All text 
Förfarande : 2021/2065(INI)
Dokumentgång i plenum
Dokumentgång : A9-0045/2023

Ingivna texter :


Debatter :

PV 13/03/2023 - 17
CRE 13/03/2023 - 17

Omröstningar :

PV 15/03/2023 - 7.5

Antagna texter :


Fullständigt förhandlingsreferat
XML 39k
Måndagen den 13 mars 2023 - Strasbourg Reviderad upplaga

17. Europeiska utrikestjänstens funktionssätt och ett starkare EU i världen (debatt)
Anföranden på video

  President. – The next item on the agenda is the report by Urmas Paet on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy taking stock of the functioning of the EEAS and for a stronger EU in the world [2021/2065(INI)] (A9-0045/2023).

Mr Paet is not present yet. We are searching for him, but I do not want to interrupt the debate, so I propose that we continue, and I invite Executive Vice—President Timmermans to take the floor and hope Mr Paet will join us very soon.


  Frans Timmermans, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I don’t want to cause a Timmermans overdose tonight, but here I am again on another subject. On behalf of High Representative Borrell, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Urmas Paet, even if he’s not here yet. We know each other because we were foreign ministers together at the same time, so I have known Urmas for many years.

I would like to thank him and all those who contributed to this report on the functioning of the European External Action Service and for a stronger Europe in the world. In 2019, at the beginning of this legislature, we set out to build a stronger Europe in the world – a geopolitical Europe capable of speaking the language of power. Since then, the strategic environment of the European Union has radically changed.

Today we are living in a world of multiple crises. I think it was Jean-Claude Juncker who coined the expression ‘polycrisis’, and this is exactly where we are today. It brings with it a lot of uncertainty to systems, but also to individual citizens. The brutal war of aggression Russia is waging against Ukraine has led to a geopolitical realignment. We are faced with the weaponisation of interdependencies, whether it’s on energy or raw materials, medical and pharmaceutical products, migration or technologies.

The consequences of the climate crisis are becoming ever more apparent, and the international order is being challenged and is being reshaped as we speak. At the same time, competition between the US and China is becoming the main structuring force of the global order. This new environment is not a return to the bipolar world of the Cold War. I would say, rather, that it’s a messy multi-polarity in which partners around the world, such as Turkey, India, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, Mexico and Indonesia, may lean one way or the other, depending on the issue and based on their interests.

As the European Union, we have to be proactive. When designing our policies, we need to factor in how others will perceive them and how they will affect them. This matters, as our ambition is to continue setting global standards. To meet these historical challenges – as your report actually points out – we need a strong external action policy that is capable of defending our values and our democracies with a united and strong voice, and supported by a state-of-the-art European diplomatic service. As the EU’s diplomatic service, the role of the EEAS is to support the High Representative in steering the Union in the tasks assigned by the Treaty, and to steer and ensure a coordinated and coherent EU external action and policies, including on the external dimension of the EU’s internal policies. This is fundamental to guarantee the EU’s role as a reliable and responsible actor on the world stage. We therefore welcome the support of Parliament in ensuring that the EEAS is guaranteed the necessary space and resources to be fit for purpose.

As your report testifies, the EU’s working methods and our decision-making processes in foreign policy are often very complex. We therefore need to continue doing our utmost to facilitate swift decisions to respond to global challenges, uniting all 27 Member States, so that we can speak on the global stage with one strong voice.

Our message needs to be amplified across the world with all our European diplomatic tools, the delegations, the embassies of the Member States, and there is also a very important role for your own parliamentary diplomacy. An important tool that you also mention in your report to improve our capacity to respond to crises worldwide is a new crisis response centre under the authority of the EEAS. The crises of the past, whether in Afghanistan or the Sahel, have shown the need for a centre that brings together the 24/7 Situation Room, diplomatic security, consular affairs and crisis management capabilities. Here, once again, we welcome your support for this important initiative.

Finally, let me welcome your support for the establishment of a European Diplomatic Academy. This will be a key tool to create an esprit de corps and a common European diplomatic culture. In the last three years, we filled our geopolitical Europe with substantial operational content. We must sustain our strategic unity and build on the robust response to the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. This moment of geostrategic awakening must be translated into a more lasting increase of the EU’s influence in the world, including through strengthening the EU’s security and defence capabilities – a must in a world increasingly defined by strategic competition.

