# Službeni list C 455/2022

| | ISSN 1977-1088 |
| ----------------------------- | -------------------- |
| Službeni list
Europske unije | C 455 |
| European flag | |
| Hrvatsko izdanje | Informacije i objave |

---

| Sadržaj | | Stranica |
| ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------- |
| | IV   Obavijesti | |
| | OBAVIJESTI INSTITUCIJA, TIJELA, UREDA I AGENCIJA EUROPSKE UNIJE | |
| | EUROPSKI PARLAMENTZASJEDANJE 2014. – 2015.Dnevna sjednica od 28. siječnja 2015.BRUXELLES | |
| 2022/C 455/01 | Doslovno izvješće od 28. siječnja 2015. | 1 |

---

| Oznake postupaka
*
postupak savjetovanja ***
postupak suglasnosti ***I
redovni zakonodavni postupak, prvo čitanje ***II
redovni zakonodavni postupak, drugo čitanje ***III
redovni zakonodavni postupak, treće čitanje (Navedeni se postupak temelji na pravnoj osnovi predloženoj u nacrtu akta.)
Kratice za nazive odbora
AFET
Odbor za vanjske poslove DEVE
Odbor za razvoj INTA
Odbor za međunarodnu trgovinu BUDG
Odbor za proračune CONT
Odbor za proračunski nadzor ECON
Odbor za ekonomsku i monetarnu politiku EMPL
Odbor za zapošljavanje i socijalna pitanja ENVI
Odbor za okoliš, javno zdravlje i sigurnost hrane ITRE
Odbor za industriju, istraživanje i energetiku IMCO
Odbor za unutarnje tržište i zaštitu potrošača TRAN
Odbor za promet i turizam REGI
Odbor za regionalni razvoj AGRI
Odbor za poljoprivredu i ruralni razvoj PECH
Odbor za ribarstvo CULT
Odbor za kulturu i obrazovanje JURI
Odbor za pravna pitanja LIBE
Odbor za građanske slobode, pravosuđe i unutarnje poslove AFCO
Odbor za ustavna pitanja FEMM
Odbor za prava žena i jednakost spolova PETI
Odbor za predstavke DROI
Pododbor za ljudska prava SEDE
Pododbor za sigurnost i obranu Kratice za nazive klubova zastupnika
PPE
Klub zastupnika Europske pučke stranke (kršćanski demokrati) S&D
Klub zastupnika Progresivnog saveza socijalista i demokrata u Europskom parlamentu ECR
Europski konzervativci i reformisti ALDE
Klub zastupnika Saveza liberala i demokrata za Europu GUE/NGL
Konfederalni klub zastupnika Ujedinjene europske ljevice/Nordijske zelene ljevice Verts/ALE
Klub zastupnika Zelenih/Europskog slobodnog saveza EFDD
Klub zastupnika Europe slobode i direktne demokracije NI
nezavisni zastupnici | * | postupak savjetovanja | *** | postupak suglasnosti | ***I | redovni zakonodavni postupak, prvo čitanje | ***II | redovni zakonodavni postupak, drugo čitanje | ***III | redovni zakonodavni postupak, treće čitanje | AFET | Odbor za vanjske poslove | DEVE | Odbor za razvoj | INTA | Odbor za međunarodnu trgovinu | BUDG | Odbor za proračune | CONT | Odbor za proračunski nadzor | ECON | Odbor za ekonomsku i monetarnu politiku | EMPL | Odbor za zapošljavanje i socijalna pitanja | ENVI | Odbor za okoliš, javno zdravlje i sigurnost hrane | ITRE | Odbor za industriju, istraživanje i energetiku | IMCO | Odbor za unutarnje tržište i zaštitu potrošača | TRAN | Odbor za promet i turizam | REGI | Odbor za regionalni razvoj | AGRI | Odbor za poljoprivredu i ruralni razvoj | PECH | Odbor za ribarstvo | CULT | Odbor za kulturu i obrazovanje | JURI | Odbor za pravna pitanja | LIBE | Odbor za građanske slobode, pravosuđe i unutarnje poslove | AFCO | Odbor za ustavna pitanja | FEMM | Odbor za prava žena i jednakost spolova | PETI | Odbor za predstavke | DROI | Pododbor za ljudska prava | SEDE | Pododbor za sigurnost i obranu | PPE | Klub zastupnika Europske pučke stranke (kršćanski demokrati) | S&D | Klub zastupnika Progresivnog saveza socijalista i demokrata u Europskom parlamentu | ECR | Europski konzervativci i reformisti | ALDE | Klub zastupnika Saveza liberala i demokrata za Europu | GUE/NGL | Konfederalni klub zastupnika Ujedinjene europske ljevice/Nordijske zelene ljevice | Verts/ALE | Klub zastupnika Zelenih/Europskog slobodnog saveza | EFDD | Klub zastupnika Europe slobode i direktne demokracije | NI | nezavisni zastupnici |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | --- | -------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------------ | ----- | ------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------ | ---- | --------------- | ---- | ----------------------------- | ---- | ------------------ | ---- | --------------------------- | ---- | --------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------------ | ---- | ------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ---------------------------------------------- | ---- | ---------------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------- | ---- | -------------------------- | ---- | --------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------ | ---- | ------------------------------ | ---- | ----------------------- | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------ | ---- | --------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------- | ---- | ------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------ | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------- | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | -------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------- | -- | -------------------- |
| * | postupak savjetovanja | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| *** | postupak suglasnosti | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ***I | redovni zakonodavni postupak, prvo čitanje | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ***II | redovni zakonodavni postupak, drugo čitanje | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ***III | redovni zakonodavni postupak, treće čitanje | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| AFET | Odbor za vanjske poslove | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| DEVE | Odbor za razvoj | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| INTA | Odbor za međunarodnu trgovinu | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| BUDG | Odbor za proračune | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| CONT | Odbor za proračunski nadzor | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ECON | Odbor za ekonomsku i monetarnu politiku | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| EMPL | Odbor za zapošljavanje i socijalna pitanja | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ENVI | Odbor za okoliš, javno zdravlje i sigurnost hrane | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ITRE | Odbor za industriju, istraživanje i energetiku | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| IMCO | Odbor za unutarnje tržište i zaštitu potrošača | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| TRAN | Odbor za promet i turizam | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| REGI | Odbor za regionalni razvoj | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| AGRI | Odbor za poljoprivredu i ruralni razvoj | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| PECH | Odbor za ribarstvo | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| CULT | Odbor za kulturu i obrazovanje | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| JURI | Odbor za pravna pitanja | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| LIBE | Odbor za građanske slobode, pravosuđe i unutarnje poslove | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| AFCO | Odbor za ustavna pitanja | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FEMM | Odbor za prava žena i jednakost spolova | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| PETI | Odbor za predstavke | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| DROI | Pododbor za ljudska prava | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| SEDE | Pododbor za sigurnost i obranu | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| PPE | Klub zastupnika Europske pučke stranke (kršćanski demokrati) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| S&D | Klub zastupnika Progresivnog saveza socijalista i demokrata u Europskom parlamentu | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ECR | Europski konzervativci i reformisti | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ALDE | Klub zastupnika Saveza liberala i demokrata za Europu | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| GUE/NGL | Konfederalni klub zastupnika Ujedinjene europske ljevice/Nordijske zelene ljevice | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Verts/ALE | Klub zastupnika Zelenih/Europskog slobodnog saveza | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| EFDD | Klub zastupnika Europe slobode i direktne demokracije | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| NI | nezavisni zastupnici | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| HR | |
| -- | |

---

IV Obavijesti

OBAVIJESTI INSTITUCIJA, TIJELA, UREDA I AGENCIJA EUROPSKE UNIJE

EUROPSKI PARLAMENT ZASJEDANJE 2014. – 2015. Dnevna sjednica od 28. siječnja 2015. BRUXELLES

30.11.2022
HR
Službeni list Europske unije
C 455/1 28. siječnja 2015.DOSLOVNO IZVJEŠĆE OD 28. SIJEČNJA 2015. (2022/C 455/01) Sadržaj 1.
Nastavak zasjedanja
3 2.
Usvajanje zapisnika s prethodne dnevne sjednice: vidjeti zapisnik
3 3.
Zahtjev za ukidanje zastupničkog imuniteta: vidi zapisnik
3 4.
Sastav klubova zastupnika: vidi zapisnik
3 5.
Tekstovi sporazuma koje je proslijedilo Vijeće: vidjeti zapisnik
3 6.
Prijenos odobrenih sredstava: vidjeti zapisnik
3 7.
Provedbene mjere (članak 106. Poslovnika): vidi zapisnik
3 8.
Delegirani akti (članak 105. stavci 5. i 6. Poslovnika): vidi zapisnik
3 9.
Odluke o određenim dokumentima: vidjeti zapisnik
3 10.
Podnošenje dokumenata: vidjeti zapisnik
3 11.
Plan rada
3 12.
Mjere protiv terorizma (rasprava)
5 13.
Europski fond za strateška ulaganja (rasprava)
32 14.
Plan za novi međunarodni sporazum o klimi u Parizu (rasprava)
60 15.
Jednominutni govori (članak 163.)
77 16.
Sastav odbora: vidi zapisnik
83 17.
Sastav Parlamenta: vidi zapisnik
83 18.
Kalendar sljedećih dnevnih sjednica: vidi zapisnik
83 19.
Prekid zasjedanja
83 Doslovno izvješće od 28. siječnja 2015. VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ Präsident (Die Sitzung wird um 15.00 Uhr eröffnet.) 1.   Nastavak zasjedanja Der Präsident. - Ich erkläre die am Donnerstag, dem 15. Januar 2015, unterbrochene Sitzungsperiode für wieder aufgenommen. 2.   Usvajanje zapisnika s prethodne dnevne sjednice: vidjeti zapisnik 3.   Zahtjev za ukidanje zastupničkog imuniteta: vidi zapisnik 4.   Sastav klubova zastupnika: vidi zapisnik 5.   Tekstovi sporazuma koje je proslijedilo Vijeće: vidjeti zapisnik 6.   Prijenos odobrenih sredstava: vidjeti zapisnik 7.   Provedbene mjere (članak 106. Poslovnika): vidi zapisnik 8.   Delegirani akti (članak 105. stavci 5. i 6. Poslovnika): vidi zapisnik 9.   Odluke o određenim dokumentima: vidjeti zapisnik 10.   Podnošenje dokumenata: vidjeti zapisnik 11.   Plan rada Der Präsident. - Der endgültige Entwurf der Tagesordnung dieser Tagung, wie er in der Konferenz der Präsidenten in ihrer Sitzung vom Donnerstag, dem 15. Januar 2015 gemäß Artikel 152 der Geschäftsordnung festgelegt wurde, ist verteilt worden. Zu diesem Entwurf wurden folgende Änderungen beantragt: Die EVP-Fraktion beantragt, die Aussprache über die Maßnahmen zur Terrorismusbekämpfung mit einer Entschließung abzuschließen, über die in der Februar-I-Tagung abgestimmt werden soll. Esteban González Pons,
en nombre del Grupo PPE
. – Señor Presidente, este Parlamento produce todo tipo de resoluciones. No parece que tenga sentido que, después de lo que ha ocurrido en París, no tengamos una resolución sobre el terrorismo. El mundo está esperando escuchar a este Parlamento. En primer lugar para oír la voz de Europa sobre el terrorismo, pero, en segundo lugar, y es más importante, para ver que somos capaces de ponernos de acuerdo no solo para manifestarnos juntos en París, sino también sobre el fondo del asunto. En un tema tan importante como el terrorismo, el Parlamento no puede hablar, hablar, hablar... y no resolver. Porque no tener una resolución contra el terrorismo es una forma de resolver, es la peor resolución posible, la que demuestra que para manifestarnos estamos juntos, pero que sobre el fondo de la cuestión no somos capaces de ponernos de acuerdo. Demos un paso adelante. Es una exigencia. Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE). - Monsieur le Président, tout d'abord, je suis très content que mon collègue du PPE veuille avoir un débat sur les attentats à Paris et les mesures à prendre, parce que je me rappelle que pendant la réunion de la Conférence des présidents, la dernière fois, le PPE n'était pas encore convaincu d'avoir un débat aujourd'hui sur cette question. Je me réjouis donc de ce changement de position et ma proposition, c'est en fait d'essayer d'avoir une position commune du Parlement avant qu'il y ait une réunion du Conseil européen le 12. Birgit Sippel (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Nach den Anschlägen von Paris haben hunderttausende französische Bürger demonstriert für Demokratie, für Freiheit, für die Verteidigung von Meinungsfreiheit und anderen Werten. Gestern im Ausschuss hat die Kommission gesagt, wir brauchen keinen Aktionismus und sie hat deutlich gemacht, dass es einen Mangel bei der Umsetzung bereits bestehender Instrumente gibt. Ja, wir brauchen eine Antwort auf den Terrorismus, insbesondere auf den Terrorismus, der in unserer eigenen Mitte entsteht! Die Kämpfer kommen eben nicht mehr von außen, sie kommen aus unseren eigenen Mitgliedstaaten, sie sind unsere Bürger. Deshalb halten wir es für völlig verfehlt, jetzt in einem Schnellschuss irgendetwas zusammenzuschreiben, sondern wir bestehen darauf, dass wir sorgfältig das gesamte Paket von möglichen Maßnahmen prüfen und uns dann gemeinsam positionieren Deshalb kein Schnellschuss für eine Resolution im Februar. (Das Parlament nimmt den Antrag an.) Der Präsident. - Die Fraktion der Grünen beantragt, eine Aussprache über eine Erklärung der Vizepräsidentin der Kommission und Hohen Beauftragten zur Eskalation des Ukraine-Konflikts und den Angriffen in Mariupol auf die Tagesordnung für heute zu setzen, und zwar vor den Wortmeldungen von einer Minute. Darüber hinaus soll die Sitzung deshalb bis 21.00 Uhr verlängert werden. Rebecca Harms,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion
. – Herr Präsident! Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich habe für meine Fraktion beantragt, dass auch ohne Frau Mogherini in dieser Plenarsitzung eine Aussprache über die Entwicklungen in Mariupol und im Osten der Ukraine durchgeführt wird: also die Verlängerung der Sitzung um eine Stunde. Ich mache das nicht, um neu zu diskutieren, was wir in der letzten Straßburg-Woche beschlossen haben, sondern ich habe mich entschieden, diesen Antrag zu stellen, weil ich glaube, dass es wichtig ist – gerade nach diesen furchtbaren Entwicklungen im Osten der Ukraine – deutlich zu machen, dass wir das alles verfolgen und dass wir das ernst nehmen und dass das Ziel unserer politischen Arbeit zur Ukraine und gegenüber Russland ist, Frieden und Sicherheit zu schaffen, neu zu schaffen, und das Elend und das Sterben im Osten der Ukraine zu beenden. Und ich habe mich heute Nachmittag erneut entschieden, dabei zu bleiben, dass es richtig ist, das heute zu diskutieren, weil ich erschrocken gewesen bin über Nachrichten aus einigen Mitgliedstaaten, insbesondere aus Athen, von wo aus das Signal gekommen ist, dass man in Zukunft eine andere Rücksicht auf Russland nehmen möchte in dieser Auseinandersetzung. Ich glaube, dass das Europäische Parlament gegenüber dem Rat der Außenminister in dieser Woche, vor dem außerordentlichen Treffen der Außenminister, deutlich machen muss, dass unsere Position gilt und dass wir ein einheitliches, solidarisches Verhalten der Außenminister und des Gipfels wollen. Und ich war immer für die Solidarität mit Griechenland, aber ich mahne an dieser Stelle auch Solidarität aus Griechenland mit dem Osten der Europäischen Union und des Kontinents an. Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, nous ne sommes pas d'accord avec la demande faite par notre collègue. Nous avons déjà eu un débat lundi en commission des affaires étrangères, en présence de l'ambassadeur d'Ukraine auprès de l'Union européenne et tous les groupes politiques ont exprimé cette position d'une manière très claire et il n'y a rien à ajouter à cela. Par contre, je suis d'accord avec ce que notre collègue vient de dire quant à l'attitude d'Athènes, parce que nous étions tous surpris de découvrir cette attitude inacceptable. Mais je crois qu'il suffit de le dire ici franchement, cette alliance avec Poutine que Tsipras veut faire est inacceptable. (Das Parlament lehnt den Antrag ab.) (Der Arbeitsplan ist somit angenommen.) 12.   Mjere protiv terorizma (rasprava) Der Präsident. - Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zu Maßnahmen zur Terrorismusbekämpfung (2015/2530(RSP)). Dimitris Avramopoulos,
Member of the Commission
. - Mr President, honourable Members, allow me to express my thanks to you for giving me the chance to discuss this issue with you today, just some minutes before I fly to Riga for the informal Justice and Home Affairs Council. I will actually have to leave at 5 p.m. to catch my flight, and I would like to thank Vice-President Katainen for taking the floor if necessary, on behalf of the Commission, to conclude this debate. The brutal terrorist attacks in Paris were an attack on our fundamental rights. It has once again become clear that we face an increased and severe terrorist threat to Europe. We have seen that terrorism knows no borders. Terrorists' travel, financing and access to weapons are, by definition, cross-border problems and they require a strong, united and coherent response from the entire Union. This is not a time for competition among the EU institutions to act and be seen to be acting – with the danger of announcing badly-thought-through ideas which cannot then be delivered, leaving citizens even more disillusioned with the Union. The Member States, as you know, remain primarily responsible for security, but Europe is part of the solution. There are a lot of relevant EU tools and measures already in place. The Commission is determined to take an approach that is comprehensive, result-oriented and realistically deliverable, with the focus on maximising the added value of existing EU measures and, where necessary, proposing new and complementary ones. The Commission can add value by looking at gaps in the effectiveness of existing operational law enforcement and cooperation tools. Security is essential for a functioning democratic society. It is a prerequisite for our citizens' wellbeing and a prerequisite for citizens' ability to exercise their own rights. Freedom and security are two sides of the same coin, and not conflicting goals. Developing such a response requires that we all work together. This Parliament is our strategic partner in developing an effective response that will respect our fundamental rights and values and be in line with the expectations of Europe's citizens. That is why I am here to present and discuss our latest thinking and lines of action, with the aim of fighting terrorism and radicalisation, in the context of the preparation of the European Agenda on Security announced in our work programme. All the EU institutions will be examining further action on counter-terrorism in the context of the upcoming European Agenda on Security. Initial discussions on this are expected to take place at the informal Justice and Home Affairs Council in Riga and at the meeting of the European Council on 12 February. A new agenda for European security for the years 2015-2020 will be presented in the coming months, around May. This agenda should aim to ensure the highest level of protection for the fundamental rights of our citizens and those residing in or staying in or visiting the European Union. Upholding our democratic values and ensuring security are not only compatible: they are mutually reinforcing. It seems clear that there is a need to maximise the value of existing instruments and to deliver on pending proposals first, before developing further measures. Furthermore, we must make sure that the measures in place allow us to tackle the problems we face effectively. To maximise the value of existing EU measures we also need to make the best use of the Schengen Information System, under existing EU law, for checks on travel documents and on persons at the Union's external borders and to assess any emerging need for improvement. The Commission is assisting and will further assist Member States in identifying common risk criteria for checks on persons. Europol, in particular, will play an important role in the implementation of the future agenda. We need to make sure that it receives all the requisite information from all Member States so that it can deliver its added value in terms of intelligence and threat assessments. The same goes for Eurojust. As long ago as 2005 it was decided that the Member States should provide counter-terrorism information to both agencies. On cybersecurity and the protection of critical infrastructures, we need to reassess whether additional action is needed. The Boston Marathon bombing highlighted the vulnerability of public events. We will work to protect such soft targets, and also critical infrastructure, more effectively. A number of initiatives and trials are ongoing, which will feed into our reflections for future proposals. With regard to delivering on pending proposals, that is where I believe this House can add value in responding to calls from citizens. One example is the EU Passenger Name Record (PNR) Directive. An EU PNR directive is necessary in order to enhance substantially the security of everyone living in Europe. We need to make sure that our law enforcement authorities have access to the data necessary for the prevention of terrorist acts and serious transnational crimes. No decision has been made, except that the Commission is committed to working with the co-legislators to achieve a legal instrument which is both effective and fully in line with fundamental rights. I am looking forward to seeing this, and I intend to help the European Parliament and the Council in moving forward quickly on this issue. I have read – we have all read – articles about what the position of the Commission might be. Let me be clear: the Commission has not come forward with a modified proposal or other initiative today. That was never planned. There has not even been a College of Commissioners discussion since the orientation debate on the EU security agenda. Everything that has been published allegedly reflecting a Commission official position or decision is therefore wrong. With regard to the data retention reform, and in particular the Law Enforcement Directive, I call on the co-legislators to work together towards quick adoption. This will be essential in providing a clear and predictable framework for the processing of personal data in Member States and the exchange of such data between law enforcement authorities. Furthermore, we need to optimise the sharing of information between law enforcement authorities. To that end, the adoption of the Europol and Eurojust legal frameworks and the pending proposal to improve cross-border law enforcement training will be crucial, but progress can already be achieved without waiting for this. We will very shortly organise a joint meeting with Europol and Eurojust to see how information sharing can be improved under the current legal framework. The Commission is seizing the opportunity, during the preparatory work before adoption of the agenda, to consider whether further measures are needed to address the evolving threat, including whether the existing EU legal framework needs reinforcement. We had our first discussion with my fellow Commissioners just last week. It is clear that the fight against terrorism will be a major focus of this agenda. Let me now put forward some preliminary reflections on the objectives that the European Agenda on Security should address, including how to continue to offer Member States comprehensive support in preventing and addressing radicalisation and other forms of extremism. The fight against arms trafficking is another building block. We need to review the implementation of the existing legislation and ensure a greater exchange of information both between Member States and with Europol, Eurojust and Interpol. At the same time, the fight against organised crime and the financing of terrorism needs to be stepped up. We must deprive terrorists of their sources of finance. The link with organised crime is striking. Ensuring the effective implementation of the fourth Anti-Money-Laundering Directive and the Funds Transfer Regulation agreed upon in December 2014 is crucial. The existing tools for the confiscation of criminal assets must be used. We must ensure the speedy execution of all confiscation orders. We also need to look carefully at reassessing the need for, and the added value of, possible EU solutions for data retention, respecting the principles set out by the Court of Justice last year. The Commission is monitoring and evaluating the situation in each Member State before discussing the way ahead with the co-legislators. We need to find sound solutions for the exchange of passenger record data with those third countries that are key to our security interests and to make sure that they are fully consistent with the solutions to be reached for EU PNR. Full implementation by Member States of existing legislative instruments on information exchange is therefore key. However, we also need to consider how to strengthen Europol's intelligence analysis capabilities in relation to terrorism and radicalisation-related threats. We need to expand the use of existing EU policy-cycle tools to address serious and organised-crime-related threats as well as threats related to terrorism and radicalisation. On the external front, the EU is stepping up its assistance to neighbouring countries and regions. The particular focus is on law enforcement cooperation, information exchange, extending criminal law tools and anti-radicalisation efforts. Delivering rapidly and effectively on our response requires political will and the setting of clear priorities. The Commission has voiced its determination to take this up as a matter of priority. Working hand in hand with Parliament on developing a coherent response will be essential in defining and developing action to keep Europe both secure and open. PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ANTONIO TAJANI Vicepresidente Monika Hohlmeier,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion
. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Anschläge von Paris, aber auch die Anschläge, die wir davor erlebt haben, die es in Brüssel, in London, in Madrid, in verschiedenen Städten der Europäischen Union und auch außerhalb der Europäischen Union gegeben hat, stellen uns vor Riesenherausforderungen. Mein Wunsch hier an dieses Europäische Parlament wäre – und wäre es übrigens auch bei der vorhergehenden Abstimmung gewesen –, dass wir uns geschlossen darauf verständigt hätten, dass wir über das Thema Terrorismus auch perpetuiert werden diskutieren müssen, auch öffentlich werden diskutieren müssen und eine Gemeinschaft werden zeigen müssen, so wie dies diejenigen Regierungen tun, die sozialistisch sind, die konservativ sind, auch grüne Innenminister – alle haben sich eine gemeinsame Agenda gegeben. Ein bisschen mehr Geschlossenheit würde ich mir da offen gestanden auch in diesem Parlament wünschen, um der Öffentlichkeit zu zeigen, was wir wollen und wie wir kämpfen. Deshalb wünsche ich mir auch, dass wir ganz offen und zutiefst sachlich über die Instrumente diskutieren, die unsere Strafverfolgungsbehörden benötigen, um die Terroristen zu bekämpfen. Da gehören Fluggastdaten dazu, da gehört vielleicht auch Vorratsdatenspeicherung dazu, da gehören Themen dazu, die auch bei uns kontrovers sind, aber genau so die Diskussion über Präventionsmaßnahmen oder darüber, welche Formen der Deradikalisierung wir betreiben können, was wir in unseren Gefängnissen tun können. Wir müssen mit den Drittstaaten reden. Meine Bitte an alle Kolleginnen und Kollegen ist: Lassen Sie uns da wirklich zusammenarbeiten und nicht zeigen, dass wir hier ein Haus sind, das wieder einmal um Kleinigkeiten streitet. Gianni Pittella,
a nome del gruppo S&D
. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, anche oggi il nostro pensiero non può che andare a Parigi, questa città, questo popolo colpito in maniera così profonda da quel crimine indelebile. Parigi è stata per noi anche la grande manifestazione di massa. Parigi ci richiama alla follia omicida ma anche a Lassana Bathily, il ragazzo musulmano, di origine maliane, che ha protetto gli ostaggi del negozio e che una settima fa è diventato francese e quindi nostro concittadino europeo. Noi non vogliamo dimenticare quel sussulto di dignità e crediamo che da lì, bisogna ripartire, con spirito unitario, collega Hohlmeier. Noi non faremo mancare il nostro sostegno a misure concrete ma negheremo il nostro sostegno a misure che inficiano la libertà, che è una conquista irrinunciabile dell'Unione europea. Ci chiamiamo Unione europea perché siamo fondati sulla libertà. Per il resto avrete tutti il nostro consenso sulle misure che vogliono combattere efficacemente il terrorismo. L'Europa – l'ha ricordata il Commissario – ha a disposizione già alcuni strumenti: facciamoli funzionare! Abbiamo bisogno di rafforzare Schengen, nelle sue componenti che riguardano lo scambio di informazioni e il rafforzamento della sicurezza e le frontiere esterne, senza toccare il principio basilare della mobilità. Non abbiamo preclusione nei confronti del PNR purché si chiarisca le condizioni che riguardano la durata della detenzione dei dati ed altre condizioni. Nessuna pregiudiziale, ma attenzione ad illudere i cittadini: non è soltanto con il PNR che si risolve il problema. Il PNR può essere uno dei fattori di una strategia multifattoriale che dobbiamo mettere in campo, a cominciare dal rafforzamento della cooperazione giudiziaria. L'azione e il lavoro in comune dell'intelligence, il rafforzamento della politica estera, una politica comune nei confronti dei paesi della sponda sud del Mediterraneo e, finalmente, una politica tesa all'inclusione e all'integrazione. Molti terroristi, soprattutto giovani, provengono dalle sacche di povertà, di miseria, di abbandono, di marginalità e di emarginazione: sono questi i fenomeni che dobbiamo combattere: più educazione, più istruzione, più finanziamento alla scuola, più dialogo per combattere il fanatismo e il terrorismo e nessuna strumentalizzazione. Dobbiamo essere seri, perché parliamo e ci confrontiamo con una questione seria: non possiamo affermare, come facciamo talvolta, che l'immigrazione porta terrorismo. Nel mio paese nemmeno un immigrato è stato sospettato o denunciato come terrorista. Allora, facciamo fronte comune: noi ci stiamo a fare il fronte comune seriamente per combattere e vincere la mala pianta del terrorismo. Timothy Kirkhope,
on behalf of the ECR Group
. – Mr President, the atrocities in Paris were shocking. As rapporteur for the EU PNR, it is clearly an important piece of the jigsaw in the EU's coordinated approach to fighting not only terrorism, but also serious crime. The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) has stated that this Parliament does not have to wait for a new data retention directive or data protection package. I intend to apply the highest data protection standards and the judgment of the European Court of Justice to my proposals. The EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator says the use of PNR data reduces ethnic profiling. Europol says there are over 3 000 EU foreign fighters radicalised, military trained, returning to the EU and exploiting the gaps and deficiencies in law-enforcement information exchange across the EU. This directive would help to address that. At present there is No EU legal framework for citizens or the airlines and no clear legal or administrative redress in the use of data. My directive would provide these rights and clear legal boundaries. I ask the political groups and Members to work with me and cooperate with me. We can find a solution together to protect lives and to protect civil liberties. Guy Verhofstadt,
on behalf of the ALDE Group
. – Mr President, my message this afternoon in this debate is clear. We have to work together in this Parliament and we cannot waste time. Two weeks after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo we must take a leap forward, and we must conclude in the European Union a broad and ambitious package to tackle terrorism. We have to do this as Parliament together with the Commission and together with the Council because it is a common task and there is a common goal to be achieved. In fact, what we have to do is to repeat what happened after 9/11. After 9/11, in 2001, alongside other measures we decided on a package and created the European Arrest Warrant, which at that time represented a dramatic change in Europe because previously it had taken years to secure the extradition of a suspect. Sometimes it took 10 years to bring someone back from the UK to France whereas since we have had the European Arrest Warrant it takes just days to transfer a suspect or a criminal from one country to another. We need the same level of ambition now: not to do the same things, because the threats have changed, but to have a similar package to strengthen our security in Europe – and two things are at stake here. First of all, we need a common capacity to analyse the information and the risk, because that is lacking in Europe. In all major terrorist attacks over the past 10 years, Mr Kirkhope, the perpetrators have been known to the services of the different countries. The problem today is not so much that we do not collect the info; the problem is that we do not share the info between our services in Europe. That is the main problem. We have to create what we are calling „euro-intel” – a system for sharing information and for common analysis of risks. I have heard a number of people today saying that this is not possible under the terms of Article 4 of the Treaty. Well, I can tell you that in the last parliamentary term we changed the Treaty twice: once to have 18 more Members of Parliament and the second time to introduce the European Stability Mechanism to save the banks. If it is possible to change the Treaty on the fast-track procedure to save the banks, it has to be possible to change the Treaty to increase the security of European citizens here in this European Union. Secondly, we must not make the error of the nationalists and the populists, namely to say that the problem is Schengen. The problem is not Schengen. The problem is that we are not sufficiently solid among ourselves to strengthen the outside borders of the Schengen area instead of reinstating internal borders. Finally, on passenger name records (PNR) I want to say just one thing, since Mr Kirkhope has spoken about this. We are in favour of a European PNR system but it has to go together with guarantees and with the protection of data and privacy. It is clear that Mr Pittella is right: this is about safety and freedom at the same time. And one last sentence about the targets in this debate: you cannot abuse the death of Charlie Hebdo as some are doing here in this Parliament, Ms Le Pen, Mr Farage. This is not about a war between civilisations and religions: it is about a war against criminals and terrorists, and that makes all the difference. Cornelia Ernst,
im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion
. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Als ich gestern nachhause ging, lief ich bis zu meiner Wohnung an Polizeiautos und ich weiß nicht wie vielen schwer bewaffneten Soldaten vorbei. Ich habe mich gefragt: Schaffen wir damit mehr Sicherheit? Verhindern wir tatsächlich nächste Anschläge, Anschläge wie in Paris und anderswo mit verschärften Grenzkontrollen oder einer fünfjährigen Fluggastdatenspeicherung? Glauben Sie das wirklich, dass wir damit mehr Sicherheit schaffen? Wir rennen doch wieder einem Phantom hinterher, wir rennen doch wieder einer Fiktion hinterher, die uns wirklich gar nichts bringt! Wir müssen Terrorismus dort bekämpfen, wo er entsteht. Er entsteht zum Beispiel in Ländern wie dem Irak. Warum? Weil dort die sunnitische Bevölkerung gedemütigt wurde und keine Versöhnung stattfindet. Terrorismus wird gefördert von Saudi-Arabien, deren Königen man die Hände reichte seitens des Westens, obwohl sie weltweit Terroristen finanzieren. Die erste Forderung muss doch sein: Waffenexporte in solche Regionen gehören sich nicht! Mit Blick auf Europa: Terrorismus entsteht immer da, wo Inklusion versagt, und sie versagt in jedem Mitgliedstaat. Zum Beispiel in Deutschland, wo zugeschaut wird, wie junge Leute Dschihadisten zulaufen. Wir müssen begreifen, dass man Feuer nicht mit Feuer löschen kann. Das geht nicht. Wir brauchen eine ehrliche Aussprache zu Antiislamismus, zu Antisemitismus, zu Ausländerfeindlichkeit, zu Ausgrenzung mitten in unserer Gesellschaft. Statt immer mehr Restriktionen brauchen wir Aussteigerprojekte, echten Dialog und ein Umdenken in der Gesellschaft in der EU, damit die Nöte der Menschen wieder eine Rolle in unserem ganzen politischen Leben spielen. Jan Philipp Albrecht,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
. – Mr President, yes, we need to strengthen security. I agree with all those who say we need to deliver whatever is necessary and proportionate to get a higher level of security. But what is proposed now, the proposed blanket mass surveillance of citizens, is exactly the opposite of that. It does not deliver that. Instead, you are delivering a symbolic measure at the cost of effective security and the civil liberties of EU citizens. Even before the Paris attacks it was possible to know who was on which plane. We already know that. We have advance passenger information: it is there, we can access it and we know who is on which plane. In the case of known suspects, we can follow them. So why do we not focus on the suspects? Why do we not focus on the risk? That is what you need to do in your directive, Mr Avramopoulos, because that would be a focused approach on security. We need to strengthen the capacity of police officers and security personnel – locally, regionally and at European level – to analyse this information. They need to be able to join the dots. That is exactly what has been missing in the past and what has led to the insecure situation we have today. But the problem is that we spend all our money on blanket surveillance measures like data retention and other issues. It is proposed to invest hundreds of millions of euros in the blanket retention of personal name records. This money is very much needed by the police everywhere in Europe, and needed for the coordination of European security and police authorities. Europol has just a small amount of money for the setting up of joint investigation teams. We need to invest the money there. That is what we need. So, Mr Avramopoulos, I am not convinced by your proposals, and I am not the only one. The Court of Justice has said very clearly that it is not legal and not in line with the fundamental right of data protection to put everybody under surveillance. You have to choose where you are shooting. You have to choose who you are going after. You have to create some determining criteria to indicate where there is risk or suspicion. Do not put everybody under surveillance because that would be no different to what China or Bahrain does. Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). - Mr President, I would just like clarification on why blue cards are not being taken because this question was, of course, asked at the last Strasbourg part-session. If we do not have the opportunity to question speakers then what happens in this Chamber is merely a series of pre-prepared statements; it is not a debate. This question was supposed to go back to the Bureau but there has been no explanation whatsoever. So I would like to know, please: is there a reason why we are not having a debate today and could it be communicated to us if there is? Presidente. - Onorevole Arnott, è facoltà del Presidente ammettere o non ammettere, come prevede il regolamento, i „cartellini blu”. Paul Nuttall,
on behalf of the EFDD Group
. – Mr President, as I speak, we are in a building which is guarded by the Belgian army in full combat dress, and that tells us all we need to know about the terror threat we face from extremist Islam. We have already witnessed attacks in London, Madrid, Brussels and now Paris. And let us be honest here: it is not a case of „if” there is another attack; it is a case of „when and where”. We can prepare all we want, but none of this will be successful if we do not have the cooperation of the Muslim communities themselves. Europe's Muslims must do more to root out extremists that exist in their midst. They must take responsibility in order to cut out this cancer. May I suggest that they follow the lead of President al-Sisi of Egypt, who recently attended a Coptic Mass and called on Islamic scholars to renounce jihad. We must also deal with the thorny issue of Turkey. It is the same Turkey which turns a blind eye to extremist Muslims hopping over the border to fight in Syria for ISIS. It is the same Turkey which idly stood by and did almost nothing whilst the border town of Kobane was under attack. It is the same Turkey which has received nearly EUR 1 billion from this place in pre-accession funding, and it is the same Turkey that all of the British political parties, except my own, want in the European Union. Therefore, if we want to tackle terrorism in Europe, then firstly we need Europe's Muslims on side; secondly we must hold Turkey to account; and thirdly we must control our own borders. Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). - . Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δυστυχώς τα πρόσφατα γεγονότα στο Παρίσι και το Βέλγιο, οι καθημερινές επιθέσεις τρομοκρατών τζιχαντιστών, με τη μορφή ένοπλων ληστειών, απαγωγών, βιασμών και φόνων, και η μετακίνηση „χαρακτηρισμένων” Ευρωπαίων πολιτών, που τελικά αποδείχθηκαν ακραία μουσουλμανικά στοιχεία, από και προς την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, αποδεικνύουν τις λάθος πολιτικές που εφαρμόζουμε όσον αφορά την τρομοκρατία. Έχουμε θεσπίσει πλήθος Συνθηκών, νόμων, στρατηγικών και δράσεων για την καταπολέμησή της. Δεν μπορούμε όμως να την αντιμετωπίσουμε μόνο με συζητήσεις. Ας πάρουμε γενναίες αποφάσεις, ας χρησιμοποιήσουμε όλους τους μηχανισμούς σε κοινοτικό επίπεδο και, κυρίως, ας παύσουμε την ανόητη εξωστρέφεια ασχολούμενοι, κατά βάση, με χώρες εκτός της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Στρουθοκαμηλίζουμε και αδυνατούμε να κοιτάξουμε τα προβλήματα κατάματα. Η τρομοκρατία αποτελεί ασύμμετρη απειλή και ως τέτοια πρέπει να την αντιμετωπίσουμε. Οι μονάδες ταχείας αντίδρασης που δημιουργήσαμε , όπως η Europol, δεv διαθέτουν τα απαραίτητα, σε νομοθετικό και επιχειρησιακό επίπεδο; στοιχεία. Δεν διαθέτουν ούτε την τεχνογνωσία, αλλά πολύ περισσότερο τον εξοπλισμό και τη βάση πληροφοριών. Τα μηνύματα που δεχόμαστε καθημερινά προειδοποιούν για τον επερχόμενο κίνδυνο. Οι εχθροί μας γνωρίζουν τις αδυναμίες μας. Καιρός είναι να τις παραδεχτούμε και εμείς. Rachida Dati (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, les événements à Paris, ceux en Belgique, les attentats qui sont déjoués – comme je le disais hier – tous les jours, mais également les filières de djihadistes qui sont démantelées tous les jours – encore hier – en France: nous avons une urgence à agir. Je m'associe en ce sens à toutes les demandes de Monika Hohlmeier, mais, Monsieur le Commissaire, nous avions déjà fait de nombreuses propositions bien avant ces événements. Il y a pourtant des mesures que nous pouvons prendre immédiatement, sans outils supplémentaires, et d'ailleurs, hier, Gilles de Kerchove les a rappelées et affirmées: l'amélioration de l'utilisation qui est faite du système d'information Schengen, l'échange d'informations au sein d'Europol, mais également la mise en place de contrôles plus systématiques aux frontières externes de l'Union européenne, ainsi que l'accélération – qui fait débat – de l'adoption du PNR européen qui sera toujours plus efficace que vingt-huit PNR nationaux. Je suis d'accord d'ailleurs avec l'intervention de Guy Verhofstadt sur la nécessité d'agir vite, parce que nous sommes véritablement en guerre contre des criminels barbares et des terroristes. Monsieur le Commissaire, je vous écoute, on vient à vos interventions, vous faites des exposés à longueur de journée sans jamais déterminer un calendrier, jamais. Aujourd'hui, il y a une urgence, qui est celle de la sécurité des citoyens européens. On vous demande „Quand allez-vous agir, quand allez-vous mettre ces mesures en place, qui ne nécessitent pas d'outils législatifs supplémentaires?” Birgit Sippel (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Die Kommission hat gestern im Innenausschuss gesagt, nach den Anschlägen von Paris brauchen wir Aktionen, keinen Aktionismus. Richtig! Denn ein Ziel der Terroristen ist es, Angst zu verbreiten damit wir Demokratie und Freiheiten beschränken, und diese Strategie darf auch und gerade nach den Anschlägen von Paris nicht aufgehen. Und genau deshalb sind die derzeit kursierenden Vorschläge in ihrer Fülle beunruhigend: Überwachung des Internets, Sammlung von Fluggastdaten, Verschärfung der Regelungen für den Schengenraum, Verhinderung verschlüsselter Kommunikation, vielleicht sogar eine neue Vorratsdatenspeicherung und weitere Maßnahmen mehr. Ich möchte Kommission und Rat daran erinnern, dass der Europäische Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil zur Abschaffung der Richtlinie über Vorratsdatenspeicherung einen Grundrechtecheck für alle Überwachungsmaßnahmen aufgestellt hat. Das heißt, sie alle müssen den umfassenden Kriterien genügen, die der Europäische Gerichtshof aufgestellt hat. Und im Falle der Fluggastdaten heißt das nicht nur Prüfung der Speicherfristen, Zugriffsrechte oder wirksame Kontrollen, sondern eben auch die Beschränkung auf die anlassbezogene Nutzung von Daten. Haben wir ein Problem, an Daten heranzukommen? Nicht nur im Fall der Attentate von Paris waren ja die Täter den nationalen Behörden bekannt! Aber die Mitgliedstaaten nutzen viel zu wenig vorhandene Instrumente, und insbesondere der Austausch von Informationen findet offensichtlich viel zu wenig statt. Wir brauchen deshalb eine umfassende Evaluierung bestehender Maßnahmen, bevor wir immer neue Instrumente vorschlagen, und wir sollten nicht vergessen, die eigentlichen Ursachen des Terrorismus in unserer Mitte – etwa die Diskriminierung und Ausgrenzung junger Menschen – werden hierdurch nicht beseitigt. Fazit: Statt Bürgerrechte abzubauen, müssen wir gerade jetzt den Rechtstaat verteidigen, Freiheit und Grundrechte sichern. Das ist das, was wir unseren Bürgerinnen und Bürgern schuldig sind. Karol Karski (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Według Jamestown Foundation (amerykańskiego think tanku) większość operacji antyterrorystycznych w Europie po atakach na początku stycznia w Paryżu była wymierzona w Czeczenów. Według BBC we Francji aresztowano obywateli Rosji pochodzenia czeczeńskiego z materiałami wybuchowymi. W Niemczech jednym z aresztowanych według Deutsche Welle jest z pochodzenia Turek podejrzany o kierowanie, jak to określono, „organizacją islamskich ekstremistów z Turcji oraz rosyjskiej Czeczenii i Dagestanu”, zaś po obławie policji w Belgii dwóch terrorystów zostało zabitych, a trzeci Czeczen został ujęty. Czy profilowanie przez policję czeczeńskich emigrantów z Rosji świadczy o tym, że władze państw członkowskich biorą pod uwagę wschodnie inspiracje obecnej fali terroryzmu? Czy i jak zatem Moskwa może zyskać na wzroście poparcia dla skrajnej prawicy, partii antyimigracyjnych i antyeuropejskich w celu destabilizowania i osłabiania jedności Unii Europejskiej? Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). - Mr President, many people in Europe are afraid, understandably, because the images of Paris – but also other images that we see every day – are scary and intimidating. But our response to their fear should not be just symbolism or fake security. We should do what it takes and not just play to the gallery. First of all, we already have an extensive toolkit. We have the tools but we need to evaluate whether we have all the tools that we need and whether we have the right tools or we need bigger or smaller tools. Maybe some tools are superfluous. We also need to assess whether all those measures being decided by Parliament, and also by the government leaders when they meet in Brussels, are subsequently implemented in the Member States. They make a lot of grand statements but I would like to know what the state of implementation of the measures is. I think we should have a scoreboard as in the internal market. On specific topics: regarding PNR, my group, as we signalled two weeks ago by letter, is open to discussion on an EU PNR, but there are two simple and clear conditions. One is that whatever proposal we discuss, it must meet the test of necessity and proportionality. That is a legal requirement, not a political one. Secondly, the Council needs to adopt the directive on data protection. It has been on their table for a year and a half. It is not that difficult. Parliament has voted; it will take them 30 seconds to pass it. On encryption: I hear a lot of scary and worrying proposals about a ban on encryption or the obligation to hand over encryption keys. They are dangerous proposals. What is next? Will it become a criminal offence if you have a lock on the front door of your house? Because that too would be very useful in the fight against terrorism. We are on a slippery slope. Finally, I am glad to see that we are all united in our determination to fight people who want to destroy our democracy through violent means. But I would like the Council and the Commission to be equally determined when it comes to defending democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights against threats from the inside. I call on the Commission to put forward proposals – as my group has asked many times – for binding instruments for ensuring and enforcing fundamental rights and the rule of law. Binding instruments, Commissioner! Barbara Spinelli (GUE/NGL). