Stenograma dezbaterilor

Marţi, 22 noiembrie 2022 - Strasbourg

1. Deschiderea ședinței

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΔΗΜΟΥΛΗΣ
Αντιπρόεδρος

(Η συνεδρίαση αρχίζει στις 9.00)

2. Reziliența entităților critice (dezbatere)

  Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η συζήτηση επί της έκθεσης του Michal Šimečka, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Πολιτικών Ελευθεριών, Δικαιοσύνης και Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων, επί της προτάσεως οδηγίας του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου για την ανθεκτικότητα των κρίσιμων οντοτήτων (COM(2020)0829 - C9-0421/2020 - 2020/0365(COD)) (A9-0289/2021).

  Michal Šimečka, rapporteur. – Mr President, colleagues, Madam Commissioner, it is quite an honour for me to stand here and present to you the result of almost two years of legislative work, which was grounded in extensive debates and consultations with stakeholders, the Member States and the European institutions. The initial promise was to deliver on a Europe that protects, which in practice also means strengthening the resilience of the critical systems underpinning our way of life in our internal market. And today, with the CER Directive, the EU is in a position to deliver on that promise.

Before we vote, let me just give a brief overview of what has transpired in Europe while we have been working on this file, which also provides the strongest arguments for why the European Union needs a new piece of legislation to better protect its critical entities.

Right before the Commission rolled out its draft, the COVID pandemic broke out, infecting and killing millions of Europeans and disrupting our healthcare, our economy and our societies. Later, while we were negotiating this law, or this directive, Russia launched its brutal attack, its brutal aggression against Ukraine. And since then, the European Union has been facing an unprecedented increase in sabotage operations on its critical infrastructure – from the energy sector to transport services – and experiencing an increasing number of hybrid attacks on its public institutions.

And in the meantime, the climate crisis has been burning and flooding our continent from Greece to Portugal, Sweden to Italy. And all of these crises, all of these events have also served as a sort of compass for the co-legislators as they were finetuning this directive.

Now more than ever, we must prove to our citizens that the European Union protects their lives, protects their jobs, their companies, the essential services that affect the daily lives of our citizens and, eventually, the entire European Union. Therefore, our ambition with this directive is to strengthen the ability of critical entities to cope with these risks to their operations, while improving the functioning of the internal market in these essential services.

There are 11 crucial sectors covered, and this directive addresses the various measures and requirements so that its implementation will adequately respond to both natural catastrophes and man-made attacks. I trust that our joint compass throughout this process has brought solid rules and established the cooperation, coordination and information flows among the Member States, the entities and the European Commission that will strengthen preparedness for these incidents, the response to these incidents and, eventually, their evaluations. Because resilience is not just about preventing a risk – a disaster can always occur; the crucial thing is how we cope with it and how we, as the European Union, bounce back from it.

Moreover, this is reflected in the legislation. There are entities which have a pan-European dimension because they operate simultaneously in several Member States, and a risk to their operations is therefore a risk for the single market as a whole. And this directive puts a special focus on these entities and on the cross-border cooperation of these entities, which are of particular European significance.

Finally, I would like to say that I’m delighted – and this is thanks to you, Madam Commissioner, and thanks to my colleagues, our shadow rapporteurs, our advisers in the European Parliament and our counterparts in the Council – that our mutual work has resulted in what I believe is the best possible legislation. It is a big step for the European Union, and I really hope that this Parliament will broadly support it by adopting our interinstitutional agreement later today.

  Nils Torvalds, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, resilience of critical entities could be slightly changed as a headline to ‘resilience of critical entities and slightly naive and sometimes stupid minds’. Why? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many Member States thought that we are living in a problem-free world.

I think the home country of Commissioner Johansson actually abandoned obligatory military service after 1990, thinking that we don’t ever need military operations in Europe. And then, all of a sudden on 24 February, we woke up to a new reality – a very bitter reality, actually, where we are going to need all the things we actually discussed during all the discussions around the critical entities file.

Many Member States thought the need for a comprehensive directive on critical entities was useless, so they didn’t even implement the old directive on European critical infrastructure. Fourteen years after this directive, we finally managed to agree on a directive that could actually highlight the importance of keeping our critical entities safe.

We don’t know how much we actually lost during these 14 years. But what we are losing now because of the lack of an appropriate way for addressing critical entities, we are losing lives, and that’s the real issue for the day. But I hope that we are going into a better future with this directive.

  Alex Agius Saliba, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. – Mr President, Commissioner, we all depend on essential services such as energy, transport, water, digital infrastructure, health, production and also food distribution. During the COVID-19 pandemic, countries had to work together to protect the health of the population while avoiding disruptions to the free movement of people and the delivery of goods and essential services throughout the European Union.

The recent sabotage against Nord Stream pipelines is another example of our energy infrastructures’ vulnerability. Pipelines and underwater cables are essential infrastructure that connect European citizens and companies throughout the world.

In an increasingly interdependent world, it is in the interests of all Europeans to protect those services and infrastructures that play an indispensable role in maintaining vital societal functions, our economic activities and the very internal market.

As the rapporteur for the IMCO opinion, I support the agreement and believe that the new rules come just at the right moment to strengthen and prepare the resilience of the European Union as a whole. We don’t always have to wait till something negative happens and, instead, be prepared and resilient for sudden disruptions and crises, situations, be it pandemic, be it wars, or even natural disasters. Thanks a lot and, also, well done again to the rapporteur.

  Ylva Johansson, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, in a few hours, we will celebrate 70 years of the European Parliament. From very humble beginnings has grown this great House of European Democracy. And as Members of this House, this is for you a moment of great pride and solemn reflection, as it is for me a great honour to speak here today and every other day.

Today, as we speak about the resilience of our critical infrastructure, I think about the resilience of the Ukrainian people. Last Tuesday, Russia launched 100 missiles, leaving 50 % of Kyiv, 80 % of Lviv, and 90 % of Ternopil without electricity. The goal? Let me quote Andrey Gurulyov – a Russian state Duma representative. This is what he said, ‘One week after all electricity is cut off, the city of Kyiv will be swimming in shit. There will be a clear threat of an epidemic’. The words of a Russian lawmaker, not mine. How calculating, how callous, how cold-hearted can you be to call on national TV to freeze, starve and terrorize civilians into submission? Showing us the will to destroy critical infrastructure; a blatant disregard for human life of a regime that’s hostile to the European Union. Just think: there is a map somewhere in Moscow pinpointing hospitals, power plants and water supply as targets.

At the end of September in the shallow waters of the Baltic, at 80 metres deep, a series of explosions tore gaping holes in the Nord Stream pipelines, one of them 50 meters wide, causing on the surface a maelstrom of whirling water one kilometre wide. Up to 400 000 tonnes of methane escaped. An act of sabotage and it is not yet clarified who did it. But it happened just after Putin’s mobilisation, just when Russia was conducting fake referendums and just before Putin’s illegal annexations.

About two weeks later, unknown perpetrators paralysed rail traffic in North Germany, disrupting rail links to the Netherlands and Denmark by cutting fibre optic communication cables. The attackers are so far unknown, but the message is clear, ‘We know where you are weak. We know where to strike, any time we like’.

At the meeting of the G7 last week, I made clear the EU utterly condemned these acts of sabotage. We will not be intimidated. We will not tolerate these wanton attacks. We will defend ourselves. And we can do that, thanks to you. Thanks to the political agreements this Parliament reached with the Council this summer. First to strengthen our cybersecurity. Russian cyber-attacks against Ukraine already caused damage in the EU, disrupting the internet in Central Europe. The NIS2 Directive you approved with overwhelming majority will help us fight cyber threats that do real world harm. And today you will vote on the directive improving the resilience of our critical entities, greatly expanding the sectors we will protect. Beyond energy and transport today, also banking and finance and space, drinking water, wastewater, health, food and more. Sharing information on incidents much more quickly, while allowing Member States to protect sensitive information.

We need to do more. Last month, this Parliament called on Member States to protect critical infrastructure as a matter of priority. And here in this Parliament, President von der Leyen announced further steps. As a result, we proposed a Council recommendation. We are asking Member States to carry out stress tests. That’s our most urgent task right now, to make sure our critical infrastructure can resist any act of sabotage or attack. Starting with the energy sector – under such brutal attack now in Ukraine. And we call on Member States to start to implement the directive on critical entities already now. Adopt or update national strategies already now. Already now, start to identify entities critical to society and the economy.

I expect swift entry into force early next year, but it will take nearly two years to write this directive into national laws and we cannot afford to waste a single moment when rockets have already fallen on European soil. Let’s build up our preparedness already now. Now crank up our response – through the Union Civil Protection Mechanism – already now. And scale up our cooperation with NATO and other international partners already now.

Honourable members, we must never forget attacks on infrastructure or attacks on people. So, dear Michal, dear rapporteur Šimečka, dear shadows, thank you for helping to protect Europe and protect people. You completed your important work not a moment too soon. More attacks may come. Worse attacks may come. And when this House passes this legislation today, we will be better prepared to meet them.

  Lukas Mandl, Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Kritische Infrastruktur, das ist lebenswichtige Infrastruktur, und es ist wichtig, dass sich die Europäische Union in ihrer Gesamtheit darum kümmert, diese Infrastrukturen für den Krisenfall aufrechtzuerhalten. Ich danke dem Berichterstatter, ich danke den Schattenberichterstattern für die guten Verhandlungen.

Drei Dinge waren mir wichtig zu verankern in diesen Verhandlungen. Erstens: Wer für eine Einheit kritischer Infrastruktur verantwortlich ist, verdient öffentliche Wertschätzung. Wir müssen es in Europa möglich machen, klar zu kommunizieren, dass das etwas bedeutet – für die Sicherheit, für die Lebensqualität, für die Vorsorge, für mögliche Krisen.

Zweitens: Was für die Allgemeinheit gemacht wird, muss auch von der Allgemeinheit finanziert werden. Das bedeutet, dass wir nicht zusätzliche Lasten auferlegen wollen, wo jemand für Einheiten kritischer Infrastruktur Verantwortung übernimmt, sondern dass wir ermöglichen wollen, dass es funktioniert.

Und drittens: Die wohnortnahe Lebensmittelversorgung war mir wichtig. Die hybriden Angriffe, der Krieg Putin-Russlands haben gezeigt: Auch die Lebensmittelketten nach Europa und in andere Teile der Welt sind wichtig. Und mit all dem, mit dem Schutz kritischer Infrastruktur, begegnen wir dieser Welt der Konfrontation mit unserem Zugang der Kooperation, aber auch der Vorsorge für künftige Krisen.

  Ангел Джамбазки, докладчик по становището на комисията по транспорт и туризъм. – Г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, приветствам предложението за директива относно устойчивостта на критичните обекти и се радвам, че се взема предвид и становището на комисията по транспорт и туризъм.

Транспортът е основен сектор, свързаността е важно нещо и, разбира се, критичната инфраструктура трябва да бъде подредена, оценена и пазена. Но когато се говори за тези неща, неизбежно се набива на очи едно противоречие и едно много силно разминаване. Тук ще се говори много по този доклад за свързаност, за това как трябва да се оценява инфраструктурата и т.н. И същевременно има държави членки, които продължават да блокират присъединяването на България и Румъния към Шенгенското пространство. За каква свързаност говорим, при положение че от Русе до Букурещ, между които има 70 километра разстояние, се пътува 12 часа, г-жо Комисар, как да стане тази работа?

Вижда се отново разминаването между думи и дела. Вече 11 години двете държави са изпълнили всички технически критерии, отговарят на изискванията, но не са част от Шенгенското пространство и това е абсолютно несправедливо към нашите граждани, към нашия транспорт, към нашата инфраструктура и към нашия бизнес.

Така че, когато говорите за тези неща, първо трябва да се видят и въпросите, свързани с присъединяването на България и на Румъния към Шенген, за да може да бъде това пространство завършено и за да може да бъде оценено и работено изцяло.

  Salvatore De Meo, a nome del gruppo PPE. – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, la vulnerabilità delle nostre infrastrutture strategiche è sotto gli occhi di tutti.

Infatti, negli ultimi anni abbiamo assistito all'incremento di attacchi ibridi dovuti sia ai cambiamenti climatici sia a minacce interne e al terrorismo, per non parlare della pandemia, per poi arrivare alla guerra che ha messo a repentaglio la sicurezza del nostro continente.

Oggi più che mai è essenziale difendere il corretto funzionamento delle nostre infrastrutture critiche, renderle più resilienti per poter garantire il loro corretto funzionamento a favore delle nostre economie e del mercato unico. I rischi sono chiari, è stato detto. Un'interruzione di una di queste infrastrutture critiche può potenzialmente generare effetti a catena non solo nello Stato in cui si trova, ma anche in tutti gli altri Stati.

Accolgo quindi con favore il rafforzamento delle norme che mirano ad aumentare la resilienza delle strutture e infrastrutture strategiche per i servizi e per lo svolgimento delle attività economiche essenziali ed esprimo soddisfazione per aver ottenuto un'estensione dei settori di applicazione di questa direttiva anche al settore agroalimentare. In particolare, mi riferisco ai grandi mercati all'ingrosso, che ovviamente vengono riconosciuti in questo provvedimento nel loro ruolo di infrastrutture strategiche.

Il funzionamento della catena agroalimentare è un servizio essenziale per il benessere della nostra società e i mercati all'ingrosso sono fondamentali, in quanto strutture di pubblico interesse, basti pensare che, grazie a loro, durante la pandemia è stato evitato in molti paesi il blocco del sistema agroalimentare e si è potuto garantire l'approvvigionamento e la distribuzione dei generi alimentari.

  Petar Vitanov, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I would like, first of all, to thank the rapporteur, of course, and all the shadows for the excellent work that they have managed to provide, because I am absolutely positive that especially after 24 of February, nobody’s going to underestimate the importance of this file since we are witnessing how peace and democracy depend on the level of security and on the strength of our critical systems, transport, energy, water and so on and so forth.

Critical entities are the providers of essential services, and in this increasingly interdependent union they play an indispensable role in the maintenance of economic activities in the internal market. And I remember in the beginning of the negotiations that we were discussing the essence of the essential services. I’m glad that during this negotiations, this definition was finally precisely detailed, and it includes also the safeguarding of public health and safety, the environment, and not just the continuation of the economic functions.

I’m also glad that in these negotiations we were guaranteeing the additional financial support to those critical entities. Now every Member State should be required to adopt a national strategy to guarantee the resilience of critical industries, to carry out regular risk assessment and based on this assessment, to identify critical entities. Also entities that provide services to six or more Member States will be subject to specific oversight. So I think that a lot of improvements were made, and I am sure that with the adoption of this legislation, we will be absolutely better prepared to face any future challenges before the European Union.

  Bart Groothuis, on behalf of the Renew Group. – President, dear Commissioner, yet another piece of well-crafted, much needed and warmly welcomed legislation protecting Europe’s critical infrastructure is key in making Europe safe and prosperous. Thank you, dear rapporteur.

It’s just like the NIS 2, like you mentioned, dear Commissioner, and the foreign direct investment screening, the Democracy Action Plan, but also the Economic Coercion Instrument. But what do these files have in common? Against whom are we protecting ourselves?

Let’s be clear: the reality is we are protecting ourselves against a small number of three countries who have something in common, namely an offensive intellectual property theft programme directed against us. The second thing is they want to thwart the liberal world order. And thirdly, last but not least, they are willing and able to do so in our own backyard, here, extraterritorially.

That’s the problem. It’s Russia, Iran and China; let’s name these three. We might believe we live in peace with the world, but yet they declared a conflict against us. And yet we formulate generic responses.

But, dear Commissioner, country-specific problems require country-specific legislation against these three nations. That’s what we’d like to see in future.

  Markéta Gregorová, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, the geopolitical climate for Europe is getting harsher and we step up our efforts to secure vital entities in our single market as a whole. We respond to the growing impacts of climate change and to gaps and vulnerabilities that opened up in the pandemic.

And this directive really well complements our new DORA Act on financial services and our newly updated NIS 2 Directive for the resilience of digital infrastructure. And my colleagues already mentioned several other important legislation that has been built up in this House, and this is one of them.

This is where the magic happens, too. It lowers the bureaucratic burden by creating a single point of contact for businesses on these three and more legislations and streamlines requirements and reporting. This is a huge success and showcases the true potential what benefits the EU and cooperation in general can bring.

I am also happy to see that the risk assessment by Member States will now include cyber threats and risks for cross—sectoral or cross—border nature. This has been an important addition as we see our adversaries increasingly blurring the lines in their attacks and switching between domains.

I was hoping that this period of security cooperation and open access will prevail. In the form which I proposed, we will find ways to regularly publish findings of the Critical Entities Resilience Group for the general public for use in academia and security research, of course, adequately anonymised. Unfortunately, we still have some trust to build in this, I see.

That, of course, does not does not hinder the important work that has been done. This directive is timely and relevant, and it is my hope that Member States will diligently transpose it into their national laws, together with DORA and NIS 2.

  Silvia Sardone, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, deve essere una priorità dell'Unione europea proteggere le infrastrutture critiche che sono essenziali per il funzionamento della nostra società e della nostra economia.

Negli ultimi anni abbiamo visto un notevole aumento di attacchi informatici, che hanno messo in seria difficoltà numerosi Stati, con gravi disagi per i servizi essenziali dei cittadini.

Bisogna garantire maggiore sicurezza per quei soggetti, in particolare le amministrazioni pubbliche, che ultimamente stanno subendo ciberattacchi e corrono anche il rischio di essere potenziali bersagli terroristici.

L'interconnessione tra reti, operatori e infrastrutture è sempre più globale ed è giusto ampliare i settori coinvolti. Bene infatti aver incluso anche l'agroalimentare tra quelli considerati di maggiore importanza critica, aver snellito gli oneri burocratici per i soggetti privati e aver fatto misure a sostegno delle piccole e medie imprese.

L'Europa si concentri sulla difesa dei cittadini e sulla sicurezza dei paesi dell'Unione con maggiore impegno.

  Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! To, czego jesteśmy dzisiaj świadkami na Ukrainie, to barbarzyństwo putinowskich siepaczy, którzy, nie mogąc pokonać żołnierzy ukraińskich na polu bitwy, sięgnęli po ataki na obiekty cywilne, a przede wszystkim na infrastrukturę krytyczną, czego efektem jest praktyczny lockdown większości dużych miast Ukrainy. To wszystko powinno uświadomić nam, że dzisiaj w obliczu tego rosyjskiego satrapy żadne państwo w Europie nie jest bezpieczne. W ubiegłym tygodniu wskutek tych barbarzyńskich ataków rakietowych, o których mówiła Pani Komisarz – za te słowa chciałbym bardzo serdecznie podziękować, bo były to słowa prawdziwe, pokazujące w prawdziwym świetle to, czego dzisiaj doświadczają Ukraińcy – również w Polsce, w państwie członkowskim Unii Europejskiej, zginęło dwóch moich rodaków, ponieważ na terytorium Polski spadła rakieta.

Myślę, że to jest dobry czas, żeby ci wszyscy z państwa, szczególnie tutaj po lewej stronie, którzy atakują Polskę, atakują Polskę jako kraj frontowy, lojalny kraj Unii Europejskiej, pamiętali. Mamy chociażby w pamięci te wszystkie niemądre ataki, kiedy chroniliśmy Polskę przed hybrydowym atakiem ze strony Łukaszenki i Putina, kiedy próbowano przetransportować do Polski jako uchodźców nieszczęsnych zwiezionych przez Łukaszenkę tzw. turystów. Ilu wśród tych turystów mogło być potencjalnych terrorystów, agentów Putina, agentów Łukaszenki, którzy tak jak byliśmy tego świadkami, o czym mówiła Pani Komisarz, nie wahali się chociażby wysadzić gazociąg Nord Stream? Miejcie to Państwo w pamięci. Warto słuchać Polski.

  Mislav Kolakušić (NI). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovani kolege, poštovani građani, građani Europske unije danas žive neusporedivo lošije i nesigurnije nego prije par godina. Vodstvo Europske unije nas želi uvjeriti da su uzrok tome isključivo pandemija COVID-a 19 i rat Rusije i Ukrajine.

Međutim, činjenice govore da su koronavirusi oduvijek s nama i bit će zauvijek s nama. Zauvijek će mutirati kao što su mutirali i do sada. Problem je u našoj reakciji na pandemiju COVID-a 19. koja je odnijela mnogobrojne živote. Poglavito pogrešna i katastrofalna upotreba respiratora koja je kriva za smrt milijuna ljudi od koje se nije htjelo odustati.

Rat u Ukrajini, tko je odrezao dotoke jeftine energije europskim građanima nego vodstvo Europske unije. Mi sami. Morate biti svjesni da su ratovi u ljudskoj prirodi i da će ratova biti dok budu dva čovjeka na planetu. Zanošenje da će ratovi nestati jer smo se mi skupili u Europsku uniju su vrlo naivni i trebamo ih napustiti.

  Benoît Lutgen (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, mes félicitations. Votre texte va dans le bon sens, celui de plus de protection par rapport à l’ensemble des infrastructures critiques pour l’Europe, notamment dans les secteurs de la santé et de l’alimentation. La pandémie nous a montré combien il était urgent de protéger ces secteurs aussi importants, aussi vitaux pour l’Europe – santé, alimentation, énergie –, de les protéger, notamment, contre les cyberattaques.

J’invite la Commission à aller plus loin. Je pense que pour ce qui est de notre indépendance – une forme de souveraineté qu’on peut trouver au niveau européen dans des secteurs aussi importants que l’énergie, que le numérique, que l’alimentation, que la santé et j’ajouterais même la défense –, nous devons aller plus loin pour éviter toute dépendance à l’avenir. On la crée parfois, notamment si on prend l’exemple de la décision qui a été prise ici et ailleurs d’avoir 100 % de véhicules électriques en 2035, ce qui crée une forme de dépendance à l’égard de la Chine. On le voit aussi lorsque la même Chine s’approprie des ports et des aéroports en Europe. Par rapport à tous ces secteurs stratégiques, tous ces endroits stratégiques, la Commission doit aller plus loin pour protéger les Européens, pour protéger au maximum notre indépendance, notre autonomie.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamna comisar, stimați colegi, de multe ori vorbim foarte tehnic și poate mai puțin inteligibil pentru cetățeni. De fapt, ce înseamnă reziliența entităților critice? Înseamnă că noi ne gândim acum, prin această directivă, să creștem rezistența unor sectoare care țin până la urmă de calitatea vieții, de viața lor.

Energie, sănătate, alimentar, spațial... 11 domenii, așa cum s-a spus, sunt acoperite prin această directivă și evident că o rezistență mai mică a unui sector, a unei entități critice dintr-un anumit stat membru va duce în cascadă efecte în tot spațiul, în toată piața internă.

De aceea, cred foarte mult că este necesar să fie bine adoptată în legislația națională această directivă. Dar mai cred că infrastructurile în domeniile pe care le-am amintit aici trebuie să fie de calitate și de aceeași calitate, pentru a fi o competiție echitabilă în piață și pentru a avea rezistență egală în piață.

De aceea, cred foarte mult că trebuie să avem un singur spațiu, doamna comisar, și fac apel din nou la dumneavoastră. Știu că s-a votat în Consiliul Comisarilor să intre cele trei state România, Bulgaria și Croația în spațiul Schengen și să putem lucra la creșterea calității infrastructurii în cele 11 domenii.

  Moritz Körner (Renew). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Frau Kommissarin! Sabotage auf Nord Stream, Angriff auf das Bahnnetz in Norddeutschland – wir dürfen nicht naiv sein, wenn es um kritische Infrastruktur geht. Und gerade auch eine europäische Abstimmung in dieser Frage, was kritische Infrastruktur für uns ausmacht, wie wir sie gemeinsam schützen, ist wichtig. Und deswegen ist es wichtig, dass wir die Debatte haben und auch eine entsprechende Richtlinie jetzt, heute gemeinsam voranbringen.

Wir müssen aber auch darauf schauen, welche autoritären Staaten Einfluss auf unsere kritische Infrastruktur haben, welche Häfen von welchen Staaten gekauft sind oder welche Beteiligungen es gibt, wie wir unsere digitale Welt besser schützen müssen, indem wir Verschlüsselung schützen und nicht noch ihr schaden. Da müssen wir gemeinsam draufschauen. Wir müssen kritisch auf kritische Infrastruktur schauen – das tut die neue Richtlinie.

Vielen Dank an den Berichterstatter. Das ist ein richtiger Schritt, um unsere kritische Infrastruktur besser zu schützen.

  Tom Berendsen (PPE). – Voorzitter, een belangrijk stuk wetgeving vandaag, omdat de bescherming van onze kritieke infrastructuur heel belangrijk is. Wij hebben gezien hoe kwetsbaar onze energie-infrastructuur en onze data-infrastructuur kan zijn. Maar terwijl wij hier op Europees niveau bezig zijn met deze wetgeving, zetten lidstaten de achterdeur naar buitenlandse invloed wagenwijd open. 22 Europese havens zijn in zee gegaan met Chinese investeerders en geven daarbij belangrijke controlepunten in onze aanleveringsketen in handen van buitenlandse mogendheden. Er is een Europese havenstrategie nodig. We moeten die uitverkoop van Europese havens stoppen. Dat betekent dat we moeten werken aan een strategie waarin onze Europese havens concurrerend kunnen blijven zonder dat ze afhankelijk zijn van buitenlandse mogendheden. Want vrije handel is nog wel iets anders dan het uit handen geven van onze kritieke infrastructuur. We hebben de verantwoordelijkheid om onze economische veiligheid te garanderen voor de toekomst.

  Ondřej Kovařík (Renew). – Pane předsedající, vážená paní komisařko, pane zpravodaji, kolegové, vývoj v posledních letech nám jasně ukázal, že ochrana kritické infrastruktury už není pouze doménou bezpečnostní či striktně vojenskou. Hybridní působení, kybernetické útoky, pandemie koronaviru i probíhající válka na Ukrajině ukazují šíři možných hrozeb, kterým v současné době čelíme. Je zřejmé, že cílem útoků se stále více stává kybernetický prostor. Ten má potenciál doslova paralyzovat některé kritické aktivity, a to nejen na území jednoho státu, ale i v mezinárodním, potažmo globálním měřítku.

Vítám proto, že dnes projednávaná směrnice bere tuto novou realitu v potaz. Rozšiřuje množinu oblastí spadajících mezi kritická odvětví. Zahrnuje tak dopravu, zdravotnický systém, dodávky vody a tepla, energetiku nebo v neposlední řadě také finanční služby. Tato směrnice nabízí řadu nástrojů, jak se na tyto situace připravit, jak posílit naši vzájemnou odolnost a jak čelit hrozbám ve chvíli, kdy nastanou. Doufám, že vlády členských zemí tyto nástroje plně využijí.

  Henna Virkkunen (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, komissaari, Euroopan kriittisen infrastruktuurin häiriönsietokykyä on vahvistettava niin kyberturvallisuuden kuin fyysisen ympäristönkin osalta. Tämä nyt hyväksyttävä lainsäädäntö, yhdessä tieto- ja verkkoturvadirektiivin IS2:n kanssa, on tärkeä askel yhteisen eurooppalaisen turvallisuuden vahvistamiseksi.

Me olemme nähneet viime kuukausina, millaista tuhoa Venäjä kylvää Ukrainassa tuhoamalla kriittistä infrastruktuuria ja ajamalla ihmisiä ahdinkoon. Euroopan unionissa olemme kokeneet Nord Stream 2:n räjäytykset ja Saksan rataverkkoon kohdistuvat sabotaasit. Ne osoittavat, että on tärkeää vahvistaa yhteistä varautumista ja yhteistä reagointia ja tiivistää myös yhteistyötä Naton kanssa, kuten komissio lokakuussa esitti.

On hyvä askel, että tässä nyt hyväksyttävässä lainsäädännössä energia- ja liikenneinfran lisäksi mukaan on otettu kaikkiaan yksitoista hyvin kriittistä toimialaa, mukaan lukien digitaalinen infrastruktuuri, pankkitoiminta, juomavesi, terveys, elintarvikkeet. Tiedämme, että nämä kaikki ovat erittäin kriittisiä toimintoja yhteiskunnan ja kansalaisten elämän kannalta.

  Maite Pagazaurtundúa (Renew). – Señor presidente, señorías, pocas veces podemos estar de acuerdo sobre algo que es realmente tan importante y tan necesario. La Directiva para adaptar los ataques a nuestro sistema de infraestructuras críticas que van mutando, igual que va mutando la sociedad, es realmente un momento de felicitación colectiva. Tenemos que felicitar también a la Presidencia francesa por este acuerdo de última hora.

No podemos permitirnos estos ataques. Por ejemplo, hace menos de un mes en España, a través del Punto Neutro Judicial, un sistema gestionado por el Consejo General del Poder Judicial que conecta las redes de distintas administraciones públicas, los atacantes accedieron a millones de datos sensibles: carnets de identidad, declaraciones de la renta, cuentas bancarias, direcciones, vidas laborables, relaciones empresariales de todos y cada uno de los ciudadanos que figuraban en esas bases de datos conectados, políticos, empresarios, personajes de relevancia pública. Se lo llevaron todo: las bases de datos íntegras de los servicios de la Agencia Tributaria, la Seguridad Social, el Servicio Público de Empleo, Dirección General de la Policía, Extranjería o la Dirección General de Tráfico.

Estos y otros tipos de infraestructuras críticas son las principales vulnerabilidades en las guerras híbridas del presente —lo ha dicho hoy la comisaria— y del futuro. En Ucrania se ataca la electricidad, las comunicaciones. El secuestro de datos y el ataque de la energía puede llevar al desastre a nuestras sociedades.

Estamos reaccionando. Estamos de enhorabuena precisamente por eso. Pero debemos ser rápidos y debemos hacer visible este tipo de vulnerabilidad a nuestras sociedades.

Hoy estamos de enhorabuena.

Διαδικασία «catch the eye»

  Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome this directive I was calling for since the beginning of my mandate. As Putin continues to wage his brutal and aggressive war against the people of Ukraine, he’s also continuing in his attempts to weaken and divide our democracies. Disinformation, cyber-attacks, espionage, strategic corruption of businesses and political cycles.

That’s why it is crucial that we seek attacks on critical infrastructure in this broader context and develop necessary tools. For this reason, I welcome the Protection of Critical Infrastructures Directive and the extension of the scope to 11 sectors, in order to better reflect the scale of the threat.

However, we can never adequately protect ourselves if we allow malign regimes to invest in our critical infrastructure. The case of Nord Stream 2 must be a lesson not only for our dealings with Russia, but also when it comes to Chinese Communist Party and others.

Such regimes must never again be allowed to use our critical infrastructure to undermine our resilience.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria Johansson, este Parlamento saluda esta revisión de la Directiva sobre el refuerzo de las infraestructuras y de las entidades críticas, que se enmarca en el refuerzo de la seguridad de los europeos frente a los ataques híbridos, puestos dramáticamente de manifiesto con ocasión de la guerra de Putin contra Ucrania, y que extiende la seguridad de los europeos, más allá de las energías y el transporte, a otros sectores afectados, como es la banca, como son las infraestructuras digitales y como son, por supuesto, el suministro de alimentos y, sobre todo, la sanidad y los datos de la salud pública.

Pero me permito una observación adicional: ahora que este Parlamento Europeo cumple 70 años, que es una edad en la que normalmente uno se retira o accede a la pensión, este Parlamento tiene las mejores razones para sentirse más joven que nunca y, por tanto, es importante también modernizar el lenguaje.

Cuando se habla de resiliencia, de entidades críticas, ¿estamos diciéndole claramente a los europeos de lo que se trata? Mi respuesta es no. Podemos ser mucho más gráficos y eficaces si les decimos que estamos reforzando su seguridad frente al sabotaje y frente a los ataques a la intimidad y a la privacidad de las personas, y que estamos protegiendo mejor sus derechos fundamentales en el mundo en que nos toca vivir.

  Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiamas Pirmininke, gerbiama Komisijos nare, iš tikrųjų, prisijungiu prie kolegų sveikinimų, kad toks dokumentas yra pateiktas ir, tikiuosi, bus priimtas. Bet kolegos taip pat paminėjo, kiek pavojingos Europos Sąjungai yra tokios kritinės infrastruktūros atakos, kiek tokių pasikėsinimų yra buvę, paminėti Vokietijos atvejai ir kiti. Bet taip pat matome, kaip Putinas panaudoja atakas prieš infrastruktūrą kariaudamas su Ukraina ir nustumdamas Ukrainos tautą į tikrai šaltą žiemą ir sukeldamas didžiulius pavojus gyvybei. Gerbiami kolegos, aš manau, kad mes visi turime pritarti šiam sprendimui ir ypatingai stebėti, kaip tie sprendimai bus įgyvendinti tiek Europos Sąjungos lygmeniu, tiek valstybėse narėse. Nes manau, kad veikiant tik kartu ir panaudojant bendrus finansus, mes pajėgsime apsaugoti šią infrastruktūrą. Pritariu tam, kad infrastruktūros objektai yra išplėsti, ypatingai maisto ir sveikatos sektoriuje, nes manau, kad šios sritys pasirodė ypatingai svarbios tiek pandemijos, tiek karo metu. Ačiū.

(Λήξη της διαδικασίας «catch the eye»)

  Ylva Johansson, Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much for this important debate. It clearly showed that we all agree on the importance of better protecting critical entities and the importance of this legislation that you will vote on today.

I will again reiterate my special thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Šimečka, and the shadows, but also, of course, to the French Presidency and the Council, which managed to reach a swift agreement on this important legislation.

We have to take responsibility together as a union, and the best action we can take right now is to make sure that we are ready for what is to come. The directive will soon enter into force. It’s now up to the Member States to use it to full effect ahead of time, and to carry out the stress tests to bolster our preparedness and response to protect our infrastructure and our people.

  Michal Šimečka, rapporteur. – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, thank you so much for the discussion and thank you for the support. It is quite rare that there is such a broad consensus in this Parliament from the left to the right. And not just a consensus and an agreement on this text that is going to be voted on later on, but also consensus and an agreement on the kind of threats that we face and on the kind of actions that we need to take.

I note that a lot of you, colleagues, have approved of the expansion of the sectors that will be covered in this directive to 11. I am also happy that there’s strong agreement on that. I should also mention, highlight, that the philosophy of this directive is somewhat different from the last one, and I appreciate that. I think this is also where there is a consensus: that we’re moving from just protecting particular pieces of critical infrastructure – assets and buildings and whatnot – to a philosophy where we’re focusing on the resilience of those essential services. And I think this reflects this new and dangerous world that we’re entering where the risks can't all be eliminated. There will be threats, there will be incidents. And we need to be clear with our citizens that not with this directive, not with anything we can do, can we eliminate all the risks falling from natural catastrophes to war to hybrid sabotage attacks. What we can do, though, is to minimise those risks and to make sure that when incidents happen, we are prepared and our entities, be they public or private, are able to bounce back and carry on with the services that are essential for our societies and for our single market. And this is what this directive does. This is what it’s for. And with its approval and with its implementation, the European Union, its citizens, its single market will be all the more secure.

So let me again say thanks so much to the Commission, to the French Presidency, to all my colleagues from the political groups. And I would just reiterate the call of the Commissioner for Member States to implement this as swiftly as possible.

  Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί σήμερα.

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 171 του Κανονισμού)

  Mihai Tudose (S&D), în scris. – Am aprobat noile norme europene, menite să consolideze infrastructura esențială din UE în fața unei arii de provocări extinse prin această directivă.

Atacurilor teroriste li se adaugă, de acum, dezastrele naturale și actele de sabotaj. Totodată, se extinde domeniul de aplicare la unsprezece sectoare, între care: energie, transport, bănci, infrastructuri ale pieței financiare, sănătate, apă potabilă, alimente, infrastructură digitală. De asemenea, se instituie reguli minime comune, pe baza cărora statele membre vor clasifica aceiași furnizori ca fiind esențiali.

Susțin solicitarea adresată statelor UE să adopte strategii naționale pentru a consolida reziliența și să efectueze evaluări periodice ale riscurilor. În acest sens, autoritățile naționale vor putea efectua inspecții la fața locului ale infrastructurilor critice și vor putea aplica sancțiuni în caz de nerespectare a obligațiilor. Un rol important va reveni procesului de avertizare în caz de incident și comunicării transfrontaliere între punctele naționale de contact, care se vor înființa.

Crizele succesive ce au pus la încercare infrastructura esențială a UE - pandemia și războiul - au făcut ca aceste modificări legislative să fie necesare și urgente. De aceea, consider că transpunerea directivei de către statele membre trebuie făcută mult mai rapid față de termenul de doi ani prevăzut.

3. Echilibrul de gen în rândul administratorilor neexecutivi ai societăților cotate la bursă (dezbatere)

  Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η συζήτηση επί της σύστασης για τη δεύτερη ανάγνωση της Επιτροπής Νομικών Θεμάτων και της Επιτροπής Δικαιωμάτων των Γυναικών και Ισότητας των Φύλων σχετικά με τη θέση του Συμβουλίου σε πρώτη ανάγνωση ενόψει της έκδοσης οδηγίας του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου σχετικά με τη βελτίωση της ισόρροπης εκπροσώπησης των φύλων σε θέσεις διευθυντικών στελεχών των εισηγμένων εταιρειών και σχετικά μέτρα (10521/1/2022 - C9-0354/2022 - 2012/0299(COD)) (Εισηγήτριες: Lara Wolters και Evelyn Regner) (A9-0275/2022).

  Lara Wolters, rapporteur. – Mr President, colleagues, around 60% of graduates from our universities in Europe are women. And yet, out of every 100 CEOs of listed companies in Europe, only eight are women. In my own country, the Netherlands, often upheld as a progressive bastion, there are more CEOs called Peter than there are women CEOs.

And the reason for their underrepresentation in the boardroom is not a lack of merit or talent; it’s structural problems that disadvantage women in their careers, particularly when they want to take on leadership roles. Spoiler alert: the law we have before us today won’t solve all of that. For that, we need quality and affordable childcare. We need better paternity leave. We need part-time work to become accepted for men. And let us not forget that most women work not at the top, but in jobs that are hugely undervalued and underpaid.

But what we are doing today will be a step in the right direction. The law we are signing tomorrow aims at getting at least 40% of board positions of listed companies filled by women through better recruitment procedures with clearer criteria, more transparency and broader candidate pools. Member States have until 2026 to achieve gender-balanced boards with measures put in place to make sure that they do.

And I think we all stand to win. Companies stand to benefit from looking more like the consumers they serve. It’s unsurprising that research has shown that companies with more diverse teams are more creative, more innovative and have better problem-solving abilities. Diverse leadership, in turn, can lead to more productivity and more successful business operations. And yet, at the moment, only 3 in 10 board members in large EU corporations are women. Zooming in on Hungary, Estonia and Cyprus, that is 1 in 10. Those boardrooms are not a good reflection of society, especially when we think of the fact that these companies are heavy hitters that take decisions that can impact all of us.

As you may know, a lot of my work in this House is about how we make sure that companies don’t think only about their bottom line, but also about their place in society. In 2022, we expect more from companies, and that goes from gender equality to respect for human rights, climate change and the environment. That’s why I sincerely believe that we all stand to benefit from this: employees, consumers, citizens and, yes, companies themselves.

If a Member State recently introduced legislation, they still have to meet the targets we’re talking about today. Otherwise, they are subject to this law. And that means that either way, all 27 Member States will see more women in their boardrooms in the near future. That’s a big deal for Europe, and certainly for the 18 countries in our EU without effective legislation.

Now, of course there are those who will say quotas won’t work and that this will lead to appointments based on gender rather than merit. I think it’s about time that we left that argument where it belongs – in the previous century. We’ve tried asking nicely. We’ve tried waiting for the old boys’ networks to die out and to no avail.

Quotas are a blunt instrument, yes. But where there’s a lack of will, you need a law. This law is a significant achievement and, frankly, a victory for all of those who have campaigned for it since 2012. And to them, I wish to pay tribute. Most of all, though, I think today is a victory for girls, who, as we very well know, cannot be who they cannot see.

  Evelyn Regner, Berichterstatterin. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Kommissarin! Dankeschön, Lara, für die großartige Zusammenarbeit. Diese Richtlinie ist überfällig. Diese Richtlinie, dass die jetzt kommt, das ist das Teamwork von sehr vielen großartigen, vor allem Frauen natürlich, über Fraktionsgrenzen hinweg, über Institutionengrenzen hinweg und – wir können es natürlich auch sagen – über die Legislaturperioden hinweg.

Wenn es darum geht, dass mehr Gleichstellung – ich würde mal sagen, mehr Normalität – hergestellt wird, nämlich so, wie es in Unternehmen eigentlich ausschauen soll, dann brauchen wir offensichtlich einen ganz besonders langen Atem, weil es ja immer wieder um Macht geht. Zehn Jahre lang haben wir als Europäisches Parlament das Dossier am Leben gehalten. Zehn Jahre habe ich als Berichterstatterin von Anfang an zusammen mit vielen hier im Raum und darüber hinaus darum gekämpft, dass wir endlich die Männerquote in Aufsichtsräten abschaffen. Und jetzt haben wir es endlich geschafft.

Diese Richtlinie zu mehr Frauen in Führungspositionen führt dazu, dass in Aufsichtsräten und Vorständen endlich Qualifikation als Allererstes zählt. Bis zum 30. Juni 2026 sind die Ziele zu erreichen, und damit schaffen wir es auch endlich, die Gesellschaft besser abzubilden, Diversität zu schaffen, top-down die Unternehmenskultur für alle zu verbessern.

Im Mittelpunkt der Richtlinie steht das Verfahren zur Auswahl von Aufsichtsratsmitgliedern und auch Vorständen. Wenn schon das Auswahlverfahren fehlerhaft ist, kommen die Bestqualifizierten ja oft gar nicht mehr in die engere Wahl –zum Nachteil sowohl des Unternehmens als auch der Kandidatinnen und Kandidaten.

Und deshalb setzt die Richtlinie auf Transparenz und auf Leistung im Auswahlverfahren. Gerade, wo es wirtschaftlich schwierig ist – mit Pandemie, mit der Aggression Putins in der Ukraine, mit Inflation und Klimakrise –, brauchen wir widerstandsfähige, starke Unternehmen in der Europäischen Union, und das erreichen wir nur dann, wenn diese Unternehmen endlich auch Frauen mit an Bord nehmen und ans Steuer lassen. Wenn wir das gesamte Potenzial der klugen Köpfe nutzen und transparente Bestellungsverfahren schaffen, dann profitieren am Ende des Tages natürlich auch die Unternehmen selbst. Sie bekommen nämlich die bestqualifizierten Leute. Darum geht es. Und jene Unternehmen, die die Ziele erreichen, sollen auch auf eine Faming-Liste kommen, als Positivbeispiel für alle.

Aber wir wissen auch: Ohne verbindliche Maßnahmen geschieht ganz einfach nichts. Und deshalb sind auch wirksame, verhältnismäßige, abschreckende Sanktionen gegen Unternehmen vorgesehen, die gegen die Verpflichtung zu individuellen quantitativen Zielen, Auswahlverfahren und/oder Berichterstattung verstoßen. Das kann sein eine Geldstrafe, eine Nichtigerklärung der Wahl ebenso wie Einschränkungen bei öffentlichen Aufträgen – je nachdem, was wo am besten wirkt. Natürlich gehört dazu auch, dass transparent berichtet wird, wie die Zahlen aussehen, dass gute Maßnahmen getroffen werden und dass eine Behörde das auch überprüft. Auch das haben wir in dieser Richtlinie erfasst.

Das Verständnis der Richtlinie ist klar: Mehr Frauen in Entscheidungspositionen – das ist nur eine von vielen Maßnahmen, die ergriffen werden müssen, um die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter am Arbeitsplatz zu erreichen. Nichtsdestotrotz ist sie ein wichtiger Teil, ein wichtiger Bestandteil dieses Mosaiks. Es ist höchste Zeit für positive Veränderungen, für moderne Unternehmen und vor allem für die Gleichstellung von Frauen in allen Bereichen der Wirtschaft.

Deshalb sind wir als Team des Europäischen Parlaments mehr als stolz darauf, dass wir das nach zehn Jahren endlich geschafft haben. Und deshalb wirklich mein ganz großer Dank an all diese wunderbaren Schattenberichterstatterinnen, an dieses große Team, das in der Hinsicht schlichtweg zusammengehalten hat. Dankeschön an Helena Dalli als Kommissarin, die sich unglaublich überzeugend eingesetzt hat. Dankeschön auch an die Vertreterinnen und Vertreter von mehreren Präsidentschaften – an die französische vorher, jetzt natürlich auch an die tschechische, aber auch in der Vergangenheit an die luxemburgische und maltesische.

Ich sage das jetzt deshalb ganz besonders, weil wir hier wirklich zusammenhalten mussten über so viel Zeit hinweg. Und es zeigt sich, es zahlt sich aus. Also ein großer Tag, denke ich, für uns alle.

  Helena Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you, Lara Wolters, and thank you, Evelyn Regner. You really captured the spirit of this legislation this morning when you say that the girls cannot be what they cannot see. And it’s exactly that.

After ten years of negotiations, the directive on gender balance on corporate boards is finally becoming European law. With the adoption of the directive, we will empower women to reach their full potential, move to a new chapter of EU gender equality policy, and, again, girls will now start trying to be what they can see. So we will turn that that statement over its head, hopefully with this.

Europe has many, as we’ve heard, qualified women, as 60 % of current university graduates are female. Nevertheless, this investment in women’s education and training is not mirrored in the positions they hold in decision-making, as women are still underrepresented in high positions, including, of course, on corporate boards.

This is a clear waste of human capital. We have made progress in the past, but not fast enough. And, as we know, not everywhere in the European Union. The Gender Equality Index, published every year by the European Institute for Gender Equality, shows that at a time at the time of the proposal, women represented only 12 % of board members across the EU, compared to 31.6 % today. And the share of women in business management across the EU at the national level ranges from 8 % to 46 %. So data also shows that Member States which introduce binding measures, like gender equality targets, made the biggest progress. While the advancement triggered by voluntary initiatives was much slower and less sustainable.

So when self-regulation does not bring the desired effect, EU regulatory action is necessary. And this is precisely why this directive is so urgently needed. So the directive addresses the lack of transparency in the selection process and the lack of objective qualification criteria which constitute the main obstacle to achieving gender-balanced representation. In this way, the directive ensures that the selection of board members is gender neutral and merit based.

The directive should not be seen as a burden on companies but as a tool to bring concrete benefits to European and national economies. Evidence shows that a broad range of talents and skills and an inclusive and diverse approach in the boardroom contribute to better decisions and corporate governance, increase public trust in business and drive economic growth. And this is particularly important in the current turbulent economic situation. We need all hands on deck to recover and reboost our economies and achieve a Union of equality. Thank you for your hard work.

Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA
varapuhemies

  Maria da Graça Carvalho, em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, caras e caros Colegas, hoje fazemos História ao concretizarmos, após uma década de insistência do Parlamento Europeu, a Diretiva Women on boards.

Enviamos uma mensagem para o futuro. Uma mensagem dirigida a homens e a mulheres, porque o objetivo é proteger o género mais sub-representado. Mas uma mensagem, sabemo-lo bem, destinada sobretudo às jovens mulheres. A estas dizemos: acreditem, o vosso talento, o vosso empenho, serão os fatores decisivos no acesso a cargos de topo.

Nas grandes empresas, que é o que agora está em causa, e em todas as outras dimensões da sociedade.

Hoje as mulheres representam cerca de 60% dos novos diplomados do ensino superior na União Europeia, metade da força laboral, mas constituem apenas 31,5% dos membros e 8% dos presidentes dos conselhos de administração.

Quando dizem que esta diretiva tem de assegurar o respeito pelo mérito, eu respondo: concordo. É precisamente essa a ambição da diretiva. E este é um passo que irá beneficiar todos os europeus, porque não podemos desperdiçar talento. Precisamos dos melhores, homens e mulheres, nos cargos de decisão.

Muito obrigada a todos e a todas que não desistiram ao longo destes dez anos e uma palavra muito especial de agradecimento a quem iniciou o processo, Viviane Reding, então Vice—Presidente da Comissão.

  Heléne Fritzon, för S&D-gruppen. – Fru talman! Kommissionär! Sju av tio är andelen män i styrelserna i de största börsnoterade företagen i EU. Sju av tio är män! Det beror inte på att män har en alldeles unik styrelsekompetens, utan det beror ju faktiskt på att man i praktiken har kvoterat in sig själva. Nu är det dock slut med det. Äntligen får vi ett direktiv som kommer att bidra till mer jämställdhet och därmed också en högre kompetens i bolagsstyrelserna. Jag vill verkligen gratulera föredragandena till ett mycket framgångsrikt arbete.

I ett decennium vet jag att vi har kämpat tillsammans för något som borde vara självklart: att bolagsstyrelserna tar till vara på hela befolkningens kompetens och kunskap. Kvotering i bolagsstyrelser handlar nämligen inte bara om en jämn fördelning av makt och inflytande, utan faktiskt också om ett bättre beslutsfattande. Och vet ni vad? Det gynnar både företag, tillväxt och samhälle. För att uppnå ett jämställt och hållbart EU krävs det en jämställd fördelning av både makt och resurser. Det krävs också att vi ständigt prioriterar jämställdhet, eftersom ett jämställt samhälle aldrig, aldrig någonsin kommer av sig självt. Detta direktiv är välkommet och ett viktigt steg i rätt riktning.

