VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ
Präsident

(Die Sitzung wird um 8.30 Uhr eröffnet.)

  Der Präsident. - Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Vorbereitung der Tagung des Europäischen Rates (20./21.[nbsp ]März 2014) (2013/2699(RSP)).

  Dimitrios Kourkoulas, President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, the Spring European Council meeting is traditionally dedicated to economic and social policy. However, before looking at the economic agenda of next week’s European Council, let me first say a few words about the other items on its agenda.

International events have once again forced themselves onto the agenda of the Council. The situation in Ukraine is uppermost in our minds, and was, of course, the reason for last week’s extraordinary meeting of Heads of State or Government. I will refrain from going into detail now on this, since it is the subject of the next debate. I would simply say that it is highly likely that next week’s European Council will revert to this issue. Also on external relations, the March European Council will discuss the EU-Africa summit which, as you know, will bring together some one hundred Heads of State or Government in Brussels on 2 and 3[nbsp ]April[nbsp ]2014.

As I said, the March European Council is traditionally focused on economic and social policy. The President of the Council has decided to structure the debate around three major components of our strategy for growth, jobs and competitiveness: first, the European Semester; second, industrial competitiveness; third, climate and energy.

This is not a random set of issues. They are all closely interlinked. The European Semester is the tool for monitoring implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy, while industrial competitiveness, and climate and energy, are two of its levers. There can be no industrial competitiveness without a coherent climate and energy policy, and vice versa.

As regards the European Semester, the European Council will conclude the first phase. The Council provided guidance on policy priorities for 2014 in December, and this innovation underlines the importance of the semester process. Next week the Council will assess the implementation of the 2013 country-specific recommendations and provide guidance for further work on the stability and convergence programmes and national reform programmes with regard to the economic and social dimension. I would like to take this opportunity to thank this Parliament for the significant work which you have undertaken on various aspects of the semester.

We are approaching the end of an economic cycle. The consequences of the crisis are still being felt. Growth is fragile and uneven, but the worst is probably behind us. This is one of the reasons why the Council will look at the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The President of the Commission will provide for a review of the Strategy in time for the Spring 2015 European Council.

Europe needs a strong and competitive industrial base. Improving our competitiveness is essential. It is a vital component in ensuring the lasting recovery of our economies. The Council will discuss how to achieve a strong and competitive industrial base in Europe. It will look at how to strengthen the regulatory framework and the internal market. But that will not be enough. Leaders will therefore be looking to support mainstreaming of competitiveness across all policy areas and to conduct systematic competitiveness proofing to make sure that we deliver on implementation.

The European Council will also address the issue of skills. We need to ensure that Europe has access to skilled labour. We see that there are important shortages, for example in the area of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Those shortages must be addressed. Another issue to be tackled by the Council is that of high-growth sectors, where there is often a patenting lag. Stimulating investment in innovation and new technologies is also a priority.

Competitiveness is also vital when we look at our industry from the perspective of the international markets. We must ensure the integration of European companies into global value chains as well as enhance our competitiveness through an ambitious trade and investment agenda.

A strong and competitive European industry must be seen alongside a coherent climate and energy policy. The European Council will therefore hold a first debate on a new policy framework for energy and climate in the period 2020 to 2030. The Council is expected to call for early agreement, taking into account the timeline agreed in Warsaw and the international events to come, in particular the COP 21 in Paris next year, on an ambitious EU position on emissions reductions up to 2030. This of course is an area which will need to be developed further in the near future.

The European Council will also take stock of progress made since its meeting on energy last May. The completion of the internal energy market by 2014 and developing interconnections so as to end the exclusion of some Member States from European gas and electricity networks by 2015 remain a priority. I do not need to highlight the importance of this issue in the light of recent events in Ukraine. The European Council will identify areas where further work is needed to reach these objectives. It will also look at how to tackle the issue of high energy costs.

We expect this European Council meeting to be an economic one as usual. But, as always, additional topics will need to be addressed. The European Council will address all these issues alongside questions of how to achieve growth, create jobs and improve our competitiveness. As has been shown many times here in the debates in this Parliament, our economic and social policy is our strength. It gives us greater weight on the international scene and enables us to play a leading role globally.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. - Mr President, it goes without saying that today, the eyes of Europe and of the world are set on the crisis in Ukraine. I am sure that the European Council will also devote a large part of its work to this big issue. Since we are going to discuss this issue later this morning, I will now concentrate on the other main elements on the agenda of the Council.

I expect the European Council to take stock of the progress that has been achieved so far in the response to the economic crisis and focus on the policy decisions needed to consolidate the recovery. We need to keep up the pace of structural reform and reinforce our specific actions regarding the issue of unemployment. The European Council, which will also be the last Council before the European elections, will be a very important moment as regards maintaining the momentum. It will conclude the first phase of the European Semester and debate the next steps to take in our reform agenda.

The Commission has already presented its assessment of the economic context and the state of play of macroeconomic reforms in countries under additional scrutiny. Only two weeks ago, we had a debate in this plenary which led to the adoption of a resolution of this Parliament on where it sees the priorities in the European Semester. I was glad to note that there was a large degree of convergence on the priorities.

As you know, we have revised our economic forecasts upwards. We now expect growth of 1.5[nbsp ]% this year for the European Union as a whole, and of 2[nbsp ]% next year. This is again a slight improvement. Growth is returning in Europe, and this is also true for the most vulnerable Member States. Domestic consumption and investments are set to expand further, thus reducing Europe’s dependency on the recovery of the external sector.

This is good news for public budgets, because debt levels are still too high in several Member States. These will need to be reduced further through smart fiscal consolidation and structural reforms that support growth. Weak competitiveness is still a crucial concern in a number of countries, so implementation of our 2020 Strategy and the country-specific recommendations remains as necessary as ever to improve their growth prospects.

This is even better news for citizens, because growth is a prerequisite for jobs. The need to generate jobs – especially in order to fight youth unemployment – remains one of our main priorities. That is why we are urging governments to put in place youth guarantee schemes. It is also why we are organising a follow-up conference in Brussels at the beginning of next month in order to keep up the momentum on what I think is the most important social challenge in Europe today: unemployment, and specifically youth unemployment.

Confidence is based on credibility, and credibility depends on delivering on our commitments. Since we started work on our banking union in 2012, we have seen the positive impact in terms of helping restore confidence and stability in Europe’s markets. The Single Supervisory Mechanism is on track to begin its work later this year. Now there is an urgent need to deliver the final element – the Single Resolution Mechanism.

Today’s trilogue will be very important. The Commission has defended its proposal with vigour. It is the Council alone which has to answer for its insistence on putting some elements into an intergovernmental agreement. But we need to be realistic, so the Commission argued once again in the Council meetings this week that the intergovernmental agreement must be kept to the minimum.

We are in favour of accelerating the fund’s mutualisation and for it to have effective access to funding from day one. We are with Parliament in seeking simpler governance rules that respect the autonomy of European law and its decision-making procedures, the institutional balance and the prerogatives of each institution to determine its own organisation.

Yesterday in Ecofin, no progress was made as regards the respective roles of the Council and the Commission, and the Commission remains deeply concerned as to the compliance of the Council’s approach with the case law of the court. Let me be clear: the Commission has been working, and continues to work, constructively with you for an outcome that is as close as possible to our original draft, which is fully compatible with and upholds the primacy of European Union law.

I also expect the European Council to endorse the approach of the Commission’s communication on a European Industrial Renaissance – and then to not only talk the talk but also walk the walk, because a lot of the levers capable of making our industries more resilient are found at national level.

The problems are clear. Some of our industries have lost competitiveness; investment in research and innovation remains too low, holding back the modernisation of our industrial base; progress on improving the business climate remains uneven; European firms face higher energy prices than most of their leading competitors and have difficulties acquiring qualified labour and capital in affordable conditions.

The Commission is committed to doing its share of the work: for example, making our own rulebook more business-friendly; completing the integration of networks; supporting investment in new technologies through Horizon 2020; providing EUR[nbsp ]100 billion of European funds for smart specialisation in industry over the next seven years; assuring better access to finance, in particular for SMEs; supporting the development of skills; cutting red tape; negotiating trade agreements and supporting economic diplomacy and the internationalisation of firms. This is part of what we are doing.

But Member States have to be equally committed and decisive. Many of the issues, in fact, have to be dealt with at Member State level. Some countries should do more to ensure that government services and regulations support industry’s needs; that labour markets are effective and conducive to job creation by companies; that a special effort is made to reduce the regulatory burden on SMEs; and that innovation projects and investment levels are cranked up, because only technological progress can guarantee competitiveness in the long run. Last but not least, they need to ensure that all the necessary steps are taken towards dismantling the barriers that still exist to the full internal market that we wish to see, because this is one of the most difficult problems we have in Europe when it comes, for instance, to areas such as the digital and energy sectors.

We need to take more steps towards a real internal market for energy so as to keep down energy costs. The Council has previously made commitments to doing this. I am sure this is also going to be discussed, and I hope that a clear signal is given in the European Council. The same is true for climate action policy in relation to energy policy. This will probably be the most important point to discuss, together with Ukraine, at the next European Council.

Companies need a clear long-term regulatory perspective to base their investments on and stay competitive. Rising energy prices for companies and consumers are a real cause for concern. At the same time, green technologies are critical for growth and jobs, provided that we create the right environment for them to prosper sustainably. And finally, in the light of the crisis in Ukraine, no one will need to be reminded of the costs and dangers of Europe’s continuing energy dependence.

The triangle of competitiveness, sustainability and security was already the key rationale behind the 2020 climate and energy policies, and we have proved that we can make it work in practice. We are largely on track to reach our 2020 goals. We must now build on that and go further, setting the pace for an ambitious and affordable agenda towards 2030.

The strategic climate and energy framework which the Commission tabled a few weeks ago does just that. It proposes a binding, domestic greenhouse gas reduction target of minus 40[nbsp ]% by 2030 as compared with 1990. That is ambitious, not least when compared to other global actors. It is also feasible. And it is cost-effective, as our research shows, because 40[nbsp ]% is the smartest milestone on the path to our ambition for 2050.

Secondly, we should also set a binding 2030 target for renewables – at European level – of at least 27[nbsp ]% of energy consumption. ‘Home-grown’ renewables are crucial, as they also contribute to our energy security. We have, however, proposed not to set 28 individual national targets any more, but rather to rely on a bottom-up approach, leaving more flexibility to the Member States. I think the lessons of the past clearly show that this is the most efficient way to go. We need a smarter European division of labour here. Member States remain free to set their own national renewables goals. We have to respect, of course, the national energy mixes. It is for them to define the goals at national level, but we should continue to support renewables, provided that they remain within our state aid rules. We shall make sure their combined efforts add up to the overall European Union budget. This is possible to do through a reinforced governance scheme.

Lastly, energy efficiency. As you know, the current 2020 strategy does not have a binding target. The Commission will undertake a review in mid-2014, and we should wait until after this review has been carried out before we consider the next steps. We expect to come with a proposal before expiry of the mandate of this Commission.

So the Commission has set out a framework. The ambition is clear. The ball is now in the court of the Member States’ governments and, of course, of this Parliament. I expect the European Council to make some progress next week and to give a clear signal that work will continue rapidly on the basis of that strategy, and that we will maintain the momentum by coming back to this issue in the European Council later this year.

I believe this discussion in the European Council will be important, because we really need the ownership of the Member States to commit to this more ambitious programme. I know this is a difficult decision for some, but I expect the European Union will be able to maintain competitiveness and play a leading role on the climate agenda so that others can join in this effort. This is critically important; we cannot be alone in the world in this effort. We also need to have the major economies with us. We need to bring others along, in light of the high-level event organised by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in September this year. This is another reason why it is important that, when we go to New York in September, we show that the European Union is leading the way with concrete proposals.

It is not too soon, as some are saying. 2030 is around the corner. Waiting is not an option. It would be good to give our businesses the certainty that they need for their investments as soon as possible. Internationally, the European Union can only continue to set the agenda if we do our own homework first.

In all these areas, the internal challenges for Europe are clear and call for decisive action. The international context is demanding and forces us to act together. Recent events have shown how important it is that the European Union remains together and that the Member States work together. The European institutions have taken the lead, and we must continue to lead.

With elections drawing near – and particularly in times of economic hardship – we should not lay down our tools; rather we should do the opposite: work as hard as we ever did. That is what our citizens expect from us, and that is what is at stake at the forthcoming European Council. I hope the European Council will respond to these issues with determined action.

  Joseph Daul, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, chers collègues, le Conseil européen de mars se tient dans un contexte international tendu. La Syrie, l'Égypte et l'Ukraine sont dans tous nos esprits. L'instabilité de notre voisinage nous rappelle combien la paix est fragile autour de nous, combien en tant qu'Européens nous devons travailler et agir ensemble pour aller plus loin et pour garder cette paix.

Vendredi dernier, lors du congrès du PPE, le chanteur irlandais Bono nous a délivré un message fort et plein de bon sens. Je partage avec lui ce constat: l'Europe est une entité économique qui existe et qui doit maintenant s'affirmer et devenir une entité sociale. C'est vrai, l'Union doit être unie pour être forte. C'est ainsi que l'on fait entendre notre voix dans le monde.

Les décisions que prendra le Conseil sur la politique énergétique, la compétitivité et le semestre européen sont justement des éléments moteurs pour faire avancer notre ambition pour l'Europe. Sans une politique énergétique pour 28 États membres, nous resterons tributaires, voire otages, de fournisseurs d'énergie situés dans des régions instables qui sont prêts à utiliser l'énergie comme une arme économique. Cette dépendance ne doit pas et ne peut pas durer.

Nos concitoyens sont préoccupés et nos concitoyens des pays de l'Est qui nous ont rejoints – "les pays de l'Est" entre guillemets, je n'aime pas cette appellation – sont très préoccupés par le chômage et l'emploi, et par ce qui se passe dans leur voisinage. Ce thème sera un thème central des prochaines élections européennes.

Tous ici nous sommes d'accord, mais nos solutions pour créer de l'emploi sont différentes. Nous, nous utilisons des slogans en agitant des mots comme "austérité" pour jouer avec la peur des gens. J'emprunte aussi à notre candidat à la présidence de la Commission européenne, Jean-Claude Juncker, cette formule: les 25 millions de chômeurs en Europe sont le vingt-neuvième État membre de l'Union européenne. Dans la seule zone euro, on compte 20 millions de chômeurs: il faut concentrer nos efforts pour leur permettre de retrouver un emploi.

En instaurant le semestre européen, nous avons donné à l'Europe des instruments pour renforcer sa crédibilité, pour rétablir la confiance des investisseurs et pour assurer notre stabilité économique. Remettre de l'ordre dans les comptes nationaux n'est pas une fin en soi, mais il faut le faire. Il faut aussi assurer de bons investissements pour soutenir la croissance partout en Europe. C'est pourquoi les objectifs de la stratégie Horizon 2020 sont capitaux.

C'est pourquoi il faut également se pencher sur notre politique industrielle. L'industrie européenne, grâce à nos PME, a toujours été une force de l'Europe. Celle-ci a ainsi bénéficié d'un puissant creuset de recherche, de développement et d'innovation. Cependant, faute d'une réelle harmonisation sociale et fiscale, nous assistons mois après mois à des faillites de PME. Si vous avez ouvert hier Les Dernières nouvelles d'Alsace, vous êtes tombés sur deux pages d'avis de liquidation de société. Rien que pour ma région, l'Alsace, c'est énorme. On a tendance à parler des licenciements dans les grandes entreprises, mais pas un mot sur ces centaines de PME qui disparaissent tous les jours et qui laissent des milliers de salariés sur le carreau. Aujourd'hui, il y a vingt millions de PME en Europe et en optimisant leur compétivité grâce à l'instauration d'un environnement favorable et à la lutte contre les distorsions de concurrence entre États, on aide efficacement les PME et on favorise les embauches. Or, si chacune des PME en Europe embauchait, ne serait-ce qu'une personne, il n'y aurait pratiquement plus de chômeurs dans la zone.

J'aimerais revenir au semestre européen: certains estiment que c'est une perte de souveraineté intolérable. C'est justement le contraire: c'est un gain de souveraineté. La crise nous l'a démontré: tout se tient. Or, avec plus de transparence, une surveillance partagée et une meilleure coordination, on renforce la souveraineté, notre souveraineté d'Européens. Le semestre européen, c'est un rempart pour résister aux aléas, aux attaques des marchés financiers.

Au cours des dernières années, des avancées considérables ont été accomplies par l'Europe et les Européens. Nous devons en être fiers, fiers de la paix, fiers de la prospérité, fiers d'une Europe unifiée, fiers d'une Europe qui protège. Je souhaite que, le 25 mai, nos concitoyens disent quelle Europe ils veulent pour eux, mais aussi pour leurs enfants, et je pense qu'ils le feront. Pour moi, la réponse est simple: il faut plus d'Europe car l'Europe c'est la solution.

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question "carton bleu" (article 149, paragraphe 8, du règlement))

  Graham Watson (ALDE), blue-card question. – I am sure the House will join me in congratulating Joseph Daul on his re-election as President of the European People’s Party (PPE).

Mr Daul, at your Congress you discussed how the situation in Ukraine highlights our dangerous dependence on Russian oil and gas. Germany clearly has much at stake. My question is: why do you not send Angela Merkel to Moscow to talk to them about the crisis in the Crimea and about energy policy, rather than leaving it to John Kerry?

Secondly: if we speed up the switch from fossil fuels to clean energy, we not only regain our independence from Russia, we also meet our commitments to fight climate change. So why does the PPE continue to oppose the binding national targets that we need for the green energy switch of which Mr Barroso spoke?

  Joseph Daul (PPE), réponse "carton bleu". – Monsieur Watson, je vous remercie pour vos félicitations. Vous savez, en Alsace, on ne dit pas: "Félicitations" à quelqu'un qui occupe un tel poste, on dit: "Sincères condoléances"!

Pourquoi enverrai-je Mme[nbsp ]Merkel négocier avec les Russes? Je suis un Européen. Que Mme[nbsp ]Merkel garde de bonnes relations avec les Russes, je suis totalement d'accord, et elle le fait sûrement. Mais, dans le cadre du semestre européen, c'est l'ensemble des Européens qui doivent négocier le dossier énergétique. Parce qu'un seul pays, même l'Allemagne, n'aura du poids que si nous avons une politique énergétique européenne. C'est ma première réponse.

Je ne crois pas, mon cher Watson, que l'on peut dire que le groupe PPE est contre l'environnement. Non! Je suis aussi en faveur de l'environnement mais nous devons faire très attention. Au niveau mondial, nous sommes les meilleurs et nous sommes loin devant. Nous devons poursuivre nos efforts, mais si les autres –[nbsp ]la Chine et l'ensemble du monde[nbsp ]– ne nous suivent pas, nous supprimerons tous nos emplois et l'Europe sera le continent le plus propre au monde mais sera sans emploi.

Quand j'étais en Allemagne, à Berlin, avec des grands chefs d'entreprises, un grand patron, que je peux citer, de Thyssen-Krupp, m'a dit: "Messieurs,....".

(Mouvements divers)

Je suis pour que nous maintenions chaque emploi que nous avons. Ne mettons pas nos entreprises en difficulté à cause des problèmes environnementaux. Nous devons les respecter, en tant que paysan, je sais que cela nous coûte. Si tout le monde faisait les mêmes efforts, nous serions déjà beaucoup plus avancés.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I think we should be more realistic. Citizens in Europe express disappointment, disillusionment and sometimes even disgust when they think about Europe. They perceive Europe as an empty shell – as a cold bureaucratic machine. I must say that what I have heard today from the Council and the Commission does not counter this perception. Mr President of the Council, you spoke about guidance. Where is the guidance of the Council and where is it guiding us to? It is not clear to the citizens and it is not clear to us.

There will be another European Council, and it will be business as usual. If you look at the conclusions, it will be business as usual. There will be some hollow and rather meaningless conclusions, some vague commitments and a search for the lowest common denominator. Still there is a neo-liberal cloud which is preventing the Council from seeing the reality: for example, the enormous social problems we have in Europe. We are one the richest continents – or the richest continent – but the income and wealth distribution are growing more and more unequal.

You spoke about the skilled labour which is needed. Why, then, are so many young people leaving countries like Spain, Portugal or even France? Yes, there are some mismatches between skills and needs in the economy, but regardless of these mismatches, there are not enough jobs in Europe. This is the problem we are facing in Europe and we have to tackle it.

If you compared the eurozone with the United States of America, you would see that – while not everything is good in the US – the US had growth of 2.4[nbsp ]%. We in the Eurozone had 0.5[nbsp ]%. The US has an unemployment rate of 6.7%, while the eurozone has nearly double that unemployment rate. US inflation is at 1.6[nbsp ]%, but in the eurozone it is only 0.9%. Some still think our problem is inflation, but our problem may be deflation, and not enough is being done against deflation. The EU unemployment rate was 11[nbsp ]% in January[nbsp ]2014 – the same as in 2013. Where is the big improvement many people speak about? GDP grew by 0.1[nbsp ]% last year. Where is the improvement?

On the subject of young people: yes, there are many young people who are innovators, who are researchers or who want to create new start-ups. But what is the Council doing against the brain drain? Many countries today are experiencing a brain drain, and the European Union is taking no action to keep our best people in Europe and provide them with jobs. There the Council and the Commission fail totally.

What the people want is some vision on how Europe should be developing, or at least some concrete measures. Regarding the FTT, which is high on the agenda at least of the countries concerned, there has been nothing on this here until now. On tax evasion: in Germany alone there is one man now on trial in court, and this one man seems to have evaded tax to the tune of more than EUR[nbsp ]20 million through speculation in Switzerland. Yes, it may be EUR[nbsp ]27[nbsp ]million, but it is certainly more than EUR[nbsp ]20 million of tax evaded by just one man.

What is the Council doing against tax evasion? How can you not take steps with regard to the two countries that still are resisting pressure to do something to combat tax evasion? Again there is a lack of courage, of vision and of guidance. People are disappointed, and yes, this is the reason why Mr Farage may have some success – not that he has any answers. He has no answers. But when mainstream politics fail, populists may win even without answers or proposals. What we have today in Europe resembles surrealist politics, and this reminds me of Samuel Beckett when he says ‘try again, fail again, fail better’. Unfortunately, we have no time to fail better, and the Commission does not even try to do it.

The President of the Commission spoke about 2020. We already know that we are missing the targets, as is also the case with the Lisbon targets that we are missing. Mr[nbsp ]Daul was committed to saying that we are against binding targets, because the Council and the Member States are not truly ready to move towards fulfilling the 2020 targets, especially on the environment and energy, and I will come back to that later. So what we need – and we are capable of doing this – is to act quickly, firstly with the banking union.

What Mr Schäuble said yesterday was very interesting. I am not a fan of the intergovernmental method, but he is proposing something which is highly intergovernmental, so that is not serious. Either you are for it or you are against it, but do not propose something that you are not a fan of. This is not very clever politics.

As regards a real fight against tax evasion, as I have already said, it would be good if next week the Council could say that we are now united in fighting tax evasion. However, I do not see this happening. Of course, a fairer distribution of income would also give more money to those who would spend it and create new jobs, especially green jobs.

Our group last week had a very successful conference on progressive economics with Joseph Stiglitz, Jean-Paul Fitoussi and others. They showed that there is an alternative to austerity – an alternative which is reducing debt better than austerity. It is a policy of growth, of creating jobs and of creating incomes. This is what we are fighting for, and it should be the task of the Commission and the Council to go for it. Then we will also be able to fulfil our 2020 climate goals or the 2030 climate goals – whatever you want to do. Environmental policy and climate policy can only be carried out by sensible and high-quality green growth. This is what we are calling on the Council to do, and I hope that for once the Council next week will give a positive message to the citizens of Europe.

(Loud applause)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, this is in fact the last meeting of the European Council before the elections, and I think it is a good moment to make an assessment of the last five years – of what has been done, what has not been done, and what the results of our policies have been.

First of all let me say that over the last five years we had a very dramatic period, Mr[nbsp ]Barroso. We had the fallout from the financial crisis of 2008. We had the sovereign debt crisis that started in Greece in December 2009. We had the Arab Spring in our neighbourhood. With our American friends we had the spying affair that is still going on and in connection with which we have to make new legislation as fast as possible. And now we have the deep crisis in the Crimea, which reminds us of all the old tensions of the Cold War. So the last five years has been a turbulent period.

I think we also have to be honest about the fact that a number of things have been done. Since the financial crisis in 2008, a huge new financial regulation based on initiatives by Commissioner Barnier has been put forward. We now have directives on bank recovery and resolution. We have a directive on the deposit guarantee schemes. We have a directive on markets in financial instruments. We have a directive on market abuse. We have a regulation on credit rating agencies and one on capital requirements. So a lot has been done on financial regulation. Thanks to our colleague Commissioner Rehn, a lot has also been done on the rules of the Growth and Stability Pact. And finally the rules are being applied; that was not always the case in the past.

The last element is that we also have positive action by the European Central Bank. Let us be honest, it is thanks to Mr Draghi’s OMT that the tensions in the markets have fallen; unfortunately the tensions and the pressures on politicians to make the necessary reforms have also fallen. Having said that, I think it is also necessary to tell the people – the citizens of Europe – the truth. The crisis is not over. Just because the end of the recession is here, this does not mean that we now have entered a period of growth – we have entered into a period of what we can more or less call economic stagnation, a goal between 0[nbsp ]% and 2[nbsp ]%. That is growth, but not enough to lower the enormous unemployment figures that we are experiencing in Europe.

And why? Because I think we lack two elements. It was interesting that Mr Swoboda made a comparison between the US and the European result. Why the difference? Because, first of all, they have solved their banking problem and we are still in the middle of a banking crisis. We have still not created a system that is capable of transferring the money from the banks to the real economy: that is the problem. A small or medium-sized company in Greece, for example, is still faced with interest rates of 7[nbsp ]%, 8[nbsp ]%, 9[nbsp ]% or 10[nbsp ]% for making investments, and the same is true for a small company in Italy. We will not recover if we do not first of all create a banking union, and I am doubtful about the outcome of the trilogue today when I see what the Council and Ecofin decided yesterday – if they decided anything, because that is not very clear.