We know that we have the support of this House and that of European citizens, as the last Eurobarometer shows. Defending European values, such as freedom and democracy, and the interests of the EU with a single strong voice is our priority, and we could not do it without the strong support of this House. Thank you, and I look forward to the debate.


  Michael Gahler, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Herr Kommissar! In Abwesenheit herzlichen Dank dem Berichterstatter Urmas Paet. Ich hoffe nicht, dass ihm die Russen in einer dunklen Ecke aufgelauert haben, damit er jetzt nicht hier sein kann. Wir sind uns zum großen Teil einig. Wir müssen in der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik relevanter werden. Das ist seit Langem Auffassung des Parlaments und eigentlich auch der meisten Regierungen.

Wir wissen alle: Nur gemeinsam sind wir stark. Nur gemeinsam können wir Dritte beeindrucken. Nur wenn man weiß, dass wir gemeinsam unterwegs sind, werden sich Dritte an uns wenden in der Hoffnung, dass wir gemeinsam den Unterschied machen. Wenn wir machtvoll, gemeinsam und dauerhaft zum Beispiel in Sachen Ukraine handeln, dann weiß ein Kriegsverbrecher, dass er uns unterschätzt hat. Dabei beobachtet uns der Rest der Welt – alle die, die sich gerne langfristig mit uns als gute Partner engagieren wollen, die aber wahrnehmen, wenn der Westen sich zurückzieht. Das darf uns nach Afghanistan und dem Sahel nicht in unserem Kerninteressengebiet passieren.

Dann sind wir beim entscheidenden Punkt: Es ist gut, wenn einstimmig alle dabei sind. Aber ich denke, es würde für den Adressaten einer Maßnahme oder für beobachtende Dritte kaum einen Unterschied machen, wenn bei den 27 einer fehlt. Also aus aktuellem Anlass, wenn wir zum Beispiel gegenüber der georgischen Regierung eine bestimmte Botschaft zu vermitteln haben, dann könnte sich diese Regierung nichts dafür kaufen, wenn Herr O aus U damit nicht einverstanden ist.

Aber wenn wir wegen eines Einstimmigkeitserfordernisses vor Ort nichts sagen können, dann profitieren die Falschen. Wenn bei solchen örtlichen Statements nicht mal eine Blockademinderheit zustande kommt, dann spricht doch sehr viel dafür, dass die Mehrheit richtigliegt. Ich fände es zum Beispiel auch ziemlich schräg, wenn bei Statements oder Maßnahmen gegenüber bestimmten Staaten ausgerechnet die früheren Kolonialherren eine Einstimmigkeit verhindern könnten.

Deswegen ist eine unserer zentralen Empfehlungen in Artikel 1 Buchstabe g, dass wir das Einstimmigkeitsprinzip auf Entscheidungen betreffend die Schaffung und Stationierung militärischer Missionen oder Operationen mit Exekutivmandat beschränken und dass wir Sanktionen und andere Maßnahmen oder eben schlichte Verbalnoten mit qualifizierter Mehrheit beschließen können. Ich denke, es würde einen Unterschied machen.


  Nacho Sánchez Amor, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señor Paet, les agradezco su flexibilidad en la negociación de este documento y haber resistido el giro federalista del PPE, que ha defendido en este informe desapoderar al Consejo de sus competencias en política exterior y comunitarizar esta política, saltándose así los tratados, por cierto.

Yo creo que este es un informe necesario porque en política exterior saltamos de una crisis a otra y hay muy poca reflexión sobre los instrumentos de dicha política exterior y sobre sus caras: ¿quién representa?, ¿quién define?, ¿quién ejecuta la política exterior? Está basada en un marco jurídico bastante confuso. Yo diría que en la política exterior hay muchas caras y muchos egos. Y yo recomendaría dejar trabajar a Borrell, que no parece muy preocupado por la altura de su sillón.

Creo que la mejora de esos instrumentos de nuestra política exterior pasa por una diplomacia que sea una diplomacia auténticamente europea. Esa idea de la Escuela Diplomática, evocada por el comisario Timmermans, es una idea que salió de este Parlamento.