  Samira Rafaela, namens de Renew-Fractie. – Voorzitter, het is een historisch moment. Eindelijk krijgen we meer vrouwen over een paar jaar op belangrijke besluitvormingsposities. Het gaat over hun toekomst, het gaat over de toekomst van een nieuwe generatie. Het hoort gewoon zo in 2022 dat wij als vrouwen ook aan die tafels zitten om te besluiten over belangrijke vraagstukken in de samenleving.

Het zorgt voor meer innovatie en creativiteit. Bedrijven gaan het alleen maar beter doen doordat er meer gendergelijkheid is. En het is ook nog eens winstgevend. Hoe mooi is dat? Vrouwelijk leiderschap is winstgevend. Kortom, we gaan er met z’n allen van profiteren. Er zijn bedrijven die dat al snappen. Dat is heel goed, die zijn er al mee bezig. Dankzij deze wet worden die bedrijven ook gezien en komen de bedrijven die het al goed doen op de lijst terecht. De bedrijven die er niet op staan, moeten echt beter hun best doen. Ik ben trots op dit voorstel. Ik dank mijn collega’s voor de enorm goede samenwerking. En wat een mooi historisch moment. Laten we dat vandaag vieren.

  Pierrette Herzberger-Fofana, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, après plus de dix ans de négociations, l’Union européenne a adopté cette directive qui vise à améliorer l’égalité de traitement et l’égalité des chances entre les hommes et les femmes. Afin d’aboutir à cet équilibre et de briser ainsi le plafond de verre en ce qui concerne la participation des femmes aux postes-clés dans les conseils des sociétés cotées en bourse, de nombreuses mesures favorables au deuxième sexe vont entrer en vigueur, car le déséquilibre permanent du pouvoir entre les hommes et les femmes est inacceptable.

Si certains États membres ont freiné la mise en œuvre de la directive, d’autres ont évolué sur leurs positions, notamment mon État membre, avec le nouveau gouvernement allemand qui prône une politique féministe inclusive et, à longue échéance, intersectionnelle. Dorénavant, 40 % des administrateurs non exécutifs devraient être des femmes d’ici à 2026, 33 % de tous les postes d’administrateur devraient être attribués à des femmes. Cette initiative est une victoire pour les femmes, un message fort: davantage de femmes dans les sociétés cotées en bourse.

Il est évident que le mérite et les compétences demeurent les critères fondamentaux pour accéder aux postes de décision. Cependant, pour donner à cette directive sa pleine mesure, il nous semble approprié de faire quelques ajouts tels que la possibilité de faire appel à la justice et de contester la nomination d’un candidat masculin. Dans ce cas, il incombe à la société de prouver qu’elle a agi conformément aux règles de la directive. Dans le cas d’une procédure d’élection, les sociétés devraient garantir la diversité ethnique des genres dans la composition de la liste des candidats présélectionnés. Cette diversité comprend la participation de femmes qualifiées, indépendamment de leur origine culturelle, de leur orientation sexuelle, de leur âge et de leurs convictions religieuses. À long terme, nous souhaiterions l’introduction d’une parité pour tous les postes.

Ces priorités-clés, conformes aux valeurs de l’Union européenne, sont le ciment d’une société arc-en-ciel participative et inclusive.

  Christine Anderson, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Verbindliche Quoten für Frauen in den Topetagen: berufliche Qualifikation war gestern – das richtige Geschlecht ist heute.

Nachdem es jahrelang im Kampf um die Gleichberechtigung darum ging, dem Geschlecht keine Bedeutung beizumessen, und es völlig egal war, ob Mann oder Frau, erheben wir das Geschlecht jetzt wieder zum alles entscheidenden Kriterium. Das ist nicht Fortschritt, das ist Rückschritt – Rückschritt in eine marxistisch ideologische, bessere Welt, in der eine elitäre Obrigkeit die individuelle Freiheit zugunsten vermeintlicher Bedürfnisse des Kollektivs beschneidet.

Weltverbesserungsfanatiker, die glauben, Menschen zu ihrem Glück zwingen zu müssen, schaffen keine glücklichen Menschen. Sie schaffen unterdrückte Menschen – und eine Welt, in der Menschen unterdrückt werden, ist eben keine bessere Welt; sie ist eine autoritäre, diktatorische Welt. Ich will das nicht, und ich hoffe, Sie auch nicht.

  Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señora presidenta, comisaria, señorías, hablamos del 40 % de puestos no ejecutivos, del 33 % si incluimos los ejecutivos. ¿Qué se puede celebrar?

Por supuesto que la presencia de las mujeres enriquece y mejora los resultados. Ensalcemos el talento femenino, orgullosas de nuestra naturaleza y de los matices que podemos aportar en la toma de decisiones.

Pero esta directiva: incluso pone un tope a la presencia femenina. Presentarnos como desvalidas y naturalmente desfavorecidas no ayuda si lo que queremos es mostrar la valía de las mujeres.

Se está atacando la libertad de empresa. Corresponde a una organización decidir sobre la composición de su consejo. Es una injerencia política en las empresas, con una regulación que debería ser jurídica-mercantil, conforme a legislación nacional, no europea.

Las cuotas son un sistema drástico, discriminatorio e injusto. La historia del nunca acabar. Ahora por sexo, bueno, no, por género. Pero también podría ser por raza u origen étnico. Es una falta de respeto fijarse en las características de las personas y no en las personas. Es nuestra formación o capacidades o la experiencia la que debe determinarnos.

La colectivización nos convierte en uno más de un grupo. Nos quita nuestros nombres y apellidos, nos enfrenta y acentúa los prejuicios. Convierte causas justas en batallas de poder.

Recuperemos la esperanza y la armonía en este mundo. Medidas como esta solamente aumentan la crispación.

  Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, l’adoption de la directive sur la représentation des femmes au conseil d’administration des entreprises est une bonne nouvelle, mais elle en dit long sur l’inaction européenne pour l’égalité femmes-hommes. On le sait tous dans cet hémicycle, il aura fallu dix ans pour adopter ce texte, et encore, au rabais. Surtout, cette directive n’est pas celle de l’égalité femmes-hommes, mais celle de l’égalité des patronnes et des patrons.

À écouter Bruxelles, on croirait que le patriarcat est tombé. J’aimerais bien, mais en réalité, rien n’est fait encore pour les caissières, les femmes de ménage et les soignantes. Rien n’est fait pour les femmes qui représentent 60 % des travailleurs payés au salaire minimum. Rien n’est fait pour les femmes dont les revenus moyens sont 36 % inférieurs à ceux des hommes.

Nous avons ramé dix ans pour un peu plus de parité dans les salons du CAC 40. Alors, à l’heure où la grande majorité des femmes est sous-payée, où une femme sur trois a subi des violences physiques ou sexuelles et une femme sur vingt a été violée en Europe, je n’ose compter les siècles qui nous séparent encore de l’égalité salariale et de la fin des violences sexistes et sexuelles. Vive l’égalité! Oui, mais l’égalité pour toutes et à tous les niveaux. Et là-dessus, il y a encore du boulot.

  Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Gleichberechtigung ist eine unendliche Geschichte – leider.

Vor zwölf Jahren hat unsere ehemalige EVP-Kommissarin Viviane Reding die Women- on-Boards-Richtlinie auf den Weg gebracht und damit schon vor zwölf Jahren die Grundlage dafür gelegt, dass in vielen Mitgliedstaaten Gesetzgebung zur Gleichberechtigung zwischen Männern und Frauen in Unternehmen auf den Weg gebracht wurde.

Gleichberechtigung von Männern und Frauen ist heute immer noch kein Selbstläufer. Noch immer gibt es mehr Männer als Frauen in den Aufsichtsräten, und wenn man in die Etage der Vorstände sieht, dann ist die Luft sehr dünn, es ist sehr überschaubar – die Zahl an weiblichen Vorständen.

Quoten sind Türöffner. Ich denke, sie machen Sinn, um auch langjährige, jahrzehntelang etablierte Strukturen aufzubrechen, und deshalb ist es gut, dass wir heute endlich diese Richtlinie verabschieden. Aber wichtig ist neben den Quoten auch, dass es in den Unternehmen den richtigen Mindset gibt. Diversität darf nicht nur auf dem Papier stattfinden, es reicht auch nicht, nur diese Richtlinie hier zu verabschieden, sondern Diversität muss in den Unternehmen gelebt werden.

Lassen Sie mich auch darauf hinweisen, dass ich zutiefst davon überzeugt bin, dass, wenn wir eine ausgewogene Repräsentation von Frauen und Männern in Führungspositionen in den Unternehmen haben, dies auch ein Gewinn für viele Unternehmen sein wird: Viele Studien weisen darauf hin, dass eine signifikante Vertretung von Frauen in Führungspositionen auch für die Unternehmensumsätze, die Gewinne ein Erfolgsfaktor sein kann. Ich freue mich, dass es heute zur Verabschiedung dieser Richtlinie kommt.

  Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, cinco mais cinco: foram dez anos que tivemos que esperar por um acordo para melhorar o equilíbrio entre homens e mulheres nos conselhos de administração de empresas cotadas em bolsa.

Quantos mais teremos que esperar para que este equilíbrio se torne realidade, não apenas nas empresas cotadas em bolsa mas em todas elas, como algo natural, que não exija esforço, que faça parte da vida numa terra onde homens e mulheres repartem em partes iguais?

As mulheres são 60 % dos novos diplomados do ensino superior na União Europeia, mas apenas 8 % dos presidentes dos conselhos de administração são do sexo feminino. Este foi um grande momento para todas nós e uma luta que as socialistas, em especial, não deixaram morrer. Um obrigado especial às Colegas Evelyn Regner e Lara Wolters.

Devemos estar orgulhosas deste passo mas, ainda assim, não podemos ignorar a sensação que corremos sempre com atraso, atrás do problema e nunca a tempo de o evitar.

  Karen Melchior (Renew). – Fru formand! Vi står på skuldrene af giganter. Vi er ikke nået til dette tidspunkt alene. Dette er resultatet af mange års arbejde. EU har sikret ligestilling i Europa igennem mere end 40 år. Vi havde ikke fået ligeløn. Vi havde ikke fået øremærket barsel, hvis ikke det var på grund af EU. I dag sikrer vi, at vi får ligestilling i bestyrelser i vores virksomheder. Fordi vi får, hvad vi måler. Derfor kommer vi fra 2026 til at stille medlemslandene ansvarlige for at sikre ligestilling i bestyrelserne. Det er derfor, at dette direktiv betyder så uendeligt meget. Vi sætter retningen, vi løfter baren for, hvad ligestilling betyder. Vi kommer ikke til at have en kvote for kvinder, men vi kommer til at afskaffe kvoten for inkompetente mænd. Vi kommer til at sikre, at det rent faktisk er folks kvalifikationer og ikke, hvem man kender eller, hvilket køn man har. Derfor hilser jeg det enormt velkommen, at vi får direktivet her i dag, og jeg ser frem til, at medlemsstaterne kommer til at gøre noget for ligestillingen, sådan så vi løfter fra bunden og ikke kun løfter barren i toppen.

  Alice Kuhnke (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Commissioner, some things seem so self-evident, so obviously the right thing to do that we tend to believe that they will eventually just happen, that the persons with the most and the best qualifications take the seat in the room is one of those things.

There are those who want to reduce the long battle to make sure women have a seat at the decision-making tables of companies to only be about fairness, when it is equally as much about competence.

During the course of working with this legislation, we have again and again been told that it is a person’s qualifications and skills which should determine if they get a certain position, and that is exactly how it should be. After many years of hard work, we hopefully are a majority who can agree that the competences we need in companies in the EU are not only those of white middle-aged men.

Experiences and knowledge comes in other shapes and colours that we need to make our companies, our Union, the best it can be. Women on boards should be the self-evident first step to take, but it is only the beginning of something that can become even bigger.

  Alessandra Basso (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in Italia non abbiamo dovuto aspettare dieci anni per sentirci dire quante donne debbano occupare posti decisionali.

In Italia abbiamo già dal 2011 una legislazione efficace che ci ha permesso di raggiungere uno degli obiettivi alternativi imposti dalla direttiva anzitempo. Imporre a livello europeo un sistema a quote e quindi di quantità nei posti di comando è un approccio che politicamente non può avere il nostro sostegno.

Parafrasando una frase di Oriana Fallaci, i mediocri del politicamente corretto negano sempre il merito e sostituiscono sempre la qualità con la quantità. E quello che le donne vogliono è il riconoscimento dei loro meriti, non un posto riservato e non può e non deve fare alcuna differenza indossare una cravatta o dei tacchi a spillo, perché in futuro non ci dovranno essere leader femminili o maschili, ci dovranno essere solo leader.

Rivolgo un mio pensiero a Roberto Maroni.

  Dorien Rookmaker (ECR). – Voorzitter, kunnen we met wet- en regelgeving de ideale wereld scheppen? Veel Europese Parlementsleden schijnen te denken van wel. De Europese Unie wil met behulp van wet- en regelgeving de wereld naar haar hand zetten via antiwitwaswetgeving, duurzaamheidsvoorschriften zoals de CSDDD en genderbepalingen. De wereld naar je hand zetten met een stortvloed aan wet- en regelgeving is onmogelijk en bovendien gevaarlijk.

Iedereen weet dat met meer bemoeienis van de politiek met het bedrijfsleven de grenzen tussen publiek en privaat verdwijnen. Meer administratieve lasten. Meer management en control. Minder vrijheid. Minder welvaart. Een onomkeerbaar proces dat leidt tot verarming. Kunnen we met wet- en regelgeving een ideale wereld scheppen? Seneca vond van niet. Hij stelde: de weg via voorschriften is lang, de weg via voorbeelden is kort en doelgericht.

(De spreker aanvaardt een “blauwe kaart”-reactie)

  Lara Wolters (S&D), “blauwe kaart”-reactie. – U zei net: wij proberen hier met wet- en regelgeving de wereld naar onze hand te zetten, en daar deed u schamperend over. U zei ook: wij proberen hier de ideale wereld te maken. Ik probeer dat inderdaad en u noemde twee van mijn projecten Women on board en duurzaamheidswetgeving. Mijn vraag aan u is dan: waarom bent u lid geworden van het Parlement? Als dat niet is om die ideale wereld te scheppen, waarom dan wel?

  Dorien Rookmaker (ECR), “blauwe kaart”-antwoord. – Ik ben hier om de overvloed aan wet- en regelgeving onder andere tegen te houden. Ik weet van goede voorbeelden uit bijvoorbeeld Amerika dat het heel goed mogelijk is om je doelen te bereiken zonder een overvloed aan wet- en regelgeving, maar daar is innovatie voor nodig. Ik ben vóór een wereld die veilig is. Ik ben tegen mensenhandel, ik ben tegen dwangarbeid en ik ben een groot voorstander van mensenrechten. Maar ik ben niet een gelovige met betrekking tot wet- en regelgeving.

  Έλενα Κουντουρά (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, δέκα χρόνια μετά την αρχική πρόταση της Επιτροπής, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση προχωράει στην υιοθέτηση της οδηγίας για τις γυναίκες στα διοικητικά συμβούλια, κάνοντας ένα ουσιαστικό βήμα ώστε να μπει τέλος στην υποεκπροσώπηση των γυναικών στα διοικητικά συμβούλια των μεγάλων ευρωπαϊκών εταιρειών.

Είμαστε υπερήφανοι για το αποτέλεσμα που πετύχαμε στις διαπραγματεύσεις με το Συμβούλιο και την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή. Θέλω να συγχαρώ τις συναδέλφους εισηγήτριες του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και είμαι υπερήφανη που μπόρεσα να συμβάλω και εγώ στη διαπραγματευτική ομάδα του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου για να επιτευχθεί αυτή η συμφωνία. Παρότι τα επίσημα ευρωπαϊκά στοιχεία αποδεικνύουν ότι οι ευρωπαϊκές εταιρείες που διασφαλίζουν υψηλή εκπροσώπηση και των δύο φύλων στα διοικητικά τους συμβούλια αποδίδουν καλύτερα, οι γυναίκες εξακολουθούν σήμερα να αποτελούν σαφή μειοψηφία, αντιπροσωπεύοντας μόλις το 34% των μη εκτελεστικών μελών των διοικητικών συμβουλίων στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

Οι γυναίκες δικαιούνται ίσες ευκαιρίες ανέλιξης στις ηγετικές θέσεις των εταιρειών. Είναι ανάγκη να σταματήσει αυτή η απαράδεκτη σπατάλη ευκαιριών και ταλέντου σε βάρος των γυναικών. Δεν πρόκειται μόνο για ζήτημα κοινωνικής δικαιοσύνης, αλλά αποτελεί προϋπόθεση ώστε να εξασφαλίσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση την οικονομική ανάπτυξη που έχει τόσο ανάγκη. Η νέα οδηγία προσδοκούμε να ανατρέψει τις δομικές αυτές ανισότητες, φέρνοντας περισσότερες γυναίκες στα κέντρα λήψης των αποφάσεων προς όφελος όχι μόνο των ευρωπαϊκών επιχειρήσεων, αλλά συνολικά της κοινωνίας και της οικονομίας.

  Frances Fitzgerald (PPE). – Madam President, I organised the first conference on women and decision-making in Ireland over 30 years ago. This directive has been blocked for ten years. What is it about women’s equality that makes it so difficult for people to have agreement, to go forward, to have equal representation?

It continues and we have to work hard. Well done to Commissioner Dalli and to the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, for unblocking this. Of course we need it, we have to accelerate the representation of women on boards, that is really important. We have good leadership here and we see the presidents of the Commission, the Central Bank, and of course, our own Parliament.

But this cannot just be a shooting star, one effort. It has to be methodical, it has to be systematic. And we have to make sure that there is a permanent change to ensure that women are more equally represented and that our companies benefit from the presence of women, because it is necessarily culturally, socially and of course, financially and economically.

Because having more women on the boards of a company isn’t just a step towards societal justice, it is an economic imperative. And right now we have too few women. Isn’t it incredible that only 6.7% of women are chairs of boards and only 6.5% across Europe are CEOs? Yet adding one more woman to a company board increases the profits of that company and gives a higher return in assets to the tune of 8 to 13 basis points.

So this directive has the power to change, and from today we will begin to see more women on those EU company boards. And that’s a good thing for everybody.

  Marc Angel (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, it is a sad fact that only 30.6 % of board members in our largest companies are women, knowing that girls do better in schools than boys and knowing that in the European Union 60 % of new graduates from universities are women.

 

Many studies show that gender quotas are the most effective instrument for increasing women’s presence on company boards. Voluntary regulations without sanctions does not work. Therefore we Socialists and Democrats are pleased that we finally, after 10 years, adopted this Women on Boards Directive.

 

This directive will improve gender equality by ensuring that at least 40 % of non-executive director posts or 30 % of all director posts are occupied by the underrepresented sex and this by 2026 through transparent, clear and neutral appointment criteria.

 

This directive also rightly foresees dissuasive penalties for non-compliance and it’s a great success for us Socialists and Democrats. Our fight against gender inequalities can no longer wait and it will go on.

 

I call on more men, I call on all men to speak up for gender equality and fight the patriarchal model that subsists in our society. Gender equality is a recipe for prosperity. This directive is not only good for women, it is good for the progress, the sustainability and the success of our European companies and economy.

  María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos (Renew). – Señora presidenta, efectivamente, diez años ha estado bloqueada esta Directiva y durante estos diez años, en los consejos de administración de las empresas cotizadas, siete de cada diez miembros de administración han sido hombres y menos de una de cada diez de las grandes empresas en la Unión Europea ha tenido una presidenta o directora ejecutiva.

Por lo tanto, esta Directiva era absolutamente necesaria y urgente para buscar un equilibrio en estos consejos de administración de las empresas cotizadas, en las que mayoritariamente los puestos están ocupados por hombres, no porque sean los mejores, sino porque en el proceso de selección el género ha sido un criterio y las mujeres han estado discriminadas.

Por eso hoy también lanzamos un mensaje de esperanza a las jóvenes mujeres que están en las universidades, en los colegios. A partir de ahora, esta Directiva garantiza un proceso de selección justo y transparente, con criterios basados en la neutralidad, donde el género no va a ser un elemento discriminatorio. A partir de ahora, como mínimo, el 40 % serán mujeres, pero podrán ser más porque habrá criterios de capacidad. Solamente decirles que diez años muestran las dificultades para avanzar en la igualdad.

Y creo que hoy también es un momento para dar las gracias a todas las mujeres de esta Cámara, de todos los grupos políticos, que han mantenido la llama y la fortaleza para que llegara este gran día.

  Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, numbers do matter. One in ten, less than one in ten board presidents and CEOs are women. Numbers do matter. Ten, ten years this Council has been blocking this project. Ten more years when young female employees, young and old, did not know what are their chances to get into leadership positions. Ten more years when schoolgirls and young women did not know what are their chances to be leaders of companies.

Well, now it’s going to get better. For us three elements are especially important. Number one, we want a guarantee, the guarantee that women are treated fairly throughout the whole selection procedure, the whole selection procedure including preparation of vacancy notices, pre-selection phase, the shortlisting phase; and this holistic approach is in this legislation.

Number two, access to justice. The shift of the burden of proof is essential. It is up to the companies to prove that they do not discriminate. And this is an important step in this legislation, and our conservative and right wing colleagues: do not manipulate. It is not about putting gender over expertise because only equally, equally qualified candidates will be preferred if they are women. So it is about qualification.

Numbers do matter. Thirty-three per cent – only 33% of non-executive and executive directors combined are the target in this legislation and that means that this number should be improved and it will be improved by us when we will evaluate this legislation very soon. There is a bigger target to aim, and this is our goal as the Parliament in the future.

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

  Ladislav Ilčić (ECR), blue-card speech. – Dear colleague, you said the ‘numbers are important’. So since you consider gender something as the same importance as sex, I suppose that you think that also certain numbers of LGBTQ people should be CEOs there.

And also, since we don’t want to be racist, also certain numbers of different skin colours should be in these committees. So my question is: do you intend to implement quotas also and to impose quotas to firms concerning LGBTQ and races?

  Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE), blue-card reply. – Madam President, it’s a nice try to distract the debate here. Of course, we have 50%, more than 50%, of women as part of our population. And I think after the thousands of years of discrimination against this part of our population, our main goal now is to create legislation that will put the numbers right here. And this is what we are discussing. And don’t accuse me of being unbalanced here. I work tirelessly, just as many colleagues here, to improve the proportion of minorities of all different kinds in the leadership positions. For that, we will have different, other approaches, some of them legislative, others not. I think there is a variety of ways and instruments to improve diversity on our boards. And now we are talking about gender and diversity. And by saying that, I mean the representation of women on the board. This is a great, great legislation and we all support this. The majority of this House supports this. The majority of the European population supports this. And, please, stop instrumentalising this issue in order to be populist as so often.

  Annika Bruna (ID). – Madame la Présidente, je me réjouis qu’on ait enfin trouvé un accord en vue de l’adoption de la directive concernant la participation des femmes dans les conseils d’administration. Je vous invite à soutenir ce texte raisonnable mis au vote aujourd’hui et qui a pour ambition de donner les moyens nécessaires aux États membres pour parvenir à une représentation plus équilibrée des hommes et des femmes parmi les administrateurs des sociétés cotées en bourse.

Cette directive est un signal fort pour les femmes qui pourront ainsi s’impliquer dans les processus de décision. Cette implication accrue représente un vecteur indispensable pour assurer une meilleure gouvernance des entreprises, en termes tant de performance que d’évolution. Cette directive, soutenue par les députés européens du Rassemblement national, va permettre aux États membres d’accélérer les progrès accomplis en ce domaine et de donner l’exemple aux différentes sphères de pouvoir qui composent nos sociétés.

  Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Madam President, coming from the financial sector, one of the companies I worked for was looking for a female director. And after a long and proactive recruitment procedure they couldn’t find a candidate. And it wasn’t just the board. The company proactively recruited women. Still, men remained overrepresented.

More than three quarters of companies in the financial sector are actively trying to attract female talent. But 64% of them do not see any progress in the number of female applicants. When we compare this to other sectors, for example medicine, we see women on the rise without quotas. In the Netherlands, approximately 66% of all doctors and 55% of specialist doctors will soon be women. Women achieve excellence in their chosen careers.

We should recognise that there are gender-specific preferences to specific types of work. Let us give individuals and businesses the freedom to decide what they want and what works best for themselves.

(The speaker agreed to respond to two blue-card speeches)

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), blue-card speech. – You mentioned those enterprises who would like to have more women there in top positions. When you talked to those, I mean guys leading the enterprises, did you raise also the question of the culture of how the enterprises are led? I had talks with many of those in top positions and then got information: it’s about the culture, it’s about how the atmosphere is on boards and that many top women, meanwhile, already say, I expect that there is a change, that there is respect, there is another form of treat, how to treat each other concerning working hours and everything else. So did you take that on board with these considerations you just mentioned?

  Samira Rafaela (Renew), “blauwe kaart”-reactie. – Mijnheer Hoogeveen, ik heb even een vraag aan u. Wat zegt u nu eigenlijk precies over het nut van een quotum? Want ik hoor u dan zeggen dat we zouden moeten accepteren dat er nu eenmaal genderspecifieke karakteristieken zijn en we nu eenmaal moeten accepteren dat dat binnen bepaalde sectoren een rol speelt. Maar u bent er toch mee bekend dat de bedrijven waar we het hier over hebben, de organisaties waar we het hier over hebben, in principe toch helemaal niet zozeer te maken hebben met genderspecifieke karakteristieken? Dat zijn gewoon grote multinationals in tal van sectoren op tal van terreinen waar gewoon zowel mannen als vrouwen een actieve rol horen te spelen? Het probleem is dat er sprake is van “ons kent ons”, vriendjespolitiek. Dat heeft helemaal niets te maken met dat vrouwen niet aan de top zouden kunnen zitten van zo’n groot, machtig consultancykantoor. Dus wat bedoelt u daar nou eigenlijk mee te zeggen? Want ik denk echt dat u fout redeneert.

  Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR), blue-card reply. – Thank you for these questions, and I will try to answer them and I will try to condense them into one answer. The example I gave on medicine, I think it clearly shows that it is possible for women to choose a career and to make a career in a specific type of environment they would like to seek to make their career.

But if you look at quotas, if you look at the rationale or the ideas behind quotas, it says we need more female ideas because women bring other ideas. But then the question I’m asking is: what are female ideas? Isn’t this a very contradicting way? And isn’t this a very contradicting thing to say? I mean, I’m all for diversity of ideas, but that should be based on character, not on sex, race or ethnicity. So I think that’s the bottom line.

  Eugenia Rodríguez Palop (The Left). – Señora presidenta, la ausencia de las mujeres en las empresas ha sido el fruto de decisiones sesgadas, prejuiciosas e injustas. Decisiones que explican la brecha de género en el empleo, en el salario y en las pensiones, los techos de cristal y los techos de cemento. Hemos sufrido barreras que nos han obligado a esforzarnos mucho más para competir, aún estando mejor preparadas, y que nos han obligado a elegir entre nuestra vida personal, familiar y laboral para que los varones no tuvieran que hacerlo.

Hoy sabemos que esta injusticia ha tenido además un efecto negativo sobre el propio desempeño de la economía, porque la feminización de la empresa garantiza sostenibilidad, seguridad, realismo, flexibilidad, cooperación, responsabilidad, confianza, empatía y promoción del consenso. El liderazgo de las mujeres cambia la cultura empresarial y ese cambio incrementa la innovación, la competitividad y la rentabilidad. Resulta que no es el éxito el que nos hace felices, sino la felicidad la que nos asegura el éxito.

En fin, no nos están regalando nada. Somos más bien nosotras las que regalamos al mundo, como llevamos haciendo desde hace siglos, y ahora se trata de recibir algo a cambio. Solo y exclusivamente lo que nos merecemos.

  Angelika Winzig (PPE). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Viele Studien und auch die betriebliche Praxis zeigen, dass börsennotierte Unternehmen, die ein ausgeglichenes Geschlechterverhältnis aufweisen, auch in ihren Geschäftsergebnissen besser abschneiden. Darum ist es auch wirtschaftspolitisch wichtig, dass es jetzt zu einer Einigung kommt. Erfreulich ist, dass jene Mitgliedstaaten, die bereits Vorarbeit geleistet haben, jetzt ausgenommen sind, denn sie haben schon die entsprechenden Gesetze, die faire und transparente Auswahlverfahren garantieren.

Eines muss uns aber bei dieser Debatte bewusst werden: Wir sprechen hier von einem Mikrokosmos von sehr erfolgreichen und auch gut ausgebildeten Frauen. Mir ist in diesem Zusammenhang aber ein großes Anliegen, dass wir Mädchen in der Grundausbildung in den sogenannten MINT-Fächern fördern, denn dann können sie nicht nur in ertragsreicheren Firmen und somit auch in besser bezahlten Branchen arbeiten, sondern haben es auch künftig leichter, die gläserne Decke zu durchbrechen.

  Pina Picierno (S&D). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghe e colleghi, oggi facciamo un passo avanti enorme per la parità di genere, per i diritti delle donne.

Questo è un momento significativo, importante naturalmente per noi, ma è importante soprattutto, io credo, per le future generazioni. E lo facciamo questo passo in avanti così importante – fatemelo dire – grazie alla tenacia di questo Parlamento, grazie alla tenacia della Commissaria, grazie alle colleghe e ai colleghi che hanno lavorato incessantemente a questa direttiva – guardo Evelyn – perché per dieci anni alcuni governi ci hanno assolutamente tenuti in ostaggio, sono stati miopi di fronte al progresso, di fronte alla verità, alla giustizia, hanno bloccato norme di buonsenso che avevano e che hanno l'ambizione semplicemente di correggere una distorsione della realtà che è figlia di stereotipi e di una inaccettabile cultura patriarcale.

E allora facciamo un passo in avanti parziale, signora Presidente e chiudo, in un settore però cruciale per il futuro di tutte le donne.

  Barry Andrews (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, this is a landmark directive and it’s very welcome. And as we’ve heard many times, there is vast research and evidence which demonstrates the economic value of increasing representation on boards.

In Ireland we have made great progress over the last very short period of time. Irish PLCs already have 32% female representation on boards. Ireland also leads the way with women in top jobs. A survey of 24 countries showed that Ireland actually leads these countries – including the UK, the US, Canada, Australia and Singapore. And perhaps it’s no coincidence, despite the dire warnings we’ve heard about the performance of the economy, that Ireland is the leading economy in the European Union over the last couple of years.

And I wanted to pay tribute to the rapporteurs and everybody that has been involved in this, but also to Renew Europe, because it was a Renew Europe priority for this parliamentary term. I want to pay tribute to my colleagues, Samira Rafaela and to Karen Melchior.

And before I finish, I want to say we should focus as well on representation in politics. It’s important that we do this in economics, but some of the most important boards in the world are governments. And just look at the last G20, where there were just two female leaders present among the 20.

  Isabella Tovaglieri (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, imporre la parità nei CdA delle grandi aziende è un'operazione di facciata, che sicuramente piace ai progressisti, ma che purtroppo non risolve alla radice il problema della disparità di genere sul lavoro.

Per avere più donne ai vertici non servono quote rosa né multe alle imprese, ma un welfare efficiente e una valida offerta formativa, che permettano alle donne di affermarsi grazie al loro merito e alle loro competenze. Lo dimostra il caso dell'avanzata Lombardia – e qui il mio pensiero va al governatore Roberto Maroni, che ha contribuito a renderla grande – dove lavora il 48 % delle manager di tutta Italia.

Allora occorre più pragmatismo e meno ideologia. Non abbiamo bisogno di corsie preferenziali, ma di una competizione equa e ad armi pari, per arrivare a una parità vera e non di comodo, che possa garantire, oltre ai diritti delle donne, anche il progresso economico e culturale delle nostre nazioni.

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

  Maria Grapini (S&D), intervenție de tip „cartonaș albastru”. – Este pentru mine inexplicabil ceea ce dumneavoastră spuneți aici și vă întreb: ați citit vreodată în viața dumneavoastră un studiu antropologic? Știți ce calități native au femeile? Credeți că dacă se pune această cotă, nu se mai ține cont de criteriile de calitate, de competență? Sau la ce v-ați gândit? Matematic, sunt 60% din absolvenții de studii superioare, este clar că nu pot fi doar 8% în consiliile de administrație. Deci pierdem competențe.

  Isabella Tovaglieri (ID) risposta "cartellino blu". – Io credo che puntare solo ed esclusivamente sulle quote rosa sia un diversivo per non affrontare il problema.

Andiamo incontro alla transizione digitale e ci saranno nuove professioni del futuro, soprattutto nelle materie STEM, ma dobbiamo essere consapevoli che soltanto una minimissima percentuale di donne si approccia alle materie tecnico-scientifiche, perché ci dicono che probabilmente queste materie sono appannaggio degli uomini.

Allora lavoriamo su questo, facendo orientamento soprattutto nelle scuole tra i più piccoli, per far affacciare e approcciare le donne a queste materie, dove peraltro ottengono risultati anche più brillanti degli uomini, per dare loro effettivamente posti di lavoro di qualità, che consentano loro di bilanciare anche il lavoro e la famiglia. Questa è la vera pari opportunità, la competizione ci deve essere, ad armi pari, ma la competizione ci deve essere.

(L'oratrice accetta di rispondere a due interventi "cartellino blu")

  Samira Rafaela (Renew), blue-card speech. – I heard a lot about what is not actually possible, what actually should not be done, and then you end up with the conclusion that we need fair competition. Like, seriously, how do we reach fair competition? If we have the conclusion now that women significantly lag behind, like how do you want to intervene in the first place on that specific fact? So I wonder, how would you like to organise fair competition if women significantly lag behind already? What will be your first intervention? I’m fine with listening to the whole speech about what is not possible or about how bad this idea is, but then come with a concrete solution. I would like to hear how we organise that fair competition with the facts that we have in place now.

  Lara Wolters (S&D), blue-card speech. – Yes, my question was very similar. I don’t understand at all what I just heard. I think you spoke about education. I think you spoke about how we need better schooling. And the facts – we laid them on the table for you earlier. We have 60% of female graduates in our European universities. And then at the end of the day, we have 8% of female CEOs. That shows very clearly that something is going terribly wrong along the way.

So I don’t understand at all what you were saying about how we need better education or better schooling, because the schooling is absolutely not the problem. The schooling is a big success story. It’s what happens afterwards that’s a problem and that’s what we are trying to fix today. So please, can you clarify, because that was very, very confusing?

  Isabella Tovaglieri (ID) risposta "cartellino blu". – A questo proposito, io ho proprio citato le buone pratiche della regione da cui provengo, che è la regione Lombardia, dove risiede il 48 % delle donne manager in Italia, senza la necessità di imporre quote.

Noi abbiamo raggiunto percentuali migliori, ma non mi accontento. Il problema è che io non ritengo che le quote siano uno strumento adeguato. Serve il welfare, questa è l'unica soluzione ed è l'unica parola chiave che dobbiamo perseguire.

Per garantire un bilanciamento e pari opportunità dobbiamo consentire alle donne di non dover scegliere se dedicarsi alla carriera o dedicarsi al lavoro. Creare delle quote nei CdA significa soltanto privilegiare delle donne che andranno a ricoprire dei ruoli d'élite ma, al di là delle donne che lavorano nei CdA e delle donne manager, ci sono milioni di donne che non hanno la possibilità di accedere a quei posti, ma che hanno comunque diritto di poter avere una carriera e di poter bilanciare la propria vita familiare.

Quindi, non possiamo fare delle politiche d'élite, dobbiamo pensare a tutte le donne, non lasciare indietro nessuna.

  Johan Nissinen (ECR). – Fru talman! Det är tragiskt att EU nu anser att människor ska bedömas utifrån sina kön och inte sina kunskaper. Jag skäms över att det var de svenska Socialdemokraterna som öppnade upp för det här vansinnet, att det var de svenska Socialdemokraterna som 2017 öppnade upp för att EU nu ska lagstifta fram kvotering i bolagsstyrelser och att EU ska ha kontroll över löner. Men tro mig, det finns många fler röster än Socialdemokraterna. Jag är en av dem, och vi är starkt emot detta.

En gång för alla: kvotering är diskriminerande. Det är inte när vi kvoterar efter kön, hudfärg eller sexuell läggning som samhället utvecklas, utan när vi tar vara på människors kompetens och erfarenhet. Jag som hbtq-person hade aldrig velat bli vald till något enbart på grund av att jag är kär, eller har en pojkvän, utan jag skulle vilja göra det bara för att jag är bra på jobbet.

(Talaren godtog att svara på tre inlägg ”blått kort”.)

  Karen Melchior (Renew), blåt kort-indlæg. – Mange tak for Deres indlæg. Jeg forstår ikke helt et element i Deres tale: At man skulle vælges på grund af kvoter og ikke på grund af kvalifikationer, når der netop i direktivet står, at det er ligeligt kvalificerede kandidater, som man skal vælge mellem. Hvis man er ligeligt kvalificeret, så skal man foretrække den, som er af det køn, som er mindst repræsenteret. Jeg er enig med taleren i, at det ikke er kvoter alene, som kan gøre det, men at det handler om ligestilling. Men hvordan skal vi få ligestilling, når vi i over hundrede år har haft adgang for kvinder til universiteter, haft adgang for kvinder til at stemme, men vi stadigvæk ikke ser ligestilling? For taleren mener vel ikke, at der er en genetisk eller biologisk forskel på mænd og kvinder, som gør kvinder mindre kompetente?

  Maria Grapini (S&D), intervenție de tip „cartonaș albastru”. – Stimate coleg, după ceea ce ne-ați prezentat, cred că nu ați citit deloc documentul pe care îl dezbatem acum sau nu înțelegeți nimic.

Dumneavoastră spuneți că 40 % ar fi procentul, că ar fi o discriminare pentru populație, care este peste 50 %. Păi unde este discriminare? Asta este o problemă.

A doua, cum vedeți dumneavoastră rezolvată problema ca în consiliile de administrație să fie și femeile care au competență - că nu se exclude competența în consiliile de administrație?

Nu jucăm, nici nu ridicăm haltere, nu ridicăm saci și nu facem muncă fizică, ci gândim. Și dacă avem 60 % persoane feminine instruite, cu studii superioare, nu credeți că se pierde o competență în aceste consilii de administrație?

  Samira Rafaela (Renew), blue-card speech. – Madam President, so, you know, this is just this famous common argument that it is about knowledge. It’s about expertise. Like, seriously, do you really think that we would attract women for such positions if they would not have the knowledge, talent and competencies? Of course, you know, we will look for competent women. That’s not the issue here. We have enough women who are competent. The issue is that constantly men choose their men. Men choose their preferences. You need to be in that old-boys network to become one of those. That’s the issue here. It’s a cultural problem why these women are not being seen. And you know that it’s not an issue of women lacking competencies. We have enough women with competencies. So it’s a false argument. The argument here should be that we neglect, we ignore women with competencies. And the issue is how do we get them in the positions that they deserve? And I did not hear anything about a concrete solution. So also for you to question what is your solution?

  Johan Nissinen (ECR), blue-card reply. – The whole debate about having to quota people in is not doing anyone a favour who will be quota—ed in. Because the problem is that if someone gets quota—ed in for a position – and it doesn’t matter what kind of thing they are being quota—ed in for – the other people around will think they are there because of the quota, not because of the competence. That’s the biggest problem.

I know from my class when I was studying, from my university classes, that it was over—represented with women, and I can see that many of them now have good positions. It takes time for this to happen, and I believe that it’s going to go through and also that if you have two people and they have the same competence you will choose the person who is right. I believe that is true and it’s going to be more and more that women will be over—represented in many areas, like my colleague said, in the public sector. It will be like that.

Puhemies – Nyt sitten palaamme puheenvuorolistaan, ja ilmoitan, että en pysty enää myöntämään lisää sinisiä kortteja. Tässähän on ollut vilkasta keskustelua, mutta meidän on lopetettava istunto noin kello 11.20, eli pyydän teitä nyt kunnioittamaan puheaikoja.

  Sandra Pereira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, neste sistema em que vivemos as mulheres têm mais dificuldades em chegarem a cargos de poder. As mulheres e os seus direitos continuam a ser muito incómodas para as forças políticas retrógradas e conservadoras.

Consideramos que, apesar desta diretiva, as desigualdades continuarão a ser uma realidade na vida da maioria das mulheres. Como a existência de disparidades salariais, violando o princípio de salário igual para trabalho igual, ou os obstáculos ao direito à maternidade e à gravidez e, consequentemente, à licença de amamentação e aleitamento, que continua, sistematicamente, a ser negada às mães trabalhadoras. Ou a precariedade laboral e a desregulação dos horários, que impossibilita o equilíbrio entre a vida profissional, familiar e pessoal.

As discriminações e estereótipos contribuem para perpetuar desigualdades, incluindo no acesso à formação e promoção profissional em cargos de chefia e de topo na vida económica e política.

Todas as medidas que invertam esse caminho serão sempre uma boa notícia.

  Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – Señora presidenta, a pesar de que alrededor del 60 % de las nuevas tituladas universitarias son mujeres, ellas están infrarrepresentadas en muchos sectores, pero especialmente en los sectores económicos y especialmente en las altas instancias. Un 31,5 % de los miembros de los consejos de administración son mujeres y solo el 8 % los presiden.

Con esta nueva legislación, que ha estado una década en el cajón, las empresas cotizadas tendrán que procurar y tendrán que hacer que, de aquí al año 2026, las personas del sexo menos representado ocupen, al menos, el 40 % de los puestos no ejecutivos y el 33 % de los puestos ejecutivos.

Conseguir una representación equilibrada entre todos los sexos, entre mujeres y hombres, es un ejercicio de igualdad, de información, de transparencia, de justicia, de democracia y de paz. El mayor equilibrio siempre supone mejor competitividad. Impulsará el crecimiento económico, no me cabe ninguna duda: un crecimiento inteligente, innovador, sostenible e integrador. Pero también mejorará la competitividad de las empresas y reducirá la pobreza. La diversidad es sinónimo de talento. Impulsar la presencia de las mujeres es una herramienta clave para contar con el mejor talento.

  Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D). – Señora presidenta, comisaria, a pesar de lo que hemos oído hoy aquí por parte de algunos grupos políticos en el sentido de que las mujeres todavía tenemos que formarnos, que tenemos que esperar, quisiera señalar que hace ya décadas que hay más mujeres que hombres licenciadas por las universidades europeas. Además, con mejores notas. Hay más mujeres que hombres con formación secundaria y terciaria en edad de trabajar.

Y aun así no llegamos a la cima de las empresas porque el poder sigue siendo masculino. Por eso que debemos intervenir. Por eso necesitamos políticas públicas, como esta directiva que equilibra o trata de equilibrar la presencia de mujeres y hombres en los consejos de administración. A pesar de que haya estado varada diez años, la seguimos necesitando.

Hoy hacemos historia, avanzamos en la carrera hacia la justicia social, pero también hacia una mayor resiliencia, sostenibilidad y eficiencia de nuestras empresas porque cuando una mujer ocupa el puesto de director ejecutivo en una empresa, aumenta en un 10 % la presencia de las mujeres en los consejos de administración. Y eso cambia la cultura y genera también modelos que deben seguirse.

Esta directiva es, ante todo y, sobre todo, un imperativo democrático, pero también un imperativo económico.

Ahora nos toca vigilar para que realmente se cumpla.

  Gilles Lebreton (ID). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, l’égalité des hommes et des femmes est un principe fondamental de la civilisation européenne. C’est pourquoi je suis favorable à cette directive qui demande aux États membres de l’Union de parvenir à un meilleur équilibre des deux sexes dans les conseils d’administration des grandes sociétés. De ce point de vue, l’objectif assorti d’aménagements de réserver au sexe sous-représenté au moins 40 % des postes d’administrateurs non exécutifs à l’horizon 2026 me semble raisonnable. À court terme, ce sont évidemment les femmes qui bénéficieront de cette mesure.

À l’heure où les Iraniennes combattent pour leur liberté face au régime obscurantiste des mollahs, je me réjouis du beau message d’espoir que nous leur envoyons aujourd’hui. Oui, une véritable égalité des droits est possible entre les hommes et les femmes. Non, aucun obstacle n’est insurmontable sur la voie qui y mène, qu’il soit économique, social ou religieux.

  Ladislav Ilčić (ECR). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, poštovane dame i gospodo, ako ste na svom poslu jako dobri, a napreduje i veću plaću dobiva neka druga osoba koja lošije radi od vas, reći ćete nije fer. Ipak, neki političari u ovom Parlamentu žele gospodarstvenicima nametnuti upravo takvo nefer ponašanje.

Umjesto da jedini kriterij napredovanja bude kvaliteta zaposlenika, ova direktiva tvrtkama arbitrarno nameće kvote, rezervirana mjesta koliko bi žena trebalo biti, pa onda valjda koliko bi trebalo biti i LGBTIQ osoba, koliko bi trebalo biti osoba različite rase da tvrtka ne bi bila proglašena rasističkom i tako dalje. Gdje je kraj tom vašem uplitanju ?

Ja se zalažem da samo žene budu u upravnom odboru ako su najkvalitetniji zaposlenici, ali samo ako su najkvalitetniji. Dakle, samo kvaliteta, ništa arbitrarno. Ideja da političar, od kojih mnogi nisu proveli niti jedan dan u realnom sektoru, bolje od gospodarstvenika znaju što je dobro za poslovanje poprilična je ludost.

Dakle, pustite gospodarstvo da se slobodno razvija.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pomimo zmian zachodzących na europejskim rynku pracy, pomimo wielu pomysłów na likwidację barier, które ograniczają awans kobiet, nadal zauważalne są stereotypy w ocenie naszej kompetencji. Nadal kobiety doświadczają szklanego sufitu i postrzegania przez pryzmat rodzicielstwa, co ogranicza nasz rozwój zawodowy. Wielu uznaje, także na tej sali, że przygotowywanie przepisów, które dążą do równouprawnienia, do stworzenia takich samych szans pomiędzy kobietami i mężczyznami, jest sztuczne i przeciwskuteczne.

Ja nie zgadzam się z takim podejściem, bo gdy popatrzymy na wykształcenie i kompetencje kobiet, to widzimy, że kobiety osiągnęły niesamowity progres. Niestety, nie idzie za tym wykorzystywanie naszego potencjału, zdolności i umiejętności. To strata, która dotyka gospodarkę i społeczeństwo. To marnotrawstwo, na które nie powinno być dalszej zgody.

W projekcie, o którym dzisiaj mówimy, chodzi przede wszystkim o wyrównanie szans, o sprawiedliwy proces selekcji na najwyższe stanowiska. Nie ma w nim mowy o uprzywilejowaniu jakiejkolwiek grupy. Mam świadomość, że przed nami długa droga. Dziesięć lat trwało, zanim przystąpiliśmy dzisiaj do tej dyskusji i do podjęcia decyzji. Ale zmiany są niezbędne i wierzę, że wdrożenie tej dyrektywy to dobry początek na zmiany w szeroko rozumianym obszarze gospodarczym.

  René Repasi (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wo der Markt versagt, wo Unternehmen nicht unter Beweis stellen, dass sie sich selbst regulieren, das heißt selbst in den Griff bekommen können, da müssen wir, muss der Staat regulieren. Sie, die Unternehmen, hatten genug Zeit. Deshalb ist heute ein guter Tag. 40 % der Plätze in Aufsichtsräten müssen weiblich sein, ein Drittel aller Vorstände. Das ist ein Meilenstein.

Junge Frauen wissen jetzt, dass sie in ihrer Leistung nicht übersehen werden, dass sich Leistung lohnt. Und das ist die Nachricht, die ich hier an scharf rechts geben will. Der Fisch stinkt vom Kopf. Dass junge Frauen übersehen werden, liegt daran, dass das Management komplett männlich ist, und daher ist es der entscheidende Schritt, die männliche Gesellschaft zu überwinden und die menschliche Gesellschaft zu erreichen. Dank an Lara Wolters, Dank an Evelyn Regner für ihre Arbeit an diesem Punkt.

Aber dieser Meilenstein ist ein Meilenstein und nicht der Endpunkt: Frauen gehören noch mehr Führungspositionen als 40 % und ein Drittel. Deswegen bekommen Unternehmen jetzt eine zweite Chance, für echte Gleichstellung zu sorgen und die Realität mit diesen Quoten zusammenzuführen.

  Cindy Franssen (PPE). – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega’s. Bijna tien jaar werd het voorstel voor een richtlijn van de Europese Commissie geblokkeerd door de lidstaten. In die tien jaar van onderhandelen hebben we in Europa jammer genoeg weinig vooruitgang gezien in de aanwezigheid van vrouwen in raden van bestuur. Juist daarom is deze richtlijn zo belangrijk. Vanaf 1 juli 2026 zullen de raden van bestuur evenwichtiger moeten worden samengesteld. Ja, in een ideale wereld zijn quota misschien overbodig, maar we zien dat ze nodig zijn en we zien dat ze werken. Zo is er in België sinds de invoering van de federale quotawet van 2012 een duidelijke verbetering. In 2020 was voor het eerst meer dan een derde van het totaal aantal leden van de raad van bestuur vrouw. Tien jaar geleden was dat minder dan 10 %.