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei esprimere preoccupazione per le misure antiterrorismo che Commissione e Consiglio stanno discutendo e sui rischi di una legislazione emergenziale che, in nome dei valori, oppone Stato di diritto e sicurezza. Parlo di rischi, Commissario, di misure già annunciate da Stati membri, di monitoraggio di siti Internet, di impedimenti alla circolazione nell'area Schengen, della raccolta sproporzionatamente lunga di dati dei passeggeri (PNR) che questo Parlamento e la Corte europea di giustizia hanno già respinto. Molte di queste misure esistevano prima dei terribili attentati in Francia. Non li hanno impediti. Parlo del legame stabilito in tante scuole, in tanti luoghi pubblici tra terroristi e comunità musulmane. Parlo della tendenza generale, che si vide già nell'attentato contro le Torri gemelle, a parlare di „guerra contro il terrorismo”. Questa non è una guerra. Eva Joly (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire et chers collègues, trois mots: sincérité, lucidité et proportionnalité. Sincérité, d'abord. Ne jouez pas avec la peur de nos concitoyens et cessez de mentir. Non, un PNR européen n'aurait pas permis d'éviter ces drames. C'est de moyens dont nous avons besoin et pas de nouvelles législations. Lucidité, ensuite. Faites l'analyse des dysfonctionnements avant de promouvoir de nouvelles mesures. Proportionnalité, enfin. Comme l'a rappelé la Cour de justice, un juste équilibre doit être trouvé entre la lutte contre le terrorisme et le respect de nos libertés fondamentales. Seules les personnes suspectes et leurs proches doivent faire l'objet de surveillance. La surveillance généralisée ne préviendra pas les actes terroristes, elle engendrera par contre des démocraties fragiles qui pourraient être tentées par des dérives. Ne combattons pas les terroristes avec des méthodes interdites par la loi. Ne nous transformons pas en auxiliaires involontaires de la logique terroriste. Ils tuent, ne les laissons pas en plus détruire les valeurs qui sont les nôtres. Laura Ferrara (EFDD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la minaccia terroristica, riaffacciatasi con prepotenza con i fatti di Parigi, non deve indurci nel commettere errori analoghi a quelli verificatisi all'indomani dell'11 settembre, quando con il Patriot Act si ricorse a misure fortemente limitative della libertà e dei diritti fondamentali. La tutela della pubblica sicurezza non deve trasformarsi in ragione posta a fondamento di campagne di terrorismo psicologico, atte a garantire un sempre più efficace controllo sociale. Occorre fare leva sui nostri valori, sui nostri principi e sui nostri diritti, tutelarli e renderli il nostro punto di forza. Ed è per questo che nel lungo periodo le politiche di prevenzione del terrorismo dovranno basarsi sul potenziamento del dialogo interculturale, dell'educazione e dell'integrazione sociale. Nell'immediato occorre invece intervenire laddove è più facile che si radicalizzino le reti terroristiche, controllando ad esempio, quei sistemi di comunicazione anonima per Internet, covo del mercato nero delle armi e delle droghe. Occorre migliorare la cooperazione di polizia e lo scambio di informazioni tra Stati membri, nonché continuare a perseguire il contrasto di ogni forma di finanziamento delle reti terroristiche, in modo da ottenerne il loro definitivo smantellamento. Marine Le Pen (NI). - Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs, toutes vos décisions ont contribué à nous désarmer, y compris moralement, face au fondamentalisme islamiste, et ce depuis de nombreuses années. J'aimerais, moi, toucher à un sujet qui me semble être totalement passé sous silence. À des journalistes italiens, le président de l'Assemblée constituante de la Libye, Ali Tarhouni, a exprimé une très vive inquiétude, je le cite: „L'Europe a sérieusement sous-estimé la possibilité que des militants s'infiltrent à Lampedusa, en Sicile ou à Malte. Les risques augmentent à un rythme spectaculaire.” La réalité, c'est que la simple déclaration de la nationalité, notamment syrienne, le simple dépôt d'un dossier de réfugié, nous obligent aujourd'hui, compte tenu de la législation, à accueillir et, d'ailleurs, à subvenir aux besoins de populations dont nous ne savons strictement rien, sur lesquelles nous n'avons absolument aucun renseignement. Nous avons d'autant moins de renseignements que nous avons rompu les relations avec les renseignements syriens, qui étaient une des sources sérieuses de visibilité sur les fondamentalistes. Le ministre italien des affaires étrangères a fait la même déclaration et est revenu sur ses propos sous la pression du terrorisme intellectuel de la bien-pensance. On nous abuse et on nous abîme d'ailleurs de paroles rassurantes, on fait de l'angélisme. La réalité, c'est que nous n'avons, en l'espèce, aucun moyen de nous prémunir de ce type de risques, sauf à retrouver, notamment, nos frontières nationales. Roberta Metsola (PPE). - Aħna ninsabu maħsuda b'dak li seħħ ftit aktar minn 24 siegħa ilu fil-lukanda Corinthia fil-Libja. Kellna attakk terroristiku ieħor b'nies maqtula li spiċċaw vittmi innoċenti. Għandna sitwazzjoni li qed tbaqbaq u li rridu nindirizzawha. Jien li ġejja minn Malta nħoss il-gravità ta' dak li qed jiġri viċin pajjiżi. Dan l-attakk terroristiku fil-Libja segwa l-attakki li saru fi Franza li jmorru oltre minn attakki orribbli fuq individwi. Dawn kienu attakki fuq il-valuri u l-libertajiet li l-Ewropa hija mibnija fuqhom. Aħna qed niffaċċjaw sfidi ta' sigurtà li huma mingħajr preċedent. Għandna bżonn li jiġi żgurat li nkunu pass 'il quddiem mill-kriminali u t-terroristi. Fl-istess waqt irridu nirrispettaw il-valuri Ewropej li ngħożżu. Dawn il-valuri ma jistgħu qatt jitnaqqru quddiem l-isfida tat-terrur. Iżda t-tweġiba mhix kif qalu xi wħud li ngħalqu l-fruntieri tagħna jew insiru stati polizjeski. Li għandna nagħmlu hu li nassiguraw li jkollna leġiżlazzjoni moderna li tirrispondi għal theddid ġodda. Fl-istess ħin għandna bżonn li jiġi żgurat li inċidenti bħal dawn ma jkunux in-nar fuq il-ħatab li jkabbru r-razziżmu u l-ksenofobija. Waħda mill-miżuri konkreti li għandna bżonn naħdmu fuqha, qaluha l-kollegi tiegħi, hija l-passenger name record system fl-Unjoni Ewropea. Minflok ikollna sistemi sparpaljati f'pajjiżi differenti jkollna sistema waħda u għalhekk ikun hemm intelligence sharing aħjar u iktar malajr. B'sistemi tajba ta' protezzjoni din tista' tkun għodda prezzjuża biex iċ-ċittadini tagħna jkunu iktar siguri. Issa huwa ż-żmien biex nikkonkludu. Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, depuis quelques jours, il me semble que le débat a un peu progressé sur une chose: ce combat contre le terrorisme implique que l'on recherche l'équilibre entre la nécessité d'assurer, d'une part, la sécurité de l'Union et de ses citoyens, et de garantir, d'autre part, le respect des libertés et des droits fondamentaux. Je crois que nous avons également progressé sur l'idée que la lutte contre le terrorisme est loin de se réduire à une question technique s'inscrivant dans la seule logique sécuritaire. La radicalisation est un phénomène aux facettes multiples, évolutives et multidimensionnelles, se développant tant au sein de l'Union qu'à l'extérieur de ses frontières. La réponse européenne doit, par conséquent, privilégier une approche transversale, globale, de long terme et solliciter une multiplicité d'acteurs. Parmi les champs d'action à développer, je veux appuyer les pistes déjà évoquées, comme l'amélioration de l'échange d'informations entre les États membres et avec les agences de l'Union – Europol, Eurojust – , l'amélioration de la mise œuvre de l'efficacité du système d'information de Schengen, la lutte contre le financement du terrorisme et le commerce d'armes à feu illégales ou bien encore l'optimisation de tout le potentiel d'internet en matière de sensibilisation tout en combattant efficacement ses dérives. Dans ce panel d'actions, la dimension sociale et culturelle de la lutte contre le terrorisme ne doit pas être cosmétique ou déclarative, mais générer sur le terrain des actions concrètes. N'oublions pas que la radicalisation naît souvent du désarroi et de l'absence de perspectives. Enfin, ne tombons pas dans le piège qui nous est tendu. Le débat actuel mérite de ne pas être traité sous le coup de l'émotion et de la précipitation avec, d'un côté, les urgentistes et, de l'autre côté, les homéopathes. Si personne ne défend le statu quo, il faut agir avec réflexion en se basant notamment sur une évaluation précise des outils européens existants et de leur mise en œuvre. Beatrix von Storch (ECR). - Herr Präsident, liebe Kollegen! Wir diskutieren heute über Terrorbekämpfung, und wir müssen eine Frage beantworten: Wieviel Freiheit wollen wir aufgeben für ein Mehr an Sicherheit? Garantiert ist bei allen Eingriffen in die Freiheit immer das Weniger an Freiheit, nie das Mehr an Sicherheit. Eine freiheitliche Gesellschaft wird immer verletzbar bleiben. Vielleicht kann man eine totalitäre Gesellschaft total sicher machen, aber eine freiheitliche? Wir diskutieren oder haben bereits eingeführt: biometrische Reisepässe, Videoüberwachung, Telefonüberwachung, Vorratsdatenspeicherung, Einschränkung des Bargeldverkehrs, Aufhebung des Bankgeheimnisses, Verbot der Verschlüsselung von Kommunikation. Der Bürger ist heute bereits gläsern, und wenn Sie mich fragen, viel zu gläsern. Wenn ich mich entscheiden muss zwischen Freiheit und Sicherheit, entscheide ich mich für die Freiheit. Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). - Tack herr talman! Sedan Parisattackerna för ungefär tre veckor sedan, befinner vi oss alla återigen i ett tillstånd av djup sorg. Detta kallar oss att nu agera tillsammans: Att både garantera trygghet för medborgarna och bevarande av det öppna samhället med respekt för grundläggande rättigheter och människans privatliv. Terrorister känner inga nationsgränser, det vet vi. Därför är det nu hög tid för oss att vi genom EU:s rättsvårdande myndigheter förstår det, och agerar lika effektivt och gärna lite mer effektivt än vad terrorister och kriminella nätverk kan göra. Eftersom vi vet att det största problemet är att utbyta information mellan medlemsländerna, så är det detta vi behöver åtgärda. Vi behöver skapa en komplett underrättelsetjänst och vi behöver stärka samarbetet mellan rättsvårdande myndigheter kring hot och utbyta information kring personer och nätverk som planerar att genomföra fasansfulla attacker. Detta är vi skyldiga våra medborgare, och inget annat än detta godtas. Både öppenhet och trygghet – samtidigt. Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). - Natuurlijk maken wij ons zorgen over het feit dat Europese Jihadi's in Irak en in Syrië met de IS meevechten. Laten wij niet vergeten: de beul van de IS is een Brit! Wij noemen hem Jihadi John. Het is begrijpelijk dat wij ons zorgen maken over aanslagen hier in Europa, ik doe dat ook. Maar wij moeten ons ook erg zorgen maken over wat Jihadi John en zijn vrienden aan het doen zijn in Syrië en in Irak. Ik begrijp niet, dat als wij dat verwerpen, als wij denken: wat moeten wij hieraan doen, ondertussen al onze Europese regeringsleiders niet weten hoe snel zij naar Saoedi-Arabië moeten afreizen om hun respect te betuigen aan de overleden koning. Saoedi-Arabië! Het land dat het terrorisme helpt te financieren, het land dat net zulke barbaarse praktijken heeft als de IS, het land dat er niet voor terugschrikt om mensen stokslagen te geven, handen en voeten af te hakken, doodstraffen uit te delen. Dames en heren, dáár moet het begin zijn van ons anti-terrorismebeleid! Kristina Winberg (EFDD). - Tack herr talman! Det har påståtts från vissa håll att terrorism och radikalisering beror på fattigdom och obefintliga chanser att få jobb för ungdomar. I så fall borde väl Grekland, med en ungdomsarbetslöshet på över 50 procent, vimla av IS-krigare och Boko Haram-anhängare. Ändå har vi inte sett en enda självmordsbombare i Aten, och inga terroristattacker på mycket länge. Vad har då Grekland istället? Låg invandring, en gemensam nationell identitet och förstånd att uttrycka sitt missnöje genom att gå till valurnorna och välja ett nytt styre. Studie efter studie har visat att utländska terrorister generellt sett har högre utbildning och högre inkomster än genomsnittet i länderna de kommer från. Vad har terrorister för minsta gemensamma nämnare med den antisemitism vi såg i Paris? Ett intensivt hat mot väst och sina nya hemländer och en extrem tolkning av och bekännelse till islam. Man kanske kommer åt en och annan genom arbetsmarknadspolitiska program, exit-program, integrationsåtgärder osv, men i det långa loppet måste vi inse att det finns väldigt många människor med en betydande kapacitet att skada oss, såväl inom som utom EU, som helt enkelt inte ser världen på samma sätt utan av hela sin själ vill upprätthålla ett islamiskt kalifat under strikta sharialagar. Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, firstly allow me to express my personal sympathy and that of my constituents in Northern Ireland following the recent abhorrent attacks and loss of life. Today, we stand with communities in France and in northern Nigeria, and indeed with those from the Jewish community experiencing the awful rise of anti-Semitism. As a Member of this Parliament from Northern Ireland, I know all too well how the threat and the out-workings of terrorism can have devastating consequences, not only for the victims and their families, but also for a nation's consciousness. In Northern Ireland we are privileged to have committed police and armed forces, and today as we assess anti-terrorism measures across Europe, Member States must ensure that their forces are given all the necessary resources to succeed in this fight against terror. The Charlie Hebdo rallies in Paris and across France show a resilience of character that says the bullet and bomb will not prevail. Such resilience of character was also evident in my community as the IRA waged a campaign of terror. We held similar rallies after the Enniskillen bomb, after the Omagh bomb and other atrocities and, while the IRA was defeated, sadly for many justice still evades them and those scarred by terrorist activities. Today's debate is about stopping terrorism, but every day we in this House must focus on the rights and needs of victims of terrorism. Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). - Señor Presidente, empiezo con una cita del portavoz de al Bagdadi (es de antes de ayer): „Cualquier musulmán con capacidad de derramar una gota de sangre de los cruzados, que lo haga. ¿Visteis lo que un simple musulmán hizo con Canadá y su parlamento de holgazanes y lo que nuestros hermanos en Francia, Australia y Bélgica hicieron? Que Alá tenga misericordia con todos ellos. Lo que viene será peor y más amargo”. Antes de ayer. Esta es la amenaza, es una amenaza inequívoca, actual, permanente y sostenida en el tiempo y letalmente cumplida. ¿Y la respuesta? ¿Estamos aquí para la respuesta? No lo sé. La respuesta tiene que venir de la mano de la prevención, la detección, la persecución y la represión. Tiene que venir de la mano de todo ese catálogo de actuaciones que se han puesto aquí de manifiesto. Ayer mismo hice yo un diccionario, un diccionario de medidas y de objetivos, en el ámbito de las libertades y en el ámbito de la represión, la prevención, en la investigación y el enjuiciamiento. Hay que mejorar las relaciones con Turquía, con Canadá, con Australia y con los Estados Unidos. Hay que mejorar nuestras fronteras exteriores, hay que neutralizar el tráfico de armas de fuego y de explosivos. Todo esto lo podemos hacer, lo tenemos que hacer con la fuerza de la razón y con la razón de la fuerza. Tenemos el derecho a defender y la obligación de defender a nuestros ciudadanos y además tenemos el Derecho primario, que da garantía y vitalidad a la norma jurídica que nos damos. Somos más fuertes pero más vulnerables. O reaccionamos pronto, o, pronto, pronto, asistiremos, junto a debates estériles, a más minutos de silencio y a más manifestaciones solidarias. Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). - Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Sie haben in Ihrer Rede gemeint, Sicherheit ist Garantie für demokratische Gesellschaften – das ist richtig, und Terroristen attackieren diese Sicherheit. Aber Terroristen attackieren auch andere Grundbestandteile demokratischer Gesellschaften, nämlich die Freiheit, die Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Bei allen Maßnahmen, die zu ergreifen sind, die notwendig sind, muss man immer wieder mit bedenken, dass diese Balance zwischen Sicherheit und Bewahrung unserer Freiheit, Bewahrung unserer Rechtsstaatlichkeit eine unglaublich schwierige ist. Wenn Sie jetzt glauben, wir brauchen mehr Daten – ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob das notwendig ist –, und wenn Sie glauben, wir brauchen Passagierdatenabkommen, Passagierdatenrichtlinien, dann müssen Sie eine vorschlagen, Herr Kommissar, und zwar eine, die den Entscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs, den Grundrechten entspricht. Dann kann man darüber diskutieren. Ich bin mir immer noch nicht sicher, ob das notwendig ist. Bei den letzten Ereignissen war es nicht so, dass zu wenig Daten da waren, da waren zu wenig Polizisten da, die diese Daten ausgewertet haben, und zu wenig Polizisten auf der Straße. Vielleicht sollte man darüber auch einmal diskutieren. 15, 20 Jahre Sparpolitik haben in Wahrheit auch unsere Polizei ruiniert, und sie ist nicht mehr in der Lage, darauf zu reagieren. Darüber muss man auch einmal diskutieren. Vielleicht brauchen die mehr Geld und nicht mehr Überwachung derjenigen, die sowieso unschuldig sind. Geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, wir müssen da wirklich vorsichtig sein. Die sozialdemokratische Fraktion ist für vernünftige Aktionen, um Terrorismus zu verhindern, sie ist aber nicht für blinden Aktionismus, der nichts bringt und unsere Freiheit immer mehr einschränkt und unseren Rechtsstaat abbaut. Den Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die jetzt nach Grenzkontrollen rufen, sei gesagt: Grenzkontrollen hätten diese Anschläge nicht verhindert, aber sie hätten vielleicht diesen Mann daran gehindert, nach Paris zu kommen, der diese sechs Menschen gerettet hat. Darüber sollte man auch einmal nachdenken, ob das dann Sinn gehabt hätte. Helga Stevens (ECR). - In Zuid-Europa wordt slechts in het allerbeste geval een marginale veiligheidscontrole uitgevoerd op inkomende vluchtelingen met papieren. Maar vluchtelingen zonder papieren worden anders gescreend. Ook sommige EU-burgers vormen een veiligheidsrisico. Ik denk bijvoorbeeld aan terugkerende strijders. Er is daarom nood aan frequentere, gerichte, maar niet systematische controles aan de buitengrenzen van Europa. Ik heb namelijk de indruk dat bijvoorbeeld de buitengrens met Turkije in de praktijk veel te poreus is. Om dit aan te pakken moeten - als eerste stap - gemeenschappelijke risico-indicatoren worden ontwikkeld. Voor mij zijn dat absoluut prioriteiten die nog onvoldoende worden aangepakt. Lorenzo Fontana (NI). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, devo dire la verità: purtroppo ho sentito un po' poco da parte del nostro Commissario. Mi sarebbe piaciuto sentire anche un po' di autocritica perché, credo che, se sta succedendo quello che sta succedendo, in parte la colpa è anche delle istituzioni europee. Mi piacerebbe, per esempio, sentire qualcosa riguardo quello che ha fatto l'Europa negli anni passati riguardo alla Libia, all'Iraq, o anche quanto ha fatto recentemente riguardo alla Siria o quanto non ha fatto, ad esempio, nei confronti di paesi come l'Arabia Saudita, che di sicuro non è uno dei paesi più tolleranti al mondo. È un fallimento dell'Europa, un fallimento delle politiche di integrazione: non possiamo pensare che l'integrazione consista nel permettere a qualcuno di venire qui in Europa e di dire o fare quello che vuole. Quando ci sono delle persone in Europa che dicono che vogliono applicare la sharia, queste persone devono essere semplicemente espulse. Ed è anche un fallimento delle politiche di immigrazione: è notizia di ieri che l'Isis, dalla Libia, dice che vuole infiltrare dei terroristi che poi arriveranno, magari con i barconi, attraverso l'immigriamone clandestina, in Europa. Quindi, servono controlli più rigorosi alle frontiere e soprattutto che quei clandestini che ci sono vengano rimpatriati. Michał Boni (PPE). - Mr President, Europe needs security which means it needs stronger counterterrorism actions and the new policy. It is important to avoid losing time at the political stage so the idea of a pact on counterterrorism among key political groups in Parliament is very much expected. I want to emphasise some points. One: we should start common work with the Commission on the renewal of the European internal security strategy. We need clear pillars for this strategy, a holistic approach and a fast track. Two: it is important that work starts again on PNR as a common framework for 28 Member States, taking fully into account personal data protection, responding to the problem of retention indicated by the Court, based on real evidence of how this solution could be effective and ensure that those data which are really needed are processed. Three: we need fast work on the NIS Directive. It is important for strengthening cooperation among Member States. The key point is to have useful cooperation among all the institutions which can contribute in the area of anti-terrorism actions (also responsible for the security of our external borders). Four: we need proper legislation, adjusted to the terrorism challenges but which on the other hand protects differentiation in cultural, ethnic and religious views. Also with respect to privacy and encryptions by default in devices. This is the key goal – to finalise work on the whole privacy package. Five: the last point, we need a good balance between freedom and security. Freedom and security are the two sides of the same face of the European citizen. Claude Moraes (S&D). - Mr President, like the Commissioner, I will be going to Riga at 5 p.m. to have the honour of representing Parliament in the negotiations. Listening to some of the contrasting views, it might be thought that this will be a very difficult task. In fact, I would suggest it is not as difficult as colleagues would think. The chair of my political group and other colleagues have actually said that if, notwithstanding the views of Mr Albrecht, they believe that PNR is something which can be justified by the Commissioner, that PNR is not objectionable in principle, in terms of proportionality and necessity, and that we have the requisite safeguards – with, as Ms Hohlmeier said, actual solidarity, and the civil liberties that my colleague Ms Sippel talked about – then together we can achieve this. However, I would say to the Commissioner, on behalf of the Parliament and of my own group, that we have to build trust. The way to do this is to point out that PNR is not the only component of this strategy and road map against terrorism. This is about radicalisation and about Europol getting all the necessary leads against terrorism, as the Commissioner said. Fighting terrorism is about the causes of terrorism, and it is about a whole range of things – as many speakers have said today – because, if it is not about these things, then we cannot unite here in Parliament against terrorism, which is such a complex issue. We should unite but we should not fool our public by pretending this is not a complex issue. We should work together with the Commission and the Council, in a sophisticated and compassionate way, to achieve our objectives while safeguarding civil liberties and ensuring that component is taken seriously in the Council meetings. I hope my colleagues will help us and help, with the Council and the Commission, in these discussions. Anders Primdahl Vistisen (ECR). - Hr. formand! Når man både hører den debat, der var på LIBE-Udvalgets møde i denne uge, og den debat, nogle af kollegerne har her i salen, så får man det indtryk, at man her i Europa-Parlamentet sidder i en osteklokke, hvor man fuldstændig ignorer de meget fornuftige ordninger, som regeringerne i medlemslandene ønsker - de meget fornuftige ordninger, som en stor del af borgerne i Europa ønsker. Man kører sig selv op på nogle principper, som lyder godt, og som der også skal tages hensyn til - altså hensynet til, at man ikke registrerer for meget, hensynet til, hvordan man registrerer - men man gør det på en så fundamentalistisk måde, at man bliver ved med at sætte hindringer i vejen for at få en ordentlig anti-terror-beskyttelse i Europa. Hvis det fortsætter på denne måde, så er det helt klart mit indtryk, at regeringerne bare skal fortsætte uden om dette parlament. Hovedpointen må være at beskytte de europæiske borgere, ikke at beskytte forfængeligheden i nogle medlemmer af dette parlamentet, der ønsker at blokere PNR af hvilken som helst grund. Harald Vilimsky (NI). - Herr Präsident! Wann immer terroristische Gefahr droht auf unserem Kontinent oder jetzt auch tatsächlich leider konkreten Ausdruck gefunden hat, ist immer das selbe Reaktionsmuster Ihrerseits zu verzeichnen: Sie rufen nach einer Aushöhlung der bürgerlichen Grundrechte und sie rufen nach einer Implementierung von noch mehr Überwachungstechnologien. Ich frage mich, wieviel mehr Telefone wollen Sie noch überwachen, wieviel mehr an Internetverkehr wollen Sie noch überwachen, wieviel mehr an biometrischen Daten wollen Sie noch absaugen? Sie müssen endlich auch die Stirn besitzen und den Mut, zu sagen, dass die Gefahr von einer ganz klaren Richtung ausgeht, und das ist der Islamismus. Man muss hier auch die richtigen politischen Reaktionsmuster darauf setzen. Man muss klarmachen, dass Zuwanderung aus dem islamischen Bereich künftig tunlichst unterbunden werden soll, weil Zuwanderung aus dem islamischen Bereich heißt, dass diese als Trägerwelle für politischen Islamismus gebraucht wird. Man muss klarmachen im Bereich Asyl, dass Asylbetreuung tunlichst auf dem Kontinent jener Menschen, die Schutz und Hilfe suchen, stattzufinden hat, wie es der deutsche Innenminister de Maizière auch verlangt hat. Und man muss auch jedem, der zu uns gekommen ist, klarmachen, dass unser Kontinent einer ist, der auf christlichen und abendländischen Wurzeln fußt, und dass jeder, der damit Probleme hat, wieder auf seinen Ursprungskontinent zurückgehen soll. Meine Damen und Herren, ich fordere eine Null-Toleranz-Politik gegenüber jeglichem politischen Extremismus und gegenüber religiösem Fundamentalismus, und ich fordere, dass Sie endlich diesem Problem mutig und ehrlich in die Augen blicken und die richtigen Handlungen setzen, anstatt hier nur herumzureden. Elisabetta Gardini (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei dire che, alla luce di quanto ha anche detto il Commissario – e cioè il rischio che fare tante dichiarazioni che non sono seguite dai fatti, aumenti la sfiducia dei cittadini – è quasi difficile intervenire su questo tema. Gli occhi saranno puntati molto sull'incontro di Riga, così come saranno puntati anche sull'incontro informale dei Capi di Stato e di Governo. Io credo che noi abbiamo bisogno di concretezza. Non voglio ripetere le misure cui hanno già fatto riferimento i miei colleghi. Ho molto apprezzato l'intervento della collega Hohlmeier. Penso che quello di cui abbiamo bisogno, tutti quanti qui, è di lasciare a casa le nostre ideologie, di smetterla di essere o „buonisti” o „allarmisti”. Dobbiamo metterci vicino ai nostri cittadini, che in questo momento ricevono una marea di informazioni, anche dissonanti e contrastanti che aumentano l'allarme. Perché, ad esempio, nel mio paese un ministro degli Esteri prima dice che c'è la possibilità di infiltrazioni attraverso l'immigrazione, poi lo smentisce; poi però arriva comunque – come è stato ricordato anche da Marine Le Pen – l'allarme dalla Libia. Sappiamo che la Libia, territorio dal quale parte quella marea di disperati, è sempre più nelle mani dell'Isis e non possiamo tollerare che i nostri cittadini – e le parlo in particolare a nome dei miei concittadini che sono gli italiani – si sentano in trincea, si sentano in prima linea e vedono che noi continuiamo a perderci in chiacchere, continuiamo a filtrare la realtà attraverso visioni più o meno ideologiche mentre hanno assolutamente bisogno che noi acceleriamo sulle misure concrete esistenti e soprattutto che superiamo quella mancanza di fiducia che c'è tra Stati e, alle volte, tra diversi corpi delle forze dell'ordine, che superiamo anche quelle gelosie e invidie che stanno bloccando un sistema già in campo, al quale dobbiamo dare respiro e forza perché credo che la sicurezza sia uno dei principali diritti di un cittadino e sicuramente uno dei principali doveri. Credo addirittura che sia la ragion d'essere di uno Stato, uno dei principali motivi per cui gli Stati esistono. Quindi, mi affido a lei Commissario, affinché diate veramente concretezza alle parole. Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR). - Mr President, I wonder what scale of atrocity it would take before all Members of this Parliament understand that strong security measures, exercised with proper oversight by our democratically-elected governments – possibly assisted in limited areas by the European Union – are necessary to combat a serious terrorist threat. I must say that I am astonished by some of the views that have been expressed today. In relation to the terrible terrorist attacks in Paris, one of our colleagues remarked that the perpetrators were known. So what would he have done? I suspect he would be the last person that would see the logical conclusion from what he has just said, and that is that all these suspects should be locked up. That would be the conclusion from what he has just said. In these times of heightened terrorist threat our intelligence and security services need the ability to penetrate the black hole that parts of the Internet have become and to identify the patterns of behaviour that might enable terrorists to be identified. We need PNR, but it is just one of many measures that need to be taken. Let us also, by the way, avoid exploiting yet another crisis in order just to give the EU more powers and competence. It is about being effective in our Member States. Marcel de Graaff (NI). - West-Europa gaat gebukt onder terreur, onder aanslagen, moorden, verkrachtingen. Jihadisten en wapenhandelaren reizen vrij rond in de Europese Unie. Turkije, Saoedi-Arabië en Quatar betalen imams om haat te prediken. In Europese madrassa's worden kinderen opgeleid voor oorlog tegen de ongelovigen, tegen de Europese normen en waarden, tegen ons, tegen u en ik. Onze burgers zijn het zat. Zij gaan massaal de straat op in Milaan, in Dresden en in Parijs. En wat doet de Europese Commissie? Zij pleit voor meer immigratie uit moslimlanden, meer immigratie uit achterlijke culturen, meer Turkije. Genoeg is genoeg! Schengen moet stoppen, immigratie moet stoppen, islamisering moet stoppen. Jihadisten eruit, haatpredikers eruit, terroristen eruit! Ik eis van de Europese Commissie onmiddellijk de immigratie te stoppen en de binnengrenzen te herstellen. Axel Voss (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Europa braucht eine neue Antiterrorstrategie und auch eine verbesserte Strategie für die innere Sicherheit, denn der derzeitige Zustand kann nicht beruhigen bei diesen Bedrohungen, und die Kommission und Sie, Herr Arramopoulos sind da auf dem richtigen Weg. Wir sollten hier auch den Opfern und Hinterbliebenen und unseren Bürgern zeigen, dass wir in der Lage sind, hierauf zu reagieren, und wir sollten auch entschieden darauf reagieren, ansonsten haben wir schon verloren. Manche von uns – und das regt mich richtig auf in dieser Debatte – wollen einfach manche Realitäten nicht zur Kenntnis nehmen. Unsere Freiheiten sind für die Terroristen Anlass genug, uns umzubringen. Und wenn Sie jetzt alle auf den Grabsteinen sehen wollen. Aber eure Daten waren sicher, dann beruhigt das keinen! Natürlich brauchen wir eine Balance zwischen Sicherheit und Freiheit hier in diesem Bereich. Dafür braucht man aber auch den politischen Willen, das hinzubekommen, und vielleicht sollte man dann eben auch mal zur Kenntnis nehmen, dass uns die Experten seit vier Jahren erzählen, dass man aus den Fluggastdaten besondere Erkenntnisse herausbekommt, die eben mit anderen Daten nicht zu gewinnen sind. Der Berichterstatter hat in diesen Jahren enorme Anstrengungen gemacht und ist Ihnen entgegengekommen, und vielleicht sollte man da einfach auch mal anfangen, die politische Verantwortung zu übernehmen. Wenn hier immer von Aktionismus gesprochen wird – ich wäre ja froh, wenn Sie überhaupt mal in Aktion kommen würden, anstatt immer nur gegen alles zu sein – seit vier Jahren puzzeln wir daran herum und die bessere Koordinierung ist eben auch so ein Punkt. Wir hatten im NSA-Bericht vom März letzten Jahres vorgeschlagen, die geheimdienstlichen Informationen auch entsprechend zu koordinieren. Es wurde von Ihnen abgelehnt! Vielleicht kann man da jetzt mal einen Schritt weiterkommen. Vielen Dank. Gerolf Annemans (NI). - Als Vlaming en dus voorlopig als onderdaan van het Belgische koninkrijk wil ik verontschuldigingen aanbieden aan alle slachtoffers van islamterrorisme. België is vandaag specifiek in een Youtube filmpje door IS bedreigd met autobommen en onthoofdingen, tezamen met Frankrijk. België wordt „het kleine zusje” van Frankrijk genoemd, erg genoeg. De wapens van Koulibaly, van de gebroeders Kouachi werden hier twee kilometer verderop gekocht, in de wijk van het Brusselse zuidstation. Diverse terroristencellen kwamen de afgelopen dagen op Belgisch grondgebied in beeld. Er is een verband tussen dit terrorisme en de wijze waarop de immigratie hier in België is verlopen, de immigratiepolitiek van de socialistische partijen, decennia lang, van België. En van hun politieke bondgenoten, die de grenzen van dit land openzetten. Jarenlang Belgische papieren overhandigen zonder voorwaarden te stellen en zonder beperkingen op te leggen heeft een monster gebaard. Ik herhaal: ik verontschuldig mij in hun plaats bij alle slachtoffers van terrorisme. Presidente. -
(rivolgendosi all'onorevole Buonanno, che chiede di poter intervenire per una mozione di procedura) Onorevole Buonanno, la prego di dar prova di rispetto dell'Aula. Mi dica a quale articolo del regolamento si richiama. Gianluca Buonanno (NI). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mi richiamo all'articolo 186 del regolamento: la mozione di procedura. In assenza della signora Mogherini, vorrei sottolineare questo argomento così importante, perché noi siamo in guerra contro il terrorismo islamico. Sono vestito da soldato per ricordarvelo, perché voi dormite in piedi. Bisogna affrontare questo tema a Strasburgo, tenendo una seduta apposita per un'intera giornata. Quindi chiedo una mozione di procedura con la signora Mogherini presente. Signor Presidente le chiedo questo perché su temi molto più cretini state qua delle giornate e su temi così importanti non fate parlare nessuno. ... questa è l'Europa davvero dei „dormi in piedi”. Presidente. - Onorevole, ho capito perfettamente il richiamo al regolamento: è un tema che deve essere sollevato dai gruppi in occasione delle riunioni della presidenza. Gianluca Buonanno (NI). - Signor Presidente, mi scusi, parlate sempre di aria fritta, le cose serie sono queste. Signor Presidente, è inutile fare il Presidente e poi essere ... (Il Presidente ritira la parola all'oratore) Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE). - Señor Presidente, Señorías, pasado mañana se cumple un nuevo aniversario del asesinato de mi hermano y su mujer a manos de la organización terrorista ETA. Hace pocas semanas tres terroristas sembraron el terror en París matando a doce inocentes y aterrorizando a millones de europeos. A mi hermano lo mataron fanáticos nacionalistas; a los periodistas, fanáticos religiosos. A todos les digo que no hay tierra ni dios que valga la vida de una persona inocente. Por eso, hoy aquí no hablo solo como víctima del terrorismo, sino como una ciudadana europea y defendiendo a aquellos que tienen el derecho de vivir sin miedo. Necesitamos una política terrorista coherente y continua, no intermitente, que actúa solo bajo la onda emocional, pero que cuando nos quitamos la pegatina volvemos a la hipócrita indiferencia. Y sí, claro que soy partidaria del PNR, y de tenerlo ya, porque la urgencia, señores, no está reñida con la responsabilidad de proteger a nuestros ciudadanos. Basta ya de afrontar el terrorismo de modo ideológico, porque a quienes nos matan no les importa nada si nosotros somos de derechas, de izquierdas, verdes, del GUE, socialistas o populares. Si ellos, los muertos, pudieran hablar, seguro que nos pedirían que nos uniéramos y defendiéramos el más importante de todos los derechos, que es el derecho a la vida. Porque sin el derecho a la vida no podemos ejercer ninguno de los demás, y tampoco el más importante, que es el de la libertad y por el que han muerto todas las víctimas del terrorismo. Procedura catch-the-eye Alessandra Mussolini (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mi auguro che il Commissario abbia le idee molto chiare. Perché all'inizio ero ottimista, quando ho sentito l'intento di trovare un'unione tra di noi, tra le forze politiche, un'unione di questa Europa, dal momento che il terrorismo trae spunto, trae l'humus vitale e alimento, proprio attraverso le nostre divisioni. Da un lato, si sente parlare della possibilità di chiudere le frontiere, di abbandonare Schengen, e quindi tornare ad uno stato feudale. Dall'altro si parla di ricacciare gli islamici dall'Europa: ma già sono in Europa. Sono bastate tre persone. Si chiamano „lupi solitari”, per creare quello che è successo: tre persone. Allora, mettiamoci d'accordo, pur con le dovute differenze su quelle che sono le misure! Ancora, il PNR europeo. Ma il PNR alcuni lo vogliono, altri meno, altri dicono no al PNR tra i paesi europei. Ma non lo vuole neanche il Garante per la protezione dei dati. Quindi è importante avere un'unica voce, un'unica voce per combattere una battaglia difficile. Ho sentito parlare di tolleranza – è giustissimo – ma non di reciprocità. Gli islamici vogliono anche poter costruire moschee ma distruggono le nostre chiese. Quindi, reciprocità e rispetto. Ana Gomes (S&D). - Mr President, why do we keep talking about foreign fighters and not recognise that the main threat is indeed home-grown, coming from EU nationals such as those who carried out attacks in Madrid, in London, in Brussels and lately in Paris. Why do Member States, instead of waving PNR as a magic bullet, not adequately finance national information and security services and those at EU level, namely Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, in order to equip them with expertise in Arabic and other language skills, as well as in human intelligence to monitor social media, to draw up shared lists of terrorism suspects, spend resources on targeted instead of mass surveillance, on protecting critical infrastructure and on fighting effectively cybercrime and financing of terrorism? Why do Member States and the EU tolerate the proliferation of competing services and crisis centres, even at EU level as well as at national level, which compete with each other instead of cooperating and sharing information? Why do they not invest in a single crisis and information centre at EU level to serve all the EU institutions and communicate with Member States? And of course, instead of the austerity that fosters social disintegration, why do they not finance programmes to prevent radicalisation and de-radicalise the young people from our communities who are being drawn into these horrendous activities? Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Wobec takiego zjawiska jak terroryzm trzeba działać w sposób spójny i szybki. Pani Hohlmeier wzywała do spójności, ale mam takie wrażenie, że bardzo szybko jedność została rozbita. Jeśli brać na poważnie głosy lewicy, zielonych, to bardzo wyraźnie powiedziano, „nie chcemy nowych instrumentów do walki z terroryzmem”, a bardziej inteligentnie i miękko mówią to socjaliści, także pan Verhofstadt dążył w tym samym kierunku. Ale jeszcze bardziej niepokoi mnie to żółwie tempo komisarza Avramopoulosa – zapowiedź, że w maju będziemy mieć dopiero program walki z terroryzmem, że wtedy ukształtuje się definitywnie agenda programowa, to jest niezwykle wolne tempo. Nie można też cały czas powtarzać formuły: „chcemy skutecznej walki i chcemy respektu dla praw podstawowych”. Trzeba pokazać konkretne instrumenty i mam nadzieję, że pan komisarz w ostatnim słowie po pierwsze przyśpieszy kalendarz, po drugie powie o tym zdecydowanie bardziej konkretnie niż na początku. Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - Señor Presidente, sí a la seguridad para proteger la integridad de la ciudadanía europea y sí a una seguridad que garantice los derechos fundamentales, con medidas acordes a nuestros estándares democráticos. La primera herramienta contra el desafío al que nos enfrentamos es la inteligencia. Necesitamos una coordinación de objetivos e información a nivel europeo y un aprovechamiento eficiente de todos los recursos técnicos y humanos. Y nada menos inteligente que aprovechar el viaje para restar, marginar a instituciones competentes en la materia y dispuestas a sumar. Nada peor que limar libertades. Las ideas no delinquen, delinque la radicalidad, que las convierte en instrumentos de odio contra el otro. Y no olvidemos que apostar por la paz incluye eliminar la fractura social en la que el extremismo tiene su mejor caldo de cultivo. Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). - A prevenção e o firme combate ao terrorismo não podem jamais ser um pretexto para impor medidas de caráter securitário, limitadoras das liberdades, dos direitos e das garantias dos cidadãos, como aliás já vimos com o Patriot Act. Não aceitaremos também medidas de cooperação judicial em matéria penal que ponham em causa princípios constitucionalmente e democraticamente consagrados pelos povos de cada país. Têm, sim, que ser adotadas medidas de combate sério ao financiamento do terrorismo, venham de offshore, venham da venda de recursos energéticos e também medidas de combate ao tráfico de armas e, dizer: terrorismo é sempre terrorismo, em qualquer canto do mundo. A União Europeia e outras forças não podem apoiar e financiar organizações que são ligadas à Al-Quaeda e ao Estado Islâmico e depois querer combatê-las quando estão ao pé das nossas casas e o terrorismo tanto acontece em Paris, como é praticado nos territórios ocupados da Palestina ou através dos drones que os Estados Unidos usam para combater populações indefesas. É terrorismo em todo o lado. Ignazio Corrao (EFDD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Commissario Avramopoulos, da un lato, abbiamo questa richiesta di sicurezza; dall'altro, abbiamo i diritti civili e le libertà. Quando si mettono sulla bilancia queste due cose, si rischia che, in nome del pericolo del terrorismo, si mettano in discussione conquiste civili, il raggiungimento delle quali ha richiesto tanti anni. Allora, cerchiamo di analizzare storicamente cosa è successo ogni volta che si è messo in mezzo un pericolo del genere: stiamo attenti a non mettere in discussione delle libertà civili importanti. Ha ragione il collega Albrecht nell'affermare che gli strumenti già esistono e dovrebbero essere utilizzati meglio. Ad esempio, in tema di sicurezza c'è poca cooperazione tra i servizi segreti dei singoli Stati membri. Cerchiamo di scambiarci le informazioni e agire meglio da questo punto di vista, invece di evocare un mostro e rischiare di fare passi indietro. Non riesco a capire il senso delle affermazioni della collega Le Pen quando dice di ripristinare i confini e rifare, non lo so, la politica colonialista di cento anni fa. Cerchiamo di capire che il mondo è cambiato e che su certe conquiste non si può tornare indietro, come Schengen non si può mettere in discussione. Krisztina Morvai (NI). - Mindenki, akinek van szíve, megdöbben attól, hogyha a terrorizmus következtében ártatlan emberek meghalnak. De aki egyszerre használja a szívét és az eszét, az azt is átlátja, hogy nagyon ki lehet használni a terrorizmussal összefüggő természetes félelmét az embereknek arra, hogy olyan intézkedéseket vezessenek be, amelyek egyre többet elvesznek az emberek szabadságából és jogaiból, és egy kicsi, átláthatatlan, ellenőrizhetetlen, óriási hatalommal rendelkező csoportnak adjanak a kezébe ellenőrzést a polgárok felett – ezt nyilvánvalóan nem akarjuk. Ugye, ne felejtsük el, hogy a terror elleni háború, vagy a terrorizmus elleni háború jegyében vezette be a nyugati világ az internetes kommunikáció fölötti totális ellenőrzést, a lehallgatásokat. Ennek jegyében kínoznak még mindig Guantánamón bírói döntés nélkül és vádemelés nélkül foglyokat. Ennek jegyében indítottak két igazságtalan és indokolhatatlan háborút, amelynek következtében százezrek haltak meg, civil lakosság. Mindezek az intézkedések nem megelőzték, hanem még veszélyesebbé tették... (Az elnök megvonta a szót a képviselőtől.) Csaba Sógor (PPE). - Mr President, the global nature of recent terrorist violence demands that we redouble our efforts to provide a genuine area of security, and that we integrate the internal and external aspects of the fight against terrorism. Many of the instruments have already been put in place, and in such cases we need only to consolidate or better apply rules, or to exercise trust among Member States. A European security policy would probably have more respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights principles than the current patchwork of individual Member State solutions. Fighting for more security should never jeopardise the other objectives of freedom and justice. This is what must always differentiate us from the people we try to protect ourselves from. However, all security policy measures must go hand in hand with introspection as to the causes of radicalisation and with an effort to develop more social cohesion and inclusiveness in our societies. Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señor Presidente, quiero unirme a quienes en este debate nos han recordado que el enemigo no es el Islam, sino el fanatismo criminal de quienes están dispuestos a matar y a morir matando y a quienes recuerdan que el atentado terrorista más sanguinario de los últimos años no lo perpetró un musulmán: se llamaba Anders Breivik y era un racista de extrema derecha cargado de odio contra el Islam y contra el pluralismo religioso e identitario. Me sumo también a quienes recuerdan que la batalla, que debe garantizar un equilibrio entre libertad y seguridad, no la podemos librar traicionando el ADN de la Unión Europea, que es el respeto a los derechos fundamentales y fundamentalmente de la privacidad de los europeos y a quienes nos recuerdan también que la batalla incluye la lucha por los valores, contra la exclusión social y contra la marginalidad, en la que anida el fanatismo psicótico. Y, finalmente, por supuesto que me sumo también a los que recuerdan la importancia de legislar contra el discurso del odio, porque en la legislación penal española hemos conseguido distinguir la libertad de expresión del enaltecimiento del terrorismo, la glorificación del terrorismo, la apología del terrorismo y la humillación de las víctimas. Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). - Безспорно ислямският фанатизъм и радикализъм е най-голямото предизвикателство пред западната цивилизация в момента. Безспорно на тази религия се гледа като на политика и нейните вдъхновители чертаят и следват една-единствена политическа цел – да превземат целия свят от името на тяхната гледна точка. Ние имаме два избора, или да се съпротивляваме, или да загубим тази борба. Но тази борба не се води с декларации, уважаеми г-н Председател и колеги. Тази борба може да се води единствено със силна държава, с граници, с разузнаване, с национална сигурност. Това, което ние можем и трябва да правим като Европейски парламент, е да използваме нашите политически инструменти. И един политически инструмент, г-н Комисар, е това, да бъде наложена санкция на държава, която подкрепя тероризма, например Турция; държава, която ползва европейски фондове; държава, която организира трафик на хора; държава, която финансира, организира и лекува бойците на ISIS или на ИДИЛ, или както искате ги наречете; държава, която застрашава съседните като България и Гърция, прехвърляйки десетки нелегални мигранти. Това можем и това трябва да правим и тези санкции трябва да бъдат поискани от вас. Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE). - Monsieur le Président, nous ne sommes pas dans des temps ordinaires. La menace intérieure et extérieure est réelle et bien là, c'est pourquoi la volonté politique doit s'exprimer vite. L'Europe doit faire la démonstration de sa capacité à agir dans le cadre naturel de son état de droit. Évidemment, il faut améliorer le partage des renseignements, renforcer le SIS et Europol, mettre en œuvre un PNR européen intelligent. De même, il faut décider de contrôler systématiquement les frontières aériennes, maritimes et terrestres de Schengen pour montrer que Schengen est efficace. Il faudra, de même, renforcer Eurojust et – pourquoi pas? – nous doter d'un procureur européen. Enfin, il faudra, sur le long terme, avoir une stratégie réelle pour nos prisons, qui sont aujourd'hui trop souvent, dans nombre d'États membres, une école pour le crime et le terrorisme. Nous devrons aussi mener une politique étrangère responsable, je pense en particulier à la Turquie. Nous devons, en collaboration avec elle, repenser – pourquoi pas? – à une politique de visas temporaires. Enfin, il faudra avancer sur l'Europe de la défense. Faisons tout cela ensemble, alors nous démontrerons que nous sommes enfin à la hauteur des défis. (Fine della procedura catch-the-eye) Dimitris Avramopoulos,
Member of the Commission
. - Mr President, honourable Members, first of all allow me to express my thanks to all of you for your contributions to this very interesting and important debate. In the face of the monstrous attacks this month, and in responding to the ongoing threat of terrorist attacks, Europe must remain strong and united in its response. Do not have any doubt that the Commission will do its part to support the response at EU level, and we will work hand in hand with Parliament and, obviously, with Member States in our common goal of keeping Europe open and secure. On EU PNR, since many Members of this Parliament referred to that, I want to clarify once again that our position remains unchanged. The Commission is committed to working together with the co-legislators to achieve a legal instrument which is both effective and fully in line with fundamental rights. We are very carefully assessing all options regarding how the Commission can best help the European Union legislators to reach a quick and effective result on the EU PNR proposal. Allow me to thank the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, for the work he is currently doing. We will be next to him. On the implementation of existing measures: this is indeed a priority for us. The Commission is expecting responses by 15 March from all Member States. On Schengen now: yes, I agree with Mr Verhofstadt. Schengen is not a problem, it is part of the solution, and I explained in my opening remarks how we need to make the maximum use of the existing possibilities, and the best use of this tool. I would like to thank you again for this very timely debate. I have received one important message out of this which is that we should be united; work together here, but also with all the institutions. The Commission is committed to working with you for the benefit of all citizens, to defend their rights and their security, to work with you in trust and in unity. Presidente. - La discussione è chiusa, la votazione avrà luogo nella prossima tornata. Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162) Jonathan Arnott (EFDD),
in writing.
