowych, czyli mistrzostw świata w Katarze, piłka nożna wcale nie jest tematem numer jeden. Choć powinien to być powód do wielkiego święta sportu, wszyscy wiemy, że organizacja tych mistrzostw wiąże się z wysokimi kosztami i wywołała wiele krytyki, zwłaszcza jeśli chodzi o prawa człowieka, czy prawa pracownicze. Tysiące robotników, którzy budowali stadiony, straciło życie, żeby piłkarski mundial się udał. To budzi nasz ogromny smutek i sprzeciw. Należy jednak powiedzieć, że pewne pozytywne postępy w zakresie liberalizacji i reform pracy w Katarze zostały dokonane.

Jak wspomniała Pani Komisarz, system Cafalli został de facto zniesiony, o czym mówi ostatnie sprawozdanie Międzynarodowej Organizacji Pracy. Doceniamy ten postęp, jednak potrzebujemy gwarancji dotyczących kontynuacji tych wysiłków w Katarze, również po zakończeniu mistrzostw świata. Prawa człowieka są uniwersalne i muszą obowiązywać wszędzie. Dlatego w 2017 roku FIFA wprowadziła nowe wymogi dotyczące praw człowieka podczas procesu składania ofert na organizację mistrzostw świata, kolejnych mistrzostw świata. Te wymogi zostały opracowane zgodnie z wytycznymi Organizacji Narodów Zjednoczonych i po raz pierwszy zostały wdrożone w odniesieniu do organizacji Mistrzostw Świata w 2026 roku, które odbędą się w USA, Kanadzie i Meksyku. Ja, jako były piłkarz zawodowy i przewodniczący Grupy Sport w Parlamencie Europejskim, mam nadzieję, że świat sportu i polityki wyciągnie wnioski z tych mistrzostw i kolejne imprezy sportowe odbędą się z pełnym poszanowaniem praw człowieka.

  Maria Arena, au nom du groupe S&D. – Madame la Présidente, contrairement à mon prédécesseur, je ne suis pas footballeur et donc je ne peux pas échanger comme lui sur la situation du football. Mais quand on me demande si une Coupe du monde est une opportunité pour parler des droits de l’homme, j’aimerais répondre que non. J’aimerais répondre qu’aucun pays ne devrait attendre un événement, quel qu’il soit, pour pouvoir aborder la question des droits de l’homme.

Quand, il y a dix ans, la FIFA a décidé d’organiser cette Coupe du monde au Qatar, nous savions que ce choix était contestable. Nous avons d’ailleurs contesté dans le cadre d’une résolution votée ici au Parlement européen en 2013. Mais aujourd’hui, nous y sommes et donc il est important, effectivement, de pouvoir faire le point sur la situation des droits de l’homme au Qatar, avec cette visibilité qui nous est donnée par la Coupe du monde, et de pouvoir voir ce qui a pu être fait, ce qui a été violé et ce qui peut encore être fait. Je pense que c’est l’objectif du débat aujourd’hui et c’est l’objectif que nous avons eu en sous-commission «Droits de l’homme» la semaine dernière avec les ONG, Human Rights Watch – qui était invitée en sous-commission DROI –, l’OIT, la CES et avec, bien entendu, les membres de la sous-commission DROI.

Alors, oui, vous l’avez dit, Madame la Commissaire, le Qatar a fait des avancées. Il n’y a plus aujourd’hui de kafala. C’est vrai, la loi n’existe plus en tant que telle. Mais on sait que dans certains secteurs, la kafala existe encore de manière assez particulière, notamment pour les personnes à domicile. Un bureau de l’OIT est présent. Des ONG sont présentes. Mais il y a eu des violations, des morts et il faut des compensations. Nous devons travailler avec le Qatar pour que ces compensations aient lieu.

Enfin, surtout, il y a l’avenir. L’avenir repose aussi sur la responsabilité de nos entreprises, parce que nos entreprises au Qatar n’ont pas toujours respecté le minimum exigé par le Qatar.

  Katalin Cseh, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, the Qatar football World Cup will always be remembered as the World Cup of shame.

As the world is watching these grand stadiums, all I can think about is how they were built. Credible sources show that thousands of workers lost their lives and the Qatari authorities even refused to investigate these cases. A giant amount of financial resources flowed into a project that was tainted by forced labour, environmental destruction and deep corruption.

These violations have not stopped; they are ongoing. It’s absurd and unacceptable that organisers threaten journalists or penalise players for wearing rainbow armbands. All that this is really showing is that they just don’t understand the value of sports at all – the spirit of community and respect for each other.

This parliament has to condemn in the strongest possible terms both FIFA and the host country. We can never turn our backs on these human rights violations and we have to fight to ensure that there will be consequences.

  Ernest Urtasun, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señora presidenta, la FIFA y el señor Infantino les han robado el sueño del Mundial a millones de aficionados al fútbol.

En primer lugar, la sede elegida lo ha sido en un proceso lleno de irregularidades que está investigando la justicia francesa.

En segundo lugar, una sede con unas infraestructuras cuya construcción ha costado, según algunas estimaciones, hasta 6 500 muertos, una cifra que no se había visto en ningún acontecimiento deportivo en toda la segunda mitad del siglo XX.

Tercero, un coste climático altísimo, no hace falta ni decirlo: 3,6 millones de toneladas de CO2 y los futbolistas jugando a fútbol en estadios que tienen que estar siendo climatizados continuamente.

Y, en cuarto lugar, hoy acabamos de ver a la FIFA prohibiendo a los futbolistas de equipos nacionales europeos lucir manifestaciones en solidaridad con la comunidad LGTBI o con otras causas en favor de los derechos humanos.

Le exigimos a las instituciones europeas que denuncien estos atropellos; que exijan a la FIFA que permita a los futbolistas europeos manifestarse libremente en los partidos de fútbol; y, en tercer lugar, que le exijan también un fondo de compensación y de reparación para las familias de los muertos en la construcción de las instalaciones del Mundial.

  Nicolaus Fest, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Wir reden hier über die Situation der Menschenrechte in Katar. Ernsthaft? Katar ist ein islamischer Staat. Es ist seit Jahrzehnten bekannt, dass es dort keine Gleichberechtigung gibt, keine freien Wahlen, keine Mehrparteiensysteme, keine Gewerkschaften, keine Religionsfreiheit, keine Meinungsfreiheit und erbärmliche Arbeitsbedingungen, und dass Homosexuelle dort um ihr Leben fürchten müssen.

Aber immer, wenn man solche Zustände, wie sie in fast allen islamischen Ländern herrschen und leider auch immer mehr in europäischen, hier im Parlament ansprechen wollte, schrien Grüne, Linke, Sozialisten und Liberale, das sei islamophob und kulturelle Hegemonie, und überhaupt sollten sich die Europäer mit ihrem strukturellen Rassismus, der ja angeblich überall herrscht, zurückhalten.

Haben Sie das alles vergessen? Jetzt zur WM finden Sie endlich den Mut, diese Zustände anzusprechen. Sind Sie nun alle islamophob? Finden Sie kulturelle westliche Hegemonie vielleicht doch ganz gut?

Ich brauche keine kulturelle Hegemonie. Mir ist nur wichtig, dass hier unsere Werte gelten. Andere Völker sollen tun und lassen, was sie wollen, aber eben nicht hier, wie viele von Ihnen das oft fordern.

Die Kritik an Katar ist die pure Heuchelei. Wenn in Rom, verhalte dich wie die Römer: Das sollten wir auch Katar zugestehen. Viel wichtiger aber ist, dass wir es hier in Europa auch endlich einfordern.

  Nicola Procaccini, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questo dibattito sui diritti umani in Qatar arriva con dodici anni di ritardo. Affrontarlo oggi che il campionato mondiale è già iniziato suona ipocrita, e non è la prima volta che ciò accade in quest'Aula.

Ciò di cui non si discuterà, purtroppo, è il motivo che spinge Doha a investire le sue grandi risorse economiche per ospitare il più popolare evento sportivo di tutto il pianeta. I soldi sono il mezzo, non sono il fine.

In questi dodici anni le squadre delle principali capitali d'Europa, Lisbona, Londra, Parigi, Monaco, Manchester, Barcellona, Madrid, Roma, Milano, sono state tutte controllate o sponsorizzate da Emirati Arabi e Qatar. La verità è che non esiste un soft power più efficace del calcio per diffondere l'islamismo nel mondo.

Ora è tardi per piangere sulla violazione dei diritti umani. Noi europei abbiamo messo in vendita il nostro modo di vivere e qualcuno l'ha comprato, ma siamo tutti diventati più poveri.

  Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, dimanche, le coup d’envoi de la Coupe du monde a été donné au Qatar. Mais pour une fois, sans même connaître les cotes, je peux déjà vous donner le vainqueur: c’est la honte qui l’a emporté.

La honte pour la France, Nicolas Sarkozy et Michel Platini, d’avoir attribué ce Mondial contre la vente d’avions de chasse et de contrats juteux, démontrant ainsi combien le sport était politique, n’en déplaise à Emmanuel Macron.

La honte de jouer au foot sur les cadavres de plus de 6 500 ouvriers exploités jusqu’à la mort et d’abandonner leurs familles sans compensation alors que la FIFA empoche 6,4 milliards de dollars.

La honte d’enterrer le climat dès le lendemain de la COP27 dans un pays qui n’est pas champion du monde de foot mais des émissions de CO2, avec ses stades climatisés en plein désert.

La honte de voir nos dirigeants cautionner un régime autoritaire qui paye les spectateurs pour cacher la sordide réalité de son pouvoir et les arrestations arbitraires des dissidents.

La honte d’interdire de porter un simple brassard «one love» en soutien aux homosexuels et LGBTQI opprimés dans ce stade − et que je suis fière de porter ici, dans cet hémicycle.

La honte pour nous tous qui aimons le foot et voyons ce sport populaire créé par les pauvres et volé par les riches. La honte, la honte!

Mais j’entends les cyniques dire que c’est trop tard. C’est faux. Nous devons mettre en place un fonds de compensation pour les victimes et assumer un boycott diplomatique. Surtout, nous pouvons décider que cela n’arrivera plus avec une directive ambitieuse sur le devoir de vigilance. Toutes les entreprises complices − la FIFA, Vinci, Bouygues, Deutsche Bank − seraient tenues pour responsables. À nous de revoir les règles du jeu pour qu’à l’avenir, plus jamais la honte ne gagne le Mondial.

  President. – Ms Aubry, I need to say that banners are not allowed in the plenary. Two colleagues already voluntarily agreed to the rule, so perhaps you will as well. Thank you.

  Daniela Rondinelli (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, Lei ha esposto un quadro davvero ottimista, ha tentato di difendere l'indifendibile, perché nei dodici anni di preparazione di questi mondiali del Qatar le istituzioni europee e le istituzioni internazionali sono rimaste silenti davanti a 6 500 lavoratori morti, questi sono i dati del Guardian, e ai diritti di donne, omosessuali, minoranze etniche e religiose sistematicamente calpestati.

Un silenzio che suona come assenso, ma anche come connivenza.

Sono stati stanziati 220 miliardi, una cifra esorbitante, pari a un terzo del nostro Recovery Fund, il budget più alto mai stanziato per un mondiale, forse con l'intento di legittimare qualunque azione pur di ripulire l'immagine del Qatar, campione del mondo dei diritti negati.

Allora mi chiedo a che cosa serva oggi questa discussione sui diritti umani in Qatar dopo che i mondiali hanno già avuto inizio. Spero che questa discussione non serva a lavare la coscienza di qualcuno di fronte al caso più scandaloso di sportswashing, difeso pure dal presidente della FIFA che qualche giorno fa ha dichiarato: "Prendiamo atto della questione dei diritti, ma adesso pensiamo ai mondiali". Il Commissario Schinas ieri sui social ha addirittura elogiato questi mondiali e ha scritto "Il modello europeo dello sport, un'ispirazione per tutti".

Allora vorrei chiedere alla Commissione, vista questa situazione, affinché migliaia di persone non siano morte invano: quali sono i rapporti che l'Unione europea vuole instaurare con il Qatar per portare questo paese al rispetto dei diritti umani e delle libertà fondamentali della persona?

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, hace doce años que la FIFA decidió que el mundial de fútbol de 2022 tuviese lugar en Qatar. ¿Es o no es una triste paradoja que, ahora que arranca este campeonato, esté más caldeado que nunca el debate sobre la situación de los derechos laborales, los derechos humanos, el principio de no discriminación contra la mujer, contra el colectivo LGTBI...? Lo es.

Este Parlamento no puede revisar la decisión de la FIFA. Este Parlamento tampoco puede exigir que cualquier relación de cooperación de la Unión Europea con un tercer país esté basada sobre la exigencia de que ese tercer país observe nuestros mismos estándares de derechos fundamentales. Pero lo que sí puede hacer este Parlamento, y lo hace, es exigir que la relación de asociación y de cooperación esté condicionada a progresos tangibles en los derechos laborales, en los derechos humanos, en la no discriminación de las mujeres y del colectivo LGTBI y, esperablemente, en la mejora de la libertad de crítica y, por supuesto, a la proscripción de la tortura y de la pena de muerte. Y este es el sentido de este debate.

La Comisión ha tomado la iniciativa de modificar el Reglamento que establece los Estados que están exentos de visado para la entrada en la Unión Europea sobre la base de la reciprocidad. Este Parlamento está convencido de que la exención de visados es buena porque incentiva, precisamente a través del intercambio, la mejora en los derechos humanos y en las libertades. Pero exige también que se informe regularmente a este Parlamento Europeo anualmente con respecto a sus progresos tangibles en derechos laborales, en derechos humanos, en no discriminación y en proscripción de la tortura y de la pena de muerte.

  Laurence Farreng (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, hier, on espérait un geste de la FIFA, un hommage aux 6 500 ouvriers morts en construisant au Qatar, dans des conditions inhumaines, des stades démesurés, climatisés, en plein désert. L’hommage n’a pas eu lieu. Aujourd’hui, la FIFA fait pression directement sur les joueurs pour qu’ils renoncent à porter un brassard en soutien aux LGBT, dont les droits sont bafoués au Qatar. Messieurs de la FIFA, il y a des limites à la compromission.

Alors que nous devrions célébrer la grande fête du football, nous sommes honteux de vivre ce choix fait en 2010 et entaché de soupçons de corruption. Certes, l’actuel président de la FIFA n’était pas là en 2010. Mais où sont ses regrets quand il dit souhaiter ouvrir de grandes compétitions à des pays comme, je cite, la Corée du Nord?

La dernière Coupe du monde en Russie ou les JO en Chine n’ont rien changé. Mais en fin de compte, la Coupe du monde a agi comme un immense révélateur. L’opération séduction du Qatar a viré au «bad buzz» planétaire. Et le message est clair pour la FIFA: réformez vos instances, renouez avec les valeurs d’égalité, de tolérance, de transparence et d’universalité. Les vraies valeurs du sport.

  Hannah Neumann (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, earlier this year, I visited a refugee camp near Duhok in Iraq – the place that is right now being bombed by Iran and Turkey at the same time. Even five years after the defeat of ISIS, Yazidi families still live there in confined places in an environment of unhealed trauma and limited possibilities.