The second thing we need is a European convergence policy. We need a new economic strategy. The Lisbon Agenda failed, the 2020 Agenda failed. Why? Because it was not binding enough. If you have one currency you also need more convergence and more binding economic strategies between the different parts of your Union.

My last point – on a totally different matter – is that I think over the last five years we have seen a lack of unity in our foreign policy, and we are seeing it today again in the crisis in Ukraine and the Crimea. An outrageous lack of courage on the part of the European Union, because it is our neighbourhood: we are talking about Ukraine, which is in fact a European country. When you go to Odessa or Kiev you see that you are in the middle of Europe – and what are we doing? What is our attitude to the tragedy that is happening in the Crimea? There is no serious strategy at all, and we need one. In my opinion we need one based on a number of elements. First of all, a real common energy policy and, as Graham Watson indicated, we need binding targets. It is the only way to have a real common energy policy. We also need to launch real sanctions against Russia, against the dirty money coming from Russia and which is invested in German industry, in the City of London, in real estate in France. We need real sanctions, otherwise the case is over. Crimea becomes a new frozen conflict for years and for decades.

So let us be clear: we are dealing with a Russian leadership that has turned its back on the consensus following the Cold War. It is no longer the Russian leadership of 1990 and the years after. It is a Russian leadership which is no longer prepared to accept the integrity of its former parts. It started, as we know, in 2008 in Georgia and it is continuing now in the Crimea, and the only way to stop it is by being bold, by being courageous in the European Union and doing what is necessary.

  Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Sehr geehrte Herren Präsidenten, sehr geehrte Kollegen! Ich fände es eigentlich ganz gut, Herr Barroso, wenn dieser letzte reguläre Gipfel, der Frühjahrsgipfel, den Sie mit vorbereiten – jedenfalls gehe ich davon aus –, auch auf Ihrer Seite Anlass zu einer nachdenklichen Bilanz geben würde. Denn in den letzten Jahren ist es zu oft so gewesen, dass wir auch von Seiten der Kommission gehört haben, dass die Krise im Griff sei. Tatsächlich ist es so, dass wir am Ende Ihrer zweiten Präsidentschaft an der Spitze der Kommission eine Europäische Union vorfinden, in der unsere Gesellschaften von vielen Spaltungen betroffen sind – der Norden, der Süden, oben und unten. Das funktioniert schlechter als vor fünf Jahren und sehr viel schlechter als vor zehn Jahren. Einen eigenen Beitrag dazu von Ihrer Seite, das zu erklären, was da schiefgegangen ist, würde ich sehr begrüßen.

Ich will mich jetzt auf die Debatte um die Klima- und Energiepolitik und die Frage der Zukunftsfähigkeit der europäischen Industrie konzentrieren. Ich habe hier schon wieder anklingen gehört, wie kompliziert das ist, wenn man ehrgeizige Klima-, Umwelt- und Energiepolitik in einer Industriegesellschaft macht. Schauen Sie mal nach Deutschland. Das ist ja wirklich ein Land, das man geradezu als industrielle Wüste bezeichnen kann, weil wir ehrgeizige Klima- und Energiewendeziele haben. Diese Wirtschaft in Deutschland kommt offensichtlich nicht zurecht, ist nicht mehr wettbewerbsfähig wegen ehrgeiziger Klimaziele. Also, wer diesen Blödsinn glaubt – Sie lachen, ich kann darüber leider nicht mehr lachen, denn diese blödsinnige Interpretation findet ja Eingang in die europäische Strategie!

Herr Barroso, Sie haben als Kommissionspräsident eine Legislaturperiode lang offensichtlich ertragen, dass wir mit Stavros Dimas aus Griechenland und mit Andris Piebalgs aus Lettland ehrgeizig Klima- und Energiepolitik gemacht haben. In dieser Legislaturperiode sind Sie mit Ihren Leuten, zum Beispiel mit Kommissar Oettinger, konsequent darangegangen, alles, was erreicht war, wieder abzureißen, und wir sind mit den Klima- und Energiezielen, die Ihre Kommission präsentiert hat, auf dem Tiefpunkt der internationalen Klimapolitik und der Rolle der Europäischen Union angelangt. Das Ziel in Bezug auf erneuerbare Energien ist lächerlich, und dass es kein Effizienzziel gibt, ist ja gerade, wenn man jetzt nach Osten schaut, Wahnsinn, ist auch strategisch völliger Wahnsinn! Wie erklären Sie so etwas? Wie rechtfertigen Sie so etwas? Sie müssen rechtzeitig – und das kann eigentlich nur noch bei dieser Ratstagung passieren – diese ganze Verantwortungslosigkeit der Klima- und Energiepolitik korrigieren, denn sonst kann in Paris kein erfolgreicher UNO-Klimagipfel mehr stattfinden. Mit Ihren Zielen haben Sie sich verabschiedet vom 2-Grad-Ziel, dem Ziel, woran wir immer festgemacht haben, wie wir den zerstörerischen Klimawandel stoppen wollen. Und Sie haben auch die Idee preisgegeben, dass mit ehrgeizigem Klimaschutz industrielle, wirtschaftliche Innovation verbunden werden kann.

Was lerne ich im Moment aus der Auseinandersetzung auf der Krim und aus der Auseinandersetzung mit Russland? Was lerne ich auch aus der Lage südlich des Mittelmeers? Dass wir Energieeffizienz und Ressourceneffizienz in einer Welt der begrenzten Ressourcen, wo damit Politik gemacht wird, wo Völker erpresst werden, in den Mittelpunkt unserer Strategien stellen müssen. Das haben Sie als Kommissionpräsident – unterstützt von Tajani und Oettinger – ganz offensichtlich abgemeldet.

  Jan Zahradil, za skupinu ECR. – Pane předsedající, moje země vstupovala do Evropské unie před deseti lety. Vstupovali jsme tam s velkým entuziasmem. Dnes je to tak, že podpora Evropské unie nebo důvěra Evropské unii v České republice je na nějakých 34 % obyvatelstva. Je to velice nízké číslo. Je nutné se ptát, kde se stala chyba. Jak říkáme u nás doma podle jednoho známého filmu, ono je to asi nepřeložitelné tady do těch jazyků: „Kde udělali soudruzi z NDR chybu?“.

Myslím si, že ta chyba je systémová, že to není chyba jednotlivých politik. Tady se hovoří např. o ztrátě konkurenceschopnosti a o podpoře malých a středních podniků. My je na jedné straně podporujeme různými schématy, na druhé straně je dusíme a ničíme nadmírou regulace. V podstatě každá regulace se dá dnes nějak ušlechtile zdůvodnit buď ochranou spotřebitele, nebo ochranou životního prostředí. Ale za těch 10 let, co jste, pane předsedo, ve funkci, ten balík evropské legislativy a evropské regulace narostl.

Byla tady řeč o politice klimatu. To je samozřejmě totální selhání a říkají to i členové vaší Komise. Vždyť jen maloobchodní ceny elektřiny vzrostly za poslední roky o 20 %, pro podniky o 17 % a značnou část tohoto nárůstu tvoří velmi štědrá podpora obnovitelných zdrojů. Ty stávající cíle 20-20-20 budou stát evropské podniky dalších 210 milionů EUR ročně, pokud půjdeme na 30 %, tak to bude 450 milionů EUR ročně. Ale to nám tady v Evropském parlamentu nestačilo, my jsme si vytýčili dokonce 40 %. Takhle si podřezáváme sami pod sebou větev a těžko pak můžeme hovořit o nějaké konkurenceschopnosti.

Evropské instituce jsou zahleděny samy do sebe, evropské politické stany vymýšlejí kandidáty na předsedu Evropské komise, což není ani podle Lisabonské smlouvy, protože tam je napsáno, že předsedu jmenuje Evropská rada s přihlédnutím k výsledkům voleb do Evropského parlamentu. Tady se to dezinterpretovalo způsobem, který je legrační, a skupiny vymýšlejí takové kandidáty, jako je např. pan Verhofstadt, kterého podle našeho průzkumu nezná 84 % evropské veřejnosti.

To není odpověď na krizi, ve které se Evropská unie dnes nachází. Ta krize je systémová, a pokud se nezmění paradigma vnímání evropské integrace, tak se nezmění nic. Já se obávám, že ani na tomto zasedání Evropské rady bohužel k žádné změně nedojde.

  Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Barroso, Herr Ratspräsident! Sie werden sich auf dem bevorstehenden Ratsgipfel mit dem Europäischen Semester befassen und dabei auch herausstellen, wie positiv die Ergebnisse zu beurteilen sind. Schließlich befinden wir uns unmittelbar vor den Europawahlen und da wäre es wahrscheinlich sehr naiv, zu erwarten, dass die Regierungschefs um Klarheit und schonungslose Aufklärung bemüht sind.

Meine Fraktion hat wiederholt eingefordert, dass Lehren aus dem fehlgeschlagenen Krisenmanagement zu ziehen sind. Die wirtschaftliche Erholung, auf die Sie auch heute immer wieder verwiesen haben, zielt in erster Linie darauf, vor allem auch die Opfer der Krise – die, die eigentlich überhaupt nichts mit Finanzmarktspekulationen, mit Steuerhinterziehungen zu tun haben – zur Verantwortung zu ziehen. Bei den Opfern der Krise kommt diese Wirtschaftserholung nicht an. Dazu sind die wirtschaftlichen, die finanziellen und auch die sozialen Ungleichheiten einfach zu groß. EU-Mitgliedstaaten leiden unter brutalen Kürzungen der öffentlichen Haushalte. Sie belasten gerade jene, die eben nichts mit der Verursachung der Krise zu tun haben.

Andererseits hat die Bundesrepublik Deutschland allein im Jahr 2013 einen Exportüberschuss von 199[nbsp ]Milliarden Euro abgeschlossen. Das ist der größte Exportüberschuss weltweit und auch in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Kommissar Rehn hat darauf verwiesen und gleichzeitig gesagt, dass zu wenig in Deutschland investiert wird. Die Rolle der Bundesregierung innerhalb der EU lässt sich mit der des FC Bayern in der Bundesliga vergleichen. Beide schwimmen oben auf der Wurstsuppe. Beide sind auf das Engste mit dem internationalen Finanzkapital verbunden. Der FC Bayern wird von einem Präsidenten geführt, der mit ungeheuren Finanzspekulationen und einer Steuerschuld von 27,2[nbsp ]Milliarden Euro im Rücken den Moralapostel spielt und anderen arrogante Ratschläge erteilt, wie sie z.[nbsp ]B. den Wettbewerbsabstand in der Bundesliga verkürzen können. Gleichzeitig treten Angela Merkel und der Finanzminister Schäuble ebenso auf. Und ich bleibe dabei: Die Gewinne der einen sind die Schulden der anderen! Das deutsche Rezept taugt nur für die deutsche Wirtschaft – und das auch nur kurzfristig! Wenn daran nichts geändert wird, schwebt über der Europäischen Union das Damokles-Schwert der nächsten europäischen Krise!

Im Rahmen des Europäischen Semesters wurden hochverschuldete Staaten unter makroökonomische Aufsicht gestellt. Warum, so frage ich, wird nicht die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ebenfalls unter makroökonomische Aufsicht gestellt und erhält selbst klare Auflagen zur drastischen Erhöhung von Mindesteinkommen, Mindestlöhnen und zu massiven nachhaltigen Investitionen?

Der Gipfel wird sich auch mit der Vorlage der Kommission zu den Klimazielen 2020 bis 2030 befassen. Ich habe mit Erschrecken festgestellt, dass den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten keine ambitionierten, keine verbindlichen Ziele mehr auferlegt werden sollen, und dass es auch zur Effizienz keine Aussagen der Kommission mehr gibt. Ich empfinde das als ein Trauerspiel, weil ich der Überzeugung bin, dass wir der Krise und den globalen Herausforderungen als EU nur dann trotzen können, wenn wir uns wirklich einem sozial-ökologischen Umbau stellen, wenn wir soziale und ökologische Mindeststandards einführen und wenn wir diese im Interesse der Menschen und der Entwicklung der Europäischen Union auch wirklich durchsetzen!

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, even by the standards of this place, today’s atmosphere has been leaden. A great global political leader, Mr Barroso, comes along and out of 750 Members, 44 people turn up to listen. Why is that? Well, I have noticed something: I have been here fifteen years, but in the last five years something really big has changed. The European dream is crumbling, absolutely crumbling. There are a few maniacs in the front row here and in your Commission who of course still want a United States of Europe, but actually out there in the Member States they do not.

And most of the MEPs here, yes, they want a job, yes, they want to be re-elected, but the enthusiasm for this project is dying. Why? Well you have made two big mistakes. The first mistake was of course to extend the eurozone. It would have been OK had it just been Germany and a few northern European countries, but to bring the Mediterranean into the eurozone has been a disaster.

The second mistake was to allow the free movement of people to southern and to Eastern Europe. We in the United Kingdom – who have been the most open country with regard to immigration of any European country through a history that has lasted hundreds of years – now have 4[nbsp ]000 migrants a week who come to Britain from the European Union and stay for a year or more.

These are the two realities that have hit home to people: the EU does not work economically, and open-door migration is fundamentally changing societies in ways that people do not want.

Listen to the economics. Mr Barroso, you talked today about the possibility of an industrial renaissance in Europe, which sounded good. Lighter-touch regulation – all very encouraging. And then you say: but we must pursue our climate-change carbon targets. The Americans have gone for shale gas and reduced energy prices. The Chinese are digging up coal in quantities we cannot fathom and building two coal-fired power stations every week. This policy of economic unilateralism on climate change is what is destroying jobs in Europe, and the electors are going to have a chance in 72 days’ time to give their verdict. I suspect the next European Parliament will be very much more exciting than this one has been this morning.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI), blue-card question. – Mr President, my question is: with unemployment still a problem across Europe, and indeed in the UK, does Mr Farage think it is a fair use of taxpayers’ money – namely his secretarial allowance – not only to employ his wife Kirsten but also his former mistress, Annabelle Fuller? Is this a responsible use of taxpayers’ money, Mr Farage?

  Nigel Farage (EFD), blue-card answer. – I do not see any need to answer that at all.

\*(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), blue-card question. – Mr Farage, I hope you will answer my question, please. You talk about excitement in politics and a leaden debate, but with the greatest of respect, I do not want excitement in politics; I want people who work. Will you please commit to staying in this Chamber and listening with respect to the responses of those who will be here? Your practice in the past has been to walk out.

And could I add that you say that the enthusiasm for the EU is dimming. I think that enthusiasm for UKIP is dimming.

  Nigel Farage (EFD), blue-card answer. – Had there been a proper question there, I might try to answer it. Euroscepticism is growing right across the European Union. Nobody here, not even the maniacs that believe in the project, would question that. It is coming in all shapes and forms. It is on the right, it is in the centre, and it is on the left.

The reason is of course – and you come from Ireland, so you should know better than anybody – that actually no one has ever given consent for a political European Union. The French clearly – followed by the Dutch – rejected the Constitution. They rebranded it as the Lisbon Treaty, and only one country had a referendum on that. That was Ireland, and the people of Ireland rejected it. So you cannot tell me that there is popular support for a United States of Europe. Mrs Reding may believe it, Mr Barroso may believe it, one or two in the front row may believe it, but the peoples of Europe do not believe it.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, to find out what a meeting is about, it is sometimes necessary to put together different sources as though they were pieces in an intricate jigsaw. The agenda of the forthcoming meeting refers to the European Semester which, among other things, includes inspection by the Commission of reform programmes, including reforms of the labour market. The agenda also mentions industrial competitiveness and the importance of a strong and competitive industrial base as a driver for economic growth and jobs.

If we refer back to a meeting of ECOFIN, held on 16[nbsp ]February[nbsp ]2012, about the European Semester of that year, we find that ‘reforms need to focus on labour markets – in particular wage-setting mechanisms – to ensure efficient adjustment of labour costs’. What does all this mean? It means that a relatively high-wage economy, or group of economies, embracing the ideology of globalism and the process of globalisation, must drive down wages to compete with the emergent economies.

  Μαριέττα Γιαννάκου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, είναι γεγονός ότι πρόκειται για το τελευταίο Συμβούλιο προ των Ευρωπαϊκών Εκλογών και γι' αυτό έχει ιδιαίτερη και τεράστια σημασία. Και βέβαια το περιεχόμενό του, η ατζέντα του, δίνει έμφαση στο ευρωπαϊκό εξάμηνο, το οποίο αποτέλεσε μια πολύ θετική διαδικασία που αποφασίστηκε τα τελευταία χρόνια. Στην ουσία κλείνουμε πέντε χρόνια μιας οικονομικής κρίσης ιδιαίτερα σκληρής, για την οποία ελήφθησαν συγκεκριμένα μέτρα και έγιναν συγκεκριμένες ενέργειες, όπως το Σύμφωνο Ανάπτυξης και Σταθερότητας το οποίο θεωρείται υποχρεωτικό πλέον και δεν παραβιάζεται, ούτε από μεγάλες, ούτε από μικρές χώρες, ενώ τεράστιες αλλαγές συνέβησαν και στην περιοχή μας, στον περίγυρο της Ευρώπης.

Κατάφερε αυτές τις αλλαγές, είτε την Αραβική Άνοιξη, είτε όσα συμβαίνουν αυτή τη στιγμή στις παλιές Σοβιετικές δημοκρατίες, να τις αντιμετωπίσει από κοινού η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση; Όχι. Παρά τις προσπάθειες, ο διακυβερνητισμός εξακολουθεί να αποτελεί το βασικό στοιχείο λειτουργίας και τη βασική μέθοδο εργασίας στην ουσία. Ο τριμερής διάλογος για συγκεκριμένα θέματα καθυστερεί αφόρητα και συγκρούσεις μεταξύ των κρατών μελών γίνονται για ελάχιστα συμφέροντα. Κάτι που φυσικά δεν συνέβαινε στην αρχή της δημιουργίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Ωστόσο, η Ένωση αυτή προσφέροντας 50 χρόνια ευημερίας και ειρήνης σε όλους τους πολίτες, τους έδωσε το δικαίωμα και την πολυτέλεια να είναι πολύ κριτικοί απέναντί της. Πρέπει να τονίσουμε τα αρνητικά, αλλά συγχρόνως και τα θετικά και να σημειώσουμε, κύριε Πρόεδρε, ότι δεν είναι δυνατόν να υπάρξει πραγματική ανταπόκριση στα ζητήματα που ετέθησαν από τους συναδέλφους, αν δεν υπάρξει μια πραγματική ευρωπαϊκή διακυβέρνηση. Κι αυτή τη στιγμή δεν υπάρχει μια πραγματική ευρωπαϊκή διακυβέρνηση. Επομένως, μας χρειάζεται μια διαφορετική Ευρώπη. Αυτό που λένε ορισμένοι 'περισσότερη Ευρώπη', αλλά διαφορετική, όπου θα ξεκαθαριστεί τι απομένει στα κράτη μέλη και τι υπάγεται σε ευρωπαϊκή πραγματική διακυβέρνηση, η οποία μπορεί να κάνει τις αλλαγές που χρειάζονται, είτε στην φορολογία, είτε στην καταπολέμηση της φοροδιαφυγής, είτε συντονίζοντας τα δικαιοπρακτικά συστήματα, είτε λειτουργώντας ως πραγματικά ενιαίος χώρος. Αυτό πρέπει να είναι το ζήτημα που θα απασχολήσει το επόμενο Συμβούλιο μετά τις εκλογές, στις οποίες εγώ προσωπικά ελπίζω ο ευρωσκεπτικισμός, όπως παρουσιάστηκε προηγουμένως από τον κ. Farage, να μην έχει ιδιαίτερα σημαντική θέση.

  Elisa Ferreira (S&D). - Senhor Presidente, a união bancária é talvez o legado mais relevante que este Parlamento e esta Comissão poderão deixar para reconstruir a União Europeia no pós-crise. Um acordo com o Conselho é ainda tecnicamente possível antes do fim do mandato, desde que haja vontade política para tal. O contributo da Comissão tem sido fundamental na construção do texto legislativo, mas este Parlamento gostaria de ter visto essa mesma Comissão bastante mais ativa, bastante mais determinada na defesa do processo legislativo comunitário.

Quanto ao Conselho, a presença no trílogo de hoje do Presidente em exercício do Ecofin, Ioannis Tornaras, acompanhado do Presidente do Eurogrupo, Jeoren Dijsselbloem, é um gesto de grande simbolismo desde que eles venham acompanhados de um processo negocial e de propostas sérias que permitam um consenso. O calendário das negociações vai-se esgotando, mas a urgência não pode sacrificar a qualidade dos textos que produzimos.

Este Parlamento está unido. Unido envolvendo a equipa relatora, os principais grupos políticos, o seu presidente, e tem um claro mandato negocial. Queremos uma resolução bancária isenta, eficaz e credível, blindada em relação a jogos de poder político. As perdas bancárias têm de ser imputadas aos acionistas e credores e os contribuintes têm de ser poupados. Os meios financeiros para operacionalizar a resolução serão financiados pelos bancos de acordo com o seu perfil de risco, mas é necessária uma linha de crédito a ser reembolsada pelas contribuições dos próprios bancos para ser credível desde o início.

Dentro destes princípios o Parlamento está aberto à negociação. Fora deles o acordo torna-se impossível porque um mau acordo contaminaria para sempre a credibilidade da união bancária.

Estamos sinceramente empenhados em fechar o texto legislativo, mas são precisos dois para o conseguir. Acordamos ou aguardamos com grande sentido de responsabilidade a evolução dos acontecimentos, mas temos a esperança de que o interesse europeu e a seriedade das instituições prevalecerão.

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, as we have heard, the first debate on the climate and energy framework 2030 will be held next week. This is the time when we need to be ambitious on climate change, because the need to cut emissions is becoming more urgent if we are to avoid dangerous levels of global warming. We need binding targets for energy efficiency as well as for increasing renewable energy. We have to listen to the science and the evidence. The Commission’s own research shows that higher targets result in reduced dependence on energy imports and in savings on health spending.

This is not just an environmental argument but an economic one. Creating jobs is essential, particularly for young people. We need sustainable employment in the energy sector. I know from my own constituency in Wales that they look to the EU for leadership. We need to keep our promises to the people that we will work effectively to combat climate change. I urge the Council to meet the challenge.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'euro è morto, i numeri lo dicono, l'euro è kaputt, rischia di uccidere anche l'Europa che è nata con una bellissima idea! Se ci sono gli euroscettici evidentemente è perché la crisi, le tasse, i suicidi, la disoccupazione, la fame, in questi 15 anni sono aumentate, quindi mi dispiace che il Presidente Barroso non abbia tempo per ascoltare anche qualche critica.

Probabilmente a Bruxelles c'è qualcuno che difende gli interessi delle banche, delle multinazionali, si parla di risparmio energetico, si parla di rilancio aziendale, quando non siamo in grado neanche di difendere le nostre aziende. L'India, gli Stati Uniti, il Canada, il Giappone hanno il made in per difendere le loro imprese, il loro commercio, la loro industria, noi neanche quello!

E quindi, nel nome della difesa di un morto che cammina che è l'euro, stiamo discutendo del nulla massacrando migliaia di imprese e dimezzando il valore reale degli stipendi, dei salari e dei nostri immobili. Quindi l'unica cosa da fare è prenderne atto e – se non volete che con l'euro muoia anche l'Europa – ricostruire tutto daccapo, altrimenti sono solo parole al vento.

  Herbert Reul (PPE). - Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Es gibt Fortschritt und es wird Fortschritt erzielt in der Europäischen Union. Das ist unbestritten. Ich verstehe auch nicht, wie man jetzt nur über die Riesenprobleme reden kann.

Wir erleben, dass wir in der europäischen Industrie- und Wirtschaftslandschaft ein Problem mit Wachstum und Arbeitsplätzen haben. Deshalb muss man sich dieser Frage zuwenden. Der Industrieanteil in der heutigen EU lag 1970 bei 27[nbsp ]%, und er liegt heute bei 15,2[nbsp ]%. Da ist doch offensichtlich Handlungsbedarf angesagt! Man muss sich darum kümmern, dass diese Deindustrialisierung in europäischen Staaten nicht immer weiter voranschreitet. Nur in fünf Ländern ist der Anteil der industriellen Wertschöpfung seit 2007 gestiegen. Zu den weltweit 25 umsatzstärksten Unternehmen gehören nur noch neun europäische, Tendenz sinkend. Da gibt es doch nur eine Konsequenz, und die heißt: Wir müssen uns ein bisschen sorgfältiger und intensiver um die Industrie kümmern, um das Wachstum. Und zwar nicht dadurch, dass wir Geld ausgeben, sondern dadurch, dass wir Regeln unterlassen, unnötige Beschwernisse unterlassen.

Da, Frau Harms, muss ich Ihnen widersprechen. Es geht nicht darum, immer neue, immer mehr Ziele zu formulieren und damit die Industrie unnötig zu belasten, sondern es geht darum, kluge Ziele, kluge Projekte zu benennen, es geht darum, Anregungen zu setzen, es geht darum, in dem Teil, wo staatliche Aktivitäten sinnvoll sind – bei Forschung und Innovation –, Gas zu geben, Unterstützung zu organisieren. Das Ergebnis der bisherigen Politik in den letzten Jahren ist an der Stelle durchaus verbesserungsfähig.

Wir brauchen eine Querschnittsaufgabe Industrieförderung, wir brauchen mehr Wettbewerbsfähigkeitsprojekte, wir brauchen ein Projekt, wie die Kommission es vorgeschlagen hat, mit dem Ziel, wieder 20[nbsp ]% Industrieanteil zu erreichen. Ich fand das Projekt auch außerordentlich gut, bei allen Gesetzen, die wir hier machen, vorher einen Wettbewerbscheck zu machen, um zu schauen, dient oder schadet das der industriellen Entwicklung und der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen Industrie.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). - Señor Presidente, hace apenas unos minutos el señor Swoboda hacía referencia al riesgo de que este nuevo Consejo Europeo tuviera las dos características más dañinas para la inacción. En primer lugar, que se aborde como business as usual y, en segundo lugar, con una ambición común mínima, con un mínimo común denominador que significa poca ambición.