– I am disappointed to hear references in today's debate to the European Arrest Warrant, a pernicious piece of legislation which allows UK citizens to be extradited without the case ever being heard by a British court to weigh up whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant extradition. Even more disturbingly, the British Conservative Party chose to opt back into this legislation when it had the opportunity to do so and stifled the Westminster Parliament in the process. We need strong national security and borders to counter terrorism; let us by all means share best practice with our European neighbours but security must be sovereign. Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D),
raštu.
– Teroristinės atakos Paryžiuje visai Europai skaudžiai priminė, jog pernelyg ilgai gyvenome, tikėdami apgaulingu saugumu ir pernelyg ilgai ignoravome signalus, kurie šiandien jau pasireiškė ypatingo smurto ir destrukcijos forma. Jau 2003 m. Europos saugumo strategijoje buvo įvardinti pagrindiniai saugumo iššūkiai, kaip antai terorizmas, regioniniai konfliktai , organizuotas nusikalstamumas, tačiau šiandieninio terorizmo šaknys kyla iš dešimtmečiais vykusių visuomeninių pokyčių tiek mūsų visuomenėje, tiek ir iš nesugebėjimo rasti ilgalaikius taikos ir stabilumo sprendimus, ypač konfliktinėse arabų šalyse. Jei prieš daugiau nei dešimtmetį kalbėjome apie terorizmo grėsmę iš trečiųjų šalių, tai šiandien susiduriame su dar sudėtingesne problema, kai teroristines atakas vykdo ES gimę ir augę mūsų piliečiai. Manau, kad į saugumo klausimą turi būti žiūrima kompleksiškai ir peržiūrint veiksmus migracijos politikos, išorės sienų apsaugos ir organizuoto nusikalstamumo srityse. Tikiuosi, kad valstybės narės ir visa Europa rimtai vertina iškilusias saugumo grėsmes, ir bus rasta politinė valia priimti sudėtingus, tačiau saugumo užtikinimui neišvengiamus sprendimus. Dominique Bilde (NI),
par écrit.
– Votre déclaration afin de lutter contre le terrorisme au niveau européen ne semble être qu'un nouvel artifice assorti de „mesurettes” afin de faire bonne figure après les tragiques évènements qui ont touché la France. Peut-être la Commission pourrait-elle aussi accompagner ses mesures d'un site internet „stop-djihadisme” comme celui créé dernièrement par le gouvernement français, comble de l'absurde face à cette menace ? Malheureusement, elle réussit presque à s'en approcher puisque dans sa déclaration, mention était faite des possibilités de l'Union européenne pour „lutter contre les discours de haine”. Il est évident que cela résoudra les problèmes de sécurité au niveau européen... Ce triste constat d'impuissance face au terrorisme n'est que le résultat d'années de politiques laxistes de la part de l'Union européenne et de la plupart des gouvernements des États membres dont le mien, la France, qui préfèrent se voiler la face. Seule une politique volontariste permettra de résoudre clairement la situation. Les bonnes intentions ne suffiront pas, il faut dès à présent stopper l'adhésion de nouveaux pays à l'Union européenne, notamment la Turquie ou les pays des Balkans, ou encore suspendre immédiatement les accords de Schengen. Enfin, il devient urgent d'établir, comme cela se pratique aux États-Unis, un contrôle des dossiers de données passagers (PNR). Alain Cadec (PPE),
par écrit.
– Les attentats de Paris ont prouvé une fois de plus que l'Europe est la cible de groupes terroristes organisés. Des jeunes de nos pays partent à l'étranger, dans des régions en difficulté, où ils sont formés au combat par des mouvements extrémistes, puis ils reviennent frapper l'Europe en plein cœur. La réponse au terrorisme est l'unité et la solidarité des Européens et non le repli sur soi ou l'individualisme comme certains le prônent. La solution se trouve dans l'Europe. Nous devons mettre en place un PNR européen. Les socialistes doivent comprendre que nos concitoyens ont besoin de se sentir en sécurité. Nous devons repenser Schengen au regard des récents évènements. Nous avons pour obligation d'améliorer la surveillance aux frontières de l'Union. Pour cela, il nous faut augmenter les moyens financiers de Frontex. La coopération entre les polices et la coopération entre les États membres sont les directions à suivre. Mais avant tout, nous devons éduquer nos jeunes aux valeurs européennes pour que, dès le plus jeune âge, ils ne soient pas tentés par des discours prônant la haine et la destruction. Nicola Caputo (S&D),
per iscritto
. – Non possiamo nasconderlo: in Europa la minaccia del terrorismo è seria e le istituzioni comunitarie non possono che rispondere con fermezza. Tuttavia, credo che, dopo i fatti di Parigi, il termine che deve accompagnare l'azione dell'UE debba essere: „equilibrio”. Equilibrio tra la necessità di mettere in campo azioni immediate e l'obbligo di pensare a soluzioni di lungo periodo; equilibrio tra la raccolta dati, l'uso di strumenti di intelligence ed il diritto alla privacy, ma soprattutto equilibrio tra sicurezza e libertà, i due pilastri sui cui si basa la nostra democrazia. Si acceleri dunque la discussione sulla direttiva per lo scambio dati dei dati PNR ma venga anche garantita ai cittadini europei la tutela delle loro informazioni personali. Si intensifichi il controllo sugli spostamenti dei foreign fighters ma senza arrivare a una limitazione delle libertà europee, a cominciare dalla chiusura delle frontiere aperte da Schengen. Non possiamo infatti accettare che la minaccia terroristica intacchi il modello di società europeo e i valori ad esso associati. Infine, è cruciale che l'Unione si doti di una politica di sicurezza comune, che preveda una condivisione totale di informazioni tra i 28 Stati membri, caratteristica fondamentale per poter iniziare a parlare di una vera intelligence europea. Carlos Coelho (PPE),
por escrito.
– Não me oferece dúvidas que temos de combater o terrorismo que ameaça cidadãos inocentes e pretende subverter os nossos valores e as nossas sociedades. Mas, ao fazê-lo, temos de rejeitar leituras simplistas e discursos políticos demagógicos. Não é verdade que se possa associar acriticamente terrorismo a emigração. Parte dos terroristas, como se viu agora em Paris, mas já se viu no passado em Espanha e na Irlanda, são cidadãos europeus. Não é verdade que precisemos de novos instrumentos e novas leis, minando a privacidade dos europeus. O que temos de fazer é tirar partido dos instrumentos que já possuímos, otimizando a cooperação judicial e policial (incluindo a partilha de informação produzida pelos serviços secretos), sermos eficazes no combate ao tráfico de armas e pôr em prática, sem demoras, o novo Sistema de Avaliação de Schengen. Temos de identificar os problemas e resolvê-los. Clamar por mais medidas securitárias e diminuir as liberdades é ceder vitória aos terroristas. É reprovável e não podemos deixar de condenar as formas de fazer política que exploram o medo e o sentimento de insegurança. Tanja Fajon (S&D),
pisno.
– Dogodki v Parizu so šokirali Evropo in svet. Ljudje so prestrašeni, pričakujejo ukrepe. Zagotoviti moramo varnost, ampak ne za ceno varnosti naših svoboščin. Naše družbe morajo ostati odprte, svobodne. Odgovor na grožnje o terorizmu v Evropi ne smejo biti strah ali nesorazmerni varnostni ukrepi, odgovor mora biti krepitev vrednot, kot so svoboda, demokracija, solidarnost. Evropejci se moramo z ramo ob rami boriti proti vsem oblikam ekstremizma. Evropske vlade ne smejo izgubiti razsodnosti. Ne smemo uvajati množičnega nadzora nad evidenco podatkov o letalskih potnikih (EU PNR) brez ustrezne analize. Zanima nas, kakšni bodo pogoji hrambe podatkov, kdo jih bo uporabljal in v kakšnih primerih. Nimamo predsodkov, ampak potrebujemo jamstvo o zaščiti podatkov in zasebnosti Evropejcev. Države članice EU premalo uporabljajo obstoječe instrumente. Te moramo bolj izkoristiti, kot je Schengenski informacijski sistem, ne pa uvajati novih. Okrepiti moramo sodelovanje med evropskimi pravosodnimi organi, izmenjavo informacij, potrebujemo obveščevalne službe, ki delujejo skupaj. Socialisti in demokrati ne bomo pristali na spreminjanje schengenskih pravil in omejevanje svobode gibanja. Prav tako ne bomo dovolili omejevanja svobode na spletu. V Evropi moramo zagotoviti spoštovanje temeljnih pravic in vladavine prava, razpravo pa usmeriti v izobraževanje, deradikalizacijo mladih v Evropi in mirno sožitje različnih kultur in ver. José Inácio Faria (ALDE),
por escrito.
– Os trágicos eventos de Paris, de Verviers e, mais recentemente, os do Hotel Corinthia colocaram-nos novamente perante a necessidade de encontrar resposta para prevenir e combater o terrorismo, o radicalismo e o novo desafio dos terroristas homegrown. Estes combates e o reforço da segurança não se confinam meramente às fronteiras dos Estados-Membros. São problemas transfronteiriços que exigem soluções conjuntas, assentes na confiança mútua. Não podemos, no entanto, desvirtuar os nossos objetivos, legislando a quente com base na emoção. Devemos avaliar o conteúdo e a eficácia dos instrumentos de que já dispomos e promover a sua plena aplicação antes de equacionar a sua alteração. Estes atos hediondos atentam contra vidas humanas, mas também contra os princípios fundadores da União: o respeito pela vida, a defesa da liberdade, mas também a solidariedade para todos aqueles que, por motivos económicos e políticos, procuram refúgio nas nossas fronteiras. Termino, lembrando-vos que celebramos hoje o dia europeu da proteção de dados, dia mundial da privacidade. É nossa obrigação assegurar que a perda de direitos, como a privacidade, não seja vista como inevitável. A recolha e partilha de informação necessária para a prevenção e a repressão do terrorismo deve ser qualitativa e não quantitativa! Eugen Freund (S&D),
schriftlich.
– Das Allerwichtigste im Kampf gegen den Extremismus und Terrorismus ist, die Ursachen dafür zu erkennen und danach vorzugehen. Wir haben in Europa schon mehrfach und in vielen Ländern Terroranschläge erlebt, die wir in den Griff bekommen haben. Die Italiener werden sich an den Kampf der Brigate Rosse gegen das politische Establishment in ihrem Land erinnern, die Deutschen an die Rote Armee Fraktion, die auch viele Opfer jenseits der eigentlichen Zielpersonen, damals waren es Wirtschafts-, Bank- und Industriekapitäne, gefunden haben. In Spanien hat die ETA zugeschlagen, in Nordirland gab es jahrzehntelange Auseinandersetzungen, die uns als Religionskrieg verkauft wurden, die aber in Wirklichkeit soziale Dimensionen hatten. Und genau da müssen wir auch jetzt wieder ansetzen. Die Täter sind nicht in erster Linie radikale Islamisten, sondern von der Gesellschaft ausgegrenzte Menschen, die in dem Land, in dem sie aufgewachsen sind, keine Anerkennung, keine soziale Integration gefunden haben. Entsprechende Ausbildung und danach befriedigende Arbeitsplätze nehmen dem Extremismus den Wind aus den Segeln. Und dann muss die Europäische Union sich auch stärker diplomatisch dafür einsetzen, dass die Krisenherde am Rande Europas eingedämmt werden – all diese Maßnahmen bilden die Basis für eine bessere Integration –, darauf müssen wir hinarbeiten. Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D),
par écrit.
– En considérant les récentes et abominables attaques terroristes à Paris, les autres actions terroristes en Europe, les nombreuses tentatives de mener des attaques terroristes en Europe déjouées par les agences de sécurité et de renseignement des États membres de l'Union européenne, il pourrait être temps pour les institutions de l'Union d'analyser la possibilité de mettre en place un service de renseignement antiterroriste de l'Union européenne. Je sais qu'il y a toujours une réticence de la part de certains pays de l'Union à suivre un tel projet, mais l'Europe est attaquée et nous devons répondre de manière appropriée, afin de protéger nos citoyens, nos institutions, nos valeurs, notre liberté, la liberté de penser, de parler, d'agir, d'écrire, selon notre guise. La première étape vers la réalisation d'un tel projet devrait être la création d'un département du renseignement spécial qui intègre les services de renseignement des États membres, des États-Unis, et des autres partenaires, afin que nos institutions de sécurité agissent au moment opportun, pour contrer les possibles attentats terroristes en Europe. Un corps pour mieux partager les informations pertinentes avec l'Union européenne et avec le renseignement des autres États et les organes de sécurité. Je vous invite à analyser et à travailler sur ces propositions, dans l'intérêt de nos citoyens. Kinga Gál (PPE),
írásban.
– A párizsi terrortámadás megrázta egész Európát, amire a belügyminiszterek rögtön reagáltak, kivételes ülést tartva a támadás utáni napokban. Fontosnak látom, hogy meghatározták a legfontosabb teendőket: a külföldi harcosok kezelése, a radikalizálódás elleni fellépés, az illetékes tagállam és nemzetközi hatóságok közötti együttműködés és információcsere megerősítése. Szerintem mindemellett a külső határokon is meg kell erősíteni a biztonságot, ugyanakkor tiszteletben kell tartani a zökkenőmentes határforgalom fenntartását, az alapvető szabadságjogokat, a biztonsági előírásokat. Ugyanakkor ezek a lépések nem veszélyeztethetik az uniós vívmányok egyik legfontosabbikát, a mozgás szabadságát, a schengeni rendszer működését. Együttes fellépésre van szükség, koherens választ kell adnunk a terrorizmusra. Nem szabad megengedni, hogy gyűlöletet szítsanak, félelmet, megosztást keltsenek társadalmainkban. Ez magába foglalja a radikalizálódás elleni fellépést is. Aggodalomra ad okot, ezért fel kell lépni az internet gyűlöletkeltésre és erőszakra való felbujtásra való mind gyakoribb használata miatt – ebben a legnagyobb internetes szolgáltatók partnersége lényeges. A fiatalok radikalizálódása mögötti okok kezelése nagy kihívást jelent. A párizsi események azt is megerősítették, hogy égető szüksége van Európának e kihívásokra gyorsan reagálni tudó rendőrképzésre, ami nem összevonható a Hágában működő Rendőri Hivatallal, az Europollal. Jelenleg a CEPOL működéséről szóló jelentés parlamenti felelőseként dolgozom azon, hogy biztosítsuk ennek a fontos intézménynek a biztos alapokon álló jövőbeli szabályozását. Beata Gosiewska (ECR),
na piśmie.
– Tragiczne wydarzenia sprzed trzech tygodni w Paryżu oraz próby zamachów w Belgii dowodzą, że obywatele Unii Europejskiej nie mogą czuć się bezpiecznie w swoich krajach. Dlatego teraz musimy podjąć działania, które zapewnią skuteczną walkę z terroryzmem. Obecnie na poziomie unijnym nie mamy przepisów, które umożliwiałaby wykorzystanie danych pasażerów. Taka dyrektywa może pomóc w walce z organizacjami terrorystycznymi pod warunkiem, iż zapewni ona najwyższe standardy ochrony danych osobowych. Obywatele UE maja prawo wiedzieć kto, w jakim celu i na jak długo będzie przechowywał ich dane. Oczywiście znalezienie odpowiedniej równowagi pomiędzy bezpieczeństwem naszych obywateli a wolnością jednostki nie będzie łatwe, ale jestem przekonana, że jest możliwe. Bardzo się cieszę, że sprawozdanie to trafiło w ręce mojego kolegi z grupy Europejskich Konserwatystów i Reformatorów, pana Kirkhope'a. Myślę, że wspólnymi siłami jesteśmy w stanie przywrócić naszym obywatelom poczucie bezpieczeństwa. Philippe Juvin (PPE),
par écrit.
– Qu'il s'agisse des victimes des attentats de Paris, des chrétiens d'Orient martyrisés ou des otages décapités qu'ils soient français, anglais, américains ou japonais, c'est à l'humanité toute entière que l'Islam radical a déclaré la guerre. Il constitue une menace durable, extrêmement violente, très organisée et qui prend aujourd'hui des visages multiples, notamment ceux de jeunes hommes et de jeunes femmes, nés et élevés en Europe, et capables de tuer d'autres Européens. Ainsi, il est urgent d'agir de manière méthodique et implacable pour éradiquer le terrorisme islamiste au sein même de l'Union, mais aussi dans le monde. Nous devons, chaque État membre, faire de la lutte anti-terroriste une priorité. Nous devons renforcer notre coopération en matière de renseignement, mettre en place un PNR européen, réformer l'espace Schengen pour améliorer les contrôles aux frontières et mettre en place un plan européen de lutte contre le trafic d'armes à feu. Nous devons également lutter contre l'apologie du djihad sur internet et évaluer d'urgence nos outils de prévention contre la radicalisation. Enfin, nous devons engager une action extérieure commune, forte et coordonnée, notamment sur le plan militaire afin de lutter contre l'État islamique et Al-Qaïda. Tunne Kelam (PPE),
in writing.
– The underlying point now is that we cannot wait any longer to put in place adequate counter-terrorism measures. The EPP Group has always stressed the need for a Passenger Name Record (PNR) system and has emphasised that need in its strategy for counter-terrorism, as presented on 28 January 2015. Credit card and telecoms companies are already obliged by law to keep their data for up to six months. Why should it be different when it comes to PNR data? Up to this point, the EU has focused on securing data protection and privacy, leaving security aside. The deteriorating security situation and the radicalisation around us are clear proof that privacy and security have to complement one another. Preventing radicalisation and terrorist attacks should be the core aim. There should be close cooperation with social network companies to restrict access to terrorist material online and remove any terrorist propaganda. One effect of such action would be to help curb hate speech, and that needs to be addressed in laws across Europe. Cutting off the means of propaganda alone is not enough: tracking down and disabling the financing of terrorism is another important pillar. We need a terrorist finance tracking system. To back up the establishment of an EU black list of European jihadists and terrorism suspects, we need to put in place an EU smart border system and to cooperate closely with third countries. Gabrielius Landsbergis (PPE),
raštu.
– Šie metai prasidėjo ypatingai dideliais sukrėtimais tarptautinei bendruomenei: teroristų atakos Paryžiuje, tebesitęsiantis karas Ukrainoje, žiaurūs, ne kitaip nei teroro aktais vadintini išpuoliai prieš civilius Mariupolyje. Pasaulio santvarka ir galių pasiskirstymas nuolat išbandomas naujais iššūkiais. Vakarų demokratinės vertybės vis dar nėra priimtinos agresoriams, kokiu pagrindu jie begrįstų savo atakas – religiniu, tautiniu ar bet kokiu kitu – tai yra nusikaltimai žmoniškumui, kurie negali tęstis. Pritariu, kad Taryba, Komisija, valstybės narės turi keistis informacija, vykdyti konsultacijas dėl antiteroristinių priemonių su suinteresuotomis šalimis. Tačiau norėčiau atkreipti dėmesį, kad antiteroristinių priemonių šiandien privalu imtis ne tik po išpuolių Paryžiuje, bet ir po išpuolių Mariupolyje. Terorizmas kaip niekad arti – ES viduje ir prie jos sienų, ir kaip niekad skaudu pripažinti, kad šiandien Ukrainoje vyksta nuolatinis karas su neprognozuojamu agresoriumi, o Ukrainos žmonės kovoja sunkią kovą už savo valstybę kasdien – nuo pat 2013 m. lapkričio. Taigi, apibendrindamas, su gilia užuojauta ne tik sakau „Je Suis Charlie”, bet ir „Je Suis Mariuopol”, „Je Suis Valnovakha”. Светослав Христов Малинов (PPE),
в писмена форма.
– Във време, когато говорим за трансгранична престъпност, радикализация, международни терористични мрежи, сигурността не може да се ограничи до националната държава. Ето защо, европейските страни трябва да се обединят в посока оптимално прилагане на наличните инструменти на Общността за сътрудничество в тази сфера, а, при необходимост, да въведат и нови. Правата и свободите на гражданите са фундаментът на Европейския съюз. Когато обаче е застрашено правото на живот, всички останали права и свободи стават доста илюзорни. Смятам, че в момента нямаме много голямо пространство за дискусия. Днес ние виждаме, че в миналото бяха допускани грешки точно по посока на осигуряване на повече сигурност за нашите граждани. Категорично съм за общ поименен регистър на регистрационните данни на пътниците; предложение, което в предишния мандат на Европейския парламент беше отхвърлено с гласовете на левицата и либералите. Трябва да има сътрудничество с интернет-доставчиците, особено когато става дума за откровено радикални сайтове, рекрутиращи членове на терористични организации. Не на последно място, наред с непосредствените мерки, нека не забравяме, че най-добрият начин за противодействие на екстремизма е утвърждаването на демократичните ценности чрез гражданско образование. Само така ще се гарантира, че няма да позволим да израснат вътре в рамките на Европейския съюз хора, склонни към насилие и тероризъм. Ramona Nicole Mănescu (PPE), în scris. – Salut identificarea și stabilirea următoarelor măsuri de combatere a terorismului: adoptarea și aplicarea unei legislații europene corespunzătoare, implementarea Directivei privind spălarea banilor și combaterea finanțării terorismului și a crimei organizate. Atrag atenția asupra faptului că actuala amenințare teroristă este reală, majoră și fără precedent în istoria Uniunii Europene. În acest sens, pentru funcționarea eficace a măsurilor propuse în legătură cu combaterea terorismului, este necesară implicarea statelor membre și a organismelor competente pentru a aplica o politică externă coordonată și pentru a realiza un schimb eficient de informații între statele membre, între instituțiile europene, între serviciile de informații ale statelor membre și agențiile de combatere a terorismului. Schimbul de informații și cooperarea între serviciile abilitate vor avea ca finalitate posibilitatea ca autoritățile competente să identifice în timp util orice risc și să prevină orice acțiune teroristă. Consider că este deosebit de important să acordăm atenție și cauzelor, nu numai efectelor amenințărilor teroriste, și să identificăm măsuri concrete, eficiente și imediat aplicabile în legătură cu prevenirea și combaterea radicalizării cetățenilor europeni, și nu numai, care reprezintă potențiali susținători sau luptători ai grupărilor extremiste. Dupa identificarea motivelor care îi determină pe foarte mulți cetățeni europeni să devină adepți ai grupărilor extremiste, vom avea posibilitatea să aplicăm măsuri concrete și eficiente pentru combaterea terorismului. Luigi Morgano (S&D),
per iscritto.
– I tragici fatti di Parigi hanno dimostrato non solo come siano fragili le nostre democrazie, ma come di fronte alla reale minaccia del terrorismo di matrice islamica l'Europa e gli Stati membri debbano dotarsi di strumenti di intelligence più efficaci. La soluzione per combattere il terrorismo non è chiudere le frontiere, sospendere Schengen, come evocato in queste settimane, da alcuni esponenti populisti. Al contrario, occorre rafforzare il sistema di informazioni Schengen, la cooperazione tra le forze di polizia e potenziare Europol ed Eurojust. È necessario stabilire misure che, sotto il controllo dell'autorità giudiziaria, permettano di monitorare quei „combattenti” europei che tornano da campi di addestramento di morte; dobbiamo poter oscurare gli „accattivanti” siti jihadisti che con allarmante facilità reclutano tanti, troppi giovani, non solo quelli appartenenti a sacche di disagio sociale e di emarginazione. Irrinunciabile quindi, l'impegno sul versante culturale, educativo e sociale. Anche L'approvazione della direttiva sul Passenger name record (PNR), per la registrazione dei passeggeri sui voli nell'area Schengen, potrebbe essere una misura necessaria, ma è imperativo trovare il giusto equilibrio tra sicurezza e adeguato rispetto della privacy. Solo una risposta unitaria a livello UE può essere realmente efficace per combattere contro il terrorismo. Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI),
γραπτώς.
– Η απερίφραστη καταδίκη των εγκληματικών επιθέσεων στο Παρίσι πρέπει να συνοδεύεται από το βασικό κριτήριο για την αναζήτηση των στόχων και των επιδιώξεων των ενεργειών αυτών, δηλαδή πρέπει να αναζητηθεί ποιός ωφελείται από αυτές. Τα ευρωενωσιακά όργανα και οι πολιτικές δυνάμεις του κεφαλαίου στο Ευρωκοινοβούλιο κρύβουν ότι οι λεγόμενοι „τζιχαντιστές” είναι δημιούργημα των ΗΠΑ, της ΕΕ και των συμμάχων τους, που τους εξόπλισαν, ενίσχυσαν, οργάνωσαν και τους χρησιμοποίησαν σαν δύναμη κρούσης στις ιμπεριαλιστικές επεμβάσεις και σχεδιασμούς τους στην ευρύτερη περιοχή της Νοτιοανατολικής Μεσογείου. Τώρα, όπως και σε ανάλογες περιπτώσεις στο παρελθόν, αξιοποιούν μεθοδικά τους τζιχαντιστές, ως το βολικό πρόσχημα, για να προωθηθεί ακόμη μεγαλύτερη ένταση της καταστολής και των μηχανισμών της, που βασικό στόχο έχουν το χτύπημα του εργατικού-λαϊκού κινήματος και της δράσης του. Το ΚΚΕ είναι ριζικά αντίθετο σε όλο αυτό το πλέγμα καταστολής και βέβαια στη λήψη νέων μέτρων ενίσχυσής του, όπως το γενικευμένο φακέλωμα και η παρακολούθηση των πάντων, οι σχεδιασμοί για δημιουργία μυστικής υπηρεσίας της ΕΕ, η ενίσχυση των μυστικών υπηρεσιών και των κατασταλτικών μηχανισμών, ο περιορισμός και κατάργηση βασικών λαϊκών ελευθεριών και δημοκρατικών δικαιωμάτων. Το ΚΚΕ καταδικάζει τη λήψη μέτρων για ακόμη πιο άγριο κυνήγι των μεταναστών και προσφύγων με τους μηχανισμούς των „έξυπνων συνόρων”, της Σέγκεν, των Κανονισμών Δουβλίνο ΙΙ και ΙΙΙ. Pina Picierno (S&D),
per iscritto.
– È inutile dire che i nostri cittadini si aspettano che i propri governi e l'Unione europea garantiscano loro la sicurezza. Si aspettano risposte concrete ed efficaci contro il terrorismo fondamentalista, che vadano a sconfiggere azioni imminenti ma allo stesso tempo che vadano alla radice del problema. Gli assassini che hanno seminato il terrore a Parigi, come i sospettati arrestati in Belgio e in Germania, sono tutte persone nate e cresciute in Europa, che hanno frequentato le nostre scuole. Non si può quindi prescindere dal prendere misure che vadano ad agire là dove ci sono povertà, ghettizzazione, ignoranza e assenza di diritti. Dall'altro lato lo scambio d'informazioni tra i nostri servizi d'intelligence e le nostre magistrature è fondamentale per prevenire nuovi attacchi, come pure una più forte politica estera comune. Possiamo naturalmente discutere della riforma del PNR ma certamente ciò va fatto senza mettere in discussione principi fondamentali come la libertà personale e la privacy. Altrettanto naturale è rafforzare i controlli alle frontiere esterne dell'area Schengen che, contrariamente a quello che dicono populisti e gli xenofobi, non è il problema bensì la soluzione, se utilizzato con spirito di cooperazione tra gli Stati membri. Емил Радев (PPE),
в писмена форма.
– След терористичните атаки във Франция са обсъждани редица предложения за подобряване сътрудничеството на европейско и международно ниво в борбата срещу тероризма. Истината е, че това няма да е единствената атака от такъв вид в Европа и всички държави членки, включително България, трябва да са готови да предотвратят множество други. Близостта на България до конфликта в Сирия, както и фактът, че стотици европейци преминават през българска територия, за да се присъединят към Ислямска държава, е достатъчна причина българските служби да работят още по-усилено за предотвратяването на терористични атаки. Те трябва да участват активно в европейските мрежи за сътрудничество в борбата срещу тероризма и да продължат да извършват засилен контрол по българо-турската граница. В същото време другите държави членки трябва да предоставят повече информация за хора, за които се подозира, че ще преминат през България към Турция на път за Сирия, за да могат българските служби да имат пълна картина върху пътникопотока през южната ни граница. Вярвам, че задържаният по подозрение за тероризъм френски гражданин е положителен пример за европейско сътрудничество. Борбата срещу тероризма е непрекъснат процес, който изисква постоянни усилия, и е наше задължение да я спечелим в името на европейската и българската сигурност. Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy (S&D),
par écrit.
– Les attentats en France ont entraîné un véritable sursaut citoyen en Europe pour la défense de nos valeurs communes. Face aux activités terroristes qui frappent notre continent, notre réponse ne peut être qu'européenne, transversale et intégrée, pour assurer le droit à la sécurité des personnes dans le plein respect des libertés fondamentales. La lutte contre la radicalisation, aux causes multiples et complexes, passera par plus d'éducation, plus d'inclusion sociale. Nous devons aussi avancer sur d'autres axes déterminants: l'amélioration de l'échange d'informations entre les États membres, grâce aux possibilités du système d'information Schengen. L'adoption du PNR européen, qui aidera à améliorer le suivi des candidats européens au djihad, en offrant plus de garanties pour la protection des droits fondamentaux. La bonne application des règles de Schengen, grâce à des contrôles plus efficaces aux frontières extérieures. Le développement d'un message alternatif et de sensibilisation face à la propagande terroriste, tout en ciblant davantage les discours de haine qui circulent sur internet. Mais aussi l'élaboration d'une réelle politique extérieure commune pour l'Europe. À tout moment, il nous faudra rester unis et solidaires, en défendant tant nos libertés que notre sécurité, qui prises ensemble contribuent de façon essentielle au bon fonctionnement de notre démocratie. Pavel Svoboda (PPE),
písemně.
– V současné situaci zvýšených bezpečnostních rizik je jistě správné se důsledně věnovat hledání možnosti, jak zvýšit bezpečnost občanů EU. V kontextu schengenské spolupráce se domnívám, že je třeba se zasadit o efektivní využívání všech nástrojů spolupráce, které jsou v současné době v oblasti justice a vnitra k dispozici všem členským státům. Řešením jistě není demontáž schengenského prostoru, ale naopak využití všech nástrojů, které jsou součástí schengenské spolupráce. V této souvislosti tedy vítám postoj PPE, která se důrazně postavila za zachování základních principů Schengenu. Tibor Szanyi (S&D),
írásban.