But that day I played soccer with the Scoring Girls, a team of girls that practice every afternoon, and the day I visited their fathers and brothers – even them – were watching their kids, their girls playing proudly. There was laughter, there were hugs, there was hope and the clear message that girls can do everything – even Yazidi girls in Iraq.

That is the power of soccer, dear colleagues. And then there’s this FIFA show happening right now – money, bribes, migrant workers dying on construction sites and big bosses celebrating their toxic privileges.

Yes, the laws for migrant workers in Qatar have improved – and we will follow up if implementation will happen once the spotlight moves on, believe me – but no one needs a championship where even messages as simple as ‘One Love’ are penalised with a yellow card.

Dear colleagues, this is just a lost opportunity for soccer and for the sad world in which we live today.

  Paolo Borchia (ID). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, io sono deluso, ma non sorpreso da un dibattito a tratti degno della banalità di un Infantino qualunque.

Ci sono dei grandi assenti in questa discussione, e sono gli uomini e soprattutto le donne di religione cristiana che in Qatar sono costretti a nascondere la propria fede, in un paese dove la conversione dall'islam al cristianesimo neppure è riconosciuta dal governo. Ma oggi si sta discutendo, doverosamente, di molti, troppi casi di morti bianche nei cantieri del mondiale, si sta discutendo di violazioni dei diritti della comunità LGBT, ma abbiamo visto che manca un pezzo. Tutti, dico, tutti hanno diritto al rispetto, ma chi sta seguendo questa plenaria da casa stasera si è fatto un'idea diversa, si è fatto un'idea di un'Europa che pensa ad alcuni diritti e in maniera codarda si volta dalla parte opposta e non pensa ad altri diritti.

Colleghi, giusto per mantenere un lessico calcistico: avete perso l'ennesima occasione per dimostrare che per quest'Aula non esistono discriminazioni di serie B.

  Nikolaj Villumsen (The Left). – Fru Formand! Fodbold-VM i Qatar er en skandale. Bag de glitrende facader gemmer sig blod, sved og tårer fra tusindvis af migrantarbejdere, der har slidt i ørkensolen. De døde i tusindtal, mens verden har set passivt til. Denne underdanighed over for det brutale ørkendiktatur må høre op. EU bør melde klart ud, at man ikke deltager. Lad være med at gemme jer bag dårlige undskyldninger. Sig fra over for undertrykkelsen. Skandalen i Qatar bør ikke alene føre til diplomatisk boykot. Det skal også sikres, at det aldrig sker igen. Ingen undertrykkende diktaturer skal kunne købe sig til store sportsarrangementer. Fodbold skal være for alle. Også for LGBT+ personer. Og aldrig igen skal bolden trille over tusinder af døde arbejderes lig.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, il y a tout juste neuf ans, nous votions une résolution sur la situation déplorable des travailleurs au Qatar. Pendant neuf ans, il n’y a plus rien eu comme résolution pour la simple raison – et vous l’avez expliqué, Madame la Commissaire, dans votre discours très mesuré – qu’il y a eu des progrès sur le droit des travailleurs.

Alors, certes, évidemment, la situation n’est pas parfaite au Qatar aujourd’hui, loin de là. Beaucoup de progrès restent à faire, mais c’est quand même le pays qui s’est engagé sur la voie des réformes. Et l’organisation de la Coupe du monde, au delà de tous les événements qu’il a organisés, a été probablement l’élément déclencheur qui a accéléré ces réformes. Il faut le reconnaître aujourd’hui, l’abandon de la kafala, ce système de dépendance des travailleurs, c’est quand même le seul pays de la péninsule arabique qui l’a fait. Salaire minimum, versement sur un compte bancaire, organisation de concertations au sein des entreprises, même si les syndicats ne sont toujours pas autorisés aujourd’hui.

Donc aujourd’hui, le discours unilatéralement négatif m’apparaît préjudiciable à l’évolution des droits dans l’avenir au Qatar. Parce que ce qui est important, c’est que, quand les lumières de la Coupe du monde se seront éteintes, l’évolution positive continue non seulement au Qatar, mais qu’elle puisse faire tache d’huile dans tous les pays de la péninsule arabique. Et je le rappelle, s’il y a deux millions de travailleurs migrants au Qatar, il y en a quarante millions dans toute cette zone et ils méritent tous un sort bien plus favorable demain qu’aujourd’hui.

  Abir Al-Sahlani (Renew). – Madam Chair, dear colleagues, it is amazing how that government in Qatar is using this to say that this is a smear campaign, that this is about racism, this is about them being a middle Eastern country when in fact there is nothing more racist than when you treat a migrant workers like this.

Because, let’s admit it, if they were Europeans, this treatment would not be in place. It is because they are Asian. It is because they are poor that this government is protecting these oppressors and there is nothing more racist than when a government protects the ones who are abusing human rights, the ones who are not paying these salaries for these migrant workers.

And to the FIFA chair: You suddenly started to understand how it is to be an Arab. Really? Do you know how it is to be a woman in the Middle East, deprived of your human dignity? You cannot file for divorce because then your children will be taken from you. You cannot be yourself. You cannot choose what to wear. You cannot even apply for a passport without a man. Do you understand how it is to be an Arab woman? No, you don’t.

  Mounir Satouri (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, l’interdiction de bière dans les stades aura autant fait parler que la mort de 6 500 travailleurs esclaves. Je ne sais pas quoi en conclure pour notre humanité, mais je sais ce que cela dit du gouvernement qatarien. Il n’a aucun respect pour ses partenaires, ni pour les droits humains, et se montre incapable de respecter ses engagements.

Ne feignons pas la surprise parce que, derrière le paravent de la FIFA, nous sommes responsables − la France, plus particulièrement −, responsables de confier à un État, dont on connaissait pourtant les pratiques, l’organisation de cette Coupe, de laisser souvent aussi la corruption guider ses choix.

Posons-nous la question de ces événements démesurés, souvent convoités par des États répressifs en quête d’une nouvelle image. Posons-nous la question en amont de l’impact climatique et faisons en sorte que des critères préalables soient enfin établis. La FIFA impose un cahier des charges luxueux pour l’organisation des mondiaux. Il est temps qu’elle impose un cahier des charges des droits humains et de l’écologie, et qu’on le lui impose. C’est à nous, politiques, de faire entendre cette voix. Se défiler, c’est nous rendre complices de cela.

  Miguel Urbán Crespo (The Left). – Señora presidenta, el Mundial de Qatar es otro ejemplo más de cómo se utilizan grandes eventos para lavar la cara de regímenes autoritarios.

Organizar un Mundial de fútbol en un país que viola veinte de los treinta artículos de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas es un mensaje político, el mensaje de que el dinero está por encima de los derechos humanos.

La legislación qatarí considera que las mujeres son personas bajo tutela masculina y la homosexualidad, un daño mental penado con la cárcel. Por no hablar de la censura, de la prohibición de los sindicatos y los partidos políticos o de los miles de trabajadores migrantes que han muerto en las obras de este Mundial. Un Mundial manchado de sangre. Mientras la FIFA y sus corruptelas se llenan los bolsillos, los brazaletes en apoyo a la comunidad LGTBI son vetados. Eso es un mensaje político.

Por todo ello, yo apoyo el boicot a este Mundial de la vergüenza. Si no lo podemos evitar, por lo menos que se escuchen nuestras voces. Boicot al Mundial de Qatar.

  Eva Kaili (S&D). – Madam President, so today, the World Cup in Qatar is proof, actually, of how sports diplomacy can achieve a historical transformation of a country with reforms that inspired the Arab world. I alone said that Qatar is a frontrunner in labour rights, abolishing kafala and reducing minimum wage. Despite the challenges that even European companies are denying to enforce these laws, they committed to a vision by choice, and they opened to the world. Still, some here are calling to discriminate them. They bully them and they accuse everyone that talks to them or engages of corruption. But still, they take their gas. Still, they have their companies profiting billions there.

I have been lectured as a Greek and I remind us all that we have thousands of deaths because of our failure for legal ways of migration in Europe. We can promote our values, but we do not have the moral right for lectures to get cheap media attention. And we do not impose our way, we respect them, even without LNG. They are a new generation of intelligent, high—educated people. They helped us to reduce the tension with Turkey. They helped us with Afghanistan to save activists, children, women. They helped us. And they are peace negotiators. They are good neighbours and partners. We can help each other to overcome the shortcomings. They achieved the impossible already.

  Anna Cavazzini (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, of course, Qatar’s government has made some reforms, has put some efforts into reforming its labour laws and this also shows that international pressure is working. But serious labour laws violations remain. Forced labour and other forms of abuse continue. And so many workers died. And a lot of these cases are not being investigated.

Hundreds of thousands of migrant workers have still not been compensated for stolen wages in the past decade. The payment of recruitment fees for migrant workers remains widespread, tying up workers in debt bondage. For me, it is clear: FIFA and the Qatari Government they need to do more, now but also after the attention afforded by the World Cup ends. The most important thing is they need to compensate all workers that got their wages stolen in the run up to the World Cup. It is time for FIFA and Qatar to pay up.

  Niels Fuglsang (S&D). – Madam President, today, I feel embarrassed. Today, I feel ashamed. Today, I feel sad. I feel embarrassed, ashamed and sad because what might very well be the darkest moment in the history of sports is taking place right now as we speak – the World Cup in Qatar.

And we should not be silent about that for the next 3 000 years as somebody wants us to be. Because since Qatar was handed the World Cup, more than 6 500 migrant workers have lost their lives, because it’s illegal to be in a union or to be homosexual in Qatar, because human rights are violated every single day, and FIFA and the Qatari regime don’t seem to care at all about it. Today, I feel certain that if we want things to change, we need a fundamental reform of FIFA. Mr Infantino, do us all a favour, step down now.

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, a decisão de organizar o Campeonato do Mundo no Catar foi tomada, mal, mas foi tomada. Depois, esse campeonato era também uma oportunidade para melhorar os direitos e a situação política do Catar. É uma oportunidade perdida.

Não há dúvida de que hoje nós sabemos que os direitos das mulheres, os direitos das minorias sexuais, religiosas e étnicas, sabemos que os direitos dos trabalhadores e, especialmente, a morte de migrantes é verdadeiramente chocante para a organização deste evento. Sabemos que há trabalhadores que não receberam e que há trabalhadores e famílias de trabalhadores mortos que precisam de ser indemnizadas. Sabemos que não há liberdade de expressão nem de manifestação contra este evento.

Não há no Catar e também não há em Portugal, país em que se proibiu a entrada de pessoas com t—shirts num jogo de futebol. E eu lamento que o meu Presidente da República, que o meu Presidente do Parlamento e que o meu Primeiro-Ministro – especialmente o Primeiro—Ministro –, dizendo que vai apoiar a seleção quando pode fazê—lo, como 10 milhões de portugueses, em Portugal, estejam a dar apoio a uma iniciativa com estas características.

Nesta fase podem perfeitamente estar em suas casas em Portugal e, ao mesmo tempo, estarem solidários com o sofrimento dos catarianos e dos imigrantes no Catar.

  Lara Wolters (S&D). – Madam President, we heard Mr Infantino say the other day, indeed, that he feels many things, including being disabled, gay, a woman and a migrant worker. What I felt mainly there, and I think many colleagues here with me, was embarrassment. Not only at his very ill-advised speech. Because no matter how much progress was made in Qatar – and progress was made – it’s not okay, and I’m going to state the obvious here, for people to die on building sites in their thousands, it’s not okay for people to be jailed for asking for their wages and it’s certainly not okay for the gay people that Mr Infantino says he feels for to have to live in fear that the death penalty will one day be enforced.

Now, I don’t think we are teaching anyone any moral lessons by being clear about those things. And contrary to what Mr Infantino thinks, it’s not quite incredible that if as a country you invite the world in to promote yourself, that you also get scrutinised by the world. Now what we need for the future are serious, credible human rights commitments from host countries and FIFA, and a serious duty of care for companies, including compensation.

We might have a side dish of progress here today, but the main course of this World Cup is human tragedy and embarrassment.

  Barry Andrews (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, I just want to pay tribute today to the footballers of the Iran national team, which showed incredible courage to stand up to their regime today in the face of very, very grave danger when they return to their countries. It stood in stark contrast to the English team, which refused to wear a simple armband. While they might have lost on the field today, a very profound victory will long outlast when the game itself is forgotten.

But we should not be surprised by sports watching, particularly in football. No company would get away with the reputational damage that FIFA is experiencing right now. FIFA gets away with it because it’s a cartel, and the European Commission has to seriously consider the relationship that it has developed with UEFA around the promotion of the European Green Deal. I think that really has to be looked at.

In the same way that some carbon consumption is unavoidable but can be offset, my message to those who feel they have to watch this is that you can offset your watching of this by making a contribution to some of the great human rights defenders organisations around the globe.

  Viola von Cramon-Taubadel (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Wie viele Menschen müssen sterben, um euch den Spaß hier zu verderben? Wie viele vertuschte Unfälle, verzweifelte Familien, wie viele leidende Arbeitsmigranten, wie viele Suizide sind okay?

FIFA-Präsident Infantino gibt an, es seien drei Menschen ums Leben gekommen. Laut Amnesty International sind es 15 021 Tote. Aber ist nicht jedes Leben, das verloren wurde, nur damit wir unseren Teams zujubeln können, eines zu viel? Egal, ob drei, 30 oder 3 000 Tote – jeder hat das Recht auf Leben, das Recht auf ein würdevolles Leben.

Ausbleibende Löhne, abgenommene Pässe, fensterlose Zimmer und nicht einmal die Freiheit, den Arbeitsplatz zu wechseln – all dies wartete auf Arbeitsmigranten in Katar, einem Land, in dem die Menschenrechte quasi nicht existieren. Ein Land, in dem Frauen eine Vergewaltigung nicht anzeigen können, da diese als Beweis für außerehelichen Geschlechtsverkehr gilt – eine Straftat, die mit Freiheitsstrafe, Auspeitschung und Steinigung verurteilt werden kann. Ein Land, in dem der eigene WM-Botschafter Homosexualität als Schaden im Kopf bezeichnet. Ein Land, in dem Journalisten festgenommen werden fürs Fotografieren und bei einer regimekritischen Äußerung eine Geldstrafe droht.

Diese WM ist eine Schande. Sport und Fußball sind so wichtig, können so viel Gutes tun. Doch diese WM wird durch die FIFA und die Verhältnisse vor Ort in Katar für immer ein schwarzer Fleck im Sport bleiben.

  Ladislav Ilčić (ECR). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, poštovani dame i gospodo, dvanaest godina se zna da će Katar biti domaćin nogometnog prvenstva. Dvanaest godina ste znali kakva je tamo situacija s ljudskim pravima. Dvanaest godina ste mogli istraživati ima li kakve korupcije u FIFA-i. Dvanaest godina ste imali priliku za svoju toliko omiljenu kulturu otkazivanja i - ništa.