Hablemos de energía. Hace apenas unas semanas, este Parlamento aprobó sus objetivos para el clima y aprobó un esfuerzo en energías renovables del 30[nbsp ]%, una reducción de emisiones del 40[nbsp ]% y una eficiencia energética del 40[nbsp ]%. ¿Qué hizo la Comisión?

Sin esperar a la resolución del Parlamento, a la decisión del Parlamento, presentó una propuesta mucho menos ambiciosa: una propuesta menor en energías renovables y sin ningún tipo de objetivo en eficiencia energética. Nos anuncia para septiembre u octubre una propuesta sobre eficiencia energética.

Es verdad que será la víspera de que esta Comisión deje de existir, pero si estuviera el señor Barroso, que conoce algo mejor el español, reconocería esa frase que dice: «Nunca es tarde si la dicha es buena». Si finalmente hay una ambición en eficiencia energética, será bienvenida.

Pero, ¿qué sucede? Sucede que tanto el accidente de Fukushima como las nuevas tecnologías, cada vez más eficientes, y la inseguridad energética —como nos está mostrando la situación en Ucrania— exigen un esfuerzo mayor sobre la energía renovable, sobre la eficiencia energética y sobre la interconexión.

Mi Grupo ha peleado por objetivos vinculantes y por objetivos más ambiciosos al respecto. Alemania lo está haciendo con una política energética ambiciosa. Otros países, como España por desgracia, no. Han destruido el esfuerzo en energías renovables y han creado un caos en la energía eléctrica que seguramente desincentivará la inversión y nos situará lejos del esfuerzo que habíamos realizado.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). - Signor Presidente, Presidente del Consiglio, Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, è chiaro che siamo in uno di quei momenti nei quali l'attenzione dei cittadini europei è rivolta verso le istituzioni: siamo più prossimi e siamo prossimi ormai alle elezioni europee – e si accendono i fari su quello che abbiamo fatto in questi anni e su quello che ci promettiamo di fare negli anni che verranno.

Sicuramente quello che abbiamo fatto non è stato sufficiente, perché i risultati sono sotto gli occhi di tutti, c'è una forte differenza in Europa tra i tassi di crescita di alcuni paesi e quelli di altri. L'Europa probabilmente doveva fare di più, abbiamo fatto poco e il Consiglio di primavera – che è il Consiglio tradizionalmente attento ai temi della competitività – oggi mette all'ordine del giorno tre punti: il Semestre europeo, la competitività, clima ed energia. Ma sono questi gli unici che dovremmo attenzionare o dovremmo guardare con nuovi strumenti?

Abbiamo bisogno – secondo noi – di nuovi elementi, abbiamo bisogno di maggiore flessibilità per rafforzare la crescita, abbiamo bisogno di nuovi strumenti finanziari per supportare la crescita del nostro sistema imprenditoriale. Sicuramente la Youth Guarantee

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, M.[nbsp ]Barroso ne s'intéresse pas à nos débats. Il s'agit pourtant de son dernier Conseil européen de printemps et je ne peux que m'en réjouir, car le président Barroso n'a manifestement pas compris à quoi servait un Conseil européen de printemps.

Un Conseil européen de printemps, ça ne peut pas servir à mettre en œuvre un semestre européen qui ne soit qu'un semestre d'austérité. Cela ne peut pas servir à mettre en œuvre un semestre européen qui ne voit pas la fracture sociale qui existe, aujourd'hui, en Europe après dix ans de mandat de M.[nbsp ]Barroso. Cela ne peut pas servir à mettre en œuvre un semestre européen qui dit qu'il faut des indicateurs sociaux et qui n'en tire aucune conséquence. Cela ne peut pas servir à mettre en œuvre un semestre européen qui pense que les prévisions de croissance sont satisfaisantes et qui considère que la stratégie Europe[nbsp ]2020 est un succès, alors même que tous les indicateurs sont au rouge et qu'aucun des objectifs de cette stratégie ne seront atteints.

Il est temps de changer de majorité. Il est temps de changer de Commission pour mettre en œuvre une vraie stratégie européenne, qui nous permette d'avoir une vision globale, qui nous permettre de relancer, en priorité, l'investissement public et privé, et qui nous permette de refaire de l'emploi une vraie priorité. Pour cela, M.[nbsp ]Barroso, paradoxalement, a eu une intuition, il y a maintenant presque sept ans, lorsqu'il a défini l'idée d'une stratégie européenne de l'énergie. Pourtant, on voit bien à quel point il a été incapable de la mettre en œuvre.

Nous sommes, aujourd'hui, au cœur de cette fracture énergétique au sein de l'Union européenne, de cette absence de pilotage. M. Barroso nous parle de renaissance industrielle, mais qu'a-t-il fait pour que l'énergie soit le fer de lance de cette renaissance industrielle? Le projet était là, à portée de main, mais il fallait un peu de volontarisme politique et de leadership, ce dont il s'est montré incapable.

Nous devons mettre en œuvre cette communauté européenne de l'énergie qui nous permette de créer de nouveaux emplois partout en Europe et je ne peux que me réjouir de ce que, peut-être, l'absence de M.[nbsp ]Juncker au Conseil européen permettra d'avancer sur la fiscalité de l'énergie pour remettre la finance au service de cette stratégie commune dont nous avons besoin.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, je voudrais complimenter le président Barroso et le président Van Rompuy pour tout ce qu'ils font pour engager la réflexion politique.

Madame Berès, je vous conseille de vous adresser au président de la République française, qui est membre du Conseil européen et qui exerce normalement une grande influence sur les décisions qu'il prend et non pas au président Barroso, qui exécute ce que nous décidons. Je regrette d'ailleurs qu'il n'y ait pas un sommet de la zone euro qui soit prévu en parallèle par le traité sur la stabilité, la coordination et la gouvernance au sein de l'Union économique et monétaire.

Quant à la politique industrielle, je crois que c'est un domaine très important. Il faudrait que les chefs d'État ou de gouvernement considèrent que toutes les politiques de l'Union européenne doivent être élaborées dans l'optique de mettre en œuvre une politique industrielle fructueuse.

Il en est ainsi de la politique de la concurrence. Dans ma circonscription, le Limousin, nous sommes encore sous le choc provoqué par la Commission européenne, qui a refusé la fusion de deux grands champions européens, qui aurait permis de créer un champion du monde dans le secteur de l'électronique. La politique de la concurrence doit être au service de la politique industrielle.

Il doit en être ainsi de la politique commerciale. Arrêtons d'être naïfs et de croire que nous bénéficions de la réciprocité. Il doit en être ainsi de la politique monétaire.

Le dernier mot de mon propos sera consacré aux élections. Je crois que les citoyens doivent avoir le dernier mot. Je suggère, Monsieur le Président, que, lors de la dernière session de cette législature, nous tenions un grand débat avec plusieurs documents: l'opinion des chefs d'État ou de gouvernement, le document de la Commission européenne sur la révision à mi-parcours de la stratégie Europe 2020 et également la perspective des prochaines discussions politiques sur la clause de révision budgétaire de 2016.

L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question "carton bleu" (article 149, paragraphe 8, du règlement).

  Pervenche Berès (S&D), question "carton bleu". – Monsieur Audy, vous avez sans doute une lecture sélective de l'actualité. J'imagine pourtant qu'il ne vous a pas échappé que le président de la République française avait proposé des initiatives fortes dans le domaine de l'énergie, y compris sur la base de la coopération franco-allemande, qui permettraient de créer des champions européens, ce qui me semble coïncider exactement avec la stratégie que nous proposons.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), réponse "carton bleu". – Madame Berès, je n'ai pas bien compris où était la question.

Je me réjouis que le président de la République française, ce qui n'était pas le cas de son gouvernement il y a un an, ravive les relations franco-allemandes et donc je lui adresse toutes mes félicitations.

  András Gyürk (PPE). - Európa ipara stratégiai fontosságú az Unió gazdasági növekedése és foglalkoztatása szempontjából. Az utóbbi években azonban kontinensünk világgazdaságban betöltött szerepe fokozatosan csökkent. Ez egyben persze világosan ki is jelöli a következő európai vezetés feladatát: meg kell erősíteni az Európai Unió versenyképességét. Biztosítani kell, hogy versenyképességi szempontok szerves részét képezzék minden uniós szakpolitikának.

A probléma súlyosságát kiválóan példázza az uniós acélipar helyzete, mellyel jelentéstevőként az elmúlt fél évben foglalkoztam. Az elhúzódó pénzügyi válság, a gazdasági realitásokat figyelmen kívül hagyó uniós klímapolitika és a folyamatosan emelkedő energiaárak versenyhátrányt jelentenek az európai acéltermelők számára. Az uniós ipar hosszú távú versenyképessége szempontjából kulcsfontosságú, hogy a 2030-as klíma- és energiacsomag figyelembe vegye a gazdaság teljesítőképességét, a technológiai korlátokat és a nemzetközi szereplők visszafogott kibocsátás-csökkentési ambícióit.

A klímavédelmi megfontolások mellett azonban mérsékelnünk kell az energiaárakat is. A versenytársainkhoz képest két-háromszor magasabb energiaárak túlzott terhet rónak az uniós iparra. Ezért Brüsszelnek és a tagállamoknak is mindent meg kell tenniük az energiaárak féken tartása érdekében.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). - O primeiro ponto que eu queria sublinhar, e que para nós é decisivo, agora, a propósito do trílogo que hoje tem lugar e em particular o impulso que o Conselho Europeu e que os membros do Conselho Europeu, primeiros-ministros e chefes de Estado podem dar a este dossiê, é a questão da união bancária.

É absolutamente essencial que se tenha aqui uma perspetiva de abertura e de flexibilidade por parte do Conselho para ir ao encontro das posições que tanto o Parlamento como a Comissão Europeia têm defendido e que de resto devo dizer, o Governo português, presidido pelo Primeiro-Ministro Passos Coelho, tem sistematicamente dentro do Conselho Europeu chamado a atenção para a importância de uma verdadeira união bancária e não de uma fragmentação intergovernamental da união bancária.

Não só o Primeiro-Ministro como ainda recentemente a Ministra das Finanças e o Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros vieram defender, uma no congresso do PPE e o outro numa cimeira com o Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros alemão Steinmeier, a importância da união bancária. É fundamental que as empresas de toda a Europa, nomeadamente de países como a Grécia, como Portugal, como a Irlanda, como o Chipre, como a Espanha, como a Itália e outros, que têm exatamente o mesmo desempenho de empresas do Norte, tenham as mesmas condições de financiamento, não sejam penalizadas pela situação dos seus países. É fundamental que se uma empresa é boa e tem bons números tenha exatamente as mesmas condições de financiamento, esteja situada em Lisboa, ou esteja situada em Berlim, esteja situada em Estocolmo ou esteja situada em Atenas. É absolutamente fundamental e era esta a mensagem que eu queria deixar.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). - Voorzitter, het is goed dat Made in Europe, het in Europa produceren, nu ook op de agenda komt en prioriteit krijgt. We hebben te lang excellente kennis geleverd in Europa en vervolgens de productie in andere delen van de wereld laten gebeuren. Neem de lithiumbatterij, hier ontwikkeld: de hele productie is weg. Dat moet anders en dat kan ook anders. En daar is dit beleid op gericht. Neem de hele nieuwe generatie zonnecellen. De oude generaties worden met Duitse machines allemaal in het Verre Oosten gemaakt.

De nieuwe technologie, die moeten we hier ook produceren en vervolgens exporteren. Dat is een andere mindset. En dat kan ook als we onze middelen van de EIB, de structuurfondsen, Horizon[nbsp ]2020, anders inzetten en bindende afspraken maken met de industrie.

Ik zie dat ook gebeuren. De Europese Commissie zet goede stappen. Tajani, eurocommissaris Hahn zullen naar mijn gebied komen om dat te zien. En ik heb er vertrouwen in dat als we onze instrumenten, onder andere garanties van de EIB, anders inzetten, de bedrijven, universiteiten, opleidingen dit begrijpen. Dan krijgen we kansen voor groen, groei en banen, en wat mij betreft met bindende doelstellingen voor de komende jaren.

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). - Mr President, I think it is important that we reflect on the fact that while we look inwards at the problems in the European Union, the President of the Council has rightly alluded to the situation in Ukraine, which should make us look outwards as well.

I just want to make some brief comments about the current situation. There is no one in this House – certainly no one on our side – who would say that all is rosy. For example, in Ireland we know that many people have not seen the improvements in their family situations that we would like them to see, but we have got to admit that stability has been restored and that growth is there. It is far too modest, and we need to stimulate it. I would support Mr van Nistelrooij’s comments that we need to bring manufacturing into the European Union so that we can create sustainable jobs.

Lastly, what we had in Ireland in the Celtic Tiger era was unsustainable. We have had to fix it. People have suffered, but let us give them hope.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). - Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Herr Ratsvorsitzender Kourkoulas! Sie haben heute darauf hingewiesen, dass sich der Gipfel mit Europas industrieller Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und den Themen Energie und Klima beschäftigen wird, da diese Bereiche zusammenspielen müssen. In meinen Augen geht es hier um weitaus mehr als ein Zusammenspiel. Ich bin im Gegensatz zu Herrn Daul davon überzeugt, dass nachhaltige, fortschrittliche und vor allem ambitionierte Klima- und Energiepolitik langfristig einerseits der europäischen Landwirtschaft das Überleben sichern, aber vor allem Voraussetzung für ein Europa der Beschäftigung und des Wohlstands sind. Nur mit der Energiewende und Investitionen in die Lebensqualität der Menschen können bestehende Arbeitsplätze gesichert und neue geschaffen werden.

Entwicklungen zukunftsfähig machen heißt, dass die gegenwärtige Generation ihre Bedürfnisse befriedigt, ohne die Fähigkeit der zukünftigen Generation zu gefährden, ihre eigenen Bedürfnisse zu befriedigen. Wenn wir jedoch die Bedürfnisse der jetzigen Generation nicht befriedigen, in Bildung, Wachstum, Beschäftigung und soziale Sicherheit zu investieren, dann schädigen wir hiermit die gegenwärtige und die zukünftige Generation!

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, señor Ministro, repito las palabras que el presidente de mi país, nuestro Lehendakari Iñigo Urkullu, dirigió en el Global Forum Spain la semana pasada a responsables europeos: «les pido un triple compromiso: con las personas, con el empleo y con la economía real».

Es hora de poner el mismo empeño en el rescate del empleo que el dedicado al rescate bancario. Los bancos rescatados deben devolver el esfuerzo público, engrasando la economía con crédito a los emprendedores, porque la solución está en la economía real, en el capital humano, en las personas, en los jóvenes y las mujeres, que son los actores de la economía real, no en la especulación financiera.

Desarrollo económico sí, pero con desarrollo social. Y mejor proponer y propiciar que los chinos trabajen como nosotros que intentar competir trabajando sin protección social y entre nubes de humo venenoso. Porque el mundo, así, no es sostenible.

Por eso lamento que se haya marchado el señor Barroso, pero me gustaría que este fuera el mensaje que trasladaran al próximo Consejo Europeo de marzo y al evento de alto nivel que, como han anunciado, se celebrará en septiembre en Nueva York.

  Tarja Cronberg (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, talking about jobs, European business leaders have estimated that, with binding renewable energy targets, 570[nbsp ]000 jobs will be created by 2030. Can we say ‘no’ to these jobs when 20 million people are unemployed? President Barroso or Commissioner Rehn, we hope to have binding targets for renewable energy for 2030 in order to get these jobs.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). - Voorzitter, de Europese Raad heeft te maken met tsaar Vladimir de Eerste, die bezig is de Sovjet-Unie te herstellen. Hij deelt talloze Russische paspoorten uit en vervolgens komt hij die zielige onderdrukten te hulp. En passant pikt hij delen van landen in. Dat begon in Georgië, vandaag Oekraïne, morgen Moldavië. Consistente Russische politiek dus. Tsaren doen al honderd jaar aan landje-pik.

Wat moet de Europese Raad volgende week doen?

1) Oekraïne is één van de meest corrupte landen ter wereld. Zowel Janoekovitsj als Tymosjenko zijn er miljardair geworden. Dus gerichte, beperkte financiële steun onder strenge voorwaarden en scherp toezicht met het IMF.

2) Garry Kasparov zei vorig jaar bij zijn bezoek aan de ECR-Fractie: "The only account Putin cares for is his bank account.". Dus Poetin en zijn oligarchen financieel droogleggen, onder andere door bevriezing van tegoeden.

3) De EU moet haar energiebeleid tótáál herzien. We zijn nu té afhankelijk van Russisch gas.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). - Bardzo dobre zestawienie tematów na Radę Europejską: z[nbsp ]jednej strony – sytuacja na Ukrainie, z drugiej strony – energia i klimat. Myślę, że to jest asocjacja, która sama się narzuca. Bezpieczeństwo dostaw energii i[nbsp ]dywersyfikacja w[nbsp ]sytuacji kryzysu na Ukrainie i[nbsp ]inwazji ze strony sąsiada nabiera szczególnej wymowy. Postawmy sobie również pytanie: gdzie Unia Europejska zaopatruje się w[nbsp ]podstawowe surowce energetyczne?

Jednocześnie tematem posiedzenia będzie polityka klimatyczna. Słusznie powiedział Pan Przewodniczący, że powinna ona uwzględniać również wielkich graczy w[nbsp ]skali świata. Unia Europejska nie jest w stanie sprostać tym zadaniom samodzielnie. Koszyk energetyczny powinniśmy kształtować w[nbsp ]oparciu o[nbsp ]dużą swobodę państw członkowskich. To pozwoli w[nbsp ]sposób zracjonalizowany na powrót przemysłu do Europy, na to, czego oczekujemy: na odbudowę miejsc pracy, których straciliśmy 5[nbsp ]mln w[nbsp ]wyniku kryzysu, w sytuacji gdy ponad dwadzieścia milinów Europejczyków pozostaje bez pracy. Myślę, że to jest element, który powinien zostać zdecydowanie uwzględniony w trakcie najbliższego posiedzenia Rady Europejskiej.

PRESIDE: MIGUEL ANGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vicepresidente

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). - Az európai polgárokat a munkanélküliség és a szegénység érdekli, nem a Tanács köldöknéző vitája. Az is aggasztó, hogy bár az elmúlt években az Unió több lépést tett az energiarendszerek összekötése érdekében, de több közép-európai tagállam, így hazám, Magyarország számára sem lenne igazi alternatíva az orosz gázszállítások elmaradása esetén.

Foglalkozik-e válságkezelő forgatókönyvvel a Bizottság és a Tanács? A szerény mértékű európai gazdasági növekedés még rendkívül törékeny. Ezért is kell rendkívül megfontoltan reagálnunk az Ukrajna kapcsán kialakult feszültségre. Egy elhúzódó politikai-gazdasági hidegháború az EU és Oroszország között alááshatja a törékeny európai fellendülést. Bármiféle gazdasági szankció bevezetése bumerángként ütne vissza, akár Oroszország, akár az Európai Unió részéről vetődne fel. Legyünk nagyon óvatosak!

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). - Jaz mislim, da bo Evropski svet zaradi dogodkov v Ukrajini in nastajanja novih zamrznjenih konfliktov, od Krima in situacije tam si ne moremo kaj drugega pričakovati, kot da bomo imeli novo krizno žarišče, zato se bo Evropski svet moral vprašati, kaj je s skupno evropsko politiko.

Ali skupno zunanjo evropsko politiko lahko nadomestijo ad hoc izleti zunanjih ministrov v Kijev, ki se končajo pravzaprav velikokrat s škandaloznimi rezultati, kot je bil na primer telefonski pogovor estonskega ministra z lady Ashton ali pa posredovanje treh ministrov pri sporazumu, ki ni živel niti 24 ur.

Mislim, da se bo morala Evropska unija dokazati na reševanju zamrznjenih konfliktov, ne pa pri ustvarjanju novih. Mislim, da potrebujemo skupno zunanjo politiko in o tem se morajo šefi držav in vlad izjasniti, kakšno in kakšne instrumente imamo zanjo.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Mr President, how can there be any credible and efficient commercial policy, industrial policy or competition policy if the Council and the Commission continue to overlook the race to the bottom in terms of taxation amongst Member States – if they continue to overlook the scandal of tax evasion?

Recently the US Senate issued a report and conducted hearings showing that Swiss banks are heavily involved in tax fraud exercises for American taxpayers. The same is happening to European taxpayers while, at the same time as they are demanding terrible taxes from the middle classes and the poor in countries like mine, Portugal, the rich and the super-rich are taking advantage of this system. That is absolutely untenable. So what are the Council and the Commission doing to put an end to this?

(Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, let me first of all thank you for this very serious and substantive debate on the issues concerning the upcoming European Council. I must say that I was tempted at some points to raise my blue card to question some of the arguments – not only those of Mr Farage – but I could not find it on my table. So I will make some points now and some counter-points by way of conclusion.

As you will recall, during the last plenary we discussed the European Semester at length. Last week’s Commission winter forecast does indeed confirm that Europe’s economic recovery is now gaining ground. The recovery is leaning more on domestic demand and has become more broad-based across the Member States, including most of the vulnerable Member States.

Last week we published our analysis and conclusions, which emerged from the in-depth economic reviews carried out into 17 Member States’ economies. Our analysis shows that the Member States are making progress in addressing their economic challenges, but that this progress is uneven and, in many cases, must be stepped up – especially in fighting unemployment, which is intolerably high in many countries. We expect to see a strong response from the Member States, and we stand ready to support them in a constructive partnership for reforms to strengthen the recovery and boost job creation.

The key message of the Commission to the large euro-area Member States has been – and continues to be – that there is a pressing need in Italy and France to intensify economic reforms for the sake of growth, competitiveness and job creation, while there is a clear need to reinforce domestic demand, especially domestic investment – public and private – in Germany. With this complementary and synthetic economic strategy we and they can do the best service to sustainable economic growth and job creation in Europe, and that is what we need.

It is therefore essential that we stay the course of reform in all the Member States. This concerns not just economic reforms but also the broad range of reforms that are essential to restore competitiveness and ensure sustainable growth in Europe.

It also concerns tax evasion, an issue which was raised by several speakers, the last being Ms[nbsp ]Gomes. This is important, not only for economic efficiency by getting tax revenues for the sovereign, but also in terms of social fairness so that people can see that the burden is being shared equally in society. Mr Daul referred to Jean-Claude Juncker. I am very much looking forward to working with my former colleague and friend, Jean-Claude Juncker, in intensifying the fight against tax evasion – including in Luxembourg, which can be made the benchmark in the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion.

The Commission welcomes the Summit’s focus on industrial competitiveness and climate and energy policies. The European Union is the global leader when it comes to fighting climate change. I listened very carefully to Ms[nbsp ]Harms and I have to say that, with due respect, the Greens seem to be doing a disservice to Europe by underestimating our crucial contribution and leadership in fighting climate change.

This is recognised by such authorities as Al Gore, Nicholas Stern and Ban Ki-moon, and I think it is very important that we do not shoot ourselves in the foot. Al Gore, Nicholas Stern and Ban Ki-moon and other authorities in the field of climate policies recognise the leadership of the European Union and of the Commission.

Green growth must be turned into a competitive advantage that can deliver not only technological advancement but also economic growth and jobs. I am convinced that Europe needs to be big in big things and small in small things. This also applies to the areas of climate and energy policies, the single market and the new industrial policy. Europe needs to set the overall goals and provide rules for this but to let the Member States decide about implementation and choose their individual strengths and then let the markets function and enterprises find the most innovative solutions, for instance in the fields of bio-economy and clean tech.

Our analysis shows that the most cost-effective way to achieve our ambitious objectives was to have one leading European target for greenhouse gas reductions with a well-functioning emissions trading scheme. This framework, combined with continued broad economic reforms in order to restore competitiveness, will promote economic recovery in Europe and enable us to emerge from the crisis with a stronger and more sustainable economy than before.

Let me conclude by saying that this key debate will be followed by a debate on Ukraine. Let me simply underline that Europe will support the right of the Ukrainian people to decide on their own course regarding European orientation. As we want to help Ukraine stabilise the security situation, it is essential to create the conditions for economic stabilisation and development. To that end, last week we sent a fact-finding mission to Ukraine with a view to assessing the prospective financing needs of the country. We are now analysing the findings of this mission and are in close contact with the IMF, whose own mission is still on the ground in Kiev.

Last week the European Council endorsed the multi-year support package for Ukraine announced by the Commission the day before. In the immediate short term, EUR[nbsp ]1.6 billion can be gradually made available soon in the form of conditional loans in the framework of macro-financial assistance. This includes, in addition to the existing EUR[nbsp ]600 million operation, a new MFA operation of about EUR[nbsp ]1 billion that we intend to disburse urgently, as soon as an IMF programme is in place. This will, of course, be conditional upon economic reforms that will make the Ukrainian economy more resilient, more sustainable and, in particular, more capable of creating sustained welfare for ordinary Ukrainians, especially by getting serious about fighting corruption.

I trust we all recognise that the emergency in Ukraine requires the swift adoption of this package. To this end, I count on the support of Parliament.

  Dimitrios Kourkoulas, President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this interesting debate. We have heard a wide range of interventions on the various issues – all inter-related – which are on the agenda for next week’s European Council. All these issues go hand in hand; even our concerns about developments in Ukraine can only be addressed if we deal with them in a serious and coordinated manner, and that cannot be separated entirely from our record on economic and social policies.

Some of you have underlined the social aspects. I agree with you that this is a vital part of the European Union which is based on the notion of the social market economy. If there appears to be an imbalance between market and social elements, then that is mainly because social policy still lies largely in the hands of the Member States. We coordinate and we share experiences, but the responsibility lies primarily at national level.

Economic recovery in Europe is there, but it reminds fragile, so we have to continue to take the Semester process very seriously. It is only one of many tools but it is an important part of our Europe-wide strategy for ensuring sustained economic growth and job creation. As was mentioned by many Members of this Parliament, progress has been achieved: in the area of economic governance, important financial regulations have been mentioned, such as the Growth and Stability Pact and the very important measures taken by the European Central Bank.