– A terroristák által végrehajtott brutális támadások sokkoló hatással bírnak. Amellett, hogy ezekre a támadásokra megfelelő választ kell adnunk és valóban hatékony – azaz nem csak látszatintézkedések – szükségesek, fontos lenne azt sem elfelejteni, hogy a tagállami rendőrségek és nemzetbiztonsági szolgálatok számos ilyen aljas cselekményt akadályoznak meg. Nekünk, választott képviselőknek, erre is fel kell hívnunk a figyelmet. Mindemellett az ilyen cselekmények arra is felhívják a figyelmünket, hogy az európai rendőrképzés és rendőri együttműködés milyen fontos szerepet tölt be. Világos, hogy a jövőben már csak ezért is erősíteni kell azon szervezetek, mint például a CEPOL szerepét, melyek a határokon átnyúló együttműködésre ösztönöznek a bűnözés leküzdése, valamint a közbiztonság, a jog- és közrend fenntartása érdekében. Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE),
pisno.
– Teroristični napadi, ki so se zgodili pred časom v Franciji, so dodatno povečali strah Evropejcev pred napadi. Evropska unija za boj proti terorizmu uporablja številne različne mehanizme. Vprašanje, ki se pri tem postavlja, pa je, ali so ti instrumenti ustrezni. Na trenutke se namreč zdi, da so nekoliko zastareli in s tem niso več kos sodobnim pristopom, ki jih uporabljajo teroristi. Za zaščito demokracije in državljanov Evrope pa niso dovoljena vsa sredstva, še posebej tista, ki posegajo v človekovo svobodo na prekomeren način. Ravno zaradi dileme, kaj je sorazmeren in kaj prekomeren ukrep, potrebujemo jasne zaveze in pravila, ki jih mora sprejeti Evropski parlament. Nevarno je, če začnemo uvajati ukrepe, ki se jih ne da več nadzorovati in so nezakoniti. S tem namreč uničujemo lastne vrednote, ne pa terorizma. Dolgoročno moramo znati odpravljati vzroke za porast terorizma, ki se začne z dialogom, analizo stanja in ustreznim načrtovanjem. Vsekakor pa mora boj za preprečevanje terorizma zajemati tudi načrtovanje emigracijske politike, socialne vključenosti in ustreznega informiranja, ki lahko zagotovi preventivno delovanje. Vse skupaj pa je potrebno obvladovati tudi s pravno podlago, ki preprečuje in omejuje zlorabe sistema zaščite varnosti in boja proti terorizmu. Dubravka Šuica (PPE),
napisan.
– Svi se slažemo da teroristi ne znaju za državne granice, a u posljednje vrijeme nam se dogodio napad na temeljna ljudska prava. Potrebno je brzo reagirati i očekuje se snažan i ujedinjeni odgovor Europske unije. Kako bismo to postigli potrebna je solidarnost među svim tijelima Europske unije, a i među državama članicama. Moramo odgovoriti cjelovito, ciljano i provedivo, a to možemo postići samo ako izgradimo međusobno povjerenje. Postojeće mjere i zakone treba provoditi, ali uvoditi i neke nove, naravno stalno vodeći računa i o slobodi i o sigurnosti. To nije jednostavno, ali se moramo opredijeliti konkretno na registar putnika u zrakoplovima (PNR-a). Premda kontroverzan, potreban nam je, ali to je samo jedan od alata na raspolaganju. Tu je potrebna i dobra suradnja s Europolom, Eurojustom te suradnja i koordinacija obavještajnih službi. Osiguranje vanjske granice Schengenske zone treba pojačati i sve aktivnosti koordinirati s jasnim vremenskim okvirom. Do sada se pokazalo da nedostaje procjena rizika, ali do sada se djelovalo a posteriori što nije najbolja metoda. Treba detektirati uzroke, potrebno je uspostaviti međukulturološki dijalog, ali i unaprijediti integracijsku politiku na razini lokalnih zajednica. Svi imamo razloga za zabrinutost i svi smo suodgovorni, i dužni pronaći rješenja kako naši građani ne bi živjeli u strahu i kako nas belgijski vojnici ne čuvali u zgradi ovoga parlamenta. Marc Tarabella (S&D),
par écrit.
– Le retrait de nationalité, c'est aussi populiste que con. Il ne s'agit de rien d'autre que d'une déresponsabilisation, tout le contraire de la réponse à donner au terrorisme et à l'intolérance! Enfin, et surtout, le retrait de nationalité est aussi débile que de renvoyer son gamin à l'orphelinat à 16 ans parce que son comportement ne nous convient pas... La Belgique et les polices européennes déjouent énormément d'attentats. Ils ne communiquent guère sur ce sujet pour ne pas provoquer de panique, mais c'est en même temps rassurant. En France, le haut responsable de la cellule antiterrorisme a été très clair: nous n'avons pas besoin de plus de données, nous en avons déjà trop. Nous avons besoin de plus de policiers. C'est aussi mon point de vue: si nous perdons des libertés individuelles au profit de la sécurité, nous perdrons l'un et l'autre. Et l'abandon de ces libertés individuelles au profit d'une soi-disant plus grande sécurité, c'est une victoire des terroristes. Ce qu'il faut donc, c'est ne pas baisser les effectifs policiers (sous Sarkozy, les effectifs ont diminué cinq fois en cinq ans de quinquennat) et augmenter les échanges d'informations entre les polices européennes. Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE),
par écrit.
– Après les attaques terroristes qui se sont déroulées à Paris, l'Union européenne doit être solidaire envers la France. Ces évènements regrettables nous rappellent l'importance des mesures d'intervention et de prévention qui permettent d'assurer la sécurité de nos citoyens. La PSDC constitue une partie importante de ces mesures, et par conséquent ne peut être négligée. Le climat politique actuel souligne la nécessite de développer la PSDC pour qu'elle puisse atteindre son potentiel. Le problème de sous-équipement de la PSDC pourrait être en partie soulagé par les deux porte-hélicoptères classe Mistral dont la vente à la Russie a été suspendue. Les évènements récents montrent clairement qu'il serait irresponsable de fournir ces bateaux à un pays qui est en train de soutenir des attaques terroristes contre les citoyens de son pays voisin. László Tőkés (PPE),
írásban.
– Végighallgatva Dimitrisz Avramopulosz biztos terrorizmusellenes intézkedésekről szóló, egyoldalú előterjesztését, az komoly hiányérzettel tölt el, mivel az egész komplex kérdéskört merő technikai, szakmai és biztonságpolitikai ügyként kezeli, s ennek megfelelően intézkedési javaslatai sem terjednek túl a személyi adatvédelem és a jobb információcsere, a megfelelő infrastruktúra vagy a kifogástalan utasnyilvántartás körén. A bűnelkövetés közvetlen megakadályozására és büntetésére szorítkozva egyetlen szót sem szólt viszont a terrorizmus társadalmi hátteréről és erkölcsi dimenziójáról. A párizsi merényletet feltétel nélkül elítélve és az áldozatok iránti teljes együttérzést tanúsítva, azt is látnunk kell, hogy liberális társadalmi berendezkedésünk, valamint elhibázott bevándorláspolitikánk milyen szerepet játszik a jelenlegi helyzet kialakulásában, és hogy nem csupán a terroristákat, hanem egész törvényhozásunkat és jogrendszerünket is súlyos felelősség terheli a történtekért. A szabad véleménynyilvánítás joga nem jelentheti mások hitének és emberi méltóságának a szabad gyalázását. A mozgásszabadság nem jelentheti a terroristák mozgásának az akadálytalan szabadságát. Ezekkel szemben a lelkiismereti és vallásszabadság is olyan európai értékek, melyeket más szabadságjogok gyakorlása nem sérthet. Következésképpen olyan jogi rendezésre van szükség Európában, mely nem csupán a terrorista önbíráskodást bünteti, hanem a hitgyalázásnak és az istenkáromlásnak, más szóval a szabadságjogokkal való visszaélésnek is gátat vet. A hitükben sértettek terrorcselekményeinek ez is egyik hatékony ellenszere és megelőző eszköze lehetne. Traian Ungureanu (PPE),
in writing.
– Maybe it is not surprising that the first thing one could hear after the attacks in Paris was a warning against our anti-Islamic response. This is already a media and political ritual. Each massacre is followed by appeals to calm, addressed to people who are portrayed as potential fanatics. The more innocent citizens pay with their lives, the more sophisticated excuses are produced for murder. This is simply a denial of reality. We should name names and know where the threat comes from. Reality cannot be supressed and eventually it will catch up with us. What I propose to the European Parliament is to defend European values by speaking the truth before it is too late. The massacre in Paris was followed by two huge rallies – one in Paris, the other in Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, where 500 000 people expressed their support for Islamism and rejected Western freedom of expression. The rally was described as spontaneous, but under Ramzan Kadyrov, the Chechen authorities are nothing more than a Putin puppet regime. The rally was organised with obvious Soviet-style choreography. It should remind the EU that Putin's regime is using every form of overt and covert operation to undermine European values and unity. Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL),
por escrito.
– A prevenção e o firme combate que deve ser travado contra o terrorismo não se confunde nem pode ser pretexto para novas vagas de medidas de caráter securitário, limitadoras das liberdades, dos direitos e das garantias dos cidadãos. Consideramos que devem ser liminarmente rejeitadas quaisquer ideias que se manifestem, no plano nacional ou da União Europeia, de avançar para leis de exceção que, à semelhança do famigerado Patriot Act norte-americano, se pudessem traduzir na preterição de direitos fundamentais. Consideramos essencial a adoção de mecanismos de combate sério ao financiamento do terrorismo, através dos offshore e de práticas menos transparentes envolvendo Estados e instituições financeiras, bem como a adoção de mecanismos de combate rigoroso ao tráfico de armas, de recursos energéticos e de matérias-primas que possam reverter em benefício de organizações terroristas. O combate ao terrorismo implica a rejeição das políticas de ingerência, invasão, ocupação e guerra que, como se verifica nos exemplos do Iraque, da Síria ou da Líbia, só conduzem ao aparecimento de grupos terroristas. Reiteramos ainda a nossa convicção de que o combate ao terrorismo não pode ser encarado como um combate entre civilizações ou entre religiões, nem dar lugar a estigmatizações racistas e xenófobas. Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE),
in writing.
– Mr President, it must be noted that we cannot address anti-terrorism measures without a broader European strategy for the security and stability of the region. In order to achieve our long-term goals, the instruments adopted must provide for both preventive measures and fast-reaction procedures. In particular, areas such as the monitoring of national counter-terrorism policies, the sharing of best practices among Member States and the reinforcement of our information exchange and of cooperation on criminal justice should be improved. We should also address the threat at its roots by preventing social exclusion and the growth of extremism, and by fighting relevant types of crime: corruption, drug, human and weapons trafficking and cybercrime. High-security issues such as terrorism transcend the distinction between internal and external security. Realising that means we must also improve the stability of our geopolitical surroundings through collaboration with a variety of state and non-state actors. Especially, we need to reinforce our cooperation with third-party states that might be incubators or logistics and transit bases for violent extremists. Moreover, our conflict-prevention tools must not neglect the promotion of human rights and democracy, external assistance in relation to governance, the rule of law, policing and law enforcement, and well-tailored aid. Milan Zver (PPE),
pisno.
– Po terorističnih napadih v Parizu je Evropa še vedno v šoku. Želim si, da bi ti dogodki služili kot streznitev za evropsko varnostno politiko, ki ni učinkovita. Varnostni položaj v EU se dodatno slabša zaradi ruske agresije v Ukrajini ter negotovosti, ki jo je prinesla zmaga ekstremne Sirize v Grčiji. EU se mora na poslabšano varnostno situacijo nemudoma odzvati - celovito! 1. Najprej morajo DČ okrepiti lastne sisteme varnosti, zagotoviti sodelovanje z drugimi članicami (kot je na primer izmenjava relevantnih obveščevalnih podatkov); 2. Na ravni EU moramo okrepiti skupne institucije (kot sta Eurojust in Europol) in dejavnosti (na primer nadzor nad zunanjimi mejami). Zaokrožiti moramo tudi pravni okvir, vključno z direktivo PNR. 3. Predvsem pa potrebujemo politični protiteroristični pakt! Teroristom lajšamo položaj, ker vedo, da smo na tej točki razdeljeni. Zato apeliram na enotnost! PRÉSIDENCE DE MME Sylvie GUILLAUME Vice-présidente 13.   Europski fond za strateška ulaganja (rasprava) La Présidente. - L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur les déclarations du Conseil et de la Commission sur le Fonds européen pour les investissements stratégiques (2015/2522(RSP)). Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica,
President-in-Office of the Council
. - Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for inviting the Council to participate in this very important debate on the EU fund for strategic investments. This issue has been a priority for all three EU institutions, which in itself is a very good starting point for further discussions. I am grateful for this opportunity to share my views on it. The Parliament has been instrumental in bringing the issue of investment to the forefront of the European agenda. Hence, I am particularly pleased to stand here today as we start working on the first concrete deliverable of the investment plan. The EU fund for strategic investments is a top priority for the Latvian Presidency and for the Council. It is essential that we strengthen economic growth and reduce unemployment in the EU. The investment package is designed to deliver on this dual goal, and it is of the utmost importance that the co-legislators work closely together and as quickly as possible. I find it useful to recall that President Juncker and the European Council have set an ambitious deadline. We count on Parliament's support in achieving it. The current investment situation requires resolute and swift action. We want to see the first projects in place this year. The Council has already started examining the proposal in an ad hoc working party which is meeting very frequently. Two meetings took place last week and the next one is scheduled for tomorrow. We aim to produce a general approach by March to allow sufficient time to agree with Parliament well before the summer deadline. The Ecofin Council will keep a close eye on progress with this proposal, which will feature prominently on our agenda. In fact, the first intensive exchange of views on the proposal at ministerial level took place yesterday. I am confident that Parliament is willing to match our ambitions and I look forward to constructive cooperation. This is going to test our mutual commitment to boost Europe's economic recovery. While the importance of the EU fund for strategic investments cannot be overestimated, it is only one part of the Commission's investment plan – the so-called liquidity pillar, designed to mobilise finance for investment. The second pillar of the Commission's plan, the project pipeline and the setting up of a European investment advisory hub, is also part of the current legislative proposal. By helping to identify well structured, reliable and viable projects, we ensure that the private sector participates and that the money is channelled to the real economy. So we must pay due attention to these measures accompanying the setting-up of the fund, as they will be key to the successful delivery of strategic projects across Europe. However, it is perhaps the third pillar – improving the investment environment – that will ultimately be the most important in terms of fostering private investments. This is a much broader issue that needs to be tackled at many different levels. From an EU perspective, it is a question of completing the single market. A number of measures have already been announced by the Commission, for instance under the banner of the capital market union. The Council stands ready to work together with Parliament and the Commission on all initiatives designed to enhance the single market and to improve the EU's competitiveness. At the same time, action is also needed at national level to remove any barriers to investments and unlock the growth potential throughout the EU. We therefore look forward to the Commission's proposals and initiatives in these areas. The investment plan is fully in line with the priorities of the Latvian Presidency in the field of economic policy and competitiveness. As you know, the plan is not designed to solve every single problem in the euro area or the European Union – from macroeconomic shocks to deflation, energy security and local authorities' debt problems – but it is a step in the right direction and, most importantly, it has been designed in the most flexible way so that it can grow. Structural reforms, fiscal responsibility and investment are the three keys to restoring growth and creating jobs. In other words, investment is only one ingredient in the mix. We should not forget the others: structural reforms and fiscal prudence. To tackle the challenges ahead, we – Parliament, the Council and the Commission – must work together quickly and efficiently to ensure that the legislative package delivers the needed boost in the economy. Jyrki Katainen,
Vice-President of the Commission
. - Madam President, it is always a pleasure to be in the European Parliament to talk about big issues, as we are doing today. I would also like to thank the Latvian Presidency for the excellent job it is doing in putting the investment plan very high on the agenda. Less than two months after announcing its ambitious strategy to boost jobs and growth, the Commission has presented a draft law to set up the European fund for strategic investments (EFSI). We are delivering quite fast. This fund goes to the heart of the EU investment offensive: the drive to get funds flowing back into the parts of our economy where they are needed most and to stimulate job creation. We have also proposed creating a transparent pipeline for projects and setting up a European investment advisory hub to make sure public and private promoters get the technical assistance they need to develop viable projects that can benefit from this funding. In line with the objectives of our plan, each of these measures will remove uncertainty in order to mobilise much-needed private investment. For Member States we are providing certainty by clarifying how the new entity will be governed, how Member States' contributions will be treated under the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) and how projects can best be developed to have a tangible impact on growth and jobs. For private entities we are providing certainty with a legal text explaining the legal form and governance of the European Fund for Strategic Investments, with enhanced technical assistance, and by establishing transparency in relation to the project pipeline. We are moving fast and I am counting on you for very strong political support so that we can have the European Fund for Strategic Investments up and running in the first half of this year. The timetable is very ambitious. Council negotiations kicked off on 19 January 2015 in an ad hoc working group established for the investment plan for Europe. It is important that work in Parliament should start as soon as possible too. We count on the co-legislators to agree on the text by June so that the EFSI can be operational by mid-2015. Since we are moving very fast it is important to take the time to explain very clearly what we are doing. I want to look in particular at SGP treatment, governance and some other details. Regarding SGP treatment, the Commission will treat favourably Member States' contributions to EFSI investment under the SGP. The EFSI will be open to contributions from Member States directly or through national promotional banks. Member States can also contribute at the level of different projects. Contributions in the form of capital and guarantees to the EFSI will not be counted when assessing the fiscal adjustment. Co-financing with EFSI projects or investment platforms will be eligible under the revamped investment clause. Regarding governance, we foresee a two-tier governance structure. This governance structure has been specifically designed to allow the fund to remove more uncertainty for investors taking on project tranches that present a higher risk than those covered by normal EIB instruments. This is a key point because, to add value, the EFSI must be able to support projects with a higher risk profile in order to get investment flowing in the countries and sectors of our economy where it is needed most. In practice, a Steering Board will define the EFSI investment guidelines. These guidelines will set out the risk profile of the fund and the criteria for the selection of projects. The Steering Board will consist of representatives from the EFSI partners, i.e. the Commission and the EIB, and, in the future, any third-party entity that might participate in the EFSI capital, subject to the agreement of its partners. As long as the only contributors to the EFSI are the European Union and the EIB, all decisions in the Steering Board shall be taken by consensus. An investment committee made up of six independent experts will take the decisions on project selection. Projects will be selected on the basis of merit and the investment guidelines laid down by the steering committee. Investors tell us that this independent selection of projects based on merit is critical if we want private sector financing to come in. The investment guidelines defining the criteria for project selection will be adopted by the EFSI Steering Board once the EFSI regulation has been adopted, but the basic criteria are already clear now. Projects under this initiative will need firstly to be economically viable with the support of the initiative, secondly to be sufficiently mature to be appraised on a global or local basis, and thirdly to be of European added value and/or consistent with EU policy priorities such as the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, inclusive and sustainable growth, the 2030 Climate and Energy Package and other long-term EU strategic priorities. The proposal states that the EFSI should target projects with a higher risk-return profile than existing EIB and Union instruments in order to ensure additionality with existing operations. The EFSI should be used only where financing is not available from other sources on reasonable terms. The EFSI will be fully accountable to Parliament. The monitoring is structured around two key principles of which the first is reporting. The EIB will report semi-annually to the Commission and annually to Parliament and the Council on EIB financing and investment operations under the regulation. The reports will be made public. The Commission will also report to Parliament on the application of the regulation. On accountability, Parliament will have the right to organise, at any time, hearings with the managing director of the EFSI on the performance of the fund. The managing director will also have a legal obligation to reply swiftly, orally or in writing, to questions from Parliament. In addition, Parliament can request reporting by the Commission. The proposal presented today must be complemented by a series of measures to remove barriers to investment and to create a true single market. To me this is the most important part of the investment plan. It is the way to change Europe structurally and permanently in the right direction and to open up new investment opportunities. On this, a set of actions is outlined in the Commission's 2015 work programme. The Commission will come forward with further proposals on the energy union, the digital single market, the capital market union and an internal market strategy for goods and services in the course of this year. We look forward to working with you on this matter. Finally, I want to signal that, while there are a lot of technical details in the plans presented today – and we rightly need to discuss those and get them right – it is important never to lose sight of the big picture and of what it is all for. The crisis of confidence is holding back the investment flows that are the lifeblood of the European economy. Taken as a whole, these new measures should restore investor confidence and get investment flowing into the regions and sectors of our economy where job creation is needed most. The urgency is very real at political level because the needs are very great on the ground. I look forward to working hand in hand with this House so that we adopt these proposals as soon as possible and have a meaningful impact on Europe's investment. Manfred Weber,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion
. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident, liebe Ratsvertreter, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Danke für die Präsentation von Jyrki Katainen. Die EVP-Fraktion begrüßt den Vorschlag der EU-Kommission für den Wachstumspakt, für das Investitionspaket auf europäischer Ebene. Ich glaube auch, dass die Rahmenbedingungen richtig gesetzt sind: keine schuldenfinanzierten Investments, sondern auf dem Privatmarkt gesammeltes Geld, das in Europa für Arbeitsplätze sorgen soll. Das ist der richtige Weg, den wir gehen müssen. Deswegen danke für die schnelle Bearbeitung und auch für die guten Vorschläge. Meine Kolleginnen und Kollegen werden nachher noch auf die Details aus Sicht der EVP eingehen. Ich möchte diesen heutigen Vorschlag vor allem mit einer zweiten Entwicklung verbinden, die die wirtschaftliche Lage in der Europäischen Union kennzeichnet und auch die nächsten Debatten politisch kennzeichnen wird, nämlich mit dem, was wir am Sonntag mit den Griechenland-Wahlen erlebt haben. Ich möchte zunächst darauf hinweisen, dass der vom neuen griechischen Premierminister angestoßene Neustart Europas aus unserer Sicht durch ihn sicher nicht erfolgen wird, sondern er erfolgt durch solche Vorschläge, wie sie Jyrki Katainen heute vorgestellt hat, nämlich das Investitionspaket. Die ILO, die Internationale Arbeitsorganisation, hat heute die Zahlen veröffentlicht, dass durch diesen Investitionsfonds über 2,1 Millionen neue Jobs in der Europäischen Union entstehen können. Ein riesiger Schub für die Europäische Union wird dadurch erwartet von Experten, die sich in diesem Bereich profilieren. Ich habe Griechenland deswegen angesprochen, weil ich glaube, dass vieles von dem, was wir unternehmen wollen, für Investitionen, für die Wirtschaftskraft in Europa, durch diese Abstimmung und durch die Regierungsbildung am letzten Sonntag in Gefahr ist. Wenn zum Beispiel der neue griechische Premierminister Tsipras jetzt ankündigt, dass er ein Bail-out haben will, sprich, Schulden nicht zurückbezahlt werden sollen, dann frage ich Sie: Wie sollen wir private Investoren dafür gewinnen, beim Fonds mitzumachen, wenn gleichzeitig die Politik in Europa sagt: Wir zahlen unsere Schulden nicht zurück? Was hat das mit Solidarität zu tun? Was hat es mit Solidarität zu tun, wenn mit einem Bail-out, also mit einem Schuldenschnitt in Griechenland, Länder wie Zypern 100 Millionen Euro zahlen müssten, Länder wie Italien 10 Milliarden Euro zahlen müssten, Länder wie Spanien 6,6 Milliarden Euro zahlen müssten und Irland 347 Millionen Euro zahlen müsste? Ein Bail-out heißt nämlich, dass alle anderen europäischen Staaten für die griechischen Schulden geradestehen müssten. Ist es eigentlich solidarisch, wenn Spanien, Italien und Zypern für griechische Schulden haften müssen? Führt das zu Stabilität? Ich glaube, dass das nicht zu Stabilität führt; ich glaube, dass es zu Instabilität in Europa führen wird. Die Wahlversprechungen, die gemacht werden, mit über 11 Milliarden Euro neuen Ausgaben in Griechenland, führen nicht dazu, dass Investoren Vertrauen in dieses Land gewinnen. Wir haben die Hoffnung und sogar die Bitte, dass die Erfolge – dass Griechenland heute einen ausgeglichenen Haushalt hat, dass Griechenland heute Wachstum hat, auch eine schwierige Lage, aber Wachstum hat –, dass diese Erfolge jetzt nicht riskiert werden. Ich möchte gar nicht davon sprechen, dass sich dort linksradikale Kräfte in der Regierung versammeln mit rechten Kräften, dass man mit Rechtspopulisten gemeinsame Sache macht. Ich möchte unsere sozialdemokratischen Freunde auch einmal daran erinnern, dass in der neuen Regierung keine einzige Frau als Ministerin eingestellt worden ist; in der neuen Regierung sind nur Männer tätig. Was das mit Gender Balance zu tun hat, ist etwas, was mich sehr überrascht. Ich spreche das deshalb bei dieser Diskussion über den Investmentfonds an, weil solche politischen Entwicklungen die weitaus größere Gefahr sind für die Frage, ob wir Wirtschaftsentwicklung bekommen. Wer heute einen Blick auf die Entwicklung in Europa wirft, wird feststellen: Wir haben in Irland ein Wachstum von 3,6 %, in Lettland von 2,6 %, wir haben in Spanien im letzten Jahr eine Million neue Jobs geschaffen – in all den Ländern, wo wir EVP-Regierungen haben, wo vernünftig regiert wird und in die Zukunft investiert wird, haben wir Wachstum und positive Entwicklungsperspektiven. Wir als EVP–Fraktion werden an diesem Weg festhalten. (Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte” gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.) Beatrix von Storch (ECR),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte”
. – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Weber, Sie begrüßen natürlich das 315-Milliarden-Investitionspaket, dass finde ich keine große Überraschung! Vielleicht zwei Punkte dazu: Sie sagen, es sei kein schuldenfinanziertes Investment. Das finde ich erstaunlich, denn genau das ist es: Wir gehen mit öffentlichen Mitteln hinein, wir pumpen die auf 60 Milliarden über Kredite hoch und motivieren so privates Investment. Das ist sehr wohl schuldenfinanziert. Und zweitens: Wenn es richtig ist, dass Ihre Traumzahl von zwei Millionen neuen Jobs durch 315 Milliarden entstehen, warum verdoppeln oder verdreifachen wir sie nicht, dann haben wir doch die Arbeitslosigkeit gelöst! Manfred Weber (PPE),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte”
. – Es ist wunderbar, dass die Kollegin die Probleme beschreiben kann. Es wäre aber gut, wenn die Populisten hier im Haus auch einmal zu Lösungen beitragen würden. Der Vorschlag, der auf dem Tisch liegt, ist ein Vorschlag, der den Schuldenstand in Europa nicht erhöhen wird. Wir werden diese Investitionen aus dem normalen Budget finanzieren, und wir werden private Investoren einladen. Das ist für jemand, der wirtschaftlich denkt, der optimale Weg, private Investoren zu gewinnen, in die europäische Wirtschaft zu investieren. Deswegen ist der Vorschlag von Jyrki Katainen der richtige. Maria João Rodrigues,
on behalf of the S&D Group
. – Madam President, we will certainly have the opportunity to draw implications from what has happened recently in Greece but one thing for sure is that we need a joint programme with Greece, run by the European institutions – the Commission, the Council, Parliament – based on fiscal responsibility but certainly restoring real progress and a real prospect for growth and jobs in Greece. This is the right answer to be provided. But for that we need investment, and that is why our debate today is relevant and we have a full sense of urgency. That is why I need to say to you, Commissioner, on behalf of our group, that we are really worried by the very slow build-up of the European Fund for Strategic Investment. We are, in fact, very worried that Member States are not so far making capital pledges for the Fund and we know very well that this stronger capital base for the Fund is fundamental to enable the Fund to increase its lending capacity; so this is a critical point, and this is not going well. We know very well that the EU budget guarantee and the EU contribution is not enough, and we are also worried in particular that Minister Schäuble recently dismissed Germany's intention to make a national contribution, so this is a bad signal. I would say that we need to overcome this obstacle. Europe needs a massive investment project adapted to the needs of the real economy and that is why we need to make sure that all Member States, including those which are in excessive deficit procedure, can contribute. I hope you can deliver by the next euro area summit. Syed Kamall,
on behalf of the ECR Group
. – Madam President, the ECR welcomes the fact that the Commission wants to narrow the investment gap in Europe. But I often speak to investors who have money to invest, but are scared off by red tape and see other parts of the world as far more attractive. So I think we need to recognise that this Fund will not be a silver bullet. In fact probably the most important part of the proposal is not the Fund itself but a so-called third pillar. What we need to do is cut red tape and bring down those barriers to investment. Let me give you one example. I currently lend to entrepreneurs around the world via a successful American peer-to-peer lending platform. This platform tells me that they want to come to Europe but they are worried that EU legislation would not allow their business to succeed. So the true test of success here is not how many roads are built or how many pipelines are laid, but it is how many entrepreneurs will get financing and create sustainable jobs. And once they start their businesses, we need to make sure that EU legislation does not shut them down. Since the beginning of the year, digital businesses now have to pay VAT in the country of the customer rather than the country of sale. Now we know that this law was aimed at the big businesses such as Amazon which sell via low tax countries, but this one-size-fits-all legislation is also shutting down microenterprises selling digital products such as eBooks, online designs, or online knitting patterns for example. They cannot afford to check on customers in 28 Member States. There is No VAT threshold and if they refuse to sell to customers in other EU countries they are now being told that they may be breaking EU anti-discrimination laws. So they are damned if they do and they are damned if they don't. So what do they do? They close down. So by all means let us speak in this House about helping SMEs, by all means let us talk about a digital single market, by all means let us talk about these investment programmes, but, if we are at all serious, let us rip away the red tape that is harming businesses today, here and now. Until we do that, no amount of investment will close the gap. The songwriter Bob Dylan once asked, „How roads must a man walk down?” but let me ask how many investors have to leave the EU before we remove the barriers? How many microbusinesses have to close down before we solve the VAT MOSS problem? How many people have to be unemployed before we open the markets? I fear, as Bob Dylan would say today, „The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind”. Pavel Telička,
on behalf of the ALDE Group
. – Madam President, first of all let me assure Vice-President Katainen and the Minister that my group does consider the investment plan to be a big issue, as they have said themselves. In fact I would even say, Vice-President Katainen, Madam Minister, that you are partly or already on the road for one reason: I think that you are raising expectations in the correct way because the three pillars on which the plan is based are exactly the pillars that businesses are expecting. It is a question of regaining confidence. It is a question of confidence that the EU institutions are able to address the real issues with real instruments in a proper way. We are raising expectations. We are not halfway but we are on the way and I think it makes it even more important to deliver. Vice-President Katainen has mentioned that he considers the pillar on the internal market to be even more important. I would tend to agree. I think that this is really the case. You will remember, Mr Katainen, the interaction we had in our group on one issue on which we partly disagree. I was looking for a conditionality in terms of structural reforms. You explained that you found it perhaps burdensome, that it has to be simple. I would say that maybe there are ways to make it simple, not only in concrete projects but in general vis-à-vis that specific Member State. But let us leave that to one side. I understand this has not been taken on board. I would make a different point alongside what you have just said. If the EU is coming with an investment plan, I would expect the Commission to try at least to impose on the individual Member States their own national investment plans. You are now getting a certain amount of input. Different projects are being proposed. I have seen some of the lists. Some are more encouraging, some are less so. I have confidence that people who know what economic viability is will make the right choice. But I would be much more confident if, in the framework of these submissions, we were to see concrete issues addressed by the national administrations in terms of completing their own bit of the internal market. Enforcing the legislation: the Commission knows very well where and on what issues individual Member States are failing. Better regulation, administrative burden. As Mr Kamall is a true liberal I can agree with him that cutting red tape is an important issue. I have been in business for the last nine years and when I speak to business people they name it number one. Once again, I can imagine that, in the framework of the national investment plan or whatever this document will be called, you can demand concrete steps be taken. Two remarks to finish with. First, I would have expected somewhat more from the Latvian Presidency in terms of what we were presented with today. I would have expected you to say not only that there were meetings – there was a meeting on Monday – but what happened at the meetings. What is the commitment of the Member States? What is the message? What do you want to leave with us here in Parliament? Otherwise we know it is important and we know that meetings are taking place. Second, I wish you the best of luck. We will provide the support but we want to see the delivery, also on the two pillars vis-à-vis the Member States. Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL
. – Κύριε Weber, καταλαβαίνω την πικρία σας γιατί ο φίλος σας, ο κύριος Σαμαράς, έχασε τις εκλογές στην Ελλάδα. Αλλά αυτό είναι δημοκρατία και σας συμβουλεύω να αφήσετε την κινδυνολογία και τη διαστρέβλωση των θέσεων της Ελληνικής Κυβέρνησης. Οι Έλληνες πολίτες ψήφισαν εναντίον μιας καταστροφικής λιτότητας, που έφερε τεράστια ύφεση, τεράστια ανεργία, τεράστια φτώχεια και άδικη κατανομή των βαρών γιατί οι πλούσιοι φίλοι σας στην Ελλάδα, με ευθύνη των πολιτικών σας φίλων, δεν πληρώνουν φόρους. Και το τέλος μιας μονόπλευρης λιτότητας είναι η ελπίδα για όλη την Ευρώπη. Και εμείς λέμε εδώ, στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, ότι είναι ώρα, όπως ο κύριος Draghi είπε: „θα κάνω „whatever it takes” για να προστατεύσω το ευρώ”, και η Επιτροπή και το Συμβούλιο να κάνουν „whatever it takes” για να φέρουν επενδύσεις και ανάπτυξη στη θέση της καταστροφικής λιτότητας, ενισχύοντας και με δημόσιους πόρους το ανεπαρκές πακέτο Juncker και με συμβολή των κρατών μελών και του Συμβουλίου και με κριτήρια κατανομής των επενδύσεων, ώστε οι επενδύσεις να πάνε στις χώρες που υποφέρουν από μεγαλύτερη αποεπένδυση, από μεγαλύτερη ανεργία, από μεγαλύτερη φτώχεια. Αυτό που έγινε στην Ελλάδα την Κυριακή – και ευτυχώς το σέβεται και η Επιτροπή και το Συμβούλιο σε αντίθεση με τον κύριο Weber – ανοίγει ένα παράθυρο ελπίδας για τους ευρωπαϊκούς λαούς. (Ο ομιλητής δέχεται να απαντήσει σε ερώτηση με γαλάζια κάρτα (άρθρο 162 παράγραφος 8 του Κανονισμού)) Bernd Lucke (ECR),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte”
. – Frau Präsidentin! Kollege Weber hat eben ausgeführt, dass Griechenland die Solidarität der Eurozone erfahren habe. Stimmen Sie mir zu, dass beim griechischen Volk von dieser Solidarität nichts angekommen ist, dass das griechische Volk gelitten hat unter den Folgen der Eurorettungspolitik, dass die Arbeitslosigkeit auf erschreckend hohe Niveaus gestiegen ist, die Jugendarbeitslosigkeit desgleichen, dass die Solidarität der Eurozone allein den Gläubigern und insbesondere den Banken und den Finanzinstitutionen gegolten hat? Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (GUE/NGL),
απάντηση „γαλάζια κάρτα”
. – Κύριε Lucke, για όσα περιγράφετε τιμωρήθηκαν οι φίλοι του κυρίου Weber, η Νέα Δημοκρατία και το ΠΑΣΟΚ. Αλλά η λύση, κύριε Lucke, δεν είναι η επιστροφή της Ελλάδας στη δραχμή, όπως εσείς προτείνετε, γιατί τότε θα χάσουν τα χρήματά τους και οι Γερμανοί φορολογούμενοι. Η λύση είναι μια στροφή και της Ελλάδας και όλης της ευρωζώνης στην ανάπτυξη με δικαιοσύνη και με μεγάλες μεταρρυθμίσεις εναντίον του πελατειακού κράτους, εναντίον της φοροδιαφυγής, εναντίον της διαφθοράς που σαράντα χρόνια η Νέα Δημοκρατία και το ΠΑΣΟΚ έφτιαξαν στην Ελλάδα. Bas Eickhout,
namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie
. – Ik wil het weer gaan hebben over het investeringsplan en de discussie over Griekenland misschien tot later bewaren. Ik wil allereerst de Commissie zeer bedanken voor het investeringsplan. Nu komt er eindelijk ruimte voor investeringen na een jarenlange doorgeslagen focus op bezuinigen en nog eens bezuinigen. Maar, als wij nu naar het investeringsplan kijken hebben wij wel drie fundamentele bezwaren en problemen met de huidige voorstellen en wij willen graag een reactie van de Commissie, van commissaris Katainen daarop. Allereerst: te weinig democratische controle. Er staat wel in de plannen dat ook dit investeringsplan aan de algemene doelstellingen van de EU moet bijdragen. Maar dat is veel te onduidelijk. Als wij nu gaan kijken waar het geld vandaan wordt gehaald, namelijk een deel uit de Europese begroting, betekent dat dat er een investeringsplan met een nieuw steering board wordt ingesteld? Maar de grote vraag is: hoe gaan die plannen er precies uitzien? Het is wat ons betreft cruciaal dat het Europees Parlement volledig wordt betrokken bij de medewetgeving, dat wij over de regels van de bestedingen kunnen besluiten. Ten tweede: te weinig oog voor het publieke belang. Als je nu gaat kijken naar het lijstje dat de verschillende lidstaten hebben ingeleverd, dan gaat het alle kanten op, maar er gaan zeker ook miljoenen naar kolencentrales, miljoenen naar kerncentrales. De Antwerpse ring wordt weer van stal gehaald, terwijl wij weten hoezeer dat een probleem is in België, in Vlaanderen. Ik zie mijn Vlaamse collega dat beamen. Dus, hoe gaan wij ervoor zorgen dat dit soort bestedingen er ook echt voor het publieke belang zijn en niet zomaar private bestedingen? Ten derde, kort, het is te weinig om de Europese economie op gang te brengen. Er is niet genoeg nagedacht over nieuwe inkomsten, zoals bijvoorbeeld de verloren inkomsten door belastingontwijking. Waarom wordt dat soort nieuwe inkomsten niet gebruikt voor dit pakket? Steven Woolfe,
on behalf of the EFDD Group
. – Madam President, I recognise that Mr Katainen is one of the Commissioners who seems to have an understanding and sense of the real dire economic situation that Europe and the eurozone are in. I welcome that. After the crash of 2008, the eurozone is the only region in the world that is not growing. The impacts on its people are severe – unemployment, suicides, austerity impacting everybody – and we see that only more significantly in Greece. Mr Katainen, well-meaning people are coming to try and find solutions, but the solution you are seeking with the Strategic Investment Fund is not the correct solution. In a desperate desire to match the growth and success of the United States, academics across Europe came up with a false solution: that of the euro. They worked hard on it. They pontificated on it. They held seminars on the euro. If only you could recognise that it is the euro that is causing the problem, and that relieving yourself of the euro would mean that you would not have to try and spend EUR 20 billion to create EUR 315 billion. Σωτήριος Ζαριανόπουλος (NI). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, γιατί τα ευρωπαϊκά μονοπώλια χαιρετίζουν το επενδυτικό πακέτο Juncker και την ποσοτική χαλάρωση Draghi; Μα γιατί υπηρετεί αποκλειστικά τα δικά τους συμφέροντα στα πλαίσια της επεκτατικής διαχείρισης της καπιταλιστικής οικονομίας. Είναι δύο μορφές κρατικών επιδοτήσεων με δισεκατομμύρια για ενίσχυση ιδιωτικών επενδύσεων, που θα πληρώσουν πάλι οι λαοί σαν χρέος με νέα αντιλαϊκά μέτρα. Οι ποικιλώνυμοι υπερασπιστές της Ένωσης, που συνωστίζονται για τη στήριξη αυτού του μείγματος, αποκρύπτουν τη βασική προϋπόθεσή τους: παραπέρα μείωση αυτού που ονομάζουν εργατικό κόστος, μεταρρυθμίσεις μισθολογικών και ασφαλιστικών συστημάτων για την ενίσχυση των ιδιωτικών επενδύσεων, δηλαδή „κούρεμα” των λαϊκών εισοδημάτων, μεταφορά φορολογίας από την εργοδοσία στους εργαζόμενους, γενίκευση της ευέλικτης εργασίας. Αυτά θα ψηφιστούν στο επόμενο διάστημα σαν Ευρωπαϊκό Εξάμηνο. Είναι ανάπτυξη για τα μονοπώλια και όχι για τον λαό, που δεν πρέπει να πέσει στην παγίδα, αλλά πρέπει να οργανωθεί, να αντεπιτεθεί με κριτήριο τα δικά του συμφέροντα, τις δικές του ανάγκες. Françoise Grossetête (PPE). - Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Madame la Présidente du Conseil, nous ne pouvons que soutenir, bien sûr, les propositions de la Commission, parce que nous avons besoin d'un stimulant important pour sortir de cette crise européenne. La Commission a compris qu'il y avait urgence dans cette situation et nous fait aujourd'hui une proposition pour ce Fonds. Dans les propositions faites par le commissaire, je retiens bien qu'il est important que le Parlement puisse avoir toute sa place dans le suivi de la gestion de ce Fonds. Nous sommes d'accord avec les priorités qui sont exprimées sur ce futur Fonds, nous sommes d'accord aussi sur la mise en place d'un mode de gouvernance, d'un processus de sélection des projets, qui se veut transparent, et c'est nécessaire si nous voulons faire venir les investisseurs. Cependant, il va falloir séduire les investisseurs et tout faire pour réduire la bureaucratie, donner envie aux investisseurs de venir sur le territoire européen. Un bon signal serait de tout faire pour garder notre avancée technologique, ce serait sinon extrêmement dangereux, parce que cela mettrait en péril l'industrie européenne et notre chance de croissance. Donc, dans ce cas-là, ce que je redoute, c'est que nous touchions au programme Horizon 2020, dont nous avons tellement besoin, que nous avions âprement négocié ici, au Parlement, il y a quelques mois. Je termine, Madame la Présidente, en disant au Conseil que la responsabilité des États membres est grande, parce que nous savons que ce sont eux qui traînent les pieds pour participer à ce Fonds sur leur propre budget. Isabelle Thomas (S&D). - Madame la Présidente, Madame la Ministre, Monsieur le Commissaire, d'abord merci pour votre présentation. Je voulais vous dire que je ne partage pas l'avis de ceux qui dénoncent un tour de prestidigitateur de M. Juncker qui sortirait 315 milliards de son chapeau, mais je pense quand même que si l'on appelait un chat un chat, on gagnerait en clarté et en crédibilité, car, ce plan, c'est bien la reconnaissance de l'indispensable investissement public en Europe, cette garantie sur le budget de l'Union, c'est le socle d'un emprunt communautaire qui ne dit pas son nom. C'est bien dommage, car c'est pourtant ce Fonds basé sur l'action publique qui redonnera confiance aux investisseurs privés. La Commission fait donc ainsi un premier pas vers ce que nous, socialistes et démocrates, réclamons depuis le début de la crise, à savoir l'intervention de l'investissement public. Malheureusement, ce n'est pas 300 milliards sur trois ans dont l'Europe a besoin, mais 300 milliards d'euros d'investissements supplémentaires chaque année, et, pour y parvenir, il faudra que les États membres se mobilisent et se saisissent de ce nouvel instrument par les projets, bien sûr, mais surtout en contribuant à ce Fonds. Et pour les y inciter, la Commission a présenté une interprétation nouvelle de la flexibilité du pacte de stabilité. Au Conseil, Madame la Ministre, de tenir désormais la promesse, jusqu'alors restée lettre morte, de relance de l'investissement, de la croissance et de l'emploi. Restent toutefois beaucoup de questions relevant de la gouvernance, en lien avec nos objectifs. D'abord, la viabilité des projets présentée par la Commission comme un critère central de sélection des projets, et pour la plupart d'entre eux, c'est une excellente chose. Cependant, l'article 5 i) du règlement parle de projets d'éducation, de formation, qui sont éligibles à ce Fonds. Comment va-t-on calculer cette viabilité? Comment seront évalués les projets d'investissement à très long terme, qui sont les germes d'un modèle durable et socialement inclusif? Comment l'objectif de l'emploi sera-t-il pris en compte dans le choix des projets? Car, si le Conseil et la Commission ne jurent que par l'indépendance de la BEI dans la sélection des projets, comment les experts, au sein du comité d'investissement, prendront-ils en compte les enjeux macroéconomiques? Je m'arrête là, Madame la Présidente. Juste quelques énumérations comme l'emploi des jeunes, la transition énergétique, etc. (L'oratrice accepte de répondre à une question „carton bleu” (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement)) Michael Theurer (ALDE),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte”