I sada se javljaju oni koji su uvijek protiv domoljublja, uvijek protiv nacionalnog ponosa. Pozivaju nas da ne gledamo utakmice, žele spriječiti da se milijuni ljudskih srdaca vežu uz svoje nacionalne simbole, a ja vam kažem: volim Hrvatsku, volim nogomet, volim gledati hrvatsku nogometnu reprezentaciju. Nećete nam nametati osjećaj krivnje.

Hrvatska je sportska nacija i naša srca gore kad naša reprezentacija igra i zato nas nitko neće spriječiti da gledamo utakmice hrvatske nogometne reprezentacije!

  Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, everybody knows, of course, that Qatar is one of the most repressive regimes in the world, where human rights simply don’t exist for the majority of the people. Of course, it’s not the only one, but the idea of improvements in minimum wage and labour conditions and so on really belies the reality for so many people – particularly the thousands who have lost their lives without any compensation. But for all the standing—up in here and crying about ‘sportswashing’ and giving out about football, the truth is that next week most people will come in here behind closed doors and agree to give Qatar the privilege of visa—free travel to the EU, a privilege that most countries – more than a hundred actually – in the world don’t have.

You’ll sign off on Qatari progress on human rights, even as the families of the dead are still mourning their loved ones. You’ll do it for oil and gas, because the EU has cut itself off from Russian energy as it’s an authoritarian regime fighting an illegal war, but you will do business with an authoritarian regime that’s fighting an illegal war in Yemen. Nobody’s fooled. If there was a world cup for hypocrisy, the EU would walk away the victors without a match being played!

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, již před deseti lety se Evropský parlament vyjádřil a vyjádřil své výhrady k udělení šampionátu právě do Kataru. Myslím si, že to nás –i některé členské státy EU se na tomto rozhodnutí podílely v rámci kartelu FIFA – nezbavuje viny. Myslím, že je důležité, že se tato témata, jako jsou lidská práva, ochrana menšin, práva žen, otázka otrocké práce, dostala skutečně takto do popředí. Já to vnímám jako pozitivní na celé epizodě kolem přidělení tohoto šampionátu Kataru. Ale není to jenom epizoda. Myslím si, že zůstane po tomto šampionátu, ať bude jakýkoli, jednoznačné přesvědčení, že i hráči a trenéři se vymezili proti nedodržování lidských práv, proti nedodržování toho základního, těch základních hodnot, které vnímáme, že jsou univerzální napříč celým světem. A možná, že i Katar stojí na rozcestí, jestli trochu otevře dveře těmto lidským právům anebo naopak bude striktně stát na represivním systému, kde bohužel neplatí tato univerzalita, kterou vnímáme napříč celým světem.

  Pierre Karleskind (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, que risquent les footballeurs européens en portant un brassard arc-en-ciel dans l’enceinte des stades? Se faire tirer dessus comme cinq personnes qui ont trouvé la mort dans un bar gay à Colorado Springs? Non. Risquent-ils, comme leurs collègues iraniens, leur peau? Ces collègues iraniens qui ont, eux, eu un comportement d’une bravoure remarquable cet après-midi? La réponse est à nouveau non, ils ne risquent rien. Ils ne risquent rien à faire parler de l’homosexualité et du respect des LGBTI sur les terrains de foot.

Parce qu’enfin, les insultes homophobes sont omniprésentes sur les terrains de foot. Le capitaine de l’équipe de France a même pu déclarer que cela faisait partie du folklore. Eh bien, Messieurs de la FIFA, aussi longtemps que cela fera partie du folklore, nous maintiendrons notre pression pour que ce folklore fasse partie d’un lointain et mauvais souvenir.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta: gol. La FIFA ha metido un gol, el gol del dinero y el gol de la corrupción.

¿A quién le importan las vidas de los migrantes trabajadores, de las mujeres o de las personas LGBTI en Qatar? Desde luego, a la FIFA no le importan. A nosotros sí nos importan. Por eso, la semana pasada, la Comisión de Derechos Humanos organizó una audiencia con un ministro de Qatar y con varias ONG que vinieron a propósito a hablar de la gravísima situación, comisaria.

El deporte es más que el dinero. A nosotros no nos gusta tener relaciones con un país esclavista, homófobo y machista. Nos preocupan esas vidas.

Por eso, apoyo la campaña «Boycott Qatar», como esta fotografía que están promoviendo muchos colectivos, incluidos deportistas, incluidos jugadores de fútbol que defienden los derechos humanos.

Apaga la televisión, apaga la televisión durante el Mundial. Boicot al Mundial de Qatar.

  President. – I should however say that according to our Rules we are not allowed to show photos or banners here in the plenary. Same rules for everyone.

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, I’ve been involved in football all my life. I love football. The game of football thrives in spite of FIFA, not because of it. And the human rights situation in Qatar is soul destroying. And FIFA and Qatar should ensure a massive and comprehensive remediation programme for migrant workers and their families.

But the EU’s hypocrisy in calling out human rights abuses in Qatar is a bit galling. The Commission’s REPowerEU plan to wean Europe off Russian gas involves buying more of it from Qatar. Meanwhile, the EU is about to provide visa—free, short—stay travel for Qataris. Why don’t we give it to every country if Qatar qualifies? We do what suits our business interests and our geopolitical agenda.

Where is the next World Cup? Four years’ time in the US. A failed state of systemic racism, police brutality and impunity, extraordinary renditions, extrajudicial detentions and torture of prisoners. The US imprisons more of its population than any country on earth. And they produce 11 billion worth of business and slave labour rates. If Qatar shouldn’t have got the World Cup, the Americans shouldn’t get it either.

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, what the debate today testifies is your continued, of course, interest on the engagement of the human rights situation in Qatar. As I said in my opening remarks, yes, the human rights path for Qatar is far from complete. And as for any other country, it is a journey that will continue, that will never be finished and numerous challenges remain.

Now, the EU has adopted a very clear gender equality strategy in 2020–2025, where women, men, girls and boys in all their diversity have equal opportunities. And on LGBTQI persons in Europe, the EU of course is fully committed to addressing inequalities and challenges, and we presented the strategy in 2020, and we will not be compromising on our principles and values because we believe in a Europe and a world that embraces diversity and not hides it.

Of course, as I said in my opening remarks, every life lost and every work-related death lost is a tragedy. So let me stress once again that the EU will continue to follow the human rights situation in Qatar very closely. We will do this through our annual political dialogue and human rights dialogue with the government, through our newly established EU delegation in Doha and in close contact with the International Labour Organization.

But we stand ready to support and assist Qatar in its human rights reform agenda. And we strongly encourage the Qatari Government to look beyond the glamour of this sporting feast and beyond the final whistle of the World Cup final on 18 December.

  Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt. Sen päätteeksi jätettävien päätöslauselmaesitysten määräaika on huomenna 22.11.2022 kello 12.

Äänestys toimitetaan torstaina 24.11.2022.

Kirjalliset lausumat (171 artikla)

  Andrus Ansip (Renew), kirjalikult. – Katar ei ole euroopaliku demokraatiaga riik. Sama väide kehtib ka eelmist MMi ja taliolümpiamänge võõrustanud Venemaa ning olümpiamänge võõrustanud Hiina kohta. Loomulikult peab Euroopa Liit seisma inimõiguste kaitsel kogu maailmas, kuid on variserlik kritiseerida väikest Katari, aktsepteerides samas spordisündmuste korraldamist Pekingis ja Sotšis. Pean Katari kõige euroopameelsemaks riigiks Lähis-Idas. Katar on korduvalt hääletanud ÜROs sarnaselt Eestiga ja teiste lääneriikidega, muuhulgas mõistnud ühemõtteliselt hukka Venemaa agressioonisõja Ukraina vastu. Katar on oluliselt laiendanud töötajate õigusi, kehtestanud valimised ja asutanud ka uudistekanali, mis on palju avameelsem, kui selle araabia konkurendid. See on kaugel Putini Venemaast, kus inimesed saadetakse vangi selle eest, et nad kutsuvad Ukraina sõda sõjaks. Katar on teinud tohutud investeeringud jalgpalli MMi korraldamiseks. Spordivõistluste korraldamine vaid plekitutes riikides on raske. Kui me ei taha, et spordivõistlused toimuksid vaid Soomes, Norras ja Rootsis, tuleb neid korraldada ka riikides, kus demokraatial on arenguruumi. Arvestades positiivseid arenguid Kataris, ei pea ma Katari vastast lauskriitikat proportsionaalseks.

  Pedro Marques (S&D), por escrito. – O Mundo não para de nos surpreender. À surpresa com que assistimos, há 12 anos, à escolha do Catar para sede do Mundial de Futebol de 2022, podemos acrescentar a estranheza do facto de este campeonato se realizar pela primeira vez no inverno. É que, no Catar, também é inverno, apesar de todos os dias estarem temperaturas acima dos 30 graus. Por causa dessas temperaturas, existem estádios ao ar livre com ar condicionado, numa altura em que o mundo se debate com uma tremenda crise energética. Acontece que há muito pior: suspeitas de suborno e corrupção consideradas credíveis na escolha da FIFA, milhares de trabalhadores migrantes mortos, condições de trabalho obscenas, discriminações de vários tipos e com vários destinatários. Que nos sirva de exemplo para futuras escolhas. Julgo que os cidadãos europeus não vão aceitar novamente algo do género. Que os países da UE sejam os primeiros a dar esse exemplo.

  Matjaž Nemec (S&D), pisno. – Šport povezuje. Šport združuje. Nogomet je fenomen, ki presega tudi politiko in nas uči o vrednotah timskega dela, kolegialnosti, o vrednotah življenja. To je nogomet, ki ga želimo igrati, ga gledati, se z njim poistovetiti.

Žal temu ni tako za čas svetovnega prvenstva v Katarju. Preveč je ostalo odprtih vprašanj, na katere država vse od leta 2010, ko jo je FIFA razglasila za gostiteljico prvenstva, ni zmogla ali želela odgovoriti.

Govorimo o izkoriščanju delavcev, o eklatantnem kršenju pravic ženskam ter LGBT skupnosti, o negaciji temeljnih demokratičnih standardov. Še več, poroča se o tisočerih umrlih delavcih, o zaprtih ljudeh brez sojenja, o zatiranju in šikaniranju.

Nogomet in ostali športi vse pogosteje padajo v nemilost zlorab interesov kapitala, tudi na račun vrednot, ki bi morale biti samoumevne. Svetovno prvenstvo v Katarju je le eden, ne pa edini dokaz temu. Takšni zlorabi športa se moramo upreti vsi, predvsem pa politika.

Zato pozdravljam resolucijo Evropskega parlamenta o Katarju. To je pomembno sporočilo, ki pa ni dovolj, da šport izvijemo iz vse bolj objestnega primeža kapitalskih interesov. Ne nazadnje ne gre več samo za šport. Gre za človekove pravice, za spoštovanje prava, dostojanstva, gre za človečnost. Nastavimo ogledalo kapitalu in njegovi zlorabi v športu!

17. Laenuvõtmise strateegia Euroopa taasterahastu „NextGenerationEU“ rahastamiseks (arutelu)

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana José Manuel Fernandesin ja Valérie Hayerin budjettivaliokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö Next Generation EU -välineen eli EU:n elpymisvälineen rahoittamiseksi laaditun lainanottostrategian täytäntöönpanosta (2021/2076(INI)) (A9 0250/2022).

  José Manuel Fernandes, Relator. – Senhora Presidente, caras e caros Colegas, Senhor Comissário, a resposta da União Europeia à crise pandémica não tem precedentes. É uma resposta histórica, uma resposta forte. Pela primeira vez, na União Europeia, a Comissão foi aos mercados e não foi só para emprestar dinheiro aos Estados-Membros, foi para reforçar os programas, foi para dar subvenções aos Estados-Membros, para eles fazerem os planos de recuperação e resiliência. São 800 mil milhões de euros que deverão ser pagos no que diz respeito ao montante que o orçamento vai suportar – neste caso, só 420 mil milhões de euros –, que deverão ser pagos até 2058. É algo que tem de nos responsabilizar.

Os Estados-Membros, para além destes montantes, têm ainda aquilo que é o Quadro Financeiro Plurianual até 2027. São 2 biliões de euros que os Estados-Membros têm disponíveis se somarem estes dois instrumentos, uma chuva de milhões. Nunca houve tantos recursos que, no entanto, estão a ser desbaratados porque não estão a ser utilizados à velocidade que deveriam ser usados. E é que não basta gastar, é preciso gastar bem a favor dos cidadãos da União Europeia, de forma a protegermos o futuro dos jovens. E há aqui um ponto que é extremamente importante: é que, se necessário, há que alargar a data do NextGenerationEU, a data dos planos de recuperação e resiliência, porque nós precisamos de projetos bons, de projetos de qualidade.

Não é necessário, nem se pode aceitar, que se ande a executar projetos à pressa só para gastar o dinheiro que está disponível. Para além disso, Senhor Comissário, há aqui uma grande responsabilidade, como eu disse que temos: é que há 420 mil milhões de euros que vão ser pagos até 2058. E, neste momento, essa dívida está a ser paga através do orçamento e dentro do orçamento, o que traz constrangimentos, diminui a flexibilidade e prejudica outros programas.

O MRR, o NextGenerationEU, os planos de recuperação e resiliência não podem ser feitos à custa dos outros programas, das outras políticas. E, por isso, sempre defendemos e insistimos: o pagamento da dívida deve estar dentro dos limites do orçamento, mas acima dos tetos do orçamento, para não prejudicarmos os programas, para não prejudicarmos as outras políticas.

E há um outro ponto essencial: é que estes recursos, que estão neste momento a ser pagos pelo orçamento da União Europeia, não podem ir contra as próximas gerações, e por isso é essencial que este Parlamento aprove novos recursos próprios, novas receitas que não podem penalizar os cidadãos, que devem estar em linha com os objetivos da União Europeia e dos quais nós precisamos com urgência, e aliás, há um acordo interinstitucional, que é juridicamente vinculativo e que os Estados-Membros devem respeitar.

E o Parlamento Europeu tem feito o seu trabalho, a Comissão Europeia também tem avançado. Está agora nas mãos dos Estados-Membros não penalizar as próximas gerações, e isso é absolutamente crucial, é absolutamente essencial. E eu confio que os nossos governantes tenham a sensibilidade para não prejudicarem o futuro das próximas gerações e terem um Quadro Financeiro Plurianual no futuro, onde a dívida que tem de ser paga não prejudique as políticas, as prioridades e os programas da União Europeia.

  Valérie Hayer, rapporteure. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, il y a deux ans, nous actions le premier grand plan de relance de l’Union européenne, une réalisation concrète créant une solidarité de fait, comme auguré par Robert Schuman en son temps. Une solidarité de fait grâce à l’octroi de subventions qui ont rendu le projet inédit dans l’histoire. Je dis bien inédit. Car quels ensembles régionaux dans le monde peuvent se targuer de tant de solidarité dans l’histoire récente? Imagine-t-on les pays d’Asie du Sud-Est ou d’Amérique du Sud emprunter ensemble? Non. C’est pourquoi la création de cet emprunt commun qui lie les Européens pour sortir plus forts de la crise est absolument remarquable. Remarquable comme l’a été notre Union dans l’achat de vaccins pour mettre fin à la pandémie. Aucun État oublié, aucun Européen mis de côté.