Banking union is, of course, of vital importance. It is our ambition, as the Greek Presidency, to have the Single Resolution Mechanism adopted during the mandate of this European Parliament.

A crucial trilogue will take place here today in Strasbourg at 15.00 with the Greek Finance Minister and the President of the Eurogroup. Our Presidency has received a new mandate. Let us hope that this will be a solid basis for a compromise, otherwise I think we will have to go back to our governments and ask for a more flexible mandate. I would say, and I conclude, that this is a matter of the credibility of the European Union as a whole.

  El Presidente. - Se cierra el debate.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 149 del Reglamento)

  Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D), bil-miktub. – L-Aġenda tal-Kunsill Ewropew għal dan ix-xahar tinkludi l-Klima u l-Enerġija. Nieħu din l-okkażjoni biex infakkar f´dak li qalli l-KE meta, f´mistoqsija parlamentari, staqsejt dwar il-foqra tal-enerġija. Fit-tweġiba ntqal li fil-livell tal-UE ma teżistix statistika la dwar l-għadd ta’ persuni meqjusa li huma f’sitwazzjoni ta’ faqar u lanqas dwar kunċett li jipproteġihom. Intqal li m’hemm l-ebda obbligu fuq l-Istati Membri li jiġbru u jirrappurtaw statistika armonizzata dwar il-vulnerabilità u l-faqar tal-enerġija fost il-konsumaturi. Intqal li l-Kummissjoni qed twettaq studju biex tidentifika l-mudelli ta' vulnerabilità fis-swieq ewlenin tal-konsumatur, inkluża l-enerġija u li għandu jkun pubblikat fl-2015. Inħeġġeġ biex il-Kunsill Ewropew jieħu inkunsiderazzjoni l-foqra tal-Enerġija, mhux l-anqas fuq livell ta' ġeneru. In-nisa huma l-aktar milquta għaliex il-miżuri ta' awsterità fl-aħħar snin komplew għafsu fuqhom u fuq il-familji tagħhom. F´soċjetà tradizzjonali, li għadha teżisti f´bosta pajjiżi membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea, bosta nisa jaħdmu fid-dar mingħajr kumpens finanzjarju. Dan ma nistgħux ninsewh. Mhux għaliex in-nisa f´impjieg ma jistgħux jispiċċaw foqra tal-enerġija wkoll, għax wara kollox irrid infakkar li bosta nisa qegħdin f´impjieg prekarju, u għaldaqstant, is-saħħa tal-flus [tagħhom] hija limitata. Għaldaqstant, fl-isfond ta´ dan kollu, irrid inħeġġeġ lill-Kunsill Ewropew jara li, fl-istrateġiji u l-politiki tiegħu, jinkludi wkoll il-generu. Hekk biss jista' jkollna soċjetà ġusta u Ewropa Soċjali.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. – În contextul în care Consiliul European va lua în discuție stadiul implementării recomandărilor specifice de țară adresate în contextul semestrului european, se impun o serie de remarci, în special în privința modului în care România a îndeplinit cerințele formulate de Comisie.

În ceea ce privește reforma în domeniul sănătății, nu s-au înregistrat progrese vizibile. Medicii români continuă să părăsească țara, alegând să muncească în state care le oferă un nivel de salarizare și condiții de muncă decente. Strategia națională de integrare a romilor nu este implementată corespunzător, mai ales datorită faptului că proiectele în desfășurare nu au fost aprobate pe baza unor analize costuri-beneficii coerente. Practic, se cheltuiesc banii europeni, însă nu într-un mod articulat. Reforma sistemului de învățământ stagnează, dovadă stau și rezultatele catastrofale de la examenele naționale și de la simulările acestora. Nu în ultimul rând, societățile cu capital majoritar de stat continuă să fie adevărate „găuri” în bugetul de stat, datorită intereselor guvernanților de a nu demara o reformă veritabilă a modului în care aceste societăți funcționează și se administrează.

Concluzia este că, din păcate, angajamentele actualului guvern român au fost făcute doar pe hârtie, pentru că, în practică, lucrurile nu s-au schimbat.

  Frédéric Daerden (S&D), par écrit. – La politique énergétique de l'Union n'est pertinente que dans le cadre d'une politique industrielle transversale et propice à la relance économique. Les axes principaux de cette politique industrielle européenne, qu'il convient de mener à tous les niveaux de pouvoir, seraient: une politique commerciale offensive; l'ajustement des règles relatives aux aides d'États et à leurs seuils de notification; un investissement massif dans la R&D et la formation, difficilement compatible avec l'austérité actuelle imposée dans les budgets européens et nationaux; une réduction significative du coût de l'énergie, actuellement très largement supérieur à celui du travail, pourtant régulièrement pointé du doigt par les libéraux. Cette réduction passe par des efforts environnementaux, comme le renforcement de la part des énergies renouvelables ou de notre efficacité énergétique. Oui, l'Europe doit donner l'exemple sur le plan mondial en ces matières, avec des normes contraignantes et des objectifs renforcés, mais accompagnés d'une politique de juste échange exigeante en matières environnementales et sociales. À défaut, elle ne peut pas s'engager seule dans ce combat, sans qu'aucun accord international contraignant n'ait préalablement été mis en œuvre. Les récents licenciements dans la sidérurgie, l'automobile, le verre ou les hautes technologies appuient mon propos. Bref, une ambition énergétique et environnementale au service de la réindustrialisation.

  Edit Herczog (S&D) , írásban. – Ukrajnának minél hamarabb alá kellene írnia a társulási megállapodást. Az uniós tagállamok intenzíven együttműködnek az ukrajnai válság kezelésében, a hosszabb távú megoldás ennek sikerén áll vagy bukik. Ha az állam- és kormányfők kitartanak Brüsszelben kifejtett integrációpárti álláspontjaik mellett, és a belföldi közvélemény felé nem folytatnak kettős beszédet, akkor a gazdasági fellendülés megkerülhetetlen céllá teszi az európai integrációt az Unió szinte minden szomszédja számára. Ezért fel kell gyorsítani a bankunió és a közös pénzügyi kormányzás kialakítását, a védelmi ipar egységesítésének folyamatát.

A magyar bankároknak lehet, hogy nem, de a magyaroknak, akik a pénzüket ott tartják, fontos lenne a bankunió. Ha sikerül új gazdasági hajtóerőt fogni az Unió vitorlájába, akkor nemcsak saját gazdasági és társadalmi problémáinkat oldjuk meg, hanem a „keleti partnerség” program országai számára is kikerülhetetlen szükségszerűséggé válik a nyugati integráció. Mi békés globális nyomást szorgalmazunk. A háború nem lehet a béke fenntartására létrejött EU missziója. Az Európai Szocialista Frakció intenzíven foglalkozik az ukrán válsággal, és annak mielőbbi helyreállításával.

  Romana Jordan (PPE), pisno. – Tekom enega leta je bil vrh na temo industrijske politike dvakrat odpovedan. Vesela sem, da bodo voditelji držav članic zdaj vendarle razpravljali o težavah, s katerimi se sooča evropska industrija. Le-ta je pomemben gradnik evropskega gospodarstva, njen delež v BDP EU pa je v zadnjih 15 letih padel z 20 % na 15 %. Tudi v Sloveniji se je število zaposlenih v industriji med leti 2004 in 2012 zmanjšalo kar za 17 %. Zato od voditeljev pričakujem, da bodo začrtali usmeritve za oblikovanje konkurenčnejšega okolja. To vključuje pripravo programov za črpanje kohezijskih sredstev, oblikovanje delujočega energetskega trga z znižanjem cen energentov, večja vlaganja v raziskovalne in razvojne projekte, izobraževanje blizu potrebam gospodarstva, razvoj ustrezne infrastrukture, kot npr. energetske in telekomunikacijske. Kako resno voditelji nameravajo okrepiti industrijo, bo pokazala razprava o novem energetsko podnebnem svežnju, ki pokriva politike na tem področju do leta 2030. Obstoječe politike do 2020 se izkazujejo kot drage in premočno politično usmerjane, in praktično ne temeljijo na konkurenčnem pristopu. Le če bo vrh na tem področju okrepil tržno delovanje, se evropski industriji obetajo boljši časi, ljudem pa več delovnih mest.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE), na piśmie. – Obecna sytuacja polityczna na Ukrainie oraz powracający brak poczucia bezpieczeństwa dostaw gazu do Europy z Rosji wskazują na wyzwania w dziedzinie polityki energetycznej na kilka dni przed posiedzeniem Rady Europejskiej. Niedawna zapaść gospodarki światowej, z której nadal usiłujemy się wydobyć, spotęgowała niepewność i uwypukliła słabości poszczególnych państw w sferze bezpieczeństwa energetycznego i ochrony środowiska naturalnego. Państwa, samodzielnie lub w ramach sojuszy, rewidują fundamenty swojej polityki energetycznej. Rządowe programy stymulujące gospodarkę krajów wysoko uprzemysłowionych pomalowane są na wszystkie możliwe odcienie zieleni. Wyrażenia „zielona gospodarka” czy „redukcja emisji CO2” weszły już na dobre do słownika politycznego. Jakie zatem najważniejsze tendencje zarysowują się w ewoluującym ciągle scenariuszu, który będzie determinować przyszłą politykę energetyczną Unii Europejskiej do 2030 roku? Energetyka, środowisko naturalne i gospodarka są wzajemnie powiązane. To powiązanie wpływa na międzynarodową politykę i samo jest przez nią kształtowane. Wspólna polityka energetyczna musi być i będzie kolejnym następnym wielkim projektem integracyjnym Europy z uwzględnieniem: • paliw kopalnych, które zachowają jeszcze przez jakiś czas swoje kluczowe znaczenie • rosnącego zapotrzebowania na energię, któremu towarzyszyć będzie rosnąca potrzeba oszczędzania energii, poprawianie wydajności energetycznej; • przesunięcia punktu ciężkości gospodarki globalnej w stronę Azji, za sprawą Chin i Indii, będzie mieć długoterminowe konsekwencje polityczne i energetyczne; • solidarności między państwami członkowskimi w dziedzinie priorytetów energetycznych.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), schriftelijk. – De Europese Commissie stelt dat de Europese economie bezig is te herstellen en dat de economische vooruitzichten gunstig zijn. Alhoewel ik deze stelling verwelkom, kan ik niet anders dan er ook kritisch naar kijken. De groei waarvan sprake is zeer miniem: 0,1% in de Eurozone tussen januari 2013 en januari 2014. Op het vlak van werkloosheid werd er eigenlijk geen vooruitgang geboekt: zowel in januari 2013 als in januari 2014 was deze 12% in de eurozone. Dit resultaat valt enorm tegen als je daar de inspanningen tegenover zet die in vele lidstaten geleverd zijn. Daarenboven wil ik nogmaals benadrukken dat de sociale kostprijs van de crisismaatregelen opgelegd door de Trojka enorm is. De schade die de afbraak van het sociale systeem met zich meebrengt, gaat nog jaren voelbaar zijn. Het is dus absoluut nodig dat de sociale dimensie van de EMU meer uitgewerkt wordt. Het zou inmiddels duidelijk moeten zijn dat economisch beleid in evenwicht moet worden gebracht met sociaal beleid. Enkel zo kan er werk gemaakt worden van de sociale heropleving van Europa. Ik vraag de Raad dan ook tijdens haar bijeenkomst van 21 en 22 maart voldoende aandacht te besteden aan de sociale dimensie. Want er is een ander beleid nodig.

  El Presidente. - El punto siguiente en el orden del día es el debate a partir de las Declaraciones del Consejo y de la Comisión sobre la invasión de Ucrania por Rusia (2014/2627(RSP)).

Quiero dar la bienvenida al señor Petro Poroshenko, miembro de la Rada Suprema —el Parlamento ucraniano— y copresidente de la Comisión Parlamentaria de Cooperación UE-Ucrania, que, junto con sus colegas, ha tomado asiento en la tribuna oficial del hemiciclo.

En estos tiempos difíciles y complicados, el Parlamento Europeo está ciertamente con el pueblo de Ucrania y apoya plenamente la libertad, la soberanía y la integridad territorial del país.

Hasta aquí, la partitura que me ha preparado la Administración y que he leído porque estoy absolutamente de acuerdo con ella, pero me voy a permitir añadir de mi propia cosecha un pensamiento de quien fuera amigo mío y sigue siendo permanente fuente de inspiración, Willy Brandt, para recordar que «la paz no lo es todo, pero sin la paz nada es posible».

  Dimitrios Kourkoulas, President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, the situation in Ukraine is one of the most serious crises in Europe in recent years. What happens in our neighbourhood matters, as it has implications for all European nations. The sovereignty of Ukraine should be safeguarded. The most immediate priority must now be to find a peaceful solution to the current crisis, one which is fully in line with international law.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, Mr[nbsp ]Venizelos, had the opportunity to visit Kiev and Mariupol on 2[nbsp ]March, to assess the situation on the ground and convey the European Union’s clear message. He thoroughly briefed the Council during the extraordinary session of 3[nbsp ]March[nbsp ]2014 which prepared the European Council on Ukraine that followed.

Last week’s extraordinary meeting of EU Heads of State or Government, as well as the extraordinary meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, provided important opportunities both to assess the latest developments in Ukraine and to send a clear message on a number of points.

As you know, the Heads of State or Government had a lengthy and productive discussion with the newly-appointed Prime Minister of Ukraine, Arseniy Yatsenyuk. They commended the measured response shown so far by the new Ukrainian government and encouraged the authorities to pursue their efforts to ensure free and fair elections, advance constitutional reform and investigate all acts of violence. The Ukrainian authorities need to ensure inclusiveness at all levels of government. This must involve reaching out to all Ukrainian regions and population groups and ensuring full protection of the rights of people belonging to national minorities, in accordance with Ukraine’s international commitments.

In line with the position taken by the extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council of 3[nbsp ]March, the Heads of State or Government strongly condemned the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by the Russian Federation. They called on the Russian Federation to withdraw its armed forces immediately to the areas of their permanent stationing, in accordance with the relevant agreements and to allow immediate access to international monitors.

The solution to the crisis in Ukraine must be based on the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, according to international law. In this connection, leaders agreed that the decision by the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to hold a referendum on the future status of this territory is contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution and therefore illegal.

It is now particularly important that the Ukrainian and Russian sides talk to each other without delay, including through possible multilateral mechanisms. These must produce results within a limited timeframe. The Heads of State or Government announced that the European Union would also participate in the multilateral contact or coordination group being set up to de-escalate the situation.

This should have as its objectives, among others, to build confidence between the parties; watch over the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine; protect all citizens against intimidation from all sides; observe the rights of minorities, including their linguistic rights; help to prepare free and fair elections; and monitor implementation of agreements and commitments.

As regards Russia, the European Union wants a relationship with Russia based on trust, mutual interest and respect for international obligations. It is clear, that at present, there cannot be ‘business as usual’.

The Heads of State or Government therefore decided to take action, including the action envisaged by the Council on 3[nbsp ]March. This includes the suspension of bilateral talks with the Russian Federation on visa matters, as well as on the New Agreement. They also supported the decision of the European Members of the G8 and the EU institutions to suspend their participation in G8 Summit preparations until further notice.

In the absence of results in the framework of negotiations between the Governments of Ukraine and the Russian Federation to resolve the crisis, the European Union will decide on additional measures such as travel bans, freezing of assets and the cancellation of the EU-Russia summit. The Commission and the European External Action Service will be undertaking preparatory work on these measures.

This is not to say that we do not value our relations with Russia, which are important for peace and stability in Europe. Russia is an essential strategic partner. However, the Council was clear: any further destabilisation in Ukraine would seriously affect EU-Russia relations in a broad range of economic areas.

We stand ready to assist Ukraine and provide it with strong financial backing to help stabilise the economic and financial situation. To this end, the European Union has prepared a package of immediate short-term and medium-term measures offering trade, technical, economic and financial assistance. The immediate priority is to achieve Ukraine’s macroeconomic stability through fiscal, monetary and exchange-rate policies.

We also expect Ukraine to take action urgently to launch ambitious structural reform, including the fight against corruption and for transparency. The Council has already decided to freeze and recover the assets of persons identified as being responsible for the misappropriation of state funds.

The EU is committed to signing the Association Agreement, including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. This would bring significant opportunities for economic development and increased prosperity for the whole of Ukraine, including Crimea, as well as its neighbours. It was agreed that the EU would sign the political part of the Association Agreement as a matter of priority.

We also intend to adopt unilateral measures which would allow Ukraine to benefit substantially from the advantages offered in the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, even before the signature of this agreement. Such measures would entail an offer to apply provisions related to the import of goods by reducing tariffs and opening tariff rate quotas by means of so-called autonomous trade measures.

The EU is also committed to enhancing people-to-people contacts between the EU and Ukraine, including through the visa liberalisation process, in line with the agreed conditions in the framework of the Visa Liberalisation Action Plan.

The issue of energy and energy security must not be forgotten. It represents an important part of the Union’s external relations, and we will continue our efforts to ensure a secure energy supply. The EU is prepared to help Ukraine to secure its own energy supply through diversification, better energy efficiency and effective interconnection with the European Union.

The EU must, in addition, seek to strengthen its political association and gradual economic integration with Georgia and the Republic of Moldova. Heads of State or Government confirmed the aim of signing the Association Agreements, including Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas, by the end of August[nbsp ]2014 at the latest.

Let me conclude by underlining that de-escalation of the situation in Ukraine remains the key priority. It is essential now for Russia and Ukraine to talk to each other. The European Union is ready to help, and also to help the Ukrainian people on an economic, financial and technical level. We believe that Russia also believes the objective of peace and stability in the region and on our continent to be of the highest priority and in our clear common interest.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. - Mr President, President of the Council, honourable Members, very serious concerns remain over the situation in Ukraine, and I would like to start by saying how grateful we are for the constant attention that this Parliament has been giving to this most important crisis. I know that Parliament as an institution and many of you in this room have been putting considerable energy and time into helping to find a solution, and I hope that we can put all our efforts along the same lines into supporting Ukraine, which is a European country.

Ukraine was also the subject of an extraordinary meeting of Heads of State and Government last week, part of which was also attended by the Ukrainian Prime[nbsp ]Minister Yatsenyuk. Today I want to share with you the results of that meeting, and specifically to tell you what the European Commission has been doing to support Ukraine in these very challenging times. Not only have we been supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Ukrainians, we have also been doing our best for regional and international peace.

The developments, which started with the people of Ukraine expressing a clear wish to take their future into their own hands, call for a robust and united European response. The current situation directly challenges us in many ways and forms. It challenges our conscience as individuals; it challenges our unity as Europeans; it challenges our policies as decision makers; and it challenges some of the values that we hold dear, such as peace and democracy.

This is, in a way, a test of our Union. The outcome of the current situation will have a great impact on the geopolitical configuration of our continent in the years to come. What happened in Crimea was an unprovoked and unacceptable violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and its territorial integrity. In the aftermath of this violation, alongside other G7 leaders, the President of the European Council and I – on behalf of the European Union – have strongly and unequivocally condemned this action.

Today at 12.30 central European time, we will release another statement that will leave no doubts about the determination of G7 countries and the European Union. We call on the Russian Federation to cease all efforts to annex Ukraine’s autonomous republic of Crimea.

Honourable Members, the current situation remains very tense, so we need to take a very principled but also a very responsible approach. The Ukrainian people have already shed too much blood in this process. No more lives should be put at risk. Our immediate goal and objective should be to de-escalate the situation and find a peaceful solution to the current crisis, in full respect of international law. Any attempt to legitimise a referendum in Crimea is contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution and is quite clearly illegal under international law.

We have been offering Russia the possibility of direct talks through the international mechanisms that are available – including a possible contact group – in full respect of the principles of the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. So far, unfortunately – and as you know – this has been to no avail. High Representative/Vice-President Catherine Ashton remains very active and is in constant contact with her counterparts, and I would like to praise her role.

Meanwhile, however, the financial and economic situation has already deteriorated dramatically, and we have not lost any time in mobilising a support package to help stem the tide and help Ukraine to stabilise its economic and financial situation. I am proud that the Commission was quickly able to propose an overall support package of at least EUR[nbsp ]11 billion from the European budget and from European Union-based international financial institutions for the short and medium term. This was proof that we can react quickly; that we can show solidarity; that we can rise to the challenge. As you know, this package was welcomed by our Member States in the European Council, and the Prime Minister of Ukraine specifically expressed his gratitude for this initiative.

Some of the measures can be put into practice immediately. Indeed, just yesterday, Commissioner De Gucht and I publicly presented the Commission proposal to frontload unilaterally the trade parts of the Association Agreement, so that Ukraine can benefit from tariff reductions and tariff rate quotas even before the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area is fully applied. This will save the Ukrainian economy around EUR[nbsp ]500 million a year in tariff cuts. I hope we can count on your active commitment and that of the Council to fast-track the approval process.

(Applause)

We also immediately dispatched a mission from our services to identify the economic and financial needs of the Ukrainian authorities. I can announce that next week, on 19[nbsp ]March[nbsp ]2014, the Commission will propose macro-financial assistance of an additional EUR[nbsp ]1 billion.

This amount will bring our total macro-financial assistance to EUR[nbsp ]1.6 billion, and it is a very concrete demonstration of our solidarity to help Ukraine face its short-term difficulties. However, it is crucial that this is part of a wider international effort where other international financial institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank, as well as our Member States bilaterally and international partners, can also participate.

I would like to thank Olli Rehn and his services for moving quickly on this, and I would like to add a special word of thanks to Štefan Füle for his constant and strong engagement in this file. At the same time, it is equally crucial to underline that this aid package is not a quick fix and that it needs to be complemented by, on the other side, a reform-oriented and inclusive Ukrainian government that is committed to fixing the current state of their financial system and rebuilding the economic foundations of the country both during the current transition phase and in the medium to long term.

At the summit meeting last week, we also decided that we will sign the political chapters of the Association Agreement before the Presidential elections that will take place in May. This will seal the political association of Ukraine with the European Union, as has been wished for by its people in such a clear manner during these past months. This can naturally be followed by the entry into force of the remaining parts of the Association Agreement/DCFTA after the presidential elections. We also reconfirmed our intention to sign association agreements and DCFTAs with Georgia and Moldova before the end of August.

The European Union has been pro-active and united throughout this crisis, and I am sure this will also be the case when the European Council discusses the next steps next week. This is vital for Ukraine’s stability and prosperity, and for our credibility. The ball is currently in Russia’s court and, as we speak, the diplomatic, political and military situation has not yet started moving in the right direction.

Last week’s meeting of Heads of State and Government took a gradual approach to the measures we are ready to take in response to the current situation, so as to send an unambiguous signal that going further down this path will have consequences whilst at the same time preventing further entrenchment of the conflict from our side.

Our dialogue on visa facilitation and liberalisation, the discussions on the new agreement and the preparations for the G8 meeting in Sochi have already been suspended. If meaningful negotiations do not begin within the next few days and produce results within a limited time frame, this will trigger additional measures. A further deterioration of the situation could lead to far-reaching consequences, which I sincerely hope can be avoided.

Honourable Members, I have been working together with the Commission and also with the Member States for the last ten years to build a constructive relationship with Russia, while supporting our neighbours’ efforts and sovereign choices to reform, modernise and build closer relations with the European Union.

Our relationship with our Eastern partners does not have to be an exclusive one. Our model of engagement is that of open regionalism, not of autarchic self-entrenchment. We are not asking nor even suggesting to our partners from the Eastern Neighbourhood to turn their backs on Russia. On the contrary, we encourage them to have good neighbourly relations and enhance their traditional trade ties. But at the same time, Russia needs to accept fully the right of these countries to decide their own future and the nature of the relations they choose to have with Russia.

The pages of last century’s history should be turned and not re-written. I believe in a European continent where the rule of law prevails over the rule of force, sovereignty is shared and not limited, and the logic of cooperation replaces the logic of confrontation. We do not need new cold wars, and we certainly do not want them.

Security does not come from segregation, separating communities, building fences, but by embracing differences and diversity. Ukraine should not be a border between neighbours that do not speak to each other but a bridge where they can meet. Ukraine should not be seen as a problem for Europe but as an asset for a more united European continent. On the basis of these principles, I think we can say that a united, inclusive, stable and prosperous Ukraine can only be of benefit to all its neighbours and partners. The European Union remains committed to that goal: to Ukraine’s unity and to European peace.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor Presidente, señor Presidente de la Comisión, señor Ministro, Señorías, creo que este no es el momento de recrearnos en las insuficiencias de la acción exterior de la Unión Europea, sino de promover una acción coherente y eficaz para tratar de evitar una escalada que provoque un conflicto abierto y movilizar a la comunidad internacional para tratar de que Rusia dé marcha atrás en este disparatado intento de anexionarse Crimea, que realmente nos retrotrae a la década de los años treinta del siglo pasado.

La Resolución del Parlamento Europeo condena estos hechos por considerarlos claramente contrarios a la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, al Acta Final de Helsinki, al Memorando de Budapest y a los acuerdos bilaterales entre Rusia y Ucrania.

Hay que rechazar claramente este referéndum que se va a celebrar el próximo domingo por ilegal e ilegítimo, y hay que apoyar, señor Presidente de la Comisión, al Gobierno de Ucrania. Celebramos este paquete financiero de la Comisión, la rápida firma del acuerdo de asociación o de los capítulos políticos, el avance de las medidas comerciales, y creo que la Unión Europea debería promover también una conferencia de donantes a nivel internacional para paliar esta situación.

Entendemos también que una mediación internacional a través de la OSCE y de las Naciones Unidas sería determinante para garantizar la seguridad, la integridad territorial y la soberanía de Ucrania, y creo, señor Presidente, que tenemos que tomar en consideración las medidas sancionadoras que el Consejo Europeo ha propuesto en caso de que no se produzca esa desescalada de la tensión.

Y, por último, quisiera recordar, señor Presidente, que la señora Timoshenko nos dijo la semana pasada en Dublín que Rusia llegará tan lejos en este asunto como se lo permita la comunidad internacional. Y, como no desarrollemos una acción eficaz y rápida, las consecuencias de este conflicto son absolutamente impredecibles.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, President Barroso mentioned again the EUR[nbsp ]11 billion, and I want to commend the Commission for having found the money so quickly. When we asked in recent months for money for Syrian refugees or for any other issues that were also urgent, the answer was always: there is no money. So let us hope that what is now promised to the citizens of Ukraine is real money.