Tenemos que mejorar nuestra capacidad de inteligencia en las crisis exteriores. Tenemos que crear un flujo de inteligencia de los servicios de inteligencia nacionales hacia Bruselas para estar bien informados y no actuar ciegamente. Y hay que reforzar, por tanto, el INCENT.

Hay que hacer una diplomacia cultural europea que no sea una simple mezcla de las diplomacias culturales nacionales; hay que buscar una nueva posición para la Unión Europea en este mundo multilateral sacudido a partir de Trump; y hay que pensar en la posición de la Unión Europea en el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas.

Para ser muy prácticos, ¿cómo se pasa de una silla francesa a una silla de la Unión Europea en pocos años?


  Ernest Urtasun, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the new geopolitical context and the war in Ukraine underscore once again the need for a genuine EU foreign policy that is consistent and effective to adapt and respond to today’s challenges. EU external action continues to be embedded by a number of barriers that go from an insufficient common diplomatic culture, a lack of trust between Member States and duplication and interinstitutional rivalries within our different institutions.

More than 10 years after its creation, the EEAS should now be strengthened in order to reinforce the EU’s role as a more proactive, resilient and autonomous actor on the global stage. The EEAS should be given a proper political mandate, and we need to introduce qualified majority voting for decision—making in certain EU foreign policy areas, such as sanctions, human rights and the protection of international law, because that would increase our ability to act consistently with our principles. The capacity of the EEAS should also be enhanced and in order to ensure good interinstitutional, coordination and integration of all EU policies, in particular those with an external dimension like, for instance, migration, trade and energy. Furthermore, my group supports more efforts to improve gender balance within the EEAS, particularly in senior management and political positions, both at headquarters and at EU delegations.

All combined, those reforms that this report proposes aim at making the EU a more resilient and capable international actor, able to speak and act as one.


  Hermann Tertsch, en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señor presidente, buenas tardes a todos. El informe del ponente Urmas Paet pide una reforma del Servicio Europeo de Acción Exterior (SEAE) para atribuirle más competencias y más poder; y, de paso, también para cambiar por la puerta de atrás la forma de votar en el Consejo, para que la ideología dominante del SEAE, tan marcada, se imponga ya y no tenga quien se le oponga.

La guerra de Ucrania ha traído alguna sorpresa, como que el señor Borrell se viera obligado, por fin, a ponerse —por una vez— del lado correcto de la historia. Pero, por lo demás, sigue donde estaba el servicio exterior de Borrell: de fuerza protectora del régimen criminal de los ayatolás, la que despreció los Acuerdos de Abraham porque los había logrado el odiado Trump, del que se acaba de hablar también; de lobby permanente de la dictadura de Cuba, a la que la Unión Europea, incomprensiblemente, sigue pagando y subvencionando millones para aplastar a su pueblo; y ha hecho una campaña nada disimulada por los candidatos narcocomunistas del Foro de São Paulo, desde Boric a Petro, desde Lula a Arce. Por cierto, hoy se cumplen dos años de prisión de Jeanine Áñez. Jeanine Áñez está en la cárcel por llevar a cabo un plan tutelado por la Unión Europea y la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA). Nadie ha dicho nada. ¿Se ha pedido su libertad ahora? ¡No!

En Venezuela, el SEAE ha inventado las condiciones para la celebración de unas elecciones bajo el tirano Maduro que son tan absurdas como ridículas. Ahora, el «servicio socialista exterior» prepara para el socialista Borrell el «semestre socialista» de Sánchez, la hoja de ruta 2023, como gran operación de legitimación de las dictaduras consumadas y en proceso, todas amigas del Gobierno español.

El SEAE no necesita más dinero ni más tamaño ni más poder. Necesita más compromiso con la verdad y la libertad.


  Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor vicepresidente ejecutivo Timmermans, les agradezco que estén hoy aquí en este debate. También quiero expresar mi agradecimiento al ponente del informe, el señor Paet, que no ha podido estar presente. A mí me gustaría tratar un asunto más particular —porque ya se han dicho muchas cosas—: el artículo 31 del Tratado de la Unión Europea (TUE). El artículo 31 del TUE es muy importante. ¿Por qué? Porque en su apartado 2 permite aprobar muchas decisiones por mayoría cualificada y, hasta ahora, desgraciadamente, no se ha utilizado. Para aplicar esas decisiones por mayoría cualificada se necesita haber adoptado una decisión sobre los intereses y objetivos estratégicos de la Unión, de acuerdo con el artículo 22 del TUE.