Alors est-ce que ce plan de relance constituera un chapitre à lui seul dans tous les manuels d’histoire européenne? Incontestablement. Cependant, ce que nous tentons de déterminer au travers de ce premier rapport du Parlement évaluant ce grand emprunt, c’est s’il fera également partie des manuels d’économie. Après plus d’un an de mise en œuvre, nous le disons sans ambages: oui, le plan de relance a permis aux États de se relancer. Oui, les investisseurs ont confiance en l’Union. Oui, l’emprunt commun est un succès.

Certains prédisaient que l’Europe, en empruntant 150 milliards par an, bouleverserait les marchés, que les investisseurs se détourneraient des obligations souveraines, mettant à mal les stratégies des États membres pour répondre aux besoins nationaux. Il n’en est rien. Les États sont sortis plus forts, avec toujours le même intérêt des investisseurs pour leurs obligations nationales. Mais en plus, ces investisseurs avaient une demande pour les obligations européennes dix fois plus élevée que ce qui était disponible. L’Europe a ainsi été mise sur un pied d’égalité avec les autres grands émetteurs européens et internationaux, mais sans jamais mettre en péril les États et leurs besoins nationaux.

Par ailleurs, l’Union est devenue le principal émetteur supranational. De ce fait, elle a une incidence positive sur la stabilité et la liquidité des marchés des capitaux. Elle a amélioré les perspectives économiques du continent. Elle a complété l’architecture macroéconomique de la zone euro. Et elle a renforcé le rôle international de l’euro.

Enfin, chers collègues, l’Union est aussi devenue le plus grand émetteur d’obligations vertes au monde. Réclamées par beaucoup depuis des années, ces obligations vertes sont enfin devenue réalité. Pour 250 milliards d’euros, soit l’équivalent, cher José Manuel, du PIB du Portugal – 250 milliards d’euros, juste en obligations vertes. Alors que la COP vient de s’achever, c’est un fait extraordinaire dont beaucoup de nations à travers le monde feraient bien de s’inspirer pour combattre le changement climatique. Désormais, en tant que leader mondial des obligations vertes, il incombe à notre Union, Monsieur le Commissaire, de définir des critères de référence pour les investissements durables dans le monde et à la Commission de continuellement s’assurer que toute tentative de «greenwashing» soit écartée.

Mais notre chantier ne s’arrête pas là. C’est pourquoi nous émettons plusieurs recommandations dans ce rapport que nous nous apprêtons à voter. Et parmi celles-ci, une me tient particulièrement à cœur, Monsieur le Commissaire, et vous le savez bien: nous devons permettre aux Européens d’acquérir directement des obligations européennes, comme cela est possible dans certains États à travers le monde. Donnons aux Européens, à vous, à moi, la possibilité de détenir de la dette européenne. Ne laissons pas seulement les banques centrales, les gestionnaires de grands fonds internationaux, les fonds spéculatifs et les fonds de pension investir dans l’Europe. Donnons aussi le droit à chaque Européen de posséder un bout de l’histoire de notre intégration, et ce quelles que soient les difficultés techniques.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, let me start by thanking the European Parliament and especially the Committee on Budgets for this own—initiative report and the support over the years for the Union’s borrowing and lending programme. But I would in particular congratulate the two rapporteurs, José Manuel Fernandes and Valérie Hayer for this extremely valuable work and the support we are gaining.

Indeed, financing NextGenerationEU through joint EU issuances required a significant expansion of the Commission’s step management architecture. Building on its previous experience as an issuer and with technical support from Member States and the ECB, the Commission established a state—of—the—art borrowing and lending programme underpinned by a reliable payments settlement and accounting infrastructure in a very short period of time.

Actually, we moved immediately from, let’s say, a regional player to a Champions League player. And I have to admit this was not without risks but finally it worked, and I would like to thank also my people in DG BUDG for this extremely challenging time and the way how they have managed it.

Based on this, we have now defined a so—called diversified funding strategy. And this funding strategy is embedded in a robust governance and risk mitigation framework. NextGenerationEU borrowing and lending operations have been a success. This was already mentioned by the previous speakers.

Despite the challenging market conditions, the Union has been able to fund its operations successfully. Thanks to the diversified funding strategy, we have already mobilised more than EUR 160 billion, of which almost EUR 30 billion in the form of green bonds to fund the European recovery and to build a greener, more digital and more resilient Europe. Each of our transactions has enjoyed strong market support from a diverse set of investors from all over the world. So far we have seen, I think, around 1 000 investors from around 70 countries.

This strong demand demonstrates that the Commission has established itself as an important and trusted issuer in euro debt capital markets, raising the required funds in time and at the competitive cost of funding. As a result, the Union has transformed from, as I said already, a small supranational issuer to a large sovereign—scale issuer at the same level as the big European countries: Germany, Spain, France, Italy.

The diversified funding strategy has proved a success. That’s why the Commission intends to finance also other EU loans, including the EUR 18 billion macro—financial assistance support package for Ukraine through the diversified funding strategy. Therefore, we have put forward on 9 November a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council to modify the financial regulation to allow for this. But I understand on this there will be a separate debate on Wednesday.

Through this modification of the financial regulation, the diversified funding strategy will be established as the mainstream funding method for any new programmes to be funded by debt issuance. This would be in the interest of the Union, Ukraine and any other further recipients of EU loans. Bringing all the borrowing and lending programmes under the same umbrella would improve the volume and liquidity of EU bonds leading to more attractive terms of buying. This would benefit both the recipients of EU loans and the EU budget.

Moreover, the diversified funding strategy gives more flexibility in the timing of the loans. In the case of Ukraine, this will help to better respond to the needs of the Ukrainian authorities. A swift adoption of this proposal by the co—legislators is therefore key so that we can start financing the loans to Ukraine in the most effective, predictable and attractive manner as of early next year.

I appreciate the proposals put forward in the European Parliament’s own—initiative report with a view to further enhancing the Commission’s borrowing and lending operations, including the need to work with market participants to stimulate secondary market liquidity of EU bonds. The Commission attaches great importance to these issues and is working to ensure the pricing of EU bonds better reflects the EU’s credit quality and liquidity.

Another proposal in the own—initiative report that I would like to highlight is the prevention of greenwashing via the green bonds framework, which we take very seriously and we fully support this, of course. This is why we have put in place a state—of—the—art NextGenerationEU green bond dashboard, which provides full transparency about how the financing raised from NextGenerationEU green bonds is invested.

In addition, the Commission will publish in the coming weeks its first green bond allocation report. So I really invite you to look at this green bond dashboard. We are currently on a weekly updated basis. You can see all the different projects which are financed via green bonds and, I suppose, as of beginning of next year it will be on a daily basis updated.

So finally, I concur that this is key to keep the European Parliament fully involved. The Commission is strongly committed to reporting to Parliament on its issuance and debt management strategy, as we have done since the start of the NextGenerationEU programme and our proposal to bring the diversified funding strategy in the scope of financial regulation would further strengthen the role of the European Parliament in the oversight. So also in this context, I look forward to the continued cooperation with the European Parliament on this file.

IN THE CHAIR: KATARINA BARLEY
Vice-President

  Siegfried Mureşan, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, firstly I would like to start by congratulating the two co-rapporteurs, Valérie Hayer and José Manuel Fernandes, on what is a very good report, widely reflecting the points of view of the Members of this House.

Secondly, I would like to congratulate the Commission and the Commissioners specifically for what has been a successful borrowing strategy so far, if we evaluate it both in terms of volumes raised but also in terms of associated costs.

NextGenerationEU is the largest package of economic support ever created by the European Union. We need to make sure that at the end of the day, the benefits for the people, for enterprises, for the regions affected by the virus, by its economic and social consequences, outweigh the costs and the risks.

This is why, firstly, the borrowing strategy continues to be important and I believe that the borrowing strategy needs to be put in place in such a way that interest rates will continue to be as low as possible for the foreseeable future. But then, of course, we will also have to think about repayment. Making that is never an easy decision and that needs to be paid back. We have to clarify who, how and when pays back that debt.

The Commissioner has rightly said that the European Commission has put forward a first document on own resources. We kindly ask Member States not to delay the implementation of what is a binding interinstitutional agreement between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council, with a clear objective to clarify the repayment of NextGenerationEU, because so far the interest rates of this instrument are included in the budget. They pose a risk for the budget.

We do not want the repayment of this instrument to pose a risk for the budget as a whole.

  Margarida Marques, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, Colega José Manuel Fernandes, Colega Valérie Hayer, Senhor Comissário, há três, quatro anos apenas ninguém poderia imaginar estarmos aqui hoje a fazer o balanço da estratégia da Comissão Europeia na emissão de dívida para constituir progressivamente o NextGenerationEU. E quem propusesse antes constituir dívida era considerado um utópico ou uma utópica.

Mas queria felicitar a Comissão pelo sucesso que tem conseguido nas sucessivas emissões. Sucesso também na promoção de Green Bonds. E isso revela bem a credibilidade da União Europeia junto dos mercados financeiros, que vai muito para além da soma da credibilidade dos ratings dos 27 Estados-Membros.

Temos de tudo fazer para que o NextGenerationEU – uma resposta europeia ambiciosa, coletiva e democrática –, seja um sucesso também para que possa ter outros voos no futuro.

Para já, a Comissão Europeia já está a propor usar este mecanismo para o financiamento da União Europeia à Ucrânia. A resposta é possível porque o instrumento existe.

Mas precisamos de passar de soluções ad hoc para instrumentos mais estruturantes: dotarmos a União de um instrumento permanente que lhe permita reagir rápida e eficazmente a novos desafios.

  Mauri Pekkarinen, Renew-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, ensinnäkin kiitoksia esittelijöille. Covid oli todellakin nyt vaarassa ajaa Euroopan talouden kriisiin. Finanssikriisistä poiketen EU kykeni kuitenkin yhteisin varoin auttamaan suurempiin vaikeuksiin joutuneita jäsenvaltioita. Ratkaisumme oli elpymisväline. Päätimme ottaa ensimmäisen kerran suuren määrän yhteistä velkaa. Se oli vahva solidaarisuuden osoitus. Näiden rahojen käyttöä pitää nyt tarkkaan seurata. Äsken kuultu komissaarin esitys oli hyvä tässä mielessä.

Tämä ratkaisu elpymisvälineistä tehtiin luottaen siihen, että se oli poikkeuksellinen, kertaluonteinen ja väliaikainen ratkaisu. Suomelle tämä nimenomaan oli välttämätön edellytys, jotta tuki Next Generation EU:lle voitiin antaa.

Nyt käsittelyssä olevan asian yhteydessä onkin syytä muistaa, että tällaisen yhteisvastuullisen velkaratkaisun tulee todellakin jäädä ainutkertaiseksi. Jäsenvaltioiden on itse kannettava vastuu taloutensa tasapainottamisesta. Tulevalla valmistuvalla kasvu- ja vakaussopimuksella on tämän periaatteen käytännön soveltamisen kannalta suuri ja tärkeä merkitys.

  David Cormand, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, oui, cet emprunt partagé, c’était un moment historique − hamiltonien, d’aucuns l’ont dit. Sauf qu’aujourd’hui nous sommes au milieu du gué et la fin de l’histoire reste à écrire. La réalité actuelle, c’est que le financement de cet emprunt partagé est garanti par un budget qui, aujourd’hui, est contraint par de nouvelles urgences, comme la guerre imposée par la Russie de Poutine à l’Ukraine.

Or, il y a un enjeu dont je n’ai, jusqu’à maintenant, pas entendu parlé ce soir, et qui est celui des ressources propres. Il n’y a pas de voie d’arrivée, d’atterrissage, de possibilité d’aller au bout de ce que nous avons initié avec ce plan de relance s’il n’y a pas de ressources propres. Et là, ça bloque au Conseil et on attend que ça avance et que cela soit poussé, y compris par la Commission. J’ai donc une grande inquiétude − surtout, et cela a été dit par des collègues, avec l’augmentation des taux d’intérêt − si nous n’accélérons pas d’autant la création de nouvelles ressources propres.

Et puis, sur l’histoire des obligations vertes, les 30 % d’obligations vertes: là, je tire la sonnette d’alarme, puisqu’on a vu avec le rapport de la Cour des comptes européenne que, sur le précédent CFP, les objectifs verts qu’on s’était fixés n’ont pas été respectés. Il y a donc une exigence absolue, c’est qu’on ait un bilan précis et transparent de ce qui relève réellement d’obligations vertes. Sinon, il y aurait en quelque sorte arnaque sur la marchandise. Donc voilà, ce sont les deux objectifs qu’il faut se fixer: des objectifs vraiment verts et de nouvelles ressources propres.

  Joachim Kuhs, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, werte Kollegen! Mein ältester Enkelsohn fragte mich am Wochenende: „Opa, wo kommt eigentlich das ganze Geld her?“ Ich antwortete dem 13-Jährigen: „Ich erkläre dir das mal anhand des Corona-Wiederaufbaufonds: Also, zuerst legt man fest, dass der Fonds 750 Milliarden Euro schwer sein soll – so viel bräuchte man, um die Schäden, die durch die von der Regierung verordneten Lockdowns entstanden sind, bezahlen zu können.

In einem zweiten Schritt borgt man sich dann das Geld von den Banken durch Anleihen. Sie machen also Schulden, obwohl in einem EU-Vertrag steht, dass die EU keine Schulden machen darf. Sie versichern ja, das wäre eine einmalige Ausnahme – ist es aber nicht.

Und im dritten Schritt erklären sie der Bank, dass sie die Schulden bis spätestens in 36 Jahren zurückbezahlen werden, und zwar mit Einnahmen, die erst in vier Jahren in vollem Umfang fließen, aber nicht ausreichen, um alle Schulden zurückzuzahlen. So, mein lieber Joel, funktioniert die Finanzierung des Wiederaufbaufonds.“

Herr Kommissar, werte Kollegen, ich möchte Ihnen nicht die Frage vorenthalten, die mein Enkel dann gestellt hat: „Opa, sind die verrückt?“

  Zbigniew Kuźmiuk, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Koncepcja funduszu NextGenerationEU powstawała w czasie, kiedy mieliśmy do czynienia z tanim pieniądzem. Ta era taniego pieniądza skończyła się bezpowrotnie. W związku z tym koszty obsługi także wyraźnie rosną. Pan Komisarz zapewne zdaje sobie z tego sprawę. Dobrze, że Komisja przygotowała strategię pozyskiwania środków finansowych, że używa różnych instrumentów, „zielonych obligacji”, wieloletnich obligacji, bonów skarbowych. Rozumiem, że w ten sposób próbuje pomniejszać koszty pożyczania. Ale nie ulega wątpliwości, że one będą rosły, i z tego trzeba zdawać sobie sprawę. Przy tej okazji chciałbym zgłosić jednak poważne zastrzeżenia.