Secondly, I think we should also get the money back from the frozen assets, because it is very important to have the frozen asset money going back, including from the oligarchs who are now the new favourite oligarchs in the country. It is good that they are now the new governors, for example, but it is also important that those people in Ukraine who have a lot of money, or have their money outside the country, go back and put the money back into economic development.

Thirdly, I think it is very important to have elections very soon for a new President and a new government – a broad government, I would hope, representing all the different citizen groups in the country – because the long-term engagement of the European Union should only be concluded with a long-term government which has been elected and tried to involve all citizens from whichever majority or minority they come from.

My next point is about Russia. I think what Russia is doing is not at all acceptable – we will come to that in a minute. But how strong are we vis-à-vis Russia? When Commissioner Oettinger said that we have to interrupt negotiations about South Stream, why are we negotiating about South Stream? Why was it possible to kill Nabucco, for example: why did we accept? Why did some Member States agree to bring back Russian gas into it and not gas from other countries? Why, two or three weeks ago, did Mr Orbán sign a nuclear arrangement with Russia?

So we would have been in a much stronger position – as we discussed this morning – if we had had a clear policy of industrial independence. We have the report – I had many disagreements with Mr Saryusz-Wolski, but we wrote a report in the Committee on Foreign Affairs on an independent energy policy. Why was it not accepted by the Council and promoted by the Commission? We would have been in a much better position today vis-à-vis Russia.

Concerning the referendum, it should be very clear that this is not a legitimate referendum. All the referendums we have seen in the past have been totally different. Whether in East Timor, South Sudan or in Scotland in the future, referendums are held on a legal basis with international observers and no military putting pressure on the national assemblies. Russia cannot say that this is about the will of the citizens of the Crimea. No, the referendum is enforced – already now they are saying what the outcome of the referendum will be. There is no doubt about it, because it is under duress. So let us be very clear to Russia. There is no possibility of accepting an ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Johannes Cornelis van Baalen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, it is good that the House is united, because we will see that illegal referendum happen on Sunday. It will take place. Both Houses of the Parliament of Russia have made all preparations for an illegal annexation of the Crimea, and the Russian Government has assisted them. I have not seen any movement towards withdrawing this illegal referendum. I think we will see in one week, or maybe two, that Russia has done what it probably has always wanted to do: create ‘facts on the ground’ in the Crimea.

Then we have to have serious economic sanctions that will hurt Russia, unfortunately, and that will also hurt us. We should be prepared to do this because the Russian actions are not only illegal, they also destroy the Helsinki Process in which we in Europe have said that borders are to be accepted and can only be changed through international law. We are in a very serious situation.

I would like to know from the Commission and the Council: are they really united on the financial support package? Is there a difference of opinion between the Council and the Commission? Is the money there, or not? Are they prepared to take, together with Parliament, one line on serious economic sanctions?

  Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Die Kollegen haben schon sehr präzise beschrieben, wie systematisch Russland bereit war, internationales Recht – die UN-Charta-Verträge – zu brechen. Es ist trotzdem so, dass man sich gar nicht klar genug machen kann, dass Russland im Moment auch die Macht ist, die bereit ist zu einer militärischen Invasion und zu einer militärischen Eskalation. Keine andere Macht, die da bisher betroffen ist, berührt ist von diesem Konflikt, ist dazu bereit.

Was mich mit am meisten bestürzt, gerade in diesem Jahr – 100 Jahre nach Beginn des Ersten Weltkriegs –, ist, dass Russland auch bereit ist, in diesen wahnsinnigen Propagandamustern des letzten Jahrhunderts ein Volk auf ein anderes zu hetzen, und zwar gnadenlos, wenn man sich die Propaganda von russischen Medien anschaut. Wie geht Europa damit um? Wir haben zu oft, Herr Kollege Swoboda, auch schon in der Auseinandersetzung mit Präsident Janukowytsch suggeriert, dass die Europäische Union irgendwie machtlos ist. Das stimmte nicht gegenüber Janukowytsch. Und das stimmt auch nicht gegenüber dem Russland von Wladimir Putin.

75[nbsp ]% des Außenhandels Russlands werden mit der Europäischen Union abgewickelt. Wir müssen nicht in eine militärische Auseinandersetzung fallen, um Russland deutlich zu machen, dass, wenn es sich isolieren will, diese Isolation auch passiert. Wir müssen diesen Handel, wie Sie es gerade auch zum Gas richtig beschrieben haben, nicht immer weiter intensivieren. Wir haben da andere Möglichkeiten.

Diplomatie, so wie sie von den Staats- und Regierungschefs befürwortet worden ist, ist richtig. Bisher weigert sich die russische Seite, überhaupt an den runden Tisch zu kommen. Es wird sogar verhindert, dass die OSZE auf der Krim zur Beobachtung aktiv wird. Also ein so klares Njet gegenüber allen diplomatischen Bemühungen hat es noch nicht gegeben! Das bedeutet für mich, dass diese Seite der Sanktionen eindeutig vorbereitet werden muss, und die müssen so angelegt sein, dass deutlich wird, wir wollen nicht das russische Volk treffen, sondern wir wollen diejenigen treffen, die für diese Eskalation verantwortlich sind.

Und eines zum Schluss: Dass europäische Länder ohne Ende Waffen nach Russland exportiert haben, das wissen wir. Dass Italien, Deutschland und Frankreich heute bereit sind ...

(Der Präsident entzieht der Rednerin das Wort.)

  Ryszard Antoni Legutko, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, dear me, what bellicose language not heard in this Chamber for decades. The EU institutions have been notoriously pro-Russian, and stronger words were usually suppressed by the big men in this Parliament and the Commission. The unpleasant fact is that there is not much that the EU can or will do about Russia. The EU has neither instruments, nor the will, nor a common foreign policy for that matter.

During the Ukrainian crisis the EU High Representative did a lot of travelling, but she might just as well have stayed at home and watched television. The job was done by the representatives of national governments. Of course, what they did was too late and too timid, and they were soon overtaken by events. Today it is clear that the belligerent rhetoric is no longer palatable to the powerful European governments and will soon change. Chancellor Merkel is not happy with this war of words and longs for the good old days of business as usual. Other European governments think pretty much the same.

The present outburst of moralistic rhetoric condemning Russia – not the first and not the last in recent history – is one of those episodes that will soon pass into political oblivion. What will most likely happen is a tacit agreement between the major western players and Russia, legitimising her imperialist interest in the Crimea and elsewhere, and it will not take long before this Chamber will be praising Russia for her self-restraint and a generally stabilising role.

The European countries will ultimately side with Russia, not against Russia; with the strong, not with the weak. This is what European politics has been like for centuries. Anyone who expects something entirely different is bound to be disappointed. The Book of Ecclesiastes had it just right: there is nothing new under the sun.

  Nikola Vuljanić, u ime kluba GUE/NGL. – Gospodine predsjedniče, kriza u Ukrajini pokrenuta je opravdanim protestima protiv beskrupuloznog diktatora i njegove sklonosti sličnim istočnim diktatorima.

S druge strane, grube riječi, dobrim dijelom prazna obećanja Europske unije pridonijeli su dizanju temperature. Pred par mjeseci sam u ovom Parlamentu rekao da svaka gruba i prazna riječ košta. Košta novaca, ali ne samo novaca. Račun sad dolazi na naplatu. Danas je vrijeme da budemo sasvim jasni. Nedorečene poruke i poruke iza kojih čvrsto ne stojimo mogu samo doprinijeti daljnjoj eskalaciji krize i sukoba.

Završni račun doći će na naplatu, prije svega građanima Ukrajine, ali i svima nama. Par pitanja treba pojednostaviti i raščistiti do kraja: Europska unija priča, i danas smo to čuli, o ozbiljnim sankcijama, a provode se nježna ograničenja prekogranične suradnje. Trebalo bi čuti i jasan stav zemalja članica jer one su te koje će provoditi eventualne sankcije. Do koje razine će te sankcije ići? Postoje li računica i čvrsta volja da se sankcije provedu do kraja? Pa šta košta da košta.

Drugo pitanje koje treba razjasniti tiče se europske perspektive Ukrajine i njezine teritorijalne cjelovitosti. Vrlo smo glasni po tom pitanju i takvi i trebamo biti. Ukrajinski građani, svi bez izuzetka, trebaju imati mogućnost izjasniti se o budućnosti svoje zemlje. S druge strane, Rusija ima svoje baze u Ukrajini, prvenstveno na Krimu. Nitko razuman ne misli da će Rusija ikada mirno otići s Krima. Da li je moguća situacija u kojoj zemlje članice Europske unije imaju na svom tlu ruske baze? Rusija više nije komunistička zemlja, nije ni demokratska zemlja (barem ne onako kako mi vidimo demokraciju), ali ona je tu. I možda je odgovor na ovo pitanje jedno od rješenja krize.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski, w imieniu grupy EFD. – Putin słowami, że upadek Związku Radzieckiego był największą katastrofą XX w., przystąpił do odbudowy imperium. Pierwsza była Gruzja, teraz jest Ukraina. Panie komisarzu Barroso, nie byłoby zuchwałości Putina, gdyby nie naiwność Unii Europejskiej! Miliardy na Nord Stream i planowane miliardy na South Stream, to są miliardy euro na ominięcie Ukrainy i Polski po to, aby uzależnić się od Rosji i stać się jeszcze łatwiejszymi ofiarami Putina. Hańbą Europy jest uczestnictwo w tych planach Putina symbolizowane obecnością pana Schrödera we władzach Gazpromu w charakterze pożytecznego idioty w imperialnych planach małego Hitlerka z KGB. Wnioski na przyszłość: Lenin kpił z Zachodu i powiedział, że Zachód dostarczy mu sznur, na którym on powiesi Zachód. Dzisiaj rolę sznura pełnią gazodolary i petrodolary z Zachodu, za którePutin podbija niepodległą Ukrainę. Musi nastąpić zasadnicza reorientacja zasilania energetycznego Europy z kierunku wschodniego na zachodni. NależyNależy odwołać się do własnych surowców, węgla i gazu łupkowego... (Przewodniczący odebrał posłowi głos.)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Herr Präsident! Die Situation in der Ukraine stellt sich aus europäischer Sicht natürlich wie ein gordischer Knoten dar. Egal, in welche Richtung sich Kiew orientiert, es wird immer ein Landesteil unzufrieden sein oder sich sogar majorisiert fühlen. Wir müssen also, wenn wir eine Lösung wollen und wenn wir nicht wollen, dass mit der Ukraine ein permanenter Krisenherd an der östlichen Peripherie der Europäischen Union entsteht, eine Lösung finden, bei der alle Teile mitarbeiten. Es müssen natürlich Europäer und Russen, auch Amerikaner, und die Streitparteien in der Ukraine an einen Tisch.

Wir müssen davon ausgehen, dass alles besser ist als Blutvergießen, alles ist besser als ein Bürgerkrieg, alles ist besser als ein Krieg. Da ist natürlich – wir denken an den Kosovo, wir denken an die Tschechoslowakei – unter Umständen auch eine territoriale Veränderung möglich. Das muss möglich sein, um Krieg oder Bürgerkrieg zu vermeiden.

Es sind natürlich die Interessen der nach Westen orientierten Ukrainer zu bedenken, es sind auch die Interessen der nach Osten orientierten russischen Bevölkerung zu bedenken. Alles ist besser als ein neuer kalter Krieg. Ein Titel wie „Invasion der Ukraine durch Russland“ suggeriert bereits, dass wir uns in einem solchen kalten Krieg befinden. Das sollten wir vermeiden.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). - Herr Präsident, Herr Ratspräsident, Herr Kommissionspräsident, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Russland hat einen Völkerrechtsbruch begangen. Dafür gibt es keine Entschuldigung. Das muss deutlich zum Ausdruck gebracht werden. Das Referendum auf der Krim ist völkerrechtswidrig und verstößt gegen die ukrainische Verfassung. Deswegen kann es nicht legitim sein. Es gibt auch keine Begründung für das russische Vorgehen, da wir legitime Institutionen in der Ukraine haben, und weil es keine Verfolgung der russischen Minderheit in der Ukraine gegeben hat. Wir sollten sehen, dass der Freiheitswille eines Volkes von entscheidender Bedeutung ist, dass aus diesem Grunde die Souveränität eines Volkes, über das eigene Schicksal zu entscheiden, von größter Bedeutung ist und dass wir nicht mehr – wie Frau Zimmer meint – die großgeostrategische Vorstellung haben, dass Völker bei anderen nachfragen müssen, was sie tun dürfen. Das ist 19. und 20. Jahrhundert!

Wir haben multilaterale Organisationen, die gestützt werden müssen. Die OECD darf dort nicht hineinkommen. Das ist ein Verlust, der dort festzustellen ist. Wir müssen sehen, welchen Willen Russland wirklich hat, um die eigene Macht aufzubauen, und ob es bei der Krim bleibt, oder ob es ein neues Reich aufbauen will.

Lassen Sie mich eine letzte Bemerkung machen: Ich bedanke mich bei der Kommission und beim Europäischen Rat dafür, dass schnell der Assoziierungsvertrag unterzeichnet wird und dass es die einseitige Pro-Ukraine-Umsetzung des Freihandelsvertrags gibt, dass das Unterstützungspaket beschlossen worden ist und dass dies zusammen mit dem Internationalen Währungsfonds und anderen ausgebaut werden soll. Ich begrüße Sanktionen, damit Russland Grenzen aufgezeigt werden …

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

  Libor Rouček (S&D). - Pane předsedající, mír a stabilita jsou postaveny v Evropě na mezinárodním právu – na Chartě OSN, na Závěrečném aktu Konference o bezpečnosti a spolupráci z Helsinek v roce 1975, ale také mimo jiné i na Budapešťském memorandu o bezpečnostních zárukách z roku 1994, kde se nejenom Velká Británie a Spojené státy americké, ale také Rusko zavázalo, že bude dodržovat teritoriální integritu Ukrajiny.

Bohužel bylo mezinárodní právo ruskou vojenskou akcí, ruským nátlakem porušeno. A stejně tak je porušováno ale i ukrajinské právo, které nedovoluje referendum, pokud jde o změny hranic. Jinými slovy, my nechceme novou studenou válku s Ruskem, protože ta by neprospěla nikomu, ale zároveň se nemůžeme chovat, jako když se nic nestalo. Proto podporujeme opatření a rozhodnutí, která byla učiněna Evropskou komisí a Evropskou radou, a my se k nim v našem usnesení plně připojujeme. Ano, Ukrajina potřebuje pomoc. Potřebuje pomoc materiální, ale Ukrajina také potřebuje politickou pomoc a potřebuje konsolidovat svou domácí situaci. Čili podporujeme i tu myšlenku, aby byly co nejdříve uskutečněny nové prezidentské volby, nové parlamentní volby a vytvořena vláda, která bude inkluzivní...

(Předseda řečníkovi odebral slovo.)

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). - Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Krim ist ein Teil der Ukraine, die Ukraine ist eine souveräne Nation. Das Vorgehen Russlands ist völkerrechtswidrig. Es ist inakzeptabel.

Meine Fraktion, die Liberalen, wir haben in den letzten Wochen immer darauf gedrängt, Gesprächskanäle offenzuhalten, wir haben uns für Entspannung eingesetzt, für Diplomatie, und wir müssen feststellen, dass Russland dieses Angebot nicht angenommen hat, sondern die Spannung weiter anheizt. Und hier geht es nicht mehr nur um die Krim. Hier geht es um Sicherheit und Stabilität in ganz Europa. Hier geht es um die europäische Sicherheitsordnung der OSZE, dieser Organisation, die von Hans-Dietrich Genscher erfunden wurde. Und ihr Kernprinzip ist, dass Grenzen nur im Konsens geändert werden dürfen. Wenn das jetzt nicht geschieht, dann sind Sanktionen unumgänglich, dann müssen Konten eingefroren werden, dann müssen Immobilien vom Markt genommen werden, und dann muss man auch an den Sport ran. Russland hat die Fußballweltmeisterschaft 2018. Das muss auf den Prüfstand. Und ich fordere von hier aus den FC Schalke 04 auf, am Freitag ohne Gazprom-Logo auf den Trikots in Augsburg aufzulaufen, um ein Signal zu senden, dass es so nicht weitergeht. Wir können nicht business as usual machen.

(Beifall)

  Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE). - De crisis, collega's, toont aan dat er nood is aan opwaardering van het Europese buitenlandbeleid, aan een opwaardering van het veiligheids- en defensiebeleid. Zo niet, dan komen we steeds te laat of reageren we te zwak.

Poetin weet dat en hij kan zijn gang gaan. Voor hem is een democratische omwenteling in Oekraïne een nachtmerrie. En dus leidt hij de aandacht daarvoor in eigen land af door een invasie in het buitenland. En het zijn helaas de burgers van Oekraïne die dit voelen. En het gaat van kwaad naar erger. In de Krim verdwijnen journalisten en activisten, worden burgers in de aanloop naar het zogenaamde referendum onder druk gezet, worden Krimtartaren bedreigd. In het oosten van Oekraïne zijn Russische sabotagegroepen aan het werk. Dat verontrust ons enorm.

We steunen de maatregelen van de Raad en de Commissie. De beste maatregel die we kunnen nemen, is investeren in het succes van de Oekraïense democratische omwenteling. In het consolideren van de pro-Europese stemming. Dat is Poetins grootste angst. Alleen dan kunnen de beperkte diplomatieke en sanctiemaatregelen slagen.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, two weeks ago we celebrated the overthrow of an authoritarian kleptocrat, the ousted President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, who does seem to have authorised the shooting of his own people. I spoke then of the need for Russia to honour the 1994 Budapest Assurances to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, including the Crimea, but few of us could have predicted at the time that there would be a military land-grab by Putin, justified by a pack of lies and his will and keenness to revive the glories of the disappeared Soviet Union and reabsorb the east of Ukraine, no matter what the costs or the international legal violations by his government are.

The response of the Ukrainian people to the invasion is clear. Russia is not wanted in Ukraine. So Putin is now engineering a phoney and illegal referendum at the point of a gun in Crimea, which offers no real choice. He has even sent a Tatar envoy from Kazan to attempt to bribe the Crimean Tatars into accepting Russian rule, as they remember well their previous ill-treatment by Russia under Stalin. Meanwhile, Crimea has descended into lawlessness, with journalists and opponents beaten up by Russian forces, and the main synagogue has been daubed with swastikas.

The EU must support the interim Ukraine Government financially and politically as it continues its extremely admirable resistance, with self-restraint, to this severe provocation by Russia. The EU must hit Russia hard with tough economic sanctions. Putin must understand that these sorts of aggressive actions have no place in modern Europe and will not go unpunished.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD). - Situacija Ukrainoje šiandien tokia įtempta, kad bet kurią akimirką gali prasidėti beprotybė, kurią istorikai vėliau pavadins karu.

Ir mes pernelyg daug kalbame ir pernelyg mažai veikiame. Politinis dialogas yra svarbus, tačiau šiuo metu, aš esu įsitikinęs, jis turėtų vykti ir kitame, pačiame aukščiausiame lygyje.

Raginčiau Europos Sąjungos vadovus sušaukti specialią, tik tam skirtą Didžiojo aštuoneto konferenciją. Ir padėtis reikalauja sprendimų, kurie išsaugotų taiką. Dvišalės ar trišalės derybos vargu ar bus rezultatyvios. Delsta ir taip pernelyg ilgai. Pernelyg ilgai buvo reiškiamas tik susirūpinimas.

Kreipiuosi į valstybių lyderius: nuo jūsų sprendimų priklauso pasaulio ateitis. Linkiu, kad tie sprendimai būtų išmintingi.

  Adrian Severin (NI). - Mr President, Ukraine is a geo-strategic battlefield for Russia and the West. To demonise Russia is not a policy but an attempt to hide our lack of policy. In the long run the race of sanctions will be won by the competitor who is able to suffer the pains longer: would it be Russia, as usual? Everybody is keen to have the Ukrainian strategic asset at his disposal, but nobody wants to undertake full responsibility towards Ukraine. What remains, usually, is each side’s attempts to make Ukraine unavailable for the other one. This is evil.

The worst outcome would be the emergence of two Ukraines hijacking each other; of new frozen conflicts which will pass on their evil consequences from one crisis to another, spilling over in the region. Therefore we should negotiate, but not before ensuring equality of arms. Together, with our money, we must send into Ukraine our military peace-keeping forces on the ground. If Crimea is lost – I do not know – let us at least rescue the rest. The EU needs courage, vision and strength to get a clear strategic deal with Russia while defending Ukraine’s legitimate aspirations.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE). - Pamiętajmy o[nbsp ]słowach Churchilla po Monachium w 1938 r.. Nie chcieliśmy konfrontacji z Rosją, wybraliśmy ugłaskiwanie Rosji. Dziś mamy groźbę wojny. Czas na zmianę polityki wobec Rosji. Unia Europejska jest po stronie całej demokratycznej, wolnej i europejskiej Ukrainy. Nie ma zgody na wojnę w[nbsp ]Europie, nie ma zgody na oderwanie Krymu pod lufami rosyjskich karabinów. To nie rosyjsko-ukraiński konflikt, to atak na podstawową i świętą zasadę europejskiego bezpieczeństwa i[nbsp ]pokój w Europie. To atak na zasadę o[nbsp ]niezmienianiu siłą granic w[nbsp ]Europie. Tym samym jest to zagrożenie dla bezpieczeństwa ogólnoeuropejskiego i[nbsp ]pokoju w[nbsp ]Europie. Uznajemy jako Unia europejskie aspiracje Ukrainy i[nbsp ]perspektywę europejską. W[nbsp ]następnym tygodniu podpiszemy umowę stowarzyszeniową, oferujemy duży pakiet pomocy finansowej oraz program liberalizacji wizowej. Uznajemy faktyczną aneksję Krymu za prawnie nieskuteczną i[nbsp ]nielegalną. Domagamy się wycofania wojsk rosyjskich z Krymu.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Mr President, provocative actions in Crimea are a violation of a bilateral agreement with Ukraine and a violation of the Budapest Agreement with all of the other P5 countries. The Crimea referendum amounts to Russian aggression and a challenge to the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Mr Putin is playing with fire, fuelling lies and bigotry about the Ukrainian revolution and resorting to the same bogus arguments that were used in the Sudetenland decades ago, with devastating consequences for Europe and the world.

The EU must stand by the people of Ukraine as well as the people of Russia, who are both victims of the irresponsible, vengeful hubris and, indeed, weakness of Vladimir Putin. We do not want war. To press for a diplomatic solution, we must demand that the Council immediately enacts the targeted sanctions against Ukrainian oligarchs and politicians involved in human rights violations and corruption, so that assets stolen are recovered by Ukraine. It must also enact similar asset-stripping measures and visa bans against the Russian leadership and the oligarchs responsible for this dangerous escalation. Support …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). - Voorzitter, het conflict om de toekomst van Oekraïne wordt door velen als een volstrekt ongelijke strijd afgeschilderd. De voorpagina van Der Spiegel spreekt wat dat betreft boekdelen: een reus Poetin en kleine westerse dwergjes. Ja, een ongelijke strijd: de sterke, slimme, snelle, brute Poetin tegenover een zwak, verdeeld, besluiteloos Europa.

En Voorzitter, inderdaad is er sprake van een ongelijke strijd. Aan de ene kant namelijk een land waarvan zowel de economie als het politieke systeem zich op de rand van de afgrond bevinden. Isolatie door het Westen zou het laatste zetje geven om Rusland economisch en politiek failliet te laten gaan. Aan de andere kant, de meest welvarende regio van de wereld, waar de rechtsstaat zorgt voor een in de geschiedenis unieke mate van veiligheid en vrijheid. En dat is inderdaad geen gelijke strijd. En ik begrijp goed dat de Oekraïners die een vrije keuze hebben, zullen kiezen voor het westerse model, maar die vrije keuze moeten ze wel krijgen. Ze hoeven alleen maar naar buurland Polen te kijken. Twintig jaar geleden was het inkomen per hoofd van de bevolking …

(De spreker wordt door de Voorzitter onderbroken.)

  Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR). - Jak się nie zamierza używać broni, to nie należy jej wyjmować. Ta sala słyszała już tyle słownych ataków na Putina, że nic nowego dzisiaj nie powiemy. Putin nie przejmuje się tymi wypowiedziami. Putin przejmie się, kiedy sankcje będą naprawdę. Więc naciśnijcie na swoje rządy i zróbcie tak, aby to było już. I chciałbym Państwu powiedzieć, że 85% mieszkańców Krymu nie było nigdy w Unii Europejskiej. Wiecie dlaczego? Dlatego, że za każdym razem, jak tutaj poruszana jest spraw wiz, jesteście za tym, żeby je utrzymać. Jest bardzo trudno znaleźć większość, żeby było inaczej. Jeżeli nie chcemy mieć drugiego Krymu, musimy dzisiaj pomóc Ukrainie – teraz i bardzo. Powinniśmy znieść wizy, powiedzieć, kiedy to możliwe, podpisać całą umowę stowarzyszeniową, skoordynować ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi pomoc finansową, bo jak nie, to Putin użyje całej machiny propagandowej przeciwko rządowi Jaceniuka. Mówię to w obecności przedstawicieli Ukrainy z Piotrem Poroszenką, którzy tutaj siedzą i słuchają. Oni chcą nie tylko usłyszeć, że pokrzyczymy na Putina. (Przewodniczący odebrał posłowi głos.)

  Ewald Stadler (NI). - Herr Präsident! Herr Minister Kourkoulas, ich darf an Sie eine Frage richten: Was hätte Ihre Regierung gemacht, wenn bei den Protesten der griechischen Bevölkerung gegen die Maßnahmen der Troika russische Politiker aufgetreten wären vor dem Athener Parlament und dort die Bevölkerung gegen die Europäische Union, gegen die Europäische Zentralbank und gegen den IWF aufgehetzt hätten?