In 2022 zouden raden van bestuur niet meer synoniem mogen zijn voor gesloten mannenclubs. We hebben vrouwen nodig aan elke tafel waar belangrijke beslissingen worden genomen. Enkel zo zullen we evolueren naar een meer evenwichtige unie, naar een meer evenwichtige samenleving.

  Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! W sercu Unii Europejskiej w XXI w. prezes Kaczyński, władca pisowskich umysłów, nazywa Polki pijaczkami i mówi, że zamiast rodzić dzieci, dają w szyję. Szanowne panie europosłanki i panowie europosłowie, to jest kłamstwo, to podła dezinformacja. Polki są ambitne, są opiekuńcze i są po prostu wspaniałe. A równość i szacunek powinny być poza dyskusją. Powinny być oczywistością. Strach przed silnymi, niezależnymi kobietami jest uwarunkowany politycznie. Kobiety są świetnymi menedżerami, świetnie radzą sobie tak w spółkach, jak i na wszelkich stanowiskach kierowniczych. I właśnie tego boją się mizogini, którzy nie chcą pogodzić się z równością płci, którzy boją się, że po prostu nie sprostają kobietom. Jarosław Kaczyński przegra tę batalię, przegra właśnie z kobietami, przegra z mężczyznami, którzy bronią praw kobiet. Już niebawem.

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot

  Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, eu gostaria de, no final deste debate, lembrar que nós temos 60 % de mulheres licenciadas, temos uma maioria de médicos que são mulheres, e temos apenas 8 % presidentes dos conselhos de administração. Alguma coisa não funciona bem.

Nós já percebemos que, na participação política, as quotas foram decisivas e hoje há muito mais mulheres na política do que havia antes da adoção das quotas. É por isso que esta diretiva é necessária. É por isso que é fundamental, ao fim de dez anos, aprovarmos esta diretiva.

E deixo aqui uma palavra de reconhecimento às nossas Colegas Laura Wolters e Evelyn Regner. À Colega Evelyn que há dez anos se bate por esta diretiva. Mas queria também lembrar aqui o papel de Viviane Reding, na altura comissária europeia, que pela primeira vez apresentou esta proposta, que infelizmente demorou dez anos a votar.

Mas espero que agora, finalmente, possa entrar em vigor para repor a igualdade.

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)

  Helena Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, to say that I welcome the adoption of this directive would be a gross understatement. I thank the Parliament for your continued support and determination on this legislative initiative.

The adoption of this directive is a step on the road to gender equality in Europe. I am sure that the citizens of Europe and businesses will benefit from its effect. The directive will help dismantle the barriers that prevent qualified women from arriving at the top.

Our investment in women’s education and, in turn, women’s investment in their qualifications, can only give long-term returns when women are recognised, valued and treated as equals at all levels of economic, social, professional and public life.

So women’s role, place and voice at the economic – especially right now – decision-making table is of the essence for Europe’s future when answering to the multiple crises Europe is facing now.

  Lara Wolters, rapporteur. – Madam President, so colleagues, after ten years of obstruction, that’s a wrap! It has taken three Commissioners, five Parliament rapporteurs and 21 Council Presidencies to get this done. And we persisted in spite of all the obstruction.

Since the adoption of our Parliament position back in 2013, I have lost count of how many resolutions were adopted on this very topic and how many times this European Parliament called to Member States to come back to the negotiating table. We faced every kind of obstacle from Member States, from those who oppose legislating on gender equality out of principle, to those who believe that they’ve done enough already or that time would simply fix things. Companies in Member States must now get to balanced boardrooms, and if they fail we will be able to hold them to their commitments.

I am very proud of what we have in front of us today, and I want to very warmly thank my colleague Evelyn Regner. I want to thank Commissioner Dalli present here today. Commissioner Viviane Reding, who worked on this previously, Ursula von der Leyen, who personally committed herself to this fight, and all those others who contributed to our success today.

  Evelyn Regner, Berichterstatterin. – Frau Präsidentin! Die Europäische Union wird 70 Jahre alt, und sie macht ihren Job. Es geht um Werte und Gleichstellung: Da haben wir jetzt wirklich einiges erreicht. Es ist ein Mosaikstein von vielen, aber ein ganz wichtiger, den wir dann endlich erreicht haben. Wir geben Frauen endlich eine faire Chance, in Spitzenpositionen von Unternehmen zu gelangen. Frauen sind klug, sie sind innovativ, und sie sind einfach zu vielem fähig, und das soll auch abgebildet werden. Wir wissen alle, dass das eben nur einer von vielen Mosaiksteinen ist; aber wir alle, wir arbeiten auch weiterhin daran.

Ich möchte zu den Danksagungen, die Lara Wolters jetzt erwähnt hat, auch noch ganz persönliche erwähnen, weil ich nun wirklich schon sehr lange an diesem Dossier arbeiten darf, nämlich an jene, die eben kreativ waren, zu überlegen: Machen wir jetzt wieder mal eine Anfrage an den Rat, versuchen wir jetzt wieder mal über Pressearbeit etwas zu machen, machen wir – also all diese Dinge, die man als Abgeordnete macht. Mein Dank geht also an Hannah Buchinger, an Sabrina Winter, an Melanie Köller, an Stefanie Ricken, an Inês de Matos Pinto. Das sind einige dieser fantastischen Frauen, die eben die richtige drafting-Arbeit erledigt haben. Und ich denke mal, genau so arbeiten Frauen: integrativ, inklusiv, über Fraktionsgrenzen hinweg und über geografische und Zeitgrenzen hinweg.

Ich gratuliere uns allen. Jetzt ist es einmal Zeit, zu feiern.

  Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.

Äänestys toimitetaan tänään.

Kirjalliset lausumat (171 artikla)

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. – Gerbiama Pirmininke, komisare, kolegos, daugiau nei po dešimties metų pagaliau radome susitarimą ir jau turime įstatyminį dokumentą dėl moterų įmonių valdybose. Tai yra didelis žingsnis į priekį lyčių lygybės politikoje. Sutikime, jog yra nenormalu, kai Europoje daugiau nei šešiasdešimt procentų moterų turi universitetinį išsilavinimą, tačiau šis skaičius visiškai neatsispindi sprendimų priėmimo pozicijose, kur, deja, moterų yra mažuma. Ir tai yra talento ir žinių švaistymas. Sutinku su Komisare, jog per dešimtmetį gerokai pažengėme gerindami lyčių lygybę, tačiau situacija valstybėse narėse yra labai nevienoda ir išlieka reikšmingi skirtumai tarp vyrų ir moterų atlyginimų, moterų galimybės užimti vadovaujančius postus. Gerbiami kolegos, labai sudėtinga yra pakeisti įsisenėjusį ir deja, norma tapusį požiūrį į moteris. Todėl, kai neveikia savanoriškos priemonės, turime pasitelkti įstatymines priemones ir tokiu būdu ilgainiui užtikrinti moterims lygias galimybes. Labai sveikinu pranešėjas už pasiektą istorinį rezultatą ir tikiuosi, jog šiandien atversime naują puslapį moterų teisių srityje.

  Robert Hajšel (S&D), písomne. – Všetky štáty EÚ by mali na základe tejto smernice prijať účinné opatrenia na zabezpečenie reprezentatívnejšieho zastúpenia žien nielen v dozorných radách rôznych podnikov, ale aj za všetkými stolmi, kde sa prijímajú dôležité opatrenia.

Situácia v jednotlivých štátoch sa ale výrazne líši, pričom niektoré štáty, ako napríklad Slovensko, kde v takýchto rozhodovacích orgánoch spoločností predstavujú ženy iba 25 percent, čaká ešte dlhá cesta. Ak berieme do úvahy, že už v roku 2026 by až 40 percent riadiacich pracovníkov mali byť ženy, pričom do úvahy treba samozrejme brať aj potrebnú kvalifikáciu a skúsenosti, cesta štátov ako Slovensko nebude len dlhá, ale aj ťažká. V praxi to tiež znamená, že ak sa o miesto budú uchádzať rovnako kvalifikovaní kandidáti, potom prednosť musí dostať zástupca menej zastúpeného pohlavia. Tie spoločnosti, ktoré nebudú spĺňať predpísané kritériá v smernici, ako je aj transparentnosť výberového procesu, budú musieť čeliť sankciám.

  Eugen Jurzyca (ECR), písomne. – Ženy čelia v živote mnohým umelým bariéram, ktorým muži čeliť nemusia a je správne tieto bariéry odstraňovať. Stanovenie kvót pre súkromné firmy však nie je odbúranie bariér, ale stanovenie výsledkov. Je to podobné, ako keby sa v NHL namiesto toho, že najvyššiu šancu na prvú voľbu hokejistov v drafte má posledný tím tabuľky, zaviedlo pravidlo, že posledný tím automaticky vyhrá každý druhý zápas. Skutočné riešenie by malo vychádzať z odbúrania bariér, teda napríklad z uľahčenia súbehu práce so starostlivosťou o deti.

  Guido Reil (ID), schriftlich. – Mit verbindlichen Quoten soll also das Geschlechterverhältnis unter den nicht geschäftsführenden Direktoren ausgewogen gemacht werden. Gehen wir mal zurück in der Zeit. Als 2012 die Kommission diesen Vorschlag machte, stieß sie bei vielen nationalen Parlamenten auf erheblichen Widerstand. Dänemark, Frankreich, die Niederlande, Schweden und das Vereinigte Königreich verwiesen auf das Subsidiaritätsprinzip. Andere Mitgliedstaaten hatten andere Einwände. Die rumänische Abgeordnetenkammer war der Meinung, dass die Mitglieder solcher Aufsichtsräte nur aus fachlicher Kompetenz ernannt werden sollten, unabhängig vom Geschlecht. Das estnische Parlament sagte, und ich zitiere wörtlich: „Verbindliche Quoten könnten zu einer Situation führen, in der Frauen in die Führung von Unternehmen gewählt werden, um eine Quote zu erfüllen und nicht aufgrund ihrer Fähigkeiten oder früherer Leistungen.“ Berufliche Qualifikation war bis jetzt das entscheidende Kriterium. Das ist Geschichte. Jetzt ist das richtige Geschlecht das einzige Kriterium. Das hat nichts mit Geschlechtergleichstellung zu tun, aber nur mit Ideologie.

  Monika Vana (Verts/ALE), schriftlich. – Nach 10 Jahren Blockade und Verhandlungen mit dem Rat ist es endlich soweit. Eine langjährige Forderung der Grünen wird umgesetzt: verpflichtende Frauenquoten in Aufsichtsräten und Direktionen. Ein wichtiger Erfolg auf einem sehr langen Weg, der in den nächsten zwei Jahren in den Mitgliedstaaten umgesetzt werden muss! Das Ende des numerischen Patriarchats auf Führungsetagen ist eingeleitet. Dem Europäischen Parlament ist es gelungen, einige wichtige Schlupflöcher im Ratstext zu schließen. Zum Beispiel wurden die Transparenz von Auswahlverfahren, die jährliche Berichtspflicht von Unternehmen und eine raschere Umsetzung der Richtlinie als Erfolge erzielt. Enttäuschend ist allerdings, dass die Ziele insgesamt nicht ambitionierter sind und es etliche „Ausnahmeklauseln“ gibt. Bis zur vorgesehenen Überarbeitung der Richtlinie 2030 werden wir die Leistung der Mitgliedstaaten genau verfolgen und sicherstellen, dass zusätzliche Maßnahmen ergriffen werden, falls die erwarteten Fortschritte ausfallen. Wir werden als Greens/EFA weiter für ambitioniertere Ziele kämpfen!

(Istunto keskeytettiin klo 11.25.)

PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA
President

4. Reluarea ședinței

(The sitting resumed at 11.43)

5. Ședință solemnă - Ceremonia de aniversare a 70 de ani de existență a Parlamentului European

  La Présidente. – Madame la Première ministre, Messieurs les Premiers ministres, chers députés.

   Dear Speakers and Presidents of national parliaments, dear colleagues, in 1952, here in Strasbourg, Paul-Henri Spaak presided over the opening of the first ever session of the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community. It was the starting point of this institution’s plenary activity.

In 70 years, the Assembly grew from strength to strength. In 1962, it changed name to become the European Parliament. In 1973, it opened its first own institutional hemicycle in Luxembourg, where many of our staff members still sit. Over time, parliamentary committees’ and political groups’ activity grew in Brussels, as increased powers came with the responsibility of exercising increased scrutiny over the other European Union institutions.

This institution embodies European reconciliation. It matters that we are here in Alsace today as a living symbol of how far we have come. Symbolism is important, but this House is so much more. Over the years, consecutive treaties have allowed our house of democracy to develop into a powerful, independent political forum with co-legislative and budgetary powers that impact millions of European citizens – that protects the best interests of citizens, that reflects and amplifies the voice of 500 million people.

Today, the European Parliament has become the only directly elected, multilingual, multi-party transnational parliament in the world. Its 705 directly elected members are the expression of European public opinion.

With an ongoing illegal war in Ukraine that destroys, kills and undermines the political will of a people, we are reminded again of the importance of upholding the democratic values and voice of citizens, and the democratic European values that this House stands for.

That is why it is important that we mark the European Parliament’s 70th anniversary. It is important that we pause to reflect on our achievements: the achievement of getting Europeans to seek and find compromise and to come together to adopt a common agenda for the benefit of us all; the achievement of making our shared space a little bit safer, a little bit fairer, a little bit more equal; the achievement of creating a union of rights, of values, of solidarity, of equality, of peace, of hope.

From the ashes of war, we have found the wisdom, the courage and the humanity to choose to stand together, to tear down walls and unite people and nations. Together we can continue our mission to tackle generational inequalities, to fight crippling poverty, to keep us safer and ensure our security, to ensure equality of opportunity, to fight discrimination, to stand up for women, to show our LGBTIQ community that this truly is a freedom zone, to create a framework for prosperity and economic growth, to beat climate change, to help create jobs, to ensure dignity to all.

I am not here to say that we are perfect. We are not. Our processes sometimes frustrate. Progress is not always fast enough, or deep enough or easy enough. We must keep reforming, we must keep pushing for positive change, day—in day—out. But I am proud of our achievements, of our way, of Europe being a beacon of the defence of democracy, of the way that we have never been indifferent, of how we have never looked away.

Friends, Europe is the answer to so many of the questions our people ask of us. It is a way of life and a way of living. It was no coincidence that the EU flag was raised over Kherson after so many months of brutal occupation. It is because it symbolises hope, courage and belief. This is the legacy of our Europe, the legacy of this House, the legacy of the last 70 years.

   C’est à ce titre que les membres de ce Parlement, que j’ai l’honneur de présider, se retrouvent pour voter démocratiquement, tous les mois, à Strasbourg. C’est pour le respect des droits de l’homme que ce Parlement mène un combat pour le peuple voisin, en peine de démocratie. Et c’est pour honorer les besoins actuels de nos citoyens européens, durement impactés par l’inflation et le coût de la vie, que nous continuerons à chercher, encore et encore, des solutions à nos défis communs.

   Ladies and gentlemen, I now invite you to watch a video clip prepared for the 70th anniversary of the European Parliament.

(the video clip was broadcast in the Chamber)

  Alexander De Croo, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Belgium. – Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s Europe is not necessarily pushed forward by visionary leaders like the ones we know from our history books – Schuman, Spinelli, Spaak. Today, Europe’s political project is mainly driven forward by visionary citizens, by the people of Europe.

And that is not abnormal. We do not live anymore in the 1950s. People today are empowered. They are more demanding towards those who are in positions of leadership. And, all in all, that is a healthy evolution, because free and autonomous citizens, together with a free and independent press, are the core of our democracy. They are the guarantee of strong democratic accountability.

We have felt that public pressure during the COVID crisis. While politicians tended to point out that, from an institutional point of view, healthcare was a national competency and vaccines were none of Europe’s business, it was public opinion, it was the people of Europe who paved the way for a European response to the pandemic. As President von der Leyen coined it very candidly: this is Europe’s moment.

And we now see exactly the same happening in this energy crisis. It is Europeans who see that the energy markets are international, not national. That energy prices are being used as a geopolitical weapon. That individual Member States hit the limits of what they can do on their own. But that Europe should not be impotent. That our sovereignty – our ability to act – is not only at a national level but at a European level.

And, you know, that insight is not new to European citizens. It was already the case before the energy crisis broke out. In 2019, 90% of Europeans thought it was also Europe’s task to guarantee the security of energy supply and to keep energy prices under control.

Ladies and gentlemen, this House probably captures best the impatience of our population, because you know from experience what it is to fight long and hard for your rightful place in the Union. The European Parliament has always been the first institution in the formal sense: first in the Treaties and first in protocol.

But for a long time, it was not first in policy-making. In the words of Professor David Farrell, for much of its life the European Parliament could have been labelled a ‘multilingual talking shop’. But today, it is ‘one of the most powerful legislators in the world’. Today, we Europeans can be proud of the road we have travelled together.

Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs, cela étant dit, le travail est loin d’être terminé. La démocratie est une œuvre sans cesse inachevée. Si l’on veut réellement renforcer notre démocratie, il faut aussi s’attacher à renforcer ce Parlement européen.

Il aurait été bizarre de ne pas avoir d’applaudissements par rapport à cela!... Tous les défis majeurs – quels qu’ils soient: la guerre en Ukraine, les flux migratoires, les prix de l’énergie –, tous ces défis se jouent au niveau international. Nous devons donc renforcer notre démocratie à ce même niveau international, à notre niveau européen. Car le monde change et nous devons changer avec lui. Nous le disons souvent au public, à nos électeurs: il est temps de changer. Mais peut-être devrions-nous plus souvent le dire à nous-mêmes.

De nombreux pays aux frontières orientales de l’Europe, dans les Balkans occidentaux, mais aussi en Ukraine, en Moldavie, conçoivent leur avenir dans notre famille. Et cette nouvelle réalité devrait nous pousser à repenser nos repères. Elle nous force à franchir de nouvelles étapes dans la démocratie européenne pour avoir, dans les années et les décennies à venir, une action qui sera plus décisive et pour être mieux armés pour protéger les intérêts européens dans le monde. Nous comptons sur cette Assemblée pour jouer ce rôle.

Nous continuerons à relier Bruxelles et les citoyens européens. Quelle que soit la voie que nous choisirons, le Parlement européen fera immanquablement un nouveau bond en avant, en devenant vraiment la première institution de l’Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am optimistic about the future. As you said, our European democracy is far from perfect. It needs continuous improvement. But it is not the delicate plant we thought it to be over the past couple of years. Our democracy is more resilient than we sometimes think, and this Parliament is actually the best proof of that.

I would like to honour the fundamental work this Parliament has done in protecting democracy and the rule of law in Europe. We cannot leave this fight for fundamental rights to the courts only. We politicians also have to do our part of the heavy lifting.

As a member of the European Council, I applaud the persistence of this Parliament and the front-runner role that this Parliament has played in this domain. We need you, we need your support to be a vigilant watchdog in that domain.

Still more has to be done together with you – from the European Green Deal, to energy security and transition to migration reform. We still have 18 months left before the end of this mandate. The Belgian Council Presidency that we will have in 2024 will stand ready to engage with you to successfully close the chapter of this legislature.

Let me be clear: you are a key partner to us, day-in day-out. You are part and parcel of the European fabric and you are also part and parcel of the fabric of my country.

And so I would like to say simply: thank you to the Parliament. Thank you to the Parliament and its leadership, with a special mention of the late President Sassoli. Thank you for the solidarity it has shown with the people of Brussels during the COVID crisis and the Ukraine refugee during this crisis.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let me finish by saying this House represents the catharsis of a long history of violence between European countries. This Parliament represents the victory of humanity over nationalism. It represents the best in us, the best in us Europeans. It is the parliament of parliaments.

And so, we look forward to a year of celebrations with European citizens, but we especially look forward to a year of continuing work together with you.

  Xavier Bettel, Premier ministre du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Première ministre, Monsieur le Premier ministre, le film que vous nous avez montré fait remonter de nombreux souvenirs. Des souvenirs de jeunesse. Des souvenirs de personnes avec qui j’ai eu la chance de travailler comme M. Sassoli, des personnes comme celle qui – et c’était votre première présidente élue – pour moi représente ce qu’est l’Europe, Simone Veil.

J’ai un discours institutionnel, Madame la Présidente – je vous donnerai une copie – pour remercier bien sûr tout le monde et pour féliciter et pour souhaiter un bon anniversaire. Mais ce film me pousse à dire autre chose. Alors, bon anniversaire, bons 70 ans! Bien sûr, le Premier ministre De Croo a dit qu’il fallait rapprocher Bruxelles des citoyens. Madame Borne dira sûrement qu’il faut rapprocher Strasbourg des citoyens. Donc je pourrais dire aussi qu’il faut rapprocher Luxembourg des citoyens. Mais je vais seulement vous dire qu’il faut rapprocher chaque capitale de l’Europe et surtout chaque citoyen de ce projet européen que nous connaissons.

Et merci aussi pour le secrétariat général qui est au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Je pense que les relations avec le gouvernement luxembourgeois sont aussi très bonnes. Nous continuerons à tout faire pour améliorer la situation des personnes sans lesquelles votre travail ne serait pas possible.

Alors permettez-moi de revenir à ce film et d’expliquer pourquoi parler de Simone Veil. Ici, nous sommes dans une assemblée qui a été créée en 1952, donc avant le traité de Rome. Sept ans auparavant, la France et l’Allemagne et le continent européen étaient en guerre. Sept ans avant, en 1945, on termine la guerre. Sept ans plus tard, on décide de construire quelque chose ensemble, dans une assemblée parlementaire, de vouloir faire quelque chose qu’on n’avait pas fait avant: au lieu de se détruire l’un l’autre, vouloir construire quelque chose ensemble.

Alors, pourquoi Simone Veil me tient tant à cœur, et c’était un symbole si fort de l’avoir élue en 1979? Simone Veil est une rescapée des camps de concentration. Et ces camps de concentration étaient sur notre territoire. Ces camps de concentration sont le résultat d’un nationalisme, d’un extrémisme, du nazisme, d’une des idéologies les plus sombres que l’on ait connues à ce jour sur notre territoire européen. Alors que, Madame la Présidente, encore dans certains pays européens, certains essayent de faire comme si c’était une solution à tous les problèmes et même défendent encore aujourd’hui ou nient l’existence des chambres à gaz, Simone Veil pourrait vous dire ce qu’elle a vécu pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

Et je crois que le chancelier Kohl l’a bien décrit.

Es ist ein Friedensprojekt. Frieden.

Notre continent européen, cette Union européenne n’a pas connu de conflit ni de guerre entre ses pays depuis 1952, depuis 1957. Ce n’est pas toujours facile. Mais nous n’avons pas connu les conflits armés qu’on a connus auparavant. Et n’oublions pas que sur notre propre territoire, à l’époque, un grand nombre d’entre nous n’auraient pas eu le droit de vivre parce qu’ils étaient de gauche, parce qu’ils étaient syndicalistes, parce qu’ils étaient handicapés, parce qu’ils étaient homosexuels, parce qu’ils étaient tout simplement différents de l’idéologie. Aujourd’hui, nous sommes dans un territoire où vous êtes élus par des citoyens qui peuvent exercer ce droit librement. Et ici au Parlement européen, vous avez une tâche qui est tellement importante pour nous, celle de nous rappeler aussi ces valeurs.

Je ne veux pas faire de lien et stigmatiser maintenant l’un ou l’autre. On a tendance dans l’Union européenne à dire ce qui se passe et ce qui ne va pas à l’autre bout du monde, mais je dois vous le dire aussi que même pour nous, dans notre famille européenne, il est important de faire un rappel des valeurs, des règles et de l’épine dorsale qui doit nous unir.

Je suis content et je peux parler de nombreux droits: hier à Malte, une avancée pour la liberté des femmes. Mais aujourd’hui des journalistes, des juges ne peuvent pas exercer leur métier librement dans des pays au sein de l’Union européenne. Certains pays stigmatisent les minorités sexuelles. Est-ce acceptable? Eh non. J’insiste vraiment pour que votre Parlement nous le rappelle et que la conditionnalité par rapport aussi aux valeurs qui sont l’épine dorsale de l’Union européenne fasse partie des décisions que l’on prend.

On a l’impression que la paix est quelque chose d’acquis, que les droits sont quelque chose d’acquis. Et je le sens moi-même. Vous savez, moi-même, j’ai parlé de cette Seconde Guerre mondiale et j’ai déjà fait cette comparaison à d’autres endroits, mais je vous le dis aussi aujourd’hui: je suis fier d’avoir, ici aussi, autant de jeunes assis autour, car c’est vous le projet européen.

Pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, je n’aurais, moi-même, pas eu le droit de vivre, étant libéral, étant d’origine juive par ma famille, étant marié à un homme belge, ça n’a rien à voir, mais c’est tout simplement le fait d’être homosexuel, d’être d’origine juive et d’être libéral qui m’aurait condamné trois fois à mort. Et aujourd’hui, je suis libre devant vous. Je suis un chef de gouvernement élu et c’est ça le projet européen.

On est peut-être différents, on a des opinions différentes, on a des origines différentes, mais cette richesse n’est pas une limite. C’est la richesse de notre continent européen, cette diversité. Et ne la laissons pas être détruite. Et si nous fêtons cette année les 70 ans du Parlement européen, cette diversité doit rester la force. Ne nous laissons pas diviser, que ce soit au niveau du Conseil européen, au niveau du Parlement, au niveau de la Commission européenne. Et je remercie la Présidente de la Commission européenne et les membres de la Commission européenne qui nous rappellent les obligations que nous nous sommes données. L’Europe, ce n’est pas que recevoir, c’est aussi donner pour avoir quelque chose de plus grand ensemble aujourd’hui, ne l’oublions pas.

Bon anniversaire, et j’espère pouvoir compter, Madame la Présidente, sur vous et votre Parlement pour nous rappeler régulièrement ces valeurs.

  Élisabeth Borne, Première ministre de la République française. – Madame la Présidente du Parlement européen, Madame la Présidente de la Commission européenne, Messieurs les Premiers ministres, Mesdames et Messieurs les Présidents des parlements nationaux, Mesdames et Messieurs les Commissaires, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, Mesdames et Messieurs, depuis 70 ans, la France a l’honneur et la fierté d’accueillir ici même à Strasbourg, le centre de la vie démocratique de notre Union, le Parlement européen.

Soixante-dix ans. Une institution née au lendemain de la guerre, aux premières heures d’une Europe voulue pour assurer la paix et qui, très tôt, a eu l’intuition qu’il fallait un dialogue et une construction politique. Une institution marquée par des femmes et des hommes: c’est Robert Schuman, parmi les pères fondateurs; c’est Simone Veil, la première femme à présider le Parlement européen; c’est David Sassoli, ce grand Européen qui nous a quittés début 2022. C’est vous toutes et tous, les élus des citoyens européens, qui en portez les voix et les aspirations.

Soixante-dix ans. C’est l’occasion de revenir sur une histoire, un parcours marqué par des conquêtes essentielles. Conquête du suffrage universel d’abord. Dans un premier temps, les députés européens ont été désignés par les parlements nationaux, puis le suffrage universel direct a été entériné en 1976 et les premières élections se sont tenues en juin 1979. Dès lors, et depuis plus de 40 ans, vous êtes devenus non seulement les députés européens, mais les députés des Européens, qui les représentez directement. Conquête de compétences, ensuite. Alors qu’il n’avait au début qu’un rôle de supervision, le Parlement européen n’a cessé de gagner des pouvoirs plus étendus, prenant de nouvelles compétences en matière de contrôle ou en matière législative à chaque révision des traités européens, jusqu’au traité de Lisbonne en 2009, qui a consacré la codécision comme procédure législative ordinaire.

Tout ceci s’est fait au bénéfice du Parlement européen, bien sûr, mais surtout au bénéfice de l’Europe tout entière. Car là où le Parlement européen a gagné en compétences, l’Europe a gagné en démocratie. Et cette démocratie, nous ne cesserons jamais de la défendre. À l’heure où certains l’attaquent en Ukraine, à l’heure où les régimes autoritaires veulent la faire passer pour faible, nous devons être fiers de notre démocratie, fiers de nos valeurs. Car n’oublions pas que derrière l’invasion de l’Ukraine, ce sont bien la démocratie et les droits humains que la Russie attaque, c’est-à-dire le fondement même de ce qui nous rassemble ici.

Par la vigueur de son action, par sa détermination à défendre l’égalité, la liberté et la solidarité, le Parlement européen apporte un démenti cinglant à ces tentatives destructrices. Le cœur de la démocratie bat ici même, à Strasbourg, depuis 70 ans.

Un anniversaire, c’est aussi l’occasion de se projeter dans l’avenir. L’avenir immédiat, c’est celui de la fin de cette législature, où tant de chantiers majeurs sont engagés. Je pense à plusieurs législations essentielles: pour la transition écologique, avec le paquet «Fit for 55»; pour la réforme de l’espace Schengen, ce bien si précieux pour nos concitoyens; pour la conquête de notre souveraineté, de nos souverainetés – énergétique, numérique, technologique, stratégique –, en mettant en œuvre l’agenda de Versailles. Cette liste n’est bien sûr pas exhaustive. Elle montre néanmoins que vous êtes au cœur de tous les défis de notre temps.

Les prochains mois seront chargés. Vous pouvez compter sur la France pour favoriser des accords et travailler à une Europe plus forte, plus solidaire, plus souveraine. Sous l’autorité du Président de la République, nous nous y emploierons. Viendra ensuite le temps des élections du Parlement européen. Cette respiration démocratique, tous les cinq ans, est structurante dans la vie de l’Union. Je forme un vœu: que cette élection soit l’occasion de vrais débats dans nos pays pour que nous puissions continuer à construire ensemble une Europe des actes, une Europe au service de nos concitoyens.

Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je terminerai mon propos par là où j’ai commencé, en évoquant Strasbourg. Strasbourg est un symbole, une ville qui porte en elle la marque de l’histoire. Dans ces temps où les nationalismes progressent et tentent de réécrire le passé, dans ces temps où la guerre revient sur le continent européen, nous ne devons jamais cesser de rappeler d’où vient l’Europe, ce qu’elle a subi, pourquoi nous l’avons faite et ce qu’elle a accompli. En incarnant la réconciliation des peuples européens, Strasbourg montre la force de l’Union et la puissance de la paix. Chaque mois, quand les acteurs européens se retrouvent tous à Strasbourg, c’est de fait à notre histoire et à l’idée même de l’Europe qu’ils rendent hommage. Bien sûr, des questions pratiques peuvent exister et mon gouvernement est pleinement engagé pour y apporter des réponses. Mais cela ne doit pas nous détourner de l’essentiel. Au fond, Strasbourg, c’est une certaine idée de l’Europe. L’idée d’une Europe qui se construit et s’écrit en différents endroits du territoire européen, d’une Europe qui a son passé et son avenir en commun.

Cette Europe-là, cette Europe riche de la diversité de ses habitants et de ses territoires, c’est le meilleur remède contre les discours délétères sur une Europe technocratique et déconnectée. La vitalité du Parlement européen, c’est la vitalité de l’Europe et c’est pourquoi je souhaitais célébrer cet anniversaire important pour l’Union avec vous toutes et tous, membres du Parlement européen, et à travers vous avec tous les Européens, car cet anniversaire important nous concerne tous.

  Manfred Weber, Chair of the Group of the European People's Party. – Madam President of the European Parliament, Commission President, dear prime ministers, 70 years of the European Parliament, our Parliament. I have to share with you my personal experience. When I entered the first time into this institution, into this building, I fell immediately in love with this institution. I experienced a parliament where everybody counts. I was young, 31 years old, and I immediately got the trust of my colleagues to deal with an important piece of legislation, in the LIBE file, in the LIBE Committee. Dear colleagues, when you understand that diversity, to have a colourful perspective about different ideas to solve problems, when you understand that this diversity is an advantage, then you fell in love with the European Parliament and that is what I did when entered here the first time.

It is a very thin line here in this House to have on the one hand the party political position in mind but also the majority position, and you are defending the interests of this institution, the chamber of the European citizens. It is not the party that is in the centre here, not the Chancellor, not the Prime Minister, not even the Commission President, it is the bigger ‘we’, the bigger common interest which finally is driving this institution.

70 years ago, we hear that our colleagues gathered here in Strasbourg for the first time, seven years – you said it, Prime Minister – after the brutal Second World War had ended. Unbelievable bravery what they showed to us as Europeans. Today, it’s now the right moment to celebrate this. The House of Democracy: a place where all Europeans are represented, a place where our political ideas from the common good bring us together, a place where a multinational parliament with broad, real legislative power like no other in the world is present.

My group, the EPP, has always believed that only a democratic Europe – with a strong parliamentarian democracy – is a Europe which has future. Since its first official meeting of my group in June 53, my group contributed to strengthening this House, to being ambitious in the leadership in the spirit of cooperation with other political forces and together we were successful.

But now we can go further, probably even much further. After this big success in 2014, when the first time this House – Jean-Claude Juncker, Martin Schulz – managed that the Commission President was based mainly on the majority here in this House, in 2019 we made other experiences. Now we have to prepare 2024. And the idea behind this is that people see that if they go to vote, they participate, they decide about the majorities, we come here together as elected people, and then we decide the programme and also the candidates for the next five years who has the power to do it. The people in Europe see the direct link between their participation in elections and then the outcome in political terms. That is what we want to guarantee. And don’t get me wrong, as an EPP Group leader and as EPP President, I am very proud that the first elected female president of the European Commission is an EPP candidate and the youngest President of the European Parliament, also a female candidate, is an EPP member, so we do not need a quota for this, we are very proud about this.

When we speak about the strengthening of democracy, I want to underline that we should not continue legislative proposals based on Article 122, sounds technical but is very democratically important. We have to strengthen the European Parliament with the full right of legislative initiatives, with full rights on the budget and with the full right of investigation in the interest of our citizens.

So there is still a way in front of us. And I see the Council members now in front of me, I would ask you, I really count on you, that Council members are not doing these speeches here in this House but also when they are at home, that we really are strong in developing even a stronger European Parliament.

And at a time when democracy is under attack, like it is in Ukraine, we have to be the beacon of democracy for Europe and the world. It’s a great honour to serve in this institution. All the best for the upcoming 70 years.

  Iratxe García Pérez, presidenta del Grupo de la Alianza Progresista de Socialistas y Demócratas. – Señora presidenta, señorías, esta es una conmemoración peculiar, podríamos decir, porque la Asamblea de la CECA poco tenía que ver con este Parlamento. Para empezar, tenía setenta y ocho miembros de seis países y además eran delegados de los Parlamentos nacionales. Y digo bien: delegados, porque solo había una mujer. Y, es cierto, hoy tenemos una presidenta de la Comisión Europea —y aquí tengo que corregir un poquito al presidente Weber porque no es una candidata del PPE, es nuestra presidenta—, votada y apoyada por esta Cámara, igual que la presidenta del Parlamento Europeo. Representan a instituciones y representan lo que todos y todas defendemos.

La Asamblea en ese momento no tenía un edificio y le prestaron la sala del Consejo de Europa. Fíjense, ahora tenemos este estupendo edificio.

Con las elecciones directas de 1979 y con el aumento de las competencias, esta casa se ha transformado totalmente. Pero, quizá, el cambio más evidente es que hoy estamos aquí representando a 500 millones de europeos y europeas de veintisiete países. Aquella era una Europa seccionada por el telón de acero. El primer presidente de la Asamblea, Paul-Henry Spaak, dijo que la Comunidad no nacía contra nadie, sino por la libertad, para que cada vez más personas se beneficiaran de la paz y la prosperidad que traen la democracia y el Estado de Derecho.

Así ha sido, aunque falten países. Acabo de estar en Macedonia del Norte y en Albania, que empiezan ahora las negociaciones. Y vendrán otros, como Ucrania y Moldavia. Lo importante es profundizar en la democracia, que es la piedra fundamental, porque no hay guerras entre democracias.

Como digo, las cosas cambian porque este es un Parlamento vivo. La Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa nos ha dado pistas de cuál es el camino que debemos seguir y cómo debemos reaccionar más rápidamente frente a las crisis, hacer una mejor gestión de las migraciones, avanzar en las políticas sociales y basarnos en la solidaridad. Todo esto significa avanzar en una unión más política. Y esto es precisamente lo que no ha cambiado: nuestro objetivo, una unión cada vez más estrecha.

Y a los parlamentarios les lanzo un mensaje muy claro: somos representantes, no cada uno de su país, sino del conjunto de la comunidad. Yo, al menos, así lo siento cuando personas de Hungría y Polonia nos piden que no los abandonemos en la deriva autoritaria de sus Gobiernos.

Algunas voces dicen hoy que la Unión se ha desviado de los orígenes. Pero eso no es cierto. Porque los miembros de aquella Cámara de 1952 entendían perfectamente que la democracia europea no debilita la nacional, sino que la refuerza. Lo mismo que la ciudadanía europea complementa y potencia la ciudadanía nacional.

Ahora nos toca a nosotras y a nosotros mantener el espíritu y adaptarnos a los nuevos tiempos.

  Stéphane Séjourné, Président du groupe Renew Europe. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Première ministre, Messieurs les Premiers ministres, ce Parlement, tout comme notre aventure européenne, est un miracle politique, un miracle politique de tous les jours. Dans ses 24 langues officielles et dans ses trois sièges, à Strasbourg, à Bruxelles et au Luxembourg. Au centre de cet hémicycle, des centaines de partis nationaux de 27 pays arrivent à se mettre d’accord sur les lois climatiques, les droits numériques, les budgets agricoles, les salaires minimums et tant d’autres sujets, souvent même avant les autres institutions européennes. Je pense notamment à l’achat des vaccins, aux plans de relance et maintenant au plafonnement des prix de l’énergie. Ce Parlement a été le premier à demander et à voter sur ces propositions.

Et les Européens ne s’y trompent pas, puisque dès 2019, ils ont été plus de 18 millions de plus à aller voter aux urnes. Inédit depuis 20 ans. Dans certains pays, les taux de participation ont même dépassé les taux de participation aux élections nationales. Les Européens comprennent mieux que leurs médias, c’est sûr, mieux que leur propre gouvernement parfois, que c’est ici que s’améliore le quotidien et s’écrit l’avenir de nos concitoyens. Et c’est pour cela qu’il faut aller au bout de la logique de la Conférence sur l’avenir de l’Europe que nous avons initiée ici au Parlement européen.

Plus de pouvoir pour cette assemblée, c’est plus d’efficacité pour l’Europe. Donnez-nous le droit d’initiative et vous aurez les clés en main sur notamment les questions d’inflation, d’énergie, d’asile et d’immigration que nous avons encore à traiter dans les prochains mois et dans les prochaines années avant la fin de cette mandature. Donnez-nous plus de pouvoirs budgétaires et vous aurez plus d’investissements dans la souveraineté européenne. Donnez-nous les listes transnationales et vous aurez à traiter une partie du défi démocratique de l’Union européenne.

Alors, je sais que mon groupe peut compter sur le soutien des Premiers ministres ici présents. Je les en remercie. Je demande aussi aux autres groupes de les convaincre et d’aller convaincre l’ensemble des gouvernements sur ces fondamentaux. L’Assemblée parlementaire européenne est élue au suffrage universel dans 27 pays avec un pouvoir de colégislateur. Il y a 70 ans, tout cela était un rêve. Aujourd’hui, cela est une réalité. Alors, surprenons-nous à voir encore plus loin pour la démocratie européenne, pour nos concitoyens, pour que 18 millions d’électeurs de plus rejoignent les urnes en 2024. Merci, Madame la Présidente, merci pour l’organisation de cet événement et bon anniversaire au Parlement européen.

  Philippe Lamberts, Coprésident du groupe des Verts/Alliance libre européenne. – Madame la Présidente, le 14 juillet 2009, je siégeais pour la première fois au Parlement européen. Je n’oublierai jamais la fierté qui était la mienne de devenir l’un des 736 représentants chargés d’œuvrer à l’intérêt général de 500 millions de citoyennes et de citoyens européens. Je peux vous le dire, et c’est un peu l’émotion, cette fierté est intacte en ce jour où nous célébrons les 70 ans de notre Parlement.

L’Union européenne est la première tentative au monde de réaliser une démocratie transnationale et si elle demeure une construction imparfaite et incomplète, elle est plus que jamais un prototype à développer, dans un monde de plus en plus morcelé et polarisé. Ensemble, nous ne représentons que 5,6 % de la population mondiale. Aussi, agir ensemble, unis dans notre diversité, est la condition sine qua non de l’affirmation de notre souveraineté, souveraineté étant entendue comme notre capacité à faire ensemble et de manière autonome les choix qui déterminent notre avenir.

Si tel est notre objectif, le Parlement européen me semble devoir relever trois défis dans son rôle de représentant direct des citoyennes et des citoyens européens.

Le premier défi est celui de l’ambition. Garder notre planète habitable pour les humains, réduire les injustices sociales grandissantes, ouvrir un avenir aux humains forcés de quitter leur pays, établir des relations internationales fondées sur le droit et non sur la violence, notre monde est confronté à des épreuves existentielles. Pour nous, la tentation peut être grande de se recroqueviller dans un confort idéalisé, celui d’un passé fantasmé. Si l’Union européenne veut se forger un avenir au XXIᵉ siècle, elle doit au contraire redoubler d’audace et retrouver un esprit pionnier.

Le deuxième défi est celui du compromis. Tout autour de nous et au sein même de nos pays, la polarisation de nos sociétés en blocs antagonistes semble inéluctable. Au contraire, et plus que jamais, notre Parlement doit démontrer la force du dialogue et du compromis, qui seuls peuvent accoucher de solutions pérennes, garantes de la possibilité pour tous de vivre ensemble en paix. Prouvons que notre diversité et nos différences, loin d’être des handicaps, sont autant d’atouts pour construire notre avenir.

Le troisième défi est celui de la préservation de la démocratie et de l’état de droit, c’est-à-dire des fondations mêmes sur lesquelles est construite notre Union. Sans elles, ni la paix ni la prospérité, conditions essentielles de la dignité humaine pour toutes et tous, ne peuvent durablement exister. Au siècle dernier, l’Europe a vu des démocraties sombrer, prélude aux horreurs de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Nous le savons, ce régime politique, dont Churchill a dit qu’il était le pire à l’exception de tous les autres, est fragile et mortel. Et au nom de l’urgence, de l’opportunité ou tout simplement de l’accaparement du pouvoir, nous voyons les assauts auxquels la démocratie et l’état de droit sont soumis au sein même de notre Union. Le Parlement européen doit répondre à ces assauts, quels que soient l’État membre où ils se passent ou l’appartenance politique de ceux qui les commettent.

Mais n’oublions jamais que les démocraties meurent d’abord de la perte de confiance de nos sociétés dans leurs institutions et dans celles qui les incarnent… celles et ceux qui les incarnent – oui, il y a encore quelques hommes, mais tu as raison, c’étaient beaucoup d’hommes au début. Il nous appartient de prendre toute notre part à la restauration de cette confiance en adoptant constamment comme unique boussole, pour tous les actes que nous posons, l’intérêt général et pas l’intérêt de quelques-uns.

Je crois notre assemblée capable de relever ces défis et de s’affirmer plus que jamais comme le lieu par excellence où se construit notre avenir commun.

  Marco Zanni, Presidente del Gruppo Identità e Democrazia. – Signora Presidente, signora Presidente von der Leyen, signori Primi ministri, onorevoli colleghi, sono trascorsi settant'anni dalla creazione dell'Assemblea comune della Comunità europea del carbone e dell'acciaio.

Era il 1952 e l'Europa era molto diversa da quella che conosciamo oggi. Le grandi guerre erano alle spalle e ci preparavamo a un futuro di pace e di sviluppo con grande speranza. All'epoca i parlamentari – è stato ricordato anche prima – erano soltanto 78 ed erano nominati dai parlamenti nazionali degli Stati membri. Oggi siamo quasi dieci volte tanto, 705, e ciascuno di noi è qui perché sono stati i cittadini con il loro voto a scegliere che fossimo noi qui a rappresentarli.

Credo sia necessario anche in questa ricorrenza ricordare a tutti, ma prima di tutto a noi stessi, il valore della democrazia e il rispetto che dobbiamo ai cittadini che rappresentiamo in quest'Aula. Il peso e la misura delle nostre azioni in ambito parlamentare devono essere guidati dall'importanza delle sfide che ci aspettano e dalle speranze che le persone, i cittadini, ripongono nell'Istituzione di cui facciamo parte. E democrazia in un contesto di peculiarità nazionali, di sensibilità diverse e di culture che sono vicine, ma che mantengono un'identità propria vuol dire anzitutto rispetto di queste differenze e non appiattimento su un modello di pensiero unico.

Bisogna motivare tutti a ritrovare quel senso di comune interesse nel fronteggiare le sfide e nel trovare soluzioni efficienti e rapide al momento cupo che stiamo attraversando, purtroppo, e vi invito a riflettere, a recuperare proprio quello spirito, che nel 1952 aveva dato la spinta per la creazione di quel che questa Istituzione è oggi. All'epoca, infatti, fu proprio attraverso la CECA che gli Stati espressero tutta l'importanza di elementi tanto fondamentali per garantire autonomia, sviluppo e una strategia al continente.

Risorse ed energia: due temi di straordinaria attualità anche oggi. Proprio questo dato dovrebbe spingerci a chiederci: come siamo arrivati al punto in cui ci troviamo oggi? Perché abbiamo deciso, dapprima politicamente, poi nei fatti, di delegare ad altri questioni così strategiche? Perché anche a livello industriale abbiamo ceduto alle sirene di una globalizzazione indiscriminata? Delocalizzazione, dipendenza da paesi terzi in fatto di energia e sostanziale perdita di autonomia sono gli errori che ci hanno condotti a dover trovare oggi, in tutta fretta, soluzioni a una crisi che purtroppo non ci abbandonerà tanto presto.

Io credo che dai nostri predecessori abbiamo molto da imparare e mi auguro che l'odierna ricorrenza motivi ognuno di noi a recuperare le radici di questo progetto e a dare una linea diversa al presente, ma soprattutto al nostro futuro.

E, in conclusione, c'è ancora una cosa che credo manchi a questa istituzione per potersi dire pienamente realizzata: la condivisione di responsabilità e valori con le opposizioni democratiche che rappresentano milioni di cittadini europei. Quando arriveremo a questo passaggio, potremo davvero affermare che la democrazia è finalmente rispettata e rappresentata appieno anche in quest'Aula e in questa Istituzione.

  Ryszard Antoni Legutko, Chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group. – Madam President, Prime Ministers, two minutes of truth, of bitter truth. The bitter truth is that the European Parliament has done a lot of damage in Europe.

It has been sending a false message that it represents the European demos. There isn’t, and there won’t be any European demos.

The Parliament has infected Europe with shameless partisanship and the infection became so contagious that it spread to other institutions such as the European Commission. The Parliament has abandoned the basic function of representing people. Instead, it has become a machine to implement the so—called European project, thus alienating millions of voters. The Parliament has become a political vehicle of the left to impose their monopoly with their fierce intolerance towards any dissenting view.

No matter how many times you repeat the word ‘diversity’, diversity is becoming an extinct species in the European Union, and particularly in this Chamber. The Parliament is a quasi parliament because it rejects the essential principle of parliamentarism – namely accountability. The deputy, let me remind you, is elected by the voters and must be accountable to the voters that elected him. Not so in the European Union. The idea that, say, Spanish, German, French, etc. deputies, accountable to their own national electorates, can dictate something to, shall we say, Hungarian society or any other society to which they cannot be held accountable and which cannot take them to task is simply preposterous.

Colleagues, call it what you will, but democracy it is not. To sum up, the Parliament represents the genius that does not exist, works for the project that ignores reality and law, shuns accountability, turns its back on millions of people and serves the interests of one political orientation – and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Having said that, ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

  President. – Professor Legutko, with your two minutes you have indeed proven that pluralism, diversity and democracy actually exist in this House.

  Manon Aubry, Coprésidente du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Présidente de la Commission, Mesdames et Messieurs les Premiers ministres, nous célébrons aujourd’hui l’anniversaire de la création du Parlement européen. Mais son histoire, on l’a vu aujourd’hui, démontre tout le chemin qu’il reste encore à parcourir afin de mettre réellement de la démocratie dans les institutions européennes. Je viens d’écouter mon collègue M. Legutko et manifestement il y a encore un long chemin à parcourir parce que j’ai envie de l’inviter à quitter cet hémicycle si lui-même n’a pas envie de participer à l’élaboration des directives européennes.

Un élément symptomatique de cela également: vous ne le savez peut-être pas, chers collègues, mais initialement, ces allocutions des Premiers ministres étaient prévues sans prise de parole des présidents de groupe. Et c’est uniquement à la demande de notre groupe que l’on a procédé à ce débat qui est certes très limité. Je pense que beaucoup dans cet hémicycle auraient aimé un échange plus approfondi. C’est donc une invitation à venir continuer le débat à nos côtés.