Reprezentuję duży europejski kraj, Polskę. Jak Pan Komisarz doskonale wie, mój kraj do tej pory nie korzysta ze środków KPO tylko dlatego, że mamy polityczną blokadę dotyczącą polskiego KPO. Złożyliśmy ten plan zgodnie z rozporządzeniem, które reguluje funkcjonowanie planów, a mimo tego ta blokada do tej pory nie została zdjęta. Mam nadzieję, że tak będzie w przyszłości. I wprawdzie nie rozmawiamy dzisiaj o nowych źródłach finansowania, gdyż debata na ten temat odbędzie się jutro, ale chciałbym zwrócić uwagę czy też zgłosić dwa zastrzeżenia w tej kwestii.

Po pierwsze, te nowe instrumenty niestety są zdecydowanie bardziej niekorzystne dla krajów mniej zamożnych niż dla zamożnych. To widać szczególnie po tym podatku od nieprzetworzonego plastiku.

I drugie zastrzeżenie – niektóre z tych instrumentów zabierają środki na transformację energetyczną, klimatyczną z krajów członkowskich, a więc nie będą pozwalały im osiągać tych celów.

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ο κοινός ευρωπαϊκός δανεισμός 750 δισεκατομμυρίων ευρώ για τη δημιουργία του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Ανάκαμψης ήταν μία από τις σημαντικές θετικές στιγμές για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

Για αυτό και το σχέδιο αυτό πρέπει να πετύχει· και για να πετύχει, κύριε Hahn, πρέπει η συμφωνία που κάναμε, Κοινοβούλιο, Επιτροπή και Συμβούλιο, για νέους ιδίους πόρους να προχωρήσει όπως έχει συμφωνηθεί. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι το Συμβούλιο πρέπει να σταματήσει να κρατάει καθυστέρηση και να σέρνει τα πόδια του. Γιατί όσο δεν έχουμε τους νέους ίδιους πόρους, με ευθύνη του Συμβουλίου, την πληρώνουν οι Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες που περιμένουν από τον κοινοτικό προϋπολογισμό που επιβαρύνεται να υλοποιηθούν τα προγράμματα που έχουμε συμφωνήσει.

Και το δεύτερο, αφού όλοι συμφωνούμε ότι είναι ένα καλό εργαλείο και είμαστε σε περίοδο υψηλού πληθωρισμού και με κίνδυνο ύφεσης, χρειάζεται αυτό το εργαλείο όχι μόνο να πετύχει, αλλά να μονιμοποιήσουμε τέτοια εργαλεία. Για αυτό και η επιμονή ορισμένων ότι είναι ένα καλό πράγμα αλλά πρέπει να το ξεχάσουμε αμέσως είναι λάθος.

  Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το NextGenerationEU, όπως και το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης, αποτελούν υπερμνημόνιο. Μοιράζει πακτωλούς χρήματος σε ομίλους ανανεώσιμων πηγών ενέργειας και ψηφιακής τεχνολογίας και υποθηκεύει το εισόδημα των εργαζομένων για δεκαετίες. Οι αστικές κυβερνήσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, όμως, δεν τα βρίσκουν στη μοιρασιά.

Εκφράζονται σφοδρές αντιπαραθέσεις για την αποπληρωμή των δανείων του προγράμματος στο φόντο του ιμπεριαλιστικού πολέμου στην Ουκρανία και των επιπτώσεών του μπροστά στη διαφαινόμενη καπιταλιστική κρίση. Προβάλλετε, λοιπόν, σαν λύση τη δήθεν αγορά ομολόγων από τον λαό. Ουσιαστικά καλύπτετε τις τράπεζες, τους ομίλους και τα funds για να κερδοσκοπήσουν στις πλάτες των εργαζομένων που τους φορτώνετε το βάρος των χρεών, των νέων φόρων ιδίων πόρων —πέρα από τον πληθωρισμό, την ακρίβεια, το ενεργειακό κόστος— και δεν μπορούν να ανταπεξέλθουν.

Οι λαοί, λοιπόν, να μην συμβιβαστούν με τη βαρβαρότητα για να πληρώνουν τα σπασμένα της καπιταλιστικής κερδοφορίας των ανταγωνισμών κρατών και ομίλων. Στον δρόμο των μαζικών μαχητικών αγώνων που διεξάγονται σήμερα, να κλιμακώσουν την πάλη τους για τις σύγχρονες ανάγκες για να πληρώσουν την κρίση αυτοί που τη δημιουργούν, δηλαδή η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και τα μονοπώλια.

  Angelika Winzig (PPE). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! NextGenerationEU ist das größte gemeinsame Finanzierungsprogramm der Union, das den Mitgliedstaaten direkt – einerseits in Form von Zuschüssen und andererseits in Form von Krediten – zugutekommt. Dafür werden bis 2026 jährlich 150 Milliarden Euro aufgenommen. Die Entscheidung für dieses umfassende Programm war notwendig, um den Wiederaufbau in den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten zu bewältigen.

Ich gratuliere der Kommission zu dem erfolgreichen Darlehensprogramm. Denn eines ist klar: Wir dürfen der nächsten Generation keinen Schuldenrucksack umhängen, geschweige denn in eine Schuldenunion schlittern.

Ja, die Erhöhung der Leitzinsen durch die EZB zur Bekämpfung der Inflation ist notwendig. Und daher ist es umso wichtiger, dass eine zügige Umsetzung der institutionellen Vereinbarung über die Einführung weiterer Eigenmittel schnell in Angriff genommen wird.

  Jonás Fernández (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, sin duda el debate que estamos teniendo hoy marca un antes y un después en el diseño de la Unión Europea, al igual que lo marcó la decisión de emitir la deuda del Next Generation EU buscando sin duda los flecos o los espacios que nos permitían los Tratados. Y quiero felicitar a la Comisión por su estrategia de endeudamiento que tiene el aplauso de nuestros acreedores, de los mercados.

Pero me gustaría insistir o incentivar un poco más a la Comisión Europea a la hora de clarificar el mapa para tener los recursos propios necesarios para amortizar la deuda. Sabemos ya que el impuesto digital con el que contábamos previsiblemente no se va a aprobar. Necesitamos buscar recursos adicionales. Tenemos ese acuerdo para fijar un impuesto en sociedades mínimo del 15 % que bien podría darnos la oportunidad de introducir una tasa para aquellos que se benefician del mercado interior, del mercado único. Y yo creo que necesitamos más ambición, más trabajo y más compromiso por parte de la Comisión Europea para clarificar del todo el marco de recursos propios.

  Roman Haider (ID). – Frau Präsidentin! Der Hauptzweck dieses Anleiheprogramms ist nicht die gezielte Förderung zukunftsträchtiger Wirtschaftsbereiche, sondern allein der Tabubruch, endlich Schulden machen zu können. Unter dem Vorwand der Krisenbekämpfung dehnt die EU ihre Befugnisse im Bereich des Haushalts einfach weiter aus – und nur darum geht es.

Und zusätzlich werden die Mittel auch noch intransparent und ohne jegliche parlamentarische Kontrolle vergeben. In Wahrheit verteilt die EU hier auf Schulden basierendes Geld völlig ziellos, ohne jegliche Kontrolle, mehr oder weniger willkürlich an die Mitgliedstaaten und bricht dazu noch ihre eigenen Regeln.

Und es ist der Gipfel der Frechheit, das Ganze auch noch als „NextGenerationEU“ zu bezeichnen. Für die nächste Generation bleibt nichts als ein Schuldenberg und eine noch weiter aufgeblähte Union. Es ist ein Sittenbild dieser Kommission: undemokratisch, intransparent, kostspielig und sinnlos.

  Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Nowe zasoby własne muszą uwzględniać zapisy Protokołu nr 28 do Traktatu o Funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej. Nie mogą w nadmiernym stopniu obciążać państw mniej zamożnych. Jak to ma miejsce w przypadku pierwszego koszyka zasobów własnych, zaproponowanego przez Komisję Europejską. W szczególności w związku z propozycją przekazania do budżetu Unii Europejskiej części wpływów z ETSu.

My tego nie możemy poprzeć, po prostu. Ramy czasowe oraz wielkość zaciąganych przez Komisję Europejską pożyczek są ściśle określone w decyzji o zasobach własnych przyjętej jednomyślnie. Wszystkie kraje żyrowały pożyczkę. Nie wszystkie kraje otrzymały pomoc. To jest skandal. To jest niesprawiedliwość. Nie możemy się z tym pogodzić i będziemy upominać się o te pieniądze, które nam się należą.

Ta decyzja o zasobach własnych, o finansowaniu zasobów własnych wymaga oczywiście współpracy, no ale też wiemy – i widzimy w sprawozdaniu, czy w proponowanej rezolucji – że trzy podatki nie wystarczą do spłaty tych zasobów, czy tych zaciągniętych kredytów. Wobec tego potrzebne będą następne. I będą następne z tego tytułu problemy.

  Enikő Győri (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Mi már 2020-ban tudtuk, hogy a tűzzel játszunk, s ez be is bizonyosodott. Mi a pandémia miatti válságot nem a jövő generációi számlájára akartuk megoldani, de meghallgattuk a nehéz helyzetbe került déliek kérését. Tudják, volt rossz saját tapasztalatunk: Magyarországot a kommunisták végtelenül eladósították, s ennek terhébe az első szabadon választott kormány 90 után majdnem belebukott. Mi nem akartuk, hogy az Unió is egyszer így járjon. 2020-ban megállapodtunk, hogy a hitelből finanszírozott Helyreállítási és Rezilienciaépítési Alap egyszeri és rendkívüli megoldás. Most pedig azt látjuk, hogy a Parlament ezt az eszközt állandósítaná, ráadásul a költségvetésen belülre emelné. Meggyőződésem, hogy ez végképp összeegyeztethetetlen a Szerződés 310. cikkével.

Nem újabb hitelfelvétel kellene, hanem az, hogy a meglévő keretet minél előbb és minél kevesebb akadály mellett használhassák fel a tagállamok. Magyarország, ugye, még nem is jutott hozzá a helyreállítási pénzhez, miközben a hitel kamatait már fizeti. A mai vitában is láttuk, a baloldali többség nem nyugszik, míg konzervatív kormánya van Magyarországnak. Én már csak a Bizottság józanságában bízom, hogy pártatlanul ítéli meg a Magyarország által a tisztes forrásfelhasználás érdekében hozott és a Bizottsággal leegyeztetett intézkedéseket.

  Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Voorzitter, wij hebben ons altijd verzet tegen het zogenaamde coronaherstelfonds, ook wel NextGenerationEU genoemd. Dankzij premier Rutte werd echter de deur geopend naar gemeenschappelijke Europese schuld, met de “Triple A”-garantie van Nederland uiteraard. Nu blijkt echter dat de haalbaarheid, betaalbaarheid en transparantie van het fonds tekortschieten.

Uit het verslag blijkt dat de Commissie nog geen methode heeft ontwikkeld waarmee zij de beloofde hervormingen van de ontvangende lidstaten kan evalueren. Bovendien heeft de Commissie onvoldoende zicht op de nationale internecontrolesystemen. Hoe kan de Commissie dan controleren of het geld doelmatig is besteed?

De Europese Ombudsman heeft haar zorgen geuit en de Europese Rekenkamer kwam met een waslijst aan verbeterpunten. Het platform voor onderzoeksjournalistiek Follow the Money heeft onthuld dat de Commissie weigert documenten vrij te geven, waardoor de controle op de geleende miljarden wordt bemoeilijkt.

NextGenerationEU is een vergissing en de eigen middelen zijn ongewenst. Laat dit eenmalig zijn.

  Eugen Jurzyca (ECR). – Madam President, while the borrowing strategy has been conducted without major difficulties, new European debt also brings many hazards into the future which the report overlooks: higher inflation, increased indebtedness of Member States and resistance of Member States to fiscal consolidation and structural reforms.

I think it is a mistake that the Commission does not set fiscal consolidation as the main condition for drawing the recovery funds. Borrowing strategy is the easier side of the coin. The harder one is the not-borrowing strategy, the growth strategy that has been missing so far, fiscal consolidation and structural reforms in Member States. Without them NextGenerationEU risks to be a missed opportunity that we cannot afford.

Spontane Wortmeldungen

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, my jsme si opravdu již v pandemii neříkám, že zvykli, ale vyzkoušeli, jak si půjčit na úkor budoucích generací, a to poměrně vysokou částku. Je důležité skutečně si uvědomit, že Evropská unie je největší emitent dluhopisů a je třeba posilovat zejména stabilitu finančních a kapitálových trhů. A v této konstelaci jsem si jist tím, že je důležité, aby EU budovala své další finanční zdroje. Dříve bych takto nehovořil, ale již několik let se přikláním k této myšlence, že by skutečně i Evropa měla budovat svoje vlastní finanční zdroje. Jsou zde určitě významná rizika, která již zde byla pojmenována. Je to inflace, je to otázka členských států a neprovedených strukturálních reforem. Myslím, že jsou před námi velké výzvy – Ukrajina a nebezpečí ruské agrese. Je důležité si uvědomit, že tyto peníze, po kterých voláme, které si bude muset i Evropská unie případně půjčovat, tak se budou splácet celá desetiletí. To znamená, potřeba vlastních finančních zdrojů je skutečně nezbytná.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, sigur dezbatem acest raport legat de strategia de împrumut pentru finanțarea Next Generation, un proiect necesar, pentru că da, este o criză.

Ceea ce trebuie însă să spunem noi cetățenilor, pentru că nu vorbim abstract așa, împrumutăm 2 miliarde, 2000 de miliarde, 450 de miliarde. Cetățeanul vrea să știe cum poate să influențeze acest buget, viața lui, să poată să trăiască mai bine. Și știm bine că sunt zone geografice în care avem o lipsă de coeziune socială și o viață grea pentru cetățeni, vine iarna, avem facturile.

Cum folosim acești bani? Eficiența! Aici trebuie să punem accent pe eficiență. Și da, cine știe cât va fi dobânda până rambursăm în 2058? Trebuia concomitent cu împrumutul să fie automat găsite acele surse proprii de venituri pentru a putea să contracarăm cheltuielile cu aceste mari împrumuturi. Și este o bilă neagră pentru Consiliu, care blochează și mereu în ultima perioadă sau cel puțin de când sunt eu aici, Consiliul se remarcă prin a fi blocator la orice.

De aceea, domnule comisar, vă rog, insistați să mergem pe resurse proprii pentru a putea să fim siguri că nu îndatorăm trei generații după noi.

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, NextGenerationEU is not a new post—austerity era for Europe. Seven hundred and fifty billion sounds like a lot, but it amounts to barely 5% of the EU’s total GDP. What’s more, the funds would be given largely in the form of loans, and over the course of six years resulting, according to the ECB’s own estimates, in a fiscal expansion of around 1% of GDP on average between 2021 and 2024 at best.

The NextGenerationEU plan is firmly embedded in the EU semester programme. The EU semester programme has consistently demanded that Member State governments cut public spending. It has resulted in public health spending cuts, pension cuts, unemployment benefit cuts.

Now, NextGenerationEU funds come with very strict troika—like conditions attached. This is same old EU debt in exchange for neoliberal reform strategy.

  Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, NextGenerationEU is the EU’s 800 billion temporary recovery instrument, supposedly to support economic recovery from the corona pandemic and to achieve the EU’s climate, digital and economic goals. It sounds pretty good – not for Ireland, mind you, where there is less than a billion euros and there won’t be much delivered on that.

But let’s remember there is no such thing as a free ride: money borrowed from the markets will not be given away without conditions. We’ve already seen that, for instance, in relation to the monies that France would receive as part of the recovery plan being conditional on achievements in terms of specific objectives such as changing unemployment insurance and so on. This is not good enough. Neither is it good enough that the citizens would be expected to pay this back.

While we can talk, and it’s fine, about the idea of a financial transaction tax, this has been discussed since 2013. We’ve got to join the dots on this. We need to make sure that the citizens don’t pay, but get the benefits from this.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, first I would like to thank the honourable Members for our mostly constructive debate today, and I can reassure you that we have well noted the positions expressed today and are looking forward to receiving the final version of this own-initiative report.

In the context of multiple crises, first Covid now the unprovoked and unjustified Russian war against Ukraine, it’s more than ever important that the Union has the tools in place to finance its priorities when it is needed. The diversified funding strategy gives the Commission the flexibility it needs to finance the EU priorities in a transparent, flexible and cost-efficient manner.

The Commission’s priority for the coming years will be to build on the successful establishment of the EU as a recognised and trusted issuer, as we continue to navigate the volatility in the market. The constructive role of the European Parliament has not gone unnoticed by investors. I can witness this in our usual investors relation activities and roadshows where we receive this as a very good and valuable feedback and it is important that we show unity in this respect also in particular in turbulent times.

So I would like to thank the European Parliament, the Committee on Budgets, and especially again, the two rapporteurs for their intensive work on this excellent and, may I say, very timely report.

  José Manuel Fernandes, Relator. – Senhora Presidente, caras e caros Colegas, Senhor Comissário, permitam-me que agradeça à correlatora deste relatório, Valérie Hayer, todo o trabalho que ela tem realizado e, também, um trabalho que está a dar frutos, no objetivo de termos novas receitas, novos recursos próprios. Um agradecimento a todos aqueles que aqui trouxeram a sua posição e a sua opinião e o apoio a este relatório. Um obrigado à Comissão por todo o trabalho que está a desenvolver e um pedido ao Conselho: executem rapidamente todos os milhões que têm à vossa disposição. Os agricultores e os pescadores precisam. As famílias estão à espera. As pequenas e médias empresas necessitam do vosso apoio. Os investigadores, também eles são absolutamente imprescindíveis. Não faltam recursos aos Estados-Membros. Não falta dinheiro aos Estados-Membros. É o dinheiro do NextGenerationEU, que deu lugar aos planos de recuperação e resiliência. O Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014-2020 ainda tem 100 mil milhões de euros por executar. Em muitos países, infelizmente, como no meu, no Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2021-2027 há zero pagamentos executados. E, portanto, os Estados-Membros têm muito dinheiro para utilizarem. Devem fazê-lo rapidamente e depois têm de perceber que a união faz a força.

Nós precisamos de uma União da energia, do digital, da segurança, uma postura comum no objetivo da proteção civil. E isso precisa de recursos. E as dívidas também são para se pagarem. E os novos recursos próprios, novas receitas do orçamento, são possíveis sem penalizarem o cidadão, com um princípio muito simples: quem não paga deve pagar. Quem beneficia do mercado interno deve contribuir.

E é com este objetivo que, estou certo, construiremos uma União forte, solidária e onde o desenvolvimento exista em todo o território.

  Valérie Hayer, rapporteure. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, d’abord, oui, effectivement, je voudrais, comme José Manuel, remercier l’ensemble des collègues qui sont intervenus dans le cadre de ce débat et remercier Monsieur le Commissaire.

Quelques éléments de réaction: un enseignement que je n’ai pas entendu et dont je voudrais vous faire part ce soir, puis évidemment, un point sur l’un de nos sujets favoris avec José Manuel, à savoir les ressources propres.

On a constaté largement dans les interventions combien ce plan de relance est une réussite à bien des égards. Il faut aussi avoir à l’esprit que ce succès est la preuve que sortir de nos dogmes budgétaires peut ouvrir la voie vers un monde meilleur. Cela doit même être une nécessité lorsqu’il s’agit de protéger et d’affirmer l’Europe dans un monde en crise. Si je le dis autrement: n’écartons pas la possibilité de réaliser d’autres emprunts européens, en particulier pour sortir de nos dépendances, qui chaque jour nous affaiblissent. C’est tout l’enjeu du futur fonds pour la souveraineté européenne, que nous avons appelé de nos vœux dès le printemps dernier, Monsieur le Commissaire, et nous attendons les propositions concrètes de la Commission après l’annonce faite par la Présidente von der Leyen en septembre dernier.

Deuxième élément, effectivement, les ressources propres – cela a été rappelé par beaucoup d’entre vous. Rappelons-nous collectivement que les Européens ne considèreront le plan de relance comme une réussite pleine et entière que si nous respectons l’accord de remboursement. Nous avons décidé collectivement que ce sont les grands pollueurs, les importateurs de CO2 étrangers, les grandes multinationales qui ne paient pas leur juste part d’impôts, les spéculateurs financiers, qui porteraient la charge de cet emprunt. Ce n’est pas seulement une question de justice fiscale et sociale, c’est aussi une question de respect de nos engagements collectifs et de notre crédibilité auprès des investisseurs. Nous leur avons promis, nous députés, commissions, États membres, nous leur avons promis que cela ne se ferait ni en augmentant les impôts, ni en coupant dans les programmes européens comme les aides aux agriculteurs ou Erasmus. Alors oui, réjouissons-nous de voir notre économie remise sur pied, mais ne considérons pas pour autant que le travail pour rendre l’Europe plus puissante et indépendante est terminé. Il nous reste encore beaucoup de travail.

  Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Dienstag, 22. November 2022, statt.

18. Euroopa Innovatsiooninõukogu rakendamisraport (lühiettekanne)

  Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die kurze Darstellung des Berichts von Christian Ehler über die Einrichtung des Europäischen Innovationsrats (2022/2063(INI)) (A9-0268/2022).

  Christian Ehler, rapporteur. – Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Innovation Council (EIC) is a centrepiece of the European innovation policy. It’s a new instrument that was set up to do things differently. An essential part of the Green Deal, the industry’s policy strategy of the EU, Europe’s innovation agenda, it was most likely the most valuable contribution to the new Horizon Europe programme.

A one-stop agency where innovators could ask for support through grants as well as equity. The EIC had a great start during its pilot under Horizon 2020. It was a popular instrument with a growing reputation in the venture capital market and I am talking not about a small instrument, it is the biggest public instrument in Europe in the venture capital market for deep technology.

That is how it was supposed to continue on the rise in Europe as well but it ran into a wall of a settled bureaucracy inside the European Commission because this new approach to support innovators was pushing the boundaries of the budget implementation as traditionally done by DG BUDG. This fight or fear about loss of reputation led to a yearlong or more than yearlong fight between three DGs. Personally, I don’t think it reached even the political level, but it blocked the biggest innovation programme for more than a thousand start-up deep-tech companies – we selected more than hundreds – which had been waiting more than a year for the money which had been dedicated to them originally.

And so the programme is no longer a question of the reputational risk. Who is going to manage that? The Commission itself, the EIB, not known as a racing horse in the capital market if I may say. The question is no longer about reputational risk, it is about reputational damage for the Union. It had been blocked. We lost the confidence of start-ups in Europe that we would have that interesting instrument, that challenges-addressing instrument.

We need, and Parliament needed, to step in through that. The whole thing is a disgrace. In the public sector, someone would have to resign. If your proceeding of a billion budget and you’re not able to allocate that budget in the private sector, you would have to resign. We needed, as a Parliament, to publicly call out the problems created by the Commission.

We needed to publicly set out a positive agenda for the EIC and we did; through great collaboration between all political groups, we quickly developed a shared vision of the future of the EIC as co-legislator. We delivered a list of recommendations for the Commission that would restore the transformative nature and ambition of the EIC. A key recommendation is that the implementation of both the equity and the grant components are under full control of the Commission. This ensures that our start-ups really experience EIC as a one-stop shop. It also ensures that investment decisions are informed by the strategic interest by the Union. To deliver on strategic interests of the Union, the EIC also needs to be able to be an investor on its own. It needs to be able to be a sole investor, to take the lead in an investment around and to take a major share in a company. It is the only way we can fix the market failure of the European VC capital market where we don’t have the needed investment in deep-tech technology. And the EIC needs to deliver investment decisions in line with industry standards.

Deep-tech start-ups cannot wait months and months for European institutional machinery and we need the money now for the sector. We also made some recommendations to address some challenges in this programme. Europe has a major issue with the underrepresentation of women in this sector. This is costing us billions of euros each year and the rise of it deprives us of great innovations that could have been done. We still have an innovation divide on our continent. This is reflected in the low participation in successful start-ups from some European regions.

To sum it up, we appeal to the Commission now to act. This is one of the valuable instruments that is needed for us to reach the 2030 goals because we need innovation, we need creative start-ups. So I appeal to the Commission to come to terms and let this common undertaking run.

Spontane Wortmeldungen

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președinta, domnule comisar, un subiect extrem de important. Cea mai mare greșeală în managementul privat este ca atunci când e criză să tai fondurile de la cercetare, de la inovare. Din păcate, în spațiul public și iată și aici, Comisia Europeană s-a gândit chiar acest program să îl oprească.

Nu putem promova în primul rând dezamăgirea firmelor care au așteptat și au crezut în acest proiect. Al doilea, fără bani de inovare nu putem să avem start-up-uri, nu putem să avem societăți comerciale mici, mijlocii sau chiar foarte mari, cu tehnologie modernă.

Este absolut de neînțeles de ce chiar acest program a trebui să fie blocat și sigur că și eu fac apel pentru că lucrez cu mediul privat. Sunt vicepreședinta Comisiei pentru piața internă, vicepreședintă a Intergrupului pentru IMM-uri și știu ceea ce înseamnă nevoia de a investi în inovare.

Așadar, cheia este la dumeavoastră, domnule comisar. Noi, ca și Parlament, susținem. Nu cred că există vreun eurodeputat care nu înțelege de ce tocmai în criză avem nevoie de bani pentru inovare, pentru cercetare, pentru retehnologizare.

  Ivars Ijabs (Renew). – Paldies, prezidentes kundze! Eiropas Inovāciju padome ir instruments, lai pārvarētu Eiropas atpalicību inovāciju jomā, kas ir īpaši svarīgs uzdevums šajos sarežģītajos ģeopolitiskajos apstākļos, un mūsu pienākums kā Eiropas institūciju pārstāvjiem ir izturēties pret to atbildīgi. Tas līdz šim nav pilnībā izdevies, un šīs kavēšanās ar naudas izmaksām dēļ institūciju savstarpējām cīņām un domstarpībām ir absolūti nepieņemama, un tam ir jātiek novērstam. Un tas ir tas, uz ko mēs aicinām arī Komisiju un Padomi. Un turklāt, protams, mums ir jādomā par īpašas Eiropas Investīciju institūcijas izveidi kapitāla daļu pārvaldībai, kā arī par vienas pieturas aģentūras izveidi topošajiem inovatoriem un topošajiem pieteikuma iesniedzējiem. Tikai tādā veidā mēs varēsim panākt šo tehnoloģiju izcilību un arī to komercializāciju, kas mums visiem ļaus piedzīvot tehnoloģisku izrāvienu Eiropā. Paldies !

  Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D). – Señora presidenta, el presente informe goza de un importante consenso entre todos los grupos políticos porque todos somos conscientes de la importancia que tiene salvar la brecha en términos de innovación que tenemos con otras regiones, sobre todo ahora que tenemos que avanzar en resiliencia, en autonomía estratégica y acometer, además, las transiciones verde y digital.

Necesitamos realmente que la aplicación del Consejo Europeo de Innovación se haga de manera ambiciosa y transformadora, de una vez. Necesitamos realmente que se ponga en funcionamiento.

Hemos pedido expresamente que se cierren brechas importantes en materia de innovación, como la brecha de género, y también las brechas regionales existentes entre las distintas regiones y los territorios europeos.

Asimismo, para terminar, hemos pedido un mejor acceso al Acelerador por parte de las pymes, que son realmente el corazón de la innovación en Europa.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Mr Ehler, honourable Members, the European Innovation Council is a crucial instrument for the implementation of the New European Innovation Agenda, no doubt. This Agenda aims to position the Union as a global leader in deep—tech innovation to address our deepest societal challenges. This ambition remains the same against the current economic downturn.

The European Innovation Council is a major novelty of the Union’s innovation policy. It’s key in providing support to high—risk, deep—tech start—ups with a unique mix of grants, equity investments and innovation ecosystem services.

The Commission is currently finalising the work programme of the European Innovation Council for 2023, with a budget of over EUR 1.6 billion, it will continue to help identify, develop and scale up breakthrough technologies and game—changing innovations.

The Commission shares the views in the report that the European Innovation Council Fund should be a key player in supporting breakthrough innovation in Europe. I am happy to say after taking yet another step in the required restructuring, and the appointment of an external fund manager in September, the EIC fund is fully operational. It has already taken 35 investment decisions worth around EUR 190 million and many more decisions are expected in the coming weeks.

Under the EIC accelerator, offering grants and equity investments, 313 companies have been selected for support since June 2021. The total grant funding to these companies is EUR 680 million and 185 grant agreements have already been signed. Over half of the 313 companies – 184 exactly – are also proposed to receive equity investments ranging from EUR 1.5 million to EUR 15 million each through the EIC fund. The EIC fund is fully engaged to deal with the backlog of equity investments.

I would also like to reassure this House that the essential features of the EIC will be fully preserved as the Commission is moving towards indirect management of the EIC fund, as foreseen in the Horizon Europe regulation.

I would like to underline that, first, the Commission will continue to steer the direction of investments through the EIC annual work programmes, on which Parliament will continue to be informed in full transparency. Second, the investment decisions of the external fund manager must follow the investment guidelines endorsed by the Commission covering the terms of investment. Under these guidelines, the EIC fund will continue to be fully able to invest alone when the company is not ready for a funding round. The Commission will take a close look at the suggestion made with respect to the work of the Executive Agency EISMEA.

Once again, I would like to thank also the rapporteurs for this work, also on behalf of my fellow Commissioner, Mariya Gabriel, and – if you allow, because DG BUDG has been addressed – to say a few words. First, with the experience of a former business person and a Minister of Science and Research, you have all my sympathy for this kind of project, and I believe it’s something extremely important because it is also addressing some, let’s say, of the market failures we unfortunately see in Europe.

But it is also uncharted territory for a public administration, at least at the Union level. There are some Member States who are already rather successful on this. But the huge majority of public administration, for them, it’s, so to say, a new territory. This is why, and I can fully understand your impatience, it took us some time to find the right model. May I say, not, unfortunately, but I have to admit, I spent much more time with your colleagues from the Budget Committee, from the Budget Control Committee, from the Court of Auditors and we have tried to anticipate potential concerns in order not to enter into a situation where we are finally blocked or criticised. The whole initiative is, I wouldn’t say at the brink, but there might be questions. Therefore, again, please understand. There have also been some personal issues, but also this has been, I think, cleared. Therefore, I’m very confident that now we are in the rollout phase.