(Unverständliche Entgegnung)

Nein! Genau das haben Sie in Kiew gemacht! Sie haben die ukrainische Bevölkerung gegen Russland aufgehetzt! Sie wussten, wie die Krim zusammengesetzt ist, Sie wissen, wie der Osten der Ukraine ethnisch zusammengesetzt ist! Und trotzdem haben Sie dort gegen das Prinzip der Nichteinmischung in die inneren Angelegenheiten eines anderen Landes verstoßen! Auch das ist ein völkerrechtliches Prinzip, auch wenn Sie es nicht gerne hören. Es gibt auch das völkerrechtliche Prinzip der Selbstbestimmung. Was im Kosovo gegolten hat, muss auch für die Krim gelten! Sie kennen die ethnische Zusammensetzung der Krim ganz genau. Wieso Sie das ignorieren, verstehe ich nicht. Und all jene, die heute buh schreien, sind jene, die morgen die Verantwortung für einen Krieg übernehmen wollen! Werden Sie dann die Verantwortung dafür übernehmen? Diese Situation dort kann jederzeit von einem kalten Krieg in einen heißen Krieg wechseln! Wer wird die Verantwortung dafür übernehmen?

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, j'entends le débat se focaliser, un peu trop je pense, sur la question de la légalité internationale du référendum en Crimée. Je pense que c'est un faux débat, parce que le droit international supporte beaucoup d'interprétations, voire de contradictions.

En revanche, ce qui n'est pas contestable, c'est que ce référendum est illégitime, parce qu'il est organisé dans un contexte d'invasion militaire, un contexte de mensonges de la part de Moscou sur les menaces qui pèseraient sur les populations russes et russophones et aussi de mensonges de Moscou sur la nature de la transition politique qui a lieu en Ukraine et qui ne résulte pas d'un coup d'État par des néo-nazis.

Nous devons donc condamner l'action et les paroles de Moscou. Cela nécessite une réponse unanime, extrêmement ferme et déterminée de l'Union européenne. Après les hésitations diplomatiques de ces dernières semaines, je pense qu'il est temps de passer à l'action et l'action, ce sont des sanctions fermes et déterminées.

  Knut Fleckenstein (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Unser Verhältnis zu Russland kann nicht weiterlaufen mit business as usual – das ist schon gesagt worden. Deshalb ist es auch richtig, dass wir heute Nachmittag beschließen werden, unsere nächste Sitzung des Partnerschafts- und Kooperationsabkommens nicht in vierzehn Tagen in Perm durchzuführen, über Kultur zu reden, als ob gar nichts passiert wäre. Aber wir müssen weiter miteinander sprechen. Es ist unsere Aufgabe, gerade in diesen Zeiten, unseren Standpunkt auch unseren russischen Kollegen gegenüber deutlich zu machen und nach Gemeinsamkeiten zu suchen. Wann, wenn nicht in solchen Zeiten, ist eine solche parlamentarische Kooperation oder zumindest ein solcher Austausch sinnvoll?

Als Zweites will ich dazu sagen: Die Menschen in der Ukraine müssen sich auf uns verlassen können, und das werden sie auch können. Aber wir müssen uns auch in diesem Prozess darauf verlassen können, dass die Übergangsregierung alles tun wird, um alle Teile der Ukraine und alle Bevölkerungsgruppen der Ukraine an diesem nun zu gehenden Weg zu beteiligen.

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE). - Voorzitter, de Russische invasie en bezetting van de Krim is illegaal. En daarop is een gepast antwoord van de Europese Gemeenschap aan Rusland nodig. Rusland speelt met vuur en het antwoord dat wij moeten geven is tweeërlei. Eén: niet uitsluiten van sancties, die moeten we nu al voorbereiden. Twee: ook een antwoord dat de Commissie en de Raad gegeven hebben – kijken waar we de bevolking van de Oekraïne kunnen ondersteunen. Voor de acties die op dat punt worden genomen moeten wij als Parlement heel snel onze goedkeuring geven.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). - Noriu akcentuoti tris momentus.

Pirma, Rusijos veiksmai Kryme – tai aiškiai pažeistos tarptautinės teisės normos dėl teritorinio šalių vientisumo ir suvereniteto. Ir mes dar kartą turime tai aiškiai pasakyti Ukrainos žmonėms, ir pasauliui.

Antra, taip, mes turime elgtis protingai, rimtai, koordinuotai, ieškoti galimybių deryboms, tačiau atėjo laikas imtis efektyvesnių diplomatinių, ekonominių bei politinių priemonių ir net sankcijų prieš Rusiją tam, kad regione būtų taika. Turime savęs paklausti, ar derybų dėl ES su Rusija prekybos sutarties bei vizų režimo sustabdymas yra tikrai efektyvi ir adekvati priemonė, turint omenyje, kad šios derybos praktiškai ir šiaip jau kuri laiką nevyko. Gaila, tačiau turim sau pripažinti, kad energetinė priklausomybė nuo Rusijos ir ekonominiai interesai neretai paima viršų prieš taiką.

Trečia, būtina greita finansinė Europos Sąjungos parama Ukrainos žmonėms.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE). - Jest takie polskie przysłowie: Lepiej późno niż wcale. Bardzo dobrze, że dzisiaj spotkaliśmy się tutaj i że rozmawiamy o Ukrainie. Cieszę się, że był obecny przewodniczący Barroso, ale musimy się wszyscy jako Unia Europejska, jako państwa członkowskie, uderzyć w piersi. Kiedy w[nbsp ]2008 roku czołgi rosyjskie najechały na Gruzję, nie zareagowaliśmy wystarczająco mocno. Nie reagowaliśmy przez kilka lat, kiedy rosyjskie wojska okupowały i[nbsp ]okupują Abchazję i[nbsp ]Osetię Południową. Nie reagowaliśmy wystarczająco mocno na działania wobec Mołdowy. Więc dzisiaj wszyscy musimy sobie zadać kilka pytań: czy wolno nam sprzedawać nowoczesne okręty wojenne Rosji? Czy wolno nam uzależniać nasze gospodarki wyłącznie od rosyjskiego gazu i[nbsp ]Gazpromu? To są pytania, na które musimy dzisiaj odpowiedzieć.

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D). - Mr President, Commissioner Füle, Minister Kourkoulas, the only acceptable solution to the crisis in Crimea is a diplomatic one. Until this moment, there have been no signs that this will happen, while every new development suggests the opposite. We need a de-escalation of tensions. Ukrainian and Tatar minorities in Crimea have taken big risks: they have gone out to the streets to demonstrate peacefully for the territorial integrity of their country.

Now they have to resist provocations from the pro-Russian troops and armed men invading military posts, government buildings and the regional parliament. Houses of the Tatar minority have been marked. In a few days’ time there will be an illegitimate referendum in Crimea. We should not forget about the Ukrainian and Tatar people of Crimea, who have been very restrained and brave. All parties involved should take their responsibility and do their utmost to prevent this crisis from turning into a disaster. This is not a threat to the security of Crimea or Ukraine alone. This concerns the stability of our continent.

  Michael Gahler (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Geschlossenheit, Entschlossenheit und Dialogbereitschaft in allen internationalen Gremien – das sind die klaren Botschaften, die wir von der Europäischen Union an die russische Führung erwarten. Das erwarten auch die Menschen in der Ukraine, deren Regierung ausschließlich friedlich auf die Besetzung der Krim reagiert. Das erwarten vor allem auch unsere Bürger an der Ostgrenze der Union, die ziemlich frische Erfahrungen mit Sowjet-Russland haben.

Im Unterschied zur alten Sowjetunion sind Putin und Co. an zwei Stellen sehr verwundbar. Erstens: Wenn Rubel und Aktien an der Börse abstürzen, wird Herr Putin täglich auch persönlich ärmer. Zweitens haben sie vieles, was sie sich angeeignet haben, sicherheitshalber in den Westen geschafft. Hier müssen die Sanktionen ansetzen. Wenn wir den relevanten Entscheidungsträgern inklusive Ehepartnern ihre Dauervisa in den Westen entziehen, auf die es auch keinen Rechtsanspruch gibt, wenn wir die Konten mit Geldern dubioser Herkunft sperren, wenn es kein Shopping in Baden-Baden, Nizza oder in London mehr gibt, wenn selbst die Datscha in Jūrmala bei Riga out of reach ist, dann wird da binnen kürzester Zeit ein enormer Druck entstehen, der zu einem Umdenken führt.

Völkerrechtswidriges Handeln darf sich nicht auszahlen!

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). - Señor Presidente, este domingo está previsto un referéndum en Crimea, un referéndum totalmente ilegal. Se deriva de una previa ocupación rusa, en clara violación del Derecho internacional. Además, la región de Crimea, conforme a la Constitución ucraniana, no tiene derecho a convocar este tipo de referéndum. Por cierto, la declaración de ayer de la Asamblea de Crimea también es ilegal. Con estas actuaciones, Rusia podrá apoderarse de Crimea, pero desde luego no puede normalizar sus relaciones con la Unión. Más bien, lo contrario: la Unión Europea no puede reconocer ni ese referéndum ni sus resultados.

El referéndum debe ser desconvocado y Rusia debe entablar un diálogo con las autoridades de Kiev en busca de fórmulas de relación respetuosas con la integridad territorial del país —de Ucrania— y el Derecho internacional. La Unión Europea está dispuesta a contribuir a ese diálogo.

Por cierto, ¿qué papel está desempeñando —si es que desempeña alguno— el Presidente del Consejo Europeo, el señor Van Rompuy, en esta crisis? Nosotros, la Unión Europea, no podemos quedarnos indiferentes ante lo que está ocurriendo. Me temo que, desgraciadamente, Rusia y la Unión Europea tienen una visión muy distinta del Derecho internacional y del uso de la fuerza.

Es lamentable que en el siglo XXI subsistan estas diferencias entre países del continente europeo. Deberíamos tener valores, principios e intereses...

(El Presidente retira la palabra al orador)

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). - Invázia Ruska na Krym je pozostatkom sovietskej mentality. Ukrajina a Krym sú európskou záležitosťou a my nesieme za[nbsp ]ňu zodpovednosť. Došlo k narušeniu suverenity Ukrajiny a na Kryme postupuje agresívna ruská invázia. Takzvané referendum je zúfalým pokusom túto situáciu zacementovať.

Musíme využiť všetky dostupné politické a diplomatické prostriedky a využiť naše vlastné prostriedky, všetky, smelo a nebojácne. Treba, aby sme naozaj ukázali, že sme po boku Ukrajiny a že vieme zabrániť ďalšej eskalácii napätia. Treba tiež oceniť Jaceňukovu vládu, ktorá zaujala rozumný postoj a[nbsp ]na[nbsp ]provokácie nereaguje. Takisto ich treba jasne ubezpečiť, že plne stojíme za[nbsp ]demokratickou a slobodnou Ukrajinou.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). - Domnule președinte, discutăm despre invadarea Ucrainei de către Rusia, dar Moscova nu se uită doar spre Crimeea, iar metodele folosite sunt cam aceleași. În februarie, denunțam aici referendumul ilegal organizat, la încurajarea Rusiei, în regiunea Găgăuzia din Republica Moldova. În Crimeea, se va organiza peste câteva zile ceva similar, ce-i drept, după ce soldații ruși au ajuns deja acolo. Folosirea consultării plebiscitare, în afara unui cadru constituțional pentru a marca voința unei puteri străine este o maimuțărire a democrației. Nu cred, în aceste condiții, că mai putem considera Rusia un partener strategic al Uniunii. Consiliul trebuie să adopte sancțiuni foarte dure la adresa lui Putin. Avem datoria de a-l opri pe agresorul rus de la Kremlin, înainte ca el să trimită soldații la vest de Crimeea.

  Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). - Gospodine predsjedniče, jedna od važnih uloga ove rasprave je razotkriti laži propagande koja dolazi iz Kremlja. I doista je laž da je ruska invazija na Krim bila zbog zaštite manjina. Istina je da je to bila manipulacija manjine kao alibi za agresiju, isto kao što je 90-ih Slobodan Milošević koristio manjine kao alibi za agresiju na Hrvatsku, Bosnu i Hercegovinu te Kosovo.

I da, laž je što se trenutno koristi kao dio propagande iz Kremlja, da je Kosovo neki presedan za referendum na Krimu. Nije. I Međunarodni sud pravde u Haagu je potvrdio da nezavisnost Kosova nije ilegalna, jer je Kosovo imao elemente federalne sastavnice bivše jugoslavenske federacije i kao takav, naravno, kad se federacija raspala postao je nezavisna država. Stoga ovdje moramo reći kakve su stvari. Da će referendum u nedjelju biti ilegalan, da je ruska invazija zapravo ilegalna, da je to zapravo agresija na Ukrajinu i na teritorijalnu cjelovitost Ukrajine.

  György Schöpflin (PPE). - Mr President, I want to look beyond the immediate issues, as the Ukraine crisis is not free from the law of unintended consequences. To put it mildly, hitherto the Ukrainian identity has been loose, but the events of the last few months are something else. The unexpected withdrawal from the Association Agreement with the EU by Yanukovych, the subsequent Maidan demonstrations, the revolution that followed the violence, the occupation of the Crimea by stealth, the threat to carve up Ukraine by Russia and, finally, the fear of invasion have combined to cement a new Ukrainian identity.

If ever there was irony history, it is the thought that Yanukovych and Putin should be the new founding fathers of Ukrainian nationhood. But this can be the basis of a new, inclusive Ukrainian citizenship concept – the best guarantee of political stability, of democracy and of hope.

Intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»)

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE). - Priekšsēdētāja kungs! 21. martā Krievijas Dome anektēs Krimu. To Krievija pamato ar tiesībām aizstāvēt savus tautiešus ārvalstīs. Tas ir bīstams koncepts, kas apdraud Eiropas stabilitāti un pastāvošās valstu robežas. Līdz ar šo aneksijas aktu Krievija no neērta Eiropas partnera kļūst par draudu mūsu kontinenta stabilitātei.

Pēc Krimas aneksijas apdraudēti ir Ukrainas austrumu reģioni, tad Moldova, un arī Baltijas valstīm ir pamats uztraukumam. Tāpēc Krievija ir jāaptur tagad. Eiropai ir jāpārskata savas attiecības ar Krieviju, strauji jāmazina atkarība no Krievijas enerģijas resursiem, un tas ir izdarāms pāris gados. Eiropai nekavējoties ir jāvienojas par iedarbīgām sankcijām, kas trāpa Krievijai vissāpīgākajās vietās. Tāpat ir jāaptur Krievijas dalība EDSO un Eiropas Padomē, kuru statūtus Krievija ir rupji pārkāpusi.

Ukrainas krīze apliecina, cik liela nozīme ir transatlantiskajām attiecībām.

(Sēdes vadītājs pārtrauc runātāju.)

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). - Mr President, the real test in the Ukrainian case is whether Russia keeps Crimea or not. In 1994, Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear status against a guarantee of territorial integrity provided by three nuclear states, Russia included. In the event that Russia keeps Crimea, other states will think twice when asked to give up their nuclear status. This will impact negatively on nuclear non-proliferation.

Secondly, European politics will be plunged into the 18th and 19th centuries, when Turkey agreed to cede Crimea to Russia under specific conditions, and when Russia had to give up the Danube following defeat in the Crimean war. Consequently, while Turkey could reclaim Crimea, Russia could again get access to the mouth of the Danube, which would alter the status of the river. Thirdly, and most importantly, it would mean that the European security system had failed and that a new one had to be re-negotiated with a more aggressive Russia.

  Phil Bennion (ALDE). - Mr President, separatism, violence, repression or indeed having to make a choice between Europe and Russia will never be in the interests of the people of Ukraine. However, Ukraine needs to remain at the core of our foreign policy and certainly not be part of our fight against Russia. The interim government of Ukraine was terribly wrong to remove Russian as a national language. I wonder whether they were hoping for reconciliation or for more protests.

However, there was equally no justification whatsoever for the mobilisation of Russian forces, and there can be no fair referendum on the future of Crimea at the point of a Russian gun. Therefore, economic sanctions against Russia must be put into effect if Russia does not stand down, even if this means negative economic consequences for the EU. Whilst we must put pressure on Russia, what is the High Representative doing to ensure that the people of Ukraine ...

(The President cut off the speaker.)

  Tarja Cronberg (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, Mr Kerry has proposed that there be direct talks between Russia and Ukraine. This seems to be impossible, as Russia is saying that the government is illegal and there has been a coup d’état. Therefore, I think multinational frameworks are the only possibility. Our OSCE would be the best solution. Taking the trouble of going to Crimea is, I think, important, and the EU should exert very great pressure so that the OSCE delegation can actually travel to Crimea and multinational negotiations within this framework can take place.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). - Gospodine predsjedniče, razvoj događaja u Ukrajini Hrvatima budi teške uspomene, jer previše podsjeća na sukob nastao raspadom bivše Jugoslavije.

Takozvane obrambene snage okupiraju institucije na teritoriju koje kontrolira jedna etnička skupina, dok Ukrajince nazivaju fašistima i ultranacionalistima. Sve je to davno viđeno u Hrvatskoj i po istom se obrascu blatilo hrvatski narod. Sličnosti jesu zapanjujuće, ali još imamo vremena učiniti razliku. Sukob u Hrvatskoj bio bi vrlo brzo razriješen da se nije dopustila intervencija Jugoslavenske narodne armije i da se Jugoslaviji jasno dalo do znanja da su suverenitet i teritorijalni integritet Hrvatske i Slovenije, a nešto kasnije i Bosne i Hercegovine nepovredivi.

Sada imamo priliku takvu poruku poslati Rusiji. Moramo pomoći Ukrajini u jačanju njezinog unutrašnjeg kapaciteta, kako bi ubuduće ovakve ustavne i političke krize mogla rješavati sama. To ćemo biti u prilici učiniti samo ako Moskvi jasno i glasno poručimo (predsjednik je oduzeo riječ govornici.)

  Χαράλαμπος Αγγουράκης (GUE/NGL). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δεκαπέντε χρόνια μετά τον πόλεμο στη Γιουγκοσλαβία, ΝΑΤΟ, Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες στην αντιπαράθεσή τους με την καπιταλιστική Ρωσία απειλούν με νέο αιματοκύλισμα τους λαούς στην Ευρώπη. Η σύγκρουση γίνεται για τον έλεγχο των αγορών και των δρόμων μεταφοράς ενέργειας και την κυριαρχία των μονοπωλίων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης σε βάρος των ανταγωνιστών τους, για την επιβολή μιας μερίδας αστικής τάξης της Ουκρανίας σε βάρος της άλλης.

Με τη στήριξη Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και ΗΠΑ αναρριχήθηκαν στην κυβέρνηση και φασιστικές δυνάμεις, το οπλισμένο χέρι του κεφαλαίου, για να φέρουν ακόμα μεγαλύτερη εκμετάλλευση, φτώχεια και εξαθλίωση. Αυτή είναι η Ουκρανία που θέλει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες Αμερικής. Αυτό έφερε η ανατροπή του σοσιαλισμού, η επικράτηση των ιμπεριαλιστικών συμμαχιών του κεφαλαίου, η επιβολή άγριων αντιλαϊκών μέτρων εδώ και είκοσι χρόνια. Χρεοκόπησαν τα ψέματα ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα φέρει την ειρήνη και την ευημερία στην Ευρώπη.

Καλούμε τους εργαζόμενους στην Ουκρανία να οργανώσουν την πάλη τους για τη δική τους εξουσία ενάντια σε κάθε ιμπεριαλιστή, ενάντια στα μονοπώλια που γεννούν τον πόλεμο και τον φασισμό.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, the present crisis in Ukraine did not start with a Russian invasion. It started with the EU’s reaction to Ukraine’s rejection of the EU-Ukrainian trade deal. This reaction took the form of the EU’s friends in that country exploiting Ukrainian nationalists to provide paramilitary assistance on the streets. I am no supporter of Mr Yanukovych, of his political or personal background or his tactics against demonstrators. However, the Ukrainian Parliament does not have the power simply to remove the president under Article 108, and it does not appear that the impeachment procedures under Article 111 were followed.

The EU is determined to ensnare Ukraine by bribery and intimidation. I certainly do not view the presence of Russian troops in the Ukraine with equanimity; I would like them to withdraw. However, Russia is reacting to extreme acts of provocation, not just by the EU but also the US. We know this …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Kinga Gál (PPE). - Mi, mindnyájan itt, ahogy a kárpátaljai magyar közösség Ukrajnában is, azok közé tartozik, akik elítélik az erőszakot, és egy szuverén Ukrajna európai integrációjában bíznak. De ez semmiképp nem érhető el a közösség nyelvi jogainak, a kisebbségi nyelvi jogoknak az eltörlésén keresztül.

Érthetetlen, hogy az új ukrán parlament első döntései között miért is vonta vissza a kisebbségek nyelvi jogait szabályozó törvényt, amely az Ukrajnában élő összes kisebbségre, így a százötvenezres kárpátaljai magyar közösségre is vonatkozott.

Az Európai Unió irányába vezető úton a kisebbségi jogok tiszteletben tartása megkérdőjelezhetetlen. Ugyanúgy, mint emlékműveik tiszteletben tartása. Tegnap újra felgyújtottak egy magyar emlékművet ukrán szélsőségesek. Tehát az ukrán helyzet rendezéséhez elengedhetetlen az erőszakmentesség, a párbeszéd, de ugyanúgy a nemzeti kisebbségek jogainak teljes körű tiszteletben tartása is.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). - Ukrajna csak egy módon tartható egyben, regionalizációval, egy valódi föderalizmussal. Hiszen akkora a különbség az ország nyugati és keleti fele között.

Mindenekelőtt törvényben kellene széles körűen biztosítani a kisebbségi jogokat. Ezt eddig egyetlen ukrán vezetés sem szavatolta az elmúlt évtizedben. Elítélendő, hogy tegnap ukrán nacionalisták magyar történelmi emlékhelyet rongáltak meg a Vereckei-hágón. Vissza kellene Ukrajnában állítani az orosz nyelv államnyelvi státuszát, a Krímben pedig az ukrán nyelv státuszát. Krím elszakadása, visszatérése Oroszországhoz nemcsak az orosz területszerző politika eredménye, hanem mögötte milliós orosz tömegek önrendelkezési igénye van. Legfőbb gond jelen pillanatban, hogy egymásnak feszül az orosz és az ukrán nacionalizmus, veszélyeztetve a két nép... (az elnök megvonta a szót a képviselőtől)

  Graham Watson (ALDE). - Mr President, when Russia moved into Georgia in 2008, the European Union acted. Mr[nbsp ]Sarkozy went straight to Moscow and secured the withdrawal of troops.

This time Mrs[nbsp ]Merkel should have gone to Moscow, but the EU blinked – and now, despite our demands, Russia is not talking directly to Ukraine and it is not pulling troops back to their bases. So, in line with last week’s Council conclusions, we must target sanctions at Russia’s policymakers. If Russia continues to back the referendum in the Crimea, to destabilise Ukraine, we will need wider economic sanctions.

But since we insist on dialogue, Europe’s leaders should still go to Moscow: directly, not through a contact group. Europe must face down Russia. We must not leave the leadership to the USA.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, we can call on our draft resolution for as inclusive as possible a government in Ukraine in order to minimise the risk of renewed violence, but how do you hope to minimise such a risk if you do not call for an investigation into the violence which has already taken place? In one recent TV discussion I supposed that in 10 years we will discover who really was behind the snipers in Kiev, the way it was with the snipers in Riga and Vilnius in January 1991.

But today all secrets become open much more quickly. A week ago a record of telephone conversations between Estonian Foreign Minister Paet and Vice-President/High Representative Catherine Ashton appeared on the internet. The Minister told her that there was now an increasingly powerful suspicion that behind the snipers it was not Yanukovych, but somebody from the new coalition.

How can people all over Ukraine – including Crimea – not be afraid of new provocations and murders if Catherine Ashton did not react in any way to this shocking …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, reality is turned on its head by all the contending imperialist forces active in Ukraine. So John Kerry can proclaim, without irony, that you just do not invade another country on a completely trumped-up pretext. Tell that to the people of Iraq or Afghanistan. The EU, which oversees brutal violence against asylum seekers and protestors, becomes a proponent of a so-called democratic revolution, and the homophobic and anti-worker Putin is transformed into an aggressive defender of the rights of minorities.

Look at the character of the new government promoted by the European establishment as a paragon of democracy. There are seven ministers with links to the extreme right, and the interim President has already accepted more IMF austerity measures. It is the oligarchs who still rule Ukraine. Working-class and poor people across Ukraine need to build their own political force. US, NATO, EU: hands off Ukraine. Russian troops out of Ukraine for workers’ rule, not oligarch rule with full…

(The President cut off the speaker.)

(Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am pleased that we also have among us Mr Poroshenko and his delegation. Let me share with you four points which reflect the very important and significant debate you have just had.

Under the first point, let me recall that the referendum organised in Crimea on Sunday infringes the very essence of international law as regards state sovereignty and the inviolability of territorial integrity, as well as the Ukrainian Constitution. It poses a major threat to the stability of borders in Europe.

The European Union condemns the circumstances and the questions proposed for the referendum, which it considers illegal, illegitimate and its outcome invalid. Furthermore, the proposed Russian bill that provides for even easier annexation of foreign territories – on the basis of an alleged threat to a Russian minority there and without a corresponding Treaty with the relevant neighbouring state – would likewise go against international laws and principles.

But this is not only about Crimea. It is the most serious challenge to the Helsinki Process we have seen so far. That is why what is going on in Crimea is happening much closer to us than many of us – many of you – are ready to accept.

Secondly, let us do everything in our power to help the Russian leader not to make yet another grave mistake for which his successors – since history teaches us certain lessons – would have to apologise, as they have already done in the past. Such a mistake would turn the multipolar world into a zero-polar world, where the only rule that applies is that there are no rules.

My third point is that we must help and support Ukraine, not only in its measured reaction so far but also in assisting that country to become a democratic country with an accountable government free of corruption, with justice for all and the active involvement of civil society – a state which guarantees the rights of all citizens and all minorities.

My fourth point is that we should not forget the citizens of Moldova and Georgia – and many others in eastern European regions – who aspire to the values and principles on which the European Union is based.