. – Frau Kollegin Thomas, Sie haben davon gesprochen, dass Sie fordern, dass jährliche Milliardenprogramme in dieser Höhe durch öffentliche Investition realisiert werden, Sie sagen aber nicht, wie Sie das finanzieren wollen, und Sie sagen auch nicht, dass z. B. das Quantitative Easing in Großbritannien oder in den USA verbunden wird mit Strukturreformen. Wie erklären Sie es, dass eine liberale Wirtschaftspolitik in diesen Ländern mit Geldpolitik unterstützt wird, Sie aber Programme fordern, die nicht zu finanzieren sind? Isabelle Thomas (S&D),
réponse „carton bleu”
. – Madame la Présidente, il me semble bien que, sur ce plan-là, je suis tout à fait d'accord avec la Commission. Ce que nous faisons, c'est bien de l'investissement public par le fait que nous nous servons du budget de l'Union comme garantie pour un emprunt communautaire et, comme je le disais, en plus, avec la nouvelle interprétation du pacte de stabilité par la Commission, là aussi, nous incitons les États membres à investir. C'est bien ce dont on parlait et je me permets, puisque j'ai ce petit temps de parole, de dire que, justement, l'Union européenne a besoin de ce que l'ensemble des États membres bénéficient de ces projets, de ce Fonds d'investissement. J'interroge la Commission pour savoir quelle part des activités de l'EFSI elle sera prête à réserver aux régions en difficulté. Joachim Starbatty (ECR). - Frau Präsidentin! Die Europäische Union hat eine zentrale Philosophie: Sie reagiert auf gesellschaftliche und wirtschaftliche Herausforderungen mit visionären Plänen und finanziellen Fonds. Ich erinnere an die Lissabon-Strategie: Die Union hatte sich im Jahr 2000 ein neues strategisches Ziel gesetzt, nämlich zum wettbewerbsfähigsten und dynamischsten Wirtschaftsraum der Welt zu werden. Der Euro sollte diesen Prozess beschleunigen. Heute stehen wir vor einem strategischen Scherbenhaufen. Die Eurozone ist international nicht wettbewerbsfähig. Es gibt kein Wachstum, dafür aber Massenarbeitslosigkeit. Die Investitionstätigkeit lahmt. Und was tut die Kommission? Sie legt einen neuen Plan vor: A new European Fund for Strategic Investments. Wer diesen Plan analysiert, stößt auf eine Fülle von Annahmen und Schätzungen. Jeder, der sich mit Projektionen beschäftigt hat, weiß: Ändert sich eine Annahme, so stimmen auch die Berechnungen nicht mehr. Da fällt mir ein Spruch von Bert Brecht ein, den muss jeder hören: „Ja, mach nur einen Plan, sei nur ein großes Licht. Und mach noch einen zweiten Plan. Gehen tun sie beide nicht.” Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL). - Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Vice-président, vous le savez, le sixième rapport sur la cohésion établit le constat d'un recul des objectifs de la cohésion depuis 2008. Je veux donc attirer l'attention sur le fait que si les milliards d'investissements prévus se déversent principalement sur les régions les plus riches, alors ce sont tous les effets de la politique de cohésion qui risquent d'être encore plus annihilés, et les disparités entre les régions encore plus aggravées. Nous devons donc veiller à ce que toutes les catégories de régions bénéficient de ce plan. Ce n'est pas un souhait que je formule, je pense que c'est une obligation qui s'impose à la Commission européenne. La Commission devra aussi veiller à ce que ce plan ne vienne en définitive à ne financer que ce que les marchés et les industries sont déjà en capacité de financer et, vous l'avez dit, nous avons besoin de risques, d'un choc d'audace, nous avons en fait besoin d'un New Deal pour l'Europe. Je pense, par exemple, aux investissements dans l'économie de la mer, dans l'industrie culturelle et, surtout, à ces quartiers en difficulté où vous avez des jeunes pleins de talent qui ont énormément de projets, notamment dans le numérique, qui demandent à éclore et qui doivent être soutenus. Je termine par un point sur la gouvernance, il est bien évident que le Parlement devra être associé, parce que ces choix sont des choix politiques. Monika Vana (Verts/ALE). - Frau Präsidentin! Die heute erschienene Studie der Internationalen Arbeitsorganisation spricht von einem Arbeitsplatzpotenzial des Investitionsplans von 2,1 Millionen bis 2018. Allerdings nur unter zwei Voraussetzungen, nämlich dass gleichzeitig massive Investitionen in den Arbeitsmarkt erfolgen, vor allem in jenen Regionen mit derzeit sehr hoher Arbeitslosigkeit, und flankierende Maßnahmen gesetzt werden im Ausbildungsbereich, im Bildungsbereich ganz allgemein. Nun ist es so, dass Herr Vizepräsident Katainen im Budget-Ausschuss klar gesagt hat, Ziel des Investitionsplans ist das Anlocken privater Investoren und die Steigerung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Jetzt hat er heute zumindest die Grundprinzipien von Europa 2020 erwähnt, wo ja klare Klimaschutzziele, Beschäftigungsziele, Gleichstellungsziele und Armutsbekämpfungsziele dabei sind. Es bleibt aber die Tatsache, dass diese Kriterien bisher für den Investitionsplan weder formuliert noch bindend sind. Meine Frage daher: Wie wollen Sie sicherstellen, dass diese qualitativen Kriterien vom steering board auch wirklich als Leitlinien festgelegt werden? Marco Zanni (EFDD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questo piano di investimenti è destinato ad essere un altro fallimento dell'Unione europea che, continua a dimostrarsi incapace di affrontare la crisi economica. Vi chiedo come si possa pensare di basare il piano quasi esclusivamente su investimenti privati, quando è palese che la mancanza di fiducia e l'ulteriore deterioramento delle prospettive di crescita non li convinceranno mai a mettere i soldi. Da questa crisi si esce solo attraverso un massiccio intervento pubblico, che deve creare le basi affinché anche i privati, poi, possono investire in maniera considerevole. Pensare l'inverso è pura utopia e mistificazione. I paesi europei devono essere lasciati liberi dai vincoli di bilancio per investire. Gli Stati Uniti sono usciti dalla recessione grazie a una politica fiscale espansionistica, sforando per anni il 3% deficit/PIL. La loro fortuna è stata non avere Maastricht o Fiscal Compact, regole assurde che ammazzano la crescita e lo sviluppo. Questo piano infine sottrae risorse al bilancio europeo, con il rischio di aumentare gli oltre 20 miliardi di fatture inevase. Forse, sarebbe opportuno partire da qui per rilanciare la crescita europea. Esteban González Pons (PPE). - Señora Presidenta, señor Katainen, desde España hemos apoyado este fondo europeo de inversiones y le pedimos que se le aplique el principio de adicionalidad (es decir, que este fondo no sustituya a ninguna de las inversiones que el Banco Europeo de Inversiones ya tiene comprometidas) y también que sirva para financiar las inversiones de mayor riesgo, aquellas que no encontrarían financiación de otra manera. Compartimos con usted que los objetivos de este fondo son que produzca un impacto directo sobre la economía y que cree empleo y, por lo tanto, deben seleccionarse inversiones de alta calidad, inversiones muy tecnológicas e inversiones que, además, a medio plazo puedan resultar rentables. Deben agilizar los trámites y deben darse más prisa con la aprobación al menos de los primeros proyectos, porque no podemos defraudar ninguna expectativa. Y hay que obligar a los gobiernos a cumplir en esto, como en todo. Los gobiernos deben cumplir con sus compromisos. Un cambio de gobierno no significa un cambio de Estado y los Estados mantienen sus compromisos, sea cual sea el gobierno del color que tengan. Ningún socio en la Unión Europea tiene derecho a convertirse en un riesgo para los demás, pero tampoco ningún socio tiene derecho a tener ventajas por no convertirse en un riesgo para los demás. Queridos colegas, si incumplir los compromisos llega a convertirse en una ventaja, todos los incumpliremos, no solo Grecia. (El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la „tarjeta azul” (artículo 162, apartado 8, del Reglamento)) Tibor Szanyi (S&D),
Kékkártyás kérdés
. – Elnök Asszony! Képviselő úrtól szeretném megkérdezni, hogy jól értettük-e, hogy Ön komoly aggodalmakat fogalmaz meg ezzel az alappal kapcsolatban. Mármint, hogy ez az új alap ez elvonná valamilyen formában akár a nemzeti önrészeket, akár más forrásokat a már meglévő és fontos közösségi jellegű beruházások elől. Ezt szeretném, hogyha tisztáznánk. Esteban González Pons (PPE),
respuesta de „tarjeta azul”
. – He dicho que este fondo debería tener en cuenta un principio de adicionalidad, por el cual el dinero que se destine al nuevo fondo de inversiones no sustituya en ningún caso los compromisos de inversión ya adquiridos por el Banco Europeo de Inversiones y que dan lugar a proyectos que están en marcha, que están creando empleo y que están ayudando a muchas regiones de Europa. Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D). - Er zijn al veel dingen over Griekenland gezegd. Ik denk dat wij inderdaad het debat hier nu niet moeten voeren, maar wij kunnen er wel iets uit leren. Ten eerste dat je respect moet hebben voor de democratie, dat is evident. Ten tweede, dat er een toenemende steun onder de bevolking is om te zeggen: er is een ander Europees beleid nodig. Dan kunnen wij lang discussiëren over wat dat inhoudt. Maar dat andere Europese beleid is, denk ik, niet alleen nodig, wij zetten dat ook wel in. Wat ons betreft mag dat ambitieuzer zijn, maar het feit dat dit investeringsplan er ligt is heel belangrijk. Dat wij daarmee aan de slag kunnen gaan is cruciaal. In debatten over de toekomst praten wij vaak over structurele hervorming. Ik hoor dat heel vaak. Wij, de S&D-Fractie, zijn vóór structurele hervormingen, maar je kunt natuurlijk discussiëren over welke structurele hervormingen. Wel, ik heb er een waarover wij misschien vrij snel een consensus kunnen bereiken - en misschien wel de belangrijkste structurele hervorming voor de toekomst, de transformatie van onze economie naar een duurzame groene economie. Radicaal die keuzes maken, want wij hebben straks ook het debat over klimaat en de weg naar Parijs. Laten wij daar een grote consensus over vinden en laten wij dat ook verankeren in deze reglementering rond ons investeringsplan. Ik denk dat dat ontzettend belangrijk is. Er is al een analyse gemaakt - en ik kijk ook naar mijn collega Bas - van alle voorstellen die er liggen, en dat is een heel pak, en daaruit blijkt dat meer dan 600 miljard van de vragen gerelateerd zijn aan goede initiatieven voor een koolstofarme economie. 25% van de voorstellen betreffen kolen, kernenergie enz., maar wij hebben al voorstellen voor 600 miljard, dus eigenlijk het dubbele dan van wat er ligt, die volledig kunnen inzetten op die duurzame economie. De rol die wij gaan spelen in het Parlement is om dat te verankeren, om ervoor te zorgen dat wij niet alleen investeren, maar dat wij zinvol, duurzaam en toekomstgericht investeren. Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). - Señora Presidenta, el otro día nos quedamos un poco sorprendidos en su comparecencia en la Comisión de Economía, cuando nos dijo que no había en estos momentos ningún compromiso por parte de ningún Estado miembro para participar con dinero en el Fondo Juncker. Nos dejó un poco preocupados, francamente, y confirma los temores que teníamos al inicio del debate, que es que este plan empieza a andar absolutamente vacío. La segunda cosa que quiero decirle y trasladarle es que, si van ustedes a mover fondos del presupuesto general de la Unión Europea, sobre todo del Mecanismo „Conectar Europa”, del Horizonte 2020, hagan un estudio coste-beneficio de lo que significa mover esos fondos, porque, en algunos casos, eso puede ser extremadamente perjudicial. La tercera cosa: en la propuesta legislativa debe haber condicionalidad en los proyectos para que tengan un retorno social y ambiental, y estamos muy preocupados, tengo que decirle, por algunos de los proyectos que han presentado los Estados miembros, que supondrían un auténtico atentado social y ecológico y que no están en ningún caso en línea con las políticas de la Unión Europea, ni tan siquiera de las políticas del Banco Europeo de Inversiones. Así que creo que ahí la Comisión debe también intervenir. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). - A proposta relativa ao Fundo Europeu para Investimentos Estratégicos é arrojada, inovadora, permitirá criar emprego, ajudar as empresas e favorecer o empreendedorismo. Traduz-se num plano de investimentos ambicioso, que proporcionará efeitos colaterais positivos para alargar e reforçar o mercado interno. Permitirá remover obstáculos para o aprofundamento deste mercado. Favorecerá a interconectividade e as interligações de redes, nomeadamente na energia e no digital. Ajudará a reforçar a nossa competitividade e, por exemplo, a aumentar a nossa independência energética. Para o sucesso deste Fundo precisamos de legitimidade e de transparência. Os projetos devem procurar a participação e inclusão de todos os Estados-Membros interessados e o Parlamento Europeu deve estar implicado ao máximo neste plano. O plano Juncker, como é conhecido, tem que ter uma componente também de solidariedade interna, uma componente de coesão territorial. Udo Bullmann (S&D). - Frau Präsidentin! Unser verehrter Kollege Kamall hat leider nicht mehr das Vergnügen, an unserer munteren Debatte teilzunehmen. Aber ich würde ihm gerne noch zurufen: Wenn er schon Bob Dylan zitiert, dann soll er sich doch bitte auch für die richtige Liedzeile entschieden. Mein Vorschlag wäre: The times they are a-changin. Das ist das Motto des Tages. Ich glaube, dass wir erst mal ein Stück Gemeinsamkeit feststellen können. Es ist ja offenkundig so, dass es keine nennenswerte Kraft in diesem Haus mehr gibt, dass es keine nennenswerte Kraft im politischen Europa gibt, die nicht konzediert, dass wir eine riesige Investitionslücke haben und dass wir dringend etwas dagegen unternehmen müssen, damit Wachstum zurückkommt und Beschäftigung gefördert wird. Das ist doch schon mal was, wir sind uns in diesem Punkt einig! Jetzt geht es eigentlich technisch um die Frage, wie wir das machen. Da, verehrter Herr Vizepräsident der Kommission, Herr Katainen, gibt es ein paar Fragen, die wir klären müssen. Gott sei Dank in der Mitentscheidung, dafür sind wir ja da. Erste Frage: Öffentlich-private Partnerschaft hat viele Vorteile, man nimmt das Risiko von den Privaten, und wenn es gelingt, kann man mehr Kapital mobilisieren. Aber wie bekommen wir jetzt das Geld, wenn es denn funktioniert, in die richtigen Felder, in die Felder, wo am meisten gesellschaftlicher zukünftiger Mehrwert entsteht? Wie schaffen wir das? Deswegen folgen aus dieser Frage zwei andere: Wer hat die Hosen an, wer hat das Sagen bei der Governance dieses neuen Instruments? Wenn das Europäische Parlament Geld gibt, wenn wir Ownership haben, dann werden wir doch die Verantwortung nicht an der Garderobe abgeben. Wir werden auch weiterhin Verantwortung nehmen über die Form müssen wir in Mitentscheidung reden. Das Zweite: Natürlich muss es möglich sein, die große Projektvielfalt zu entwickeln, die jetzt kurz davor ist, rentierlich zu sein. Dafür brauchen wir ein gutes Policy Mix an Instrumenten, hier muss nachgefeilt werden. Wir stehen zur Verfügung. In der Mitentscheidung werden wir Wege dafür finden. Ich bin zuversichtlich. Wim van de Camp (PPE). - Als lid van de EVP-Fractie, als lid van de Commissie vervoer en als Nederlander verwelkom ik het plan van de Commissie Juncker. Ik ben het vaak niet eens met collega Eickhout, maar het is wel tijd dat wij in Europa in termen van uitdagingen gaan denken, en niet alleen in termen van bedreigingen. Wij hebben een heel lange tijd in termen van bedreigingen gedacht en het wordt nu tijd voor de uitdagingen. Maar ik zeg u, Voorzitter: het pad van de idealen is geplaveid met voetangels en klemmen. Eén van die klemmen is dat de transportsector via de connecting European facility bijna de helft van het geld mag leveren. Maar wij doen dat graag, en wij doen dat op zijn Nederlands, want wij gaan ervan uit dat wij als multiplier veel geld terugkrijgen en óók voor klassieke infrastructuur. Ik begrijp best dat internet en de energie-unie veel geld nodig hebben, maar wij willen ook klassieke infrastructuur. Het zal nog een uitdaging worden om de private markt te overtuigen van het plan Juncker - kijk even naar de rentestanden. En ik heb een vraag aan de Raad: hoeveel geld heeft de voorzitter van de Raad al opgehaald bij de lidstaten om het plan Juncker te ondersteunen? Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D). - Señora Presidenta, Comisario Katainen, la austeridad en Europa no ha funcionado y por eso estamos reclamando cambios urgentes y profundos, y, en este sentido, el plan que ha presentado la Comisión va en la buena dirección porque apuesta por esa inversión que venimos reclamando, como un pilar para consolidar el crecimiento y generar empleo. La inversión es el instrumento más poderoso del que dispone Europa para reformar y para modernizar nuestra economía. Esto significa que no es solo la cantidad lo importante, porque también la calidad de los proyectos y el valor añadido que vamos a aportar es fundamental. Por eso necesitamos un plan de inversiones estructurado en torno a la Europa que queremos construir. Necesitamos una estrategia de futuro mucho más amplia, una agenda en la que el desarrollo sostenible sea nuestro verdadero objetivo. Y, por eso, me gustaría resaltar una vez más que debe existir coherencia entre los objetivos políticos y los medios financieros a nivel europeo, porque no vamos a poder sacar adelante ninguna estrategia ambiciosa ni con el actual presupuesto europeo, ni con el actual plan de inversiones, tal y como está diseñado. Pero, como decía al principio, vamos en la buena dirección. Necesitamos este plan, necesitamos que funcione y necesitamos que funcione ya, porque tenemos que reactivar la economía europea. Y para ello hay que cumplir muchos criterios. Primero, el criterio de adicionalidad, importantísimo. No podemos caer en la tentación de financiar lo que ya estaba en la cartera, porque si no, no habrá verdadero valor añadido europeo. Segundo, que los proyectos financiados tengan un valor y un impacto socioeconómico. Tercero, que vayamos allí donde realmente es necesaria nuestra intervención, donde hay fallos de mercado o donde estamos en situaciones de inversión subóptima. Cuarto, que se tenga, por ejemplo, en cuenta el riesgo-país a la hora de valorar los proyectos. Hay muchas cosas de las que tenemos que hablar y este Parlamento está dispuesto a trabajar con la Comisión y con el Consejo codo con codo para que este plan funcione. Pero antes me gustaría hacer un llamamiento al Consejo y a todos los países para que participen en este plan, porque este plan por sí solo es insuficiente y necesitamos más capital para mejorar la inversión. Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin! Herr Kommissar! Um das ganze Juncker-Paket ranken sich viele offene Fragen, und es wäre schön, wenn es auch mal Antworten gäbe, Herr Kommissar. Das Europäische Parlament darf 8 Milliarden Euro geben, und dann sind wir raus. Haushaltstechnisch machen wir einen trust fund, gepooltes Geld. Das heißt, dass es keine Rechenschaftspflicht gibt; wir werden nie einen kompletten Überblick darüber haben, was tatsächlich läuft, über die Risiken, über das, was dieses Geld tatsächlich bewirkt. Aber eines ist klar: Wir sind diese 8 Milliarden Euro aus dem Forschungsbereich los. Deswegen möchte ich sagen, dass Eile eigentlich schädlich ist. Es gibt Fragen, z. B. wie die bisherigen Erfahrungen im Bereich der Finanzinstrumente berücksichtigt wurden. Als Haushaltskontrolleurin kann ich Ihnen sagen, dass bis jetzt in der Periode 2007–2013 nur 40 Prozent der Gelder für Finanzinstrumente tatsächlich den Endbegünstigten, der es verwenden soll, erreicht haben. Nur vierzig Prozent! Ich frage mich, wie wir eigentlich glauben können, dass sich jetzt die Welt verändert, weil es dieses Paket gibt. Ich habe da eher Fragen und möchte gerne auch mal Antworten haben. Ich möchte Ihnen auch sagen: Reicht es, Geld zu geben? Griechenland hat die schwächste Ausschöpfung von Mitteln im ländlichen Raum. Es gibt Regionen, die sind ausfinanziert, es gibt Regionen, die gar keine Projekte managen können, d. h. technische Hilfe ist mindestens ebenso gefragt, und die bereits aufgeworfene Frage: Was wir denn den Investoren bieten, ist eine wichtige Frage. Der DAX in Deutschland hat in den letzten 3 Jahren + 59 Prozent erreicht. Ich möchte nicht, dass wir Investitionen machen, die hinterher die Nutzer teuer bezahlen müssen. Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). - Ik sta helemaal achter het Juncker-plan, voor investeringen en om in een reële economie stappen vooruit te zetten. Maar toch heb ik een paar opmerkingen. Op de eerste plaats vind ik het een te veel stand alone-plan. Wij hebben 460 miljard reëel geld in onze structuurfondsen en investeringsfondsen en de relatie tussen die fondsen en het plan is volstrekt onduidelijk. Ik vind ook dat er veel meer moet gebeuren. Wij hebben ervaring opgedaan met risk sharing facilities, met Jeremy-programma's enz. Er kan dus veel meer worden gedaan met de bestaande financiële reserveringen in onze budgetten. Ten tweede, ik ben wel blij met die additionaliteit. Want wij moeten verdraaid goed opletten dat de schuld die nu al in allerlei projecten decentraal ligt niet wordt overgenomen door de EIB en geen aanvullende echte investeringen oplevert. De criteria zijn eigenlijk heel vaag. Mijn vraag aan de Raad en ook aan u is: Stel nu dat het zo uitpakt dat de gelden belanden in de oude lidstaten en niet terechtkomen in nieuwe lidstaten. Is dat aanvaardbaar? 80 à 90 % belandt in een aantal lidstaten en niet in andere. Bent u daarover aan het praten? En mag ik nog eens extra wijzen op de grensoverschrijdende projecten? Want dáár is Europa nodig. Krijgen dat soort projecten prioriteit? Mag ik daar een antwoord van de Raad op? Othmar Karas (PPE). - Herr Vizepräsident! Frau Präsidentin! Meine Damen und Herren! Wir haben in Europa eine zu hohe Arbeitslosigkeit, zu hohe Staatsschulden, veraltete Strukturen, zu wenige Investitionen, eine zu geringe Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und zu wenig Wachstum und Beschäftigung. Der heute vorgestellte Plan ist nur eine Initiative, eine zusätzliche Initiative. Der heutige Plan, und darüber bin ich froh, geht neue Wege von Seiten Europas. Aber er ist kein Ersatz für alle bestehenden Maßnahmen, die wir beschlossen hatten, sondern eine zusätzliche Initiative für Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Wachstum und Beschäftigung. Der Fonds ist eine richtige Initiative für eine Europäische Investitionsoffensive. Die Idee, die dahinter steckt, ist wichtig. Wir brauchen Projekte, die nachhaltig erfolgreich sind, sonst bekommen wir keine privaten Investoren. Meine Damen und Herren, dieses Parlament fühlt sich mitverantwortlich, das werden wir in unseren Berichten und in unserer Arbeit in den verschiedenen Ausschüssen, vor allem im Budget-, Wirtschafts- und Währungsausschuss, sichtbar machen. Dazu benötigen wir Dialog. Wir finden uns damit nicht ab, dass wir die Governance-Kontrolle der EIB sind. Sondern wir werden mitwirken an der Ausgestaltung, und ich sage ihnen noch einmal: Die Mitgliedstaaten haben den Fonds zu verdoppeln mit Geld und Garantien, damit es ein gemeinsames Anliegen wird. Christian Ehler (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin! Herr Katainen, wir stehen zu der grundsätzlichen Aussage von Manfred Weber, dass wir das unterstützen wollen. Das ist das richtige Projekt, jetzt muss es aber noch die richtige Konstruktion werden. Deshalb zwei Fragen: What is the added value of the EFSI compared to the financial instruments which already exist, such as InoFin (Innovative Financing of Social Housing Refurbishment in Enlarged Europe), Horizon 2020 and the financial instruments under COSME (the Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises)? Are they meant to complement one another? How can we create added value rather than merely relabelling or redirecting funds? The second question is: what kind of risk profile will the EFSI be looking for when funding projects? Or, to put it differently, how can a high leverage effect be ensured? That is important. We have existing instruments already in place. My last comment concerns the need to get it right in terms of projects. We would have liked a little more ambition, rather than taking support away from investment in research. There should be a certain burden sharing. That would have been the easiest way because you would not need to confront the Member States: it is easy to take that out of European money. Interventions à la demande Ivana Maletić (PPE). - Gospođo predsjedavajuća, važna pouka za novu investicijsku politiku, temeljem iskustava iz kohezijske politike koja je također investicijska i razvojna, je da se sve snage trebaju usmjeriti u pripremu kvalitetnih projekata i jačanje ljudskih potencijala. Dakle, ono što nedostaje u Europskoj uniji su projekti, ali isto tako i ljudski potencijali, i na to se Europska komisija treba usmjeriti. Isto tako, države članice koje su korisnice kohezijske politike moraju uložiti jako puno sredstava za sufinanciranje tih projekata i nadam se da nova investicijska politika neće supstituirati projekte iz kohezijske politike, nego da će biti nadodana, a da će se ovim državama pomoći u fiskalnoj konsolidaciji da ne ukidaju investicije, nego da jačaju investicijski potencijal. Inés Ayala Sender (S&D). - Señora Presidenta, yo quería preguntarle al señor Katainen que la Comisión, el Consejo y el Parlamento acordamos un instrumento del Mecanismo „Conectar Europa” para transportes, que fue un éxito y que tenía como destino precisamente infraestructuras, servicios y crear empleo. De esos 30 000 millones, ahora 2 700 el Plan Juncker nos los quita y los pasa al Instrumento Juncker. Yo le querría preguntar si el 100 % de esos 2 700 millones que se pasan al Plan Juncker se van a destinar a proyectos del transporte y además con valor añadido europeo y con el control europeo de la Comisión y del Parlamento. Porque lo que nos ha pasado con la obligación destinada al proyecto Castor, que era uno de los proyectos luminaria del BEI, pues no nos da mucho pie a pensar que el dinero que vaya ahora mismo a gestionar el BEI tenga el mismo valor añadido, la misma seguridad y asistencia técnica y, desde luego, el mismo control por parte de las instituciones europeas, de la Comisión y de este Parlamento. Vicky Ford (ECR). - Madam President, we need investment. We need private sector investment and investors, entrepreneurs and small businesses need to know that we are on their side. My email box is full of horror stories of small business which have shut and stopped trading in the fasting growing sector of our economy: digital entrepreneurs. Our new VAT rules are meant to be for big companies trying to avoid taxes but, for small companies, they are too complicated, too expensive and do not work in the digital age. They do not work for microbusinesses. They need an exemption. I say to the Council, the ball is in your court. Please do not just talk about changing this. Do not just think about changing it. That will not be taken seriously. Council, please, give microbusinesses an exemption. Just do it. Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). - Gospođo predsjedavajuća, ova Komisija će ostati zapamćena po tome je li uspjela upravo s ovom idejom. Je li ovaj fond, je li ovaj plan uspio? U tom kontekstu i naš mandat, koji smo ovdje i u ovom Parlamentu bit će jako obilježen upravo tim uspjehom ili neuspjehom. Zato želim odmah na početku izraziti podršku ovome planu, uvjeren da mu nema alternative, jer prihvaćam kritike i mislim da trebamo govoriti o kritikama, al dajmo ponudimo i alternative. Alternativu nitko nije ponudio. Zato podržavam ovaj plan, očekujem da će prepoznati niz projekata i prije svega napraviti sinergiju. Sinergiju sa zemljama članicama koje moraju sudjelovati u ovom projektu, ali i s regijama i s gradovima, s privatnim kapitalom, sa svime onime što je na raspolaganju. Jedino na taj način, kroz tu sinergiju možemo očekivati da će ovaj plan i da će ovaj fond u uspjeti. Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL). - Este Fundo Europeu para Investimentos Estratégicos responde a uma necessidade imperiosa de combater a anemia económica em que a Europa se encontra. A realidade do desemprego, a falta de perspetiva de crescimento e os riscos de deflação estão aí para justificar esta necessidade. Os meios, infelizmente, não correspondem minimamente às necessidades. O Fundo é escasso e está muito dependente do que poderá ser a resposta dos investidores privados. Este modelo falhou no passado e continuará a falhar, porque assenta na construção de parcerias público-privadas em que o público arca com a despesa e os privados com o lucro. Vimos isto na saúde, nas infraestruturas de comunicação e até na educação. Falha, porque o problema não está apenas na falta de financiamento, há também um problema de falta de confiança dos investidores, alimentado por políticas de austeridade que continuam a promover a concentração da riqueza e a deprimir o consumo agregado. A Europa precisa de um projeto de investimento público com financiamento público, que contribua para a coesão social e económica do espaço europeu. Marco Valli (EFDD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mi associo alla preoccupazione espressa dall'on. Gräßle, che ha lasciato l'Aula, perché i finanziamenti in questione sono stati appunto presi da fondi destinati alla ricerca e vengono poi, magari, destinati a progetti su infrastrutture, dove magari si muove criminalità organizzata, dove si muovono gli interessi delle grandi multinazionali che, appunto, la grande coalizione del Parlamento europeo ha grande interesse a tutelare, vista anche la vicenda recente del Lussemburgo. Il Piano Juncker magari arriva anche per questo: per trovare un punto in comune e trovare soprattutto, forse, un alibi ai socialisti che stanno abbandonando forse la lotta all'austerità. Questo piano forse dà loro un alibi, perché in campagna elettorale tanti elettori sono stati ingannati dalle politiche che hanno promesso alcuni partiti socialisti, appunto, per lottare contro l'austerità. Quindi, penso che si tratti di un piano molto rischioso e rischiamo di andare a coprire quello che in realtà sono le volontà dei cittadini europei. Zoltán Balczó (NI). - A Juncker-tervre sokan úgy tekintenek itt, mint egy csodafegyverre. A szám imponáló: 315 milliárd euró, amelyből 21 milliárd az uniótól jön és elvárjuk ennek tizenötszörösét a magánszektortól. Ez így nem csodafegyver, hanem sokkal inkább csodavárás. Hogy mi lehet mégis csábító a magánszektor számára? Az, hogy nagy kockázatú beruházásokról van szó, és mögötte a felelősséget az államnak, közpénzekkel kell vállalni. Nekünk Magyarországon nagyon negatív tapasztalataink vannak az ilyen PPP típusú együttműködésről. Ha a gazdaságfejlesztés nem öncél, akkor a fő cél a munkahelyteremtés kell, hogy legyen. Az unióban a munkahelyek 66,8%-át a kkv-k adják. Ez azt jelenti, hogy a fő feladat a kis- és középvállalkozásoknak a segítése, beruházása, helyzetbe hozása lenne. Franc Bogovič (PPE). - Naj takoj na začetku povem, da popolnoma podpiram idejo tega investicijskega sklada. Podpiram tudi prizadevanja Evropske centralne banke, kajti vse skupaj vodi k več delovnim mestom, zaposlenim ljudem, in to je garant za zadovoljne Evropejce, garant za mir v Evropi. Pri tej stvari želim, da sledimo časovnici, hkrati pa prosim tako Komisijo kot Svet, da zelo intenzivno delata z državami članicami, da se nam ne zgodi to, na kar je opozoril že kolega Van Nistelrooij, da bi ob zaključku tega investicijskega programa ugotovili, da je šel denar samo v razvite države. Problem je v tem, da so mnoge države v zaostanku v razvoju tudi zaradi tega, ker že doslej niso imele teh inovativnih pristopov in pristopov k aktiviranju zasebnega kapitala v razvoj. Zato bodite pozorni, enako kot moramo do poletja sprejeti vso regulativo v Evropskem parlamentu in vseh evropskih institucijah, morajo tudi države osvojiti to filozofijo. Neena Gill (S&D). - Madam President, I think the package put on the table by Vice-President Katainen is an important step. However, my group has been asking for this for years – saying we need more investment – because it is quite clear that just the austerity measures on their own have not kick-started growth. Therefore I welcome this legislative proposal for a strategic fund that is in front of us, but the onus is on all of us to make it work and ensure that we have implementation forthwith. To get it right we need to do a lot of work. The main points that I think some of the other colleagues have raised are that the selection of the right projects is essential and that they do add EU added value and are not just projects that would have been funded in any case. And Member States have to inject some more money into the fund, in a flexible way, in their national budgets. The question I would like to ask Vice-President Katainen is: who will decide on these projects? You said that Parliament will have a role in hearings but will we have a meaningful role in terms of the actual projects decided? (Fin des interventions à la demande) Jyrki Katainen,
Vice-President of the Commission
. - Madam President, honourable Members, thank you very much for this lively debate and thank you for your ideas. I just want to underline the basic nature of the investment plan. First of all I want to recall what I have said before. This investment plan alone will not change everything. We need structural reforms, we need confidence-building fiscal policy, we need the right monetary policy and then we need Europe-wide action in order to encourage the private sector in particular to invest in Europe. That is why the investment plan is not a one-off stimulus measure. Instead, it is a structural European answer which has three angles. The first one is the risk fund, in order to encourage the private sector to invest in riskier countries, riskier regions, riskier projects, and especially in small and medium-sized companies. The second angle is a transparent project pipeline for which we would like to collect economically viable, reliable, well-structured projects so that private money can easily find projects from various parts of Europe. This has been wished for by institutional investors and private sector investors. They say that our everyday job is to invest in Europe, but unfortunately there are not enough viable and reliable well-structured projects. That is why they asked us to build a transparent project pipeline and we are going to do it. We want to help not only the private sector but also the public sector to structure those projects. We are enhancing technical assistance in order to make sure that the whole of Europe, all parts of Europe, can benefit from new opportunities. The third part, which in my mind is the most important part of the plan, is the single market part because it is a European structural reform which can create new markets, new opportunities for small but also for bigger companies in Europe, and there the sky is the limit for new job creation. That is why we all need to put our focus on the single market, and not to forget it – even though money is always more attractive – but the single market part is more powerful. We can get much more out of it than the other parts of the plan can bring. For those of us who are interested in helping SMEs and are interested in increased public resources for SME lending, I would encourage you to look at what the Spanish Government has done. It is a very good example to all of us. I would encourage every country to do the same. It is using structural funds as a financial instrument, providing more liquidity, more loans, to SMEs. This is the best way to use structural funds if you want to provide more loans to small and medium-sized enterprises. This is an untouched opportunity in most of our Member States. I wish you could help the Commission to pass this message to your own respective Member States. We should not forget that the original EIB will also continue to work. It will lend EUR 60 to 70 billion a year whereas the new risk fund, which is concentrating on riskier projects and SME lending to a greater extent than the EIB, will provide some EUR 60 billion liquidity without any Member State contributions, but in three years' time. The reason why the new fund is smaller is that it is focusing on high-risk projects and nobody knows how much demand there is for this kind of money. I want us to work closely with each other. When we are taking money out of the European budget it means that we are using the same amount or a bigger amount of money but in a different way. For instance I expect research will receive more when we use the leverage effect of the new fund. We have to work very closely with each other; we have to work very fast together in order to open new opportunities for our companies and for our citizens to get jobs, because job creation and new jobs is the only reason why we have established the new fund and new investment plan. VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND Vizepräsident Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica,
President-in-Office of the Council
. - Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this debate which demonstrates the importance we attach to kick-starting investment in Europe after years of stagnation. It bears witness to the common determination of all three EU institutions to deliver promptly to European citizens on the ambitious investment plan, a plan that should promote sustainable growth and job creation. During this debate I took note of five blocks of questions on themes we discussed today. First of all we touched upon so-called red tape and the role of structural reforms, then we came to questions on sources of finance for investment and jobs in Member States, and to relations between public and private investment. Then, and very importantly, we heard the call for attention to be paid to the question of jobs: stimulating new jobs and fighting unemployment. Of course we talked about investments for the benefit not of private investors, but for our citizens' jobs and the welfare. There were also questions about the use of the finance and the role of smart investments and sustainable projects and – importantly – horizontal questions about democratic legitimacy, the role of Parliament and the responsibility of Member States. So, coming to these five blocks of questions, I would like to recognise, in particular, the importance of what Mr Weber, Ms Rodrigues and Mr Kamall said. It is for this reason that we look forward to the Commission's proposal and to initiatives under the third pillar of the investment plan. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we believe that the third pillar may ultimately be the most important in terms of fostering private investment. We believe that, by proposing the three-pillar approach, the Commission has made the right choice because raising the level of investments is a rewarding exercise in the long term but a very complex one in the short term. The Presidency is ready to act not only on the proposal to establish the fund but also in the area of removing barriers and bottlenecks in the internal market, most notably in the fields of energy union, the digital economy and, indeed, the capital markets union. A lot can also be done at national level. With regard to the possible contributions of Member States to the fund, the details will need to be worked out in the legislative proposal, which we have just started to examine, but it is essential to ensure that, at whatever level Member States intervene, new investments can be mobilised. It is true that Member States or their national promotional banks will be able to contribute to the fund. But let me stress that this is just one of the ways in which Member States can support investment with the EFSI. They will also be able to contribute directly at project level or throughout investment platforms. As it stands, the Commission and the European Investment Bank have estimated that the level of funding envisaged will have to mobilise up to EUR 315 billion of new investments. Most of this will come from the private sector, where there is plenty of liquidity. This is real money and it needs to be used as soon as possible. That is without any additional contributions from Member States: when the additional contributions come, the amount will increase. When we talk about the added value of the fund, I would stress that the role of the new fund is to mobilise new investment, and additionality is a very important criterion which will ensure that the fund „crowds in”, rather than crowding out, private investment. We have only just started our examination of the proposal and, like the Parliament, we in the Council need some time to come to a position. However, it is already clear that the additionality of this instrument will be essential. The goal will be to support projects which are not currently being funded, for example because they are perceived as too risky. The fund should bear some of the risk, so as to make the projects more attractive to private investors. With regard to your comment, Mr Bullmann, you have raised a number of very valid points to which we will have to find answers during our internal and interinstitutional discussions. We agree that the money should come to where it is most needed, and we will have to work towards ensuring more certainty in the criteria. Of course the fund needs to address unemployment, inequality and growing poverty. That is the main goal. It is clear that an ambitious investment plan will help support demand in the short term and improve Europe's growth potential in the longer term. It is an essential condition that it should underpin higher levels of employment. A significant increase in investment activity will bring a higher level of employment to the EU as a whole. The Commission proposal also envisages stepping up support for SME financing through the European Investment Fund. SMEs make a vital contribution to employment in Europe, and this part of the plan should not be underestimated as it will provide a significant boost to SME activity throughout the EU. With regard to the content of the debate in the Council – we had a question on that – I would draw your attention to the fact that yesterday's Ecofin debate was public. However, since interest has been shown, I will provide a short insight into yesterday's discussion. The Ministers showed their resolve to make this plan a success. They agreed on the necessity of ensuring that those projects which deliver the most significant contribution will succeed – those projects which create jobs and which enhance knowledge and technology transfer throughout the EU, be it in the developed regions or those which are still catching up. The principle of additionality was emphasised as one of the key criteria, and there are many questions that need to be clarified in order to get this right. Of course discussions will continue and the Council will work very hard and will deliver the best possible results. With regard to the role of the European Parliament, we very much look forward to starting negotiations with Parliament on the proposal to establish the fund, with a view to reaching an agreement as soon as possible in order to enable the flow of real money to our economies. But, in order for the private money to flow, some key principles are important, such as depoliticising the decision-making process at fund level and ensuring full independence in the selection of projects. In the Council we are also under heavy time constraints in examining the proposal. However, as the Presidency, we believe we can deliver on the ambitious deadline set by the European Council without compromising on the quality of the legislation. As long as we work constructively together, we can achieve this ambitious goal. Citizens expect us to deliver promptly. There is no time to spare when it comes to boosting investment in Europe. Let us work together constructively to make sure that the investment plan works. Let us put the economic crisis behind us. Let us jointly put in place the conditions for creating jobs and improving the welfare of European citizens. Let us make this work – honestly. Der Präsident. - Die Aussprache ist geschlossen. Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162) Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D),
por escrito.