Mais si l’on reprend l’histoire du Parlement européen, déjà la naissance du Parlement s’appuie sur un choix initial qui est lourd de sens: le refus de faire élire au suffrage universel les parlementaires européens. Rendez-vous compte qu’il a fallu attendre vingt-sept ans pour que les premiers eurodéputés soient directement choisis par les citoyens. Vingt-sept ans pour obtenir ce qui relève pourtant de l’évidence démocratique la plus absolue. Alors j’ai envie de demander aujourd’hui: combien de décennies faudra-t-il attendre avant que nous, eurodéputés, ayons enfin le droit d’initier des propositions de loi? Combien de décennies avant que notre Parlement ait un pouvoir décisionnel sur l’ensemble des textes de loi adoptés par l’Union et puisse ainsi peut-être agir davantage contre l’évasion fiscale et notamment un de ces pays moteurs de l’évasion fiscale en Europe, le bien nommé Luxembourg? Combien de décennies encore avant que les deals politiques européens ne se fassent plus entre portes closes et que les chefs de gouvernement assument leurs choix politiques? Combien de décennies avant que les référendums d’initiative citoyenne soient contraignants et que la Commission soit obligée d’y donner suite? L’Union européenne est la seule démocratie au monde où trop souvent les lobbies font plus la loi que les représentants du peuple et les citoyens eux-mêmes. Cela n’est plus possible.

Alors, je vous ai entendus, Madame la Première ministre française, Madame Borne, et vous, Monsieur De Croo et Monsieur Bettel, nous expliquer que la démocratie européenne devait et allait être renforcée. Mais comment osez-vous, Madame Borne, venir parler de démocratie au lendemain de votre cinquième 49.3? Cette aberration bien étrange pour nos collègues européens qui permet au gouvernement de passer en force et de faire adopter des textes malgré l’opposition du Parlement. Je le dis, il n’y aura pas de 49.3 au Parlement européen. Et comment osez-vous vous présenter, ici à Strasbourg, comme une grande démocrate, quand vous n’avez de cesse à Paris de bâillonner le Parlement français?

La question démocratique est pourtant au cœur des attentes des citoyens européens. Les conclusions de la Conférence sur l’avenir de l’Europe étaient d’ailleurs très claires à ce sujet. Les citoyens ne veulent pas d’une Europe-marché qui ne fonctionne que sur la concurrence, le libre-échange ou les intérêts des plus riches. Alors, plutôt que de commémorer un passé fantasmé, les dirigeants européens devraient enfin s’atteler à cette refonte totale des traités qui est attendue par tant d’entre nous, ici, dans cet hémicycle et à l’extérieur.

  President. – On that note, distinguished guests, fellow Europeans, I would like to invite you to stand for the anthem of the European Union.

(Beethoven’s Ode to Joy was sung by the choir ‘Les voix de Stras’ in the Chamber)

(The sitting was suspended at 12.51)

VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY
Vizepräsidentin

6. Reluarea ședinței

(Die Sitzung wird um 12.56 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

  Marco Zanni (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, solo per ricordare che questa mattina è purtroppo scomparso l'onorevole Roberto Maroni, già vicepresidente del Consiglio italiano, più volte ministro di governi della Repubblica, per tanti anni deputato e governatore della regione Lombardia.

Un vuoto che lascia nella politica, alla quale ha dato un contributo importante nei suoi ruoli istituzionali, anche nella costruzione delle istituzioni europee negli ultimi trent'anni, ma soprattutto ci lascia l'uomo ben voluto, sempre pragmatico e sempre pronto alla discussione anche con l'avversario politico. Ci faceva piacere che anche oggi quest'Aula lo ricordasse nel suo impegno come politico italiano e come politico europeo.

  Monika Beňová (S&D). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, ja viem, že chceme všetci rýchlo hlasovať, ale prepáčte mi. Chcem sa veľmi ostro ohradiť proti nedávnemu vystúpeniu maďarského premiéra Viktora Orbána. A chcem poprosiť kolegyne a kolegov z Fideszu, ktorých rešpektujem, aby povedali svojmu premiérovi, že Slovensko, Rumunsko a ďalšie krajiny sú suverénnymi štátmi. Pri príležitosti dnešnej oslavy výročia chcem požiadať, aby Maďarsko rešpektovalo územnú celistvosť Rumunska a Slovenska.

7. Votare

  Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Abstimmung.

(Abstimmungsergebnisse und sonstige Einzelheiten der Abstimmung: siehe Protokoll.)

7.1. Modificarea Regulamentului (UE, Euratom) 2020/2093 din 17 decembrie 2020 de stabilire a cadrului financiar multianual pentru perioada 2021-2027 (C9-0386/2022) (vot)

7.2. Modificarea Regulamentului (UE, Euratom) 2018/1046 în ceea ce privește instituirea unei strategii de finanțare diversificate ca metodă generală de împrumut (C9-0374/2022) (vot)

7.3. Instrumentul pentru acordarea de sprijin Ucrainei în 2023 (asistență macrofinanciară +) (C9-0373/2022) (vot)

7.4. Propunere de solicitare a avizului Curții de Justiție cu privire la Al doilea protocol adițional la Convenția privind criminalitatea informatică (vot)

7.5. Numirea unui membru al Curții de Conturi — Keit Pentus-Rosimannus (A9-0272/2022 - Mikuláš Peksa) (vot)

7.6. Închiderea conturilor Agenției Europene pentru Poliția de Frontieră și Garda de Coastă pentru exercițiul financiar 2020 (B9-0488/2022) (vot)

7.7. Protocolul la Acordul de asociere euro-mediteraneean interimar: participarea Autorității Palestiniene din Cisiordania și Fâșia Gaza la programele Uniunii (A9-0253/2022 - Manu Pineda) (vot)

7.8. Echilibrul de gen în rândul administratorilor neexecutivi ai societăților cotate la bursă (A9-0275/2022 - Lara Wolters, Evelyn Regner) (vot)

7.9. Reziliența entităților critice (A9-0289/2021 - Michal Šimečka) (vot)

7.10. Politica comună în domeniul pescuitului: restricțiile referitoare la accesul la apele Uniunii (A9-0206/2022 - Pierre Karleskind) (vot)

7.11. Deciziile organizațiilor de standardizare europene (A9-0205/2022 - Svenja Hahn) (vot)

7.12. Calificarea inițială și formarea periodică a conducătorilor auto ai anumitor vehicule rutiere destinate transportului de mărfuri sau de persoane (text codificat) (A9-0267/2022 - Angel Dzhambazki) (vot)

7.13. Acordul dintre Uniunea Europeană și Noua Zeelandă: modificarea concesiilor privind toate contingentele tarifare incluse în lista CLXXV a UE (A9-0273/2022 - Daniel Caspary) (vot)

7.14. Modificarea Deciziei (UE) 2015/2169 a Consiliului privind încheierea Acordului de liber schimb între Uniunea Europeană și Republica Coreea (A9-0277/2022 - Catharina Rinzema) (vot)

7.15. Strategia de împrumut pentru finanțarea Next Generation EU (A9-0250/2022 - José Manuel Fernandes, Valérie Hayer) (vot)

7.16. Raport referitor la implementarea Consiliului European pentru Inovare (A9-0268/2022 - Christian Ehler) (vot)

  Die Präsidentin. – Damit ist die Abstimmungsstunde geschlossen.

(Die Sitzung wird für kurze Zeit unterbrochen.)

8. Reluarea ședinței

(Die Sitzung wird um 13.10 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

9. Procedura bugetară 2023: text comun (dezbatere)

  Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Nicolae Ştefănuță und Niclas Herbst im Namen der Delegation des Europäischen Parlaments im Vermittlungsausschuss für Haushaltsfragen über den Standpunkt des Rates zum Entwurf des Gesamthaushaltsplans der Europäischen Union für das Haushaltsjahr 2023 (14783/2022 12108/2022 – C9-0389/2022 C9‑0306/2022 – 2022/0212(BUD)) (A9-0278/2022).

  Johan Van Overtveldt, voorzitter Begrotingscommissie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega’s. De uitkomst van de conciliatie over de begroting voor 2023 heeft een aantal heroriënteringen en besparingen en ook een aantal belangrijke en noodzakelijke versterkingen opgeleverd. Zo werden er extra middelen vrijgemaakt voor steun aan de Oekraïense samenleving: 290 miljoen in totaal via diverse programma’s. Iedereen zal het erover eens zijn dat de Oekraïense samenleving en haar burgers die steun broodnodig hebben. We mogen verwachten dat andere mondiale actoren, zoals de VS, dit voorbeeld zullen volgen.

Naast de noodzakelijke en voor de hand liggende acute uitgaven investeren we via de begroting voor 2023 ook verder in domeinen waarin de EU wel degelijk een verschil kan maken. Dat zijn stappen in de goede richting, maar ze zijn naar mijn smaak te klein en niet ambitieus genoeg. De Europese Unie hangt budgettair nog te veel vast aan beleidsopties uit het verleden die een grote hypotheek leggen op de toekomst. We mogen ons daar niet door laten afremmen.

Ik zou graag een begroting zien die nog meer vooruitkijkt, die nog meer focust in plaats van te versnipperen en die de ambitie uitstraalt om van Europa een koploper te maken op het vlak van onderzoek, ontwikkeling en innovatie. Dringend en noodzakelijk is ook de hertekening van onze aanbodketens, met als doel strategisch minder afhankelijk te zijn van regimes die onze waarden en normen afwijzen. Als u het gevoel hebt dat ik nu vooral China voor ogen heb, dan hebt u goed geconcludeerd.

De geopolitieke context toont ons op diverse fronten dat een dergelijke hertekening noodzakelijk is. Het meerjarig financieel kader zoals het nu bestaat, botst ook op zijn limieten. Het instrument is in zijn huidige vorm niet meer geschikt om antwoorden te kunnen bieden op de grote uitdagingen van vandaag en morgen. Symptomatisch hiervoor is het feit dat er telkens oplossingen en vehikels buiten de begroting op poten moeten worden gezet. Het wijst erop dat het meerjarenkader niet meer geschikt is om alles op de correcte manier te absorberen.

Maar minstens even problematisch is het feit dat de controle op de uitgaven aanzienlijk uitgehold wordt. Op de grote uitgavenposten die zich buiten de reguliere begroting bevinden, zoals het coronaherstelfonds, het RRF, kan dit Parlement zijn controlerende taak niet naar behoren uitoefenen. Het Parlement wordt wel geacht om in te stemmen met de oprichting van dergelijke mechanismen, maar heeft achteraf het raden naar de concrete invulling en besteding van die middelen. Het is mijn taak als voorzitter van de Begrotingscommissie om hierop te wijzen en te blijven wijzen.

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS
Vizepräsident

  Nicolae Ştefănuță, Raportor. – Doamnule președinte, domnule comisar Hahn, doamna ministră Bek, chiar acum o mamă aprinde cuptorul pentru a găti copiilor singura dată pe săptămâna asta, ca să nu consume gaz, care a devenit atât de scump. Chiar acum, un student din Sibiu renunță la planul de a studia în Franța, pentru că 500 de euro nu mai sunt de mult 500 de euro, ci 420 de euro din cauza inflației, iar chiriile au crescut enorm.

Chiar acum, extremiștii se pregătesc să dea foc Uniunii, iar dacă noi nu răspundem în 2023 acestor crize, în 2024 ne va fi mult prea târziu. Am luptat împreună cu cei care au fost raportori din umbră aici, împreună cu care am fost o echipă, să obținem mai mult pentru Europa și pentru europeni și am obținut cu un miliard de euro mai mult, pentru trei direcții care corespund direcțiilor pe care ni le-au cerut oamenii și acestea sunt energie și facturi mai mici.

Am obținut 80 de milioane în plus pentru Orizont Europa, 100 de milioane în plus pentru Facilitarea Conectarea Europei care finanțează rețele de energie și transport. 30 de milioane în plus pentru Programul LIFE care nu este numai despre mediu, este și despre energie.

Doi, am luptat ca să atenuăm efectele războiului. Am obținut 120 de milioane de euro pentru Erasmus+, pentru studenții care suferă în Europa, 50 de milioane în plus pentru Fondul de azil și din acești bani dorim să vedem bani care merg și pentru Schengen, încât să nu mai avem scuze în ziua de 8 decembrie și să lăsăm România, Bulgaria și Croația să intre, pentru că avem toate dotările necesare. Am obținut 210 milioane de euro pentru Ucraina și pentru Moldova, pentru că acești oameni suferă nu doar de război, suferă și de ger. Și în final ,și este important, pentru Uniunea Europeană, pentru integrarea noastră, am obținut bani în plus, peste 60 de milioane de euro pentru mobilitatea militară, pentru că este important să fim împreună în fața crizelor mondiale.

Să nu uităm un lucru societatea europeană e importantă. Churchill a spus: „dacă tăiem banii de la cultură în timpul războiului, pentru ce mai luptăm?”. Exact așa, am luptat ca oamenii din cultură să fie ajutați. Am luptat pentru protecția civilă europeană, am luptat pentru sănătatea europeană care tocmai s-a născut și, nu în ultimul rând, am luptat pentru Parchetul European , condus de Laura Codruța Kovesi, să asigurăm transparența și dreptatea utilizării banilor europeni.

Domnilor și doamnelor, Parlamentul European a luptat în aceste negocieri și răspunde astăzi cu un buget solid de 186 de miliarde de euro. Este un buget foarte important, dar avem o problemă, domnule comisar, dacă noi dăm mai mulți bani pentru politicile de acasă, iar dacă acasă ni se răspunde că nu pot implementa, că nu aduc banii acasă, degeaba ne lăudăm, degeaba spun eu Ștefăniță, domnul Hahn, doamna Bek, că noi sprijinim politicile acestea importante, dacă statele membre nu reușesc și dacă oamenii nu văd rezultatul muncii mele.

Eu cred, domnule președinte, că este o zi bună pentru Europa astăzi. Arătăm unitate, arătăm determinare. Dar hai să vedem, să aducem Europa în casele oamenilor.

  Niclas Herbst, Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Es ist vollbracht: Wir haben ein Ergebnis in unseren Haushaltsverhandlungen. Und das an sich ist schon einmal sehr wichtig, denn ich glaube, es wäre sehr schwer zu vermitteln gewesen, dass wir uns in diesen schwierigen Zeiten sogar über vergleichsweise kleinteilige Themen streiten und es nicht schaffen, einen Haushalt zusammenzubringen.

Trotzdem bleiben auch einige grundlegende Probleme, und ich glaube, das grundlegendste ist, dass wir noch stärker daran arbeiten müssen, auch ins Verständnis aller zu bringen, dass die Europäische Union keine reine Geldverteilungsmaschine sein kann. Es geht darum, dass wir klare Prioritäten setzen, dass wir politische Prioritäten setzen, und ich glaube, dass uns das – und meine beiden Vorredner haben uns darauf hingewiesen – ganz gut gelungen ist als Parlament.

Ich möchte mich auch ganz herzlich bedanken, dass wir – auch über Parteigrenzen hinweg, trotz ja auch unterschiedlicher politischer Sichtweisen auf Prioritäten – es geschafft haben, uns zu einigen und zumindest einige dieser Prioritäten auch haushaltstechnisch verankern zu können.

Für die Zukunft müssen wir lernen, dass wir eben auch mit diesen Prioritäten die Zukunft determinieren. Wir reden über vergleichsweise kleine Beträge. Und wenn man den Gesamthaushalt sieht und den engen Rahmen, den uns der mehrjährige Finanzrahmen bietet, kann man vielleicht an der einen oder anderen Stelle denken: Na ja, das sind nur kleinere Beträge. Aber es geht eben auch darum, für die Zukunft ganz klare Prioritäten zu setzen, und da sind auch kleinere symbolische Beträge manchmal sehr, sehr wichtig.

Wir haben in der Rubrik 7 gesehen, dass die Situation insgesamt sehr schwierig ist. Wir haben als Parlament von Anfang an darauf hingearbeitet, auch hier eine klare Linie zu zeigen. Wir haben es auch gegenüber unserem eigenen Präsidium geschafft, Kürzungen durchzusetzen. Wir haben auf gesetzliche Bestimmungen hingewiesen, auf die Energiesituation. Wir haben einfach eine schwierige Situation, auch in dieser Rubrik.

Aber gerade hier müssen wir auch für die Zukunft lernen. Ich bin sehr froh, dass wir mit dem Thema Cybersecurity einen klaren Schwerpunkt setzen konnten, dass wir es geschafft haben, hier eine echte Verstärkung durchzusetzen, und dass wir uns auch ganz klar dazu committed haben und darauf geeinigt haben, dass wir hier auch stark zusammenarbeiten wollen in der Zukunft. Das ist etwas, was wir an dieser Stelle ja auch oft genug betont haben.

Das zeigt eben, dass wir die Herausforderungen der Zukunft auch im Haushalt sehen können müssen. Und wir sagen auch als Parlament, dass wir unserer Rolle als Anwalt der anderen Institutionen gerecht werden wollen; denn Europa funktioniert nur dann, wenn alle Institutionen gut arbeiten können und wenn sie auch finanziell und materiell und auch personell so ausgestattet sind, dass sie ihr Mandat erfüllen können. Das gilt auch für uns als Parlament, wohlwissend, dass uns hier auch eine schwierige Situation bevorsteht, denn die Situation in der Rubrik 7 wird ja nicht einfacher im nächsten Jahr. Wir haben es diesmal ja auch nur relativ knapp geschafft, unter dem Flexibilitätsinstrument zu bleiben. Wir werden auch als Parlament daran arbeiten müssen, dass wir in Zukunft ebenfalls diese Latte nicht reißen. Und deshalb sind wir auch in Zukunft darauf angewiesen, gut zusammenzuarbeiten.

Ich bedanke mich bei den Schattenberichterstattern, ich bedanke mich auch bei der Ratspräsidentschaft und auch bei der Kommission, die hier ihrer Rolle als Hüterin der Verträge und ehrlicher Makler gerecht geworden ist.

Wir haben gerade 70 Jahre Europäisches Parlament gefeiert. Ich denke, dass wir unserer Verantwortung auch als Gesetzgeber in Zukunft gerecht werden. Wir werden unsere Rolle selbstbewusst verteidigen, auch das lernen wir nach 70 Jahren Europäisches Parlament.

  Mikuláš Bek, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, it’s my pleasure to attend today the European Parliament’s debate on the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2023. I would like to express the Council’s satisfaction that we were able to reach an agreement in the Conciliation Committee in the very last minutes of 14 November, the last day of the conciliation period, after long and intense discussions. The positive outcome of the negotiations shows that our three institutions can work efficiently in a spirit of good cooperation. Together, we negotiated a budget for 2023, which responds to the concerns of today and to the requirements of tomorrow of European citizens. The European Parliament and the Council have worked hard to find a solution that would equip the Union for the challenges of the third year of the Multiannual Financial Framework. The deal we have reached reflects our common priorities, in particular addressing the consequences of the war in Ukraine, the severe energy crisis combined with the historically high level of inflation, the disruption of global supply lines and the enduring post-pandemic recovery, all in addition to fighting climate change and fostering the EU’s green and digital transition.

I will not hide from you that the Council would have preferred more flexibility in the budget to allow the Union to promptly react to unexpected events that we may face in these unpredictable times. In the official meetings in the course of the year, as well as during informal contacts, the Council appreciated very much the positive atmosphere that prevailed in these talks. Both sides of the table were ready to engage constructively to reach an agreement, to reframe the discussion around the shared interests and come up with solutions. I am glad to inform you that after the successful outcome of the Conciliation Committee on 14 November, the joint text was formally approved by the Council earlier today by a qualified majority. The Council expects the European Parliament to also approve the joint text tomorrow. The general budget for the financial year 2023 will then be adopted within the deadlines foreseen by the Treaty.

Coming to the end of my intervention. I would like to thank the Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, Johan van Overtveldt, and the rapporteurs, Nicolae Ștefănuță and Niclas Herbst, for the good cooperation during the last weeks and months. I would also like to extend my special thanks to you, Commissioner Hahn, for the way you facilitated the negotiations.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, dear Minister, honourable Members and, in particular, dear rapporteurs, of course I welcome the agreement on the European Union annual budget 2023 reached by the Conciliation Committee on Monday 14 November, as usual just before midnight. This is not really unexpected, but let me also say, for the protocol, that I very much welcome the fact that we have this debate at a very prominent time. But I have to say that it’s for the second time in a row that I am missing a College meeting, because nowadays Parliament is debating at the time when the College meeting is taking place, and I think that’s something I would really like to reconsider for the future anyway.

I think the fact that we got an agreement is our shared success. This was already expressed by the previous speakers. In such unprecedented times, it was more than ever important to put aside our differences and to work together on reaching our shared goals and priorities. The initial positions were, like always, quite far apart – a couple of billion euros – but finally it was possible to reconcile them. I appreciate that all parties acted responsibly and made the necessary compromises in order to have finally a solid agreement on time.

I would like to thank the European Parliament, especially the Committee on Budgets and all the specialised committees, for the intensive work on the Commission’s proposal for the draft budget 2023. This is a half—year work which starts usually in early July. On behalf of the Commission, I really would like to thank, in particular, the Chair, Mr Van Overtveldt, and the two rapporteurs, Mr Ştefănuță and Mr Herbst, for their cooperation. I would also like to thank the Czech Presidency – and please convey thanks to the Minister Georgiev for his constructive approach during these negotiations.

It also shows that the institutions can work towards a compromise for the benefit of the European Union and its citizens. For this, again, congratulations to the negotiators and the teams. I would also like to include in this my own team, because they have done a great job. For Johan Ureel, who is with me today, this will be his final budget. He was our ‘Mr Budget’. He made seven annual budgets and before that he was in charge of the MFF for 14 years. So Johan, thank you very much for your impressive job.

Let me now give you a few details on the agreement. The overall level of commitment appropriations in next year’s budget is set at EUR 186.6 billion. The overall level of payment appropriations in the 2023 budget is set at EUR 168.7 billion. The rapporteurs have already explained the reinforcements for Parliament’s priorities, with emphasis on Ukraine, Moldova, tackling the energy crisis, building solidarity lanes, strengthening Erasmus+, LIFE, SMEs, EU4Health, Creative Europe, rights and values programmes, as well as the European Solidarity Corps, reinforcing migration funds, providing funds for military mobility, supporting the Eastern and Southern Neighbourhood, the key Global Europe Programme and strengthening the asylum agency and eu—LISA – just to list a few agreed reinforcements.

But the annual budget also includes a package of 39 pilot projects and preparatory actions for a total amount of EUR 80.1 billion as proposed by Parliament. Once adopted, the annual budget 2023 would allow the Union to mobilise significant funds to help mitigate the severe consequences of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, not only in the country but also in the Member States and in the neighbourhood.

It would also support the ongoing sustainable recovery from the coronavirus pandemic by maintaining and creating jobs. It would trigger further investments into a greener, more digital and more resilient Europe while protecting the most vulnerable in the European Union, its neighbourhood and around the world. Next year’s budget will direct funds to where they can make the greatest difference, in line with the most crucial needs of the Member States and the Union’s partners around the world.

Looking forward, let me recall that we are almost halfway through the long—term budget. With the numerous unprecedented developments and challenges it has become even more clear that we should focus on a limited number of important issues to maximise the effectiveness of our funding, with targeted reinforcements concentrated on a limited number of issues with a real impact. In that respect, I would like to thank the rapporteurs again because there was some progress compared to the previous budget, but I think even more focusing and targeted reinforcements could be possible.

I also reiterate my strong plea for all institutions to exercise restraint in administrative expenditure and to keep stable staff numbers in order not to increase the heavy pressure on Heading 7. The reality is that we cannot continue adding new posts for institutions and respect the ceiling and sub—ceilings in Heading 7.

Going forward, we will have to face some tough choices between what we would like to do and what we can do. The key word is negative priorities. I can assure you that the Commission will focus its future proposal, including the upcoming draft budget 2024, on the most effective and efficient use of our limited resources, to deliver on our citizens expectations and needs.

  Janusz Lewandowski, w imieniu grupy PPE. – Panie Przewodniczący! Porozumienia budżetowe to zawsze jest dobra wiadomość w tych niespokojnych czasach, pośród tylu niepewności. To jest budżet czasu wojny. Macro-Financial Assistance nie rodzi bezpośrednich skutków budżetowych, ale w tym budżecie kryją się elementy pomocy dla Ukrainy, przede wszystkim w polityce sąsiedztwa.

Jest to budżet czasu inflacji, co podraża realizowane projekty. Jest to budżet wysokich stóp procentowych, co zwiększa koszt obsługi European Recovery Instrument. Małe marginesy wymusiły sięgnięcie po instrumenty specjalne: Flexibility i Single Margin Instrument.

Parlament Europejski zwiększył finansowanie swoich priorytetów o 687 mln euro. Oczywiście nasz sprawozdawca, bo to też jest jego, przede wszystkim, zasługa – Nicolae Ştefănuță – dolicza, i słusznie, the commitments. A to, że obie strony wyszły z negocjacji w miarę zadowolone, to już jest miara kreatywności Komisji Europejskiej pod wodzą Komisarza Hahna. Priorytety są bardzo dobrze zarysowane, to również priorytety polityczne mojej grupy: Horyzont – tu wykorzystujemy art. 15 rozporządzenia finansowego, Connectivity – energetyczna i transportowa, małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa, EU Health, Creative Europe, Clean Energy Transition i Partnerstwo Wschodnie.

Co najważniejsze, w tych niespokojnych czasach, dając pewność finansowania, wnieśliśmy skromny wkład w zmniejszenie niepewności i lęków o przyszłość, które wróciły na nasz kontynent.

  Victor Negrescu, în numele grupului S&D. – Domnule președinte, dragi colegi, am reușit, am salvat bugetul european pentru anul viitor de politica austerității și de cei care, în contextul dificil actual, doresc să pună în pericol construcția europeană cu un buget mai mic de subzistență.

Dacă ne dorim o Uniune Europeană mai unită și mai puternică, care să ofere răspunsuri adecvate pentru războiul din Ucraina și pentru gestionarea efectelor pandemiei, care să protejeze cu adevărat cetățenii europeni, în contextul inflației galopante și a crizei din domeniul energiei sau care să se ridice la nivelul așteptărilor noastre comune, ne trebuie un buget mai ambițios. Însă, din păcate, nu toți decidenții înțeleg acest lucru. Am negociat până în ultima clipă pentru a proteja programele și politicile europene esențiale pentru cetățenii noștri în contextul actual, am reușit să obținem alocări suplimentare de fonduri pentru a combate creșterea prețurilor la energie pentru sectorul transportului, pentru IMM-uri, pentru educație, pentru tineri, mediu sau cultură.

Acest buget prevede, de asemenea, resurse suplimentare pentru Republica Moldova și Ucraina, dar și pentru intrarea României, Bulgariei și Croației în spațiul Schengen. Pentru a asigura resursele necesare implementării ambițiilor noastre comune fac apel la revizuirea bugetului european pe termen lung.

  Fabienne Keller, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président Othmar Karas, Monsieur le Commissaire Johannes Hahn, Monsieur le Ministre des affaires européennes tchèque, tout d’abord, je voudrais féliciter mes collègues, et d’abord Nicolae Ştefănuță, pour son énorme travail et pour l’accord ambitieux qui a été conclu sur le budget 2023. Je voudrais saluer aussi Niclas Herbst, pour son travail sur les autres sections.

Cela a été dit à plusieurs reprises, 2023 va de nouveau être une année exceptionnelle pour notre budget. Nous devrons faire face à de nombreux défis: conséquences de la guerre en Ukraine, conséquences de la pandémie, crises énergétique et économique. C’est pourquoi nous avons soutenu un budget plus ambitieux, pour nous donner les moyens de relever ces défis et surtout pour être aux côtés des citoyens européens les plus impactés. Nous avons donc un budget plus ambitieux pour la santé, pour l’énergie, pour le climat, pour la défense, pour les transports, pour la gestion de nos frontières et pour venir en aide à nos voisins ukrainiens.

Nous devons aussi nous préparer au changement climatique, en limiter les effets. C’est pourquoi nous avons voté ici, à Strasbourg, un paquet climat ambitieux. Il faudra nous en donner les moyens. Or, il nous en reste peu, Monsieur le Commissaire, pour la fin de ce contrat financier pluriannuel. C’est pourquoi nous plaidons pour une révision tout aussi ambitieuse.

Être à la hauteur: nous devons l’être face à la montée des populismes en Europe qui, chaque jour, font de l’Union européenne leur bouc émissaire et la raison de tous les maux. Ce budget, nous devons le protéger contre ces populismes qui l’utilisent à leurs propres fins, sans respecter l’état de droit et ses principes fondamentaux. Nous devons, Monsieur le Commissaire, appliquer avec rigueur la conditionnalité.

Ce budget porte une ambition pour l’Europe. Ce projet, c’est ce qui nous permet d’être plus forts ensemble et à la hauteur des enjeux.

  Francisco Guerreiro, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear all, Europe is facing multiple crises with the war in Ukraine, the fossil energy dependence, the inflation and the growing climate collapse.

That is why it was so vital that we reach an agreement on making the EU more resilient to the challenges we currently face through the EU budget for 2023. And our 2023 budget shows focus: focus on helping people both in European Union and in the rest of the world; focus on supporting citizens affected by the economic downturn; focus on restoring nature affected by climate change; and focus on those who are most affected by war.

But this focus came with hard work. If we look at the budget proposed by the Commission back in June, the Parliament achieved quite a lot. We have made substantial reinforcements for the environment and climate, energy and health policies, and we also have strengthened the support for our eastern and southern neighbourhoods, and we also have increased the budget for humanitarian aid.

However, we all know that this is not enough. We need to be more active on all of those key areas. Therefore, we must push the Commission and the Council to urgently revise the multiannual framework. The EU budget cannot be pushed to the limit where it won’t serve its purpose. And the overall goal is to speed the EU shift towards a decarbonised economy, builds a fairer society, and continue to be a major player in geopolitical affairs.

  Joachim Kuhs, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar Hahn, werte Kollegen, Herr Minister! Herzlichen Glückwunsch zu diesem Haushalt! Sie haben es geschafft, in letzter Sekunde sozusagen, diesen auf Kante genähten Haushalt noch zu verabschieden. Sie waren natürlich zum Erfolg verdammt, sozusagen. Sie konnten gar nicht anders als eine Einigung zu erzielen. Wenn Sie es nicht gemacht hätten, hätten wir von vorne anfangen dürfen und können und der Haushalt wäre nicht mehr rechtzeitig in Kraft getreten. Deshalb: Sie waren zum Erfolg verdammt.

Dennoch bleibt als Fazit zu ziehen: Dieser Haushalt ist so eng gestrickt, so auf Kante genäht, dass er bei der nächsten Krise – und die nächste Krise wird kommen – platzen wird. Heute werden schon Vorschläge gemacht, wie man diesen Haushalt einer gründlichen Revision unterziehen soll, wie man ihn ändern soll, wie man versuchen soll, ihn noch irgendwie zu erweitern. Dabei ist er schon bis unter den letzten headroom voll. Wie wollen Sie das machen? Ich muss kein Prophet sein, um Ihnen zu sagen, dass wir in den nächsten Sitzungen im nächsten Jahr immer wieder und immer wieder diesen Haushalt anpacken werden und ihn berichtigen müssen. Änderungen müssen stattfinden, weil er eben so gestrickt wurde.

Ich habe 300 Änderungsanträge mit einem Kürzungsvolumen von 55 % eingereicht. Wenn Sie das gemacht hätten, dann müssten Sie ihn nicht nächstes Jahr wieder komplett neu stricken.

  Bogdan Rzońca, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Oczywiście poprzemy jako ECR ten budżet, dlatego że są tu środki finansowe na płatności, dlatego że można będzie realizować założone działania i dlatego że też jest odpowiedź – dobra odpowiedź na naszą propozycję, żeby pomóc Ukrainie.

Oczywiście ECR wniósł też swoje poprawki, w szczególności dotyczące mobilności wojskowej, dotyczące pomocy humanitarnej. Te poprawki zostały zaakceptowane, więc widzimy plus w tym całym budżecie. No i oczywiście mamy obawy, tak jak wszyscy, co się wydarzy dalej. Niemniej jednak, na dzisiaj chcielibyśmy to wyraźnie zaznaczyć, że była wola współpracy w trakcie konsyliacji, że te pieniądze na Ukrainę są bardzo ważne dla uchodźców. Tych, którzy są, no ale tych, którzy są poza granicami Ukrainy, którzy uciekli przed tą wojną. Są dodatkowe środki na mobilność wojskową, na energię. Bardzo ciekawe pieniądze dla studentów ukraińskich, więc to wszystko zasługuje na uznanie. I oczywiście chcemy też zaznaczyć, że będzie można realizować politykę spójności, wspólną politykę rolną w roku 2023.

To dla nas jest także bardzo ważne.

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο προσπάθησε και πέτυχε κάποιες βελτιώσεις στην πρόταση της Επιτροπής. Ήταν μια δύσκολη προσπάθεια στην οποία μετείχα ενεργά εκ μέρους της Ομάδας The Left στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Και ήταν δύσκολη γιατί, ως συνήθως, το Συμβούλιο ζητούσε δραστικές περικοπές. Aλλά οι βελτιώσεις που πετύχαμε σε αυτόν τον δύσκολο συμβιβασμό δεν είναι αρκετές και για αυτό δεν συμμερίζομαι τους πανηγυρισμούς ορισμένων συναδέλφων.

Διότι ο προϋπολογισμός για το 2023 είναι το 1,14% του ευρωπαϊκού ΑΕΠ —μικρότερος από τον περσινό προϋπολογισμό που ήταν το 1,18% του ευρωπαϊκού ΑΕΠ, κύριοι του Συμβουλίου. Και ο ελέφαντας στο δωμάτιο είναι ότι δεν μπορούμε να υλοποιήσουμε τους στόχους που έχετε θέσει εσείς, της Επιτροπής, και εσείς, του Συμβουλίου, με έναν προϋπολογισμό παγωμένο στο 1% του ευρωπαϊκού ΑΕΠ. Και ο δεύτερος ελέφαντας στο δωμάτιο είναι ότι ήδη έχουν εξαντληθεί τα περιθώρια ενός πολυετούς δημοσιονομικού πλαισίου, το οποίο σχεδιάστηκε σε άλλες συνθήκες.

Για αυτό, αντί να συγχαίρουμε εαυτούς και αλλήλους, θα πρέπει να δεσμευτεί η Επιτροπή ότι θα παρουσιάσει, κύριε Hahn, μια φιλόδοξη αναπροσαρμογή του πολυετούς δημοσιονομικού πλαισίου μέσα στις αρχές του 2023. Γιατί, αν δεν το κάνετε, θα έχετε σοβαρό μερίδιο ευθύνης. Ξέρω ότι το θέλετε, αλλά πρέπει και να το τολμήσετε. Και οι frugals του Συμβουλίου, που κρατάνε δεμένη την Ευρώπη σε έναν προϋπολογισμό του 1%, πρέπει να αλλάξουν την άποψή τους.

  Andor Deli (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Gratulálok az előadóknak, hogy sikerült egyezségre jutni a 23-as költségvetésről. Ez garantálni fogja azt, hogy lesz elegendő pénz az uniós programok támogatására. Ugyanakkor nekünk, a Fidesz-delegációban elvi fenntartásaink vannak, mivel a Magyarország ellen indított eljárások még nem értek véget. Számunkra nagyon fontos, hogy tisztán tudjuk látni a jövő évi forrásainkat. A magyar mezőgazdasági stratégiai terv már jóváhagyásra került a Bizottság részéről, és bízunk abban, hogy a kohéziós partnerségi megállapodás is hamarosan megkötésre kerül.

Ugyanakkor ismerjük a helyreállítási alap körüli helyzetet, tegnap pedig azt is jól láthattuk, hogy az Európai Parlament balliberális oldala nem nyugszik: még a saját találmányának, a kondicionalitási eljárásnak a betű szerinti végrehajtását sem fogadja el. El akarják venni a Magyarországnak járó uniós pénzeket. Zavarja őket, hogy a Bizottság és a magyar kormány higgadtan és sikeresen tárgyalnak, és a helyzet rendezésétől immár csak napok választanak el bennünket. Ezért parlamenti állásfoglalással akarják nyomás alá helyezni a Bizottságot és a Tanácsot a végleges döntéshozatal előtt. Mindezek miatt úgy döntöttünk, hogy tartózkodni fogunk az idei költségvetési szavazáson.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, caras e caros Colegas, o orçamento da União Europeia é sempre um investimento, uma mais-valia para toda a Europa.

As despesas de administração são apenas 6% do orçamento da União. Um orçamento que é essencial para o crescimento, a competitividade e a coesão territorial, e que deve ter uma atenção redobrada, e as nossas propostas vão nesse sentido, face à situação atual das famílias e das pequenas e médias empresas.

Aos Estados-Membros não faltam milhões neste momento, e 2023 é um ano essencial. Se olharmos para o meu país, tem 10 500 milhões de euros disponíveis em 2023. O Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014-2020 acaba em 2023. O de 2021-2027 já deveria estar em execução, e ainda temos o Plano de Recuperação e Resiliência.

Exigimos agora aos Estados que cumpram, que executem, a favor dos portugueses no caso de Portugal, dos cidadãos europeus, e também a solidariedade externa é essencial com a Ucrânia e com os países em desenvolvimento.

  Evin Incir (S&D). – Mr President, colleagues, our Union and our Member States are not a desert island. So the development in one part of the world affects other parts of the world. In a time of global challenges, we therefore must ensure EU global leadership, an EU that not only take talks the talk about peace, human rights, freedom and security, but also walks the talk. Feminist economic policy is imperative for a gender-equal world.

Colleagues, as the Committee of Foreign Affairs standing rapporteur for the relations with Palestine, I also want to remind everyone in here on our responsibility towards the Palestinian people. Generations of Palestinians are living as refugees.

We must ensure political support to end the Israeli occupation and pave the way for a two-state solution, as well as ensure financial support for them to live as decent a life as possible under a currently abnormal situation. Yes, occupation is abnormal, inhuman and it’s a violation of international law.

I am glad, however, that in 2023 budget we are clear on the importance to continue our support to UNRAM, including increased support since the needs have grown. I must say that I have been I have been very disappointed and ashamed of this Parliament about the ongoing debates and discussions that have taken place the last two years on trying to undermine the important work that UNWRA is doing.

  Alexandra Geese (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der EU-Haushalt für 2023 wurde unter extremen Bedingungen ausgehandelt: ein brutaler russischer Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine, die dort nicht nur ihr eigenes Land, sondern gerade auch unsere Werte – Demokratie und Freiheit – verteidigt und dafür unsere Solidarität mehr als verdient hat.

Gleichzeitig stehen wir vor einer Energiepreiskrise und einer Inflation, die Europäerinnen und Europäer um ihre Existenz bangen lässt. Und wir stehen vor der immer schneller voranschreitenden Klimakatastrophe, die die Weltgemeinschaft vor noch schwerere Herausforderungen stellen wird. Darauf reagieren wir mit konkreten Maßnahmen, mit verstärkten Investitionen in die östliche und südliche Partnerschaft, die wir zum Beispiel bei der Aufnahme von Flüchtlingen unterstützen. Wir reagieren mit Erhöhungen für das LIFE-Programm, das unsere Natur bewahrt, und mit Mitteln für die Fazilität „Connecting Europe“ im Bereich Verkehr und Energie.

Europa setzt die richtigen Prioritäten – gerade in der Krise. Aber bedeutet das, dass wir handlungsfähig sind? Nein. Dafür sind unsere Spielräume zu klein. Und deswegen erwarten wir von der Kommission eine ehrgeizige Überprüfung des mehrjährigen Finanzrahmens.

  Jörg Meuthen (NI). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar Hahn, werte Kollegen! Der EU ist wirklich keine Krise zu schade, um ihr Budget noch weiter aufzupumpen und Verschuldungen zu rechtfertigen.

Beim sogenannten Corona-Wiederaufbaufonds verkaufte man uns die vertrags- und rechtswidrige gemeinsame Schuldenaufnahme als einmalige Ausnahme. Der nun vorliegende Haushaltsentwurf der Kommission für 2023 sieht nun aber schon wieder vor, dass die EU eigene Schulden aufnimmt – diesmal mit Verweis auf den Krieg in der Ukraine. So richtig es ist, wenn die einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten dem Land in seiner Not helfen, so absurd ist es zugleich, dass die EU sich als Gemeinschaft verschuldet, damit die Ukraine ihre Staatsausgaben decken kann.

Ich sage es nicht zum ersten und sicher nicht zum letzten Mal: Nichts kann den Bruch der europäischen Verträge in Form einer Schuldengemeinschaft rechtfertigen. Niemals darf die EU eine Schuldenlizenz oder eigene Steuerhoheit erhalten. Es muss bei der reinen Beitragsfinanzierung durch die souveränen Mitgliedstaaten bleiben. So sehen es die Verträge vor, und dieses Haus hat die Pflicht, für die Einhaltung der Verträge zu sorgen.

Zusätzliche Schulden, um jetzt noch mehr Geld in den Markt zu pumpen, und das auf Kosten der kommenden Generationen, ist im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes – Verzeihung – asozial.

  Siegfried Mureşan (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, the European Union has a budget for 2023, and that is good news. All beneficiaries of EU funds now have certainty. Farmers, researchers, small and medium-sized enterprises: they all know that money will come and money will come on time. That is good news.

I would like to congratulate the two co-rapporteurs of the Parliament, Mr Ştefănuță and Mr Herbst, for defending so successfully the priorities of the Parliament. And I would like to thank the Commission, and Commissioner Hahn personally, for the extremely helpful, useful, essential role that they have played in finding a common position between the Parliament and the Council.

It is clear that for next year we have a budget. But we also need to work on the long term and we need to do two things, because the multiannual financial framework has shown its limits. We saw that the budget only has a limited capacity to respond to unforeseen situations.

We should do two things, Minister, Commissioner, colleagues: firstly, we should start together the work on the revision of the multiannual financial framework, and secondly we should clarify the repayment for NextGenerationEU so that it doesn’t become a burden for the budget of the European Union in the future.

  Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjereniče, kolegice i kolege, kada sam prošle godine predstavljao rezultate pregovora za ovogodišnji proračun bilo je nemoguće predvidjeti koliko će dramatično različita biti situacija na europskom kontinentu, koliko će ruska agresija na Ukrajinu okrenuti novo poglavlje i predstaviti jedan novi test, ne samo za našu Uniju nego za cijelu europsku civilizaciju.

Jedan od ključnih aspekata na koji možemo djelovati u takvoj situaciji je proračun. Zato nam treba snažni europski proračun koji je glavni alat našeg odgovora na rastuće europske prioritete.

Imamo jasnu, ljudsku, moralnu dužnost pomoći Ukrajini i pomoći ukrajinskom narodu u borbi za njihovu slobodu.

Moramo također osnažiti našu energetsku neovisnost procesom zelene tranzicije, ali također na jedan pametan način trebamo osigurati dovoljna sredstva za naše poduzetnike, istraživače i studente.

Sve to je sažeto u preko 186 milijardi eura ovog proračuna i zato čestitam izvjestiteljima koji su predvodili pregovore.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I have listened very carefully to the debate, the priorities and views expressed in this House with respect to the 2023 budget. I note that even so some Members have some hesitations on some specific points we have agreed upon. There is a large support for the overall outcome of these intensive negotiations. Let me stress that the agreement on the 2023 budget respects the agreement on the current MMF and it reflects the priorities of all the three institutions. But there is very limited space for enforcements. I think I have to recall that more than 99% of the budget is pre-allocated and that is why it is not so easy to identify opportunities of relocations, enforcements, etc. and to keep, which was also expressed by some speakers, the necessary flexibility in order to address necessities which might pop up in the course of the upcoming year.

But I think it is nevertheless a very positive signal. And this I would say in particular to our audience, that the institutions have been able to reach a timely agreement on next year’s budget. This agreement will ensure that the union has the necessary financial means to respond effectively to the challenges within the Union and globally. The agreement would not have been possible without that determination, the constructive and responsible approach of the European Parliament throughout the whole process, and the same applies to the Council negotiating team.

We know there will be new challenges in 2021 and probably there will be additional challenges we don’t know about yet, but at least in budgetary terms, we have a solid basis and still have some limited margin for manoeuvre for unforeseen events in these challenging times.

So I thank first the Council for already its decision today, and after today’s discussion I am reassured that the honourable Members of this House will give their full support to the results achieved during the vote tomorrow.

  Mikuláš Bek, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable members, Commissioner Hahn, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for this exchange of views. It has shown that we are united in our commitment to build a better Europe to the benefit of all our citizens.

Let me stress once again that the agreement reached on the budget for 2023 is a balanced compromise. I trust that this compromise budget will allow the Union to adequately finance its different priorities, which have been mentioned a number of times today and which are indeed unprecedented.

These priorities are dealing with the consequences of the war in Ukraine and the related severe energy crises, high inflation and disruption of global supply lines, in addition to advancing the post-pandemic recovery, fighting climate change and fostering the green and digital transition. I thank you once more for your attention.

  Johan Van Overtveldt, voorzitter Begrotingscommissie. – Voorzitter, minister, commissaris, collega’s, ik had het in mijn inleidende toespraak al over de rol die het Parlement zou moeten spelen bij de opmaak van de begroting. Het gaat hierbij niet alleen over het correct toepassen van de bevoegdheden van de Europese instellingen, maar zeker ook over het waken over de kwaliteit van uitgaven die gedaan worden. Daarnaast moet er voldoende aandacht zijn voor het detecteren en corrigeren van fraude, oneigenlijk gebruik van middelen en fenomenen zoals mogelijke double funding. Ik ben er trouwens van overtuigd dat mijn collega, de voorzitter van de Commissie begrotingscontrole, dezelfde mening is toegedaan.

Concluderend zou ik het volgende willen zeggen: de begroting voor 2023 of het akkoord bereikt over deze begroting heeft zeker zijn verdienste. Ik wil echter ook een warme maar dringende oproep doen. De Europese instellingen moeten loskomen van de waan van de dag. Men moet durven nadenken over de keuzes die ons op langere termijn het meest te bieden hebben en die ons ook een voorsprong kunnen geven. Op inhoudelijk vlak, maar ook de manier waarop we dat beleid op een transparante en effectieve manier vertalen in een goede begroting. Tot slot wil ik graag alle medewerkers en verantwoordelijken van harte danken voor al hun inspanningen tijdens de lange procedure die vooraf is gegaan aan dit moment, namelijk de goedkeuring van het akkoord voor de begroting van het komende jaar. Daarom wil ik ook uitdrukkelijk de beide rapporteurs feliciteren, de commissaris bedanken, de mensen van het voorzitterschap bedanken en aan allen nogmaals grote dank voor de volgehouden inspanningen.

  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Mittwoch, 23. November 2022, statt.

10. Sistemul de resurse proprii al Uniunii Europene (dezbatere)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Valérie Hayer und José Manuel Fernandes im Namen des Haushaltsausschusses über den Vorschlag für einen Beschluss des Rates zur Änderung des Beschlusses (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 über das Eigenmittelsystem der Europäischen Union (COM(2021)0570 – C9-0034/2022 – 2021/0430(CNS)) (A9-0266/2022).

Das ist eine gute Ergänzung zu den offenen Frage der letzten Debatte.

  Valérie Hayer, rapporteure. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le ministre, chers collègues, en 2020, nous avons mis sur pied le plan de relance, un chantier inédit dans l’histoire de l’Europe, avec des retombées économiques sans précédent aux quatre coins du continent. De l’argent qui permet d’isoler nos bâtiments, de développer nos champions du numérique, de créer des emplois de qualité. Ce plan de relance, il protège les Européens, il protège notre prospérité. Et ce plan de relance, chers collègues, nous l’avons adossé à un deuxième plan, un plan de remboursement. Plan de remboursement qui était une nécessité absolue pour rassurer à la fois contribuables et investisseurs.

Nous nous sommes engagés auprès des Européens. Nous, députés, Commission, États membres, nous nous sommes engagés. Nous avons pris l’engagement que cela ne se ferait ni en augmentant les impôts ni en coupant dans les programmes, parce que c’était aussi cela le risque que nous encourions si nous ne pensions, dès 2020, aux moyens de rembourser la dette.

Parce qu’à l’époque, deux options simples se présentaient aux États. Première option: augmenter leur contribution et, en conséquence, les impôts directs qui pèsent sur les citoyens, sur les entreprises, sur les PME dans nos territoires. Cela alors même que nous mettions en place cet instrument pour éviter à ces acteurs du territoire de payer les pots cassés de la crise économique liée au COVID, qui a plongé tout le monde dans les difficultés que nous connaissons. Évidemment, cette option, nous l’avons écartée.

Deuxième option: devoir se résoudre à aller piocher dans nos programmes européens, retirer des aides aux agriculteurs, réduire le nombre de jeunes pouvant partir en Erasmus, revoir à la baisse notre objectif en matière de dépenses de recherche et de développement. Tout cela pour faire de la place pour rembourser l’emprunt. Et bien sûr cette option-là, nous l’avons également écartée.