In conclusion, the Council, the Commission – and, following this debate, I also strongly believe this House – are not only principled, responsible and united in their readiness to adopt concrete measures, but also principled, responsible and united in offering, at the same time, political dialogue to de-escalate the situation and find a peaceful solution, because that is the way forward.

  Dimitrios Kourkoulas, President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, we insist on the need for Russia to engage in a dialogue with Ukraine in order to find a negotiated way out of the crisis, in full respect of international law and the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine. There are a number of bilateral or multilateral mechanisms available. The objectives of this dialogue should be to rebuild confidence between the parties, to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, to protect all citizens against intimidation, and to respect the rights of all minorities.

We remain worried by the lack of any de-escalation on the ground. The referendum organised in Crimea on Sunday infringes international law as regards state sovereignty and the inviolability of territorial integrity, as well as the Ukrainian Constitution. We will not recognise the outcome. The statement of the Heads of State or Government on 6[nbsp ]March[nbsp ]2014 was very clear on this point.

The European Union and the Russian Federation share an important strategic relationship. Some of the Members referred to the energy relationship – to the South Stream. Let me remind you that there is also the North Stream. But, as stated in the statement of the Heads of States of 6[nbsp ]March, the European Union is ready to engage in a frank and open dialogue with the Russian Federation. The EU has a special responsibility for peace, stability and prosperity in Europe. The European Union’s and Russia’s common objective of a relationship based on mutual interest and respect for international obligations needs to be promptly restored.

It would be a matter of great regret if Russia failed to work in that direction. When it comes to measures against Russia, the Heads of State and Government have decided to take a gradual approach. The measures already taken are known. Additional measures are under preparation, including targeted sanctions if there are no signs of de-escalation. Equally, or even more importantly, there are measures to help Ukraine – the President of the Commission has already referred to the economic package. Regarding visa liberalisation for Ukrainian citizens, the European Union supports this objective. In its conclusions of 20[nbsp ]February[nbsp ]2014, the Council encouraged Member States to make optimal use of the flexibilities of the visa code and of the visa facilitation agreement.

Let me conclude by thanking Parliament for organising this debate. It has been valuable for all of us to share our very serious concerns about these developments. I take away from this debate some of the very strong feelings which have been expressed by many Members, and I will relay them to the Council and to the President of the European Council. As I said in my opening remarks, what happens in Ukraine affects us all. We have to work to find a peaceful solution to this crisis in full respect of international law.

  El Presidente. - Para cerrar el debate se han presentado seis propuestas de resolución de conformidad con el artículo 110, apartado 2 del Reglamento.

Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar el jueves, a las 12.00 horas.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 149 del Reglamento)

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – O título deste debate - adotando uma formulação que não vingou no Conselho Europeu - é sobremaneira elucidativo sobre a abordagem da maioria deste Parlamento da situação na Ucrânia. Nem uma palavra sobre o golpe de Estado levado a cabo pelos sectores mais reacionários da oligarquia ucraniana (com o apoio externo), após meses de desestabilização e violência, após o anúncio da suspensão da assinatura do acordo de associação com a UE e instrumentalizando o profundo e justo descontentamento de amplas camadas da população, resultante do desastre social e económico da restauração do capitalismo na Ucrânia nas últimas duas décadas.

Nem uma palavra sobre a brutal ingerência e desestabilização dos EUA, da UE e da NATO na situação interna da Ucrânia que – promovendo e apoiando forças de extrema-direita, neonazis e xenófobas e fomentando o exacerbar de tensões, de divisões e clivagens –, visa assegurar o domínio político, económico e militar deste imenso país. Este é um caminho perigoso, que representa uma acrescida ameaça à segurança e à paz na Europa e no mundo. Denunciamos aqui vivamente a promoção das forças de extrema-direita, de cariz fascista e neonazi, do anticomunismo na Ucrânia – no que constitui uma séria ameaça à democracia, aos direitos e liberdades e à própria integridade e soberania do país.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), na piśmie. – Dobrze, że wielu osobom na Zachodzie otworzyły się oczy. Źle, że stało się to w tak dramatycznych okolicznościach. Źle, że cenę za to otrzeźwienie światowej opinii publicznej płaci niezależna Ukraina. Powinniśmy utrzymywać ten stan „otwartych oczu” i wyciągnąć głębokie wnioski z sytuacji, do której doprowadziła polityka Rosji. To my – między innymi Polacy – mieliśmy rację, mówiąc dużo wcześniej o otwartości na europejskie aspiracje Ukrainy, mówiąc o konieczności zbudowania wspólnej europejskiej polityki energetycznej, o strategicznym znaczeniu dywersyfikacji źródeł energii. Na szczęście nie jest za późno na zmianę polityki UE. Doraźnie trzeba wpierać Ukrainę, chronić jej terytorialną integralność, podpisać umowę stowarzyszeniową, zapewnić skuteczną pomoc finansową. W dłuższym okresie trzeba zmienić orientację europejskiej polityki wobec Rosji. Sankcje oczywiście nie wystarczą. Mogą one mieć znaczenie polityczne i zniechęcić Rosję do nielegalnych działań wobec Ukrainy. Docelowo trzeba jednak zmienić naturę relacji gospodarczych między Rosją a UE w taki sposób, by nie były one wykorzystywane jako narzędzie nacisków politycznych.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – Let us face reality - strategic partnership under Putin is not viable. The current leader of our partner has been exposed of aggression and blatant lying. Mr. Putin can be stopped. As Yulia Tymoshenko stated, he will go as far as he is allowed to go. Putin should be placed first on the list of asset freezes. Arms deals with Russia should be stopped immediately and unconditionally. It is an absolute disgrace that France is about to deliver Russia two supermodern Mistral attack warships, one of them named Sevastopol. Condemning Russian aggression and delivering the aggressor modern arms will destroy all moral credibility of EU. We have to condemn unequovically Russia's self-styled racist doctrine of intervening abroad to defend compatriots there. It carries a shocking similarity to Hitler's aggressive "defence" of German minorities in 1930s. It is a crucial moment for retaining the European system of security and cooperation. There is no room for tiptoeing. We need to cause agressor real pain.

  Маруся Любчева (S&D), в писмена форма. – Задълбочаването на проблемите в Украйна ни задължава да направим широк ситуационен анализ, за да дадем на страната нужната подкрепа по пътя на евроинтеграцията и да й окажем необходимата политическа и финансова помощ. На първо място е необходимо да се задълбочи диалогът с украинския парламент и да бъдат изготвени спешни мерки за туширане на етническото напрежение и съхраняване на етническия мир, като основа за гарантиране на стабилността и териториалната цялост на Украйна. Относно икономическата помощ за Украйна, считам за необходимо отпускането й да бъде дискутирано на по-широка основа в ЕП, като това обсъждане включва и направленията, в които украинската държава следва да усвоява отпуснатите средства. Един открит диалог ще гарантира в по-голяма степен защитата на интересите на европейските граждани и ще даде увереност на украинското общество в сериозността на намеренията на ЕС. Ние трябва да работим за прекратяване на военната окупация на Крим и в защита на териториалната цялост на Украйна, но това минава през диалог и сътрудничество с Русия, а не през нов замразен конфликт. Една открита конфронтация с Русия ще се отрази негативно на всички бъдещи перспективи пред отношенията на ЕС със страните от Източното партньорство.

  Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D), por escrito. – En Ucrania, ha brotado en la plaza de Kiev, en pleno invierno, la primaveral utopía europea con la que tanto hemos soñado siempre los que padecimos una dictadura. Tenemos que apoyar esa lucha de Ucrania por la libertad y la soberanía territorial.

La invasión rusa es intolerable e ilegítima como lo fue en Praga en 1968 o, antes, en Budapest. Ya Napoleón invadió mi país diciendo que era llamado por el rey y el pueblo. Y, salvando las distancias, intolerable es siempre la ocupación militar de parte de Chipre, o la no menos ilegítima del Sáhara Occidental por Marruecos.

Estemos, sin ambigüedades, con estos hermanos europeos de Ucrania, de tanta vocación europeísta, que no es la de los corruptos y evasores de capital de la City londinense, ni la de la extrema derecha, que aquí es tan euroescéptica.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), raštu. – Putino Rusija tapo tarptautinės teisės pažeidėja, laužanti savo prisiimtus susitarimus ir įsipareigojimus. Negalime leisti, kad kažkieno imperinės ambicijos būtų aukščiau taikos, demokratijos ir valstybių suverenumo. Putinas V. Janukovyčiumi naudojasi kaip marionete – galbūt taip, kaip svajoja kontroliuoti Ukrainą. Viešai iš šio asmens tyčiojamasi, bet tuo pačiu teigiama, kad jis tebėra legitimus. Tuo tarpu naujoji Krymo valdžia, kuri buvo „išrinkta“ Krymo parlamentą užėmus ginkluotiems asmenims, Rusijos pusei jokių legitimumo abejonių nekelia. Manau, atitinkamos tarptautinės institucijos turi pateikti savo vertinimą dėl Dūmoje rengiamo įstatymo dėl teritorijų prijungimo prie Rusijos Federacijos. Siekiama kontroliuoti Krymo informacinę erdvę. Putinistinei propagandai yra pajungtos visos įmanomos priemonės. Skleidžiamos melagystės, esą Lietuvoje ir Lenkijoje buvo ruošiami „Euromaidano kovotojai“. Tiek ES, tiek ir žiniasklaidos laisvę ginančios organizacijos turi veiksmingai prisidėti prie žiniasklaidos laisvės visoje Ukrainoje stiprinimo. Reikalingos sankcijos tiems, kurie veikia prieš Ukrainos teritorinį vientisumą ir suverenumą. O tie, kurie tęsia prekiavimą karinėmis technologijomis privalo susimąstyti, ar neveikia prieš pačius save ir savo sąjungininkus. Sveikinu finansines-ekonomines priemones, prisidedant prie Ukrainos vyriausybės reformų bei ekonomikos gelbėjimo, taip pat naujausią Komisijos sprendimą pasiūlyti 500 mln. eurų vertės ekonomines paskatas. Manau, panašias specialiai pritaikytas priemones turime ruošti Moldovai ir Gruzijai.

  Vojtěch Mynář (S&D), písemně. – Sdílím hluboké znepokojení všech kolegů nad vývojem událostí na Ukrajině, zejména pak v souvislosti s událostmi na Krymu. Naše společné obavy rostou a máme k tomu vážný důvod – touto otázkou se zabýváme za posledních pár měsíců poněkolikáté a věci se nezlepšují. Naopak eskalují. 25 let po pádu komunismu se nacházíme zcela nečekaně uprostřed nové studené války. Války, s níž máme historickou zkušenost trvající bezmála půl století. Války, která ve svém dnešním novém vydání jen posunula dělící linie dále na východ. Války, jejíž vznik nikdo z nás ještě zcela nedávno vůbec nepředvídal. A konečně války, která může v krátké době snad přerůst i v něco donedávna nemyslitelného, ve válku horkou. Evropský parlament již poněkolikáté jmenoval příčiny této krize. Vidí je v chování a politice Ruska. Rusko má na věc pohled zcela opačný. Jsme dnes v[nbsp ]situaci, kdy všichni – na Západě i na Východě – máme odpovědnost za to, že v roce stého výročí vypuknutí 1. světové války předejdeme tak nezodpovědnému rozpoutání podobné tragédie, jak tomu bylo tenkrát. Věřím v moudrost a rozvahu nás všech, tady na Západě i tam na Východě. Věřím ve sdílený pocit odpovědnosti nás všech za mír na našem kontinentě.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), písomne. – Súčasná situácia na Ukrajine by nám iba pred pár mesiacmi prišla ako scenár pre nový hollywoodsky thriller. Dianie naberá na obrátkach každú minútu, to, čo nám teraz pripadá ako nepredstaviteľné, môže byť zajtra krutou realitou. Ukrajina je krajina, ktorú vystihuje termín „demokratická tranzícia“, avšak po najaktuálnejších správach sa na tento termín budem pozerať už navždy inak. To všetko sa pritom deje Európskej únii pred dverami. Ukrajinci sa ani nestihli spamätať z jednej revolúcie a teraz majú ďalšiu, aby toho nebolo málo, pridali sa k tomu aj občianske nepokoje, ktoré v posledných dňoch Majdanu pripomínali občiansku vojnu. Zlatým klincom programu, samozrejme, zostáva vyostrenie sporu o Ruskom, ktoré si pod zámienkou ochrany ruského obyvateľstva žijúceho v južnej časti Ukrajiny dovolilo obsadiť polostrov Krym. Krajinu naďalej zmietajú tak protiruské, ako aj proruské protesty. Protiruskí demonštranti na juhovýchode krajiny požadujú samostatnosť, takže je v hre aj rozdelenie Ukrajiny. Kroky Ruska sú odsúdeniahodné ako zo strany samotnej Ukrajiny, tak aj zo strany medzinárodného spoločenstva, kríza preto výrazne ovplyvní aj vzťahy EÚ a Ruska. Jediné čo nám preto zostáva, je dúfať v skoré a diplomatické riešenie konfliktu, ktorému môže dopomôcť pevné, ale hlavne jednotné stanovisko EÚ.

  Tonino Picula (S&D), napisan. – Mislim da smo dobili odgovore na često postavljeno pitanje kako će teći postsovjetska tranzicija ne samo u Rusiji nego u njezinom geopolitičkom okruženju. Ali dobivamo i odgovore na pitanja koliko je danas djelotvoran globalni sigurnosni sustav postavljen u San Franciscu 1944. (UN) i prilagođen u Helsinkiju 1975. (OESS). Taj je sustav primarno zamišljen da sprječava sukobe između država, a ne unutar država. Ukoliko ne reagiraju na adekvatan način, SAD i EU riskiraju da će ih pregaziti događaji koji su izvan njihove kontrole, jer jedna od lekcija koja se pokazala nakon tromjesečne krize je da Putin Ukrajinu želi više nego što je želi Zapad. Putin zna da bi ulazak Ukrajine u EU doveo do strateškog povlačenja ovakve Rusije u azijsku dubinu. Najprije je upozoravao Ukrajince da se ne zavaravaju obećanjima Zapada o bržem ulasku u EU jer će imati, poput Turske, tek status „vječnog kandidata”. Kada je već ukrajinski narod odbacio ta uvjeravanja, EU nikako ne smije odbaciti europska nastojanja ukrajinskog naroda.

  Franck Proust (PPE), par écrit. – Sur le dossier ukrainien, nous devons rappeler qu'il faut une réponse ferme pour s'opposer à l'ingérence russe. Mais je le dis sans détour: nous, Européens, manquons de répondant. Notre diplomatie commune est muette. Et ne parlons pas de notre défense...Dans ce genre de situations, nous devons justement nous exprimer d'une seule voix.

  Algirdas Saudargas (PPE), raštu. – Rusija pažeidė tarptautinę teisę, sulaužė savo pačios pasirašytus įsipareigojimus. Visi kalbantieji Europos Parlamente dėl to sutaria. ES vadovai ir jos valstybių narių vyriausybės ėmėsi priemonių, numatė finansinę paramą Ukrainai. Šiandien, deja, neužtenka sugriežtinti vizų išdavimą ar užšaldyti bankų sąskaitas užsienyje. Europos Sąjunga turi iš esmės persvarstyti savo politiką Rusijos atžvilgiu. Žinoma, kad abiems pusėms yra nenaudinga keisti nusistovėjusius ES ir Rusijos ekonominius santykius, tačiau turime kažką paaukoti norėdami realių pokyčių, antraip, pasekmės ES kainuos dar daugiau. Reikia ryžtingų ir efektyvių sprendimų ES santykiuose su Rusija energetikoje ir ypač ginklų prekyboje. Ukraina yra ant realaus karo slenksčio ir jos saugumas turi būti mūsų visų prioritetas, todėl šiandien reikia greitų ir griežtų sprendimų valstybių vadovų lygmeniu.

  Boris Zala (S&D), písomne. – Kolegovia, to, čo sa dnes deje v[nbsp ]Ukrajine, je pokus zmeniť geopolitický pomer síl v Európe. A nielen to: aj princípy povojnového usporiadania. Nie je prípustné, aby sa zas začali používať a zneužívať menšiny na zmenu hraníc medzi štátmi. Tieto metódy viedli k druhej svetovej vojne a my ich dnes nesmieme pripustiť za žiadnu cenu. Áno, je našou chybou, že sme Rusku v[nbsp ]90-tych rokoch neposkytli garancie bezpečnosti pri bezhlavom rozširovaní NATO. Dnes sa Rusko snaží o svoju bezpečnosť vytváraním sfér vplyvu a anexiou rôznych teritórií. Je to imperiálna expanzia a to práve zneužívaním vlastných menšín v[nbsp ]susedných štátoch. V prípade Ukrajiny nás to priviedlo na okraj vojenskej konfrontácie. Ale tu nesmie Európa ukázať slabosť, opačne, musí ukázať silu. Slabosť EÚ nepovedie k de-eskalácií konfliktu, ako si niektorí myslia, ale práve k[nbsp ]ruskému pocitu sily a pokusom o ďalšie expanzie. Musíme tak vo vnútri EÚ dať jasne najavo, že žiadna menšinová politika susedných štátov nesmie viesť ku zmene hraníc a že EÚ nikde v Európe takýto postup nepodporí, opačne, musí byť odhodlaná mu zabrániť všetkými prostriedkami. Inak nám hrozí vojnový chaos v celej Európe.

  Milan Zver (PPE), pisno. – Evropska unija in Nato sta v primeru ruske invazije na Ukrajino za zdaj izgubila bitko. Trdno pa verjamem, da vojne ne bomo izgubili, da končni izid ne bo takšen. Ruskemu predsedniku Putinu je uspelo uresničiti prvi diplomatski cilj, t.i. "zamrznjen konflikt", s čimer lahko oteži evro-atlantske integracije Ukrajine. Evropska unija je rusko invazijo pričakala nepripravljena. Kako je to sploh mogoče glede na špekulacije nekaterih posameznikov iz levega pola parlamenta, ki radi govorijo o vsemogočnosti Zahoda, ko gre za prisluškovanje? Ruski geostrateški cilji gredo seveda dlje od Ukrajine, vse do Jadrana. Kaj narediti, kako jih zaustaviti? Menim, da si moramo prizadevati za uvedbo takojšnjih sankcij proti Rusiji, poskrbeti za to, da EU pripravi sporazume še z drugimi državami v regiji, kot sta na primer Moldavija in Gruzija ter pospešiti širitveni proces, vključno z Balkanom.

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND
Vizepräsident

  Der Präsident. - Die zuständigen italienischen Behörden haben mich von der Wahl von Herrn Giovanni Barbagallo mit Wirkung vom 11. März 2014 in Kenntnis gesetzt. Herr Barbagallo tritt an die Stelle von Frau Francesca Barracciu.

Gemäß Artikel 7 Absatz 1 des Akts zur Einführung allgemeiner unmittelbarer Wahlen der Abgeordneten des Europäischen Parlaments sowie gemäß Artikel 4 der Geschäftsordnung nimmt das Parlament die Wahl von Herrn Giovanni Barbagallo mit Wirkung vom 11. März 2014 zur Kenntnis.

Ich heiße den neuen Kollegen willkommen und erinnere daran, dass er gemäß Artikel 3 Absatz 2 der Geschäftsordnung mit vollen Rechten an den Sitzungen des Parlaments und seiner Organe teilnimmt, solange sein Mandat nicht geprüft oder über eine etwaige Anfechtung nicht befunden worden ist, und vorausgesetzt, dass er zuvor schriftlich erklärt hat, dass er kein Amt innehat, das mit der Ausübung eines Mandats als Mitglied des Europäischen Parlaments unvereinbar ist.

⁂

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, je voudrais porter à la connaissance du Parlement européen des faits extrêmement graves qui se produisent au sein de la République française, qui portent atteinte à la démocratie et à l'état de droit et qui sont des violations des libertés individuelles. Un ancien président de la République, des anciens ministres, des avocats ont été mis sur écoute téléphonique dans des conditions judiciaires discutables. Cinq cent avocats ont considéré qu'il s'agissait d'une dérive inacceptable de la démocratie et des libertés individuelles. La ministre de la justice a semblé mentir et a été contredite par son Premier ministre. Monsieur le Président, l'article 7 de la charte des droits fondamentaux indique que toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privée et familiale, de son domicile et de ses communications.

Au moment où nous allons voter le rapport Moraes sur les écoutes de la NSA, je demande si la Commission européenne ne pourrait pas examiner si la République française a respecté les droits fondamentaux dans cette affaire et, dans la négative, si une procédure d'infractions ne pourrait pas être engagée.

(Applaudissements à droite)

  Der Präsident. - Vielen Dank, Herr Audy. Ich werde den Präsidenten entsprechend unterrichten.

  Der Präsident. - Als nächster Punkt folgt die Abstimmungsstunde.

– Vor der Abstimmung:

  Jan Philipp Albrecht, rapporteur. - Mr President, just a few words. Let me say to you that we are having a very important vote. It is on the Single Data Protection Regulation, and I thank the shadow rapporteurs of all the political groups very much for the fact that we have reached such a fair consensus and a very good compromise in this House on the Data Protection Regulation.

Let me call once again on the Council to come up with a general approach. After two years of negotiations, we can expect that to happen so that we can present European citizens with a good regulation which protects the fundamental right to data protection and creates a digital single market.

(Applause)

– Vor der Abstimmung:

  Edit Bauer, rapporteur. - Mr President, I would like to clarify, as you have plenty of misleading information in your mailboxes, that Amendment 64 is not an alternative resolution. It is the text that we successfully negotiated with the Lithuanian Presidency and which was adopted by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. I would like to ask you to support this text.

 Nach der Schlussabstimmung:

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. - The Commission is making a statement on the issue of the contracting authority in Copernicus and has sent a statement to this effect to Parliament’s services for the records of the plenary sitting. We would also like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work.

Commission’s position on amendments by Parliament

Report: Vittorio Prodi (A7-0027/2014)

Following the agreement by the European Parliament and the Council to include Copernicus in the MFF as a European Union programme, the financial management of this programme is now subject to the provisions of Article 317 of TFEU according to which the Commission has the obligation to implement the budget under its own responsibility.

The Commission, in executing such an obligation, is accountable to the European Parliament and to the Council.

The budget of Copernicus will, inter alia, be devoted to the procurement and purchase of the satellites for the space component, their launching into orbit, costs related to maintaining them in operation as well as expenditure related to enabling the provision of services. The implementation of the budget will therefore involve a large number of contracts, contract change notices and work orders with a high degree of technical and project management complexity. In order to make the best use of available technical expertise and experience in the relevant areas, particularly in relation to procuring the space component, the Commission will conclude delegation agreements with ESA and EUMETSAT, as foreseen by the Regulation. The Commission intends to entrust ESA and EUMETSAT with the role of contracting authority for the majority of the contracts, including developmental, operational and co-funded activities. Thus, ESA and EUMETSAT will be provided with the necessary flexibility to implement Copernicus and the ability to effectively conduct day-to-day contract management.

The Commission will only remain contracting authority where it deems this to be essential for the fulfilment of its basic obligations under the Treaty, the Copernicus Regulation and the Financial Regulation.

The Commission recalls that Member States will be involved before the final decision on the delegation agreements is taken, as provided for in the Regulation.

– Vor der Abstimmung über Ziffer 17:

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE). - Mr President, my colleague Mr[nbsp ]Kovatchev asked me to present this. We would like to propose an oral amendment to paragraph[nbsp ]16 in the fifth row from the end, after the words ‘European integration’, to add: ‘In this regard reminds that projects such as South Stream increase the EU’s dependency on Russian gas’. I think this is very important at the moment.

(Der mündliche Änderungsantrag wird übernommen.)

– Nach der Abstimmung über Ziffer 17:

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). - Signor Presidente, quando lei chiede se ci sono obiezioni, deve dare il tempo tecnico di sollevare la scheda e alzarsi a chi intende opporsi a un emendamento. Perché se lei dice c'è qualcuno che si oppone e in un nanosecondo poi mette in votazione l'emendamento, è chiaro che non ci sarà nessuno così veloce da scattare in piedi.

Io mi sarei opposto all'emendamento, mi sono alzato ma non ho fatto in tempo neanche a farmi notare. Probabilmente l'avrebbe fatto anche qualcun altro. Quindi se per cortesia, quando mette in voto gli emendamenti orali e chiede se c'è qualcuno che si oppone prima guardi, per rispetto al regolamento.

  Der Präsident. - Herr Kollege! Ich schaue immer. Es erheben sich dann meistens einige. Wenn nur einer aufsteht, dann kommen meistens nicht viele dazu. Im Übrigen, wenn ich das richtig gesehen habe, waren es auch danach bei der Abstimmung kaum 40[nbsp ]Kollegen, die dann am Ende dagegen gestimmt haben. Ich gebe mir große Mühe.

– Vor der Abstimmung:

  Salvatore Iacolino, relatore. - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sarò rapidissimo. Dopo molti anni di attesa la procura europea potrebbe a breve diventare realtà. Ringrazio i colleghi shadow per aver contribuito con idee e considerazioni a migliorare il testo, seppure apprezzabile, presentato dalla Commissione.

Il contrasto alle frodi europee che sottraggono ogni anno centinaia di milioni di euro potrà meglio e più efficacemente essere contrastato da un organismo agile e snello che garantisca tuttavia rapidità di decisioni e soprattutto procedure di difesa nei confronti degli indagati. Confidiamo che il numero maggiore possibile di Stati membri possa condividere il progetto europeo di un organismo, la procura europea, che difende l'economia lecita e i cittadini dell'Unione europea.

– Vor der Abstimmung über Ziffer 24:

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE). - Mr President, as an addition at the end of paragraph 24, which deals with the religious issues, we suggest the following sentence: ‘Calls on the Yargitay court to reverse its decision converting the historic Hagia Sophia Church in Trabzon as a mosque and push for its immediate re-opening as a museum’.

(Der mündliche Änderungsantrag wird übernommen.)