– En su intervención del miércoles, el Vicepresidente Katainen no ha aportado ninguna novedad relativa a la propuesta legislativa de la Comisión sobre el Fondo Europeo para las Inversiones Estratégicas (FEIE) cuyo alambicado texto ya conocíamos desde el último Pleno. Cabe señalar con relación a este borrador de reglamento que no se ha logrado presentar una propuesta legislativa clara, sino un galimatías financiero que oscurece la importantísima dimensión política y social del Plan de Inversiones para Europa logrado gracias al constante trabajo del Grupo parlamentario de los Socialistas y Demócratas Europeos. Compete a este Parlamento corregir y mejorar este borrador, dotándolo de un mínimo de inteligibilidad y de coherencia interna. Asimismo, es importante asegurar que el Banco Europeo de Inversiones ejerza de modo racional su papel como prestamista, asumiendo un cierto nivel de riesgo y no multiplicando la imposición de comisiones a los beneficiarios o la exageración de los gastos de administración del FEIE. Por último, es llamativo, por no decir preocupante, que el señor Katainen haya acudido en sus comparecencias tanto ante el Comité de Asuntos Económicos y Monetarios como ante el Pleno del Parlamento Europeo con las manos vacías respecto de posibles contribuciones nacionales al FEIE. Hugues Bayet (S&D),
par écrit.
– Une très lourde incertitude pèse encore sur la reprise économique au sein de l'Union et le risque de déflation est bien présent. Le FEIS est à ce titre un outil qui peut et doit contribuer à la relance dans un contexte où les investisseurs privés restent cachés et les investissements publics sont bridés par une austérité socialement dramatique dans certains pays et économiquement non porteuse pour l'Union. La garantie publique qui est à la base du plan de relance doit être, c'est la moindre des choses, un levier de l'amélioration du bien-être des citoyens européens. Par ailleurs, le principe de flexibilité qui fait petit à petit son chemin voudrait que les investissements publics transitant par le FEIS soient exclus du calcul des déficits pour les États concernés. C'est évidemment essentiel pour relancer des projets sociaux et promouvoir l'emploi. Mais la situation socio-économique de l'Union nécessite d'aller un pas plus loin. La flexibilité doit aussi s'appliquer à d'autres investissements publics stratégiques qui permettront la création d'emplois et le redéploiement socio-économique. Sont ici concernés notamment les investissements des pouvoirs locaux et régionaux bridés par les nouvelles normes comptables alors qu'ils concourent largement à l'activité économique sans impacter sensiblement la dette. José Blanco López (S&D),
por escrito.
– Europa necesita inversión para reactivar la actividad y el empleo. Años de políticas de austeridad erróneas nos han conducido a tasas de desempleo insoportables, especialmente de desempleo juvenil, y a incrementos lacerantes de la desigualdad y la pobreza, muy particularmente en los países del Sur. Se impone un giro de 180 grados. El nuevo Fondo Europeo para Inversiones Estratégicas va en la dirección adecuada y, junto con la flexibilidad introducida en la interpretación de las reglas fiscales, debe ser un punto de partida para abandonar la política de austeridad y apostar claramente por el crecimiento, el empleo y la recuperación del bienestar. No obstante, es preocupante la falta de compromisos de capital con el Fondo por parte de los Estados Miembros, lo cual puede desincentivar la atracción de la inversión privada. Necesitamos mayor compromiso para reforzar la capacidad del Fondo para impulsar la creación de empleo y para acometer inversiones estratégicas que permitan a Europa superar sus déficit, como por ejemplo la actual fragmentación del mercado energético, que debe merecer atención prioritaria. Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D),
raštu.
– Sveikinu Komisijos pasiūlymą dėl Europos strateginių investicijų fondo, kurio tikslas yra prikelti Europą iš recesijos. Manau, kad Europai skubiai reikalingas investicijų planas, nes negalime ir toliau dėl visko kaltinti ekonominį sunkmetį ir dangstytis krize: karpyti biudžetą, veržti socialines garantijas ir taupyti žmonių sąskaita. Anot Komisijos, Europos strateginių investicijų fondas rems europinės svarbos strategines investicijas į infrastruktūrą, konkrečiai į plačiajuosčio interneto ryšio ir energijos tiekimo tinklus, taip pat transporto infrastruktūrą, visų pirma pramonės centruose. Jis taip pat bus skirtas švietimui, moksliniams tyrimams bei inovacijoms ir atsinaujinančiųjų išteklių energijai bei energijos vartojimo efektyvumui. Planuojama daugiau dėmesio skirti mažoms ir vidutinėms įmonėms. Tačiau man kyla klausimas, ar Komisija yra numačiusi šio investicijų plano Europai socialinę grąžą. Kiek tikimasi sukurti naujų darbo vietų ar pagerinti esamų darbo vietų kokybę? Kitaip tariant, koks bus konkretus investicijų plano poveikis žmonėms? Be to, siekiant kuo efektyviau įgyvendinti Europos strateginių investicijų fondą, norėčiau paraginti valstybes nares užtikrinti, jog investavimas sukurtų ne bet kokias, bet socialiai saugias darbo vietas, didintų užimtumą ir kad būtų atliktas tam tikras poveikio socialinei sričiai įvertinimas. Simona Bonafè (S&D),
per iscritto.
– La Commissione sta lavorando sulla partecipazione al piano di investimenti degli Stati membri, così come delle Banche di investimenti nazionali. Su entrambi i fronti ci aspettiamo segnali positivi. La sinergia degli sforzi in un momento in cui le risorse pubbliche non abbondano può rivelarsi decisiva. Il settore che certamente può fare la differenza per le risorse di cui dispone è quello dei fondi privati. Dobbiamo riuscire a correggere l'anomalia per cui oggi, ad una maggiore disponibilità di ricchezza, continua a non corrispondere un incremento degli investimenti sulla cosiddetta „economia reale”. Per invertire questa tendenza e stimolare una partecipazione dei privati al piano che ne decreti il successo, il tema della selezione dei progetti è fondamentale. Vorrei portare l'attenzione su due aspetti che reputo centrali. Vi è la necessità che la selezione avvenga sul carattere strategico dei progetti, che è poi il solo modo per rassicurare gli investitori privati e coinvolgerli nello sforzo. Altro punto imprescindibile sarà considerare il valore aggiunto della ricaduta occupazionale che i progetti scelti potranno garantire, dati gli attuali numeri della disoccupazione in Europa. Dobbiamo impegnarci al massimo perché la fase di discussione sia prolifica e veloce. Sono certa che il Parlamento non farà mancare il suo contributo. Biljana Borzan (S&D),
napisan.
– Izraz „Komisija zadnje šanse” je nažalost politička realnost stanja u kojoj se Europska unija danas nalazi. Europski fond za strateške investicije je jedan od stupova na kojoj nova Europska komisija temelji svoj operativni plan oporavka europskog gospodarstva, povećanja zaposlenosti i posljedično, spasa Unije kakvu poznajemo. Podržavam ovu ideju iz jednog osnovnog razloga, drugih ostvarivih ideja na stolu nema. Postoje oni koji se pitaju čemu onda kohezijska politika? Po čemu se investicijski fond razlikuje od nje? Istini za volju, cilj im je isti, no mehanizmi su drugačiji. Jedna od najvažnijih razlika je mehanizam koji državama članicama dopušta sufinanciranje projekata bez povećanja deficita. Bez toga ovaj fond bi bio osuđen na neuspjeh i prije nego što započne s radom. Samo državne investicije neće biti dovoljne da preokrenu negativne trendove i zato je privatna komponenta od velike važnosti. Zaključno, nadam se da ćemo za pet godina pljeskati predsjedniku Junckeru zbog uspjeha Europskog fonda za strateške investicije. Steeve Briois (NI),
par écrit.
– Non content d'avoir annoncé en grande pompe le lancement d'un grand plan pour les investissements européens stratégiques et atténuer les effets du scandale des LuxLeaks, Jean-Claude Juncker vient de faire l'aveu de son impuissance à lever les fonds nécessaires pour mettre en œuvre son plan magique de relance de l'investissement et de la croissance. Comme nous l'avions prédit, la Commission incite fortement les États à abonder en argent frais en leur proposant d'extraire leur contribution éventuelle au FEIS (Fonds européen pour les investissements stratégiques) du calcul de leur déficit dans le cadre du pacte de stabilité. Loin de desserrer l'étau budgétaire contre les États membres, la stratégie de la Commission aura pour effet de donner un avantage concurrentiel au plan Juncker face aux Fonds structurels européens et aux contrats de projet État/Région. Le risque est de voir l'argent des États membres, censé financer des politiques publiques nationales, être détourné au profit du FEIS dans l'intérêt d'un ajustement budgétaire. Dans ce dossier, la Commission européenne manie la carotte et le bâton pour forcer les États à transférer des fonds publics au niveau européen. Cette manœuvre témoigne de l'extrême tension politique qui règne dans les instances européennes. Daniel Buda (PPE),
în scris.
– Criza economică a afectat majoritatea sectoarelor economice, iar urmările au însemnat creșterea șomajului, scăderea productivității și a rentabilității anumitor sectoare. Efectul de „hangover” de după criză a atras după sine o scădere drastică a investițiilor la nivelul UE, ceea ce a contribuit la scăderea gradului de încredere și a creat o relativă incertitudine cu privire la climatul economic european. Avem nevoie de instrumente financiare care să stimuleze investițiile private și să garanteze implementarea lor. Intervenția capitalului privat în investițiile publice va însemna cheltuieli mai eficiente și mai responsabile. Rezultatul alegerilor din Grecia a creat noi temeri și a afectat imediat piețele financiare, iar efectele se repercutează ulterior asupra economiilor statelor membre. Sunt convins că Fondul european pentru investiții strategice (FEIS) va avea rolul de a minimiza aceste temeri și de a întări încrederea investitorilor în potențialul economic al UE. Prin atragerea capitalului privat în economie și garantarea investițiilor, noua strategie de investiții aduce beneficii multiple: garantează investițiile, facilitând accesul la credit, contribuie la dezvoltarea IMM-urilor prin crearea de locuri de muncă și generează investiții pe termen lung. În același timp, consider că ar trebui exclusă din discuție orice posibilă contribuție suplimentară peste 8 miliarde din bugetul UE. Michel Dantin (PPE),
par écrit.
– Je tiens à apporter mon soutien entier au plan d'investissement proposé par la Commission européenne. Ce plan permettra, à terme, de mobiliser 315 milliards d'euros pour financer des projets de croissance stratégiques dans le domaine du transport, du numérique, de l'énergie, de l'innovation, de la recherche et de l'éducation. Il apportera également un soutien à l'investissement et au développement des PME et des entreprises à moyenne capitalisation européennes. Il s'agit d'une occasion sans précédent de créer des emplois et d'adapter nos économies aux défis du XXIe siècle. À ce titre, un secteur doit à mes yeux faire l'objet d'une attention particulière: celui de l'agroalimentaire. Alors que la demande mondiale en nourriture ne cesse d'augmenter, nos industries européennes doivent renforcer leur présence dans un marché mondialisé et ultraconcurrentiel. Ce plan doit être l'occasion de soutenir l'innovation et les échanges dans ce secteur, au bénéfice de l'ensemble des opérateurs sur toute la chaîne agroalimentaire, de la production à la distribution. Ангел Джамбазки (ECR),
в писмена форма.
– Уважаеми колеги, радвам се, че обещанията на Жан-Клод Юнкер, дадени в началото на новия мандат, вече придобиват естество с представянето на законодателното предложение за създаване на Европейския фонд за стратегически инвестиции, който предвижда допълнителни инвестиции от 315 милиарда евро в частни и публични инвестиции в целия Европейски съюз. Тук искам да напомня, че Европейският съюз все още се движи с две скорости, а дори вече с три, тъй като много от по-бедните региони в Европейския съюз вместо да наваксват, значително изостават спрямо други. Жизненият стандарт и икономиката на новите страни членки като България са все още далеч от нивото на западните страни членки, а кохезионната политика на ЕС не дава видим резултат. Искам отново да напомня, че именно неравномерното разпределение на икономическия растеж в ЕС доведе до увеличаване на вътрешната миграция и обезлюдяване на цели региони. Трябват по-усилени и по-концентрирани действия именно спрямо най-бедните региони и за това се надявам новите предложения на Европейската комисия и предвидените допълнителни мерки за подпомагане на европейската икономика да бъдат пропорционално разпределени според нуждите на регионите и на хората. Ако тези 315 милиарда евро бъдат инвестирани основно в старите страни членки, то няма да се изненадам, ако след година-две последва още по-масова миграция в тази посока. Eleonora Evi (EFDD),
per iscritto.
— Il Fondo europeo per gli investimenti proposto dalla Commissione Juncker rischia di essere l'ennesimo progetto fallimentare, aleatorio e del tutto insufficiente per stimolare la crescita e l'occupazione di cui l'Europa ha bisogno. Il meccanismo proposto si basa infatti sull'effetto moltiplicatore che il finanziamento iniziale di circa 16 miliari di euro produrrebbe grazie a investimenti privati, al fine di raggiungere la cifra di 315 miliardi di euro. Rilevo due aspetti che denotano l'inconsistenza del meccanismo dell'EFSI. Il primo riguarda la grande difficoltà nella quale versano gli stessi privati, che in condizioni di scarsa fiducia e difficoltà dei mercati, difficilmente saranno stimolati ad investire. Il secondo riguarda la tipologia dei progetti da realizzare che, se non vagliati accuratamente e selezionati in base ad obiettivi strategici, effetti occupazionali e ambientali positivi e massima trasparenza, si riveleranno gli ennesimi progetti infrastrutturali di grandi opere che alimentano criminalità organizzata e interessi di grandi gruppi e multinazionali. Infine, è da rilevare con grave preoccupazione che parte dei finanziamenti previsti vengono riallocati da risorse esistenti per il programma di ricerca Orizzonte 2020. Jonás Fernández (S&D),
por escrito.
– En su intervención de hoy, el Vicepresidente Katainen no ha aportado novedad alguna respecto a la propuesta legislativa de la Comisión sobre el Fondo Europeo para las Inversiones Estratégicas (FEIE) cuyo alambicado texto ya conocíamos desde el último Pleno. Cabe señalar con relación a este borrador de reglamento que no se ha logrado presentar una propuesta legislativa clara, sino un galimatías financiero que oscurece la importantísima dimensión política y social del Plan de Inversiones para Europa logrado gracias al constante trabajo del Grupo parlamentario de los Socialistas y Demócratas Europeos. Compete a este Parlamento corregir y mejorar este borrador, dotándolo de un mínimo de inteligibilidad y de coherencia interna. Asimismo, es importante asegurar que el Banco Europeo de Inversiones ejerza de modo racional su papel como prestamista, asumiendo un cierto nivel de riesgo y no multiplicando la imposición de comisiones a los beneficiarios o la exageración de los gastos de administración del FEIE. Por último, es llamativo, por no decir preocupante, que el señor Katainen haya acudido en sus comparecencias tanto ante el Comité de Asuntos Económicos y Monetarios como ante el Pleno del Parlamento Europeo con las manos vacías respecto de posibles contribuciones nacionales al FEIE. Enrico Gasbarra (S&D),
per iscritto.
– Nelle ultime settimane l'Europa ha dato prova della volontà di imprimere una svolta alle rigide politiche di austerity che hanno caratterizzato le ultime legislature. Le diamo atto, Presidente Juncker, di una risposta alle istanze di equità, di sviluppo, di maggiore flessibilità che il Gruppo S&D ed alcuni Paesi, in prima fila il governo di Matteo Renzi in Italia, le hanno posto. Adesso ci confrontiamo con una proposta normativa concreta, quella sul nuovo Fondo europeo per gli investimenti, che insieme con l'annunciato programma di acquisto di titoli di Stato da parte della BCE, può costituire la premessa per una nuova stagione di crescita per l'economia reale. A partire da questi nuovi strumenti, le istituzioni europee e gli Stati membri dovranno ora mostrare un impegno politico straordinario per stimolare la crescita e aumentare l'occupazione. Serve un'agenda ambiziosa su tante priorità lasciate troppo a lungo da parte: una vera politica industriale europea, l'Unione energetica, il mercato interno digitale, il sostegno all'economia sociale. La discussione sul nuovo regolamento del Fondo europeo di investimenti dimostrerà l'impegno del Parlamento ad avviare presto il nuovo quadro normativo; auspichiamo che anche la Commissione dia un segno di dinamismo. Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D),
na piśmie.
– Szanowni Państwo! Europejski Fundusz na rzecz Inwestycji Strategicznych (EFIS) będzie głównym kanałem służącym uruchomieniu środków finansowych w wysokości co najmniej 315 mld euro. Bardzo mnie cieszy zgoda wszystkich instytucji na gotowość do realizacji tego – koniecznego w obecnej sytuacji przeciągającego się kryzysu – planu aktywnego pobudzenia wzrostu gospodarczego w UE. Fundusz wesprze inwestycje w różne formy wdrażania innowacji i nowych technologii w naszej gospodarce. Ambitny plan zaproponowany przez szefa Komisji Europejskiej Jean-Claude'a Juncker'a ma wszelkie szanse stania się kołem zamachowym dla unijnej gospodarki, wzmacniając jednocześnie nasz rynek wewnętrzny. Należy jednak pamiętać o zapewnieniu przejrzystości finansowanych projektów, jasnych regułach przyznawania grantów. Parlament Europejski niewątpliwie musi być w ten proces aktywnie zaangażowany. Europejski Fundusz na rzecz Inwestycji Strategicznych może stać się kluczowym czynnikiem walki z obecnym bardzo wysokim bezrobociem, szczególnie wśród młodych Europejczyków. Mam nadzieję, że okaże się też bodźcem dla dalszego trwałego rozwoju gospodarki Wspólnoty. W obecnej sytuacji zawirowań politycznych, coraz większego braku wiary w wartość dodaną UE, obywatele oczekują jak najszybszych, efektywnych działań, które wpłyną na polepszenie jakości ich życia. Nie mamy czasu do stracenia. Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D),
por escrito.
– En su intervención del miércoles, el Vicepresidente Katainen no ha aportado ninguna novedad relativa a la propuesta legislativa de la Comisión sobre el Fondo Europeo para las Inversiones Estratégicas (FEIE) cuyo alambicado texto ya conocíamos desde el último Pleno. Cabe señalar con relación a este borrador de reglamento que no se ha logrado presentar una propuesta legislativa clara, sino un galimatías financiero que oscurece la importantísima dimensión política y social del Plan de Inversiones para Europa logrado gracias al constante trabajo del Grupo parlamentario de los Socialistas y Demócratas Europeos. Compete a este Parlamento corregir y mejorar este borrador, dotándolo de un mínimo de inteligibilidad y de coherencia interna. Asimismo, es importante asegurar que el Banco Europeo de Inversiones ejerza de modo racional su papel como prestamista, asumiendo un cierto nivel de riesgo y no multiplicando la imposición de comisiones a los beneficiarios o la exageración de los gastos de administración del FEIE. Por último, es llamativo, por no decir preocupante, que el señor Katainen haya acudido en sus comparecencias tanto ante el Comité de Asuntos Económicos y Monetarios como ante el Pleno del Parlamento Europeo con las manos vacías respecto de posibles contribuciones nacionales al FEIE. András Gyürk (PPE),
írásban.
– Az Európai Stratégiai Beruházási Alap célja a likviditás növelése a piacokon, a piaci szereplők által túlságosan kockázatosnak ítélt, de megtérülő beruházások megfinanszírozása, és ezáltal az európai gazdaság beindítása. A rendelettervezet arról biztosít minket, hogy a forrás-átcsoportosítások ellenére az infrastruktúra és K+F, innováció területek nem fognak hátrányt szenvedni. Sőt, összességében növekedni fog az ezen szakpolitikai területekre szánt összeg a multiplikatív hatás következtében. A Parlament számára ez a kérdés kulcsfontosságú. Támogatásunk feltétele az, hogy valóban növekedjen ezen projektek támogatása, és ne csökkenjen: abban az esetben lehet az egész beruházási terv legitim, ha az Európai Hálózatfinanszírozási Eszköz és a Horizont 2020 programok céljai – amelyet a Bizottság és Parlament közösen határozott meg – nem sérülnek, és azok a gazdaságélénkítési terven keresztül megvalósításra kerülnek. Kollégáim korábban már érveltek a K+F, innovációs területek mellett, én most az energiainfrastruktúra mellett szállok síkra. Nincs annál megtérülőbb beruházás, mint az ellátásbiztonság növelése, így a krízishelyzetek magas költségeinek elkerülése, a kiszolgáltatott helyzetből történő ártárgyalások megszűnése. Egy másik terület az energetikai területen belül az energiahatékonysági projektek finanszírozása, amivel szintén mindenki nyerhet: csökken Európa energiafüggősége és csökken a fogyasztó energiaszámlája. Kérem a Bizottságot, hogy ezen szempontokat fokozottan vegye figyelembe. Eduard-Raul Hellvig (PPE),
în scris.
– Cu cea mai ridicată rată a șomajului din UE (26%, ajungând în rândul tinerilor la 51%), cu aproape o treime din populație exclusă din sistemul public de sănătate și ajunsă sub pragul de sărăcie, inclusiv în urma amputării pensiilor cu 40%, cu un PIB pe cap de locuitor redus cu 30% față de nivelul din 2008 și o datorie publică record în UE, echivalentă cu 175% din PIB-ul național, Grecia este epuizată de criză, austeritate și pauperizare. Rezultatul alegerilor legislative este un semnal de alarmă în acest sens. Sumele imense cheltuite de creditorii internaționali numai în cazul Greciei, precum și costurile sociale dureroase arată cât de necesare sunt investițiile, coordonate la nivel european, în ecuația ieșirii din stagnare. Consider că respectarea angajamentelor Greciei în materie de responsabilitate bugetară și estimarea realistă a posibilităților țării de a-și rambursa datoriile pot constitui un fundament pentru relansarea pe bază de investiții. Situația Greciei, tot mai lipsită de ieșire, avertizează cu privire la viitorul economic al unei Uniuni Europene ce nu reușește să-și regăsească ritmul necesar creșterii. De aceea, consider că Fondul de investiții strategice trebuie să vizeze cu prioritate direcționarea lichidităților spre țările și sectoarele cele mai afectate de criză. Krzysztof Hetman (PPE),
na piśmie.
– Utworzenie Europejskiego Funduszu na rzecz Inwestycji Strategicznych to cenna inicjatywa i dziękuję Komisji za przedstawienie propozycji legislacyjnej w tak krótkim czasie. Daje to szanse na zakończenie prac zgodnie z planem do połowy roku i na terminowe rozpoczęcie inwestycji. Mam nadzieję, że wybrane projekty będą rzeczywiście tymi o znaczeniu strategicznym i będą miały wysoką wartość dodaną w postaci tworzenia nowych, trwałych miejsc pracy. W szczególności liczę, że przewidziane 75 mld euro dla małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw przyczyni się do realnego poprawienia ich innowacyjności i konkurencyjności. Pewne wątpliwości dotyczyły faktu, czy nowy fundusz nie zostanie wprowadzony kosztem funduszy strukturalnych i inwestycyjnych. Cieszę się, że od komisarz Crețu dostaliśmy zapewnienie, iż fundusz i polityka spójności będą wobec siebie komplementarne, a środki przeznaczone na poprawienie spójności są bezpieczne. Dobra implementacja tych funduszy oznacza, że rzeczywiście mamy w najbliższych latach szansę na skok inwestycyjny. Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D),
in writing.
– The EU needs an ambitious investment plan to re-launch growth and create jobs. The proposal to mobilise additional public and private investment in the real economy, worth at least EUR 315 billion, should be complemented by a series of measures to remove barriers to investment and to create a genuine single market. I am glad that strategic infrastructure, research and educational projects will play a central role. However, there are many questions about this plan – largely in relation to the fact that it does not address internal economic divergences. The plan should be improved; it should complement regional development programmes; and we must not forget European values such as equity and solidarity. Benedek Jávor (Verts/ALE),
írásban.
– Átlátható és fenntartható Európát! Stratégiai beruházásokkal beindítani az európai fejlődés motorját? Tetszetős ötlet – a magyar példa megmutatja, milyen lehetőségeket és buktatókat rejt. Magyarországon a 2008-as válság után a beruházások mértéke 2013-ban bővült először. Növekedés akkor is kizárólag az ipari és infrastrukturális beruházásoknál mutatkozott, döntően uniós támogatásból. Az európai adófizetők pénzéből épül például egy alföldi autópályaszakasz a német árak duplájáért, illetve újul meg egy meglévő vasút annyi pénzből, amennyiért Ausztriában vadonatúj gyorsvasút létesül. Pakson orosz technológiájú és finanszírozású atomerőmű épül – hatalmas államadóság felhalmozása az ára. Ez lenne az európai gazdaságélénkítés modellje? Vagy az Audi gyárépítése Natura 2000-es területen új munkahelyenként 40 milliós támogatással? Ez nem a jövő, hanem a múlt. A stratégiai beruházásoknak a múltbeli hibák újratermelése helyett a jövőt kell építeniük: például az integrált európai energiapiac létrehozását, a klímavédelmet (a stratégiai beruházásokra fordított kiadások egyötödének közvetlenül a klímavédelmre kell irányulnia), a jelenleginél sokkal ambiciózusabb megújulós, energiahatékonysági és kibocsátáscsökkentési célok teljesülését. Minden beruházásról fenntarthatósági elemzést kell készíteni, hogy kiszűrjék a környezetre káros támogatásokat. A beruházásokról szóló döntéshozatalt teljesen átláthatóvá kell tenni – a civil szervezetek bevonásával – és meg kell teremteni az elszámoltathatóságot a korrupció megfékezésére. Ez a csomag garantálhatja, hogy a beruházási program ne a lopást és a pazarlást, hanem Európa fenntartható pályára állítását szolgálja. Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE),
na piśmie.
– Szanowni Państwo! W ostatnich dniach można zaobserwować realizację planu mającego zrównoważyć dotychczasową politykę oszczędnościową. Jednym jego filarem jest tzw. pakiet inwestycyjny przewodniczącego Junckera, którego najważniejszą część stanowi Europejski Fundusz na rzecz Inwestycji Strategicznych. Drugim zaś niedawna decyzja EBI o skupowaniu obligacji państw strefy euro, oznaczająca de facto wpompowanie w unijną gospodarkę ogromnych ilości pieniędzy. Biorąc pod uwagę obecną sytuację ekonomiczną w Europie, obecne działania wydają się nie tylko potrzebne, ale wręcz niezbędne. Dlatego pomimo licznych wątpliwości – szczególnie dotyczących realności uzyskania 315 mld euro – należy poprzeć utworzenie Funduszu. Być może jest to ostatni moment na usprawnienie dotychczasowej polityki i podjęcie działań pobudzających unijną gospodarkę. Ze swojej strony chciałam podziękować Komisji, iż w swoim wniosku legislacyjnym postarała się stworzyć mechanizmy zapewniające racjonalność projektów finansowanych przez fundusz. Konstrukcja Komitetu inwestycyjnego pozwala mieć nadzieję, że wybrane inicjatywy rzeczywiście przysłużą się europejskiej gospodarce, a nie będą wyłącznie efektem lobbingu poszczególnych rządów. Kluczowe jest jednak właściwe dobranie zasiadających w nim ekspertów, tak aby z jednej strony potrafili w długofalowy sposób spojrzeć na problemy i potrzeby unijnej gospodarki, a z drugiej byli niezależni i odporni na presję polityczną. Niepokoi mnie jednak fakt, iż Komisja Europejska planuje sfinansować unijny wkład do Funduszu z pieniędzy przeznaczonych na program Horyzont 2020. Barbara Kappel (NI),
schriftlich.
– Mit dem Europäischen Fonds für strategische Investitionen, kurz EFSI, will die Europäische Kommission in den nächsten drei Jahren ein Investitionsvolumen von 315 Milliarden Euro für die europäische Wirtschaft mobilisieren. Der Fonds setzt auf private Investoren, die mit einem Hebel von 5 die 21 Milliarden Euro, welche von der Europäischen Union und der Europäischen Investitionsbank bereitgestellt und in einem ersten Schritt mit einem Hebel von 3 auf 63 Milliarden Euro erhöht werden, in einem zweiten Schritt auf das von Kommissionspräsident Juncker angekündigte Gesamtvolumen vervielfachen. Rund 2000 zur Realisierung anstehende Projekte wurden bisher bereits von den Mitgliedsländern vorgeschlagen. Unterstützt werden sollen vor allem risikobehaftete Projekte. Von Expertenseite gibt es ernste Zweifel daran, ob ein Hebeleffekt von 1:15, wie dies in Zusammenhang mit EFSI vorgesehen ist, überhaupt möglich ist, d. h., es gibt ernste Zweifel daran, ob das Juncker-Paket in der vorgeschlagenen Form überhaupt funktionieren kann. Ebenso wird die Mittelaufbringung für den Garantiefonds, den Feeder Fonds für EFSI, kritisiert. Die acht Milliarden Euro für den Garantiefonds sollen nämlich zu 75 Prozent aus EU-Forschungsmitteln kommen, d. h. aus Horizon 2020 und der Fazilität Connecting Europe. Mittel, die dann im Bereich Forschung, Entwicklung und Innovation in ganz Europa fehlen. Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D),
por escrito.
– En su intervención del miércoles, el Vicepresidente Katainen no ha aportado ninguna novedad relativa a la propuesta legislativa de la Comisión sobre el Fondo Europeo para las Inversiones Estratégicas (FEIE) cuyo alambicado texto ya conocíamos desde el último Pleno. Cabe señalar con relación a este borrador de reglamento que no se ha logrado presentar una propuesta legislativa clara, sino un galimatías financiero que oscurece la importantísima dimensión política y social del Plan de Inversiones para Europa logrado gracias al constante trabajo del Grupo parlamentario de los Socialistas y Demócratas Europeos. Compete a este Parlamento corregir y mejorar este borrador, dotándolo de un mínimo de inteligibilidad y de coherencia interna. Asimismo, es importante asegurar que el Banco Europeo de Inversiones ejerza de modo racional su papel como prestamista, asumiendo un cierto nivel de riesgo y no multiplicando la imposición de comisiones a los beneficiarios o la exageración de los gastos de administración del FEIE. Por último, es llamativo, por no decir preocupante, que el señor Katainen haya acudido en sus comparecencias tanto ante el Comité de Asuntos Económicos y Monetarios como ante el Pleno del Parlamento Europeo con las manos vacías respecto de posibles contribuciones nacionales al FEIE. Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL),
por escrito.
– Quisiera denunciar que esta propuesta no es un plan de inversión: por el contrario, detrae dinero de partidas tan importantes como la investigación y el desarrollo. Lo que la Comisión propone es convertir al BEI en el banco de los grandes oligopolios y la privatización de lo público, un instrumento de socialización de pérdidas privadas con el sello europeo. El BEI ya ha demostrado su incapacidad para gestionar este tipo de proyectos: Castor está en la memoria de todos. Pero señalo a la propia crisis europea, a la fallida del modelo neoliberal y su terrible apuesta por poner al Estado al servicio de los mercados, como ejemplo de las graves consecuencias de este tipo de políticas. Necesitamos, por el contrario, ponernos al servicio de la inversión pública: puesto que sólo la gestión y control públicos pueden transformar nuestro modelo productivo al servicio de los y las trabajadoras. Para ello, la Comisión debería apostar por la mutualización y reestructuración de la deuda pública, la lucha contra el fraude y la flexibilización de los objetivos de déficit; poniendo los recursos financieros de los que dispone al servicio del Estado y no de los mercados. Vladimír Maňka (S&D),
písomne
– Európu sme v boji s krízou stabilizovali. Hrozí nám však, že budeme dlhé roky stagnovať. Preto potrebujeme nové impulzy, ktorých cieľom je ekonomický rast a zamestnanosť. Od roku 2008 v EÚ klesli investície o viac ako 15 %. Pritom vysokonávratné investície sú tým najlepším liekom pre ekonomický rast a zamestnanosť. Situácia v Európe si vyžaduje kombináciu opatrení: —
investície Junckerovho balíčka musia ísť ruka v ruke s odstaňovaním prekážok, ktoré bránia investíciám, čím sa zvýši atraktívnosť Európy a zároveň znásobí vplyv investičného plánu, —
Draghiho plán napumpovať do krajín eurozóny viac ako tisíc miliárd eur (toľko sú asi ročné daňové úniky v EÚ), —
eurofondy do investícií s vysokou pridanou hodnotou, —
hospodárske reformy v krajinách EÚ —
boj proti daňovým únikom a podvodom vo všetkých kútoch Európy. Νότης Μαριάς (ECR),
γραπτώς.
— H Ε.Ε. αναζητά την αύξηση των επενδύσεων μέσω του προτεινόμενου Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Στρατηγικών Επενδύσεων. Όμως για να γίνουν επενδύσεις σε ένα ανταγωνιστικό παγκοσμιοποιημένο περιβάλλον θα πρέπει η Ε.Ε. να εγκαταλείψει την πολιτική της λιτότητας, της βίαιης δημοσιονομικής προσαρμογής και της φτωχοποίησης των πολιτών της, δρομολογώντας ταυτόχρονα πολιτικές αύξησης της ζήτησης και ενίσχυσης των επενδύσεων στην εκπαίδευση, την καινοτομία και την έρευνα. Αυτό σημαίνει αλλαγή μοντέλου που θα στηρίζεται στην κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη, στη δίκαιη κατανομή του παραγόμενου πλούτου, στην Οικονομία της Γνώσης και όχι στην οικονομία εντάσεως εργασίας με χαμηλούς μισθούς. Επιπλέον πρέπει να διασφαλιστεί ενεργειακή ασφάλεια, χαμηλό κόστος ενέργειας, χαμηλά επιτόκια και επενδύσεις στην πραγματική οικονομία με ιδιαίτερη έμφαση στην στήριξη των Μικρομεσαίων Επιχειρήσεων. Στο βαθμό λοιπόν που θα διασφαλιστούν οι παραπάνω προϋποθέσεις και θα αλλάξει το παραγωγικό μοντέλο της Ε.Ε., θα μπορούσαμε πραγματικά να οδηγηθούμε σε αύξηση των Επενδύσεων. Όμως το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Στρατηγικών Επενδύσεων όχι μόνο δεν στηρίζεται στο παραπάνω παραγωγικό μοντέλο αλλά και δεν διαθέτει καν επαρκή κεφάλαια για αύξηση των επενδύσεων. Η επιδιωκόμενη δε από το Σχέδιο Γιούνκερ μόχλευση κεφαλαίων είναι αδιαφανής και ανεπαρκής, ενώ μεταφέρει τους κινδύνους στην ίδια την ΕΕ, στα κράτη μέλη της και σε τελική ανάλυση στους ίδιους τους ευρωπαίους φορολογούμενους. Giulia Moi (EFDD),
per iscritto.
– Il nuovo piano di investimenti lanciato alla fine del 2014 dal Presidente della Commissione europea, Jean-Claude Juncker, prevede la mobilitazione di 315 miliardi di euro in nuovi investimenti tra il 2015 e il 2017. Dovremmo accogliere con soddisfazione l'annunciata volontà della Commissione di sostenere soprattutto i settori strategici, come reti energetiche, banda larga e politiche climatiche. Tuttavia, ancora una volta l'Europa rischia di restare lontana da quelle che sono le necessità più immediate della maggior parte dei suoi cittadini. Nel piano Juncker, infatti, pochissimo spazio è dato all'espansione e agli incentivi da destinare al marcato del lavoro. Poco o nulla alle politiche sociali riguardanti welfare e immigrazione; ancor meno rilevanza viene data al settore delle piccole e medie imprese. Tutta l'attenzione dei vertici europei sembra concentrarsi piuttosto sui futuri accordi commerciali con gli Stati Uniti e su investimenti che di strategico hanno solo il rafforzamento di intese politiche già consolidate. Le stesse che stanno affamando l'Europa. Le stesse che sacrificano ormai da troppo tempo gli interessi dei cittadini in favore di quelli di pochi. Alessia Maria Mosca (S&D),
per iscritto.
– Il nuovo Fondo europeo per gli investimenti strategici rappresenta sicuramente uno strumento importante, sia per dare nuovo stimolo alla costruzione di infrastrutture europee, sia per dare un aiuto alle piccole e medie imprese dell'Unione. Tuttavia, sarà fondamentale che nella strutturazione della sua governance venga garantita la massima trasparenza nella valutazione dei progetti, soprattutto quelli che richiedono un finanziamento più cospicuo. Dovrà, poi, essere fatta chiarezza su alcuni punti, tra cui il processo attraverso cui la Commissione conta di poter applicare un moltiplicatore da 1 a 15 con lo stimolo agli investimenti privati. Non può che lasciare delusi, infine, il fatto che otto dei 16 miliardi saranno costituiti da risorse già esistenti da riallocare e, nello specifico, quasi 3 di questi verranno presi dal programma per la ricerca Orizzonte 2020. Duole constatare che, al momento delle decisioni su eventuali tagli, l'istruzione e la ricerca siano sempre i settori sacrificati per primi mentre dovrebbero essere la prima delle nostre priorità. Victor Negrescu (S&D),
în scris.
– Sunt unul dintre acei politicieni care cred în investițiile publice, dar și care înțeleg că în lumea actuală este nevoie ca statul să implice investitorii privați în acțiunile pe care le întreprinde. Cu toate acestea, chiar dacă am fost inițial un susținător al Planului european pentru investiții, am devenit, în urma ultimelor informații primite, din ce în ce mai sceptic. Precauția mea și semnele de întrebare pornesc de la transformarea acestui plan european de redresare economică într-un fond financiar care le imită pe cele private cu risc ridicat și care nu păstrează principiile elementare ale Uniunii Europene, precum solidaritatea, echitatea și valorile sociale. Mai exact, din declarațiile comisarilor europeni, reiese faptul că nu există niciun mecanism prin care distribuția fondurilor ar lua în calcul diversitatea statelor membre, nivelul lor de dezvoltare, capacitatea de co-finanțare sau normele naționale în materie de legislație, protecție socială sau de mediu. Trebuie sa subliniez faptul că distribuția fondurilor rămâne neclară. Alocarea a doar 20 % din fonduri către IMM-uri este de asemenea prea redusă în raport cu posibila contribuție a acestora la crearea locurilor de muncă și la dezvoltarea economică. Sper doar ca modul în care va fi organizat procesul de selecție să fie unul mai transparent. Eva Paunova (PPE),
in writing.
– The success of the investment initiative hinges on the ability to identify and select those risky projects that would have not been realised in the absence of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), and where the „leverage effect” can achieve its full potential in terms of attracting private financing. One of the main challenges for the governance structures will be to ensure additionality and avoid the crowding-out of private investment. According to the provisions of the proposed regulation, an independent Investment Committee will be charged with the task of examining potential operations and approving support for them irrespective of the geographic location of the projects concerned. Although the text does not provide for any geographical pre-allocations of investment, it would be important to consider devising a mechanism to guarantee the balanced distribution of the projects, taking account of the differing economic conditions and investment environment across the Member States. It is important to emphasise that projects in poorer and peripheral regions could, ceteris paribus, provide higher social returns and European added value, thus helping to safeguard the proper functioning of the single market. I call on the Commission to assess carefully the governance structure of the fund so as to guarantee the independence of the Investment Committee. Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D),
por escrito.