C’est avec responsabilité que nous nous sommes mis d’accord pour écarter ces deux hypothèses et que nous avons décidé d’une troisième voie. Non, chers collègues, les Européens ne porteront pas la charge de la dette parce que nous avons décidé collectivement que les grands pollueurs, les importateurs de CO2 étrangers, les grandes multinationales qui ne paient pas leur juste part d’impôts, les spéculateurs financiers, que tous ces acteurs-là contribueraient à ce remboursement. Et ce n’est pas seulement une question budgétaire, c’est aussi et avant tout une question de justice fiscale et sociale. Et les Européens auront raison de considérer que le plan de relance sera une réussite pleine et entière, à condition seulement que nous respections également cet accord de remboursement jusqu’au bout.

Et là, je me serais bien tournée vers le ministre représentant les États membres aujourd’hui, mais il n’y a plus personne. Alors, je le rappelle à tous et aux États également, cette dette commune, nous devrons la rembourser à partir de 2028, c’est-à-dire dans cinq ans, c’est-à-dire demain. C’est une question de respect de nos engagements en tant que décideurs politiques et de crédibilité auprès des investisseurs. C’est pourquoi le Parlement, à l’heure où nous sommes en train de finaliser les négociations sur la réforme du marché carbone, sur le mécanisme d’ajustement carbone aux frontières, le Parlement reconfirmera, au travers de ce vote, ce mandat avec fierté et force.

Et ce rapport n’est que le premier avant d’autres qui devront ouvrir la voie à encore plus de ressources propres, comme nous l’avons convenu dès 2020, là encore. L’Europe remboursera sa dette en faisant contribuer ceux qui ne paient pas leur juste part d’impôts et non pas en taxant plus les contribuables européens.

  José Manuel Fernandes, Relator. – Senhor Presidente, caras e caros Colegas, Senhor Comissário, este Parlamento Europeu desde sempre defendeu novas receitas para o Orçamento da União Europeia, verdadeiros recursos próprios, que deveriam ser genuínos e não exclusivas transferências dos respetivos orçamentos dos Estados.

É essencial que se acabe com a distinção entre contribuintes líquidos e beneficiários líquidos. Na verdade, todos os Estados-Membros são beneficiários do orçamento da União Europeia, e muitos daqueles que são os chamados frugais esquecem-se, e não dizem aos seus cidadãos, que são os que mais beneficiam, por exemplo com o mercado interno.

Ninguém se pode sentir dono do orçamento em função das transferências que se fazem e, por isso, sempre defendemos a necessária criação de novas receitas, de novos recursos próprios.

A decisão de criar novos recursos próprios é uma decisão complicada, demorada, das mais complexas que existem no ordenamento jurídico da União Europeia. A Comissão Europeia faz a sua proposta. O Parlamento Europeu dá uma opinião que não é vinculativa. Os Estados-Membros, no Conselho, têm de decidir por unanimidade, e depois há a ratificação segundo as normas constitucionais de cada parlamento nacional.

Isto também é a prova de que não há impostos europeus. No final, tem de haver uma ratificação de todos os parlamentos nacionais para termos novas receitas.

Se as receitas eram importantes, hoje ainda são muito mais importantes. Com o NextGenerationEU, a Comissão Europeia foi buscar 800 mil milhões de euros aos mercados, mas há 420 mil milhões que deram origem à criação dos planos de recuperação e resiliência e também ao reforço de alguns programas que vão ser pagos pelo orçamento da União Europeia, e que vão ser pagos até 2058. E nós não podemos penalizar as próximas gerações. Também não podemos cortar os próximos programas, e o custo do pagamento da dívida, depois de 2027, é elevado: são mais de 15 mil milhões de euros por ano, e daí a importância, cada vez maior, de novas receitas para pagarmos a dívida e para fazermos face aos novos desafios em termos daquilo que são os projetos comuns que temos de ter.

E os nossos princípios para a criação de novos recursos são simples: quem não paga deve pagar. Quem mais beneficia do mercado interno deve contribuir. Ao mesmo tempo, temos de respeitar e influenciar e procurar as prioridades deste Parlamento e da União Europeia, o combate às alterações climáticas, o objetivo do digital. E, nesse sentido, nós conseguimos e apresentámos novas propostas para recursos próprios, seguindo a linha da Comissão, o reforço do mercado de licenças de emissão, o mecanismo de ajustamento nas fronteiras, que permite mais justiça e uma concorrência mais leal. Aqueles que estão a produzir fora da União Europeia e enviam para aqui produtos que não têm as mesmas regras, nomeadamente em termos do mercado de licenças de emissões, por uma questão de justiça também devem ver esses produtos taxados.

Para além disso, os gigantes do digital e as multinacionais, que beneficiam do mercado interno, também elas devem ser chamadas a este contributo.

Eu espero que este pacote de recursos próprios, e que tem origem no acordo interinstitucional, seja respeitado e haja de seguida um novo pacote para respeitarmos o acordo interinstitucional, o roteiro, de forma a protegermos os cidadãos, respeitarmos as nossas prioridades, termos recursos para fazer face à dívida e aquilo que são os programas comuns na União Europeia que todos temos de defender.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you to all of you for providing us with your draft opinion, fully supporting our proposals to introduce new own resources based on the carbon border adjustment mechanism, the emissions trading system, and on the residual profits of large multinational enterprises.

I am glad to see that the Parliament supports our first package of own resources and I would in particular thank the two rapporteurs for their tireless push of this topic and I’m grateful for this huge backing because it is definitely necessary if we look at the, let’s say, progress on this debate. Because as it was said by the two speakers and the two rapporteurs, we need a new stream of new own resources for the EU budget to ensure that future generations don’t bear the costs of NextGenerationEU borrowing and who will benefit from it.

Why is this important? In a context of rising interest rate costs, financing NGEU debt will become more expensive than initially expected. Credible repayment of NGEU via new own resources is therefore also a litmus test for the Union to remain on the path of sustainable public finance.

But new own resources are also required to ensure the sustainable financing of the social climate fund, helping households and small and medium-sized enterprises. Thanks to the efforts of the French Presidency and an agreement between Member States, it was possible to reach an agreement between Member States on both the revised ETS directive and the CBAM regulation last summer.

At the same time, the European Parliament has adopted its reports on both proposals before the summer negotiations and both files are currently ongoing and progressing between the two institutions. This paved the way for continuing the discussions on our new own resources proposal. I welcome the progress made on the technical level under the Czech Presidency.

It will be difficult to reach an agreement on new own resources before a final agreement between Parliament and Council on the sectoral proposals is reached. However, we must keep in mind the own resource dimension and the principle of universality. No own resource should be earmarked to cover a specific type of expenditure.

As regards the sectoral legislation, let me share with you some observations.

First, on the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Negotiations on the appropriate governance mechanism are still ongoing, but the more centralised governance model seems to be the wish of Parliament and Council. This has important repercussions on own resources.

On the one hand, the Union budget share on CBAM revenues need to increase compared to the 75% that was proposed by the Commission based on a decentralised governance model. On the other hand, a centralised governance model has an important impact on the EU administration’s staffing needs.

As you know, the Commission honours the stable staffing principle. We will need to be creative and find ad hoc solutions. In your report you propose that 100% of CBAM revenues go to the EU budget. But for this we have to clarify the governance of CBAM.

On the ETS own resources and the underlying sectoral proposal, negotiations between co-legislators are progressing. As you know, the Commission proposal foresaw the financing of the social climate fund from new own resources. We welcome that both institutions agree with the objective to finance the social climate fund via the general and Union budget under the next MFF if there is agreement on a new own resource based on ETS covering road transport and buildings.

Finally, on the OECD Pillar 1 agreement, the OECD has announced that the draft of the multilateral convention would be delayed. This delay in the schedule will have again repercussions on the proposal for an EU directive on the implementation of the OECD global agreement on the relocation of taxing rights, the basis for our own resource based on profits of large multinationals.

Rest assured, the Commission will carefully monitor the process at international level concerning the Pillar 1 agreement and will take appropriate measures in relation to own resources in case Pillar 1 will not succeed.

So I’m confident that we can make further progress in the upcoming months, and we are looking forward to engaging further with you.

  Rasmus Andresen, Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Währung. – Herr Präsident! Seit mehreren Monaten blockiert Viktor Orbán die globale Mindeststeuer für große Konzerne wie Starbucks, Amazon, Bayer oder Ikea. Orbán tanzt der tschechischen Ratspräsidentschaft und der EU-Kommission in dieser Frage seit Monaten auf der Nase herum. Anstatt seine Erpressungsversuche für die Freigabe von EU-Geldern aus dem NextGenerationEU-Fonds zu ignorieren, lassen sie ihm freie Hand. Erst hieß es, dass es kurz vor dem Sommer zu einer Einigung kommen soll, dann war es der September, danach der Oktober. Jetzt deutet sich ein Deal für Dezember an. Orbán bekommt die Wiederaufbau-Milliarden und ratifiziert dafür die globale Mindeststeuer.

Dabei gibt es bessere Alternativen. Die EU-Mitgliedstaaten können die Steuer unter verstärkter Zusammenarbeit ohne Ungarn beschließen. Aber auch die USA fehlen für einen Kompromiss. Spätestens seit den midterms gibt es keine Mehrheit mehr in den US-Kammern, um die globale Mindeststeuer zu ratifizieren. Das ist extrem bitter, denn gerade jetzt in der Krise brauchen wir mehr Steuergerechtigkeit und Eigenmittel für den Haushalt, um in Klima, Forschung und Digitalisierung zu investieren.

Deshalb brauchen wir neben dem, was jetzt vorliegt, ein zweites Paket, wo aus unserer Sicht auch die EU-Digitalsteuer und eine Finanztransaktionssteuer reingehört. Unsere Unterstützung haben Sie da, aber wir wollen Sie kämpfen sehen.

  Jan Olbrycht, w imieniu grupy PPE. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Jako współsprawozdawca wieloletnich ram finansowych mam okazję przyglądać się temu, czy budżet Unii Europejskiej jest właściwie przygotowany w swojej konstrukcji do tego, żeby stawić czoło nowym wyzwaniom. Oczywiście, że w ciągu najbliższych miesięcy będziemy prosili Komisję i Radę o rewizję tego budżetu, ale kluczową kwestią jest to, z czego budżet Unii Europejskiej będzie finansowany, jakie będą źródła dochodów, jak zagwarantują nie tylko realizację polityk, ale również spłatę zadłużenia. Z tego punktu widzenia szybka decyzja dotycząca dochodów własnych jest absolutnie kluczowa dla budowania stabilnego systemu i przyszłej wieloletniej perspektywy finansowej.

  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, hoy damos un paso muy importante en la construcción europea, avanzamos en un debate crucial para nuestro futuro porque avanzamos en la obtención de nuevos recursos que nos van a permitir reembolsar el NextGeneration, un plan inédito que se puso en marcha para luchar contra los efectos del coronavirus y ahora para luchar contra las consecuencias de la guerra.

Esto constituye un claro éxito del proyecto europeo, pero, en particular, de este Parlamento porque, sin contar con verdaderas competencias legales en materia impositiva, hemos logrado condicionar el debate político y, tras muchos años, hemos conseguido que esto sea una realidad.

Tenemos una hoja de ruta que cumplir imperativamente, porque de ello va a depender la credibilidad europea y el éxito del NextGeneration. Pero tenemos que empezar a trabajar en nuevas propuestas, porque Europa necesita reforzar su presupuesto para conseguir cumplir con todo lo que los ciudadanos nos exigen y con todo lo que los Estados miembros nos encomiendan.

Sobre todo, porque tiene mucho más sentido que tengamos una política fiscal común que haga contribuir a los que escapan a los sistemas nacionales, a los que contaminan, a los que especulan y a los que se benefician de la crisis.

Así que, vamos a por ello.

  Billy Kelleher, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, I welcome the Commission's proposals. It shows commitment to the interinstitutional agreement on own resources. I mean if we expect Europe to do more, we ask Europe to do more, well then we must be willing to fund it as well.

We spoke today about 70 years of celebration of Parliament in Strasbourg, representing European citizens. So we have accountability in the context of a parliament through the democratic process but, at the same time, we have no capacity to change people’s lives and European citizens’ lives because of our inability to provide a continuity around the funding of own resources.

There is no doubt that some of the proposals put forward in regard to the Emissions Trading Scheme and the Carbon Border Adjustment Fund will by their nature reduce over a period of time. And if we want to expand the role that the European Union plays in terms of addressing climate challenges, the digitisation of our economy, supporting the next generation Recovery Resilience Fund and the challenges that are still very evident among the Member States because of the pressures with regard to cost of living, inflation and energy security, we do need to have certainty.

And I would urge the Council in particular to come forward and break loose of their chains with regard to their very restrictive views of how we fund own resources. The template is there. The OECD report has made recommendations, and I believe it is now time for the Council to come forward with proposals. I say this as a person who still advocates for the certainty of national competency around taxation, but the Council collectively can still come to an agreement to address the issue of funding own resources into the future.

  David Cormand, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire – on ne se quitte plus –, l’accord sur les ressources propres, depuis que je suis élu, en 2019, c’est à la fois une accélération et une accélération qui va trop lentement. Le rythme des urgences auxquelles nous sommes confrontés va beaucoup plus vite que le rythme auquel nous sommes en train de créer ces ressources propres.

Sur le premier paquet, ce n’est pas assez et ce n’est pas assez vite. Quand on parle du MACF, c’est trop peu d’argent par rapport à ce que nous avons à rembourser. Quand on parle du SEQE, et notamment SEQE2, qui porte des risques de fiscalité injuste, notamment sur les ménages, ce n’est pas assez, ce n’est pas assez vite et ce n’est pas assez juste.

Pour dire un mot du deuxième panier de ressources propres, j’ai vu que la Commission a essayé de l’accélérer. Il y a des mots qu’on n’entend pas ici, qu’on n’entend pas assez: taxe sur les transactions financières. Taxe sur les transactions financières. Taxe sur les transactions financières. C’est 50 milliards d’euros par an. C’est un impôt juste, une fiscalité juste. C’est sur cet objectif que nous devrons concentrer nos efforts.

  Antonio Maria Rinaldi, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, signori Commissari, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei ricordare a questa assemblea che la stragrande maggioranza dei cittadini europei è dell'opinione che per "grants", così come previsti nel Recovery Fund, si intendono risorse regalate, cioè materializzate dal nulla grazie all'Unione europea, mentre in realtà sono reperite per mezzo delle cosiddette risorse proprie.

Sarebbe pertanto opportuno informare meglio i cittadini europei che, per risorse proprie, e per il Recovery ne sono state previste delle nuove, si intendono nient'altro che tasse che direttamente o indirettamente gravano alla fine sempre sulle tasche dei cittadini.

Inoltre, ho enormi perplessità che tutti i "grants" previsti saranno poi compensati dalle entrate pianificate dalle nuove risorse proprie e si dovrà sicuramente ricorrere in corso d'opera ad altre entrate straordinarie, sempre a carico dei cittadini.

Insomma, il sistema ricorda molto il famoso gioco delle tre carte delle fiere di paese, dove è già noto chi ci rimette sempre. In fondo, come avete potuto ora constatare, basta un solo minuto per far capire correttamente ai cittadini questo equivoco.

  Bogdan Rzońca, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Komisarzu! My mówimy nie, ale nie w imię jakiejś dziwnej zasady, tylko dlatego, że wedle naszych wyliczeń, wedle wyliczeń ekspertów wszystkie te podatki bardziej dokuczą krajom biednym niż krajom bogatym. I to jest nasze podstawowe tłumaczenie przedstawiane naszym wyborcom. Zaproponowany koszyk jest niezrównoważony, nadmiernie obciąży mniej zamożne państwa członkowskie o wysoko emisyjny gospodarkach. I to jest naga prawda. Przedwczesne również jest w tym momencie podejmowanie decyzji dotyczących zasobów własnych opartych na CBAM oraz na zyskach rezydualnych.

Wszystkie dochody budżetu Unii powinny stanowić jednolitą pulę środków zgodnie z zasadą uniwersalności budżetu Unii Europejskiej i nie należy z góry przesądzać o ich przeznaczeniu w aktach sektorowych. Decyzja o wprowadzeniu nowych zasobów własnych nie powinna być podejmowana pospiesznie, na czas, bez pełnej wiedzy co do kształtu nowych mechanizmów i odpowiedniej analizy skutków. Mamy więc ogromny problem. Ta dyskusja trwa w każdej grupie politycznej. Jestem przekonany, że wszystkie grupy polityczne, nie tylko EKR, mają z tym problem, ale stawiamy sprawę jasno i wyraźnie, że nie będziemy popierać takich sytuacji, żeby pozbawić na przykład Polski wpływów z ETSu. To jest niesprawiedliwe, gdyż zabraknie nam pieniędzy na transformację energetyczną. Więc w tym wypadku EKR będzie głosował przeciw.

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η διοργανική συμφωνία για τη δημιουργία νέων ιδίων πόρων πρέπει να προχωρήσει. Πρώτον, γιατί πρέπει να βρούμε τα χρήματα για να αποπληρώσουμε το δάνειο του NextGenerationEU χωρίς να επιβαρύνουμε τον κοινοτικό προϋπολογισμό περικόπτοντας προγράμματα που περιμένουν οι πολίτες, αλλά και για να χρηματοδοτήσουμε το νέο Κοινωνικό Ταμείο για το Κλίμα και να αντιμετωπίσουμε την ενεργειακή φτώχεια.

Για αυτό στηρίζουμε την πρόταση της Επιτροπής ως Κοινοβούλιο και ζητούμε συγκεκριμενοποιήσεις και βελτιώσεις και ασκούμε δριμεία κριτική στο απόν Συμβούλιο, το οποίο βραδυπορεί και δεν τιμά την υπογραφή του στη διοργανική συμφωνία. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, κύριε Hahn, ζητά και το επόμενο βήμα για τους ιδίους πόρους να είναι ακόμη πιο φιλόδοξο, γιατί έτσι μπορούμε να ξεπεράσουμε και την πάγια αντίθεση μεταξύ καθαρών εισφορέων και καθαρών ληπτών που κρατά τον προϋπολογισμό της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στο εξαιρετικά χαμηλό ποσοστό του 1% του ευρωπαϊκού ΑΕΠ.

Και περιμένουμε από εσάς, επιτέλους, να φέρετε και μια δραστική πρόταση για την φορολόγηση του μεγάλου πλούτου. Δεν είναι δυνατόν η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, που πρωτοπόρησε για την αντιμετώπιση της κλιματικής αλλαγής, να μην πρωτοπορήσει και σε αυτό το θέμα, σε μια περίοδο που αυξάνονται επικίνδυνα οι κοινωνικές και οι φορολογικές ανισότητες.

  Marcel de Graaff (NI). – Voorzitter, commissaris, de Europese Commissie wil naast de lidstaten ook belasting kunnen heffen. Belasting die bedrijven op burgers afwentelen. Wat doet de Commissie met dit geld? Het geeft dit geld aan de grote farmaceutische bedrijven in ondoorzichtige miljardendeals waar de schijn van belangenverstrengeling vanaf druipt. Het geeft dit geld aan stichtingen die mensensmokkelaars betalen om migranten illegaal binnen te halen. En het geeft dit geld aan Oekraïne waar het verdwijnt in de zakken van corrupte zakenlieden en politici, tot in de Verenigde Staten toe! Want the big guy moet ook zijn aandeel krijgen. Het geeft dit geld aan die bedrijven om via digitaalgeldsystemen totale controle over mensen uit te kunnen oefenen. Deze Europese Commissie pakt daarmee de gewone man zijn werk, zijn bezit en zijn vrijheid af. De enige hoop voor de burgers ligt bij de eigen staat. Bij patriottische politici die strijden tegen deze satanische webagenda. Dit voorstel moet onmiddellijk de prullenbak in.

  Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, ontem debatemos aqui a estratégia de constituição do NextGenerationEU. Hoje debatemos os nossos recursos próprios do orçamento da União.

Sem novos recursos próprios o NextGenerationEU não será um sucesso. Eles são fundamentais para garantir o reembolso desta dívida comum e a capacidade da União para construir novos instrumentos semelhantes no futuro.

Há um acordo interinstitucional vinculativo. Da Comissão, aguardamos a solução para a taxa sobre o digital e a proposta para a criação da taxa sobre as transações financeiras. Do Conselho, que os aprove no calendário necessário, desde já aprovando o Regime de Comércio de Licenças de Emissão e o Mecanismo de Ajustamento Carbónico Fronteiriço como novos recursos próprios do orçamento da União Europeia. Estaremos, assim, a fortalecer a arquitetura da União Europeia e a assegurar que as novas prioridades e ações de emergência da União Europeia não são financiadas, em momento nenhum, nem à custa dos atuais programas, nem das políticas europeias, nem das próximas gerações.

  Claudia Gamon (Renew). – Herr Präsident! Warum braucht die Europäische Union unbedingt mehr Eigenmittel, mehr eigene budgetäre Quellen? Weil sie mehr Freiraum schaffen, weil sie uns krisenfest machen.

Dass die Europäische Union für wesentliche budgetäre Entscheidungen in der Vergangenheit de facto fast vollkommen abhängig vom Willen der Mitgliedstaaten war, war ein Konstruktionsfehler. Und wer jetzt hier behauptet, dass mögliche Quellen, wie der Emissionshandel, Unternehmen belasten würden, der kann auch endlich anfangen, zu Hause mal die Hausaufgaben zu erledigen, die eigenen Steuersysteme zu durchforsten und unnötige Belastungen für Unternehmerinnen und Unternehmer und Bürgerinnen und Bürger abzubauen.

Wir übernehmen Verantwortung für das Klima. Wir übernehmen Verantwortung für eine nachhaltige Wirtschaft der Zukunft in Europa. Und wir arbeiten jetzt endlich daran, der Union mehr Freiheit zu geben, wesentliche Investitionsentscheidungen für die Zukunft ihrer Bürgerinnen und Bürger selbständiger und selbstbestimmter treffen zu können.

  France Jamet (ID). – Monsieur le Président, passer d’un budget de 1 % du PIB de la zone euro à 10 % démontre une seule chose: l’Union européenne veut plus de pouvoir. Et pour y parvenir, elle dépossède les États membres de la maîtrise de l’impôt prélevé sur nos populations et nos entreprises et, plus grave encore, sur nos choix stratégiques énergétiques. J’en veux pour preuve la confirmation hier, par les commissaires Dombrovskis et Gentiloni, que le plan REPowerEU ne financerait pas la restauration de notre parc nucléaire français. Cela a au moins le mérite d’être clair, après toutes ces semaines de silence ou d’ambiguïtés entretenues de la gauche à la droite.

Mais en pleine crise énergétique et alors que cela fait plus de 50 ans que les Français finançaient à juste titre une filière d’excellence, on les en prive au moment où ils en ont le plus besoin. Notre devoir étant de prioriser l’intérêt général de nos compatriotes, nous ne validons ni la hausse de vos ressources ni votre politique, qui se font contre la France et les Français.

  Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Zgodnie z art. 311 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej te nowe obciążenia podatkowe powinny sprawiedliwie rozkładać ciężary pomiędzy poszczególne kraje członkowskie. W przypadku tych nowych zasobów tak nie jest. Mamy twarde dane dotyczące opłaty od nieprzetworzonego plastiku. W przypadku mojego kraju, Polski, to jest obciążenie wynoszące 8 % całości wpływów. Podczas gdy dochody z DNB, to jest 3 %, a więc to jest trzykrotnie więcej niż dotychczasowa składka. Podobnie jest w przypadku wpływów z ETS-u, dwa i pół raza więcej, w przypadku CBAM-u dwa razy więcej. To jest skrajnie niesprawiedliwe.

I druga poważna wątpliwość. Otóż nowe dochody są głównie oparte na tych opłatach środowiskowych, a więc one pomniejszają możliwości finansowania celów klimatyczno-energetycznych dla krajów członkowskich, które mają z tym największy problem. Takich jak mój kraj, Polska. W tej sytuacji zabieranie tych środków, uderza w cele klimatyczne Unii. To jest pozbawione sensu.

  Aurore Lalucq (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, ces dernières années, on a vu un certain nombre de mots tabous réémerger dans le débat politique et industriel: sortie du gaz, État-providence, fiscalité. Et j’aimerais qu’on réhabilite, une fois pour toutes ensemble, un autre mot, celui de politique budgétaire et celui de policy mix.

En économie, on n’a pas quinze politiques possibles, on en a deux: la politique monétaire et la politique budgétaire. Et nous avons été assez créatifs au niveau européen pour faire quelque chose qui n’existe nulle part ailleurs et surtout pas en économie: faire une monnaie sans budget. Cela ne fonctionne pas d’un point de vue macroéconomique et pas plus du point de vue de la solidarité.

La question qui se pose à nous aujourd’hui est de savoir si on va décider un jour ou pas de sortir de cet obscurantisme économique, si on va un jour ou pas décider de dépasser les égoïsmes nationaux pour avoir un budget, un vrai, des ressources propres, des vraies, avec une fiscalité – peu importe: pilier I, single market review, on peut penser à plein de choses. Ce n’est même pas une question de clivage gauche-droite, c’est une question de bon sens. Comme dirait le Fonds monétaire international, cette grande officine gauchiste, l’enjeu pour l’Europe aujourd’hui, je cite, c’est de «mettre en œuvre une Europe correctement outillée d’un point de vue budgétaire».

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you again for this timely and interesting debate and for your constant support to diversify the revenues of our union budget. New types of revenue will avoid undue cuts to Union programmes or increases in Member States’ contributions. The Commission will present the second set of new own resources still in 2023. This is one year ahead of what is foreseen in the institutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. It underscores our commitment to sustainable EU public finance.

The second set of new own resources would complement the first. It aims at generating sufficient revenue for the repayment of NGEU borrowing. As you know, the institutional agreement names two possible contributions for this second basket of resources, one linked to the corporate sector and one linked to the financial sector. But there are also other possibilities like a digital levy, for instance.

In the field of corporate taxation, the Commission intends to come forward with a proposal for a single set of tax rules for doing business in Europe. This could form the basis of an own resource linked to the corporate sector. NGEU repayment is not a choice, but an obligation which we have towards investors and to taxpayers. It’s a test of unity and credibility of the union to repay our debts. And this unity will be closely watched by the outside world. Our joint effort, therefore, should be to negotiate and agree a balanced package of new own resources. And again, it’s something which is very much linked to the credibility of us, to the capital markets, which are now very important for us more than ever in order to raise the necessary amounts to support our citizens.

  Valérie Hayer, rapporteure. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je voudrais remercier l’ensemble des collègues qui sont intervenus et évidemment remercier José Manuel pour le partenariat et la relation de confiance et le travail de qualité que nous menons ensemble sur cette question très engageante des ressources propres.

Ce que je retiens de nos échanges aujourd’hui, c’est quand même que le Parlement est uni, qu’il est uni et qu’il ne cédera rien à ceux qui voudraient qu’on rebrousse chemin sur les ressources propres, que ce soit en utilisant les recettes pour d’autres objectifs ou bien en empêchant purement et simplement la mise en place de ces instruments. Je voudrais citer par exemple Viktor Orbán, qui continue à bloquer l’accord sur la taxation des multinationales par pur chantage politique, alors même que les Hongrois demandent eux aussi plus de justice fiscale.

Alors oui, il est justifié que les droits à polluer achetés par les grandes industries sur le marché européen reviennent à l’Europe et qu’en conséquence cet argent vienne rembourser l’emprunt qui a permis à nos industriels de ne pas mettre la clé sous la porte, mais aussi de décarboner leur production. Alors oui, il est justifié qu’ArcelorMittal paie des droits à polluer sur l’acier ultra carboné qu’il importe d’Inde pour le revendre chez nous et qu’en conséquence cet argent permette de rembourser l’emprunt qui a permis de maintenir la demande européenne sur le marché mondial. Et oui, il est justifié de faire contribuer les grandes multinationales qui prospèrent grâce à notre marché intérieur mais qui ne paient pas leur juste part d’impôts aujourd’hui et qu’en conséquence, là encore, cet argent rembourse l’emprunt qui a maintenu la consommation en Europe et qui, de ce fait, a protégé leurs activités.

Alors, chers collègues, soyons fermes, soyons déterminés, allons jusqu’au bout. Et maintenons la pression chaque jour, dans chaque négociation, jusqu’à ce que ces ressources propres soient sur pied. Parce que rien, aucune règle d’unanimité, aucune réserve idéologique ne doit nous arrêter dans cette quête de plus de justice fiscale et de plus de justice sociale.

  José Manuel Fernandes, Relator. – Senhor Presidente, caras e caros Colegas, Senhor Comissário, com as nossas propostas, com a nossa opinião, que estou seguro que vai ser aprovada, nós conseguimos cerca de 15 mil milhões de euros de receita sem penalizar os cidadãos, contribuindo para o objetivo de combate às alterações climáticas, ajudando ainda a que haja uma justiça fiscal e acelerando os objetivos da transição, também digital. Novas receitas que servem, é verdade, para pagar a dívida, mas nós não podemos ficar por aí. Não é só para pagar a dívida do NextGenerationEU: é essencial que se consigam receitas também para aquilo que são os projetos comuns, os objetivos estratégicos da União Europeia, a sua autonomia estratégica. Se não investirmos na segurança, na União da energia, no reforço da nossa capacidade militar, na saúde, na proteção civil, naquilo que são os chips acts, os semicondutores, na conectividade segura, se não tivermos estes investimentos, pagaremos um preço enorme. Investimentos que devem ser em projetos comuns, porque trazem eficácia, eficiência. Com menos recursos nós podemos fazer muito mais, e este é um objetivo que nós temos de ter: assumir os compromissos, pagar a dívida, não sobrecarregar as próximas gerações.

Por outro lado, ter um orçamento que invista de forma a que haja autonomia na União Europeia, para darmos futuro aos cidadãos da União Europeia. E, nesse sentido, se não fizermos os investimentos nestes projetos comuns, como demonstra a falta da União da energia, nós teremos e pagaremos um preço muito alto.

Fica aqui um compromisso: o Parlamento Europeu, eu e a Colega Valérie Hayer, já estamos a trabalhar em propostas para um novo pacote e para dar sugestões à Comissão. A Comissão que venha com a segunda fase e o segundo pacote, também em termos daquilo que deve ser o roteiro para os recursos próprios.

Agora falta o Conselho, que tem de decidir por unanimidade. Está nas mãos do Conselho fazer avançar a União Europeia. E eu espero que o Conselho, em vez de governantes, e por uma vez, também tenha líderes. A União Europeia bem precisa deles.

  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Mittwoch, 23. November 2022, statt.

11. Componența comisiilor și a delegațiilor

  Der Präsident. – Ich habe Ihnen eine Mitteilung zu machen.

Die fraktionslosen Mitglieder haben der Präsidentin Beschlüsse über die Änderung von Ernennungen in Ausschüssen übermittelt. Diese Beschlüsse werden im Protokoll der heutigen Sitzung aufgeführt und treten am Tag dieser Ankündigung in Kraft.

(Die Sitzung wird um 14.43 Uhr kurz unterbrochen.)

PRESIDÊNCIA: PEDRO SILVA PEREIRA
Vice-Presidente

12. Reluarea ședinței

(A sessão é reiniciada às 15h03)

13. Aprobarea procesului-verbal al ședinței anterioare

  Presidente. – A ata da sessão de ontem já foi distribuída.

Há alguma observação?

Declaro a ata da sessão de ontem aprovada.

14. Timp afectat întrebărilor adresate Comisiei - Viitoarea reformă legislativă a cadrului de guvernanță economică în vremuri de criză socială și economică

Presidente. – O próximo ponto da ordem do dia é o período de perguntas à Comissão (artigo 137.º do Regimento).

Apresento as boas-vindas ao Vice-Presidente Executivo da Comissão, Sr. Dombrovskis, e ao Comissário, Sr. Gentiloni, para este período de perguntas.

O tema para este período de perguntas é o seguinte: Futura reforma legislativa do Quadro de Governação Económica em tempos de crise social e económica.

Este período de perguntas durará cerca de 90 minutos. Haverá um minuto para fazer uma pergunta, dois minutos para a resposta, 30 segundos para uma pergunta suplementar e dois minutos para a resposta.

Gostaria de recordar que a eventual pergunta suplementar só será atribuída se estiver estritamente relacionada com a pergunta principal e não consistir numa nova pergunta.

Se desejar fazer uma pergunta, convidamo-lo a registar o seu pedido agora, utilizando a função «catch-the-eye» na sua máquina de voto, depois de ter inserido o seu cartão de voto.

Durante o período de perguntas, as intervenções terão lugar a partir do lugar de cada um e convido todos os oradores a respeitarem o tempo de uso de palavra atribuído.

Os colegas podem precisar de alguns momentos para registar o pedido de pergunta através do dispositivo de votação. Por conseguinte, solicito novamente que apresentem agora o vosso pedido e começaremos com a primeira pergunta.

  Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Vice-Presidente da Comissão, Senhor Comissário, eu gostaria de destacar que as orientações da Comissão Europeia para a revisão das regras de governação económica, do nosso ponto de vista, vão na boa direção. Têm em conta uma parte significativa dos princípios políticos aprovados por este Parlamento. Mas precisam de mais ambição e precisamos de conhecer os detalhes.

A minha pergunta é a seguinte: com o NextGenerationEU e o Mecanismo de Recuperação e Resiliência, nós temos reformas, investimento e financiamento europeu para fazer estas reformas e o investimento. No futuro, quando estes instrumentos acabarem, como será feito o financiamento para os investimentos necessários para a autonomia estratégica da Europa, a transição climática, a transição digital, sem evitar a fragmentação do mercado interno?

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Thank you very much for this question. So indeed, from the Commission’s side we put forward orientations for a possible revision of our fiscal and macro—economic governance framework. The idea is now, we hope, that based on those orientations, a consensus will be emerging among Member States, with the European Parliament, with different stakeholders, and if this is indeed the case, we will be following this up with legislative proposals. So if everything goes according to plan, that would happen in spring next year.

Orientations, as we put them forward, are obviously already taking into account feedback we were receiving from Member States, from the European Parliament, from others during quite a long period of discussions. As you know, we launched this process already in February 2020 as there was some suspension during the COVID-19 pandemic, but nevertheless we had quite extensive discussions. Correspondingly, what we are putting forward is already, in a sense, factoring in those discussions and narrowing them down because we need to get more concrete on where we actually want to go with this review of fiscal rules.

You mentioned the question of additional common fiscal capacity. Well, we were clear in those orientations that here we are focusing on fiscal rules. So we are not opening another very – as we know – broad and also very controversial discussion on this common fiscal capacity. So here, indeed, it’s about how the future of governance framework could look like.

  Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, na proposta de revisão do Quadro Financeiro Plurianual, no relatório de iniciativa que o Parlamento Europeu já aprovou na Comissão de Orçamentos, nós propomos a criação de um fundo para a soberania, para a soberania estratégica da União Europeia, ideia que, aliás, a Presidente Ursula von der Leyen já defendeu aqui no seu discurso sobre o Estado da União.

Gostaria de saber qual é a abertura da Comissão para apoiar a constituição deste fundo, que será, necessariamente, um instrumento fundamental para o apoio ao investimento na União Europeia?

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – So as I was already mentioning, we clearly have this discussion also on a broader kind of future of the EU budget, additional elements, sovereignty fund, euro area fiscal capacity. We have all those discussions.

So what I’m basically emphasising is that we are not making those discussions part of the discussions of our fiscal and macroeconomic governance framework because that’s already, I would say, a complicated and complex enough exercise.

You mentioned, for example, specifically NextGenerationEU. We remember that a number of Member States agreed on the NextGenerationEU explicitly on the condition that this is a one-off instrument. But we all know also that the debate on common, for example, euro area fiscal capacity predates NextGenerationEU, and we do not expect that this debate will disappear, but we are just emphasising that it is not part of this particular exercise.

  Eva Maria Poptcheva (Renew). – The Commission communication indeed proposes to improve the sanctions regime, which I think makes sense. It improves the corrective arm of the fiscal framework, so basically the sticks. But I’m wondering, what are the carrots you’re proposing or having in mind to ensure greater compliance with the rules? Because conditional access to already—accessible funds like the structural funds doesn’t seem very compelling to me as carrots.

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – I’m not sure that this sticks and carrots mechanism could work, but anyway I take your point.

In my view, indeed, the effort we made with these proposals is an effort to strike a balance. So in this case, we can also say a balance also between sticks and carrots. The balance is on a more simplified mechanism where the rules are more transparent. We have a simpler single indicator of the evolution, which is based on the net primary expenditure. Stronger ownership from Member States, because Member States are the ones proposing their plans of reduction of debt and investments. The possibility to use the investments in the common priorities of the Union to have an even more gradual path of reduction of the debt and at the same time having more gradual, more realistic, rules, more capable to incentivise investments to have them also more enforced.

This enforcement is not based on enlarging the sanctions but paradoxically, it is based on making the sanctions lighter because lighter sanctions are possibly also sanctions that we can really enforce.

  Eva Maria Poptcheva (Renew). – You mentioned the individual ownership of the Member States that you tried to focus more on in the proposal. I’m wondering, in this regard, do you think that this should also involve a greater role for national independent fiscal institutions?

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – This is always a point we refer to in all our papers and documents. And rightly so, in my view. In an ideal world, we should work to strengthen these independent bodies. In the real world, we have to do this taking into account the fact that their reality is rather unequal, country by country, and so that it is not easy to say, overall, that these bodies should have this specific role. There is, I think, a common understanding on the fact that the Commission is proposing to give to these bodies a stronger role, but we are not so much framing this from the legal point of view, taking into account exactly the fact that the reality is different country by country or from this independent body. So strengthen them, but not forgetting that they are quite different in their capacity and their level in their autonomy because they are independent – but yes, independence is a fight in some countries.

  Irene Tinagli (S&D). – I want to go back on the investment issue and in particular on the national investments. I think this proposal is very positive, very good in a way that tries to find a better balance between the stability and the growth, and investments – national investments – are crucial to that end. The only thing that I wonder, in the legislative proposal that I’m confident will be presented very soon, I think that we will need a little bit more clarification on some aspects of these national investments: how they will be treated, which kind of investments, which conditions. I mean, I would like the Commission to elaborate a little bit more and to share with us some clarification on this matter.

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Indeed, so it’s very clear that in coming years, we will need to deal with both issues. We will need a lot of investments for our green and digital transitions, for the resilience of our economies and, at the same time, we will also need to put current high levels of debt on a clear downwards trajectory.

So it’s about finding the right balance. So one element in our intentions is about giving more space or allowing Member States to have more gradual debt-adjustment trajectories if they are performing, growth enhancing and fiscal sustainability, supporting reforms and investments.

So those are the two elements, that’s the investments, which we want be supportive of growth and fiscal sustainability, and also responding to common European priorities and obviously also, of course, country-specific challenges. So we outline these elements as ones which we will take into account when deciding whether to allow Member States to have a more gradual debt-adjustment trajectory.

  Irene Tinagli (S&D). – Let me be a little bit more specific. In the communication of 2015, the Commission provides a clear and specific region for certain investments, you know, that takes into account not only compliance with macroeconomic criteria, but also the type of investment. That’s what I wanted to look into, with particular reference, but of course not limited to co-financed investments that are part of European projects. I think this is an important part. I would like to have clarification. Are you considering proposing something similar in the new governance as well? Because I think in the upcoming years, that would be very, very important and very valuable.

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Indeed, as I was mentioning, so there are elements on being supportive to growth and fiscal stability, but also responding to common European priorities. Obviously that can also be cross-border investments. So, investments which correspond to European priorities are clearly covered by the possibility of giving more fiscal leeway. That’s exactly the idea. Well, there may be one horizontal point because sometimes we are getting in quite precise questions.

So the document which we put forward provides broad orientations. That’s exactly what we want now – to get feedback, to get maybe some questions, which can lead to some clarifications, because then, based on those orientations and based on the feedback which we will be getting, we will be putting already concrete proposals and we consider it’s likely legislative proposals will go out. So here, in a sense, with the orientations, we have some leeway for discussion and not everything is detailed to the last point, to the last detail because we are narrowing down the discussion with the orientations, but we are not quite there yet at exact concrete proposals.

  Rosa D'Amato (Verts/ALE). – Signor Commissario, noi temiamo che la riforma del quadro di governance economica, proposta dalla Commissione, non sia sufficiente ad affrontare proprio i tempi di crisi sociale ed economica che stiamo vivendo.

I territori, il Comitato delle regioni, ma anche questo stesso Parlamento hanno chiesto che fosse introdotta una golden rule per gli investimenti verdi. Per anni i Comuni non hanno potuto investire nella transizione ecologica a causa di margini fiscali soffocanti. Ecco perché il cofinanziamento nazionale della politica di coesione va scorporato dal calcolo di deficit.

Poi sul sociale, dove sono gli stimoli necessari a massicci programmi di welfare sociale o investimenti nei servizi pubblici che ormai sono sottofinanziati da anni? Penso alla sanità, penso all'istruzione.

Infine, dov'è la risposta fattuale al gap di investimenti e al divario territoriale, che è crescente all'interno delle regioni dell'Europa, ma all'interno delle stesse nazioni? Penso al Mezzogiorno d'Italia.

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Thank you for this question. Of course not everything that we have to address can be included in our fiscal rules. You were referring to, for example, cohesion policies, which is a great part of our programmes. I will stay to the fiscal rules and address especially your question about the golden rule and how to incentivise investment.

De facto, I think we are proposing a different way to address the same needs that is traditionally addressed with golden rules. Golden rules are not cancelling the debt of course. Golden rules are only allowing Member States a different accounting of some investments. This is exactly the same scope we are looking for with a different tool.

Yesterday, in a discussion with the ECON and BUDG Committees, I said it is not a golden rule it is a timing rule, a time advantage rule. The fact is that we are allowing Member States that are choosing to invest in our common priorities to have more time for the gradual reduction of their debt.

So it is again a fiscal tool different from the golden rule but with the same scope, more or less. Then we have to discuss which investments, which was also the discussion addressed by Ms Tinagli and Commissioner Dombrovskis.

  Rosa D'Amato (Verts/ALE). – Signor Commissario, la proposta non tiene conto dei costi incalcolabili dell'inazione climatica. Quanto costa agli Stati membri rimandare di anno in anno gli investimenti necessari per fronteggiare la crisi climatica? Quanto costa non investire contro, ad esempio, il dissesto idrogeologico, il rifacimento delle reti idriche? È evidente: i costi per riparare i danni invece che prevenirli sono molto più alti.

Quindi, Commissario, c'è un'intenzione da parte della Commissione di spingere verso questo tipo di investimenti?

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – (Start of speech off-mike) ... agree with you on the fact that the cost of inaction should be more and more considered at a global level and at the EU level. And I think this is one of the reasons why we are giving such a priority to all the green investment package in all our programmes. This is the case for the RRF. As you know, we have a high threshold of necessary investments on the green transition and we will have, according to our survey of the different national plans, something like 250 billion in green investments coming from these plans.

The same is, of course, at a different level, through our fiscal rules because we are encouraging, incentivising, giving fiscal advantage to Member States that will choose to give priority to investments. Which investments? For sure, the investments on green, on digital, on social resilience. And then I am sure that in the discussion with stakeholders and especially with Member States, we will also have a discussion on other investments. We already had some proposals coming from Member States. But for sure, our twin priorities will be there and, again, considering the cost of not acting is absolutely necessary.

  René Repasi (S&D). – Let me please, first, take this opportunity to congratulate Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni on his birthday, being here with us in the room. Congratulations, happy birthday.

Now, to my question, I very much welcome the orientations that were presented by the Commission, coming up with a lot of good proposals, solving rules that are obviously not fit for purpose. And in particular this idea that we get an expenditure rule that has a corridor now between a debt reduction path and a 3 % deficit upper threshold. And in between we have open expenditure and that’s much better than the currently medium-term budgetary objective.

What I am wondering is, given the discussion that we’ve already had here on investment, is this corridor that is getting, of course, smaller and smaller the higher a country is indebted, irrespective of its individual path, is this sufficient given the need to mitigate the crisis and the expenses for the green transition ? And, having that in mind – I am referring also to the question that Irene Tinagli was asking on the 2015 flexibility communication, which was on the investment and structural reform clause – is it the intention of the European Commission to also look at expenditure beyond this expenditure rules, so the investment in the structural reform clause, and to allow further public investment that is then dedicated to the green transition under the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact?

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Thank you very much for this question. Well, indeed, one of the main aims of these orientations is to find a more flexible and more gradual debt reduction path for Member States. So that’s why we are abolishing, or proposing to abolish, this so-called 1/20th rule, and changing it with more flexible arrangements, as you outlined.

But indeed, as you also outlined, there is a differentiation between high-debt countries and medium to low-debt countries in a sense. The further countries are from 60% of GDP debt level, which is referenced in the Treaty, the more effort we expect from those countries to adjust the debt. Because those fiscal sustainability concerns are also the ones which we need to take into account, especially now in a changing interest rate environment.

We see that the period of very accommodative monetary policy is coming to an end and there is a normalisation of monetary policy taking into account. This is reflected also in growing interest rates, something also which we need to consider when thinking of the right balance between debt sustainability and promotion of investment.

You mentioned a 2015 communication on best use of flexibility. At that time it was within the existing rules of the Stability and Growth Pact, as indeed are our investment and structural reform clauses. Well, now it’s also in a sense reflected with the possibilities of Member States to have more gradual debt adjustment paths, if they implement growth-enhancing and fiscal sustainability, improving investments and reforms.

  René Repasi (S&D). – To be one step more specific, an idea or an orientation in the paper that I found particularly interesting was introducing the relationship, or emphasizing the relationship, between the macroeconomic imbalance procedure and the fiscal rules. Here I am wondering to what extent expenditure that might be necessary to overcome macroeconomic imbalances has to be part of the expenditure rule or is taken outside the scope of the expenditure rule, because it is necessary that we get an equilibrium between the macroeconomic imbalances amongst the Member States.

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Well, indeed, one of the elements in the orientations is a closer link between the fiscal rules and macroeconomic imbalance procedures, and also some ideas outline how to improve the functioning and application of the macroeconomic imbalance procedure. But what we are proposing specifically on the expenditure side, the expenditure benchmark, which will be, so to say, the single operational indicator, and how we will assess Member States compliance with their medium—term fiscal structural plans, well this expenditure benchmark takes into account expenditure, so it’s in a sense not starting to distinguish which expenditure is counted, and which expenditure is not counted. We allow for this additional flexibility through more gradual debt adjustment. So that’s where the flexibility is built on. So we are not building on top of this the idea of accounting or not certain types of expenditure.

  Gunnar Beck (ID). – Sehr geehrte Herren Kommissare! Die Eurozone hat mit Großbritannien die höchste Inflationsrate und die schlechtesten Wachstumsdaten und -prognosen der entwickelten Welt. Schuld daran, so die Kommission und die EZB, sei nicht die EU-Wirtschafts- und -Geldpolitik, sondern unglückliche Umstände: Covid, der Ukraine-Krieg, das Klima etc. etc. Deshalb sollen jetzt die Schuldenabbau-Leitlinien für Mitgliedstaaten flexibilisiert werden, das heißt, Schulden sollen langsamer abgebaut werden und einstweilen mehr Schulden gemacht werden.

Seit 2008 sind die Schulden der Mitgliedstaaten eskaliert, ohne Wachstumseffekt. Dennoch ist die Kommission zuversichtlich, mit mehr Schulden mehr Wachstum zu schaffen. Doch woher – meine Frage – nehmen Sie diese Gewissheit? Anders gesagt: Was haben Ihre Vorgänger und die nationalen Regierungen seit 2008, der großen Finanzkrise, falsch gemacht? Und was genau werden Sie jetzt richtig machen, was Ihre Vorgänger falsch machten? Immerhin waren Ihre Vorgänger sich genauso sicher wie Sie, mehr Wachstum mit mehr Schulden zu machen.

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Well, indeed, the mechanism of common borrowing to respond to the COVID crisis, in my view, was not only a new tool and a very important new programme for the European Union, but it was also quite effective in relation to two risks. First, the risk in itself of COVID, lockdown, the fall in growth. Our economies recovered quite strongly and quite fast from this situation. Also, it was very useful in addressing a second risk, which in our language we call ‘the risk of fragmentation’: the risk that the differences among countries, especially countries sharing the same currency, would increase because of the different fiscal space facing a crisis. I think that this common programme was very important to avoid these two risks. The economy rebounded strongly and faster even than other players in the world economy and fragmentation was avoided.

Now we have to face a new crisis, and I think that this crisis is even more difficult to face than the previous one because we are facing it also with inflation. And for this reason, we are very cautious on fiscal expansion, fiscal stance, and we are suggesting fiscal neutrality to our Member States, which is very different from what we did after COVID.

  Gunnar Beck (ID). – So, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that more debt hasn’t exactly given rise to higher growth levels, but it’s kind of helped us to avoid the very worst. So could I infer from this that there’s something fundamentally wrong with the European Union now, that we can’t grow any longer and we’ve got to incur more debt just in order to defer, shall I say, the worst of all possible worlds?

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Well, my answer would be no, because I think, well first of all, we know that if we look at the global picture, the European Union is not at all the global actor with higher debt. We have global actor with much, much higher debt than the European Union.