Indeed, this instrument should show its capacity, its potential, because if it works, it should be also a role model for many other public administrations in our Member States, because it’s definitely something where the Union for the huge majority of Member States can serve as an excellent, interesting, and let’s say, positive role model, where others should follow. That’s why I think we should have – and we have – a joint interest that this is really a common success story of all of us.

  Die Präsidentin. – Damit ist die Aussprache geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Dienstag, 22. November 2022, statt.

19. Üheminutilised sõnavõtud poliitiliselt olulistel teemadel

  Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen die Ausführungen von einer Minute zu wichtigen politischen Fragen (Artikel 172 GO).

Ich möchte Sie darauf hinweisen, dass Sie für die Ausführungen von einer Minute von Ihrem Platz aus das Wort ergreifen können.

  Ελισσάβετ Βόζεμπεργκ-Βρυωνίδη (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, σύμφωνα με επίσημες ευρωπαϊκές έρευνες, τρία στα τέσσερα παιδιά ηλικίας μέχρι τεσσάρων ετών υφίστανται τακτικά τιμωρία και ψυχολογική βία από γονείς ή φροντιστές. Ποσοστό 3% παιδιών ηλικίας από δύο έως τεσσάρων ετών δεν αισθάνονται ασφάλεια στο σπίτι, 9% στο σχολείο και 8% στο διαδίκτυο. Είναι αυτονόητο ότι τα ποσοστά αυτά ανεβαίνουν δραματικά σε εφήβους με πολύωρη καθημερινή ενασχόληση στο διαδίκτυο.

Το διάστημα της πανδημίας και του lockdown παρατηρήθηκε τεράστια αύξηση περιστατικών ενδοοικογενειακής βίας με θύματα παιδιά, καθώς επίσης αυξήθηκε ανησυχητικά η βία κατά ανηλίκων μέσω διαδικτύου και ειδικότερα το έγκλημα της σεξουαλικής κακοποίησης. Θύματα αυτού του εγκλήματος, που επιτέλους τολμούν να μιλήσουν, προβάλλουν την ανάγκη μιας νέας νομοθετικής πρότασης για την πρόληψη και καταπολέμηση της πλέον αποτρόπαιης μορφής βίας.

Συνάδελφοι, έχουμε πρωταρχική υποχρέωση να προστατεύσουμε αποτελεσματικά κάθε παιδί που αντιμετωπίζει κίνδυνο. Πιστεύω να συμφωνείτε ότι αν εμείς, ως ευρωπαϊκή οικογένεια, δεν έχουμε επίκεντρο τα παιδιά και το μέλλον τους, δεν έχουμε λόγο ύπαρξης.

  Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Madam President, dear colleagues, the accession of Romania to the Schengen area leads to benefits for the entire European Union. Specialists estimate that the trade volume between Romania and its main EU partners would be boosted by more than 10% in the next few years.

The increase of GDP in Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia will lead to a multiplier effect on the European economy already facing an increased risk of recession. Schengen enlargement also means a strong pro-European message in our region, but also better support capacities for Ukraine and its reconstruction. Finally, the internal market will be better integrated across the region, leading to more opportunities for SMEs.

Cross-border areas will become bowls of development and the increased mobility will lead to the development of digital trade and tourism. Among the countries that will benefit the most from these new opportunities are the Netherlands and Austria, with whom Romania maintains special trade links, led by right-wing government that currently oppose enlargement without any arguments.

I call upon my colleagues here in the Parliament and the Commission to continue helping us by presenting these arguments in order to have a positive vote at the December Justice and Home Affairs Council.

  Vlad-Marius Botoş (Renew). – Doamna președintă, stimați colegi, domnule comisar, proiectele de dezvoltare cu fonduri europene reprezintă în multe zone din Uniunea Europeană o mare parte a investițiilor administrației publice, poate chiar una dintre cele mai mari părți.

Noi, aici, în Parlamentul European, am trasat anumite direcții pentru utilizarea acestor fonduri; digitalizarea, dezvoltarea sustenabilă, accentul pe aspectele ecologice, dar și pe prioritizarea energiei regenerabile. Am inclus în regulamente condiții clare de transparență și obligativitatea consultării reale a societății civile, a cetățenilor pentru a respecta interesele și prioritățile acestora în regiune.

Din păcate, avem semnale clare că prioritățile trasate nu sunt deplin înțelese, că unele autorități încearcă să țină la distanță societatea civilă, iar sugestiile ei la stabilirea strategiilor de dezvoltare, la luarea deciziilor sunt aproape inexistente.

Pentru că noi am stabilit niște priorități, pentru că noi am hotărât aici, în Parlamentul acesta, că societatea civilă va fi implicată. Noi suntem cei care trebuie să fim atenți ca aceste condiții să fie respectate chiar și acolo unde autoritățile publice nu sunt obișnuite să colaboreze, când vine vorba de cheltuirea banilor publici.

  Nico Semsrott (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Die EU hat dieses Jahr Sanktionen gegen russische Oligarchen verhängt. Wann verhängt sie endlich Sanktionen gegen die restlichen?

Wir sollten allen Milliardären weltweit ein Ultimatum setzen: Wenn ihr in einem Jahr die Klimakrise nicht gelöst habt, werdet ihr enteignet. Ihr besitzt alles, was man dafür braucht: die fossilen Unternehmen, Geld, alle Medien, alle sozialen Medien, Millionen Arbeitskräfte und viele Politiker.

Als mildere Variante schlage ich ein TV-Format vor. Das Konzept: Jedes Jahr wird der jeweils reichste Mensch begleitet. Schafft es Elon Musk, mit seinem Vermögen die Klimakrise zu lösen, oder ist er einfach zu böse dafür? Am Schluss der Show wird er dann enteignet. Da hätte man wenigstens als Zuschauer auch was davon.

Wichtig: Wir sollten die Milliardäre nicht so im Stich lassen, wie sie uns im Stich lassen. Ich finde, man sollte ihre Geldabhängigkeit genauso behandeln wie andere Süchte auch. Ich denke zum Beispiel an Fixerstuben, in denen ihnen als Ersatzstoff Spielgeld ausgezahlt wird.

  André Rougé (ID). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, l’île de La Réunion, région ultrapériphérique française, est le premier producteur de canne à sucre européen. Depuis la suppression par l’Union des quotas sucriers et l’émergence de pays tiers sur le marché, le gouvernement français, sous l’impulsion de la Commission, est contraint de combler le manque à gagner d’une profession qui représente 13 % de l’emploi marchand, soit 20 000 emplois. Or, non seulement le gouvernement d’Emmanuel Macron a réduit de 30 à 14 millions le montant annuel d’indemnisation des planteurs, mais il a tardé à les verser, générant ainsi de nombreux mouvements de rue.

Aujourd’hui, le gouvernement persiste dans l’erreur. Il entend répartir ses subventions de façon totalement illogique, inéquitable et contraire au principe du couplage aux tonnages destiné à privilégier les producteurs les plus modestes. Mme Borne et M. Darmanin entendent faire la part belle aux plus gros. Face à cette situation, l’Union européenne n’envisage-t-elle pas de rétablir les quotas sucriers?

  Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Voorzitter, hoeveel macht moet de Europese Unie hebben? Wanneer houdt het op en wanneer zeggen we: genoeg? Sinds de oprichting van de Unie streven velen in het Parlement naar meer EU. De macht en de begrotingen zijn enkel toegenomen, zelfs na de Brexit.

Wij willen een kleinere, andere EU. Wat betekent dat? Het uitgangspunt moet zijn dat de lidstaten de EU maken, niet andersom. Veel activiteiten van de EU moeten worden teruggedraaid. Met andere woorden: veel zaken kunnen vandaag nog worden opgeheven. Een Europees buitenlandbeleid, crisisbeheer, ontwikkelingssamenwerking, genderbeleid of zaken zoals cultuur en nabuurschap zijn stuk voor stuk zaken die niet nodig zijn voor een succesvolle gemeenschappelijke markt. De EU moet zich beperken tot haar kerntaak. Daar wordt iedereen beter van.

  Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, this year Ireland sanctioned Russian officials and – surprise surprise – last week Russia returned the favour, sanctioning 52 Irish politicians.

States respond in kind. In international law it’s called ‘retorsion’: a legal and proportionate diplomatic response to hostility. Yet the Irish Government were apoplectic with outrage, our Taoiseach talking about ‘hybrid warfare’.

What does he expect? Foreign policy isn’t a game, it should be conducted in the interests of our people. Instead, our Taoiseach has leapfrogged us over France and Germany to align with the extremist outliers in Poland and the Baltics. He’s gone out of his way to provoke.

This is lunacy for a small country with a small military. And where is his mandate? Neutrality is incredibly popular. Not only that, we pimped it in order to get a seat on the UN Security Council. And, instead of using that seat for peace, we have escalated and talked up the fight at every turn.

De Valera must be turning in his grave.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (NI). – Madam President, during this summer and autumn, more than 70 monuments to the liberators of Latvia from German Nazi occupiers were dismantled, despite the decision of the UN Human Rights Committee urging Latvia to refrain from demolition.

I was among those who addressed the committee. It appeared that the land on which one of the monuments was staying belonged to my ancestors, victims of the Holocaust. The fight against monuments of the past continues with the repressions of people living in Latvia nowadays.

After dissolution of the USSR, one third of Latvian residents became so-called ‘aliens’. Most of them are local natives. Some are still preserving this status, but some, mostly elderly people, acquired the citizenship of Russia.

The new retroactive law norm requires annulation of their permanent residence permit in case of weak knowledge of Latvian language. Thousands will soon face being made illegal in their homes in Latvia and, therefore, in the EU. Shame.

  Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, όσοι κατηγορούσαν την Ελλάδα για τους 92 μετανάστες που διέσωσαν οι ελληνικές αρχές στον Έβρο, θα ζητήσουν άραγε συγγνώμη τώρα που το μέσο που δημοσίευσε το σχετικό ρεπορτάζ το απέσυρε λόγω αμφιβολιών; Μήπως θα ζητήσουν συγγνώμη όσοι συκοφαντούσαν τους διωκόμενους στο υποτιθέμενο σκάνδαλο Novartis που αθωώθηκαν πλήρως τώρα που ακόμα και ο δικηγόρος του κυρίου Τσίπρα λέει ότι ήταν όλοι αθώοι από την αρχή;

Είναι αυτοί που για το πανευρωπαϊκό πρόβλημα της χρήσης παρανόμου και κακόβουλου λογισμικού υιοθετούν και αναπαράγουν ανυπόστατες κατηγορίες κατά της Ελλάδας. Αυτοί, λοιπόν, που προσπαθούν να παρασύρουν την Ελλάδα μέσα στον βούρκο της λάσπης και της τοξικότητας, να ξέρουν ότι δεν χάνουμε χρόνο περιμένοντας τη συγγνώμη τους. Η κυβέρνηση Μητσοτάκη είπε από την αρχή «όλα στο φως» και συνεργάστηκε πλήρως με τα ευρωπαϊκά όργανα, με την επιτροπή PEGA, και πρωτοπορεί πανευρωπαϊκά με νομοσχέδιο που απαγορεύει και ποινικοποιεί την κατοχή, τη χρήση και την εμπορία του παράνομου λογισμικού παρακολούθησης. Η Ελλάδα, κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, όχι μόνο δεν υπολείπεται, αλλά πρωτοστατεί στην προστασία των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και του κράτους δικαίου.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, coeziunea socială este unul din obiectivele Uniunii Europene. Coeziunea socială în piața internă, în cele 27 de state. Dar cum să fie coeziune socială când avem piața fragmentată ? Când avem dublă măsură? Când eu văd că țara mea de 11 ani nu se află în spațiul Schengen.

Avem două Europe, Schengen și Non-Schengen. Și chiar astăzi s-a discutat despre modul de aplicare a regulamentului. Avem un regulament Schengen, Regulamentul se aplică, nu se discută, nu se negociază. De ce la Regulamentul Schengen avem această problemă, că o țară, două, vor să o controleze pe cealaltă și se deschide o cutie a Pandorei. Așa se aplică regulamentele? Eu știam că gardianul aplicării tratatelor și a regulamentelor este Comisia Europeană.

Cer, pe bună dreptate, ca țara mea, ca cetățenii mei, să nu mai fie tratați de mâna a doua și, așa cum s-a explicat aici, sigur că va fi o eficiență pentru toată piața internă. Dar, domnule comisar, este un pericol enorm să se dezvolte euroscepticismul, neîncrederea cetățenilor și, sigur, ce se întâmplă cu proiectul european.

De aceea, cer Consiliului să voteze intrarea României și Bulgariei în spațiul Schengen. Nu pentru că am cerși acest sprijin, ci pentru că este dreptul nostru, al cetățenilor.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhora Presidente, lutar contra o despovoamento, fortalecer a economia do noroeste peninsular, melhorar as infraestruturas são algumas das medidas que levamos anos defendendo para a Galiza por parte do meu partido político, o Bloque Nacionalista Galego: incluir a Galiza no corredor europeu da Rede Transeuropeia de Transportes.

Mas não só existe esta reivindicação da Galiza: também Castela-Leão e Portugal assim o reivindicam e a consideram uma infraestrutura estratégica para o desenvolvimento dos territórios.

Mas devemos evitar confundir e manipular com controvérsias estéreis. A pressão pelo corredor Atlântico não é incompatível com o corredor Mediterrâneo e vice-versa. Devem ser tratados como dois projetos estratégicos complementares do Estado espanhol para a Europa. Tentar eliminar um em detrimento do outro nada mais é que defender a discriminação dos territórios, neste caso o noroeste peninsular.

A igualdade de tratamento entre o corredor Atlântico e o Mediterrâneo implica um aumento dos investimentos no corredor Atlântico.

  Markus Buchheit (ID). – Frau Präsidentin! Der Automobilzulieferer Schaeffler hat 1300 Stellen aufgrund des Umstieges auf die Elektromobilität gestrichen. Borgers ging gar ganz pleite und ist momentan in Insolvenz. Diese Liste ließe sich beliebig fortführen, denn laut einer Studie der Beratungsfirma Horváth leiden drei Viertel unserer Zulieferer unter den massiv gestiegenen Energie-, Rohstoff- und Produktionskosten. Die gesamte Automobilindustrie ist allein in Deutschland für 400 Milliarden Euro Jahresumsatz verantwortlich und beschäftigt mehr als eine Million Menschen.

In dieser gesamten Problematik und trotz dieser Bedeutung, die die Automobilzulieferindustrie insbesondere für unseren Wirtschaftsstandort hat, werfen wir genau dieser Industrie noch weitere Knüppel zwischen die Beine, indem wir eben gerade jetzt gnaden-, sinn- und nutzlos auf die E-Mobilität einschwenken und uns dazu verpflichten, hier einzusteigen. Das führt zu massiven Problemen, und wir können sagen, dass das eben nicht nur für meine eigene Region und Ingolstadt, sondern für den gesamten Wirtschaftsstandort Deutschland für massive Probleme sorgen wird.