– En su intervención del miércoles, el Vicepresidente Katainen no ha aportado ninguna novedad relativa a la propuesta legislativa de la Comisión sobre el Fondo Europeo para las Inversiones Estratégicas (FEIE) cuyo alambicado texto ya conocíamos desde el último Pleno. Cabe señalar con relación a este borrador de reglamento que no se ha logrado presentar una propuesta legislativa clara, sino un galimatías financiero que oscurece la importantísima dimensión política y social del Plan de Inversiones para Europa logrado gracias al constante trabajo del Grupo parlamentario de los Socialistas y Demócratas Europeos. Compete a este Parlamento corregir y mejorar este borrador, dotándolo de un mínimo de inteligibilidad y de coherencia interna. Asimismo, es importante asegurar que el Banco Europeo de Inversiones ejerza de modo racional su papel como prestamista, asumiendo un cierto nivel de riesgo y no multiplicando la imposición de comisiones a los beneficiarios o la exageración de los gastos de administración del FEIE. Por último, es llamativo, por no decir preocupante, que el señor Katainen haya acudido en sus comparecencias tanto ante el Comité de Asuntos Económicos y Monetarios como ante el Pleno del Parlamento Europeo con las manos vacías respecto de posibles contribuciones nacionales al FEIE. Alfred Sant (S&D),
in writing.
– One thing is common to those who push for all-out fiscal consolidation and those who insist that the total priority must be economic stimulus: both agree that investment in Europe is lagging too much. The EU Fund for Strategic Investments is being proposed by the Juncker Commission to compensate for this deficiency. It has been criticised as being too little too late. Also, the really new investment monies being mobilised by the initiative are, in relative and absolute terms, minimal. Most have been subtracted from monies voted by the EU for research, and that is highly regrettable. I sympathise with people who argue „better this than nothing”: however, the malaise of the eurozone results fundamentally from deep imbalances between its constituent parts. These have created a dynamic in which internal economic divergences continue to widen. Perhaps the only way to counter the imbalances is through a central investment fund that is massive in scope and is targeted to rebalance wealth and employment creation within the eurozone. The Juncker fund has no chance of achieving that target. Nor does it have that ambition. For that reason, I fear it will make hardly any dent in the economic stagnation in Europe. Olga Sehnalová (S&D),
písemně.
– V Evropě existuje značný investiční potenciál, jehož využití by umožnilo vytvoření nových pracovních míst, stimulování zaměstnávání mladých lidí a posílení konkurenceschopnosti evropské ekonomiky. Cílem Fondu pro strategické investice je prostřednictvím podpory strategických investic, zejména do infrastruktury, výzkumu a vzdělávání odstranit překážky, které brání plnému využití dosud nevyužitého potenciálu. Aby mohl být tento ambiciózní projekt úspěšný, je nezbytné již v jeho počáteční fázi nastavit jasná pravidla – zajistit maximální míru transparentnosti při výběru konkrétních projektů, předcházet kolizím s již schválenými finančními nástroji, v oblasti dopravy například s Nástrojem pro propojení Evropy, a soustředit se na celkově efektivnější využívání evropských strukturálních a investičních fondů. Přeji předsedovi Junckerovi, aby investiční plán byl povedeným novým začátkem jeho Komise. Monika Smolková (S&D),
písomne
– Európsky fond pre strategické investície sa ešte iba rodí, ale už má veľa kritikov a odporcov. Kritici ale neponúkajú iné riešenia. Podporujem Junckerov návrh, pretože po rokoch stagnácie ekonomiky Európy je potrebné dať možnosť mobilizácií dodatočných investícií, maximalizovať vplyv verejných investícií a uvoľniť súkromné investície. Investičný plán by mal umožniť financovanie reálnej ekonomiky prostredníctvom transparentnej databázy, ktorá bude obsahovať životaschopné projekty na úrovni EÚ. Nový fond bude podporovať strategické investície do infraštruktúry. Tiež bude podporovať rizikové financovanie pre MSP a spoločnosti so strednou trhovou kapitalizáciou. Dnes je v zozname potenciálnych investičných projektov takmer 2000 projektov. Slovensko zaslalo 150 projektov v celkovej hodnote 29 miliárd eur a verím, že pri konečnom výbere budeme mať úspešné projekty, ktoré prispejú k rastu a tvorbe nových pracovných miest aj v mojej krajine. Csaba Sógor (PPE),
in writing.
– Considering the 23 million unemployed in the European Union, expectations are justifiably high regarding the Juncker Commission's EUR 15 billion investment plan to put Europe back on a growth track and create new jobs. I believe that, in order to achieve good results with the investment plan, we must follow two rules from the outset. First, we should ensure that enough money is targeted towards countries where there is insufficient credit for SMEs, thereby creating more impact where this money is truly needed. Second, with regard to the project selection criteria, we should ensure that these are clear enough and that they allow for competitiveness between projects, but, at the same time, that they lead to the financing not of deadweight projects that would have been financed anyway but of projects with a high leverage effect conducive to the creation of jobs which would not have been created in the absence of the financing. We should also use this tool to support investment in novel and high-risk areas like green energy and the digital economy, where investment is truly needed and where we can have a strong impact in terms of the realisation of the EU 2020 strategy. Jutta Steinruck (S&D),
schriftlich.
– Mit der Gründung des Europäischen Fonds für strategische Investition ist der nächste, wichtige Schritt im Investitionsplan von Kommissionspräsident Jean-Claude Juncker getan. Ich begrüße es ausdrücklich, dass dieser Fonds innerhalb von drei Monaten auf den Weg gebracht wurde. Dennoch mahne ich zur Vorsicht: Investitionen sind kein Selbstzweck und dürfen nicht aus reinem Aktionismus um der Investition willen getätigt werden. Wir dürfen unser gemeinsames Ziel, nämlich die Schaffung von guten Arbeitsplätzen, nicht aus den Augen verlieren. Auch Herr Juncker und Herr Katainen haben dies mit ihrem „Triple Social A” verkündet. Wir werden sie an diesem Versprechen messen. Das Vertrauen in Europa wurde durch die Krise und die daraus resultierende hohe Arbeitslosigkeit von 9,7 % erschüttert. Daraus schlagen demokratiefeindliche Bewegungen in ganz Europa Kapital und bieten vermeintlich einfache Lösungen in Zeiten komplexer Probleme an. Wir müssen den Menschen zeigen, dass Europa mehr ist als Wettbewerbsfähigkeit um jeden Preis. Arbeitsplätze dürfen nicht zum Zweck kurzfristig niedrigerer Arbeitslosenquoten geschaffen werden, sondern müssen unter der Leitidee der Nachhaltigkeit stehen. Wir brauchen nicht noch mehr atypische Beschäftigungsverhältnisse, sondern endlich Arbeitsplätze mit einer fairen Entlohnung und der Garantie einer langfristigen Anstellung. Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE),
în scris.
– Salut concentrarea Comisiei Europene asupra punerii în aplicare, cât mai repede, a programului de investiții prin Fondul european pentru investiții strategice (FEIS). Apreciez construcția conceptuală a acestui fond și faptul că statele membre pot participa la formarea capitalului necesar fondului, iar acest efort va fi luat în considerare la analiza deficitului bugetar. Consider că atât potențialii investitori din sectorul privat, cât și beneficiarii investițiilor, doresc să cunoască mai multe detalii cu privire la mecanismul de formare a costurilor de finanțare. Este important ca FEIS să contribuie la realizarea unui echilibru rezonabil între dorința investitorilor pentru un profit cât mai mare și dorința beneficiarilor de investiții care au nevoie de un cost cât mai mic al finanțării. Henna Virkkunen (PPE),
kirjallinen.
– Arvoisa puhemies! Investointien vauhdittaminen Euroopassa on tulevaisuuden kannalta välttämätöntä. Varapuheenjohtaja Kataisen valmistelema ohjelma on tärkeä avaus yksityisen sektorin rohkaisemiseksi mukaan. Ymmärrän hyvin sen huolen, joka parlamentissa on noussut Horisontti 2020 -tutkimusohjelman rahoituksen käyttämisestä investointiohjelmaan. On kuitenkin huomattava, että tämä voi olla myös merkittävä mahdollisuus vivuttaa myös tutkimuksen ja tuotekehityksen rahoitusta entistä suuremmaksi. Tärkeintä onkin nyt varmistaa, että se rahoitus, joka Horisontti 2020 -ohjelmasta mahdollisesti irrotetaan investointiohjelmaan, suunnataan nimenomaan tutkimuksen ja tuotekehityksen hankkeisiin eikä putkiin, verkkoihin ja teihin, vaikka infrastruktuuriakin toki tarvitaan. Esimerkiksi yliopistotutkimuksen ja yritysten rajapinnassa on paljon lupaavaa tuotekehitystoimintaa ja uuden kasvun ituja, joita kannattaisi rahoittaa. Θεόδωρος Ζαγοράκης (PPE),
γραπτώς.
– Ο συγκεκριμένος μηχανισμός μπορεί και πρέπει να ενισχύσει σημαντικά τα κράτη μέλη, συμβάλλοντας στην δημιουργία ενός επενδυτικά φιλικού περιβάλλοντος, αρκεί να λειτουργεί με μεγαλύτερη ευελιξία και να κινητοποιεί άμεσα περισσότερα κεφάλαια. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο θα έχει τη δυνατότητα να αξιολογεί και να ελέγχει την λειτουργία του μηχανισμού, ενισχύοντας τη διαφάνεια στη διαχείριση του. Τώρα είναι η στιγμή που πρέπει, ως Ένωση, να δράσουμε γρήγορα και αποφασιστικά για τη βιωσιμότητα των επενδύσεων, την προώθηση της έξυπνης καινοτομίας και την υποστήριξη μεταρρυθμίσεων για τη μείωση της γραφειοκρατίας. Επικροτώ τη δήλωση του Επιτρόπου, που δίνει προτεραιότητα σε έργα που αφορούν τους τομείς και τις περιοχές με τα μεγαλύτερα προβλήματα όπως η χώρα μου. Στην Ελλάδα, σήμερα, έμποροι και επαγγελματίες δυσκολεύονται να καλύψουν τις ασφαλιστικές τους υποχρεώσεις. Πρέπει να δώσουμε ένα τέλος και να αναζητήσουμε κεφάλαια με άμεση απορρόφηση. Θα πρέπει οι επενδύσεις να έχουν ως στόχο την πραγματική οικονομία, να φτάσουν τα χρήματα απευθείας στον πολίτη, ενισχύοντας το επιχειρείν, δημιουργώντας νέες θέσεις εργασίας, συμβάλλοντας στους ρυθμούς ανάπτυξης, τόσο της ελληνικής οικονομίας, όσο και του ευρωπαϊκού Νότου συνολικά. Carlos Zorrinho (S&D),
por escrito.
– O lançamento do Fundo Europeu para Investimentos Estratégicos é uma evolução quântica na política europeia de combate à crise. Significa o reconhecimento do falhanço do modelo de empobrecimento como caminho para a sustentabilidade das contas públicas. O novo fundo tem fragilidades, mas abre uma nova etapa conceptual. Por um lado, são explícitas opções estratégicas e, por outro lado, a capitalização do fundo não será contabilizada para efeitos de défice público. O passo seguinte será o alargamento dessa exceção a todo o investimento estratégico. É este o caminho para um futuro de crescimento sustentável para a Europa. Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL),
por escrito.
– Este Plano de Investimento só será positivo se não for mais um programa de concessão de garantias públicas a investimentos privados. Pela natureza dos investimentos em causa – grandes infraestruturas – facilmente se conclui que estamos a falar de parcerias público-privadas, em que o lucro fica do lado do privado e o risco do lado do público. Para além disso, se os investimentos não assentarem em na criação de trabalho seguro, estável e com direitos, o emprego que se criará será efémero, mal pago e não resolverá, a médio e longo prazo, nenhum dos problemas que diz querer resolver. 14.   Plan za novi međunarodni sporazum o klimi u Parizu (rasprava) Der Präsident. - Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Erklärung des Rates und der Kommission, betreffend den Fahrplan über ein neues Klimaübereinkommen in Paris (2015/2521(RSP)). Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica,
President-in-Office of the Council
. - Mr President, the Paris Climate Change Conference at the end of this year is expected to adopt a new global climate agreement for the post-2020 period. This new agreement should be universal and capable of keeping us on track to limit the average global temperature increase to below 2oC relative to pre-industrial levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has indicated in its latest synthesis report that the target of 2oC and global emissions reduction of 40-70% compared to 2010 are needed by 2015, and that emission levels should be near zero or below in 2100. We have less than 10 months and we need to use this time efficiently. The results of the Lima Climate Change Conference, and a sense of urgency expressed by world leaders at the UN climate summit in September, provide a necessary impetus for the work this year. The Lima call for climate action, adopted in December, contains two main outcomes. The first is guidance for the communication of proposed emission-reduction targets, the so-called „intended nationally determined contributions”, and the second is the preparation of elements for the draft negotiating text for the Paris agreement. In the Paris agreement, all parties should have legally binding mitigation commitments, but levels of ambition and commitment types will differ. Intended nationally determined contributions should therefore allow each party to choose its contribution type and define its level of ambition, in accordance with its national circumstances and capabilities. In October last year, EU leaders endorsed a target to reduce the EU's domestic emissions by at least 40% in 2030 compared to 1990, in line with its long-term objective of reducing emissions by 80-95% by 2050. The strategic framework is now to be translated into an EU intended contribution. The Presidency of the Council is determined to ensure that the EU intended contribution is submitted to the secretariat of the UN Framework Climate Change Conference within the first quarter of 2015. We expect other major economies to come forward promptly with their contributions as well. The Paris agreement should go well beyond mitigation targets capable of delivering on the below-2oC objective. It should also be dynamic, with inbuilt flexibility and capacity to respond to evolving circumstances, responsibilities and capabilities. It should provide a long-term vision of the need for transformation towards a lower-emission and climate-resilient economy and it should enable broad and effective participation. Let me underscore that, despite the significant progress, there are still important issues on which a shared global vision has yet to emerge, in particular on differentiation between countries' obligations on the legal form and force of the Paris agreement. Intensive negotiations will be needed in order to find common ground on these outstanding core issues. The Presidency of the Council will make all possible efforts to ensure effective European Union participation at the international negotiation sessions. Outreach activities planned to take place throughout 2015 will be a crucial element in this process. They will contribute to the ongoing discussions. We have to talk to our partners all around the world to try to find common ground. Moreover, in order to ensure an appropriate background for negotiations, we need to make sure that the EU's efforts on emissions reduction and support for developing countries are adequately recognised. The Presidency of the Council will also stimulate EU-internal political debate on climate change with a view to the Paris conference. The Environmental Council in March will be the first opportunity to discuss the EU's expectations and strategy. Miguel Arias Cañete,
Miembro de la Comisión
. - Señor Presidente, estimadas diputadas y diputados, es para mí una satisfacción tener esta oportunidad para intercambiar opiniones sobre los planes y actividades de la Unión Europea en materia de acción climática, con relación a la conclusión de un acuerdo global climático que queremos alcanzar en poco más de diez meses, en la Cumbre de las Naciones Unidas de París. En primer lugar, me gustaría compartir con ustedes mi valoración de la Conferencia de Lima. Ya tuve la oportunidad de hacerlo con los representantes de esta Cámara durante esa Conferencia, en el marco de las reuniones diarias que mantuvimos durante la pasada COP. Por ello, muchos de ustedes saben que considero que la COP de Lima fue un paso importante en nuestros esfuerzos para alcanzar un acuerdo global en París. Destacaría tres conclusiones de la Conferencia de Lima. En primer lugar, la decisión de reiterar la necesidad de que todos los países presenten sus respectivas contribuciones nacionales de reducción de emisiones a final de marzo, lo que se conoce en inglés como intended nationally determined contributions. En segundo lugar, se alcanzó un acuerdo sobre los requisitos de información, que deben describir de manera clara, transparente y comprensible estas contribuciones. Finalmente, la decisión dio mandato a las Naciones Unidas para elaborar un informe de síntesis una vez todas las contribuciones respectivas hayan sido presentadas. Este informe deberá permitirnos evaluar los avances que estamos dispuestos a hacer colectivamente para mantener el incremento del calentamiento global por debajo de los dos grados centígrados. Lima ha sido también una demostración palpable de la unidad de la Unión Europea. Hubo una gran colaboración entre los ministros y con el Parlamento Europeo. Fuimos capaces de reaccionar a circunstancias cambiantes de manera satisfactoria y espero que esa colaboración continúe durante todo este año. Sin embargo, queda mucho por hacer este año. El borrador de los elementos de texto final del acuerdo es demasiado largo y contiene excesivas opciones. Todavía quedan además por resolver asuntos muy importantes, como la forma legal del futuro acuerdo, la financiación climática y la diferenciación en las contribuciones nacionales de reducción de emisiones. A fin de articular de manera clara nuestra visión sobre los objetivos que el acuerdo de París debe alcanzar, en las próximas semanas presentaré al Colegio de Comisarios una Comunicación titulada „El protocolo de París, un proyecto para luchar contra el cambio climático más allá del año 2020”. Esta Comunicación tiene dos objetivos principales: en primer lugar, describir cómo pretendemos que el Protocolo de París sea dinámico, transparente y jurídicamente vinculante y, como tal, capaz de responder a las realidades económicas y geopolíticas; y, en segundo lugar, traducir los objetivos de la estrategia de clima y energía de la Unión Europea para el año 2030 en nuestra contribución de reducción de emisiones, de acuerdo con los requisitos de transparencia de información acordados en Lima. La Comunicación reiterará que debemos trabajar intensamente para alcanzar en París un acuerdo que sea aplicable a todos. Los Estados Unidos y China se han comprometido a actuar y, junto con la Unión Europea, representaríamos casi la mitad de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero del mundo. Pero todos los países que puedan deben presentar sus contribuciones nacionales de reducción de emisiones en este año, tal y como acordamos en Varsovia. Todos los países del G20 y otras grandes economías están ciertamente en posición de hacerlo. Pero, en paralelo, y a lo largo de 2015, deberemos movilizar nuestras energías en el área de la diplomacia climática, deberemos continuar dialogando con nuestros socios y amigos sobre nuestra visión para el nuevo acuerdo y animarlos a presentar sus objetivos nacionales de reducción de emisiones. Desde luego, la Comisión se compromete a trabajar para mantener el liderazgo de la Unión Europea en materia de acción climática y, junto a la Vicepresidenta de la Comisión, Federica Mogherini, trabajaremos para sensibilizar a todos los actores internacionales durante este año. La semana que viene estaré en Washington para reunirme con mis contrapartes del Departamento de Estado, del Departamento de Energía y la Casa Blanca y el día 4 de febrero mantendremos un encuentro con el Ministro chino Xie Zhenhua y con la Secretaria General de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático. La semana pasada la Vicepresidenta y Alta Representante y yo mismo presentamos un plan de diplomacia climática en el Consejo de Asuntos Exteriores que fue apoyado por los Ministros de Asuntos Exteriores. Desplegar la aplicación de este plan de manera conjunta contribuirá de forma muy positiva a sensibilizar a gran número de países, tanto en reuniones bilaterales como en el marco del G7 y G20. Por último, me gustaría decir unas palabras sobre la financiación climática, un tema esencial no solo para el acuerdo de París, sino también para la credibilidad de la Unión Europea como actor internacional. En 2013 la Unión Europea y sus Estados miembros aportaron 9 500 millones de euros en financiación climática, pero no cabe duda de que la Unión Europea y los Estados miembros tienen que continuar sus esfuerzos. Conjuntamente con los Ministros de Finanzas y de Cooperación al Desarrollo, deberemos ser capaces de comprometernos con nuestros socios sobre este aspecto fundamental, para completar un acuerdo ambicioso en París. Además de las negociaciones climáticas estamos también negociando los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible post 2015. Sobre este asunto, los Comisarios Vella y Mimica lideran el trabajo en el seno de la Comisión, y trabajaremos conjuntamente para asegurar que nuestra acción sea coherente. Al mismo tiempo seguiremos trabajando conjuntamente con el sector privado y otras instituciones internacionales, como el Banco Mundial, para movilizar más recursos. Estimadas diputadas y diputados, el éxito para la Unión Europea pasa por ser capaces de hablar con una sola voz Parlamento, Comisión y Estados miembros. Por ello, continuaré trabajando estrechamente con esta Cámara y con el Consejo para alcanzar en París un acuerdo ambicioso, jurídicamente vinculante y aplicable a todos los países. Ivo Belet,
namens de PPE-Fractie
. – Ik denk dat wij mogen zeggen dat de Europese Unie nog altijd het meest ambitieuze klimaatbeleid heeft in heel de wereld: 40% reductie in 2030. Ik denk dat niemand het beter doet. Intussen bewegen de zaken in India en China weliswaar langzaam, maar toch is er enige reden tot optimisme richting Parijs. In Canada en Australië daarentegen moeten de politieke leiders het licht nog zien. Het zij zo. Wij hopen dat daar ook nog wat gebeurt. Maar wij moeten eerst en vooral naar onszelf kijken, ons eigen huiswerk afmaken. Dat betekent dat wij een dubbel spoor willen volgen. Enerzijds, zoals de commissaris zei, een ambitieuze klimaatpolitiek nastreven, en anderzijds ook een sterke economie. Wij zijn ervan overtuigd dat dat hand in hand kàn en mòet gaan. Daarvoor is inderdaad een evenwichtige hervorming van ons unieke ETS-systeem nodig. Met in de eerste instantie dat market stability reserve systeem, dat wij op korte termijn nodig hebben om van die ETS een stabiel systeem te maken. En ook een systeem dat shock proof is, dat wil zeggen dat het bestand is tegen schokken en dat wij een goede oplossing voor de back loaded allowances moeten hebben, die tegelijkertijd evenwichtig is. Ik bedoel daarmee een zodanige ETS-hervorming met het market stability reform dat industriële ondernemingen die investeren in duurzame technologie ook alle kansen krijgen en aangemoedigd blijven. Om te zorgen dat wij niet in een situatie komen waarin duurzame productie uit Europa wegtrekt naar net over de grens, buiten de Europese Unie, waar geen ETS-systeem is. Het gaat er dus om te proberen met alle sectoren, ETS en non-ETS, die doelstellingen van 2030 te halen. [De spreker gaat in op een „blauwe kaart”-vraag (artikel 162, lid 8 van het Reglement)] Marek Jurek (ECR),
pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki
. – Panie Pośle, nazywa Pan naszą politykę klimatyczną polityką ambitną, ale czy zdaje sobie Pan sprawę z tego, że za te ambicje płacą przede wszystkim uboższe kraje Unii Europejskiej, te kraje, które mają najmniej pieniędzy na rozwijanie nowych technologii. Program dekarbonizacji to jest program tak naprawdę likwidacji głównej gałęzi przemysłu w naszej ojczyźnie. Może czas, żebyśmy rzeczywiście pomyśleli o tym, jak przenieść te koszty na inne państwa, ale pomyśleli też o własnych państwach. Ivo Belet (PPE),
„blauwe kaart”-antwoord
. – Ik ben heel blij dat u die vraag stelt, want het is een van de essentiële elementen van die hervorming van het ETS-systeem. Ik denk dat op de Europese Raad van 24 oktober jongstleden heel belangrijke garanties gegeven zijn voor Polen, Hongarije en andere lidstaten uit het vroegere „oostblok”, zoals men dat zegt. Zij moeten die garanties inderdaad krijgen, er moet in overgangsmaatregelen worden voorzien om een evenwichtige overgang te maken zodat er ook koolstoflekkagemaatregelen inzitten, en wij garanties kunnen geven aan de energie-intensieve energie. Kathleen Van Brempt,
namens de S&D-Fractie
. – Het is januari, dus wij mogen nog Nieuwjaarstoespraken houden. Dat betekent even naar 2014 kijken en dan goede voornemens maken voor 2015. Ik zou onheilspellend kunnen zijn en zeggen: 2014 was het warmste jaar ooit, en dat moet ons ongerust maken. Maar 2014 — de commissaris heeft erover gesproken - was ook het jaar dat is afgesloten met een akkoord over Lima. Wij zouden pessimistisch kunnen zijn, maar het goede is: we hebben een akkoord, laten wij daarop voortbouwen. Het is al gezegd, heel belangrijk is dat wij de komende maanden naar onszelf kijken en het goede voorbeeld geven. Wij hebben een verantwoordelijkheid in de wereld om dat te doen. Er is al gesproken over klimaatdiplomatie. Heel goed, mijnheer de commissaris, wij staan daar volledig achter. Wij denken dat het ontzettend belangrijk is. Maar naar de eigen verantwoordelijkheid kijken betekent ook kijken naar de financiering. En collega Belet, die een bijzondere verantwoordelijkheid heeft in dat dossier, heeft er al over gesproken. Ik denk dat het symbolisch is voor de komende weken als Europa er effectief in zal slagen om zijn verantwoordelijkheid te nemen. Ik maak een gebaar, hetgeen ik niet vaak doe, naar de PPE-Fractie: laten wij samen een goed akkoord maken, niet zoals dat in Itteren gebeurd is. Laten wij ambitieus en realistisch zijn en dat betekent ook: laten wij zo snel mogelijk een nieuw systeem van market stability reserve in gang zetten. Dat is van cruciaal belang. [De spreker gaat in op een „blauwe kaart”-vraag (artikel 162, lid 8, van het Reglement).] Andrzej Duda (ECR),
pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki
. – Mam pytanie do pani poseł Van Brempt również w kontekście naszej wcześniejszej dyskusji na temat planu inwestycji strategicznych. Mówimy w tej chwili o ograniczaniu emisji, mówimy o tym, że chcemy, jako Unia Europejska, nakłonić też do tego resztę świata. Problem polega na tym, że nasz plan, który chcemy realizować, czyli ograniczenie emisji o 40%, jest planem, który w zasadzie jest nieakceptowany przez resztę świata – nazwijmy sprawę po imieniu – co spowoduje, że w tej perspektywie gospodarka europejska stanie się znacznie mniej konkurencyjna. Czy nie lepiej jest dzisiaj także pieniądze z planu Junckera przeznaczyć w istotnym stopniu na inwestycje w energetykę, w poprawę efektywności energetycznej? Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D),
„blauwe kaart”-antwoord
. – Met dat laatste ben ik het helemaal eens. Energie-efficiëntie moet de topprioriteit zijn van het Juncker-plan. Ten tweede, ik geloof en hoop dat u dat ook vindt, dat het erg belangrijk is om onze verantwoordelijkheid in de wereld te nemen met betrekking tot de vervuiling. Tegelijkertijd heel innovatief naar oplossingen zoeken. In ons land behoren vele bedrijven, staalbedrijven, chemiebedrijven, tot de top in de wereld voor wat betreft energie-efficiëntie. Ik weet dat wij in Oost-Europa nog stappen moeten ondernemen, onder meer in uw land. En daarvoor moet Europa solidair zijn om ervoor te zorgen [de Voorzitter ontneemt spreker het woord]. Ian Duncan,
on behalf of the ECR Group
. – Mr President, I am struck again, as we sit in this Chamber, by the fact that we entered the Lima discussions with such high hopes and I believe we left them with such low expectations. Success is not final and failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts. So we must leave behind some of those disappointments in Lima and cast our eyes towards what we can finally achieve in Paris. On hearing some of the questions from colleagues, even in my own group, I realise this is going to be a challenge – not just a global challenge but a challenge for Europe itself. We must make sure – and I believe the Commission must adhere to this – that in going forward, when we consider mitigation and adaptation, we provide adequate support for adaptation both within the EU and more broadly. José Inácio Faria,
em nome do Grupo ALDE
. – A ciência pronunciou-se sobre as alterações climáticas. A situação climática não só tem vindo a agravar-se, como isso tem acontecido a uma velocidade superior à esperada. Não sobram dúvidas sobre o que se está a passar, temos hoje dados sólidos e um forte consenso por parte da comunidade científica em torno das alterações climáticas globais. É agora a vez dos decisores políticos assumirem a responsabilidade. O que temos feito não basta. Os compromissos a que temos chegado com os nossos parceiros globais são insuficientes. Não podemos fechar os olhos a esta realidade e devemos agir agora, antes que seja tarde demais para o planeta. Como hoje aqui disse o Senhor Cañete, muitos aspetos difíceis ficaram por resolver na Conferência de Lima. Há muitas partes envolvidas e muitos interesses em causa e a experiência mostra que eles só poderão ser resolvidos ao mais alto nível pelos Chefes de Governo e de Estado. Exemplo disso, são as exigências e as contribuições financeiras para o Fundo Verde para o Clima. Sem a consolidação deste instrumento, dificilmente poderemos atingir o objetivo crucial de um acordo global, ambicioso e legalmente vinculativo para limitar as emissões de CO2. O tempo é curto até à Conferência de Paris, que terá lugar no final deste ano. Creio, por isso, ser essencial uma ação concertada por parte dos Estados-Membros e da Comissão Europeia, devendo esta ser um conjunto como ofensiva diplomática coordenada pela Alta Representante da União Europeia, Federica Mogherini, junto dos principais parceiros internacionais, aliás como também aqui referiu o Senhor Cañete na sua intervenção inicial. Acredito também que a União Europeia deve evidenciar empenho e que deve assegurar a coerência e determinação nos seus próprios objetivos de política energética e climática. Espero que tal seja demonstrado na aguardada comunicação sobre a União Energética, esperada para o final deste próximo mês. Só sendo coerentes e ambiciosos entre nós poderemos manter a credibilidade necessária para liderar com sucesso as negociações sobre o acordo global para o clima. Merja Kyllönen,
GUE/NGL-ryhmän puolesta
. – Arvoisa puhemies, hyvät kollegat, Liman ilmastokokouksen viesti oli meille selvä. Pariisissa on löydettävä aito ratkaisu, ilmastosopimuksen on synnyttävä. Peru, jossa ilmastokokous järjestettiin, kärsii ilmastonmuutoksesta neljänneksi eniten maailmassa. Vierailu Peruun oli silmiä avaava. Muutokset näkyvät aivan kaikessa, ruuantuotannossa kaikkien nopeimmin. Puhtaasta juomavedestä ja syömäkelpoisesta ravinnosta tullaan vielä taistelemaan. Köyhimmät kaikkialla kärsivät kaikkein eniten, ja köyhistä eniten naiset. Kylmyys, kuumuus, kuivuus, nälänhätä ja maakorroosio lisääntyvät koko ajan. Toin Perusta tuliaisena meille kaikille sen epäoikeudenmukaisuuden tunteen, jota kehittyvät maat aivan oikeutetusti tuntevat. Sen pitäisi herätellä meitä toimintaan Euroopassa. Kenen elintaso onkaan yhtenä syynä ilmastonmuutokseen? Ketkä kärsivät köyhimpinä suurimmat seuraukset? Ilmastonmuutokseen reagoinnissa on siis kyse myös solidaarisuudesta ja ihmisyydestä. Meidän on Euroopassa tarkistettava omia tavoitteitamme kunnianhimoisemmiksi, siirryttävä täysin uusiutuvaan energiaan. Ilmastorahoitusta on tasaisesti kasvatettava, ja talouskriisi ei voi olla sille esteenä. Järkevät ratkaisut ovat ennemminkin mahdollisuus kuin este. Yannick Jadot,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE
. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, nous savons qu'à Paris se joue une partie de l'avenir de l'humanité. Est-ce que l'Europe agit sur le climat? Oui, l'Europe agit. Est-ce que l'Europe en fait assez? Non, l'Europe n'en fait pas assez. Elle n'en fait pas assez d'abord pour elle. Contrairement à ce que disent un certain nombre de personnes sur la compétitivité de l'économie européenne, il va quand même falloir commencer à regarder la réalité de l'économie européenne. Les secteurs qui vont bien sont les secteurs qui anticipent le dérèglement climatique, qui s'inscrivent dans la transition énergétique, l'efficacité et les énergies renouvelables. Ce sont aussi les secteurs qui, aujourd'hui, créent des emplois. Je vous invite à relire notamment le papier de la Commission sur une croissance génératrice d'emplois: le premier secteur qui créera des emplois en Europe, c'est le secteur de la transition énergétique. Mais nous devons aussi le faire pour la négociation climatique. L'Europe, là non plus, n'en fait pas assez. Si nous purgeons une partie du système ETS, l'Europe pourrait afficher, dès la fin du printemps, un objectif de 25 % de réduction de nos émissions de gaz à effet de serre d'ici 2020. Il faut absolument que, dans les contributions que va afficher l'Union européenne, l'on exclue tout ce qui concerne l'usage des terres, le changement d'usage des terres, parce que sinon, nous perdrons toute crédibilité. Et parce que nous savons qu'aujourd'hui, le principal blocage de la négociation internationale, c'est le financement, nous devons être plus sérieux sur ce point. Ce n'est pas parce que l'Europe en fait que l'Europe en fait assez. Nous devons agir pour nous et pour l'humanité. Marco Affronte,
a nome del gruppo EFDD
. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, quello di Parigi potrebbe essere l'accordo più ampio mai raggiunto per i temi trattati e per il numero di paesi che si impegnano a ridurre le emissioni. Ci auguriamo davvero che questa volta ci sia una svolta decisiva per un accordo globale sul clima. Il testo approvato a Lima mostra la volontà degli Stati di giungere ad un compromesso finale, anche attraverso al proposta di un meccanismo permanente di innalzamento degli obiettivi di riduzione delle emissioni. Ma non possiamo non essere critici sull'assenza di termini vincolanti che potrebbe limitarne l'efficacia. Dobbiamo rimarcare che, nonostante i tentativi negoziali, il testo è tuttora debole nel definire la natura legale del prossimo accordo e permane un serio rischio sulla sua efficacia. L'Unione europea deve vigilare e insistere affinché gli Stati membri preparino i propri contributi nazionali con largo anticipo e che questi siano efficaci e coerenti. Dobbiamo ottenere e pretendere un trattato vincolante che impegni tutti i paesi a ridurre le emissioni conformemente all'obiettivo di contenere la crescita della temperatura mondiale entro i 2 gradi. Zoltán Balczó (NI). - A limai klímatalálkozót sikeresnek értékeljük, mert született egy aláírt dokumentum. Miért lenne ez önmagában siker, amikor az ENSZ kijelenti, hogy a fő célt, a globális felmelegedés 2 fok alatt tartását, nem sikerült elérni. Az Európai Unió megint ambiciózusnál ambiciózusabb célokat vállal és élen jár a kibocsátás csökkentésben. De miért nem vesszük figyelembe, hogy a globális kibocsátások 10%-áért vagyunk felelősek. Sokkal fontosabb lenne az USA-t és Kínát, a két legnagyobb szennyezőt, valódi kötelezettségvállalásra rábírni. Egyébként Kína és India azért írta alá a dokumentumot, mert ők – mint fejlődő országok – garanciát kaptak arra, hogy a tehetősebbek támogatják őket a klímavédelmi beruházásokban. Megkérdezem: az Unió és annak tagországa, Magyarország fogja támogatni azt a Kínát, amely a világ második legnagyobb gazdasága, hatalmas pénzügyi tartalékokkal? (A felszólaló hozzájárul egy „kékkártyás” kérdés megválaszolásához (az eljárási szabályzat 162. cikkének (8) bekezdése).) Tibor Szanyi (S&D),
Kékkártyás kérdés
. – Valójában itt a klímavédelem nemzetközi vagy globális aspektusairól van szó. De kérdezem tisztelettel, és képviselő úr véleményét szeretném erről kikérni, hogy nem egyszerűbb azzal az energiával foglalkozni, ami itt adott a föld felszínén? Muszáj nekünk állandó jelleggel kibányászni mindenhonnan és tízezer kilométereken át hurcolászni az energiahordozókat? Zoltán Balczó (NI),
Kékkártyás válasz
. – Nem világos, hogy a kérdés az én felszólalásomra vonatkozott-e. Ami a tízezer kilométeren való áthurcolást jelenti, az adott esetben éppen az a függetlenné válása az európai energiarendszernek, amit sokan említünk. És mondok egy klíma szempontjából jó megoldást, nem szennyezőt, tisztát, nem kell hurcolni hosszú vezetékeken energiát: nevezetesen az atomerőművek. Úgyhogy javaslom képviselő úrnak, hogy a klímavédelem érdekében emellett álljon ki. Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar! Erst mal an Sie ein herzliches Wort des Dankes. Wir haben in Lima einen sehr guten Kontakt zur Kommission gehabt und waren ziemlich nah dran an den Themen. Ich glaube, dass der Haupterfolg von Lima etwa acht oder zehn Tage vor der Konferenz geschehen ist, nämlich als die Amerikaner und die Chinesen – Herr Kollege, da waren Sie leider nicht dabei – gesagt haben: Jawohl, wir machen mit. Wir mögen zwar dieses UN-Konzept nicht, aber wir sagen Ihnen heute schon, welche genauen Prozentsätze wir in welchem Jahr erreichen wollen. Und, lieber Kollege, wir kommen dann von 14 % schon auf 51 % der Absenkung der CO2— Lasten auf dieser Welt, und das ist schon ein erfreuliches Ziel. Wir haben ein 2030-Ziel, das ist ziemlich ambitioniert, dass will ich nicht bestreiten, und – das ist wohl für den Kollegen aus Polen sehr wichtig – wir müssen einen vernünftigen Weg finden, dahin zu kommen. Im Grunde ist die Stunde der Wahrheit heute da. In zwei Monaten müssen die Mitgliedsländer der Union und alle Länder dieser Erde – 192 an der Zahl – ihre tatsächlichen Absenkungsziele vorgeben. Und dann gibt es ein internationales Arrangement, und wir werden wir sehen, ob wir die 2 Prozent erreichen oder nicht. Wir müssen nötigenfalls nachjustieren. Aber ich bin froh, dass endlich die Amerikaner und Chinesen dabei sind, das war unser und ein von mir persönlich seit langem verfolgtes Ziel. Da kommen sie nicht mehr raus, und deswegen glaube ich, dass wir am Ende trotz allen Ärgers da sind wo wir hinkommen wollen. Und all diejenigen, die hier kritisieren, Herr Präsident,... (Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort) Matthias Groote (S&D). - Frau Ratspräsidentin! Herr Kommissar! Ich muss sagen, ich bin froh, dass jetzt auch der Europäische Auswärtige Dienst aufgewacht ist, dass wir auf dem Weg zu Paris eine Art Klimadiplomatie entwickeln. Paris muss nämlich ein Erfolg werden, das ist klar, und wir müssen dazu hier als Parlament, aber auch mit den anderen beiden Institutionen die Vorarbeit leisten. Die neue Kommission hat die Idee einer Energieunion ins Spiel gebracht. Ich finde, es sollte eine Klima- und Energieunion sein, weil nur so ein Schuh daraus wird. Das müssen wir auch international organisieren, und darum ist uns sehr daran gelegen, dass wir international ein Abkommen hinbekommen und dass wir so für die 520 Millionen Europäer dafür Sorge tragen, dass Energieversorgung nachhaltig wird, sicher wird, aber auch dass das Thema der Jobs, nämlich der grünen Energie, von uns forciert wird, weil gerade in dem Bereich Arbeitsplätze zu schaffen sind, und da besteht ein Riesenpotenzial. Darum sollten wir diesen Rückenwind nutzen, aber auch unsere Hausaufgaben machen am Ende des Tages. Denn es nimmt uns keiner in Paris ab, wenn wir es nicht hinbekommen, das Emissionshandelssystem flott zu machen. Darum in Richtung Rat, auch in Richtung Kommission, aber auch hier im Haus: MSR, die Marktstabilitätsreserve, das muss kommen, da müssen wir uns einigen. Das darf nicht so laufen wie im Industrieausschuss, dass alles vor die Wand gefahren wird, sondern da werden die Kollegen im Umweltausschuss dafür Sorge tragen müssen, dass wir am Ende des Tages einen verantwortungsvollen Kompromiss auf den Weg bringen, um uns so auch in Paris nicht schämen müssen, sondern zeigen können, dass wir die Vorarbeit dahingehend geleistet haben. Dafür sollten wir die kommenden Monate nutzen! Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Jeżeli w Paryżu główni emitenci światowi nie przyjmą tego, co proponuje im Unia Europejska, czyli ograniczenia emisji, to myślę, że powinniśmy zrewidować naszą politykę klimatyczną. Co nam przyjdzie z tego, że sami narzucimy sobie ograniczenia? Nie przyniosą one żadnych istotnych ograniczeń emisji w kontekście globalnym, gdyż do 2030 roku będziemy odpowiadać za 4% światowych emisji. Co więcej, mogą przynieść ogromne szkody ekonomiczne i społeczne. Z jednej strony będzie to osłabienie naszej konkurencyjności, szczególnie w sektorach energochłonnych, z drugiej uderzenie w nasze bezpieczeństwo energetyczne, co jest szczególnie groźne dla Polski i innych nowych państw członkowskich w obliczu agresji Rosji na Ukrainę. Unia sama narzuca sobie ograniczenia, które już dziś zniechęcają wiele sektorów gospodarki do inwestowania w Europie. Osłabia to szczególnie słabsze państwa, takie jak moja ojczyzna Polska, która ze względu na wewnątrzunijne ograniczenia staje się coraz mniej konkurencyjna wobec konkurencji globalnej. Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL). - Pane předsedající, pane komisaři, po nepříliš úspěšné konferenci v Limě se zraky veřejnosti opět upínají na mezinárodní společenství v naději, že se podaří dospět k přelomové dohodě. Cílem konference bude udržet globální oteplování pod hranicí 2 %. Domnívám se, že se jedná o chvályhodný cíl, avšak chtěla bych varovat před tím, abychom se neztratili ve snižování čísel. Plány Evropské unie, jak zabránit globálnímu oteplování, jsou velmi ambiciózní. Musíme se však soustředit také na otázku, jak přesvědčit velké ekonomické hráče a nejen USA a Čínu, ale také například Rusko, Indii a další velké země, aby se připojily k cílům Evropské unie a nezískaly tak neoprávněnou konkurenční výhodu. Bez skutečně celosvětové dohody o snížení produkce CO2 se plán Evropské unie promění pouze ve stěhování průmyslu mimo Evropskou unii s dopadem na zaměstnanost, ovšem bez dopadu na celosvětové klima. Považuji za velmi důležité, aby se snížily emise skleníkových plynů, avšak nesmíme ztrácet ze zřetele ani zaměstnanost, ceny energií a to především sami u sebe a u nás doma. Julia Reid (EFDD). - Mr President, successful political activity or campaigns should focus on that sound military adage „Never reinforce failure: follow up success.” Two facts are clear. First, as we have said before, the climate is refusing to cooperate with forecasts: the figures show that since 1995 global warming has not been happening. This Parliament and national governments should concentrate on the practical measures which, in a period of austerity, are causing events like the Greek revolt. We should not and must not pursue policies and agreements which exacerbate Europe's downturn and comparative decline. Applying my adage, that fact is clear. Fact two is that we do have one clear success to report: on ozone. There is international agreement that action here seems to be working. The UN tells us that we have the first signs of thickening, that over the next decade there should be a clear win, and that it can only happen if the whole world acts. Hence the need for world action .. (The President cut off the speaker) Giovanni La Via (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor rappresentante del Consiglio, signor Commissario, in vista di Lima ci eravamo posti degli obiettivi importanti. Volevamo convincere tutte le parti coinvolte della necessità di investire in una politica climatica ambiziosa, al fine di salvaguardare l'ambiente e creare nello stesso tempo lavoro, incentivando lo sviluppo delle nuove tecnologie. Il risultato raggiunto rappresenta un passo avanti ma rimane un solo inizio. Si poteva certamente fare di più. E Parigi potrà essere l'occasione giusta se tutti dimostreranno lo stesso impegno e la stessa tenacia. L'obiettivo generale che oggi ci poniamo prevede il rafforzamento e l'impegno dell'intera comunità internazionale a favore dello sviluppo sostenibile, perché credo fortemente che non ci potrà essere vera crescita se essa non sarà sostenibile. È necessario, comunque, cominciare a lavorare subito, coinvolgendo tutte le parti prima di Parigi: il nostro servizio esterno e diplomatico, oltre al Parlamento, alla Commissione e tutti coloro che, nei singoli paesi si occupano del tema, con un grande senso di mutua cooperazione tra le istituzioni. Solo così potremo raggiungere il nostro obiettivo. Vorrei sottolineare poi l'importanza dei finanziamenti in tale settore: ricordare l'impegno assunto dall'UE e dei suoi Stati membri di incrementare progressivamente la mobilitazione dei finanziamenti per il clima, indispensabili per investire nella ricerca e nello sviluppo sostenibile. Chiudo con un ringraziamento a lei, signor Commissario, per il ruolo che ha conferito alla delegazione del Parlamento in questa conferenza di Lima e speriamo di poter continuare a cooperazione insieme. Pervenche Berès (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Madame la Présidente, quel que soit le résultat de la conférence de Paris, d'une certaine manière, cela doit nous servir d'aiguillon à la fois pour mettre en place l'Union de l'énergie, mais aussi pour orienter ce plan d'investissement en faveur de notre transition écologique. Et là, il y a un maillon qui nous manque toujours, c'est la question du prix du carbone, afin d'être sûr d'orienter vers l'investissement à long terme de transition écologique les investissements dans de bonnes conditions de marché, comme beaucoup ici le souhaitent. Au-delà de nos affaires, nous avons une certaine responsabilité, non seulement parce que nous sommes des pollueurs, non seulement parce que c'est sur notre continent que se déroulera cette conférence, mais aussi parce que nous devons mettre en ordre notre maison. Beaucoup avant moi dans ce débat l'ont mentionné, mais pourquoi n'arrivons-nous pas à nous mettre d'accord pour anticiper cette réserve de stabilité, dont nous sommes tous d'accord pour dire qu'elle est un élément déterminant d'une crédibilité de notre Union européenne. Alors, Monsieur le Commissaire, retroussez vos manches et obtenez cette anticipation de la réserve de stabilité. Il y a aussi la question du financement de la solidarité. Là aussi, l'Union européenne doit être au rendez-vous. Nous avons des engagements pour financer le Fonds vert et je salue l'initiative qui vient d'être prise en France par le ministre des finances et le Président de la République avec son homologue autrichien pour relancer une taxation des transactions financières qui permettrait notamment d'alimenter ce Fonds vert, et j'espère que tous les États membres qui sont partie à cette coopération renforcée.. (Le Président retire la parole à l'oratrice) Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης (GUE/NGL). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, στην επόμενη Διάσκεψη στο Παρίσι είναι άκρως επείγον να καταλήξουμε σε μια συμφωνία η οποία να επιτύχει όλα όσα δεν καταφέραμε μέχρι σήμερα. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση οφείλει να προσπαθήσει με επιμονή ώστε να τεθούν νέοι στόχοι για την ουσιαστική αντιμετώπιση των κλιματικών αλλαγών. Στο επίκεντρό μας - δεν πρέπει να το ξεχνούμε αυτό, κύριε Επίτροπε - πρέπει να είναι οι ανάγκες της κοινωνίας και των ανθρώπων στον πλανήτη και όχι τα συμφέροντα των πολυεθνικών και των μονοπωλίων. Για να επιτύχουμε αυτόν τον στόχο είναι πολύ σημαντικό να προωθήσουμε νέα μέτρα για τον περιορισμό των εκπομπών αερίων του θερμοκηπίου. Και προς αυτήν την κατεύθυνση πρέπει να ασκήσουμε πιέσεις με αποφασιστικότητα, ώστε η συμφωνία που επιτεύχθηκε και η δέσμευση των κρατών για τη δημιουργία του Πράσινου Ταμείου χρηματοδότησης των αναπτυσσόμενων χωρών, επιτέλους, να υλοποιηθούν. Μονάχα έτσι θα μπορέσουν οι αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες να προσαρμοσθούν στις νέες κλιματικές αλλαγές. Εξίσου σημαντικό είναι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να αναλάβει περισσότερες πρωτοβουλίες για την ανάπτυξη των ανανεώσιμων πηγών ενέργειας και την αντιμετώπιση της ενεργειακής ....... (Ο Πρόεδρος διακόπτει τον ομιλητή) Robert Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz (EFDD). - Panie Przewodniczący! Kolejny raz zajmujemy się tematem ideologicznym, a nie praktycznym, istniejącym tylko w głowach polityków i lobbystów. Trzeba powiedzieć jasno – dla Polski redukcja o 40% emisji CO2 jest warunkiem absurdalnym, nierealnym i zabójczym. W ciągu najbliższych lat cena energii w Polsce wzrośnie co najmniej o 30%. Trzeba będzie zamknąć większość elektrowni węgla brunatnego i kamiennego. Będziemy skazani na kupowanie zielonej energii od Niemiec, atomowej od Francji lub gazu od Rosji. Tak w praktyce będzie wyglądało polskie bezpieczeństwo energetyczne. Kto więc zapłaci koszty polskiego bezrobocia, koszty emisji CO2, koszty droższej energii? Kto zapłaci za straty w polskim transporcie, rolnictwie, budownictwie...? Wiadomo, polski podatnik, bo któżby inny? I to wszystko dlatego, że istnieje paru szaleńców, którzy uparli się, że zmiany klimatu są zależne od człowieka i paru cwaniaków, którzy postanowili na tych przesądach zarobić. (Mówca zgodził się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki (art. 162 ust. 8 Regulaminu)) Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE),