And second, I think that we had an obvious increase of debt because of facing the COVID-19 crisis and what happened because of the COVID-19 crisis, so the lockdown, etc., etc., inevitably needed a universal response. If you have to support a large majority of companies, if you have to support jobs all over the countries, it is quite inevitable to have a higher level of debt. But this is not a recipe for our future. We are not proposing this emergency response to that crisis as the way forward, increasing debt to have growth.

To have growth, we need to invest in our priorities to strengthen European competitiveness, to confirm our leadership in the green transition. These actions will allow us to strengthen our growth. Look to our competitors at global level and we see that this competition is open, that we can play our role, that we are not so far from other competitors from this point of view.

  Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR). – Voorzitter, budgettaire discipline blijft belangrijk. Sommigen lijken dat in de voorbije periode een beetje vergeten te zijn, maar het blijft belangrijk. De budgettaire situatie van de meeste landen in de schuldevolutie is van dien aard dat budgettaire discipline alleen niet meer zal volstaan om die situaties recht te trekken en onder controle te houden. Economische groei, volgehouden economische groei en natuurlijke economische groei, is daarvoor noodzakelijk en daarvoor zijn op hun beurt hervormingen noodzakelijk: ernstige hervormingen inzake arbeidsmarkt, inzake pensioenstelsels, inzake energiemarkten, inzake fiscaliteit en dies meer. In een aantal lidstaten, waaronder mijn eigen land België, is het gebrek aan dergelijke hervormingen nu al zeer problematisch. Mijn vraag is: hoe zwaar gaat de Commissie inzetten op die hervormingen? En is er een soort trade-off tussen die hervormingen en wat de begrotingscijfers dan concreet zijn? Met andere woorden: is er wat meer mogelijk op het vlak van begroting en begrotingstekorten, indien er op het vlak van hervormingen extra zeilen bijgezet worden?

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Well, yes, indeed. If you also look at our orientations for the review of the fiscal governance framework, the aim of ensuring fiscal sustainability, budgetary discipline, as you mentioned, is very much present. So what we are making, we are in a sense, making it more aligned with the real circumstances.

We know, for example, that currently there is a so-called 1/20 rule for debt reduction, but we also know that in practice, this rule is not really being applied. So we can continue to insist on 1/20 rule, which probably will continue not to be applied, or we can come forward with a different framework. So to give Member States more leeway for them to devise their own fiscal structural funds with their own debt—reduction pathways, of course, not giving carte blanche to Member States – because another element that is important is equal treatment of Member States.

So we will be providing, based on a common European methodology, each country with a reference debt—reduction pathway, so that all countries will be able to see and compare what reference each Member State should be achieving, and then Member States can come with their fiscal structural plans, taking these reference values into account. Indeed, there is a lever also concerning the structural reforms. We are already discussing that if Member States are implementing investments and structural reforms which improve growth prospects, which improve fiscal sustainability, then Member States can have more gradual debt—adjustment trajectories.

  Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR). – Do the Commissioners think that they have sufficient instruments at their disposal to intervene to hurt countries that do not live up to what has been agreed upon, in terms of deficits as well as in terms of structural reforms?

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Well, in terms of the instruments, of course, already currently the Stability and Growth Pact provides for a possibility to apply sanctions in situations where Member States are not complying with the fiscal rules. As you know, when the Stability and Growth Pact was drawn up, the idea was that we would make sanctions so big that it was going to be unattractive to breach fiscal rules.

Probably what is closer to what’s come out of this in practice is that it became too unattractive to apply fiscal rules. So, therefore, we on one hand propose that we actually go for lower and more elastic financial sanctions. So there is a trade—off, in which we are providing Member States with more leeway to set up their own debt reduction trajectories and this comes with stricter enforcement. So, for example, it means, kind of by default, starting excessive deficit procedures from a debt—based excessive deficit procedure for countries whose debt exceeds 60% of GDP and who are deviating from the adjustment path.

It also means that since we are now discussing, medium—term, Member States’ plans, that we will be also assessing cumulative deviations. Because what we see now, often countries do just a little bit less than they should be doing. Then it’s always a big dilemma. Do we now create a big problem out of this or do we somehow let it go? But if a country, year after year after year, errs in the same direction, we see that, cumulatively, the country is deviating and we can also apply these corrective measures.

  José Gusmão (The Left). – Senhor Comissário, a Comissão agita com a flexibilização de algumas regras que se tinham demonstrado claramente impraticáveis e, portanto, o verdadeiro saldo desta nova proposta é a agilização e até a introdução de sanções, nomeadamente aquelas que ficam associadas às recomendações no âmbito do Semestre Europeu. Ou seja, essas recomendações vão deixar de ser apenas recomendações para passarem a ser imposições.

Ora, como muitas das recomendações que a Comissão Europeia tem feito ao longo dos tempos dizem respeito à redução da despesa com pensões, à redução da despesa com serviços públicos, à desregulação do mercado de trabalho – tudo isto competências dos Estados-Membros –, gostava de saber como é que a Comissão Europeia compatibiliza o respeito pelas competências nacionais, que decorre dos Tratados, com a ideia que tem sido propagandeada de que esta nova forma de governação económica terá maior respeito pelas opções democráticas dos governos nacionais.

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Yes. Well, in my view, it’s very clearly a balance or a trade-off. Starting point, I think it’s quite obvious and I think almost universally shared. And the starting point is that a union needs to have common rules, especially a union having a single currency for most of their members.

But the common rules that we have are not realistic and not implementable, I think that this is more or less what we all understand and share, the decision of having this threshold of 60%. But, of course, we are not changing because we are not changing the Treaties. But in itself this decision was understandable.

It was the average debt of the country signing the treaties. It was not a Nobel Prize idea, this 60%, okay. We learned in these ten, 15 years that this rule of reaching the 60% is not implementable.

We try a balance. Why? The balance is important because the path of reduction of the debt, the means, the priorities are proposed by Member States and not imposed by the Commission or a rule. And in this case, if you have this what we call ‘ownership’, this stronger role for national politics, you can also ask to implement these rules because you are implementing the rules that your government, your parliament, have decided, not that someone imposed from afar to you.

This is the deal, and the balance we have to find.

  José Gusmão (The Left). – Senhor Comissário, falou da evolução do défice e da dívida que, como sabemos, depende da evolução da despesa, mas também da receita. E, portanto, gostaria de perceber porque é que a Comissão opta por utilizar apenas como variável operacional a despesa pública primária líquida. Porque esta opção tem um enviesamento recessivo. Foi a opção, por exemplo, dos programas da Troica, que tiveram consequências desastrosas, não apenas no crescimento dos países afetados mas também na evolução do défice e da dívida. E é também um enviesamento ideológico, porque se torna num instrumento contra os serviços públicos, contra o investimento público, contra as políticas públicas em geral. E gostaria de saber a razão desta escolha tão parcial.

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Well, I think, in my view, the primary net expenditure rule that, by the way, we already use it is already one of the ...

The problem is that now we have several criteria in assessing the plans and one of these is the primary net expenditure. The advantage of this kind of rule is simplification and it is clearly observable. It is, of course, net of expenditure. Several expenditure are not included in this calculation to prevent it from being too procyclical. Of course, we will consider extreme extraordinary conditions both at European level and at national level. We are not following this rule with blind eyes. No, we are following it because it is simple, observable and, honestly, the other benchmarks that we used in the last 10 to 20 years where, if we look to them ex-post, they were a little bit, honestly, not always fit for purpose because they were based on projections, and projections are difficult in economy.

The evolution of the expenditure is a good and transparent tool to observe the evolution of the budgetary situation. Of course, this means that also we have to preserve the capacity to invest, because you are right that the trajectory of the debt is strongly dependent also on growth. We are not ignoring at all these points.

  Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Renew). – Joyeux anniversaire, Commissaire Gentiloni, Messieurs les Commissaires, à ce stade, les orientations de la Commission européenne vont dans le bon sens. Nous devons à la fois assurer la stabilité budgétaire et permettre la flexibilité nécessaire pour investir dans les objectifs de l’Union européenne qui ne peuvent plus attendre: les transitions verte et numérique et l’autonomie stratégique. Il s’agit donc de sortir d’une pure logique comptable pour passer à un pacte véritablement politique capable de s’adapter à la réalité des crises et des défis à relever par les États membres.

Le seul objectif annuel de réduction de la dette ne correspondait donc plus à la réalité des faits. La stabilité budgétaire se fera donc avec le consentement des États membres, de leurs peuples et en adéquation avec les objectifs que nous nous sommes fixés. L’approche personnalisée pour chaque État membre, qui devra indiquer comment il compte tenir son déficit et sa dette publique, sera aussi très importante.

Ma question est la suivante: comment en parallèle repenser et assurer, concrètement, nos indicateurs de suivi de nos politiques pour prendre davantage en compte les dimensions climatique, sociale et d’autonomie?

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, first of all, thank you for the support. A word on orientations which we are putting forward. Indeed, we are providing more leeway for Member States with what you called a personalised approach.

Of course, as I was mentioning before, it's important that it's within a common European framework. So that's why we are coming with those reference adjustment pass for each Member State based on a common European methodology. But then it's for Member States to come up with their fiscal structural plans and do some adjustments, including adjustments if they implement reforms and investments which are growth-enhancing, supporting fiscal sustainability, and also responding to common European priorities, including the green and digital transition, strengthening the resilience of the European economy, reaching the strategic aims of the EU.

So all of this is already reflected in the orientations which we are providing. And of course the way we are applying fiscal rules is to be seen also in a broader context, for example, of European Semester, where we are taking this broader approach, also looking at our strategic work directions, looking at sustainable development goals, other elements.

So we are not just looking at, one or two or three figures, there is this broader approach, not all of those elements are in our orientations. But if you look at the broader approaches you are having in European Semester and by the way, exactly today we are presenting the autumn European Semester cycle. Clearly, we are taking this wider view.

  Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Renew). – Sur l’approche personnalisée pour chaque État membre, qui nous semble plus réaliste: jusqu’à quel degré de personnalisation, d’individualisation faut-il aller? Parce qu’il faut en même temps assurer une cohérence de ces différents programmes économiques nationaux pour éviter – et vous l’avez dit – une fragmentation du marché intérieur.

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Well, once again, on this element, we will once again need to find the right balance because, on the one hand, we want to have more leeway for Member States. And Member States may choose different approaches. Some may indeed focus more on production; others may focus more on investments and structural reform. And this leeway is there. So we have not quantified this leeway in our orientations. If you look at our orientations, they are more like a qualitative description of how this mechanism would work. But clearly there are some limits, exactly as you outlined, to avoid the fragmentation of the single market and to ensure equal treatment of Member States.

So also there, I would say there will be some margin of appreciation also for the European Commission when assessing Member States’ fiscal structural plans, whether it’s close enough to the orientations which we are providing. At the end of the day, those fiscal structural plans are to be approved by the Council. So Member States will also be able to sort of do peer-to-peer control and see whether all Member States are getting equal treatment and whether the rules, including this additional leeway, are applied in a consistent way across the board.

  Enikő Győri (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök úr! A reformok akkor jók, ha hatékonyak, kézzelfogható eredményt hoznak, és kevesebb terhet jelentenek. Én úgy ítélem meg, hogy a gazdasági kormányzás reformjával kapcsolatosan egyelőre több a kérdés, mint a válasz. Kérdezem, hogy mi a garancia arra, hogy az adósság-fenntarthatósági számítások megalapozottak lesznek, és hoznak-e egyszerűsítést? Kérdezem, hogy mi a garancia arra, hogy a beruházások és reformok végrehajtásának ellenőrzésére létrehozandó új eszköz segítségével a gazdasági és adósság-fenntarthatósági hatást majd megalapozottan tudjuk értékelni? És kérdezem, mint olyan képviselő, aki nem az euróövezet egyik országából érkezik, hogy a túlzottdeficit-eljáráshoz hogyan viszonyul majd ez az új eszköz?

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Well, I hope we are not complicating the framework, which is rather famous to be a little bit complicated. One of the more qualified experts of our fiscal rules compared them to the Sagrada Familia. Well, once, a few years ago. And the Sagrada Familia, you know, it’s wonderful but it is the result of successive edits. So in this case we are working to try to simplify and to be effective.

Were we effective in the last 10/20 years? I think we were effective in more or less one single thing, which was this 3 % threshold for the deficit. This was clear, understandable and, not always, but more or less respected. And it was a good leeway. Were we effective in the reduction of debt? No, honestly, we had this very ambitious 60 % debt rule, but not effective. Were we affect the on the quality of public expenditure investments? Well, we were not. After the financial crisis, unfortunately, public investment was going down and down.

So the fact that now we have a more realistic path of reduction of the debt and an incentive for investment, in our view, should work or at least it could work.

  Enikő Győri (NI). – Hát kívánom, hogy Önnek igaza legyen, és csodálója vagyok Gaudi építészetének. De félek attól, hogy ez nem ad kellő garanciát arra, hogy kevesebb legyen a teher. Megköszönöm, ha kapok az előző kérdésemre választ, hogy ez a beruházások és reformok végrehajtásának ellenőrzésére szolgáló új eszköz hogyan fog viszonyulni a túlzottdeficit–eljáráshoz a nem euróövezeti országok érdekében? És hát van még egy olyan félelmem, hogy vajon nem válik-e túlzottan szubjektívvé ez az egész eljárás? A Bizottság hatásköre, az láthatóan megnövekedne. És kérdezem, hogyan várja el így a Bizottság, hogy a tagállamok jobban magukénak érezzék az egész eljárást?

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Our goal is very clearly to strengthen the role of national governments and parliaments in this. Why? Because we are convinced of the fact that if these strategies of gradually putting the trajectory of the debt in a declining path, and of increasing the quality of public expenditure with a stronger role for investments, are to be successful, they need to be owned by national governments and national parliaments and not only dictated by a common threshold, a common mechanism.

The balance – and it will be very challenging and interesting to find this balance – is that this differentiated approach needs to be compatible with a common framework, and this is why we will provide a common reference at the start of the process. Reference does not mean prescription, it means a reference, meaning that the Member States will elaborate their own plans, taking into account this reference.

So I think the national role could be strengthened and this is a guarantee of effectiveness. I don’t think that we will change substantially the differences that are there between euro area and non—euro area Member States in this framework.

  President. – Before we continue I have two announcements. The first is to say that the speakers’ list is now closed. The second is to ask you to put only one question now, so that I can give the floor to everyone that has requested it in this debate.

  Agnes Jongerius (S&D). – I think we cannot underestimate the social consequences of the present economic crisis. So I will solely focus on how do these rules help us in this social crisis. And I would like to start by reading from the European Pillar of Social Rights, Pillar 20, which says ‘everyone has the right to access of essential services of good quality, including water, sanitation, energy, transport, financial services and digital communications. Support for access to such services shall be available for those in need’.

My question would be how can the Commission push for implementation enforcement of these rights in the national action plans, taking into account the potential negative consequences of the measures you are presenting?

My second question would be on the action plan of the social pillar, because in Porto we promise that we would set concrete targets and measures to reduce inequality and tackle poverty. So my question would be, how will these new financial fiscal rules complement and maintain these goals?

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – That probably brings us slightly out of, strictly speaking, the orientations we are discussing right now to some slightly broader questions on the European Semester, because indeed in the European Semester, over recent years, we have been constantly strengthening the social dimension.

If we look, for example, at country-specific recommendations – so to say, maybe, pre-general escape clause country-specific recommendations – clearly around a third of the recommendations were related to social and employment issues, and those recommendations were formulated clearly keeping in mind the European Pillar of Social Rights and the goals defined in the European Pillar of Social Rights.

How are we monitoring already now within the European Semester? We have a so-called social scoreboard where we are monitoring key social indicators. So from that point of view, I would see that the social dimension in the European Semester is going to be very present also following this review of the governance framework.

You mentioned negative consequences of these orientations. Well, if you look at these orientations, the general direction is clearly for more gradual debt adjustment paths, for more flexibility for Member States to determine those fiscal adjustment paths and so, correspondingly, also for more possibility to take social and other considerations into account when determining those. And I would expect an improvement in the situation thereafter, if those orientations are followed.

  Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Dear Commissioners, as Greens we warmly welcome that we are actually finally debating a reform of the Stability and Growth Pact and the fiscal rules. But some days ago we could see that the climate conference, the COP, ended with quite a disappointing result.

And I think nearly all of us agree that we need more investments, we need more climate investments. And looking at the figures and estimations the Commission has come with, we can see that we are actually missing 520 billion each year for green investments. And it’s true, that’s not just public investments, it’s not just the European Union or the national level, but in general we are missing 520 billion to reach that goal.

So I would ask you much more concretely, what do you think is in your proposal to ensure that we will end up with more green investments, needed green investments, to reach our climate goals? I think that you are missing the green investment rules, and I would like to get a comment from you on why you haven’t agreed to propose the green investment rule and what you think is the way forward for green investments.

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND
Vizepräsident

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – I will not repeat the mechanism that you know very well that we are proposing to incentivise investments. I think this mechanism, which is allowing especially countries with moderate fiscal space to gain time in the path of their debt reduction, if they concentrate their investments in the common priorities, this will be mostly targeted on green investments, of course.

But you are right I think – so this is the answer referring to our proposals, our orientation – on stressing the fact that we should never underestimate the amount of investment that is ahead of us. We frequently refer, and rightly so, to the amount of debt that we have to address and to reduce with the gradual and reasonable and effective path. But never forget that there is another mountain, which is the mountain of investment, if we want to keep our leadership on the green transition and if we want to keep our competitiveness in relation to our global partners or competitors.

Of course, the figures you were mentioning, the 500 and more pro year, will be mostly private investments, it is not thinkable that this is for public investment. But part of this will be because it’s impossible not to be public and we have to guarantee a fiscal space for this. The new proposal of rules is allowing this much better than the present situation, in our view.

  President. – Commissioner, please accept my best wishes on the occasion of your birthday.

  Joachim Schuster (S&D). – Der Kommissionsvorschlag, der orientiert sich ja sehr stark auch an den positiven Erfahrungen, die wir mit dem Wiederaufbaufonds gemacht haben. Es soll länderspezifische Pläne geben, es soll gemeinsame Kriterien geben, und der Wiederaufbaufonds sieht ja auch ein Anreizsystem vor, damit die Länder auch williger sind, dieses zu tun.

Deswegen, bezogen auf die Analogie, hätte ich noch einmal die Bitte, es ein wenig zu konkretisieren: Nach welchen Kriterien soll eigentlich die Bewertung dann der länderspezifischen Programme genau vorgenommen werden? Wie wird sichergestellt, dass das transparent und vorhersehbar erfolgt und dass die gleichen Kriterien für alle Staaten gelten müssen? Es kann ja nicht sein, dass es ganz unterschiedliche Kriterien gibt. Und wie steht es mit dem Anreizsystem? Wäre es denn nicht sinnvoll zu sagen: Wir machen auch so etwas – sicherlich in der Dimension verringert – wie einen Fonds, dass wir Anreize dafür setzen, dass bestimmte Reformen auch in der Tat dann durchgeführt werden?

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Indeed, we had been drawing some inspiration from the functioning of recovery and resilience facilities that it is the Member States, which are setting up their national plans but within a clear European framework. And what we are now proposing in our orientation is more or less the same. Member States are setting up their medium-term fiscal structural plans within a clear European framework and taking into account reference fiscal adjustment paths, which the European Commission would provide based on the common methodology.

At the same time, countries have a possibility to diverge from those reference paths once again, not based on different criteria, it’s based on common European criteria, but differentiated. So to put it simple, especially for countries with high debt and correspondingly higher debt sustainability risks, we would expect those countries to pursue more a debt reduction path. And for countries with lower sustainability risks, which are closer to 60% of GDP, a possibility to have a more gradual adjustment path. So there is a differentiation, but once again, based on clear criteria and there is this additional flexibility if Member States implement reforms and structural reforms and investments. In this case they can also have the possibility to have more gradual adjustment. So those are main elements. But indeed, as you noted, there is some inspiration taken from the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

  Henrike Hahn (Verts/ALE). – Die Europäische Kommission hat die lang erwartete Reform der Schuldenregeln angestoßen, und das war mehr als überfällig. Wir haben zu Beginn der Pandemie in Solidarität den Stabilitäts- und Wachstumspakt ausgesetzt, und der Schuldenstand in der Eurozone hat sich erhöht.

Und gerade deswegen: Ein One-size-fits-all-Ansatz ist unrealistisch angesichts der unterschiedlichen Haushalts- und Strukturbedingungen der Mitgliedstaaten. Deswegen ist der Plan der Kommission, mittelfristige und mitgliedstaatenspezifische Schuldenpläne einzuführen, ein guter Vorschlag. Das wird auch nicht heißen, dass jeder haushalten kann, wie er will; das Regelwerk bleibt einheitlich und gilt einheitlich.

Wir brauchen aber jetzt massive Investitionen in den Klimaschutz, und dafür müssen neue Schuldenregeln den Spielraum in den Staatshaushalten schaffen. Die Integration der Haushaltspläne in die nationalen Energie- und Klimapläne ist deswegen ein Schritt nach vorne. Trotzdem: Bei Klimainvestitionen brauchen wir mehr Tempo und mehr Ehrgeiz. Der Ehrgeiz, der bei der COP 27 fehlte, bedeutet jetzt für die EU umso mehr eine Verpflichtung.

Und hier meine Frage: Wie können wir es schaffen, den Mitgliedstaaten finanziellen Raum zu schaffen, damit die Mitgliedstaaten in der Lage sind, erfolgreich gegen den Klimawandel zu kämpfen?

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for your words, I’ve never had such a plenary birthday. I really appreciate your words and our orientation, but I understand the point you are making on the fact that yes, we have differentiated paths of these fiscal mid-term plans.

With this differentiated path we are also providing a common framework. We cannot have a sort of Europe à la carte, everyone choosing their own framework. But you are stressing the fact that we need also a further commitment on common investments, especially related to the climate transition.

I agree. I think we are working on this. We have a big programme now that is finalising the process of decision, which is RePowerEU and at the same time Commission services are working on the assessment of needs of investments. Because we are aware of what you were saying, we can address these needs of investments of course through our fiscal rules and this is the point we are discussing this afternoon, but also through other tools, strengthening our fiscal firepower, strengthening RePowerEU, finding new ways to support the common efforts, especially for countries that are at risk with their fiscal space.

So we are aware of this need. We know also that it is not easy to have further common tools on the table because of the fact that we are still working with NextGenerationEU and the RRF. But we are now assessing the needs, and I think this is the first step towards addressing the issue you were raising.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnilor comisari, sigur că atunci când facem o schimbare legislativă, ne gândim și la impact. Este foarte bine că ați explicat și la răspunsurile pe care le-ați dat, că ați vrut să lăsați o mai mare lejeritate pentru spațiu fiscal, în funcție de gradul de îndatorare al fiecărui stat.

Întrebarea mea este: v-ați gândit că noi avem în același timp de implementat o nouă strategie de reindustrializare a Uniunii Europene, o nouă strategie a IMM-urilor? Ați calculat un impact dacă cu această reformă legislativă a guvernanței comune în cele 27 de state avem un impact pozitiv, până la urmă, asta este important, cum traversăm crizele, cum reușim să nu afectăm pe cei mai slabi, adică IMM-urile, microîntreprinderile și cum putem să aducem o plusvaloare, că până la urmă și Uniunea Europeană s-a împrumutat din piața de capital și trebuie să dăm până în 2058 și banii înapoi.

Deci mă interesează dacă aveți un impact calculat.

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – On the impact of what we are proposing, well clearly when we are discussing EU fiscal rules, a review of EU fiscal rules, our annual European Semester cycle, it’s obviously first and foremost about the coordination of our fiscal and macroeconomic policies.

From that point of view, of course, we are assessing what impact the implementation of those policies has on the European economy, whether we are having the right policy mix, whether we are finding the right balance between debt reduction, between different investments and structural reforms which we need to be implementing.

So clearly we have all those elements in mind. The general direction of our proposal is to allow more flexibility and for more leeway for Member States to determine their debt reduction trajectories, their fiscal trajectories and, correspondingly, having more possibilities to finance a national investment, including for the areas which you mentioned, which are important for the productivity of the European economy.

Also, if you look at our current European Semester structure, for example, the Annual Sustainable Growth Survey, which we are publishing today, we are focusing on four dimensions of competitive sustainability. One of those dimensions is exactly related to productivity and, correspondingly, obviously also to the functioning of our industry and SMEs.

  Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE). – Merci de nous proposer cette réforme des règles fiscales qui s’appliquent aujourd’hui au sein de l’Union européenne. On a vu dans les dernières décennies à quel point ces règles étaient ineptes et inaptes – inaptes à préserver la dignité des peuples et la démocratie comme en Grèce; inaptes également à garantir l’impératif de justice sociale, cette prospérité partagée au cœur de la promesse européenne; inaptes finalement à protéger les services publics, les services sociaux et les travailleurs essentiels dont on a tant vu à quel point ils étaient nécessaires pendant la crise pandémique, et il nous manque aujourd’hui 142 milliards d’investissements chaque année pour préserver ces services publics.

Inaptes, enfin, parce que ces règles ne tiennent pas compte – et elles ne tiennent malheureusement toujours pas compte – des limites planétaires ni de l’impératif de lutte contre le dérèglement climatique. Elles ne tiennent même pas compte du fait que le dérèglement climatique pèsera sur les dettes et les finances publiques à l’avenir. Or, les lois de l’économie ne sont pas au-dessus des lois de la nature. La logique libérale et comptable ne peut se pourchasser elle-même, elle doit être mise au service d’un véritable objectif politique.

Ma question est donc: comment garantirez-vous le fait que ces règles visent effectivement la prospérité partagée et la préservation de l’environnement? Ne pensez-vous pas qu’il est grand temps de modifier ces règles en profondeur, par exemple à l’aide d’un traité environnemental qui tiendrait compte des plafonds sociaux?

  Paolo Gentiloni, membre de la Commission. – Je pense qu’on ne peut pas demander à ces règles budgétaires de résoudre tous nos problèmes. Ce que ces règles budgétaires et nos propositions de réforme de ces règles budgétaires peuvent nous garantir est un mix entre une réduction de la dette beaucoup plus graduelle et flexible et un avantage pour les investissements communs, en particulier pour les investissements verts, mais pas seulement, pour d’autres priorités aussi.

Je pense que le processus d’inclusion de la dimension environnementale et sociale dans nos exercices de surveillance budgétaire a commencé depuis quelques années et il faut le poursuivre. Il est très important de prendre en considération le pilier social dans notre exercice budgétaire. Et nous allons présenter maintenant à la presse le Semestre européen, la session d’automne, et ce en accordant une attention particulière au pilier social. Et c’est également important pour la dimension environnementale et, de manière générale, pour les objectifs de développement durable.

Nous sommes en train de travailler, je pense, pas seulement avec les règles budgétaires, mais avec tout le processus de surveillance économique pour essayer d’aller au delà de la simple mesure du PIB et des règles macroéconomiques générales.

  Estrella Durá Ferrandis (S&D). – Hace ahora un año, en una reunión conjunta de las Comisiones EMPL y ECON, aquí en el Parlamento, les decía que el Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento no tiene ni la estructura ni la flexibilidad necesaria para hacer frente a la crisis.

En aquel momento hablábamos de la crisis económica y social de la pandemia. Ahora tenemos que añadir la de la guerra. Creo que es el momento realmente de avanzar hacia un nuevo modelo de gobernanza que ponga los derechos sociales al mismo nivel que los económicos y los medioambientales.

Se ha insistido aquí —desde la mayoría de los grupos políticos— y se ha preguntado sobre la regla de oro. Es verdad que necesitamos avanzar —y ustedes lo han planteado— poco a poco y de una forma individualizada para cada Estado miembro. Pero tenemos que llegar a ese punto de no retorno. No podemos ralentizar el proceso de una transición temporal y medidas temporales para volver al mismo punto de atrás.

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – So first of all, I would like to underline that there is a flexibility inbuilt also in the current rules of the Stability and Growth Pact, and the very fact that we were activating the general escape clause during the pandemic and it’s still activated and will stay activated next year, is within existing rule framework. And also earlier in the debate, some colleagues were referring to the January 2015 European Commission communication on best use of flexibility within the existing rules of the Stability and Growth Pact, which also outlined a number of flexibilities which exist within existing fiscal rules.

So what we are doing now, we are obviously making a step further, providing yet further flexibility for Member States to determine their adjustment paths, moving away from the so-called 1/20 reduction rule. So clearly what we are proposing in that orientation is heading towards more flexibility, towards more leeway for Member States to determine their fiscal adjustment paths.

But in any case, I wanted to thank all colleagues for your questions for this debate we had today. As I was saying at the beginning, those orientations are orientations. Now we are gathering feedback from the European Parliament, from the Member States, and if, on the basis of these orientations, we see that a consensus is possible, we will follow up with concrete proposals. Obviously, taking into account feedback we are having from the Member States, from the European Parliament and from other stakeholders.

  Der Präsident. – Die Fragestunde ist damit beendet.

15. Acte delegate [articolul 111, alineatul (6) din Regulamentul de procedură](cursul dat)

  Der Präsident. – Ich habe zunächst zwei Mitteilungen.

In Bezug auf die vom ECON-Ausschuss eingereichten Empfehlungen für Beschlüsse, keine Einwände gegen zwei delegierte Rechtsakte zu erheben, die bei der Eröffnung der gestrigen Sitzung angekündigt wurden, haben zum einen die Fraktion Verts/ALE und die Fraktion The Left gegen die Empfehlung im Hinblick auf den Wert für den Clearing-Schwellenwert für Positionen in OTC‑Rohstoffderivatekontrakten und sonstigen OTC-Derivatekontrakten Einwände erhoben und hat zum anderen die Fraktion The Left gegen die Empfehlung zu befristeten Sofortmaßnahmen in Bezug auf die Anforderungen an Sicherheiten Einwände erhoben.

Gemäß Artikel 111 Absatz 6 der Geschäftsordnung werden diese Empfehlungen daher in die Abstimmungen am Donnerstag aufgenommen.

16. Componența comisiilor și a delegațiilor

  Der Präsident. – Die S&D-Fraktion hat der Präsidentin einen Beschluss über die Änderung von Ernennungen in einer Delegation übermittelt.

Dieser Beschluss wird im Protokoll der heutigen Sitzung aufgeführt und tritt am Tage dieser Ankündigung in Kraft.

(Die Sitzung wird um 16.35 Uhr unterbrochen.)

17. Reluarea ședinței

(Die Sitzung wird um 16.40 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

18. Timp afectat întrebărilor (VPC/ÎR) - Impactul războiului de agresiune al Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei asupra țărilor terțe în contextul Acordului privind exportul de cereale prin Marea Neagră

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Fragestunde (VP/HV) gemäß Artikel 137 der Geschäftsordnung. Ich begrüße Herrn Borrell zu dieser Fragestunde. Das Thema dieser Fragestunde lautet: Auswirkungen des russischen Angriffskriegs gegen die Ukraine auf Drittländer in Bezug auf das Abkommen im Rahmen der „Schwarzmeer-Getreide-Initiative“.

Die Fragestunde ist für 60 Minuten vorgesehen. Wir sind jetzt schon etwas spät dran. Die Redezeit ist normalerweise eine Minute für die Frage und zwei Minuten für die Antwort, 30 Sekunden für eine Zusatzfrage und zwei Minuten für die Antwort.

Ich weise Sie daraufhin, dass eine mögliche Zusatzfrage nur dann zulässig ist, wenn sie in einem engen Zusammenhang mit der Hauptfrage steht und keine neue Frage enthält.

Wenn Sie eine Frage stellen möchten, ersuche ich Sie, Ihren Antrag jetzt zu registrieren, indem Sie die Funktion Ihres Abstimmungsgeräts für spontane Wortmeldungen nutzen, nachdem Sie Ihre Stimmkarte eingeschoben haben. Während der Fragestunde erfolgen Wortmeldungen von Ihrem Sitzplatz aus, und ich ersuche alle Redner, die ihnen zugewiesene Redezeit einzuhalten.

Die Kolleginnen und Kollegen benötigen möglicherwiese einige Augenblicke, um ihren Antrag, eine Frage zu stellen, über ihr Abstimmungsgerät zu registrieren. Daher ersuche ich Sie erneut, Ihren Antrag jetzt zu stellen, und wir beginnen mit der ersten Frage. Damit wir mit den vorgesehenen 12 Fragen auch rumkommen, behalte ich mir vor, anzukündigen, dass Zusatzfragen nicht mehr erlaubt sind.

  Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, vă mulțumesc foarte mult pentru că avem posibilitatea de a avea o discuție legată de o chestiune foarte importantă, și anume transportul de cereale prin Marea Neagră. Domnule Înalt Reprezentant după cum bine știți, acest lucru este indispensabil pentru garantarea securității alimentare în diverse colțuri ale lumii, pe de o parte, și pe de altă parte, evident că se constituie într-un mecanism indispensabil în ceea ce înseamnă prevenirea fenomenului migraționist.

România, țara din care provin și eu, știți foarte bine că a asigurat tranzitul a peste 65 la sută din cerealele exportate din Ucraina în diverse colțuri ale lumii. Acest lucru a creat o presiune foarte mare pe ceea ce înseamnă infrastructura de transport de toate tipurile, cea fluvială, maritimă, dar și terestră și, în același timp, a creat dificultăți majore fermierilor din România.

Întrebarea mea pentru dumneavoastră este, domnule Înalt reprezentant, cum înțelege Comisia Europeană să sprijine statele membre astfel încât să poată asigura mai departe un flux de cereale către statele terțe, dar în același timp să fie protejați și fermierii din aceste state?

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Thank you. Yes, certainly, Solidarity Lanes has done a great job, but it has a limited capacity. I will focus exactly on the issue of the bottlenecks in these Solidarity Lanes. These bottlenecks are there and certainly the logistics costs are high. And that is why the European Commission – my colleagues from transportation, neighborhood and international partnerships – or rather the Commission budget will dedicate EUR 250 million in grants to sustain and further increase this capacity. In the short term, it will support quick improvements to reduce waiting times and to improve the movement through the border, at crossing points and the access roads.

To go further, we will mobilise EUR 1 billion by 2023 – certainly not from the European Union budget, as it’s not so big, but using the European Investment Bank, which will lend EUR 300 million for these projects. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development will lend another EUR 300 million and the World Bank will provide EUR 100 million to ensure liquidity for operators for repairs and capacity increases.

Also, we had to take care of agricultural activity in this region. But the main purpose of the Solidarity Lanes is to provide the infrastructure for the export of products from Ukraine that, in any case, would be exported by the Black Sea or by land through Romania to the Black Sea ports.

  Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor Borrell, el resultado real de la operación por el mar Negro ha sido de diez millones de toneladas. Sin embargo, el resultado diplomático y de imagen para Turquía ha sido enorme. Aparece Turquía como el gran benefactor del tercer mundo, haciendo un papel que tiene unos réditos diplomáticos.

¿Cuál ha sido el resultado real de nuestros corredores de solidaridad? A pesar de ese coste que usted decía, a pesar de los cuellos de botella, hemos sacado quince millones de toneladas. Quince millones de toneladas por nuestras vías terrestres, diez millones por el mar Negro. Y, sin embargo, el rédito diplomático de esta enorme operación, con los costes que usted ha dicho, es mucho menor.

Es más, Rusia ha conseguido, al menos durante algún tiempo, meter la imagen de que los problemas en algunas partes, por ejemplo, de África, tenían que ver con nuestras sanciones y no con el hecho de la guerra. Por no hablar del margen que ha ganado Turquía para, seguramente, hacer una política exterior diferente.

Señor Borrell, ¿cómo es posible que una operación de este coste y de este beneficio no tenga la misma repercusión en términos diplomáticos que está teniendo la de Turquía?

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señor presidente, señor Sánchez Amor, es una buena pregunta.

Tiene seguramente que ver con el hecho de que con la acción diplomática de las Naciones Unidas y de Turquía (a la que, por cierto, hemos contribuido mucho) se hacía saltar un bloqueo naval que era muy evidente (puertos cerrados, barcos de guerra bloqueando puertos). Es una imagen que trasciende mucho más que pasar por la puerta de atrás, facilitando mejoras en las infraestructuras y comunicaciones, aligerando los trámites burocráticos. Cosas que no son tan «sexys» como barcos de guerra bloqueando puertos y las Naciones Unidas negociando.

Por eso le agradezco su pregunta y les invito a todos, a todos, a todos los niveles, a explicar. A explicar que por la puerta de atrás hemos exportado quince millones de toneladas, mientras que, por la puerta frontal, el mar Negro, hasta el momento, solo diez. Probablemente con menor coste unitario y con mayores expectativas de aumentar este tráfico. Seguramente, porque desde allí han ido directamente por barco a zonas que son mucho más difíciles de alcanzar, por ejemplo Somalia. Cuatro grandes buques cerealeros han salido de los puertos del mar Negro con destino a Somalia. Eso es muy visible. De las toneladas que han salido por la apertura del bloqueo, el 27 % ha ido al norte de África y el 58 % a Asia.

Por lo tanto, el discurso ruso de que «bueno, a fin de cuentas, ese grano va a Europa», no es cierto. Las cifras son tozudas. A donde ha ido fundamentalmente es al llamado «sur global», el 27 % a Ucrania, perdón, al norte de África y el 58 % a Asia.

  Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor Borrell, me viene muy bien esa última reflexión suya, porque hay que poner transparencia en el asunto de las reexportaciones. Porque a veces los datos indican el primer puerto donde recala ese barco cerealero y no sabemos si el cereal, transformado en harina o no, va a otros sitios. Ese es un mercado que hay que aclarar, porque a veces recibimos noticias confusas sobre Turquía, que acaba de decir que va a hacer una gran exportación de harina, no de grano, de harina, al tercer mundo y eso quiere decir que parte de ese grano va a reexportarse.

Yo creo que poner transparencia en la reexportación de ese grano por las dos vías sería importante.

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Sin duda, pero eso ya es bastante más difícil. Conocer el primer puerto en el que recala el grano, su conversión en un producto con valor añadido y dónde acaba yendo seguramente escapa a las estadísticas de comercio. Y hasta cierto punto es inevitable porque el gran barco descarga el cereal en un sitio donde, convertido en harina, después se reexporta a otros lugares en cantidades más parceladas, menores, haciendo una difusión en red que también contribuye a que el usuario final tenga acceso al producto.

  Irène Tolleret (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, l’accord de la mer Noire est trop fragile. Il nous laisse à la merci du libre arbitre de Poutine. J’ai donc une série de questions pour la Commission pour que nous réussissions cet objectif visant à sortir de cette dépendance.

Tout d’abord, quelles sont les mesures que vous mettrez en place pour établir des corridors terrestres sécurisés et avec quel calendrier? Au delà de fournir à court terme des engrais indispensables pour les pays les plus fragiles, que pourrait faire l’Union européenne pour aider à rendre les systèmes agricoles, notamment ceux des pays africains, plus résilients, notamment en matière de numérisation? Troisièmement, seulement 1 % des terres arables africaines ont un système d’irrigation. La Commission a-t-elle prévu des plans d’investissement dans des infrastructures d’irrigation? La gestion de la sécheresse est essentielle. Enfin, la Commission a-t-elle prévu de travailler avec ses partenaires de l’Union africaine pour un plan pour les protéines végétales indigènes, comme le niébé, pour améliorer la sécurité alimentaire dans les pays les plus pauvres?

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señoría, sus preguntas, si me permite, son un poco cósmicas. Porque pretende usted tratarlo todo y cuestiones de gran trascendencia. Pero tiene razón. Más que dar pescado, hay que enseñar a pescar. Y en África hay un problema de capacidad de producción agrícola. Y, por eso, aparte de hacer lo que estamos haciendo, he contestado una pregunta antes diciendo las inversiones que vamos a hacer o que se van a hacer en las infraestructuras de transporte por vía terrestre.

Ciertamente hay que aumentar la capacidad agrícola de los países africanos y suministrarles en primera instancia fertilizantes. Porque el fertilizante de hoy es la cosecha de mañana. El aumento de la capacidad agrícola es para pasado mañana en el mejor de los casos. Pero el fertilizante hoy es cosecha o no cosecha mañana. Y por eso hemos puesto especial énfasis en liberar las vías de suministro de fertilizantes.

El primer problema que hemos tenido es que la propia industria europea de fertilizantes ha disminuido su producción. Y la ha disminuido porque los precios del gas han sido tan elevados que muchos productores han dejado de producir. Por lo tanto, lo primero que tenemos que hacer es recuperar nuestra capacidad productiva para, a partir de ella, recuperar nuestra capacidad exportadora.

Luego, el Global Gateway, nuestro gran instrumento de acción internacional, prevé que se va a invertir mucho en la transición verde. Y la transición verde también tiene que ver con poner en producción tierras agrícolas para hacer a los países menos dependientes de la importación agrícola y con aumentar las prácticas agroecológicas y agrosostenibles. En África subsahariana, por ejemplo, el Paquete de Inversión de Global Gateway - Sistemas alimentarios sostenibles —su nombre lo dice todo— va a invertir en aumentar la producción sostenible en Níger, en Madagascar, en Costa de Marfil, en Ghana, en Togo, en Zambia... Tengo aquí la lista de los proyectos para la agricultura y la ganadería sostenible en Chad y en Sudán, las pesquerías en Senegal y en Somalia...

En total, se van a movilizar unos 600 millones de euros para apoyar a los países africanos y del Caribe —los países ACP— y 225 millones para la región de África del Norte y de Oriente Próximo. Y, desde luego, el suministro de fertilizantes será una prioridad.

Si sumamos todo, alcanzamos los 8 000 millones de euros hasta el año 2024. Usted me pide, con razón, que le ponga fechas a los flujos de recursos, porque muchas veces anunciamos grandes cantidades sin que detrás haya un calendario concreto de ejecución. Y es tan importante el cuánto como el cuándo. No solamente la cantidad, sino el calendario. Esos 8 000 millones para aumentar la seguridad alimentaria y la producción de alimentos deben ser gastados hasta finales de 2024.

Pero para ello necesitamos, por supuesto, que los bancos de inversión y reconstrucción europeos se comprometan y que evitemos un fenómeno de desplazamiento del sector privado a la hora de producir la alimentación imprescindible para África. La cifra que usted ha dado es muy determinante. Solo un 1 % de las tierras arables están en producción en un continente que tiene graves problemas para su seguridad alimentaria.

  Irène Tolleret (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, merci beaucoup pour ces éléments. Je suis d’accord avec vous: les engrais c’est l’alimentation de demain. En revanche, on sait déjà depuis cet été que l’augmentation du CO2 dans l’atmosphère et les températures extrêmes ont des impacts négatifs sur les rendements de nos récoltes. Nous avons donc besoin d’avoir de nouveaux outils de recherche, y compris pour les pays les plus pauvres.

Je regrette la lenteur des travaux pour la présentation d’un projet au niveau européen de ces nouvelles techniques d’édition génomique et je voulais savoir quand est-ce que la Commission comptait présenter ce texte dont nous avons tant besoin pour la recherche, pour manger après-demain?

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Pues no quisiera asumir unos compromisos que luego no se puedan cumplir. Pero, si no estoy mal informado, está previsto que sea la primera semana de diciembre.

  Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Domnule Înalt Reprezentant, prin România au trecut 6,5 milioane de tone de grâne, preluate din Ucraina și transferate mai departe.

Chiar zilele trecute a fost inaugurat un nou punct de trecere al frontierei pe nordul țării, în relația cu Ucraina, tocmai pentru a-i putea ajuta și mai mult.

Însă întrebarea pe care o ridic este următoarea. Federația Rusă duce o campanie de dezinformare extrem de agresivă în foarte multe state din Orientul Mijlociu sau Africa, prin care ne pune într-o situație extrem de delicată. În condițiile în care noi ajutăm ca grânele din Ucraina să ajungă acolo unde este nevoie, la destinație, Rusia, totuși, duce o campanie de dezinformare, încercând să prezintă deformat realitatea și cred că aici este nevoie de mai multă comunicare pentru a putea explica că noi ajutăm, nu Rusia.

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Dear Member you are very much right: since the beginning of the Russian aggression against Ukraine it has been a big, big process of disinformation that goes together with the weaponisation of food and hunger.

And, apart from stepping up our disinformation, our strategic communication, on debunking Russia’s disinformation process, we have to provide the concrete answers. It’s not just enough saying ‘you are lying’ or “that’s not true”, we have to provide concrete things that people can perceive on the ground.

This is a two-side battle: the battle against information manipulation and disinformation and the battle about delivering concrete support. You know that we have our channels: ‘EU versus Disinformation’ continues to increase awareness about which are the real facts. But Putin’s propaganda machinery is very powerful there, and they have a real industry. From this point of view, our resources are not as big as they have.

Once again, this is a two-side problem. To participate on the fight of information against disinformation and practical and concrete things because people at the end don’t eat news, they eat food. And the important thing is to provide them with food. Trying to explain where this food is coming from and why the food that’s not coming is not coming.

Once again, we repeat that we do not target food and fertilisers in our restrictive measures. Let’s call it sanctions. And we try to inform the economic operators, transport companies, insurance companies that they can personally participate on the trade from Russia if it is about food or fertilisers. There is nothing in our sanctions that prevent that from happening.

And this is a work of every day to debunk Russia’s lies and provide information. Because every day I see in the networks Russian propaganda explaining the contrary. This is a long-running battle that has to be supported by concrete facts, because otherwise people will not know to whom believe,

But they think we are doing progress. And at Sharm el-Sheikh this debate was also there: who is guilty of what, and I think that our work produced the result. But we have to continue fighting the food insecurity in one side and Russia’s lies in the other.

  Mónica Silvana González (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor alto representante, la guerra de Rusia contra Ucrania está aumentando el hambre. Está claro. Y nada tienen que ver las sanciones que desde la Unión Europea hemos impuesto a Rusia. Datos de la FAO — de las Naciones Unidas— demuestran que en septiembre los precios estaban reduciéndose, con una caída del 1,4 % del cereal y del 5,1 % del trigo.

Como buena noticia, hace unos días se prorrogó el pacto de la exportación de grano por los puertos del mar Negro, pero debemos aclarar que su destino principal —más del 70 %— son países de renta media y renta media alta que dependen de este cereal ucraniano. Pero, ¿qué pasa con los países de renta media y renta media baja donde la hambruna se incrementa cada vez más?

¿Qué medidas adicionales está tomando la Comisión a medio y largo plazo que no dependan de acuerdos concretos, sino que permitan que millones y millones de personas no tengan que depender de prórrogas de estos acuerdos?

¿Servirán las inversiones de la iniciativa Global Gateway que usted acaba de anunciar para crear oportunidades y mitigar la hambruna? ¿Qué mecanismos de seguimiento tiene? ¿De qué fechas disponen estas inversiones?

Tomémonos en serio el hambre y su vínculo con las migraciones que seguirán llegando a Europa. Es necesario buscar soluciones a largo plazo para que no se cronifique la hambruna en el Sur Global.

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señoría, antes de la guerra, la mitad de los alimentos que distribuía por el mundo el Programa Mundial de Alimentos procedía de Ucrania. Esto demuestra la importancia estratégica de este gran productor de alimentos.

Ahora, gracias a la Iniciativa sobre la Exportación de Cereales por el mar Negro y a los corredores de solidaridad, los precios están cayendo y podemos decir que estos dos mecanismos han contribuido a esa caída de precios del 15 %, como usted ha citado.

Quiero insistir en que la mayoría de los cargamentos que han salido de Ucrania han ido, y cito los países, a Turquía, a Egipto, a Irán, a India, a Sudán, Kenia, también a China. Como puede ver, hay países aquí de renta media. No todos son los más pobres de los pobres, sino países que han alcanzado cierto nivel de desarrollo e incluso un apreciable nivel de desarrollo. ¿Por qué? Pues porque el destino de lo que está saliendo de Ucrania también sigue las pautas de lo que ocurría antes de la guerra. Este mecanismo no está pensado para alterar las rutas comerciales anteriores a la guerra, sino para reconstituirlas.

Pero, como antes se ha preguntado, o se ha comentado, algunos de los productos que salen de Ucrania, antes de llegar a su destino final, recalan en países intermedios y, por eso, su destino alcanza a los países de renta baja y de renta media.

Podemos decir que lo que ha salido por la Iniciativa sobre la Exportación de Cereales por el mar Negro ha más que duplicado el transporte de productos alimenticios a los países menos desarrollados entre agosto y septiembre. Y la mayoría de ellos han acabado en los programas del Programa Mundial de Alimentos. Déjeme que le diga algunas cifras: tres cuartas partes del aceite de girasol, dos tercios del trigo, la mitad de todos los productos alimenticios han ido a los países en vías de desarrollo, algunos de renta media y otros de renta más baja. Pero, en general, todo el mundo se ha beneficiado del desbloqueo de las exportaciones desde Ucrania.

  Anna Bonfrisco (ID). – Signor Alto rappresentante, grazie per le Sue parole chiarificatrici.

Volgendo lo sguardo al futuro, possiamo dire che la crisi alimentare potrebbe far morire più persone di quelle colpite dalla pandemia. L'insicurezza alimentare e la fame nel mondo hanno numeri scioccanti: in Afghanistan 20 milioni, nello Yemen 19 milioni, nel Sahel 18 milioni, nel Corno d'Africa 37 milioni.