– Vor der Abstimmung über Bezugsvermerk 13:

  Michael Gahler (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Es geht nur darum, der Vollständigkeit halber da ein Datum einer Sitzung zu ergänzen. Es geht um das letzte Treffen in Archangelsk im November 2013. Also nur faktisch eine Ergänzung.

(Der mündliche Änderungsantrag wird übernommen.)

Der Präsident. – Damit ist die Abstimmungsstunde geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung

  Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D), in writing. - This resolution turns the spotlight on the social and economic situation in Pakistan. Pakistan has one of the highest out-of-school populations in the world, with an estimated 12 million children not attending school and about two thirds of Pakistani women and half of Pakistani men being illiterate. The country is still ranked 134th out of 135 countries in the World Economic Forum’s ‘gender gap’ report. According to the Global Climate Risk Index, Pakistan is among the twelve countries most affected by climate change in the last twenty years, has suffered severe flooding and water shortages and is directly affected by the glacial retreat on the Himalayas and Karakorum ranges. Pakistan is a semi-industrialised, lower- to middle-income country, with around one third of its population living below the poverty line. Pakistan is ranked in 146th place among the 187 countries listed in the 2012 Human Development Index (HDI), down from 145th place in the listing for 2011. The economic situation of Pakistan has been harmed by successive natural disasters. Pakistan has a high level of insecurity, instability and widespread corruption, which weaken its economic growth and limit the government’s ability to develop the state.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. - Aprovo o presente relatório considerando que, o Paquistão é vulnerável a uma vasta gama de riscos, nomeadamente inundações e sismos e que a volatilidade da situação de segurança e os desafios sociais do Paquistão estão a contribuir para o aumento da sua vulnerabilidade. Para além disso, tendo ainda em conta que as catástrofes ocorridas nos últimos anos esgotaram as estratégias de resposta das comunidades já empobrecidas e reduziram drasticamente a sua resistência a futuras catástrofes, considero que o objetivo do plano quinquenal de empenhamento celebrado em 2012 entre a União Europeia e o Paquistão consiste em desenvolver uma relação estratégica e estabelecer uma parceria para a paz e o desenvolvimento assente em valores e princípios comuns. Recordo que a questão da desigualdade e do caráter feudal da propriedade fundiária nas zonas rurais do Paquistão continua por resolver e que 2,5 % da população detêm 40 % das terras, ao passo que cerca de metade da população rural não detém propriedade. Por último, saliento que a falta de terra e de acesso a água de irrigação e a outras instalações de produção perpetuam a pobreza rural e a instabilidade social.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce rapport d'initiative émanant de la commission des affaires étrangères sur le rôle régional du Pakistan et les relations politiques de ce pays avec l'Union européenne.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. - Am votat în favoarea raportului, deoarece Pakistanul trebuie să reprezinte un factor de stabilitate într-o regiune în care există foarte multe tulburări. De asemenea, Pakistanul este un partener important al Uniunii în eforturile de combatere a terorismului, criminalității organizate și proliferării nucleare. Totuși, mă declar și eu preocupată de existența unor rapoarte care arată că Pakistanul ar putea exporta tehnologie nucleară către state terțe. Astfel de acțiuni ar pune în pericol atât stabilitatea regională, cât și cea globală, având serioase repercusiuni asupra angajamentului de neproliferare nucleară.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. - La relazione Zala sul ruolo regionale del Pakistan e le sue relazioni politiche con l'UE risulta ben ponderata e priva di particolari criticità, per questi motivo ho votato in suo favore.

  Zdravka Bušić (PPE), napisan. - Europska unija prepoznaje suvremene geopolitičke izazove, a to je važno za održavanje sigurnosti i stabilnosti država članica. Pozdravljam demokratizaciju Pakistana i rad tamošnjih vlasti u borbi protiv terorizma, ali i u sprječavanju trgovine oružjem i drogom. Veseli me sve čvršća gospodarska suradnja, što potvrđuje uključivanje Pakistana u opći sustav trgovinskih povlastica Europske unije. Približavanje Kine i Pakistana osigurava bolju budućnost i veću stabilnost u Južnoj Aziji. Prepoznajem problem izrabljivanja djece koja su prisiljena na rad, a podatak UNESCO-a iz 2012. o gotovo 2,5 milijuna djece u dobi od 10 i 14 godina prisiljene na rad - to i potvrđuje. Pozivam da ubuduće radimo na politikama koje će potpuno iskorijeniti dječji rad u Pakistanu i omogućiti pakistanskoj djeci da sudjeluju u školovanju kako bi se smanjio postotak od oko 55[nbsp ]% nepismenih u toj zemlji. Vjerujem da je postizanje tih ciljeva među strateškim interesima vanjske politike Europske unije. Podržavam ovo izvješće jer omogućuje još bolju suradnju između Europske unije i Pakistana.

  Lara Comi (PPE), per iscritto. - Per il suo ruolo strategico nella regione asiatica il Pakistan è certamente un paese che con cui l'Unione europea deve collaborare in modo serio e costruttivo: credo che questa relazione proposta dalla Commissione AFET vada quindi nella direzione di intensificare i rapporti già esistenti, senza però dimenticare gli elementi che possono creare attrito tra Unione e Pakistan e che si vogliono superare per costruire una partnership più coesa.

Voto a favore per un ruolo più forte dell'Unione nell'arena internazionale, per un'Unione che non abbia paura di far sentire la propria voce quando, ad esempio, i diritti umani non vengono rispettati, o quando la proliferazione nucleare minacci tutti noi. Molti progressi sono stati compiuti in Pakistan e le elezioni del marzo 2013 ne sono un esempio. L'UE intende incoraggiare le élite politiche a consolidare le istituzioni democratiche, lo Stato di diritto, la sicurezza e la Magistratura. Ma ancora molto c'è da fare in materia di rispetto dei diritti umani, di istruzione femminile o della tutela delle minoranze religiose. Infine, sono a favore di una più ampia strategia europea per la regione, come richiesto, migliorando i rapporti anche con India, Cina e Iran.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), par écrit. – Par le vote de ce texte, le Parlement européen a souhaité rappeler l'importance d'une bonne coopération avec le Pakistan et encourage la consolidation démocratique qui s'opère dans ce pays. Il me semble toutefois important de souligner les progrès que le Pakistan doit encore accomplir dans de nombreux domaines, et notamment en matière de protection des minorités religieuses. Les agressions commises à l'encontre des chrétiens et d'autres minorités religieuses doivent être condamnées. J'appuie cet appel du Parlement européen en faveur du respect de la liberté de religion.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. - I welcome this discussion on the EU’s relationship with Pakistan as it again affords me a platform to place a spotlight on the persecution of Christians in Pakistan. The Committee’s report strongly condemns the anti-blasphemy laws in place in Pakistan, which disproportionately impact religious minorities and adds another element of fear in the lives of those with a Christian faith. Only in August, charges against a Muslim cleric accused of framing a Christian girl for blasphemy were dropped. And I would echo calls for these laws to be removed. This report also rightly stresses the need for the Pakistani authorities to further strengthen the fight against Islamic Extremist terrorism and support the rule of law. This approach is vital. Pakistan remains one of the main recipients of EU development assistance. And ultimately, it is in this context that I feel this Parliament should better place the need for an end to injustices against religious minorities at the core of its negotiations moving forward.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. - O Paquistão desempenha um importante papel de influência no seu contexto regional. A questão de não ser subscritor do TNPN e ao mesmo tempo dispor de armamento nuclear torna-o uma potência regional. A presença de grupos terroristas no país e a sua proximidade com zonas de conflito tornam de suma importância que as relações entre UE e Paquistão se intensifiquem de forma se serem um motor de a estabilidade na região, fazendo os possíveis para que se torne subscritor do TNPN. As relações políticas entre UE e Paquistão deverão intensificar-se como forma de alargar às relações comerciais.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. - Pakistan poznačili prírodné katastrofy, ktoré poškodzujú jeho hospodárstvo a spomaľujú jeho vývoj, čoho dôkazom je aj pokles v rámci zoznamu indexu ľudského rozvoja. Sociálne rozdiely v krajine sa zväčšujú v dôsledku pretrvávajúcich nebezpečenstiev v podobe záplav a zemetrasení. V krajine pretrváva problém nerovnomerného feudálneho vlastníctva pôdy, keď malý počet ľudí vlastní takmer 40[nbsp ]% pôdy a ostatní majú sťažený prístup k zavlažovaniu a iným výrobným zariadeniam, čo vo vidieckych oblastiach podnecuje k násiliu a rozširuje sociálnu nestabilitu. Pre rozvoj Pakistanu je veľmi dôležitá postupná reforma v oblasti ľudských práv a slobody médií. Rovnako bude v budúcnosti potrebná aj veľká reforma vzdelávacieho systému a zlepšenie v oblasti postavenia žien, pretože v spoločnosti nebadať žiadne zlepšenie v boji proti domácemu násiliu a trestnej činnosti. Európska únia vyjadrila znepokojenie nad pakistanskými zákonmi v oblasti rúhania, ktoré často krát vedú k trestu smrti a zneužívajú sa na boj s politickými protivníkmi. Pakistanské orgány musia urobiť potrebné kroky, aby splnili medzinárodné záväzky, ktoré budú viesť k zlepšeniu pracovných podmienok a bezpečnostných noriem.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. - I voted in favour of this report and fully support deeper EU engagement with Pakistan. As the report rightly notes, Pakistan is an important player in regional and international politics. Scotland is a country with an important community of Pakistani origin and I am sure that any moves to enhance EU-Pakistani cooperation will be especially welcomed by this community.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du rapport de mon collègue Boris Zala sur le rôle régional du Pakistan et sur les relations politiques de ce pays avec l'Union européenne. Le rapport souligne que les progrès politiques et économiques récents du Pakistan demeurent entravés par des problèmes de sécurité à l'intérieur du pays et au niveau de la région. Il encourage le Pakistan à rétablir l'autorité de l'État et à préserver son intégrité territoriale. Il appelle également ce pays à interdire l'exportation de tout matériel lié aux armes nucléaires ainsi qu'à assurer le respect des droits fondamentaux des femmes et de la liberté de religion et de conviction. Le rapport indique également que les relations entre l'Union et le Pakistan ont besoin d'être approfondies, notamment grâce au dialogue politique. Je me félicite de son adoption.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. - La relazione posta al voto durante la sessione odierna si riferisce al ruolo regionale e alle relazioni politiche del Pakistan con l’Unione europea. Con essa il Parlamento europeo incoraggia e sostiene gli sforzi del governo pakistano volti al consolidamento della democrazia, alla lotta contro il terrorismo e alla criminalità organizzata. Guardiamo anche con estrema attenzione alla relazione con la Cina e alla stabilità geopolitica della zona, alle relazioni commerciali, nonché agli sforzi per porre rimedio a tutte le violazioni dei diritti umani. Inoltre, il Parlamento europeo, incoraggia il Pakistan e l’Unione a cooperare nel processo di attuazione e a monitorare con costanza i progressi, potenziando il dialogo tra le due parti nel lungo temine.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), par écrit. – Mercredi 12[nbsp ]mars, le Parlement européen a adopté un rapport d'initiative sur le rôle régional du Pakistan et sur les relations politiques de ce pays avec l'Union européenne.

Nous avons demandé au Pakistan d'interdire les exportations d'armes nucléaires et de prendre des mesures plus ambitieuses afin de limiter les possibilités de recrutement et d'entraînement des terroristes dans ce pays. Nous avons encouragé les Pakistanais à jouer un rôle constructif dans le renforcement de la stabilité régionale, en particulier celle de l'Afghanistan après le retrait des troupes de l'OTAN. Nous avons souhaité un approfondissement des relations entre le Pakistan et l'Union européenne, en particulier en matière de coopération politique et de sécurité. Enfin, nous avons tenu à saluer les progrès relatifs de la démocratie et des droits de l'homme dans ce pays et à l'encourager à poursuivre ses efforts.

J'ai voté en faveur de ce rapport car je considère qu'il est très important que l'Union européenne puisse s'appuyer sur le Pakistan pour maintenir une relative stabilité en Asie du sud-est et éviter la prolifération du terrorisme.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), na piśmie. - Sprawozdanie koncentruje się na regionalnej roli Pakistanu, zwłaszcza w związku z konfliktem w Afganistanie i w związku ze stosunkami z Indiami. Wspomina także o wielu wewnętrznych problemach strukturalnych Pakistanu, takich jak brak rozwoju obszarów wiejskich, trwała niestabilność polityczna, prawa i praktyki ograniczające wolność słowa, w szczególności poprzez wprowadzenie ustawy o bluźnierstwie. Raport wzywa Pakistan, jak również Indie, do przystąpienia do Traktatu o nierozprzestrzenianiu broni jądrowej masowego rażenia w celu udowodnienia dobrej woli w zakresie zachowania bezpieczeństwa międzynarodowego i nierozprzestrzeniania broni jądrowej.

  Ivana Maletić (PPE), napisan. - Samo snažne političke i socioekonomske reforme mogu pridonijeti izgradnji održivih demokratskih institucija i jačanju javnih institucija i zakonodavstva u Pakistanu. Podržavam ovo izvješće i u njemu poziv Pakistanu da zakonski zabrani izvoz svih nuklearnih materijala te da potpiše i ratificira Ugovor o neširenju (NPT) koji bi bio pokazatelj snažne predanosti mirnom regionalnom suživotu i pridonošenja sigurnosti u regiji. Također podržavam daljnje napore Pakistana u borbi protiv terorizma i ohrabrujem vlasti da poduzmu daljnje korake za dodatno ograničavanje mogućnosti zapošljavanja i obuke terorista u Pakistanu. Odnosi Pakistana s Kinom jačaju geopolitičku stabilnost u jugoistočnoj Aziji, a snažan napredak u dijalogu s Indijom služi izbjegavanju incidenata u Kašmiru. Bilateralni odnosi EU-a i Pakistana i dalje će težiti poboljšanju ljudskih prava, točnije u iskorjenjivanju ropskog rada i trgovine ljudima, suzbijanju rodno uvjetovanog nasilja, promicanju slobode govora i nezavisnih medija, ukidanju smrtne kazne, te razvoju pouzdanog pravnog i pravosudnog sustava na svim razinama. Ističem važnost Strateškog dijaloga i Petogodišnjeg plana suradnje koji su usmjereni u učvršćivanje suradnje na području političke suradnje, trgovine, sigurnosti, obrane i ljudskih prava.

  Véronique Mathieu Houillon (PPE), par écrit. – J’ai voté en faveur du rapport, qui encourage le renforcement des institutions démocratiques et de l’état de droit au Pakistan. L’engagement constant de ce pays en faveur de la lutte contre le terrorisme est également positif. Ses autorités sont encouragées à prendre des mesures plus ambitieuses afin de limiter davantage les possibilités de recrutement et d’entraînement dans le cadre du terrorisme.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. - O papel estratégico do Paquistão, as suas relações de vizinhança e as relações UE-Paquistão assumem cada vez maior relevância para a UE, dada a localização crucial do país no coração de uma região volátil, a sua centralidade para a segurança e o desenvolvimento da Ásia Central e do Sul, bem como o seu papel fundamental no combate ao terrorismo, à não proliferação, ao tráfico de droga e de pessoas e a outras ameaças transnacionais, que afetam, no seu conjunto, a segurança e o bem-estar dos cidadãos europeus. As eleições de Março de 2013 vieram consolidar a democracia no Paquistão, julgo ser importante que esta se torne cada vez mais forte, face à grande importância deste país no equilíbrio geoestratégico da região em que se insere.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Ce rapport établit des constats parfois lucides et offre une vision complète de ce qui devrait être une démocratie digne de ce nom. Cela est digne d'être remarqué, émanant d'une institution le plus souvent vouée à ânonner les principes de la "démocratisation néo-libérale".

Pour autant, de nombreuses zones de flou persistent. Ce rapport n'établit aucune responsabilité internationale dans la situation sécuritaire du pays. Et pour cause, cela l'obligerait à admettre le caractère désastreux de l'intervention de l'OTAN. Dès lors on comprend qu'il se bornera à quelques remarques minimalistes sur l'usage des drones. Rien n'est dit sur l'armement nucléaire du pays, ni sur sa politique à l'égard de l'Inde. Je préfère donc m'abstenir sur ce texte.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), por escrito. - No he podido votar a favor del presente informe ya que, si bien contiene justificadas referencias a la erradicación de la pobreza, no condena en ningún momento las intervenciones del ejército de los Estados Unidos de América en territorio pakistaní. El informe tan solo «toma nota» de los bombardeos realizados con drones que han acabado con la vida de numerosos civiles. Se trata de los primeros experimentos de este tipo de crímenes de guerra que no pueden ser perseguidos al carecer, según algunas doctrinas del Derecho internacional humanitario, de actor material de los hechos. El empleo de este tipo de armas puede sentar graves precedentes y es por esto por lo que, a pesar de compartir parte de las críticas realizadas en este informe, no he podido votar a su favor.

  Marlene Mizzi (S&D), in writing. - Strengthening Pakistanʼs parliamentary institutions in their core functions of legislation, oversight and representation is a priority for EU-Pakistan relations. I voted in favour of this report.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), raštu. - Europos Parlamentas pastebi Pakistano vyriausybės pastangas stiprinti santykius su ES, kuri siekia plėtoti bendradarbiavimą su šia šalimi vystymosi ir regioninio saugumo stiprinimo klausimais. ES sudarė galimybę Pakistanui nuo 2014[nbsp ]m. naudotis prekybos lengvatų sistema, taip prisidėdama prie Pakistano ekonomikos stiprinimo. EP taip pat pažymi 2013[nbsp ]m. gegužės mėn. rinkimų svarbą demokratijos ir civilinio valdymo įtvirtinimui šioje šalyje. Tačiau dar reikia didelių pastangų, kad būtų sukurta tvari demokratija ir pliuralistinė visuomenė, užtikrintas didesnis socialinis teisingumas, panaikintas didelis skurdas, padidintas pagrindinio švietimo lygis, pagerintas mergaičių ir moterų švietimas ir padėtis, pasirengta klimato kaitos padariniams, sustiprintas regioninis bendradarbiavimas kovojant su prekyba žmonėmis, narkotikais ir prekėmis. Pakistanas gali ir turi vaidinti svarbų vaidmenį kovoje su terorizmu ir radikalizacija šalyje ir už jos sienų. Ypač didelį nerimą kelia Pakistano ketinimai pradėti prekybą branduoliniais ginklais.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. - Sveikintina, kad pavyko padaryti akivaizdžią pažangą stiprinant dvišalius santykius. Priimtas penkerių metų bendradarbiavimo planas ir pradėtas ES ir Pakistano strateginis dialogas parodo, kad šalys siekia dar labiau stiprinti politinį ir saugumo srities bendradarbiavimą. Tačiau labai svarbu, kad Pakistanas tinkamai įgyvendintų tarptautines žmogaus teisių, darbo teisių srities, taip pat su aplinkosauga ir geru valdymu susijusias konvencijas. Manau reikia ir toliau stiprinti demokratines institucijas, teisinę valstybę, pilietinę visų viešojo administravimo sričių kontrolę, skatinti vidaus ir regiono saugumą, vykdyti valdymo reformas, didinti skaidrumą ir aktyvinti kovą su organizuotu nusikalstamumu. Be to labai svarbu, kad būtų imtasi efektyvesnių priemonių mažinant socialinį neteisingumą bei užkertant kelią bet kokiems žmogaus teisių pažeidimams.

Tik įgyvendinus tarptautinės teisės nuostatas, Pakistanas atliks konstruktyvų vaidmenį stiprinant regiono stabilumą.

  Gilles Pargneaux (S&D), par écrit. – J’ai voté en faveur de ce rapport d’initiative qui souligne que le rôle stratégique du Pakistan dans la région. Ses relations avec ses voisins et avec l'Union européenne revêtent une importance majeure et grandissante pour l'Union. Les élections législatives de mars[nbsp ]2013 ont marqué le premier passage de pouvoir, dans l'histoire moderne du Pakistan, entre deux gouvernements civils élus. Néanmoins, les progrès politiques et économiques du pays sont entravés par des problèmes de sécurité omniprésents à l'intérieur du pays et au niveau de la région (l'extrémisme, le fanatisme, les attentats suicides et les assassinats ciblés).

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. - O presente relatório versa sobre o papel regional do Paquistão e as suas relações políticas com a UE. A União deve reforçar o seu apoio ao Paquistão democrático, seguro e bem governado, com um sistema judicial independente e uma boa governação que respeite o Estado de direito e os direitos humanos. Em matérias de segurança é extremamente necessário que o governo paquistanês cumpra as suas obrigações e responsabilidades. É, também, importante deixar claro às autoridades paquistanesas que é inaceitável a exportação de armas nucleares para países terceiros. Concordo com o relator que a assinatura e ratificação, pelo Paquistão, do Tratado de Não Proliferação das Armas Nucleares é um passo necessário. Por concordar com exposto no presente relatório e por defender que as relações entre a União e o Paquistão devem tornar-se mais profundas e abrangentes, através do diálogo político, no sentido da democratização do país voto favoravelmente este documento.

  Tonino Picula (S&D), napisan. - Pozdravljam demokratski napredak Pakistana, kao i odluku vezanu za produbljivanje i proširenje bilatelarnih veza s Europskom unijom. Uzimajući u obzir brojne probleme s kojima se Pakistan suočava, smatram da je potrebno učvrstiti demokraciju i građansku vlast u Pakistanu te su potrebne ozbiljne mjere s ciljem izgradnje održive demokracije i socijalne pravde. Pakistan ima značajnu ulogu u promicanju regionalne stabilnosti te je sve važniji partner EU-a u borbi protiv terorizma, širenja nuklearnog oružja, trgovine ljudima i drogom i organiziranog kriminala. Svaki oblik nasilja potrebno je osuditi te smatram potrebnim ojačati mjere suzbijanja i borbu protiv zlostavljanja. Također, podržavam ovo izvješće te pozivam na napredak na svim područjima, pogotovo povezano s područjem ljudskih prava i obrazovanja.

  Andrej Plenković (PPE), napisan. - Podržao sam izvješće zastupnika Borisa Zale jer smatram da uloga Pakistana u regiji i odnosi između EU-a i Pakistana imaju važan i sve veći utjecaj na interese EU-a s obzirom na ključan položaj te zemlje u središtu nestabilnog okruženja u kojem se nalazi, između ostalog, također je upitna sigurnost europskih građana. Zbog navedenoga, pozdravljam učvršćenje demokracije i građanske vlasti u Pakistanu u čemu smo vidjeli pomak nakon izbora u ožujku 2013., te pozdravljam odluke pakistanske vlade koje su usmjerene k borbi protiv terorizma, širenju oružja, trgovine drogom i drugih međunarodnih prijetnji. Međutim, istodobno smatram da jedino duboke i zahtjevne reforme pakistanskog političkog i društvenoekonomskog poretka (2,5[nbsp ]% stanovništva posjeduje preko 40[nbsp ]% zemljišta) mogu dovesti do održive demokracije i pluralističkog društva. Podržavam što su EU i Pakistan nedavno odlučili produbiti i proširiti bilateralne veze u okviru petogodišnjeg plana angažmana pokrenutog u veljači 2012., te što je u lipnju 2012. održan strateški dijalog. To pridonosi održavanju odnosa od zajedničkog interesa te potiče daljnju političku i sigurnosnu suradnju na brojnim područjima.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. - In favour. Pakistan’s strategic role in the region, its relationship to its neighbours and EU-Pakistan relations are of major and growing importance to the EU, given the country’s pivotal location at the heart of a volatile neighbourhood, its centrality to security and development in Central and South Asia, and its crucial role in combating terrorism, non-proliferation, drug trafficking, human trafficking and other transnational threats, all of which affect the security and well-being of European citizens.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), per iscritto. - Ritengo che la relazione in oggetto trovi il giusto bilanciamento tra il riconoscimento dei progressi verso lo Stato democratico effettuati dalle élite politiche pakistane e i passi che le stesse, insieme alla società civile devono ancora muovere al fine di raggiungere la piena affermazione dello Stato di diritto. In effetti sono necessarie ancora riforme profonde nel paese. Ovviamente apprezzo gli sforzi verso il raggiungimento di una pace duratura nella regione, ma ritengo che le intenzioni del governo pakistano siano genuine e mirate a risolvere tutte le questioni religiose e politiche non ancora solute.

  Dubravka Šuica (PPE), napisan. - Smatram kako je potrebno pridonositi poboljšanju odnosa između EU-a i Pakistana uz konstantno razvijanje političkog dijaloga. Pozdravljam donošenje petogodišnjeg plana angažmana i početak strateškog dijaloga između EU-a i Pakistana. Napominjem da je EU velik izvozni partner pakistanske robe (22,6 % u 2012.). Stoga trgovinska potpora EU-a Pakistanu treba pomoći u promicanju diverzifikacije i razvoja načina proizvodnje i obrade, pružanju podrške regionalnoj integraciji i tehnološkim transferima, te olakšavanju uspostave ili razvoja kapaciteta domaće produktivnosti kao i smanjenju nejednakosti dohodaka.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – Nous voulons réaffirmer que la bonne gouvernance, des institutions responsables et ouvertes, la séparation des pouvoirs et le respect des droits fondamentaux constituent des éléments importants pour résoudre la problématique du développement et de la sécurité au Pakistan. J'estime par ailleurs que des gouvernements civils élus et dotés d'une légitimité démocratique, la décentralisation de compétences vers les provinces et l'efficacité des collectivités locales sont les meilleurs moyens de contenir la vague de violence et d'extrémisme, de rétablir l'autorité de l'État dans les zones tribales sous administration fédérale (FATA), et de garantir la souveraineté et l'intégrité territoriale du Pakistan.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. - O papel estratégico do Paquistão, as suas relações de vizinhança e as relações UE-Paquistão assumem cada vez maior relevância para a UE, dada a sua localização numa região volátil, a sua centralidade para a segurança e o desenvolvimento da Ásia, bem como o seu papel fundamental no combate ao terrorismo, à não proliferação, ao tráfico de droga e de pessoas e a outras ameaças transnacionais. Votei a favor do presente documento por considerar que a construção de uma democracia sustentável e de uma sociedade pluralista requer ainda importantes e necessárias reformas.