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, the UN Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, Alena Douhan, has just published her preliminary findings on our mission to the Syrian Arab Republic.

Everyone should read this document, it is both tragic and infuriating. It’s tragic to read about the plight of the working-class people of Syria. And it’s infuriating to learn of the gross violations of human rights being wilfully perpetrated against the Syrian people by these illegal unilateral measures imposed by the US and EU.

The figures detailed in the report are shocking. The poverty, food and fuel insecurity, the impact on health care and education. The catastrophic impact of unilateral sanctions is affecting people from all walks of life across the country, Douhan has said.

As long as they are silent on our authoritarianism, our blanket repression and our immiseration of the Syrian people, EU states and politicians have no credibility talking about human rights anywhere.

  Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγριότητα και πρόκληση η επιχείρηση έξωσης από το σπίτι της στην Αθήνα μιας χαμηλοσυνταξιούχου για χρέος 15.000 ευρώ. Ξεγυμνώνει τα ψέματα της κυβέρνησης της Νέας Δημοκρατίας ότι δεν γίνονται πλειστηριασμοί πρώτης κατοικίας, ενώ πλειοδοτεί αυτή σε παχιά λόγια για τους ευάλωτους την ώρα που μαζί με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και την Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα υλοποιούν τον στόχο τους για 40.000 πλειστηριασμούς ως το τέλος του έτους.

Το νομοθετικό πλαίσιο που ψήφισε ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ και υλοποιεί η Νέα Δημοκρατία παραδίδει τα λαϊκά σπίτια σε τράπεζες και κοράκια τύπου Πάτση, ξεσπιτώνοντας λαϊκές οικογένειες ή μετατρέποντάς τες σε νοικοκύρηδες στα ίδια τους τα σπίτια. Η αποφασιστική απάντηση χιλιάδων εργαζομένων σήμερα απέτρεψε την έξωση και έπληξε στην πράξη την ποινικοποίηση κινητοποιήσεων ενάντια στους πλειστηριασμούς που έβαλε η κυβέρνηση ΣΥΡΙΖΑ. Τα σπίτια του λαού τα σώζει ο λαός. Τώρα τείχος προστασίας στη λαϊκή κατοικία από εκβιασμούς και πλειστηριασμούς. Να καταργηθεί το νομοθετικό πλαίσιο που όμιλοι αρπάζουν τον μόχθο του λαού, να σταματήσουν οι διώξεις αγωνιστών για συμμετοχή σε κινητοποιήσεις ενάντια στους πλειστηριασμούς.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, jsme svědky masivního ničení kritické infrastruktury na Ukrajině. A my budeme tento týden hlasovat o tom, zda je Rusko teroristický stát. Já se ptám: Jak se liší ruský voják, který střílí, vraždí nevinné ukrajinské civilisty, jak se liší ruský voják, který vede spoutanou ženu k tomu, aby ji na dvorku jejího domu zastřelil, jak se liší ruský voják od teroristy, pokud unáší ukrajinské děti, pokud nacházíme masové hroby? My jsme dnes svědky obrovského ničení kritické infrastruktury na Ukrajině. Co provedli tak strašného Ukrajinci Rusům, že dochází k tomu, že se jim ničí jejich domovy, jejich elektrárny? Nepochybně pociťují hlad, pociťují samozřejmě chlad a také nedostatek energií. Ale jsou nezlomní ve své víře, že vyhrají. A my musíme Rusům vzkázat, že žádný zločin nezůstane nepotrestán, že budou nutné reparace a že bude nepochybně každý terorista stíhán po desetiletí.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, la semana pasada, en la sede del Parlamento Europeo en Bruselas, tuvo lugar la Conferencia de las Regiones Ultraperiféricas de la Unión Europea, en la que Canarias recibió el testigo de la presidencia para el próximo año 2023.

Y la conferencia tiene dos objetivos fundamentales. El primero es coordinar la acción de las propias regiones insulares y alejadas en la defensa de sus intereses. Pero el segundo es asegurar el refuerzo de la propia respuesta europea en el respeto de las singularidades que están consagradas en el artículo 349 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea. Entre ellas, el seguimiento de la estrategia para las regiones ultraperiféricas de la Comisión para el período 2021-2025, que pretende aprovechar las oportunidades y sinergias de las regiones ultraperiféricas para convertirse en campeonas de la economía verde, de la economía azul y de la economía circular, pero sin olvidar sus sectores tradicionales, como la agricultura y el turismo.

Canarias es candidata a albergar la agencia europea del turismo y es la primera vez en que una agencia europea podría tener sede en una región ultraperiférica con el apoyo unánime de las propias regiones ultraperiféricas. Esperamos que la Comisión adopte cuanto antes la iniciativa y Canarias lo consiga.

  Patricia Chagnon (ID). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, je souhaite revenir sur le dernier épisode de la crise migratoire qui secoue notre continent: l’accostage d’un bateau, l’Ocean Viking, sur les côtes françaises avec à son bord 234 migrants clandestins. Nous apprenons ce soir que plus de 95 % d’entre eux se sont volatilisés.

L’ONG SOS Méditerranée masque derrière un principe humanitaire, le sauvetage en mer, en réalité une opération politique pour mettre la pression sur les États et accélérer l’accueil des migrants sur le continent européen. Une politique qui vous tient également très à cœur.

Ces interventions d’ONG de plus en plus nombreuses et effrontées encouragent les migrants à se lancer sur les routes de l’immigration, accélèrent et facilitent le business des passeurs mafieux. L’Afrique compte aujourd’hui 1,2 milliard d’habitants. À l’horizon 2050, ce chiffre va au moins doubler. Même confronté à ce chiffre, à la réalité et à l’opposition des peuples d’Europe, votre funeste pacte d’immigration et d’asile va continuer à encourager et faciliter ces migrations. Car pour vous, l’immigration n’est pas un problème, mais bien votre projet.

Ici, au Parlement européen, aux côtés de Jordan Bardella et Marine Le Pen, nous continuerons à nous opposer et à exposer vos sinistres intentions.

  Cristian Terheş (ECR). – Madam President, ‘personal identity or digital identity’ is the question that we all – regular people or elected officials – need to answer in the current rash of global developments.

Personal identity is composed of distinctive qualitative qualities like personal beliefs, aspirations and desires that make a human being unique in their relationship with the state and with other human beings. This is because a human being is seen as a subject with rights, including inalienable fundamental rights which are inherent to human dignity.

Digital identity, on the other side, starts from the presumption that human beings are not subjects with inalienable rights, but objects at the disposal of governments which have to assign them different attributes in order to grant them certain privileges. We saw this happening during communism in Eastern Europe. We see this happening right now in China with the social credit system. And we see this being implemented right now in the Western world by organisations like the World Economic Forum.

I call therefore on all the Members of the European Parliament to reject any proposals that are implementing a digital identity in the EU, and nevertheless I call on all the people of Europe and the world to reject and vote against such politicians that are proposing a digital identity.

  Sandra Pereira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, nas últimas semanas temos assistido um pouco por toda a Europa a diversas lutas dos trabalhadores na exigência de melhores salários, na defesa e conquista de mais direitos e na urgência de medidas de controlo dos preços na Bélgica, na Grécia, na Suíça, no Chipre, no Reino Unido, em França, em Espanha, entre outros. E também em Portugal, no seguimento das grandes manifestações de 15 de outubro contra o aumento do custo de vida. No passado dia 18 de novembro a enorme adesão à greve nacional dos trabalhadores da Administração Pública teve um grande impacto na generalidade dos serviços públicos. São trabalhadores que se recusam a empobrecer a trabalhar e exigem soluções para acabar com a desvalorização dos seus salários e carreiras.

Daqui apoiamos as justas reivindicações dos trabalhadores e expressamos a nossa solidariedade com os seus sindicatos de classe. Juntamos a nossa à sua voz na exigência de outras políticas que defendam melhores condições de trabalho e de vida.

A luta continua.

  Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Señora presidenta, el intelectual George Steiner, judío europeo y filósofo, defendía que «el verdadero ser de Europa» es la confluencia de varias tradiciones, entre ellas Atenas y Jerusalén.

No hace falta extenderse en el gran legado que la comunidad judía ha aportado a la civilización europea y al conjunto de la humanidad. Nombres como Maimónides, Freud, Einstein, entre otros muchos, hablan por sí solos.

Vivimos tiempos difíciles en los que el odio al diferente, sea judío o musulmán, cristiano o ateo, crece en todas partes. El antisemitismo, en particular, está en ascenso, precisamente en el continente que gestó la barbarie del Holocausto.

Por eso es importante recordar que España ofrece desde el año 2015 la posibilidad de obtener la nacionalidad española a los descendientes de los judíos sefardíes, es decir, los que vivían en Iberia, «Sefarad» en hebreo. La iniciativa persigue reparar la injusticia histórica cometida en el año 1492, cuando los judíos fueron expulsados de Aragón y Castilla. Hasta el momento, más de 90 000 solicitudes han sido acogidas favorablemente.

  Gunnar Beck (ID). – Frau Präsidentin! Gesetze gegen Geldwäsche, gegen Offshore‑Steuerhinterziehung und für eine Crypto-Assets-Regulierung sind die wenigen noch sinnvollen EU-Vorhaben. Doch wie ernst nehmen Sie hier Ihre eigenen Pläne?

Der ukrainische Präsident Selenskij, so wissen wir von den Pandora-Papieren, hat 40 Millionen Euro von Oligarchen erhalten und auf Offshore-Konten auf den British Virgin Islands und in Belize steuerfrei gesichert. Außerdem scheint Selenskij an der bankrotten Kryptobörse FTX hunderte Millionen Euro für Militär und Bevölkerung der Ukraine bestimmte EU-Hilfsgelder verspielt zu haben.

Das Geld unserer deutschen und europäischen Steuerzahler verschwand also in einem amerikanischen Ponzi scheme. Scheinbar nehmen Sie den Kampf gegen Geldwäsche und Kryptospekulation keineswegs ernst, denn wie sonst erklären Sie Ihre Unterstützung für Selenskij?

  João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, passou mais uma conferência sobre alterações climáticas. Os países desenvolvidos sacodem responsabilidades, os objetivos de redução de emissões permanecem insuficientes, aprofundam-se caminhos de responsabilização individual, de acumulação de capital, de apropriação de recursos naturais. Os problemas ambientais ou não se resolvem ou se agravam. Acentuam-se desigualdades sociais. Condiciona-se o desenvolvimento de países.

Para os países em desenvolvimento: endividamento. Para o sistema financeiro: mecanismos de transferência de fundos. O mercado de carbono não reduz emissões, garante lucros e normaliza o direito a poluir dos que possam pagar.

Cada vez mais se expõe a perversidade da chamada economia verde e a incapacidade do capitalismo de responder aos problemas da Humanidade e ambientais.

Exigem-se outras respostas: o controlo público de setores estratégicos, como a energia; a aposta no transporte público; promover a produção e consumo locais; garantir o direito de cada Estado a produzir e à soberania alimentar; o controlo público da água; o combate à obsolescência programada; a rejeição da guerra.

Respostas também elas reclamadas pelos que lutam em defesa do ambiente e da natureza, e em particular os jovens, que daqui aproveitamos para saudar.

  Елена Йончева (S&D). – Г-жо Председател, България не е втора категория член на Европейския съюз и това сме го доказали многократно през годините. Когато охраняваме външните граници на Европейския съюз, ние получаваме потупване по рамото. Когато сме солидарни с финансовите проблеми на Гърция, ние получаваме отново потупване по рамото, когато се съобразяваме с европейските правила за каботаж в ущърб на нашия транспортен бизнес, ние отново получаваме потупване по рамото. Преди 11 години доказахме, че сме отговорили на всички технически изисквания за Шенгенското пространство, но и до днес за вас ние сме неподходящи.

Обръщам се към премиера на Нидерландия. Всички допълнителни условия, които поставяте, г-н Рюте, нямат нищо общо с писаните правила на Шенген. Нека да Ви кажа нещо и за българското общество. Ако през декември България получи поредния отказ за Шенген, недоверието в Европейския съюз ще нарасне. И Вашите решения засягат пряко функционирането на Европейския съюз. Не ни предавайте!

  Gianantonio Da Re (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Unione europea ha deciso che, a partire dal 2035, le case automobilistiche non potranno più vendere le auto a benzina e diesel. Una decisione scellerata, dettata da una fobia ecologista che non ha valutato le gravi conseguenze socioeconomiche derivanti dal proprio delirio.

Con la messa al bando dei motori a combustione interna, l'Italia rischia di perdere, tra il 2025 e il 2040, oltre 70 000 posti di lavoro. Il Commissario Breton ha dichiarato che l'Europa perderà circa 600 000 posti di lavoro, con un enorme aumento del consumo di materie prime e di energia elettrica, affermando che lo stop del 2035 non è un tabù. Ben venga questa presa di coscienza da parte della Commissione nel rivedere la decisione adottata.

La transizione energetica richiede gradualità e un'attenta analisi delle conseguenze socioeconomiche da essa derivanti. L'Unione europea non scarichi sulle imprese e sui cittadini europei la follia dei gruppi ecologisti.

  Иво Христов (S&D). – Г-жо Председател, на 15-ти ноември украинска ракета уби двама европейци граждани на Полша, за което бе обвинена Русия. Преживяхме 24 часа, в които войната можеше да подпали целия континент.

Европейският парламент от години осъжда поведението на Русия по основателни поводи. Тревога обаче буди доброволната ни слепота по отношение на властите в Киев. Нашият Съюз безкритично подкрепя Украйна, с което легитимира дезинформации, провокации и злоупотреби с доверие от страна на Киев. С поведението си позволяваме европейските институции да бъдат инструментализирани в един военен конфликт, който може да взриви собствения ни дом.

Мълчахме, когато бе обстрелвана атомната централа в Запорожие. Мълчим и сега, когато с твърденията си за произхода на ракетите украинските власти де факто режисираха повод за въвличането на Съюза в конфликта чрез механизмите на НАТО.

Европейската комисия трябва да осъзнае мащаба на риска и да излезе с мирна инициатива, която от 9 месеца гражданите на Европа напразно очакват.

  Die Präsidentin. – Damit ist dieser Tagesordnungspunkt geschlossen.

20. Järgmise istungi päevakord

  Die Präsidentin. – Die nächste Sitzung findet morgen, Dienstag, den 22. November 2022, um 9.00 Uhr statt.

Die Tagesordnung wurde veröffentlicht und ist auf der Website des Europäischen Parlaments verfügbar.

21. Käesoleva istungi protokolli kinnitamine

  Die Präsidentin. – Das Protokoll dieser Sitzung wird dem Parlament morgen zu Beginn der Nachmittagssitzung zur Genehmigung vorgelegt.

Ich bedanke mich bei den Kolleginnen und Kollegen, der Kommission, den Dolmetscherinnen und Dolmetschern.

22. Istungi lõpp

(Die Sitzung wird um 22.02 Uhr geschlossen.)