Quello che l'Ucraina immetteva nel mercato globale prima della guerra erano milioni di tonnellate al mese, quindi stiamo solo intravedendo oggi i segni precursori del disastro che sta per avvenire.

Le chiedo quindi: nello sforzo di mettere insieme l'assistenza alimentare di emergenza, ci può dire quali modifiche del sistema di aiuti l'Unione si appresta ad apportare per migliorarlo, visto che era non sostenibile ancora prima della guerra?

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Sí, señoría, tiene usted razón. El hambre mata a más gente que las guerras, y el cambio climático no va a hacer la cosa más fácil. Porque el cambio climático también va a causar en algunas partes del mundo una mortandad asociada a sus consecuencias agrícolas.

Probablemente estemos ante eso que se llama una tormenta perfecta. Tenemos los efectos devastadores de la guerra alterando los circuitos comerciales, en particular los que dependen del grano y del fertilizante provenientes de Rusia y de Ucrania. Tenemos el efecto de la COVID-19, que ha tenido efectos económicos y sociales muy grandes. Tenemos el cambio climático. Ya he visto en Somalia los efectos conjugados del cambio climático, de la sequía, que es un efecto del cambio climático, y de la falta de recursos provenientes del exterior.

Y, según las estadísticas van a aumentar en 222 millones —no sé si se puede calcular con tanta precisión, millón más, millón menos, pero son más de 200 millones— las personas que van a ingresar en el grupo de los que sufren una aguda inseguridad alimentaria. Al menos, eso es lo que nos dice la Red Mundial contra las Crisis Alimentarias. Y esta gente vive en países del norte de África, de Oriente Próximo y del África subsahariana que son muy vulnerables desde el punto de vista climático y debido a su relación de dependencia de Ucrania y de Rusia.

Por eso, hemos lanzado el Mecanismo para la Alimentación y la Resiliencia, con el fin de apoyar a nuestros socios del sur. Se van a destinar 220 millones de euros a los que están en situación más grave.

La falta de fertilizantes también afecta a países de América Latina. A veces miramos solo a África o Asia. Yo acabo de estar en América Latina recientemente, y allí países como México, Perú, Brasil, Chile, Colombia y Argentina, grandes productores agrícolas, se quejan también de la falta de fertilizantes. Por eso, hemos de ayudarles a hacer un cambio hacia fertilizantes no contaminantes, es decir, de tipo ecológico.

Pero, sí, ciertamente, de igual manera que decimos que el invierno que viene será el más difícil desde el punto de vista de nuestra disponibilidad de gas, también tenemos que preguntarnos cuán difícil será la situación alimentaria en función de los rendimientos de la próxima cosecha. La próxima cosecha va a depender críticamente de que a la hora de sembrar se haya dispuesto de los fertilizantes necesarios.

  Anna Bonfrisco (ID). – Signor Alto rappresentante, grazie della Sua risposta.

Per risolvere velocemente gli ostacoli della "Black Sea Grain Initiative", che ha delle peculiarità, ad esempio non contiene una disposizione per la risoluzione delle controversie, e che accorda al Segretario generale e alla Turchia un alto grado di indipendenza come mediatori, e mi pare questo il punto pratico più importante dell'accordo, l'Unione europea vorrebbe introdurre disposizioni o regole in tal senso?

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señor presidente, señoría, ¿qué quiere que le diga? Si quiere que le dé una respuesta honesta: es que no lo sé. Haremos lo posible, pero no es una tarea fácil.

  Witold Jan Waszczykowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Chciałbym dopytać o Solidarity Lens. Dziękuję za informację o finansowaniu tej inicjatywy. Chciałbym zapytać o rozbudowę infrastruktury. Strona ukraińska proponuje zbudowanie rurociągu, którym transportowano by olej. Są inne potrzeby – cysterny, chłodnie na tory itd. Czy jest pomysł rozwoju? Następnie, czy jest pomysł, aby tę kwestię włączyć do Regionalnej Inicjatywy Trójmorza, która włączyła już Ukrainę i mogłaby rozbudowywać sieć transportu? I wreszcie, czy Komisja monitoruje przepływ żywności z Rosji? Czy Rosja używa w dalszym ciągu żywności jako instrumentu politycznego?

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señoría, Rusia intenta instrumentalizar todo lo que puede y cuanto más, mejor: nuestra política alimentaria, nuestra política de infraestructuras, todo. Había un pipeline que no transportaba petróleo, sino que transportaba productos alimentarios líquidos desde Rusia hacia los puertos de Ucrania, que no ha visto interrumpido su funcionamiento y afortunadamente sigue funcionando.

Señoría, usted me pregunta si se pueden hacer mejoras en las infraestructuras. Creo que ya he contestado antes lo que se puede hacer por lo que he llamado la puerta de atrás, es decir, desde Ucrania hasta Rumanía y hacia el mar Negro. Y no es cuestión de anunciar más y más medidas, sino de ejecutarlas.

En lo que se refiere a las infraestructuras en la propia Ucrania, allí, desgraciadamente, lo que estamos viendo ahora es la destrucción de las infraestructuras existentes. Todas ellas necesitan electricidad para funcionar. Otro ataque masivo con drones como el que tuvo lugar hace unos días y el sistema eléctrico ucraniano estará completamente destruido y, por lo tanto, el transporte que consume electricidad —y casi todo consume hoy electricidad— se verá seriamente afectado.

Fíjese: una buena manera de garantizar la capacidad exportadora de Ucrania en este momento, aunque pueda parecer que no tenga nada que ver, es suministrar defensas antiaéreas a Ucrania, para evitar que su sistema eléctrico sea destruido completamente y, por lo tanto, deje de funcionar lo que en cualquier puerto sirve para cargar y descargar los barcos. Esas son también hoy infraestructuras críticas. Y allí está concentrando Rusia su capacidad destructiva. Hemos de evitar los efectos disruptores de estos ataques. Y seguir haciendo lo que estamos haciendo.

Pero, insisto, no esperen que en cada Pleno les anuncie nuevas medidas. Lo que hay que hacer ahora es aplicarlas. Porque cuando les hablo de centenares de millones, de aquí a que esos centenares de millones se hayan convertido en infraestructuras físicas que funcionen —créanme como exministro de Obras Públicas que soy—, pasa un cierto tiempo.

  Witold Jan Waszczykowski (ECR). – Panie Komisarzu! Ja oczywiście nie oczekuję, żeby Pan robił za nas. Bo akurat kraj, który reprezentuję, Polska, w sąsiedztwie Ukrainy robi najwięcej. I między innymi dostarcza środki wojskowe, aby chronić ten transport. I również otworzyła granice. Nie tylko dla 7 milionów ludzi, ale i milionów ton zboża i innych towarów.

Chcę tylko przypomnieć o inicjatywie „Trójmorze”. Czy Unia poprze te inicjatywy, które już są realizowane, między innymi przez Polskę?

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señor presidente, señoría, en efecto: nunca se agradecerá bastante a Polonia el esfuerzo de solidaridad que su gobierno y su gente han hecho con Ucrania a todos los niveles y por todos los procedimientos, suministrando ayuda militar, acogiendo a los refugiados ucranianos, facilitando productos alimentarios. Creo que Polonia ha dado un ejemplo de lo que significa el apoyo a Ucrania en esos tiempos difíciles y la historia le será reconocida.

  Stéphane Bijoux (Renew). – Monsieur le Haut Représentant, au moment où nous nous parlons, l’onde de choc de la guerre en Ukraine percute violemment le monde entier. Et quand Vladimir Poutine utilise la sécurité alimentaire comme une arme de guerre, bien évidemment, il faut protéger tous les Européens, mais aussi nos partenaires internationaux et notamment les îles éloignées.

Je viens d’une petite île européenne de l’océan Indien, La Réunion, et en tant que président de la délégation parlementaire CARIFORUM, j’entends aussi les messages d’alerte inquiétants des États insulaires de la Caraïbe et c’est une bombe humanitaire économique qui menace d’exploser.

Alors, Monsieur le Haut Représentant, je souhaite vous demander ce que l’Europe compte faire pour accompagner les territoires insulaires qui, au lieu de céder aux sirènes et aux promesses chinoises et russes, ont fait au contraire le choix d’un partenariat renforcé avec l’Europe?

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vice-président de la Commission/haut représentant de l’Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité. – Qu’est-ce qu’on peut faire? Eh bien, développer ce partenariat. Vous avez raison, il y a des pays qui ont fait le choix de rester à nos côtés, de ne pas écouter les offres des Chinois et des Russes. Il faut donc leur montrer notre appui. Dans une réponse précédente, j’ai déjà dit que nous allions essayer d’aider les pays ACP au moyen du programme de sécurité alimentaire, avec 600 millions d’euros additionnels. Et je ne peux rien vous dire de plus, sinon que ce partenariat doit être une priorité politique pour nous – parce que les vides se remplissent en politique, et si nous ne sommes pas présents, les autres le seront.

On parle beaucoup de l’Afrique subsaharienne, de l’Éthiopie, de la Somalie, mais il faut aller un peu plus loin et regarder les pays européens parce que finalement, il s’agit bien de départements français et de pays qui, sans être européens, attendent de nous un engagement plus fort dans le domaine alimentaire et aussi dans le domaine climatique.

On vient de le voir au sommet de Charm el-Cheikh, où mon collègue Timmermans a joué un rôle fondamental, «stellaire» dirais-je, pour montrer que l’Europe ne fait pas marche arrière dans ses engagements climatiques, tout au contraire, et qu’elle est le meilleur partenaire des pays qui sont menacés à la fois par la tourmente géopolitique et par la tourmente climatique.

  Antoni Comín i Oliveres (NI). – Señor presidente, sin duda es una buena noticia para la seguridad alimentaria de muchos países en desarrollo que se haya restablecido plenamente el acuerdo de exportación de grano desde Ucrania a través del mar Negro. Sin duda esto ayudará a prevenir el peor escenario para estos países del sur global, que dependen de modo vital de las importaciones de grano ucraniano.

Con respecto a Turquía quisiera señalar que todos sabemos que el papel de mediación y de garante de cumplimiento de este acuerdo por parte de Turquía ha sido muy importante y, por tanto, la importancia geopolítica de Turquía para la Unión Europea se refuerza. Muy bien. Pero también sabemos que Turquía es un país que presenta factores de desestabilización. Por ejemplo, Turquía no ha adoptado las sanciones de la Unión Europea contra Rusia, tenemos indicios claros de que Turquía está ayudando a Rusia a evadir las sanciones de la Unión Europea sobre el petróleo, Turquía está manteniendo una postura abiertamente hostil hacia dos Estados miembros en el Mediterráneo oriental y Turquía muestra signos de planificar una invasión a gran escala en el Kurdistán sirio.

Por lo tanto, tres preguntas muy concretas: ¿qué propondrá el Consejo en relación con las sanciones contra las personas responsables de evadir las sanciones contra Rusia en caso que se demuestren? ¿Qué medidas propondrá el Consejo para defender la integridad territorial de los dos Estados de la Unión amenazados por Turquía? Y tres, ¿qué ...

(El presidente retira la palabra al orador).

  Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Herr Kollege Comín i Oliveres.

Herr Kommissar, bitte schön.

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señor presidente, señoría, no he oído la tercera pregunta. Solo he oído dos.

  Der Präsident. – Na ja, die dritte Frage, die kann der Kollege noch als Nachfrage formulieren, wenn er möchte.

Aber ich weise natürlich darauf hin, dass, wenn eine Frage zu 75 % zunächst aus einem Statement besteht, dann die Straße für die Fragen, die wir eigentlich hatten, natürlich ein bisschen kurz wird.

Deshalb, Herr Kommissar, können Sie sich gern auf die ersten beiden Fragen konzentrieren.

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señor presidente, señorías, las tres preguntas se referían al papel de Turquía y ninguna, al menos no la de Kurdistán, a los temas que hoy abordamos, que son Ucrania y la seguridad alimentaria.

Se ha criticado a Turquía por el papel que se le atribuye para ayudar a circunvalar las sanciones europeas. Yo he hablado y discutido eso con mi colega Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, recientemente en los Emiratos Árabes Unidos, donde me suministró información sobre los flujos de importación desde Europa hacia Turquía y de exportación desde Turquía hacia Rusia. Ciertamente, los datos que suministró Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu demuestran que sí ha habido un aumento importante de las exportaciones desde Turquía a Rusia, pero no, en cambio, un aumento significativo de las importaciones desde Europa hacia Turquía. Por lo tanto, la tesis de la triangularización (de que se exporta desde Europa a Rusia vía Turquía), de acuerdo con los datos que me suministró el ministro turco, no se confirma. Hay un aumento de las exportaciones de Turquía hacia Rusia.

Turquía no se ha alineado con las sanciones europeas y, por lo tanto, está en su capacidad de negociar, pero no parece que sea una reexportación de productos europeos.

Ciertamente hubiéramos preferido que Turquía se alinease con las medidas restrictivas que hemos tomado con respecto a Rusia y, en particular, en relación con el uso de los bienes de uso dual puesto que, a fin de cuentas, Turquía forma parte de la unión aduanera de la Unión Europea.

Le insisto en esa discusión que aprecié y en los datos que me suministró el ministro Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu sobre un claro aumento de las exportaciones hacia Rusia, pero no un claro aumento de las importaciones desde Europa.

No tengo tiempo, ni tampoco creo que sea el tema de hoy, para comentar la actuación de Turquía en Kurdistán, ya que no veo, francamente, qué relación tiene con el problema que nos ha convocado hoy, que es la seguridad alimentaria, las rutas de transporte seguras y la Iniciativa sobre la Exportación de Cereales por el Mar Negro.

Turquía es, y todo el mundo lo sabe, un actor fundamental en Oriente Próximo, y quiero aprovechar la ocasión, si usted me lo permite, y si me lo permite el presidente, para señalar que la posición europea con respecto a la situación en Siria es la de buscar una solución política en el marco de las resoluciones del Consejo de Seguridad.

Estamos trabajando en este sentido.

  Antoni Comín i Oliveres (NI). – Señor presidente, sí, señor Borrell, le preguntaba también sobre el papel de Turquía en evadir las sanciones de la Unión Europea sobre las importaciones de petróleo. Por lo tanto, no solo el flujo de exportaciones de Turquía a Rusia, sino el flujo de importación de petróleo ruso desde Rusia hacia Turquía. Y la pregunta sobre el Kurdistán tiene relación y tiene justificación, porque lo que estamos preguntando es si el creciente rol geopolítico de Turquía... (el presidente retira la palabra al orador).

  Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege Comín i Oliveres, es geht hier um die Schwarzmeer-Getreide-Initiative. Der Kommissar hat Sie bei der ersten Antwort schon höflich darauf hingewiesen, dass es um die Ukraine geht; Sie weichen jetzt auf Öl und die Türkei aus. Diese Zusatzfrage kann ich nicht zulassen.

  Barry Andrews (Renew). – Mr President, Vice—President Borrell, last week I launched the Global Hunger Index with Welthungerhilfe, Concern Worldwide and ACT Alliance. It was the 2022 index, and naturally it was very negative.

It was based to a large extent on data from 2021, before Russia’s war of aggression, and naturally the most insecure countries are the most reliant on Ukrainian and Russian imports and there is an anticipation of a worrying deterioration next year. That’s why it’s particularly worrying that in the EU’s budget for 2023, the largest drop is in Heading 6, which includes humanitarian aid.

So I very much welcome the reinstatement and the extension of the Black Sea Grain initiative. My question relates to the memorandum of understanding that was signed on the same day in the same place between Russia and the UN on Russian exports of fertiliser and food.

The memorandum of understanding was signed on 22 July, and my question relates to the operation of that – if you could broadly brief Parliament on the operation of the MoU, with regard to whether or not reinsurance companies have come back in, whether or not export credit agencies and finance agencies have come back in.

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señor presidente, señoría, le puedo explicar lo que hacemos nosotros, pero no lo que hacen los rusos. Me habla usted de un acuerdo entre Rusia y Turquía.

  Barry Andrews (Renew). – Just for clarification, the memorandum of understanding is between the United Nations and the Russian Federation, and it is to allow for the exports of Russian fertiliser and food. And it’s obviously really important for the importing countries, particularly the most food insecure. So I just wanted to know if you could brief the Parliament on the operation of this MOU, particularly whether or not insurance companies, maritime insurance companies and export credit companies are prepared to operate within the context of the MOU?

If you don’t have that information, I’m happy to get it in written form.

  President. – Thank you colleague, but you are on the corner of the question, of the issue of this Question Time.

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señor presidente, señoría, nosotros no somos parte de este acuerdo. Como usted ha dicho, es un acuerdo entre las Naciones Unidas y Rusia. Pero las Naciones Unidas nos han pedido que aclaremos a todos los operadores de transportes y de seguros que pueden trabajar con Rusia y facilitar y participar en las exportaciones, en particular, de fertilizantes desde Rusia. No somos parte del acuerdo, pero las Naciones Unidas nos han pedido insistentemente que clarifiquemos, y creo que así lo hemos hecho por todos los canales, que ningún asegurador, ningún transportista, ningún agente logístico tiene que tener temor alguno a que, por participar en la exportación de grano y fertilizantes desde Rusia, vaya a verse afectado por nuestras sanciones. Lo hemos hecho dirigiendo cartas de intenciones a todos los operadores, contestando lo que llamamos «frequent asked questions» en nuestras páginas webs y dirigiéndonos, por todos los medios posibles, a los actores económicos involucrados.

Las Naciones Unidas han insistido mucho en que Rusia pedía y, más que pedía, exigía, para firmar esos acuerdos que por parte europea se aclarara y se hiciera prácticamente ver a todo el mundo que sus operadores o los operadores mundiales no se verían afectados por nuestras sanciones. Eso es lo que hemos hecho. Pero no le puedo dar más detalles.

  Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Herr Kommissar! Der Herr Kollege Andrews hat keine Nachfrage. Also, wir halten uns jetzt hier nicht hundertprozentig sklavisch an die Vorgabe, aber ich rate jedem Kollegen, der sozusagen ein verwandtes Thema ansprechen möchte: Natürlich lebt diese Fragestunde vom Überraschungseffekt, und natürlich würde jeder gerne den Kommissar auf die Probe stellen; aber gerade wenn man so Randthemen hat, die nicht zwingend dazugehören, dann wäre es sicher hilfreich, wenn man dem Kommissar einen Hinweis geben würde, dass das Gegenstand der Frage ist. Dann tut es der Qualität der Antworten sicher auch gut.

Die Fragestunde zu diesem Thema ist damit geschlossen.

19. Relațiile UE-China (dezbatere)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung des Vizepräsidenten der Kommission und Hohen Vertreters der Union für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik zu den Beziehungen zwischen der EU und China (2022/2900(RSP)).

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable Members, this debate in the European Parliament about EU-China relations is very timely because we had a strategic discussion on China, the Foreign Affairs Council and the European Council. And also we have witnessed the 20th Chinese Communist Party Congress. All of this happening in this month. And the 20th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party has largely confirmed what we already knew, that President Xi Jinping’s personal hold of the Chinese party, the state and people, even a stranglehold of the party on the state and in particular of public enterprises.

The growing ideological nature of the Chinese political system, with the development of both a Marxist-Chinese style or Chinese way, and heightened nationalist rhetoric. In the speech of Xi Jinping the word security was used 29 times. In the report of Xi, again, 18 times during the previous Congress.

So the last time we discussed EU-China relation here was on 5 April, right after the EU—China summit and addressing and changing China’s ambiguous position on Russia’s war in Ukraine was the main European Union objective. China was not too eager to listen, but talking through differences is what major partners must do.

Many months later the Russian aggression against Ukraine is still ongoing. And while we keep our focus on the war at our eastern borders, our attention to China has not decreased. China has not condemned yet the war of Russia against Ukraine and the atrocities that are happening there. But it has set out clear red lines and is increasingly concerned about the global consequences.

Red lines about the use of nuclear weapons. And in Bali, also sending a clear message about the global consequences and the concern they have about it. At the same time, it’s not a secret that we and China, we have different political systems, that we view democracy and human rights differently, that we push different models of governance, that we have a different vision of multilateralism. But these differences should not and are not stopping us from engaging with each other.

China is becoming increasingly assertive and developing an increasingly vigorous competition. This is another reality, and I am afraid to announce you that it will remain the way it is in the coming years. And that’s why we must have a clear, steady and sustained strategy towards China. And in our last paper, in our last position paper, we realised that the realistic approach that we adopted in 2019 has to be reaffirmed because it’s neither naive, nor alarmist. Neither naive nor alarmist. It is rooted in the need to engage, to compete, and to stand up for our values, and I think it still remains valid.

If we are to defend our interests and to address global challenges – climate change, but also environment, health – we need to speak, we need to work, we need to trade and negotiate with China. And European Union leaders reconfirmed this at the European Council.

They also agreed on the fundamental importance of our unity across all aspects of the EU-China relationship. Without unity we will lose both credibility and leverage. Both vis-à-vis of China and also globally. That’s why it’s so important that in our approach to China, we try to get a synthesis of different points of view and to keep a strong unity.

I can tell you that European Union leaders also agreed that the EU needs to step up its work on reducing dependencies and strategic vulnerabilities, diversifying sources of supply and improving internal resilience. This applies to raw materials and semiconductors, both being critical for the green transition.

To counter cyber and hybrid threats is something that has to be also high in our agenda, and to step-up our engagement with both the like-minded and the non like-minded partners to better address them. In a nutshell, to be concrete and short, we need to extend the economic and political dimension of our partnership, proposing sustainable solutions to key challenges and proving that our cooperation, our offer of cooperation, is as valuable as our political partnership.

Political partnership is needed. Concrete offers – I said that before in questions I answered – are as important. And our Indo-Pacific strategy and our global gateway initiative are central to that offer coming from Central Asia. And I can tell you that the countries of Central Asia are looking at us, awaiting our partnership, awaiting our support, because they don’t want to be squeezed between China and Russia. They want to have a more balanced foreign policy and this part of the world that some years ago that could be considered to be in the middle of nowhere, now it is in the middle of everything. And this is a good example of how we can increase our partnership with people who are not necessarily exactly our like-minded countries, but with whom we share a geostrategic interest.

And that’s important. And that’s why I count on this Parliament to support the work that we have been developing. And I hope this discussion today will bring some light to our work, insisting on the fact that we need at the same time to be part of a fierce competition, that we need cooperation in certain fields and we need to understand that in many others we will be engaged in a systemic rivalry.

That doesn’t mean to be in a permanent rivalry in anything, in any field for everything, everywhere. Communication channels have to be open with Beijing. Not even the Americans are asking for decoupling of their economies, neither are we. But certainly the human rights issue will be very high in agenda.

We need to update our policy toward China in the light of the most recent developments, and in particular the very important American declaration of 7 October concerning the drastic reduction of China’s access to American technology in the field of semiconductors. This is some decision that has to be very much taken into account because the technological battle will be absolutely fundamental for our immediate future.

Semiconductors are truly the most fundamental technological issue of the economic competition in the 21st century, and we have to develop also a dialogue with other countries that are in a similar situation to us – I’m thinking in particular of Japan – to keep a dialogue with the United States. This dialogue is going to take place next week. The Secretary-General of External Action Service and my team will travel to Washington to have this political high-level dialogue about China.

Certainly the US are our most important ally, but in some cases we will not be in the same position or in the same approach to China. But certainly we have to work together because what is going to happen in our relations with China will mark this century.

  Radosław Sikorski, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, High Representative, colleagues, China accounts for a quarter of humanity. It’s an ancient culture. It’s our largest trading partner. We want to have a constructive relationship with it.

I proposed the paper, which was supported by this House some time ago, whose gist was that we should, with China, collaborate where possible, compete where needed and confront when necessary. I believe that’s still the right policy.

On behalf of the EPP, Mr High Representative, I support the thrust of what you’ve just proposed. Personally, I think the Chinese leadership has made three big mistakes recently: dropping the ten-year rule, nationalising parts of the economy, and the aggressive wolf warrior diplomacy have not enhanced China’s popularity or influence in the world.

The ten—year rule and the economy are internal Chinese matters, but on China’s external relations, something could be done about it.

If China stopped threatening Taiwan, if China helped to resolve the war in Ukraine – and she can, because she has influence over Vladimir Putin – that would greatly help our relationship. We need to put the Europe—China relationship back on a pragmatic footing.

  Pedro Marques, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Alto Representante, Colegas, as relações entre a China e a União Europeia estão verdadeiramente numa encruzilhada.

Por um lado, a dimensão da China e o papel que tem e pode ter no mundo tornam importante cooperarmos relativamente a desafios comuns como a crise climática, a segurança alimentar mundial ou a promoção da paz e a segurança globais. Mas reiteradas violações de direitos humanos em Xinjiang, Tibete, Hong Kong, Macau não podem deixar de merecer o mais veemente repúdio por parte da União Europeia.

Acresce a tensão cada vez maior relativamente a Taiwan, que coloca em causa a paz e a estabilidade regional e que a Europa também não pode tolerar, sem esquecer, claro, as sanções impostas a deputados deste Parlamento, em total desrespeito pela Instituição e pelos princípios de funcionamento destas democracias.

Há um caminho para melhorar gradualmente, ainda assim, as relações entre a União Europeia e a China, mas é um caminho estreito, que a Europa está disponível a trilhar, como o Alto Representante aqui bem referiu. Esperamos que as autoridades chinesas estejam seriamente disponíveis também para esse percurso.

  Hilde Vautmans, namens de Renew-Fractie. – Voorzitter, na de Europese top van oktober was ik opgelucht. Ik dacht, mijnheer Borrell: onze leiders hebben het eindelijk begrepen. Ze hebben eindelijk begrepen dat de vriendschap tussen China en Rusland gevolgen zou hebben voor ónze relaties met China. Ze hebben eindelijk begrepen dat we verenigd moeten zijn en dat we bepaalde afhankelijkheden moeten afbouwen. Maar dan, een paar dagen na de top en bijna dadelijk na het Chinese partijcongres, besluit de Duitse bondskanselier op zakenreis naar China te gaan. En hij gaat alleen. Op de koop toe ziet hij niet in waarom de verkoop van een deel van de haven van Hamburg aan China problematisch kan zijn. Is dit de Zeitenwende die kanselier Scholz bedoelde na de Russische invasie van Oekraïne? Zijn dit de lessen die we trekken?

Als we niet dezelfde fout willen maken als met onze relaties met Rusland, moeten we starten met het uitvoeren van een meer verenigd en assertief beleid ten aanzien van China. Dat is de strategie, meneer Borrell, waartoe dit Parlement vorig jaar in mijn verslag heeft opgeroepen. Ik sluit af. (De heer Borrell heeft ook ver over zijn spreektijd heen mogen gaan.) We kunnen alleen een Europa zijn met een stem in de wereld als we verenigd zijn. Doe dat ook ten aanzien van China.

  Reinhard Bütikofer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Mr Borrell. To say it simply, Mr Borrell, I’m disappointed. I heard from you a lot of generalities, but very little indeed about the reality of EU-China relations.

Maybe there isn’t so much to report. What kind of a relationship do we have after all? The April summit, as you said, was a dialogue of the deaf. At the G20, Xi didn’t want to meet with the representatives of the EU. And at the COP 27, China stood squarely in the way of what we fought for.

There is no point in putting lipstick on a pig: EU China relations are at a very low ebb. China’s attitude is characterised by arrogance, divisiveness and hegemonic ambition. Unfortunately, many of our Member States are not yet prepared to learn the Russian lesson fully and to apply the Russian lesson to China: that we should not allow ourselves to become dependent on an authoritarian regime.

Scholz, Macron, Meloni or Sánchez, they all prefer to put their narrow self-interest in the first place. I would have thought that the English proverb ‘once bitten, twice shy’ might apply. But some people may want to be bitten more often, and they will if their self-centred actions, instead of developing common European China policies, will continue. We have a lot of common talk, but very little common walk.

In this context, I would expect of you, Mr Borrell, to take the lead and lead towards unitary European action. What about taking the lead with regard to getting rid of the extradition agreements that we have, of trying to use the EEAS services to counter Chinese representatives spreading the Russian lies in the Global South?

There is so much you could do, but you don’t take the lead.

  Anna Bonfrisco, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Alto rappresentante Borrell, diversi fatti ormai ci dicono che la Cina non cerca pace e tranquillità e mi domando: dov'è l'esempio di equilibrio e la reciprocità commerciale che la Commissione europea cerca di stabilire con la Cina sia a livello bilaterale che presso il WTO? Tutto ciò non si materializza ed ecco quindi che il nostro dibattito indica la chiara volontà politica di salvaguardare un ordine internazionale libero, multipolare, basato sulle regole.

Lei ha citato il tema cruciale dei semiconduttori. Ecco perché dobbiamo trovare il modo di consentire a Taiwan di continuare a esistere nello status quo attuale, espandendo le relazioni commerciali e politiche e rifiutando categoricamente la falsa narrativa della riunificazione proposta dalla Cina.

Così come dobbiamo opporci all'egemonia che il Partito comunista cinese tenta di estendere nel Mar Cinese orientale e meridionale sfidando la libertà di navigazione, sfidando quindi il mondo occidentale.

  Anna Fotyga, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, after a somehow hasty completion of the CAI, we’ve had COVID-19, a crackdown on Hong Kong, intimidation of Taiwan, violence against Uighurs, probably genocide, and also coercion of Lithuania and Australia, not to mention other countries. Moreover, what happens internally in the PRC somehow resembles preparations by Russia to a war of aggression against Ukraine. I warned this chamber against naivety in its assessment of the PRC.

  Manu Pineda, en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señor presidente, señor Borrell, la Unión Europea tiene que decidir si apuesta por un mundo dividido en bloques, en una nueva versión de la Guerra Fría, o si defiende realmente un orden internacional multipolar.

La actual política de la Unión Europea respecto a China se caracteriza por la subordinación a las directivas del Consejo de Seguridad Nacional de los Estados Unidos y conlleva una batería de sanciones y provocaciones a China que evidencia que nuestro presunto alegato por un mundo multipolar no es más que una pose tacticista.

China no es un enemigo sistémico ni un rival comercial para ninguna nación del planeta. De hecho, es un socio comercial leal, con muchas posibilidades para superar los efectos de la crisis que sufrimos y que difícilmente se resolverán de forma aislada.

El intento de imposición de un sistema unipolar al servicio de los Estados Unidos es, simple y llanamente, el intento de mantener vivo un sistema que es un peligro no solo para los pueblos de la Unión Europea, sino para la supervivencia misma del planeta y de toda la humanidad.

  Milan Uhrík (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, Európe uteká vlak. Západ sa utápa v recesii, zatiaľ čo krajiny združenia BRICS naberajú na sile a pripravujú postupnú expanziu.

Poviem úprimne, nesúhlasím s tým, aby bola Čína označovaná za hrozbu pre Európu. Áno, za konkurenta, to áno, ale za hrozbu? Prosím vás, koľko vojen vo svete začala Čína? Alebo koľko štátov napadla Čína? Tak len pre porovnanie, Spojené štáty americké za 246 rokov svojej existencie boli s niekým vo vojne počas 231 rokov, to znamená 94 % času. A tí sú označovaní za mierotvorcov a Čína je označovaná niektorými za hrozbu.

Nepáči sa mi táto politika, kedy všetkých mimo tej západnej bubliny označujete za nedemokratické štáty, za totality alebo dokonca za hrozby či za nepriateľov. Ak chce Európa prosperovať, tak musí spolupracovať s východom, musí spolupracovať s východom.

  Michael Gahler (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Herr Hoher Beauftragter! Im Verhältnis zu China bleibt es im Grundsatz bei dem Dreiklang Partner, Konkurrent und systemischer Rivale.

Es wäre schön, wenn China als Partner bei der Verteidigung einer multilateralen, regelbasierten Weltordnung zur Verfügung stünde und nicht nur, wenn es ihnen passt. Ich hätte mir China als Partner bei Themen wie der Bekämpfung des Klimawandels gewünscht, in der Form, dass China seinen Anteil der Verantwortung übernimmt. Leider konnte ich das in Scharm El-Scheich nicht feststellen.

Gleiches gilt dort, wo wir als Konkurrenten auf dem Weltmarkt die WTO akzeptieren, als gemeinsamen Handlungsrahmen. Da muss künftig gelten: Chinesische Firmen dürfen nur das in Europa unternehmen, was unsere EU-Firmen auch in China dürfen. Und natürlich sind wir systemische Rivalen dort, wo die chinesische Diktatur die russische Diktatur de facto unterstützt und wo wir von China fordern, den Status quo gegenüber Taiwan nicht einseitig und nicht mit Gewalt zu verändern.

Nur gemeinsam können wir bei all den Themen China beeindrucken. Sagen Sie das, Herr Hoher Beauftragter, den Einzelkämpfern in all unseren kleinen Mitgliedstaaten!

  Inma Rodríguez-Piñero (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor alto representante, entre la Unión Europea y China se sitúan dos verdades indiscutibles: China es nuestro mayor socio comercial, pero también es nuestro mayor rival debido a la diferencia, a la distancia entre nuestros sistemas.

El reto radica en que esta contradicción no nos paralice y nos haga un daño moral y económico contrario a los intereses de la Unión. No podemos quedarnos en un bucle. Debemos encontrar una salida.

La salida a esa contradicción es la que nos sugiere el alto representante, señor Borrell, y quiero agradecerle su liderazgo. Yo estoy de acuerdo con el liderazgo y la implicación que hace, y se lo agradezco, para conseguir una mayor autonomía estratégica, para influir en el complejo contexto internacional en el que vivimos.

La vía para poder convivir con China es ser más eficaces, estableciendo alianzas con terceros países, reforzando nuestra apuesta por el multilateralismo, perfeccionando los instrumentos de los que ya nos hemos dotado, y algunos que nos faltan, para alcanzar una mayor igualdad en las relaciones comerciales con China.

Y lo más importante y eficaz: la unidad de acción entre nosotros para que invertir, producir y hacer negocios en China deje de ser una aventura y sea una oportunidad.

  Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Haut Représentant, chers collègues, la Chine demeure un rival systémique. Un rival dans son modèle de gouvernance, avec la répression systématique des droits de l’homme. Un rival qui ne condamne pas fermement l’agression de l’Ukraine par Vladimir Poutine. Un rival dans ses actions à travers le monde, où elle utilise des systèmes d’aide opaques pour faire main basse sur des installations stratégiques et des matières premières. Un rival qui menace la souveraineté de Taïwan, une démocratie partenaire où nous nous rendrons avec plusieurs collègues. Un rival qui réprime la démocratie à Hong Kong et décime la minorité ouïghoure. Un rival dans sa manière d’appréhender l’unité européenne et en nous divisant et en rachetant des pans industriels majeurs de nos économies.

Monsieur le Haut Représentant, alors même que l’Union européenne parachève son instrument anticoercition, rappelons à tous les dirigeants européens qu’ils ne doivent pas céder aux avances de la Chine, mais bien agir pour garantir notre indépendance et notre souveraineté.

PŘEDSEDNICTVÍ: DITA CHARANZOVÁ
místopředsedkyně

  Yannick Jadot (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Haut Représentant, la question posée, c’est: peut-on avoir des relations normales avec un pays dont le régime opprime sa population et organise un génocide contre les Ouïghours? Il y a deux ans, la Commission européenne, la chancelière Merkel et le président Macron ont répondu oui en célébrant l’accord d’investissement avec la Chine. Il y a quelques jours, le chancelier Scholz a aussi répondu par l’affirmative en considérant que douze millions de voitures allemandes comptaient plus que douze millions de Ouïghours. Eh bien, ce n’est pas l’avis du Parlement européen.

Prenons l’exemple du travail forcé. Quand la Commission européenne propose une usine à gaz, dont on ne comprend pas si ça va être efficace contre le travail forcé, le Parlement européen réclame un embargo sur les produits issus du travail forcé. Le Parlement européen propose de considérer le travail forcé comme une politique d’État du régime chinois.

Alors, ce que nous demandons, nous Parlement européen, à la Commission européenne, c’est de faire aussi de la politique. Ce n’est pas de la naïveté, Monsieur le Haut Représentant, cela s’appelle de la cupidité quand on veut faire du commerce au détriment de nos valeurs. Alors, face au travail forcé, faisons un vrai embargo, y compris sur les produits issus du Xinjiang.

  Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR). – Voorzitter, de Chinese investeringen in de haven van Hamburg hebben ons met de neus op de feiten gedrukt. De agressieve investeringsagenda van president Xi met maar één doel: het machtigste land ter wereld te worden. Het brengt Europa in een bijzonder afhankelijke en daarmee kwetsbare positie. Europa wordt zo een wingewest van China, een totalitaire staat waar mensenrechten zoals godsdienstvrijheid met voeten worden getreden. De concentratie van macht tijdens het recente partijcongres van de Communistische Partij belooft wat dat betreft weinig goeds.

We moeten daarom nu in actie komen: ons niet langer door China uit elkaar laten spelen; een stop zetten op Chinese overnames van onze vitale infrastructuur, zoals landbouwgronden; veel kritischer zijn op onze grondstoffen.

Een Noordzee vol met windmolens die draaien op Chinese supermagneten vind ik wat dat betreft bepaald geen aantrekkelijke gedachte.

  Helmut Scholz (The Left). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Henry Kissinger und Walden Bello, zwei sehr unterschiedliche Politiker, weit weg von uns hier – prophezeien den Krieg zwischen den Vereinigten Staaten und China.

Offene strategische Autonomie, Herr Borrell, muss deshalb eigenständige Handlungsfähigkeit zur Lösung von Sachverhalten formulieren, nicht das Abkoppeln von anderen Akteuren.

Worin also besteht das heutige Interesse Europas an den Beziehungen auch zu China? Klimawandel, zukunftssichernder Umbau der Wirtschaft mit guten Arbeitsplätzen, Frieden, Sicherheit, Menschenrechte gehören da sicherlich mit an erste Stelle, Verrechtlichung der internationalen Beziehungsgeflechte auch; und dies wird nicht in Konfrontation geschehen können – so unterschiedlich die Herangehensweisen sein mögen.

Das Wissen um die Geschichte spielt immer mit. Deshalb muss unser Interesse als Friedensnobelpreisträger der Dialog sein und bleiben, das Zuhören und das Überdenken eigener Positionen, gerade weil der sogenannte Rest der Welt den doch in Wahrheit mit Abstand größeren Teil der Welt ausmacht.

Europa kann China nicht mehr zwingen, Herr Außenminister. Wir müssen unsere Partner überzeugen, in Partnerschaft und im systemischen Wettbewerb zugleich, weil die gewaltigen Potenziale Europas und Chinas mobilisieren und gemeinsam zur Wirkung bringen und Synergien erzeugen müssen.

  Miroslav Radačovský (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, za 70 rokov zahraničnej, nedokonalej zahraničnej politiky Európskej únie sme dospeli k záveru, k akému sme dospeli, t. j. v Európe je vojna, je tu kríza, potravinová kríza, energetická kríza. A kríza, ktorá možno dovedie Európu k väčšiemu konfliktu, ako je.

Ja sa stotožňujem s tým, čo povedal pán Borrell. Treba sa vyvarovať takéhoto postupu vo vzťahu k Číne, netreba situáciu vyostrovať, treba Čínu chápať ako partnera, obchodného partnera a viesť s nimi rokovania na princípe „rovný s rovným“. A pokiaľ sa týka niektorých tu, takých silných alebo chtivých europoslancov, ktorí si myslia, že Európa je asi stred vesmíru a že môžeme niekomu diktovať, ako má konať vo vlastnom štáte, čo má robiť, čo má pracovať, tak ja by som postavenie Európskej únie a Číny asi prirovnal k situácii, keď slon, elephant and ant, slon a mravec idú po moste a mravec hovorí: „Ale dupeme!“

Jednoducho, my si nemôžeme dovoliť konať tak, aby sme sa zbavili ďalšieho globálneho partnera obchodného, ktorý skutočne nikdy na nikoho nezaútočil, tak ako sme... (predsedajúca prerušila rečníka)... To je všetko.

  David McAllister (PPE). – Madam President, High Representative/Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, as a number of colleagues have pointed out in tonight’s debate, the relations between the People’s Republic of China and the European Union have been affected by so many different items – disproportionate counter-sanctions, cases of economic coercion and Chinese convergence with Russia, just to name a few.

China is the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and the economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to actually do so. China will continue to be a major global player with whom the European Union must speak, work, trade and negotiate in areas of common and global interest.

Therefore, High Representative/Vice-President, for this reason, the European Union’s engagement with China should be, as we have often pointed out, principled, practical and pragmatic. But at the same time, the European Union needs to stand firm in defending our values and interests. To reduce our vulnerabilities, to increase our resilience, to address our security concerns and to engage with our partners – from the more distant to the like—minded – are all important lines of action.

  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Madam President, Mr High Representative, yes, it’s high time we debate our relations with China, which are essential for the European Union, our role as a global actor and our future development. The most essential task is to unite the position of Member States on this, and we continue to see individual actions that affect us all. We should simultaneously work on our industry redeployment as we work on energy independence.

Members of this House are still sanctioned for speaking the truth about evident human rights violations. Moreover, we see reports on illegal Chinese policing in the European Union. Russian aggression in Ukraine is also testing our relations. It’s essential to talk, open up a long list of difficult questions and stand firm in defending our stances. But while we can discuss with China global challenges and negotiate the rules on how we trade in goods, we should never trade our values.

  Dragoş Tudorache (Renew). – Madam President, High Representative, dear colleagues, making choices in politics is never easy. We have indulged for decades in economic past dependencies. We pretended that ideologies do not matter, that half democracies are fine.

And look what we have achieved. Russia, our biggest energy trading partner, is bombing civilians every day. At our doorstep in China, our largest trading partner overall, is itself challenging the rule-based order we worked so hard to build.

I agree, High Representative, but we cannot afford total economic decoupling, and that there are areas where we must and can work together with China. But, we cannot continue to sell our ports to regimes that do not share our values. We cannot fly Chinese drones to inspect our critical infrastructure and we cannot pretend that Chinese technology is safe as long as it is state-controlled.

There is no piece of hardware or software, no matter how small or apparently insignificant, that cannot contain an embedded backdoor spy program. And there is no security audit invented that can guarantee a full check. The same stands true for raw materials, where the risk is not a direct security exposure but a threat to our critical supply chains.

So let us wake up High Representative, to this geopolitical reality and do something about it.

  Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor alto representante, el Servicio de Acción Exterior de la Unión Europea ha definido a China como un socio estratégico, un rival sistémico y un competidor económico. La cooperación en asuntos estratégicos es, efectivamente, una responsabilidad compartida, pero para progresar tenemos que garantizar la reciprocidad en las reglas del juego.

Necesitamos seguir derribando las barreras comerciales unilaterales que mantiene China para nuestros productos, pero también, como hace Pekín, nosotros debemos ser muy cuidadosos con las inversiones en sectores críticos (como las tecnologías más avanzadas, la inteligencia artificial, los semiconductores o la industria de defensa), que son la base de nuestra autonomía estratégica. Si algo hemos aprendido tras la invasión de Ucrania es que las dependencias, tanto energética como tecnológica, pueden convertirse en nuestro talón de Aquiles.

Por eso, señor Borrell, ¿cree que las crecientes inversiones chinas en infraestructuras y empresas tecnológicas suponen un riesgo geopolítico para la Unión Europea? O, dicho en otras palabras, ¿son el puerto de Hamburgo e inversiones similares un nuevo Nord Stream 2?

  Maria Arena (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, la Chine est un partenaire commercial de l’Union européenne. J’ai même envie de dire le partenaire commercial de l’Union européenne. Presque 600 milliards d’échanges avec la Chine, 20 milliards de plus que les échanges avec les États-Unis. En même temps, le régime chinois ne partage pas nos standards en matière de droits de l’homme. On a parlé travail forcé, régime de surveillance, sanctions à l’égard des opposants à Hong Kong et ce ne sont que des exemples. S’il ne nous appartient pas de changer le régime chinois – ce serait naïf de le penser –, nous avons la responsabilité de ne pas être complices de ce régime.

Donc, j’aurais quelques questions. Quelle est la position du Conseil en matière d’interdiction des produits issus du travail forcé chinois qui entrent sur le marché européen? Quelle est la position du Conseil sur un vrai mécanisme de due diligence des entreprises internationales qui travailleraient en Chine? Quel serait le mécanisme qui garantirait, dans le cadre d’un accord commercial ou d’un accord d’investissement, qu’il n’y a pas de violation des droits de l’homme? Enfin, quelle est la position, au niveau multilatéral, que nous avons sur le traité de due diligence pour lequel, aujourd’hui, la Commission n’a pas de mandat et où c’est la Chine qui négocie? Et, Monsieur le Haut Représentant, ne me dites pas que la solution, c’est le dialogue «droits de l’homme», parce qu’alors là, ce serait naïf.

  Ivars Ijabs (Renew). – Madam President, Mr Borrell, EU-China relations are as much about securing the rules-based international order as about realistic assessments of Europe’s strategic interests, not least in the areas of trade and investment.

Much has been said already about screening inbound investment in strategically important sectors from chips to ports, but equally important is a hard-nosed attitude towards outbound strategic investment. Some European governments have already taken case-by-case decisions not to issue guarantees to companies that might benefit from slave labour or massive human rights violations in China.

However, European rules are needed to tighten its investment regulations. We have export controls and a carbon border tax, so we have to make sure that foreign investment is not used to circumvent those export controls or to produce carbon leakage.

In this context, I am looking very much forward to the European Commission coming up with a revision of the EU’s FDI screening and outbound investment control regulations. Naivety is not an option in relations with China and international relations in general.

  David Lega (PPE). – Madam President, Mr Borrell, we promised never again. The European Union is founded on the values of human dignity, freedom, equality and human rights. I took the floor to remind the High Representative about the situation in Xinjiang: persecution, detention and forced labour, torture, rape and systematic sexual abuse, mass forced sterilisation and forced abortions.

So I would like to remind Mr Borrell that the CCP’s crimes against the Uyghurs constitute crimes against humanity and a serious risk of genocide. So let me remind you that all signatories of the Genocide Convention are obliged to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. So please, Mr Borrell, if you cannot prevent the genocide, at least punish the abusers and sanction the monsters, because we promised never again.

  René Repasi (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Hoher Vertreter, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Unsere Strategie gegenüber China ist eine große Herausforderung, weil sie uns vor die Frage stellt: Was wollen wir eigentlich selber sein als Europäische Union am Ende der Zeit der Turboglobalisierung durch Pandemie und Krieg? Wollen wir ein großer Markt sein mit reichen Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern, auf dem man seine Produkte billig absetzen kann? Oder wollen wir eine selbstbewusste Mittelmacht sein?

Vor dieser Entscheidung stehen wir auch und gerade gegenüber China. Dazu müssen wir unsere Hausaufgaben machen, denn meine Entscheidung geht für Zweiteres. Und Hausaufgabe heißt, dass wir im Inneren ein EU-Lieferkettengesetz brauchen, indem wir sehen, dass wir unsere Handelsbeziehungen diversifiziert bekommen, dass wir Zwangsarbeit verbieten, dass wir unsere Cybersecurity anpacken und wir dementsprechend für uns selber ein starker Raum sind.

Das bedeutet für unsere Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher Kosten – Produkte werden weniger, und sie werden teurer. Aber das ist der Preis, den wir zahlen wollen, wenn wir strategisch autonom gegenüber China auftreten sollen. Diese Autonomie möchte ich hier verteidigen. Und ich möchte Sie hier als Hohen Vertreter dazu auffordern, für diese Autonomie zu kämpfen. Das bedeutet aber auch, im Gespräch mit China zu bleiben, aber bitte mit einer Stimme – ganz gleich, wer sie spricht.

  Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, High Representative, some see intellectual property theft on an almost industrial scale as the second-oldest profession in the world.

What’s new? Instead of the slow drainage of our economic competitiveness, some see unfair competition with state subsidies, non-reciprocal market access just as mere trade issues, technical, instead of a frontal attack on our prosperity. And some see Chinese disinformation or support for dictators worldwide or its relationship with Russia, its military build-up as merely an expression of the new multipolar world, ‘get used to it’, instead of an attack on the liberal world order.

Well, the EU, we respond to such threats with numerous pieces of legislation, critical entities, cybersecurity, foreign direct investment and what have you. But we do so with a country-agnostic, a country-neutral approach.

But, in practice, this significantly hampers the effectiveness of these measures. Country-specific problems need country-specific legislation. We might believe we live in peace with the world, but China dictates itself that is in conflict with us. So act accordingly and let’s legislate accordingly.

  Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Madam President, it seems the European Union has not learned its lesson. Even with the terrible human and economic costs of COVID-19, the CCP’s terror against all goods and people across China and growing aggression abroad, some EU leaders still think there can be business as usual with the CCP.

We have also discovered that the United Front, an arm of the CCP, has a network of offices across Europe, spreading the CCP’s malign influence in our institutions and using them as de facto police stations to control the Chinese diaspora. I ask, what more does it take for us to wake up and understand what sort of regime we are dealing with?

I therefore call on those EU Member States who have not yet done so to launch formal investigations and ensure the immediate closing of these illegal police stations.