Pues bien, resulta que el Consejo Europeo ha adoptado este documento, titulado «La nueva Agenda Estratégica» y su última sección se titula, precisamente, «Promover los intereses y valores de Europa en el mundo». Por tanto, como fue adoptado, además, por el Consejo Europeo mediante el procedimiento de consenso, se han satisfecho de facto los requisitos del artículo 22 del Tratado. Por tanto, ya se dispone de una decisión del Consejo Europeo sobre los intereses y valores estratégicos de la Unión. Esto permite que se aplique el artículo 31, apartado 2, del TUE para adoptar decisiones y acciones de implementación de esos intereses y valores estratégicos por mayoría cualificada.


  Jaak Madison (ID). – Mr President, Mr Timmermans, dear colleagues, I know very well that Mr Paet was on the same flight with me tonight, and he arrived to Frankfurt. After that, I have no idea what happened to him. He went to a train. I came by car. So you see that you don’t take the train.

The idea of the majority voting has been around for years in the EU. It’s very easy for the MEPs and for the representatives from Germany, from France, from Spain to support this federalist idea, as also the Socialist colleague said in the beginning of the speech that he is one step forward to the federalist. Of course, I am against the federalists, because when you are from the small Member States, and if you’re using the majority voting, then the only ones who can lose from the majority voting are small Member States.

Majority voting can’t harm in any way Germany or France because they’re just too big. It is pretty impossible to win those countries with majority voting. But you can win Estonia or Finland or Latvia or even Poland. That’s why, even if there is some kind of federalist idea to go forward with some kind of idea of the empire, I think this is just one step forward to have bigger conflicts inside of the EU between the Member States. I think this is not the way we want to go, but this is the way we are going just now. I’m really hoping that you will see the future of what will happen.


  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, esta Comissão Europeia afirmou—se, quando iniciou funções em 2019, como uma Comissão geopolítica empenhada em políticas sustentáveis, na construção da imagem da Europa como guardiã do multilateralismo. Seria difícil antecipar, naquele momento, a importância e a clarividência estratégica desta opção.

Hoje, mais do que nunca, a União Europeia tem que se afirmar pela sua capacidade geopolítica, liderar as tradições fundamentais para a sustentabilidade do planeta, para a defesa da democracia, da liberdade e da soberania dos povos.

Temos uma visão, temos instrumentos políticos potentes, como os múltiplos tratados de cooperação e de comércio, e temos instrumentos financeiros para a ação externa (Global Europe, Global Gateway). E, como este relatório evidencia, temos de nos organizar para sermos mais fortes no mundo.

Temos que melhorar a coordenação e integração da política externa da União Europeia em domínios críticos, embebendo com os valores e princípios que partilhamos a nossa ação na economia, no comércio, na cooperação para o desenvolvimento e na segurança e defesa.

A mensagem é clara: só seremos fortes e credíveis externamente se combinarmos internamente seriedade e eficácia – não há outra escolha.

E, Senhor Comissário, é preciso fazer escolhas. Por exemplo, o acordo pós—Cotonu: 100 países, 1,5 biliões de pessoas, e bloqueado por um país. Isto não é tolerável.


  Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Herr Präsident! Der Europäische Auswärtige Dienst soll also mehr Befugnisse bekommen. Das bedeutet in erster Linie mehr Geld und weniger Rechte für die Mitgliedstaaten, obwohl die bisherige Bilanz des EAD wahrlich ein Armutszeugnis ist. In der Schicksalsfrage unseres Kontinents, der Massenmigration, hat der EAD auf ganzer Linie versagt. Obwohl ein Großteil der illegalen Migranten aus Afrika stammt, wurden bisher erst mit vier afrikanischen Staaten Rückführungsabkommen ausgehandelt, und die sind nicht einmal rechtlich bindend. Das ist diplomatisches Totalversagen.