It is not merely disturbing that the totalitarian regime is allowed to engage in such illegal extra-territorial activities in the EU. Their presence poses a grave security risk, not only for the Chinese diaspora, but for the very foundations of our democracy.

  Peter van Dalen (PPE). – Voorzitter, het is essentieel dat Europese lidstaten bij strategische zaken zoals technologie, zeldzame aardmetalen en cruciale infrastructuur zelfstandiger worden. We hebben gezien hoe Rusland Europa met energie heeft gechanteerd. Dat moet ons niet weer gebeuren met China. Strategische autonomie dient onze economische belangen, maar ook de rol van Europa als waardengemeenschap. Onder het regime van Xi vinden op grote schaal mensenrechtenschendingen plaats en genocide en orgaanroof en noemt u maar op. We moeten China verantwoordelijk houden voor deze misdaden. Grotere economische onafhankelijkheid van China bevordert de daadkracht en de geloofwaardigheid van onze stellingname. Ik hoop dat mijnheer Borrell toch heeft geluisterd.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, China es una gran potencia que, tanto por su tamaño como por peso político, económico y demográfico, no podemos ignorar. Está claro que necesitamos contar con China para hacer frente a retos globales.

Tenemos que coexistir con China. Una relación donde habrá cooperación, pero también competencia y rivalidad.

Hablando de cooperación, China, miembro permanente del Consejo de Seguridad, tiene que distanciarse abiertamente de Moscú y contribuir de forma activa al final de la agresión rusa.

No caben ambigüedades ni neutralidades. O no debieran caber.

Pero quiero referirme hoy al sector tecnológico: me preocupan los intercambios de tecnologías avanzadas. La Unión tiene que estar vigilante, especialmente con las susceptibles de uso militar.

Hemos visto como recientemente, el 7 de octubre, el Gobierno Biden (el alto representante se acaba de referir a esto) adoptó unas medidas restrictivas en materia de exportación de semiconductores avanzados a China. ¿Van a hablar de estas restricciones, señor Borrell, en el marco de la reunión del 5 de diciembre del Consejo de Comercio y Tecnología?

Por lo que veo, va a enviar a algunos de sus colaboradores la semana que viene. Hace usted bien. A mí me parece un tema importantísimo, de gran actualidad y creo, desde luego, que tiene que seguirlo con mucho interés.

El tema de los semiconductores es clave. No podemos ser dependientes, pero tenemos que tener cuidado con las exportaciones, que es donde está Washington.

Tendrán que reactualizar las relaciones con China, también teniendo en cuenta su actitud en relación con Moscú.

(Catch-the-eye procedure)

  Henna Virkkunen (PPE). – Madam President, Vice—President, for decades Europe believed that strong economic ties and trade and multilateral cooperation would help to promote democracy and human rights in China. We now know that was not the case and that President Xi only used this to strengthen his own power.

Europe must learn from the mistakes we made with Russia. We were far too dependent on Russian fossil fuels, and now when we are boosting our green transition and digitalisation, we must not allow ourselves to become dependent on Chinese critical raw materials. We must find alternative suppliers and develop our own production capabilities.

This is why I welcome the Chips Act’s objective of doubling Europe’s share of semiconductors, and I look forward to the Commission’s upcoming proposal on critical raw materials. Europe can’t afford to neglect our own security of supply and resilience. Trade with China must be fair and also reciprocal.

  Γεώργιος Κύρτσος (Renew). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ήθελα να πω ότι μου αρέσει η προσέγγιση του κυρίου Borrell διότι —εντάξει, όλοι καταδικάζουμε το καθεστώς και τα χαρακτηριστικά του στην Κίνα, αλλά αυτό δεν μας λύνει το πρόβλημα— είναι ένας πολύ ισχυρός ανταγωνιστής η Κίνα, έχει μια στρατηγική να επικρατήσει σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο μέχρι το 2049 και δεν έχουμε, βέβαια, και την πολυτέλεια να κλειστούμε, να πάθουμε μια κρίση εσωστρέφειας —δηλαδή όχι στο εμπόριο, όχι στις επενδύσεις, κ.ο.κ.

Διότι σε όποια χώρα και να επισκεφτώ —πήγα πρόσφατα στην Αυστραλία, στη Χιλή, με αποστολή του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου— βλέπω ότι οι Κινέζοι έχουν φύγει πολύ μπροστά και εμείς πρέπει να βρούμε τρόπους, τους οποίους δεν ξέρουμε ακόμα, για να γίνουμε πιο ανταγωνιστικοί και πιο αποτελεσματικοί. Επίσης, θεωρώ λάθος να συγκρίνουμε την Κίνα με τη Ρωσία, διότι η Ρωσία είναι μια μέτρια δύναμη. Μπορεί να είναι πυρηνική υπερδύναμη, αλλά η Κίνα είναι σίγουρη για τον εαυτό της και έχει μια μακροπρόθεσμη στρατηγική.

Τέλος, για να καταλάβουμε τι γίνεται στην Κίνα, καθώς έχουμε και το πρόβλημα της γλώσσας, προτείνω να κάνουμε δεξαμενές σκέψης όπου να συμμετέχουν εκπρόσωποι από την Ταϊβάν και από την Αυστραλία γιατί στις επισκέψεις μου σε αυτές τις χώρες είδα ότι αναλύουν την Κίνα, ξέρουν τη γλώσσα και ξέρουν περισσότερα από εμάς.

  Silvia Sardone (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Unione europea è sempre più sottomessa alla Cina.

Dal 2035, di fatto, ci sarà l'obbligo dell'auto elettrica, dipenderemo dalla Cina. Il mercato delle auto elettriche, dalle batterie alle materie prime, alle terre rare, è di fatto un monopolio del gigante asiatico. Passiamo dalla dipendenza dal gas della Russia a quello della Cina praticamente, a una dipendenza ulteriore dal gigante asiatico. Il tutto nascondendoci dietro al green, ma la Cina continua a inquinare e le sue emissioni di CO2 rappresentano un terzo di quelle di tutto il mondo.

Ma chiudete gli occhi anche di fronte alle violazioni dei diritti umani imposti dalla dittatura comunista del governo cinese. Persecuzioni verso oppositori politici, minoranze etniche e religiose. Insomma, siamo stanchi della vostra sottomissione alla Cina.

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, there’s a lack of seriousness when it comes to EU-China relations. We have real issues to address. Global warming, for example, areas that need respectful diplomacy and cooperation.

The repetition of the stream of baseless accusations that originate in Washington does nothing for the EU’s standing as a respectful international partner and interlocutor. The Taiwan stuff is the most reckless US provocation in living memory, and we’d do well to distance ourselves from us. China wants to work with the EU.

We should not allow the US to undermine our relationship with China. Right now, the continuation of the US/NATO proxy war in Ukraine is decimating European industry. Factories are closing across Europe. Decent jobs are going where there’s cheaper labour and gas. Europe has been hollowed out, with no apparent plan to fill the gap.

This is not a path towards a stable future for Europe, and we’d do well to show China a bit more respect. They do respect us.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem přesvědčen, že musíme jednat s Čínou, ale také podle principu rovného s rovným. Je nepochybné, že Čína je zásadním činitelem pro řešení globálních konfliktů a také globálních témat. Pro nás je důležité řešit s Čínou souladné zájmy v oblasti environmentální politiky. Ale také zjišťujeme, že pro Čínu jsou to mnohdy jenom slova, viz současný přístup Číny v egyptském Šarm aš-Šajchu. Jak dopadla konference? Bohužel, Čína nepodpořila naše úsilí, které my považujeme za důležité v oblasti udržení klimatických cílů. Mohl bych mluvit o otázce zdrojů surovin, které ještě Čína nemá pro Evropu otevřené tak, jak si představujeme my, ale také o nesouladných zájmech, kde je to oblast lidských práv, kde je to oblast ochrany menšin, potlačování práv náboženských menšin a Ujgurů. Toto jsou myslím všechno témata, která musíme do vztahů s Čínou promítnout.

  Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I have to say, I found this discussion quite depressing. Its tone has been largely arrogant and neo-colonial. And it’s interesting that even Biden at his recent meeting with Xi at the G20, made the point that he does not seek a new Cold War with China. He has no intention of having a conflict with China. He doesn’t want to contain China and that the US is committed to the one-China policy and does not seek to use Taiwan as a tool. Now, obviously none of this can be taken at face value. He’s not exactly the most reliable statesman, but it must be remarked upon. And interestingly, it is radically less hawkish than some of the nonsense coming out of this chamber earlier in the discussion and over the last number of years. And given that many of you have been sucking up to Washington, ramping up your anti-Chinese rhetoric and doing your best to sabotage EU ties with China, our largest trading partner, shooting ourselves in the foot, you might want to take note.

Rather than starting fires and burning bridges, we should recognise we have serious common challenges. We must engage. We must have dialogue. We must have cooperation and mutual respect.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señora presidenta, señorías, en las notas que me habían preparado para cerrar el debate, los diligentes servicios decían que una vez más quedaba constancia de la amplia unidad del Parlamento Europeo en relación con nuestra relación con China. Pues no, pues no, francamente, no. Francamente, no. ¿Unidad? ¿Dónde está la unidad?

Aquí, he oído un amplio espectro de posiciones, desde que somos unos esbirros de Washington hasta que tenemos que ser más pragmáticos (no, no, más pragmáticos no, al contrario: tenemos que marcar más la diferencia con China).

Ha habido de todo, señorías. O sea que de unidad del Parlamento con respecto a nuestra relación con China, nada.

Bueno, es normal: es una relación compleja y ciertamente ideológicamente condicionada por muchas de las posiciones que aquí se han escuchado (la extrema izquierda, la extrema derecha, las distintas posiciones económicas y comerciales, la preocupación legítima más acentuada en unos que en otros sobre los derechos humanos y por el trabajo forzado).

El primer orador me ha pedido más pragmatismo en la relación con China. Y luego han venido otros diciendo «no, no, no, más pragmatismo no, todo lo contrario». Casi, casi, algunos han pedido que cortemos nuestras relaciones comerciales con China. Y alguno se ha alarmado de que tengamos relaciones normales con China.

Señorías, con China todos los días intercambiamos casi dos billones, billones estadounidenses, es decir, 2 mil millones de dólares en un sentido y en el otro. Eso, ¿como lo llaman ustedes? ¿Normal o anormal? En todo caso, muy importante.

Cuando se intercambian 2 mil millones diarios de bienes entre Europa y China, nuestra relación tiene la importancia que tiene y no entiendo por qué la visita del canciller alemán a China genera preocupación. ¿No es normal que el canciller alemán realice esta visita, ya que su país exporta a China el 3 % o más de su PIB? Además, ¿cuántas veces fue la canciller Merkel a China? ¿Cuántas veces fue la anterior canciller antes de que fuera el canciller Scholz? ¿Por qué antes era malo o era bueno y ahora resulta que es bueno o malo, según se mire?

Señorías, nuestra relación con China será una de las cosas más importantes y desafiantes a los que tengamos que hacer frente. Por eso el Consejo de Asuntos Exteriores se ha preocupado por redactar un nuevo texto que explica de qué manera abordaremos esta relación, que es lo que he intentado resumir aquí. Ya mi muy buen amigo Bütikofer le ha parecido trivial o banal o carente de contenido. Bueno, pues es lo que el Consejo de Asuntos Exteriores, después de larga cogitación de todos los ministros, ha producido al respecto. Son cuatro o cinco páginas que sintetizan la posición oficial del Consejo de Asuntos Exteriores con respecto a China. Y no me parece ni banal, ni trivial, ni hueco, ni irrelevante. Claro está que deja muchos cabos sueltos porque en cinco páginas no cabe la inmensidad ni la complejidad de nuestra relación con China, que seguirá siendo multifacética, seguirá siendo poliédrica, tendrá muchas caras.

Al mismo tiempo tenemos que considerar a China como lo hacemos: como alguien con quien hemos de cooperar, con quien hemos de competir. Somos rivales, socios. Los problemas del mundo no pueden resolverse sin una extraordinaria cooperación con China y, al mismo tiempo, China representa por sí mismo un cambio geopolítico trascendental frente al cual la disociación no es una opción. Ni siquiera los Estados Unidos se lo plantean.

Pero el señor Bütikofer tiene razón. Tenemos que estar seguros de que nuestras dependencias no se conviertan en vulnerabilidades, como nos ha ocurrido con la dependencia energética con respecto a Rusia.

Corresponde a China hoy un papel fundamental en muchas de las cadenas de valor en las que se asienta nuestra producción industrial. Puede ser que nuestra dependencia con respecto a China en materia de transición verde sea tan importante en el futuro como importante ha sido hasta hoy nuestra dependencia con respecto a los combustibles fósiles de Rusia. Por tanto, hemos de ser muy cuidadosos y que nuestra relación no se acabe convirtiendo en una dependencia vulnerable. Hoy China representa aproximadamente el 90 % de nuestra demanda de minerales raros. O, por ejemplo, el 90 % en el caso del magnesio o el 80 % de los paneles solares que usamos en Europa. Ocho de cada diez paneles solares han sido producidos en China. ¿Y han visto ustedes la evolución de la importación de paneles solares desde China desde que empezó la guerra en Ucrania? ¿Han visto la curva? ¿Han visto cómo la curva sube exponencialmente? ¿Les parece bien o les parece mal? A todo el mundo le parece bien que aumentemos la inversión en energías renovables y que pongamos muchos paneles solares. ¿Saben de dónde vienen? De China. Entonces, ¿qué es lo malo?, ¿tenerlos o importarlos? Un poco de realismo no nos vendría mal, señorías.

Tenemos que interactuar con China, sin duda, para hacer frente a los problemas globales y, al mismo tiempo, reforzar eso que llamamos la «economía estratégica abierta». Para eso tenemos mecanismos (no le den siempre patadas a la Comisión de la que me honro en ser vicepresidente, además de ser alto representante). La Comisión ha puesto en marcha un sistema para controlar las inversiones directas que se realizan en Europa, así como un Instrumento de Contratación Pública Internacional y una normativa en materia de subsidios extranjeros, que entrará en vigor la próxima primavera. Espero que se alcance pronto un acuerdo sobre el instrumento contra la coerción que será un instrumento fundamental, aunque no exclusivamente orientado a China. Y ciertamente tenemos que ser más fuertes en relación con la Ley europea sobre las materias primas fundamentales que anunció la presidenta Von der Leyen en el discurso sobre el estado de la Unión, que es parte de este esfuerzo. Como tenemos que diversificar nuestras relaciones con otros socios. Vengo de Asia Central y les puedo asegurar que allí tenemos un enorme trabajo que hacer para diversificar nuestros mercados de exportación y nuestras fuentes de importación de materias primas fundamentales.

Algunos de ustedes han hablado, en términos muy críticos, de qué manera abordamos el problema del trabajo forzado que plantea nuestra relación con China. Bueno, pues sí, es verdad. Este es un tema en el que se han hecho también cosas (¡es que parece que no se ha hecho nada!). Ya en febrero del 21 se hizo una revisión de nuestra política comercial. Desde entonces, la Comisión ha ido tomando iniciativas legislativas y no legislativas en esta materia. El 21 de abril del año pasado, la Comisión hizo una propuesta sobre una Directiva sobre información corporativa en materia de sostenibilidad para vigilar concretamente el tema de los derechos humanos y facilitar sistemáticamente análisis para hacer una lista de las empresas europeas que se ven afectadas por el problema del trabajo forzado. El 23 de febrero de este año, la Comisión propuso una propuesta de Directiva sobre la diligencia debida de las empresas en materia de sostenibilidad (es lo que algún diputado dice que no entiende lo que es), que trata de introducir instrumentos en materia de diligencia debida que deben aplicar las empresas europeas para identificar, prevenir, mitigar y tomar en cuenta los efectos adversos sobre los derechos humanos y el impacto medioambiental en sus operaciones en todas sus cadenas de valor. El 13 de julio de este año, la Comisión y el Servicio de Acción Exterior han dado a conocer una guía práctica sobre diligencia debida para todas las empresas europeas para que analicen el riesgo de que se utilice trabajo forzado en todas sus operaciones y en sus cadenas de valor. En septiembre pasado, la Comisión aprobó una propuesta de Reglamento por el que se prohíben en el mercado de la Unión Europea los productos realizados con trabajo forzoso. Este Reglamento está, señorías, pendiente de su aprobación, de la suya, y del Consejo. Espero que los diputados que han criticado a la Comisión sean conscientes de que está en sus manos la aprobación de este Reglamento. Por lo tanto, la pelota en muchos casos no me la manden a mi porque yo ya se le he mandado antes a ustedes. Con este Reglamento, las aduanas podrán y deberán identificar e impedir que productos fabricados sobre la base de la explotación laboral entren en el mercado de la Unión Europea.

Ciertamente es un gran tema, pero, por favor, no me digan que no se ha hecho nada. Les he hecho una larga lista de todo lo que se ha hecho. Esperamos que ahora el Consejo y el Parlamento cumplan con su labor de colegisladores.

Pero nosotros, a diferencia de los Estados Unidos, no tenemos una legislación específicamente orientada a China. Tratamos el tema con carácter general, sean chinos o no sean chinos los productos, ni la falta de cumplimiento con los reglamentos de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, que, por cierto, China acaba de anunciar que ratificará dos de las más importantes convenciones de dicha Organización.

Como les digo, nuestra relación con China no puede ser resumida en una frase ni mucho menos en los diez minutos de esta intervención final. Pero también, sin ninguna duda, el cómo nos relacionamos con China marcará la historia de este siglo y la nuestra en particular. Porque hemos establecido con China —alguien lo ha dicho antes—, una relación comercial tan importante y nuestras empresas han invertido tanto en China, y los trabajadores chinos y del sudeste asiático con bajos salarios han contribuido tanto a controlar la inflación durante los años de expansión de la economía global que no podemos pensar que podamos construir un futuro sin tener en cuenta la enorme fuerza que tiene un país que está llamado a desempeñar en el mundo el papel que le corresponde por su dimensión, por su fuerza económica, independiente de que nuestro sistema político no sea el mismo que el suyo. Claro que no lo es.

Por eso tenemos esta relación compleja que a veces a alguno le cuesta aceptar y preferiría una dirección más unidimensional y, lo quieran o no, la complejidad está allí, está allí para quedarse.

Seguiremos trabajando para que esta relación no vaya en detrimento de la defensa que hacemos de nuestros principios y valores, de los derechos humanos y de las democracias representativas.

Pero me gustaría que en todas las consideraciones que he oído esta tarde aquí con respecto a nuestra relación con China se tome en cuenta la realidad de la vida. La complejidad de esta realidad. Y la necesidad de que el Parlamento Europeo contribuya también a ello.

  President. – The debate is closed.

20. Componența comisiilor și a delegațiilor

  President. – The PPE Group has notified the President 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.

21. Reacția UE la reprimarea tot mai brutală a protestelor în Iran (dezbatere)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the statement by the Vice—President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the EU response to the increasing crackdown on protests in Iran (2022/2958(RSP).

  Olivér Várhelyi, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I would like to thank you once again for your continued attention to the domestic situation in Iran. Mahsa Amini was abused and died in custody at the hands of the morality police. There is only one word to describe this tragic event – outrage.

We have seen brave Iranian women and men taking to the streets to express their dissent. Women have emerged as a major driver of nationwide protest movements, calling for the full enjoyment of fundamental rights for all Iranians.

Despite our repeated calls for restraint to the Iranian security forces, the use of disproportionate force against protesters continues. And there is still no clarity from Iran on the number of people who have been killed or arrested during the protests. This is unacceptable.

Those responsible for the death of Mahsa Amini and all perpetrators of violence in the ensuing peaceful demonstrations must be held accountable. Recent calls by Iranian officials and lawmakers to impose the death penalty on protesters are a cause of extreme concern. The death penalty is, in all cases, an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity. The EU is a staunch supporter of its universal abolition.

We are appalled by the reports that some protesters have already received or will receive harsh sentences, including to death. The EU will not remain silent. We will continue to react and raise our concerns about the human rights situation in Iran, including with the Iranian Government at all levels.

This debate is a timely opportunity to recall the swift response to the EU and to reflect on the way forward. On 25 September, the High Representative Josep Borrell issued a strong declaration on behalf of the 27 EU Member States and, swiftly after the Foreign Affairs Council on 17 October and 14 November, the Council added 40 individuals and seven entities to the list of those subject to EU restrictive measures in the context of the Iran humanitarian rights sanction regime.

We took good note of the EP resolution of 6 October on the death of Mahsa Amini and the repression of women’s rights protesters in Iran. It testifies to the quick and crucial reaction of this House to any attempt to crack down on fundamental rights and freedoms.

Let me reiterate that Iran’s retaliatory measures, including on members of its parliament, are unacceptable as an attempt to sanction our democratic institutions and our core principles. Iran’s measures are purely politically motivated and we reject them. High Representative / Vice-President Borrell has conveyed this message to his interlocutors in Iran, and his spokesperson reiterated this publicly.

Honourable Members, the EU welcomes the convening of a special session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to address the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran. Strengthening accountability for human rights violations across the world is at the core of the EU’s external policy actions.

  David McAllister, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Sehr verehrte Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Kommissar Várhelyi hat gerade die Situation in Iran beschrieben; dem ist nichts hinzuzufügen. Das islamistische Mullah-Regime setzt Repression als Mittel zum eigenen Fortbestehen ein. Aber angesichts dieser Entwicklung, die der Kommissar beschrieben hat, muss aus meiner Sicht die Europäische Union endlich ihre Iranpolitik auf den Prüfstand stellen und den Druck auf das Regime weiter erhöhen.

Der Iran steht möglicherweise vor den größten innenpolitischen und gesellschaftlichen Veränderungen seit 1979. Jetzt besteht die Chance, systematische Verbesserungen für die Lage der Frauen und einen gesellschaftlichen Wandel hin zu mehr Freiheit und Demokratie zu erreichen. Aber auf diesem Weg bedarf es der entschlossenen und tatkräftigen Unterstützung durch die Europäische Union.

Herr Kommissar, ich bitte Sie: Wir müssen als Europäische Union die Protestbewegung, die Zivilgesellschaft im Iran stärker unterstützen. Die EU-Sanktionen müssen auf alle Personen und Organe des iranischen Regimes ausgeweitet werden, die an der Unterdrückung der aktuellen Proteste beteiligt sind, und die sogenannten Revolutionsgarden müssen EU-weit auf die Sanktionsliste gesetzt werden.

Ich bin Präsidentin Roberta Metsola dankbar, dass sie einer Anregung der Koordinatoren im Ausschuss für auswärtige Angelegenheiten gefolgt ist, dass wir im Europäischen Parlament bis auf Weiteres keine direkten Kontakte mit offiziellen iranischen Gesprächspartnern werden stattfinden lassen. Das ist unsere Antwort auf die Sanktionierung von sechs Kolleginnen und Kollegen durch das Regime in Teheran.

  Tonino Picula, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, Mr Commissioner, after the horrific tragedy of 22-year old Jina Mahsa Amini we are continuously witnessing inhumane actions in the Iranian regime. Iran is trying to suppress the fundamental right to protest in the most brutal way, including by issuing death sentences.

More than 400 protesters have been killed and around 17 000 have been arrested by the security forces. News coming from Iran is very disturbing, and unfortunately, the most vulnerable are not spared from the horrors. The fact that about 50 children have already been killed is bloodcurdling and shows the barbarism of this regime.

Yesterday we also saw the Iranian football players at the World Cup standing in solidarity with the protesters and refusing to sing the national anthem. The regime’s response was expected – censorship, darkness, and ignoring.

Their brutal repression is trying to crush the protests, but it cannot break the spirit of freedom that has inspired many Iranian people to risk their lives for the common good.

We as the European Parliament have to send a strong message of support and put forward a decisive EU response to sanction the deeply compromised Iranian regime. It’s our duty to those courageous people looking for their freedom.

  Frédérique Ries, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, j’ai envie de vous parler de Kian Pirfalak ce soir. Kian avait neuf ans, c’était un petit garçon qui construisait des voitures à pile, des bateaux en bois, qui rêvait de devenir ingénieur quand il serait grand, un jour. Seulement voilà, Kian ne sera jamais grand. Il a été tué par balle la semaine dernière par la police, alors qu’il revenait de l’école avec ses parents en voiture. Et son père est toujours grièvement blessé.

Kian est le plus jeune des 60 enfants – 60 enfants! – qui ont déjà été victimes de la répression terrible en Iran. Parce que l’Iran, aujourd’hui, c’est cela: c’est tirer à balles réelles sur les manifestants, sur les femmes, sur les enfants. C’est violer, c’est torturer et c’est aussi envoyer ses blindés pour réprimer la révolte dans le Kurdistan.

L’Iran, aujourd’hui, c’est l’horreur. Et l’honneur pour l’Europe, ce serait d’arrêter de tergiverser, arrêter d’agiter le bâton et la carotte. Les sanctions d’un côté, aussi, mais ces échanges commerciaux par exemple, qui ne cessent d’augmenter, nous le devons à toutes ces femmes au courage inouï. Car ce qui se passe en ce moment au pays des mollahs, ce n’est pas une révolte, pour paraphraser le duc de La Rochefoucauld, ce qui se passe en Iran, c’est une révolution.

Et j’ai envie de conclure avec l’expression favorite du petit Kian, au nom du «dieu des arcs-en-ciel», puisse ce pays magnifique, qui n’a jamais cessé de rêver de liberté, retrouver le parfum de ses libertés.

  Hannah Neumann, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, schoolchildren burying their classmates shot by the regime, reduced liberties, electricity cut-off, people screaming, gunshots, and then, silence. It’s always the same patterns: the regime shuts down the internet, it kills in darkness, and that is why it is our job to put the spotlight on what is happening in Iran.

There are even testimonies that the Revolutionary Guards picked the most beautiful protesters, boys and girls, and then raped them – so that others no longer dare to raise their voices. And colleagues, I want to know what happens, and I don’t want those responsible for these atrocities to get away with it.

This Thursday – the day after tomorrow – the UN Human Rights Council will hold its first ever special session on Iran and it will vote on the establishment of an independent fact-finding mission. Colleagues, this is a key vote. We have to document the atrocities. We have to fight impunity. And I want us to make sure that it’s the broadest possible majority coming out of this special session.

And then there will be 12 December – it’s another Foreign Affairs Council. And the 227 Iranian members of parliament who asked for severe punishment are still not on the sanctions list. We have their names. We know their offence. And the colleagues pointed it out – how much more does this need to happen before we finally put the whole Revolutionary Guard on the sanctions list?

And maybe someone can send this message to Mr Borrell because, once again, he’s not showing up in this debate.

I understand well, there’s only so much we can do from the outside. But that is why it is needed that we fully dedicate ourselves to doing just so much. This is the least we owe to the brave protesters who stand up against that oppression in Iran every day.

Colleagues, our attention and our determination are the best protection we can give to them, and that is what we should do with all the energy we have.

  Anna Bonfrisco, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, grazie anche a Lei, Commissario Várhelyi, per essere qui con noi questa sera, abbiamo chiesto, con diversi colleghi, all'Alto rappresentante e all'ambasciatore Olof Skoog, di agire presso le Nazioni Unite per rimuovere l'Iran dalla commissione sulla condizione delle donne, una risposta obbligata dell'Unione europea alla crescente repressione delle proteste in Iran. Grazie per quello che potrà fare, Commissario.

Anche oggi questo Parlamento aiuta a far risuonare la voce della protesta del popolo iraniano, che si sente defraudato della possibilità di vivere una vita sicura e in pace con se stesso e con il mondo. Il popolo iraniano chiede una sola cosa al supremo leader, agli ayatollah, al Presidente Raisi e alle forze armate. Chiede una cosa semplice: quella di abbandonare un pretestuoso stato mentale di rivoluzione permanente, basato solo su repressione, corruzione, inimicizia verso i Fratelli musulmani del Golfo, l'odio verso Israele e un profondo disprezzo per le democrazie liberali dell'Occidente. L'Iran proposto dall'ayatollah è solo intriso di cinismo assassino ed è una blasfemia dell'islam stesso.

Continuiamo noi ad aiutare il popolo iraniano e a tenere accesa la luce della speranza per loro e per noi.

  Charlie Weimers, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, Commissioner Várhelyi, the regime in Tehran has murdered at least 402 protesters, including 58 children for protesting or merely being on the streets, as the families of the victims have told us. In Zahedan, they shot 17-year old Mohammad Iqbal in the back. They killed nine year old Kian Pirfalak, together with a 13-year old child in Izeh.

Commissioner, I welcome the European Union’s growing recognition of the threatening geopolitical environment, but the EU has been asleep for decades. Sanctions were a step in the right direction, but we need to do more. We should reflect on the way forward you said. Well, yes, and in doing so, we should listen to the protesters. They want divorce, not counselling. And so should we.

Add the IRGC to the terror list and implore the Member States to recall their ambassadors and expel Iran’s diplomats here in the European Union, close the embassies, period. The Islamic Republic is not a legitimate representative of the Iranian people.

  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin! Mit Sorge schauen wir auf die Gewaltspirale im Iran, und ich verneige mich in tiefer Trauer vor den vielen, vielen Opfern – vor allem auch den Kindern –, den mehr als 400 Menschen, die bisher getötet wurden. Mein höchster Respekt gilt in der Tat den iranischen Frauen, die trotz allem aufbegehren, und all denen, die sie unterstützen, wie die iranische Fußballnationalmannschaft, die deutlich mehr als eine gelbe Karte riskiert, oder die Basketballerinnen, die den Hijab abgelegt haben. Was für eine großartige und mutige Zivilgesellschaft!

Und wenn wir irgendetwas machen können, dann ist es, sichere Kanäle zu dieser Zivilgesellschaft herzustellen, um diese Proteste tatsächlich sichtbar zu machen, ihnen mehr und mehr Gesicht zu geben. Und das ist nötig, weil die Brutalität des Regimes auf einer neuen Stufe angelangt ist, indem aus Rache irakische Kurdengebiete zerbombt werden – und im Übrigen macht man das gemeinsam mit Ankara, das auch syrische Kurdengebiete hier zerbombt.

Zum Vermächtnis von Jina Mahsa Amini gehört auch, dass wir hier in Europa geschlossen zeigen und geschlossen sind, jegliche Angriffe auf Kurdengebiete zu verurteilen – jegliche. Das ist das Mindeste, was ich vom Europäischen Parlament erwarte.

Und ich erwarte auch, dass wir alles dafür tun, dass dieses iranische Regime nicht in den Besitz von Atomwaffen kommt. Atomwaffen in dessen Händen sind eine existenzielle Gefahr für Frieden und Stabilität und auch ein Aufruf zu neuem nuklearen Wettrüsten. Daran haben wir kein Interesse. Ich finde, wir sollten das auch deutlich sagen. Und bei all dem, was wir ansonsten machen – da stimme ich meinen Vorrednern zu –, glaube ich, dürfen wir diesen Aspekt nicht vergessen.

  Antoni Comín i Oliveres (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dice un'anziana, è incredibile quante donne, soprattutto giovani, escano per strada senza velo.

La nostra è una rivoluzione, ma la nostra lotta non riguarda solo il velo. Vogliamo una democrazia laica. Stiamo combattendo per la libertà. Marhane, una delle migliaia di protagoniste di questa rivoluzione spiega che lo scopo del velo è quello di umiliare le donne, il segno esteriore che non sei un essere umano libero.

Ma dietro c'è tutto il resto. Le donne iraniane ereditano la metà degli uomini e le ragazze possono essere date in sposa dai genitori a partire dall'età di 13 anni. Abbiamo bisogno del permesso di nostro padre e di nostro marito per lavorare, per ottenere un passaporto, per viaggiare. Non possiamo nemmeno andare in bicicletta o in moto, questo spiega Marhane. Ecco perché la rivoluzione femminile iraniana non si ferma, nonostante la repressione.

Secondo Iran Human Rights, 342 manifestanti sono stati uccisi dalla polizia e secondo le Nazioni Unite, 14 000 persone sono state arrestate e almeno cinque di loro sono state condannate a morte. Una nuova generazione di iraniane, guidata da donne, ha deciso di sostituire il dolore con la rabbia, la paura con la determinazione. Ogni volta che una donna si toglie il velo mette a rischio la propria vita, ma lancia un messaggio di libertà al mondo e l'Unione fallirà nei suoi valori e nella sua missione se non sarà in grado di accompagnare questa rivoluzione fino in fondo.

  Javier Zarzalejos (PPE). – Señora presidenta, este debate hoy es un acto de reconocimiento al coraje del pueblo iraní.

Es fácil jugar ahora la carta del escepticismo, a veces disfrazado de realismo, y pensar que la represión terminará por acallar las protestas. Pero las protestas se han extendido a todas las provincias. Las protestas continúan y los iraníes están plantando cara a la represión. No estamos, por tanto, ante un déjà-vu. El genio de la libertad ha salido definitivamente de la botella. El régimen teocrático tiene un problema muy serio y hay que esperar que este problema sea terminal. Que no nos engañen las apariencias: si la policía de la moralidad ha desaparecido de las calles es porque el régimen necesita más capacidad disuasoria y represiva de la que ofrecen los guardianes del velo.

El régimen iraní, además, es un riesgo grave que va más allá del ámbito regional, como demuestra el hecho de que Irán se ha convertido en el aliado clave de Rusia.

Seamos concretos: ¿es aceptable que los embajadores iraníes en la Unión Europea sigan apaciblemente instalados en sus residencias? ¿es aceptable que las fuerzas represivas del régimen iraní, empezando por la Guardia Revolucionaria, sigan actuando sin ser señaladas como lo que son, organizaciones desestabilizadoras de naturaleza terrorista?

Urge seguir dando respuestas.

  Alessandra Moretti (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, le notizie che arrivano dall'Iran sono terribili e spaventose: più di 300 morti, tra i quali 40 bambini, 14 000 arresti e almeno sei condanne a morte.

Tante delle donne che hanno dato il via alle proteste si trovano in prigione, detenute in condizioni atroci, vittime di torture e stupri. Eppure il coraggio delle donne, dei giovani, dei lavoratori, di tanti iraniani non si ferma e continua ad abbattere barriere, alimentando la determinazione delle proteste più prolungate degli ultimi decenni.

Di fronte a questo coraggio e alla richiesta straziata e straziante di libertà, l'Unione europea non può stare a guardare. Ho accolto con favore le sanzioni messe in campo, così come i ripetuti appelli a liberare le persone ingiustamente detenute, mettere fine alla repressione violenta, revocare le condanne a morte e garantire la libera circolazione delle informazioni, compreso l'accesso a Internet.

Tuttavia, ritengo sia importante per l'Europa farsi trovare pronta a fornire un sostegno vero e utile. Serve una politica estera europea coerente e concreta, che sappia agire tempestivamente rispetto ai regimi dittatoriali. Serve una strategia europea che applichi sanzioni, che isoli i governi autoritari e che allo stesso tempo sia vicina ai paesi che intraprendono un percorso nella direzione dello Stato di diritto e dei valori europei.

Saremo durissimi, ma saremo altrettanto solidali nei confronti della società civile, delle ONG, di chi vuole ricostruire un sistema economico, scolastico e sanitario che rispetti i diritti delle donne e delle minoranze e le libertà di tutti.

Donna, vita, libertà.

Women, Life, Freedom.

  Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, we hebben hier al gehoord over dat brute optreden tegen demonstranten in Iran met heel veel gewone mensen die opgepakt worden, kinderen die gedood worden. Zoals mevrouw Ries zei: het houdt eigenlijk niet op. En eigenlijk moeten we eerlijk zeggen: er is niets wat dat optreden van het Iraanse regime rechtvaardigt. Want vrouwen mogen opkomen voor hun vrijheid, vrouwen mogen protesteren tegen onderdrukking, iedereen heeft het recht de straat op te gaan tegen die onderdrukking. Ik moet zeggen: ik ben heel erg fier op de maatregelen die onze voorzitter van het Europees Parlement heeft genomen, Roberta Metsola, om te zeggen: geen officiële bijeenkomsten meer van het Europees Parlement met de Iraanse autoriteiten. Maar ook van u, mijnheer de commissaris, verwachten we nu toch wel heel duidelijke acties. We vragen dat u heel duidelijk een onafhankelijk onderzoek steunt. Ik denk dat daarmee alles begint. En zorg ook dat diegenen die mede die repressie aansturen onder gerichte sancties komen te staan.

Als vrouw breekt het mijn hart om te zien dat het in veel landen nog altijd heel gevaarlijk is om als vrouw, als meisje geboren te worden. Dat het gevaarlijk is om de straat op te gaan alleen omdat je vrijheid wilt. Wij moeten het tij keren.

  Alice Kuhnke (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, police opening fire at civilians, children being killed, girls being raped in prisons by security guards to make sure that they are not virgins and, therefore, will not go to heaven when they die. Thousands upon thousands imprisoned and at risk of state-sanctioned executions.

For many, it is already too late. But it does not mean that it was all for nothing. If we want to be on the right side of history, we have no choice but to continue and to do more, much more. All other alternatives would mean that we let the murderous Islamic regime continue to dictate the terms.

So we have a choice: be silent or act in solidarity with the extraordinarily brave Iranian people who, day after day with their own life at stake, continue to fight for their freedom. Woman, life, freedom.

  Christine Anderson (ID). – Madam President, here you all go again. In shock about Iran this time. All the while, carefully avoiding to call the devil by its name.

Masha did not die because of some fundamentalists abusing Islam. Masha died because she would not subdue to Islam. There is no such thing as Islamism. It is Islam, point blank. And now go ahead, call me Islamophobe all you want. Heck, have them issue a fatwa against me and see if I care.

The truth is, I am not afraid of Islam. The Islam apologists, the one patronising Islam, calling it the religion of peace, even. They are the ones afraid of Islam. Again, I am not afraid of Islam. I do, however, strongly object to this misogynistic, misanthropic and totalitarian ideology.

And if you truly cared about freedom, democracy and the rule of law, you would stop your bigotry and for once have the guts to acknowledge the true problem. It is called Islam.

  Veronika Vrecionová (ECR). – Paní předsedající, už více než dva měsíce protestují Íránci proti své vládě. Protestují proti režimu, který je vězní a zabíjí nevinné. Proti režimu, který vyhrožuje jiným zemím zničením. Naším úkolem musí být na tyto činy ukazovat, nemlčet, ale těch, kdo se postavili na odpor, se zastávat. Můžeme sledovat stovky tisíc lidí, kteří protestují v ulicích, ale také statečné sportovce, kteří svými gesty dávají jasně najevo svůj odpor k íránské vládě. A to i přesto, že jsou nejvíce na očích a hrozí jim vězení. Musíme odmítnout snahy o vytváření obchodních vztahů s Íránem nebo dokonce omezování sankcí. Írán se nezměnil. Nesmí se změnit ani náš postoj k němu. Evropská unie musí pomáhat všem, kdo se režimu staví na odpor, a naopak odsuzovat všechny, kdo s ním jakkoli spolupracují.

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, last week we had MEPs and members of the European External Action Service, and even some world leaders, spreading disinformation and claiming the Iranian Government had decided to impose the death penalty on nearly 15 000 protesters. When the lie was exposed, the Canadian Prime Minister deleted this tweet, but he did not issue an apology.

There are peaceful protests. Many Iranians are unjustly imprisoned and should be released, and far too many have been killed by the aggressive crackdown. There has also been much violence and murders by some protesters – untold damage and destruction. It would not be tolerated anywhere.

John Bolton has confirmed that the Iranian opposition is now being armed with weapons entering Iran from Iraqi Kurdistan. Iran is under attack. The media assault is intense. The campaign of propaganda and destabilisation brings the Syrian regime—change operation to mind. Those who supported the so-called Syrian revolution say nothing today about Syria lying in ruins, illegally occupied, sanctioned to death with millions displaced and hundreds of thousands dead. Is this what you want for Iran?

  Gheorghe-Vlad Nistor (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, colegi, n-am să înșir acum încă o dată atrocitățile pe care regimul de la Teheran le comite zilnic în Iran, astăzi.

Este continuarea într-o formă aberantă și bolnavă a unor realități pe care deja le cunoaștem de mult mai multă vreme. Dar am să întreb această onorabila adunare de ce în cazul acesta nu ne gândim și noi aici la o soluție concretă, cum o facem în alte cazuri?

Zilele acestea am asistat, cu interes și nu cu reținere, la o dezbatere lungă în legătură cu declararea Rusiei, Federației Ruse sau a regimului de la Moscova, Guvernului Federației Ruse ca fiind teroriste. În cazul Iranului, lucrurile sunt evidente. Acțiunile teroriste ale acestui regim sunt foarte clare, aproape că multe dintre acțiunile lor se apropie de genocid. De ce nu discutăm în aceiași termeni lucrurile acestea oribile din Iran în Parlamentul European?

  Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Voorzitter, het Iraanse volk is een niet te stoppen golf van pure moed geleid door vrouwen. Als legitieme overheid vermomde misdadigers hebben honderden vreedzame demonstranten gedood, 58 van hen kinderen, en duizenden gevangengezet. Maar wreedheid kan de vastberadenheid van het Iraanse volk niet breken. Commissaris, ik heb drie vragen.

1. Wanneer gaat de EU sancties opleggen aan alle 227 parlementsleden van de Iraanse Majlis die opriepen tot strenge straffen voor vreedzame demonstranten?

2. Maken de EU en lidstaten zich donderdag bij de speciale zitting van de VN-Mensenrechtenraad hard voor een internationaal rechtsmechanisme voor de Islamitische Republiek?

3. Welke beslissende stappen zal de EU nemen tegen de terreur van de Revolutionaire Garde? Wij hebben de plicht de dappere Iraniërs én de Iraanse EU-burgers die met hen meeleven te steunen. En ik verwacht actie. Women, life, freedom, Jin, Jiyan, Azadi.

  Bernard Guetta (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, jamais il n’y aura de normalisation en Iran. Le retour au statu quo ante est désormais impossible car la contestation s’est trop généralisée et la répression trop durcie pour que ce régime puisse reprendre les choses en main.

La théocratie est à l’agonie, mais demain? Il n’est pas impossible que les scènes de fraternisation entre manifestants et policiers se multiplient et que ce pouvoir s’écroule brutalement. Le plus probable est cependant que l’on passe d’abord par une phase de militarisation du régime qui verrait les gardiens de la révolution prendre le pas sur le clergé. C’est l’hypothèse la plus vraisemblable, mais cette phase militaire n’aurait qu’un temps, car les pasdaran feraient alors face à la double opposition de la population et de la partie la moins obscurantiste du clergé qui voudra limiter le recul de la foi.

Une nouvelle page s’ouvre en Iran, celle des femmes, de la vie, de la liberté.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, caro Comissário, o regime dos ayatollahs, fundamentalista religioso teocrático, oprime todo o povo iraniano.

Desde os idos de 79 que as mulheres, à frente de todos, são as maiores vítimas do regime. Mas também os jovens, também os homens, também toda a sociedade civil, em todas as províncias e em todas as cidades. Nas escolas, nas ruas, nas universidades, gente de todas as profissões, estratos sociais e idades está a manifestar-se num ato de grande coragem, frente a um regime opressor e repressor. Decretam a sua morte. Mataram, sem olhar a meios, crianças, jovens, mulheres, homens.

Nós não podemos pactuar com esta situação. Não podemos pactuar com um regime opressor que, para além do mais, apoia a Rússia na sua agressão. Nós temos de dar apoio às mulheres, aos jovens, aos homens do Irão. Temos de o fazer com a mesma dignidade que os jogadores da seleção iraniana revelaram ontem, no Mundial do Catar. Esses, sim, são heróis.

  Delara Burkhardt (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich habe hier eine Minute, und ich möchte diese Minute Stimmen geben, von denen ich glaube, dass sie hier in diesem Europäischen Parlament gehört werden müssen:

Den beiden kurdischen Aktivistinnen Zeineb und Shahab. Sie sagen: „In den letzten zwei Monaten wurden mehr als 100 Kurdinnen und Kurden ermordet, darunter viele Kinder. Die iranische Regierung setzt mittlerweile verbotene chemische Waffen und Nervengase ein. Wie kann es sein, dass der militärische Angriff eines Landes gegen ein anderes als Kriegsverbrechen gilt, richtet der Angriff sich aber gegen die eigene Bevölkerung, sehen alle weg?“

Ein paar Sekunden für meine Freundin und iranische Künstlerin Nasanin. Sie sagt: „Eine Minute reicht nicht, um zu berichten, wie Menschen auf der Straße in Kälte, nach 65 Tagen immer noch hoffnungsvoll, mit nichts als der nackten Hand und der Freiheit im Herzen gegen ein voll bewaffnetes, blutrünstiges Regime für ihre Rechte kämpfen. Aber vielleicht reicht eine Minute, um Sie zu bitten: Schauen Sie hin! Wir brauchen Ihre Unterstützung – jetzt.“

Gerne würde ich meine Stimme noch viel mehr Menschen geben. Ich hoffe, wir können auch hier im Parlament einen Raum schaffen, wo diese Stimmen selber zu Wort kommen können. Hier im Europäischen Parlament ist eine Minute sehr wenig. Im Iran zählt jede Sekunde. Es kann die Sekunde sein, wo man noch mal schnell ein Bild von einem Ermordeten hochladen kann, wo man noch mal ein Video hochladen kann von einer Gräueltat. Jede Sekunde zählt, und hier muss sie das auch tun.

  María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos (Renew). – Señora presidenta, las mujeres iraníes se merecen más. Y creo también que esperaban más de nosotros.

Se merecen más porque han tenido el valor de romper el silencio ante un régimen que utiliza brutalmente la pena de muerte. Antes de estas manifestaciones, Irán ya era país en el que se registraba el mayor número de ejecución de mujeres en un sistema sexista donde la seguridad jurídica para las mujeres no existe.

Se merecen más porque el grito de «Mujer, vida y libertad» ha movilizado a la mayoría de la sociedad iraní frente a la represión de este régimen. Se merecen más las seis personas condenadas a la pena de muerte.

Se merecen más los 20 000 detenidos en las manifestaciones. Se merecen que, ya que conocemos los nombres de los jueces que están dictando estas sentencias, les sancionemos. Se merecen que sancionemos a los por lo menos 227 parlamentarios que están pidiendo más represión contra los manifestantes. Se merecen que adoptemos más sanciones contra los miembros de la Guardia de la Revolución. Se merecen que repensemos nuestras relaciones bilaterales y que impulsemos a escala internacional un mecanismo de rendición de cuentas en las Naciones Unidas.

  Ivan Štefanec (PPE). – Madam President, the current situation in Iran is extremely concerning. In the last three months, thousands of people have been arrested and more than 600 of them have been killed. And they’ve been killed just because of their fight for a free country and for their fundamental rights.

Let me express my deepest admiration to all of the Iranian citizens who continue to protest despite the horrible situation, mass arrests and extreme violation of their fundamental rights by the regime. Six of the arrested people have even been sentenced to death, and many others may face the same fate.

This uprising covers the whole country. While a brutal Iranian regime supports and supplies weaponry to the criminal Russian aggressors, all age groups and all sectors of society are now united in protest against the autocratic regime, together side by side.

It is therefore time to act, to express our full support and call for the protection of those whose only sin is a desire for democratic values of their free country. We should not call the current situation a protest; it is really a revolution.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, those strong and incredibly courageous women and all those who support them in Iran are heroes. And therefore the European Union must not be silent but act.

Since the beginning of the Islamic Republic, women have protested against the regime’s ideology, often at great risk, while many think now it is a rebellion. I say we are witnessing of a revolution. When women take to the streets, it is a revolution. When women cut their hair, it is a revolution. When women take the hijab off their heads, it is called a revolution.

The revolution is against an incredibly patriarchal regime that will not back down from cruelty. We see it. Now the demands of Iranian women appear so simple and are yet so fundamental. Women. Life. Freedom.

Dear colleagues, when women march in the streets to fight for freedom, they must know that we, the European Union, will support them in their struggle for women’s rights and simply for a free life, no matter what.

Dear brave Iranian women, we stand by and with you.

(Catch-the-eye procedure)

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Madam President, the huge protests of Iranians in recent weeks shows their will for freedom and democracy. Iranians have for long not supported the dictatorial regime of Khamenei’s governments. This regime is punishing them with death, violence and oppression. What we see in these days in Iran is thousands of victims and imprisoned young people and women, just in the last few weeks. We must clearly condemn this state of violence.

Who are the Iranian regime’s partners today? Only dictatorial regimes like North Korea, Russia and, recently, the Hungarian foreign minister is shaking hands with representatives of this regime.

We have to stress today that we are on the side of the Iranian people and every crime committed in Iran will be investigated and punished.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, no, no es la primera vez que este Parlamento Europeo discute la inaceptable situación de los derechos humanos bajo la República Islámica de Irán. Pero, reconozcámoslo, no habíamos visto nunca una explosión rebelde de coraje como la que hemos visto desde la muerte de Mahsa Amini a manos de la «policía de la moral» el pasado 16 de septiembre. Hemos visto manifestaciones. Hemos visto también un balance de más de trescientos muertos —de acuerdo con cualquier informe objetivo— y cerca de veinte mil detenidos, entre ellos, por cierto, dos e