Natürlich ignorieren die Partnerstaaten das Abkommen komplett. Apropos diplomatisches Totalversagen: Oberstes Ziel der EU-Außenpolitik ist doch die Friedenssicherung. Davon kann ich im Ukrainekrieg nichts, gar nichts erkennen, ganz im Gegenteil. Der vorliegende Bericht wird nicht zu einer Verbesserung dieser Probleme führen, sondern noch mehr überbezahlte Versorgungsposten mit inkompetenten Ideologen schaffen. Dieser Bericht ist daher in Gänze abzulehnen.


Catch-the-eye procedure


  Katarína Roth Neveďalová (S&D). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, veľmi ma mrzí, že nás je tu tak málo v takejto dôležitej téme, a že bolo by oveľa lepšie, keby tu bol naozaj, že full house a všetci by tu sedeli a počúvali, pretože je veľmi dôležité, ako sa na Európsku úniu pozeráme.

A keď hovoríme o budúcnosti, ja si veľmi vážim a chcem povedať, že oceňujem Európsku vonkajšiu službu a všetkých našich kolegov, ktorí pracujú v európskej diplomacii, ako aj v diplomacii každej krajiny. Ale myslím si, že musíme sa zamyslieť nad tým, že či naozaj chceme väčšinové hlasovanie v Rade, o čom tu dnes rozprávame večer, pretože ja, pochádzajúc z menšej členskej krajiny, pre nás je to niečo, čo je neakceptovateľné a nemôžeme to podporiť, pretože máme pocit, že tým vynechávame malé členské štáty.

Dnes má Európska únia problém s tým, že stále klesá jej podpora, že ľudia majú pocit, že niekto iný rozhoduje niekde inde v Bruseli, že nie je to o nich. A práve toto je možno jeden z dôvodov, ktorý k tomu prispieva. Keď naozaj budeme potláčať ten trošku iný názor, pretože ten konsenzus je to, čo nás priviedlo dokopy, čo tú Európsku úniu robí lepšou, a preto je konsenzus v týchto otázkach, v ktorých je, veľmi zachovaný.


  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, г-н Комисар, обикновено ви критикувам и вярвам, че това е с основание, но в случая няма как да не подкрепя вашите думи в началото на вашето изложение. Да, руската агресия накара най-сетне дори и по-мудните наши колеги да се замислят върху нуждата от една по-организирана, по-единна обща външна политика на държавите – членки на Европейския съюз.

Това, разбира се, не може да стане с федерализация. Това, разбира се, не може да стане с въвеждането на гласуване с мнозинства, тъй като това ще застраши интересите на по-малки държави в ключови сектори и в територии, в които те са подложени на натиск. Така, както повечето от западните държави не ни слушаха, когато предупреждавахме за активизацията на руската агресия по източния фланг на Европейския съюз и на НАТО, така и в момента подобни процеси се развиват например на Балканите, където същата тази заплаха провежда своите хибридни операции на териториите на държави, които са кандидати или ще бъдат кандидати за членство, и ги насочва и ги настройва срещу държави – членки на Европейския съюз. На това трябва да има единен европейски отговор, а не разделено действие всеки поотделно.


  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, we’re talking about a stronger EU in the world. If we want a stronger EU in the world, we’ll have an EU that prioritises peace rather than war. There is always an alternative to war. When Russia invaded Ukraine, it was 100% illegal. There was an alternative and they didn’t take it. But NATO’s expansion eastwards didn’t help matters either. It helped to destabilise the area. US and NATO involvement in Ukraine since 2014 haven’t helped matters.

The failure of the EU to engage in diplomacy and dialogue since the war started hasn’t helped matters. Our support for wars in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq hasn’t helped matters. What kind of a strong Europe do yous want in the world? The world is not interested in war, but we are promoting it. We are militarized in Europe. We’re increasing the profits of the arms industry. Why are we going down this path? Whatever happened to the Europe that wanted peace? We’re losing the plot, we are. We’re pumping arms now into Ukraine on the basis that Ukraine are going to win. There’s nobody going to win the war in Ukraine. This is absolute madness. And the Ukrainians are going to die more and more every day as long as we keep pumping arms into a live war.


  Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, it’s ironic that we are looking at the future of the European External Action Service under the title ‘a stronger EU in the world’, when the truth is that the world – particularly the places where the majority of the world’s population live outside the global north – are shaking their heads in disbelief at the weakness of the European Union and its subservience to US empire, even when it’s blatantly against our own interests.

Instead of championing peace in Europe, overcoming differences and difficulties through dialogue and diplomacy, we’ve acted as a pawn for NATO – captured by the military industrial complex, imposing sanctions. And now we have an energy crisis, a cost of living crisis, an angry nuclear power on our doorsteps and the Inflation Reduction Act.

If we want to be stronger, stop playing US war games, stop antagonising our trading partners, stop interfering and trying to have regime change in countries we don’t like, stop robbing the global south – they’re not going to take your colonialism anymore. If you want to be stronger, stand up for international law, for UN principles, multilateralism, in other words, the opposite of what you’re doing now.


(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


  Frans Timmermans, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, in two words, I will thank the House for the contribution to this discussion but I cannot but react to what was just said. With all due respect, and Mick knows I respect him for the work he does, let’s set things straight for just one minute.

We are being attacked by a man who has an imperialistic vision of Europe. He denies the Ukrainians their nation. He is abducting children to re-educate them to become Russians because he denies the Ukrainian nation its existence. He’s bombing apartment complexes, schools and hospitals. They are committing the most atrocious war crimes. And you’re saying we should not help Ukrainians defend themselves?

We would be we would be on the wrong side of history if we did not support Ukraine in what is for them an existential struggle. If Ukraine is overwhelmed by the Russians, Putin will not stop there. Moldova will be next. He will be looking at the Baltic States, etc., etc. His ideology compels him to do this. So we need to confront him and we need to do it in unity.

He’s been trying to divide us for years, that’s why he’s been reducing energy exports to Europe. The inflation is caused mainly by him and by his actions, which leads to higher energy prices, higher food prices. I’m all for peace, but you don’t negotiate with a madman who’s trying to invade your continent and put other peoples under his control.

The most fundamental rules of international law have been violated. You need to respect international borders. And our European unity today is needed more than ever before in the face of this aggression. And I have to tell you, very frankly: I’m grateful for the transatlantic bond that gets us through this. I’m grateful for the American engagement and the Canadian engagement in this existential struggle for our freedom. But I’m most grateful to these Ukrainian men and women who are dying today, every day, to defend also our freedom, our values, our vision of society.

And don’t have any illusions about Mr Putin’s intention. Don’t pretend that by not supporting Ukraine, we would be supporting peace. We would be making things much, much worse.

This is a moment of a decisive element in our future, honourable members, we either stand up against this dictator or we lose everything we hold dear.


  President. – The debate is closed, the vote will be held on Wednesday 15 March.

Written statements (Rule 171)


  Urmas Paet (Renew), kirjalikult. – Selle raporti raportöörina soovin rõhutada, et ELi välispoliitiliste eesmärkide saavutamiseks tuleb rakendada kõik vahendid – diplomaatia, rahvusvaheline kaubandus, arengukoostöö ning kaitsepoliitika. Samuti tuleks teha muutusi ELi otsustusprotsessis välispoliitilistes küsimustes. ELi välispoliitika otsuste tegemisel, kus fookuses on inimõigused, rahvusvahelise õiguse kaitse ja sanktsioonide kehtestamine, tuleks üle minna kvalifitseeritud häälteenamusega hääletamisele. See on vajalik, et üks riik ei saaks kogu ELi reageerimist blokeerida, nagu kahjuks on viimasel ajal korduvalt juhtunud.

Suhetes kolmandate riikidega peaks EL minema üle põhimõttele „rohkema eest rohkem“, mille alusel EL tugevdab partnerlusi nende riikidega, kes jagavad ELi välis- ja julgeolekupoliitika põhimõtteid ja põhiväärtusi. Üsna küsitav on eraldada raha riikidele, kes näiteks toetavad Venemaa agressiooni Ukrainas. Ühtlasi peaks EL kolmandates riikides asuvates saatkondades sisse seadma konsulaadid, et aidata ELi kodanikke kriiside ajal.

Senaste uppdatering: 16 maj 2023Rättsligt meddelande - Integritetspolicy