blue-card question
. – Mr Iwaszkiewicz, if you do not believe that climate change is caused by man, do you believe that it is caused by God? Robert Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz (EFDD),
odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki
. – Panie Pośle, jest rzeczą oczywistą, tak jak tutaj było wcześniej powiedziane, że 2014 rok to najcieplejszy rok. Nie wiem na jakiej podstawie jest to opowiadane, jako że nazwa wyspy Grenlandia pochodzi od tego, że tam było zielono, tam się uprawiało pola, a nie tak jak w tej chwili był lód. To nie jest sprawa człowieka, jeden wybuch jakiegoś Wezuwiusza potrafi dużo więcej wprowadzić gazów cieplarnianych. Linda McAvan (S&D). - Mr President, as the Commission and Council are aware, before we get to Paris in December the UN will be considering the SDG process at the Summit in September in New York. As they also know, Goal 13 of the Sustainable Development Goals is to tackle climate change. So I have two questions for them: How are you linking these two processes, both within the Commission and the Council? For colleagues on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, every country on the planet will have to adopt the Sustainable Development Goals, and implement them: it is not like the Millennium Development Goals. Yet we are not talking, even in this Parliament, in those terms. We are not linking the two things together. So I particularly want to hear from the Commission how they are working and how this will impact on the finance for development, because we can be certain that, even if we are not linking these issues, the G77 are linking them, and success in New York will determine success in Paris. Massimo Paolucci (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è un'illusione pensare che se siamo meno ambiziosi, se abbassiamo i nostri standard ambientali, saremo i più competitivi nel mondo. Se la partita si gioca al ribasso, l'Europa ha già perso. Non dobbiamo avere incertezze sull'ETS. È necessario e urgente la riserva di stabilità di mercato. È necessario anticipare la sua entrata in vigore, mettere il back-loading nella riserva e superare le attuali distorsioni del mercato interno europeo nel sostegno alle industrie energivore. Pavel Poc (S&D). - Pane předsedající, jednání v Limě přinesla příslib, ale ne zásadní průlom. Nejsem si vůbec jistý, že rozhodující světoví lídři skutečně pochopili, že neúspěch těchto jednání znamená také bezpečnostní a sociální rizika a klimatickou migraci se všemi známými důsledky. Dochází nám čas, protože zpětnovazebné mechanismy v planetárním měřítku už běží. Metan na arktickém šelfu taje a tyto mechanismy mohou v nejbližší budoucnosti jakékoliv naše úsilí anulovat. Sami v Evropské unii znovu a znovu selháváme se zavedením aktivních opatření. Zastavujeme hodiny letecké dopravě, zpackali jsme carbon leakage list, zdlouhavě opravujeme systém ETS. Teď je na řadě Paříž. Lotyšské předsednictví několikrát zdůraznilo, že příprava na Paříž patří mezi jeho stěžejní priority, děkuji za to. Komise zde hovoří pragmaticky, za to také děkuji. Máme ještě šanci, ale co během příštího půlroku nepřipravíme, to se v Paříži nedohodne. A jestli se v Paříži nedohodneme na opatřeních, budeme se tady příště bavit už jenom o adaptaci na klimatické změny. Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). - O aumento da temperatura global já tem, e terá, consequências catastróficas. O esforço a fazer não pode ser apenas um esforço europeu. Tem que ser um esforço global e, por isso, temos que mobilizar os cidadãos. A mudança não se faz apenas pela via normativa. Para mobilizar os cidadãos, mais do que de aquecimento global, temos que falar de um outro modelo de sociedade, com mais proximidade, com mais participação, com mais qualidade. Uma sociedade com crescimento, com empregos sustentáveis, com indústrias e transportes eficientes e limpos. Esta transição de modelo é uma grande oportunidade económica e social motivada por uma urgência ambiental. Paris é uma cidade que nos conduz à beleza, mas também à revolução. O que temos que conseguir em Paris não é apenas uma redução de emissões, é a revolução na forma de vivermos em sociedade de forma sustentável. O modelo industrial tradicional da segunda globalização morreu. („Catch-the-eye”-Verfahren) Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). - Gospodine predsjedniče, ova konferencija u Parizu je izuzetno bitna i s aspekta razvojne politike. Naime, mi imamo tri velike konferencije ove godine 2015. Jedna će biti naravno o financiranju politike razvoja, o globalnom financiranju u Adisu . Onda će biti u New Yorku u rujnu konferencija o novim održivim ciljevima za razvoj i u prosincu u Parizu o klimatskim promjenama. Velika je bila odluka međunarodne zajednice kada je spojila dva različita procesa, jedan koji se odnosio na klimatske promjene, a drugi za izradu novog razvojnog okvira. Ta je sinergija izuzetno bitna, izuzetno je bitno i da je Europska unija shvati i da Komisija na tome radi, želim pohvaliti stoga i rad povjerenika koji je stalno u kontaktu s povjerenikom za razvoj i želim da Europska unija govori i na jednom i na drugom slučaju jednim glasom. Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). - Mr President, we are all aware of the fact that climate change is a reality. Around the world the impact of climate change is accelerating and the most vulnerable countries are already paying the higher price. Last September, the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were published and the debate about human influence on the climate is now over: we are responsible for warming the earth. Luckily, next November is rapidly approaching. We have never had a better opportunity than the upcoming summit to tackle the tremendous danger of climate change. This is the greatest challenge that we must face but we must face it with the greatest ambition and hope. Next November in Paris, not only European citizens but more than 7 billion people will ask us to be brave and for our choices to be bold. They will ask us to go beyond our differences and our doubts and to chart a new course together. Much has to be done in Paris but if we are able to make the climate agreement a reality our generation will not be remembered as the one that destroyed the world but as the one that finally came to respect it. Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL). - Señor Presidente, la lucha contra el cambio climático pasa también por cambiar radicalmente cómo nos alimentamos. No tiene sentido que nuestra alimentación de cada día recorra miles y miles de kilómetros. Por eso la agricultura campesina a pequeña escala, el consumo de alimentos locales y la potenciación de circuitos cortos de comercialización, al mismo tiempo que pueden sustentar millones de empleos en todo el mundo, provocarán una bajada de la temperatura global porque contribuirán de una forma drástica a disminuir de forma muy considerable las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. Tenemos que ser coherentes y actuar de acuerdo con el discurso con el que envolvemos nuestras preocupaciones. Si queremos poner medidas para atacar la grave crisis climática, tenemos también la obligación de comprometernos en París a dar un giro radical a nuestras políticas agrarias y alimentarias y a cancelar las negociaciones del TTIP y del CETA. Eleonora Evi (EFDD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, prendo atto dell'ottimismo espresso dalla Commissione sul possibile accordo a Parigi ma, leggendo gli esisti dell'incontro di Lima, ritengo che i punti irrisolti e che potrebbero costituire un ostacolo ad un accordo ambizioso siano ancora diversi e di rilievo. Innanzitutto, con le misure in atto, sarà assai difficile che la riduzione delle emissioni entro il 2020 possa garantire il contenimento dell'aumento delle temperatura sotto i 2oC entro il 2100. A differenza del Protocollo di Kyoto poi, saranno i singoli paesi ad indicare il loro contributo alla riduzione complessiva delle emissioni, mentre lo scrutinio delle misure è stato derubricato a semplice riassunto delle misure nazionali, preparato dal Segretariato, e manca ancora una data condivisa entro cui le parti contraenti si impegnano a raggiungere gli obiettivi di riduzione. È ancora da definire sia la ripartizione degli sforzi di riduzione sia l'assistenza tecnica e finanziaria, ostacoli che, se non sono rimossi prima del prossimo accordo di Parigi, rischiano da soli di far fallire il negoziato come già accaduto a Copenaghen nel 2009. Comunque, per concludere, nel documento finale, una delle opzioni ... (Il Presidente ritira la parola all'oratore) Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D). - As mudanças climáticas são o fator que mais condiciona o futuro do planeta e da nossa civilização. O ponto de rutura a que chegámos passou a exigir decisões políticas musculadas a nível ficcional que implicam uma reforma substancial do nosso modo de vida, incluindo a redução significativa na utilização de combustíveis fósseis. Os serviços dos ecossistemas de que dependemos estão ameaçados e, com eles, os valores sociais e a nossa segurança. Pior, milhões de pessoas de ilhas e nações menos desenvolvidas sofrem os efeitos de uma situação para a qual não contribuíram. Quioto e Joanesburgo falharam, porque países fulcrais falharam. Em Lima, fizeram-se alguns progressos mas ficámos aquém das necessidades. Resta Paris. Como avisa a Agência Internacional da Energia, a meta dos dois graus centígrados estará anulada em 2017 em termos de objetivos se, até lá, não se acordar a metodologia clara. Fico, pois, na expectativa de ver prosseguir o que até aqui foi referido - que em Paris se estabelecerão metas mais ambiciosas que serão aplicadas. Piernicola Pedicini (EFDD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, le ultime ricerche scientifiche hanno dimostrando che se davvero vogliamo ottenere l'obiettivo di contenere il riscaldamento globale entro i 2oC, un terzo delle riserve di petrolio, la metà delle riserve attuali di gas e oltre l'80% delle riserve di carbone dovrebbero rimanere sotto terra fino al 2050. Eppure, mentre discutiamo di questi obiettivi, approviamo in delegazione ACP una risoluzione in cui si prendono accordi per lo sfruttamento di gas, di petrolio e di carbone in Africa. Al tempo stesso, quindi, decidiamo di ridurre le estrazioni qui in Europa che poi, invece, implementiamo in Africa. Dobbiamo soltanto essere meno ipocriti. (Ende des „Catch-the-eye”-Verfahrens). Miguel Arias Cañete,
Member of the Commission
. - Mr President, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken in this debate. Many of them concentrated on the need for climate finance. Climate finance will be a key part of our work in 2015 because public finance will determine in part our credibility in the negotiations. The European Union already has a good story to tell because in 2013 alone, as I said, the Union and its Member States provided EUR 9.5 million in climate finance, including grants and loans from development banks and financial institutions in the Member States. The EU Member States also made almost half of the pledges for the Green Climate Fund. We need more credit for the efforts already being made in what is a difficult economic situation. However, we also need to maintain our efforts to scale up further, in order to provide the reassurances that are needed. We have to use public funding in a smart way. Public grant finance should be used to support the poorest and most vulnerable countries but it must also be used to leverage private investment in low-emission and climate-resilient technologies. Here too the European Union has an impressive story to tell. Some Members asked how we are going to coordinate with the sustainable development goals process. Financing for development and climate finance must go hand in hand. We can be successful only if we integrate climate objectives into national development and into our development and cooperation portfolios. We work closely with our colleagues in development cooperation and with developing countries to ensure that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the climate processes recognise and make use of the synergies between development and climate action. Inside the European Union we have been doing our homework. The Union has made a commitment that at least 20% of its entire budget for 2014-2020 should be spent on climate-relevant projects, and this provision applies not only to the Union's internal spending but also to our development cooperation budget. I would also repeat that it will be very important to involve the finance ministers in the run-up to Paris. It is planned that the finance ministers will discuss climate finance in the Ecofin Council, and we expect Ecofin Council conclusions on climate finance in the second half of 2015. There was a specific question on how we were going to handle land use with regard to the intended nationally determined contributions (INDC). I can tell Members that land use will be part of the European Union INDC because the INDC will be a translation of the October European Council conclusions on the 2030 climate and energy framework, and they are clear that LULUCF (Land use, Land Use Change and Forestry) LULUCF is covered in the EU target of domestic in-house emissions reduction of at least 40%. The question is not „if” but „how” to do it, because we have to design good accounting rules, building on and streamlining existing approaches, and they have to ensure environmental integrity and foster ambitious climate action in the land sector. We are working intensively on this but the issue will not be resolved by the time the EU INDC is presented. Many Polish Members have expressed concern about whether our climate ambitions could hamper the development of industry. I have to tell them that the agreement reached at the October Council was unanimous and, specifically in relation to that point, when we were discussing the conditions of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) the policy situation was taken into account. There are very specific measures that we will have to take account of when we draw up our ETS proposal: we will have to take into account the different situations. There are still many things that we have to tackle ahead of Paris. There are the problems of differentiation between countries' obligations depending on their responsibilities and capabilities. There are also the questions of climate finance and the legal form and force of the future agreement. Still to be determined, too, are the extent to which, and how, the 2015 agreement will address controversial issues such as adaptation to the impacts of climate change, and dealing with loss and damage when those impacts occur, promoting or regulating international carbon markets and establishing how we are going to save them. That is why it is important that this Parliament is able to deliver soon on the carbon market and the stability reserve, so that we will arrive in Paris with a credible proposal on the basis that we have put into action an efficient carbon market and have given clear signals to industry to move in the direction of a low-carbon economy. Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica,
President-in-Office of the Council
. - Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for this debate which confirms the importance and urgency of the international negotiations in 2015 towards reaching an agreement on the post-2020 climate regime in Paris. We recognise that the Lima negotiations have been difficult. However, we should not give up when confronted by difficult situations and the work on finding agreement should continue, as there is no alternative to the Paris conference. When it comes to announcements by the United States and China, I would like to stress that the US-China announcement was very important in that it is the first time that the two biggest emitters, representing 43% of global emissions, jointly announced future mitigation commitments, and in that they did so more than a year before the Paris conference. Of course we will need to have more information in order to analyse the pledge and wait for the others to come forward in order to assess how big a gap separates us from the below-2oC objective. Therefore, we need to see how these announcements will be translated into intended nationally determined contributions. You also mentioned the Climate and Energy Policy Framework 2013. The long-awaited agreement on the 2013 climate and energy framework shows the EU's determination to respond to climate change with ambitious targets and effective measures. The conclusions of the October 2014 European Council provide essential guidance and building blocks for further work. The ETS market stability reserve proposal, which was issued together with the 2030 framework package a year ago, is a priority file for the Latvian Presidency. We are keen to make very rapid progress on it and hope that informal discussions with the European Parliament can start soon. The roadmap towards Paris will show our obligations and intentions in the international context, and the forthcoming proposals on the Energy Union will be more focused on internal EU processes. Still, I would like to use this opportunity to share with you a few points on the Energy Union. The establishment of the Energy Union is one of the priorities of the Latvian Presidency, as was also made clear by our Prime Minister at the European Parliament's plenary session two weeks ago. We need an energy policy that is based on solidarity, trust and security, a better-integrated energy infrastructure, more efficient governance and sustainability. As you know, the European Council in December called on the Commission to present a comprehensive energy union proposal before the March European Council, and the Presidency will lead the discussions in the Council to prepare the endorsement of a strategy by the European Council in March. 2015 is a crucial year in the international climate domain and is important for international negotiations on sustainable development. The global agreement on combating climate change has to be achieved in Paris. Successful international negotiations on climate change will be one of the priorities of the Latvian Presidency. We will do everything possible to ensure effective European Union representation at international negotiating sessions, and we understand that on the way to an agreement we must be prepared for very intensive work. This will also be an important year for setting the international sustainable development agenda. On the way a to post-2015 framework development the European Union must convey a strong and united position. This is also highlighted in the resolution of the European Parliament. In order to be fully prepared, the Latvian Presidency intends to organise a discussion at the March Environmental Council on better integration of the environmental dimension in the post-2015 process. I would also like to thank Ms McAvan for bringing the development dimension to today's discussion, and I would like to recall that 2015 has been marked as European Union Year of Development. We will have the third Financing for Development Conference in Addis Ababa, the UN post-2015 Summit in New York, and the Paris Conference as a culminating event. Therefore this year will be important, not only to the climate process. We will also have to work hard to agree on the new post-2015 development agenda. The Latvian Presidency stands ready to assist in steering discussions towards a common EU position. The run-up to Paris will see very intensive negotiations and meetings at different levels and in various formats. As on previous occasions, your support in outreach efforts to our partners worldwide is very much appreciated. I look forward to continuing this exchange and working closely together for the best possible outcome in Paris, and I would like to thank you for today's very fruitful debate. Der Präsident. - Die Aussprache ist geschlossen. Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162 GO) Soledad Cabezón Ruiz (S&D),
por escrito.
– Es fundamental establecer bien la Hoja de ruta que la UE tiene que afrontar estos meses para que la Conferencia de París sea un éxito. El trabajo es mucho, sobre todo porque estamos en peligro de volver a caer en viejos vicios de textos demasiado largos y farragosos o en una eterna búsqueda de un marco legal, que sea aceptado por todos, y que permita que el nuevo Acuerdo tenga carácter vinculante. Los socialistas españoles celebramos el anuncio de la presentación de una Comunicación al respecto y hacemos especial hincapié en el papel que la Comisión tiene que desempeñar para la correcta monitorización de las evaluaciones y de los planes nacionales de marzo. Los cómputos tienen que ser claros y honestos. Los países tienen que presentar planes que tengan en cuenta también el total de lo que se ha dejado de emitir por la bajada de la actividad industrial debida a la crisis o lo que se ha emitido de más gracias a la compra de derechos de emisión a terceros. Si no se hace de esta manera, muchos podrán presumir de cifras y de haber cumplido con Kioto -de hecho, ya lo están haciendo- sin que sea del todo cierto. Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD),
per iscritto.
– La Conferenza di Lima dello scorso dicembre aveva lo scopo di preparare il terreno al fine di concludere un nuovo accordo internazionale sul clima da attuare entro il 2020. Purtroppo, molti nodi da sciogliere impediscono, di fatto, il proseguimento dei negoziati in un senso più concreto e minano alla base le possibilità che il nuovo trattato contenga degli impegni veramente vincolanti a carico di quelle nazioni maggiormente industrializzate. Pertanto, per ridare concretezza agli intendimenti internazionali, auspichiamo un forte impegno da parte di ogni Stato membro e vigileremo affinché la Commissione rispetti le proprie priorità programmatiche, soprattutto nella parte in cui afferma di voler rendere l'Unione „il numero uno mondiale nel campo delle energie rinnovabili e della lotta contro il riscaldamento globale”. Miriam Dalli (S&D),
in writing.
– Climate change is a global challenge, and greenhouse gas emissions are a global problem requiring a global coordinated response. What happens – or does not happen – in one country will have an impact on the rest. I am strongly in favour of having a roadmap which will eventually lead us to a new, strong international climate agreement in Paris. We need to reach an ambitious, fair and legally binding agreement. What I see today is promising. After the economic crisis in the EU, which somehow put the environment on the back burner, it is once again high on the agenda. I honestly hope that Europe can be an inspiration to others and retain its global leadership on environmental and climate issues. I will not say that the Paris conference is the world's last chance to avoid catastrophic climate change but I do believe that we have a good opportunity before of us, which we should not miss. So, as leaders, we should act now, not least for the sake of our children and future generations. Iratxe García Pérez (S&D),
por escrito.
– Es fundamental establecer bien la Hoja de ruta que la UE tiene que afrontar estos meses para que la Conferencia de París sea un éxito. El trabajo es mucho, sobre todo porque estamos en peligro de volver a caer en viejos vicios de textos demasiado largos y farragosos o en una eterna búsqueda de un marco legal, que sea aceptado por todos, y que permita que el nuevo Acuerdo tenga carácter vinculante. Los socialistas españoles celebramos el anuncio de la presentación de una Comunicación al respecto y hacemos especial hincapié en el papel que la Comisión tiene que desempeñar para la correcta monitorización de las evaluaciones y de los planes nacionales de marzo. Los cómputos tienen que ser claros y honestos. Los países tienen que presentar planes que tengan en cuenta también el total de lo que se ha dejado de emitir por la bajada de la actividad industrial debida a la crisis o lo que se ha emitido de más gracias a la compra de derechos de emisión a terceros. Si no se hace de esta manera, muchos podrán presumir de cifras y de haber cumplido con Kioto -de hecho, ya lo están haciendo- sin que sea del todo cierto. Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D),
por escrito.
– Es fundamental establecer bien la Hoja de ruta que la UE tiene que afrontar estos meses para que la Conferencia de París sea un éxito. El trabajo es mucho, sobre todo porque estamos en peligro de volver a caer en viejos vicios de textos demasiado largos y farragosos o en una eterna búsqueda de un marco legal, que sea aceptado por todos, y que permita que el nuevo Acuerdo tenga carácter vinculante. Los socialistas españoles celebramos el anuncio de la presentación de una Comunicación al respecto y hacemos especial hincapié en el papel que la Comisión tiene que desempeñar para la correcta monitorización de las evaluaciones y de los planes nacionales de marzo. Los cómputos tienen que ser claros y honestos. Los países tienen que presentar planes que tengan en cuenta también el total de lo que se ha dejado de emitir por la bajada de la actividad industrial debida a la crisis o lo que se ha emitido de más gracias a la compra de derechos de emisión a terceros. Si no se hace de esta manera, muchos podrán presumir de cifras y de haber cumplido con Kioto -de hecho, ya lo están haciendo- sin que sea del todo cierto. Neena Gill (S&D),
in writing.
– In the UK, nearly 70% of people say we are not doing enough to tackle climate change. Yet British politicians on the right choose to ignore this, claiming – in blatant disregard of the scientific consensus that exists among 97% of the world's leading climate scientists – that the link between rising carbon dioxide levels and human activity is „open to question”. The EU is in a unique position to take effective measures that respond to the aspirations of our citizens. Firstly, moving forward the European energy union will be crucial. Little progress was made on this under the former Commission. This Commission has to do things differently. An important test will be the roadmap on energy union which we expect to see next month and which should put us firmly on the path towards a sustainable, decarbonised economy based on renewables. Secondly, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) needs urgent reform. I find it extremely disappointing that proposals put forward by my party to address this issue in an effective way were brushed off the table last week. However, we succeeded in blocking an attempt from the right to further water down reform of the ETS, and our battle continues. Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D),
por escrito.
– Es fundamental establecer una Hoja de ruta de futuro, ambiciosa y con finaciación suficiente de cara a laa Conferencia de París. El planeta necesita que sea un éxito. Estamos en peligro de volver a caer en viejos vicios de textos demasiado largos y farragosos o en una eterna búsqueda de un marco legal, que sea aceptado por todos, y que permita que el nuevo Acuerdo tenga carácter vinculante. Los socialistas españoleshacemos especial hincapié en el papel que la Comisión tiene que desempeñar para la correcta monitorización de las evaluaciones y de los planes nacionales de marzo. Los cómputos tienen que ser claros y honestos. Los países tienen que presentar planes que tengan en cuenta también el total de lo que se ha dejado de emitir por la bajada de la actividad industrial debida a la crisis o lo que se ha emitido de más gracias a la compra de derechos de emisión a terceros. Si no se hace de esta manera, muchos podrán presumir de cifras y de haber cumplido con Kioto -de hecho, ya lo están haciendo- sin que sea del todo cierto. Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL),
schriftelijk.
– Vandaag debatteren wij over het „Stappenplan voor een nieuwe internationale klimaatovereenkomst in Parijs”. En in het woord „stappenplan” zit nou juist het probleem; het is exemplarisch voor de struisvogelpolitiek van de nieuwe Europese Commissie bij alles wat te maken heeft met klimaatsverandering. De Commissie neemt dit probleem niet serieus en volgt haar eigen stappenplan: 1. Ze schrapt de post van Commissaris voor klimaatsverandering. 2. Ze negeert de intensieve veehouderij als belangrijke factor in klimaatsverandering. 3. Ze subsidieert overproductie van vlees en melk, die nota bene verantwoordelijk is voor 14% van de broeikasgassenuitstoot. 4. Ze steekt haar kop in het zand en ontkent dat het jarenlange, op bulkproductie gefocuste landbouwbeleid haaks staat op een verantwoorde klimaatspolitiek. Als we klimaatsverandering echt willen aanpakken in Parijs dit jaar, dan moeten we ook kijken naar onze eigen voedselconsumptie en overschakelen op een duurzamer en plantaardig consumptiepatroon. We moeten stoppen met het roven van landbouwgrond en voedsel van mensen in ontwikkelingslanden om aan de honger van de Europese intensieve veehouderij te voldoen. Beter is het om lokaal, gif- en gentechvrij plantaardig voedsel te verbouwen. Beter voor het klimaat, beter voor het milieu, en beter voor dieren en mensen wereldwijd. György Hölvényi (PPE),
írásban.
– Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim! Az Egyesült Nemzetek égisze alatt idén decemberben tartandó éghajlat-változási konferencia célja, hogy megszülessen a kiotói egyezményt felváltó nemzetközi megállapodás. Az új megállapodásnak ambiciózusnak, jogilag kötelező erejűnek és mindenkire alkalmazhatónak kell lennie. A klímaváltozás elleni küzdelem a nemzetek közös ügye, mindannyiunk felelőssége, következményeit pedig valamennyien viseljük. A tavalyi év végén megkötött limai egyezség értelmében a fejlett és fejlődő országoknak egyaránt be kell jelenteniük konkrét nemzeti vállalásaikat, amellyel a globális hőmérséklet-emelkedés 2 Celsius fok alatt tartható. A tudósok egyöntetű véleménye szerint ugyanis e határ alatt még kezelhetőek az éghajlatváltozás káros hatásai, melyek a szélsőséges időjárási jelenségek gyakoribbá válásával, a vízkészletek és a mezőgazdasági erőforrások csökkenésével egyre nyilvánvalóbbak mindenki számára. Magyarország mindig is a klímaváltozás elleni küzdelem elkötelezett híve volt. Korábbi kibocsátás-csökkentési célszámait nagymértékben túlteljesítette. Az Európai Unió tagjaként hazánk jelenleg is a nemzetközi közösség legambiciózusabb kibocsátás-csökkentési vállalásának részese. Közismert, hogy a tavaly októberben elfogadott uniós klíma- és energiapolitikai keret 2030-ra 40%-os kibocsátás-csökkentést tűzött ki célul. Azonban a nemzeti vállalások ösztönzése mellett az európai diplomáciának Párizs előtt a fejlett és a fejlődő országok közötti egyeztetések elősegítésére kellene törekednie. A legkényesebb kérdések ugyanis, többek között az éghajlatváltozás hatásaihoz való alkalmazkodás és annak finanszírozása a fejlődő országokban, még megoldásra várnak. Jo Leinen (S&D),
schriftlich.
– Das Ergebnis des letzten Klimagipfels in Lima war lediglich ein Minimalkonsens und der Weg zu einem Weltklimavertrag in Paris wird steinig. Zu viele Konflikte zwischen Industrie- und Entwicklungsländern müssen bis zum Ende des Jahres ausgeräumt werden, um einen Vertragstext zu beschließen, der zum ersten Mal rechtsverbindliche Ziele und Maßnahmen für alle Länder enthält. Als Gastgeber trägt die Europäische Union die große Verantwortung, die erstarrten Fronten zwischen den Entwicklungsländern und den Industrieländern aufzulösen und als Brückenbauer zwischen den unterschiedlichen Erwartungen der beiden Lager aufzutreten. Das wird ein Härtetest für den Stellenwert der Europäischen Union in der Welt und die Fähigkeiten der EU-Klimadiplomatie. Mehr Vertrauen zwischen den Lagern muss geschaffen werden, beispielsweise indem ein Fahrplan für die Finanzierung der internationalen Klimaschutzbemühungen über 2020 hinaus vorgelegt wird. Denn die finanziellen Zusagen sind für die Entwicklungsländer entscheidend für ihre Kompromissbereitschaft. Nach dem Fiasko des Klimagipfels in Kopenhagen kann sich Europa keine zweite Blamage erlauben. Sonst läuft die Menschheit Gefahr, den Wettlauf mit der Zeit für die Begrenzung der Erderwärmung auf zwei Grad zu verlieren. Javi López (S&D),
por escrito.
– Es fundamental establecer bien la Hoja de ruta que la UE tiene que afrontar estos meses para que la Conferencia de París sea un éxito. El trabajo es mucho, sobre todo porque estamos en peligro de volver a caer en viejos vicios de textos demasiado largos y farragosos o en una eterna búsqueda de un marco legal, que sea aceptado por todos, y que permita que el nuevo Acuerdo tenga carácter vinculante. Los socialistas españoles celebramos el anuncio de la presentación de una Comunicación al respecto y hacemos especial hincapié en el papel que la Comisión tiene que desempeñar para la correcta monitorización de las evaluaciones y de los planes nacionales de marzo. Los cómputos tienen que ser claros y honestos. Los países tienen que presentar planes que tengan en cuenta también el total de lo que se ha dejado de emitir por la bajada de la actividad industrial debida a la crisis o lo que se ha emitido de más gracias a la compra de derechos de emisión a terceros. Si no se hace de esta manera, muchos podrán presumir de cifras y de haber cumplido con Kioto -de hecho, ya lo están haciendo- sin que sea del todo cierto. József Nagy (PPE),
írásban.
– A globális felmelegedést legnagyobb mértékben emberi tevékenység okozza, s nem a természetes éghajlat-ingadozás. Aktuálisan nem jók a kilátásaink a drámai következmények elkerülésére, hiszen a vízért, az erőforrásokért folyó harc, az éhezés és a szélsőséges időjárás egymásba mutató destruktív folyamatokat alkotnak. Az egyre nagyobb ütemben növekvő szén-dioxid-kibocsátásnak egyre csekélyebb hányadát képes elnyelni a bioszféra. Igaz ugyan, hogy a levegő hőmérséklete az utóbbi években nem emelkedett, a rendszer hőtartalma az üvegházhatású gázok következtében viszont folyamatosan növekszik. Globálisan az sem megoldás, hogy a nagy cégek az uniós standardoknál megengedőbb országokba költöznek, s ott ugyanúgy folytatják környezetszennyező aktivitásukat. Az Európai Unió mindig is élen járt a klímaváltozás elleni példamutatásban. Véleményem szerint ez egy olyan kérdés, amelyet nem tudunk megkerülni, s éppen ezért fontos lenne mielőbb a gazdasági élettel is összehangolni cselekvésünket. Olyan környezetvédelmi akciótervet kell kidolgoznunk, mely egyrészt jelentősen csökkenti a szén-dioxid-kibocsátás mértékét, másrészt viszont növeli a versenyképességünket, új munkahelyeket teremt, gazdasági hasznot termel Európának. Marijana Petir (PPE),
napisan.
– Pozdravljam daljnje unaprjeđenje stavova globalnih politika usmjerenih na zaštitu klime te u Limi iskazanu predanost postizanju ambicioznog sporazuma ove godine u Parizu. Europa je svoj dio posla na globalnoj sceni u ovoj etapi odradila, međutim važno je da i dalje ostane vjerodostojna predvodnica međunarodnih nastojanja u borbi protiv klimatskih promjena. Podsjećam na stavove ovoga Parlamenta da vjerodostojnost EU-a u kontekstu pregovora o klimi ovisi o ambicioznosti djelovanja unutar EU-a i sudeći prema objavi Europske komisije, EU je na tragu ostvarivanja ciljeva do 2020. Podsjećam i na izjavu povjerenika danu u Parlamentu da napredak moramo ostvariti na jačanju ambicija ublažavanja klimatskih promjena i prije 2020. kako bismo ostali na putu postizanja cilja „ispod 2o C”. Jedan od prvih pokazatelja krećemo li se u pravom smjeru bit će rasprava o Europskoj strategiji energetske sigurnosti. U njoj moraju biti adekvatno vrednovane mjere energetske učinkovitosti i proizvodnje energije iz obnovljivih izvora, jer je to ključ za postizanje europske energetske sigurnosti i neovisnosti. Ukoliko kao EU zagovaramo i predlažemo sporazum od tri obvezujuća cilja - smanjenje emisija, povećanje energetske učinkovitosti i veći udio obnovljivih izvora energije - tada ti ciljevi dosljedno i uvjerljivo moraju biti razmatrani u europskim strateškim dokumentima. Andrej Plenković (PPE),
napisan
. – Energetska politika treba ići u smjeru elastične EU koja bi bila konkurentna, sigurna i održiva s dalekosežnim planovima za klimatske promjene. Kao kreatori politike, možemo primijeniti rezultate znanstvenih istraživanja te izvješća IPCC-a koja su pokazala da je globalno zatopljenje uzrokovano antropogenim djelovanjem. Vrijeme je za ambiciozni plan energetske i klimatske politike do 2030., a ključ su: reduciranje emisija stakleničkih plinova za 40% ispod nivoa od 1990., povećanje udjela OIE-a za najmanje 27% europske potrošnje energije i povećanje energetske učinkovitosti za najmanje 27%. Ulaganje u „zelene tehnologije” reducirat će emisije stakleničkih plinova, potaknuti ekonomiju, stvoriti nove visoko-tehnološke poslove te ojačati konkurentnost EU-a. Analize ukazuju da je 2014. bila najtoplija godina u povijesti mjerenja u Europi nadmašujući rekordnu 2007. za 0,3 C. Isto tako, devet od deset najtoplijih godina u svijetu zabilježene su nakon 2000. Kako bi održali globalno zatopljenje ispod 2 oC na stoljeće, ključan je razvoj tehnologija hvatanja i spremanja ugljičnog dioksida. Iz VFO-a će se izdvojiti najmanje 20% na projekte vezane za klimatske promjene, čime se jača sigurnost opskrbe energijom i smanjenje ovisnosti o uvozu fosilnih goriva. Stoga, podržavam novi sporazum koji će biti veliki korak ka stvaranju transformirane, energetski učinkovite Europe kao predvodnice u borbi protiv klimatskih promjena. Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D),
in writing.
– Whilst the Commission tries to reform the Emissions Trading Scheme – which is probably the world's most ambitious climate legislation – with its proposal for a Market Stability Reserve after 2020, there have been some encouraging signs from international partners who have made further commitments to capping carbon emissions. But reducing the output of CO2 is only part of the solution in limiting global warming. We also need an agreement to ensure the protection of forests and other natural carbon sinks, as this will be essential for both adaptation and mitigation. I call on the EU negotiating team to prioritise this, and to ensure that international financing will be used to protect natural carbon sinks, which also provide essential eco-services such as water purification, air filtration, and flood defence. Владимир Уручев (PPE),
в писмена форма.
– Колеги, настоящата 2015г. е решаваща за постигането на ново международно споразумение за ограничаване на парниковите емисии и климатичните промени. Изтичащият протокол от Киото имаше главен недостатък - страните с най-големи емисии (САЩ, Китай, Индия, Русия) не участваха официално в глобалните усилия за спасяване на климата. Затова по пътя към конференцията по климата в Париж през 2015г. си заслужава да се направят всички разумни действия за поемане на официални ангажименти както от тези страни, така и всички набиращи икономическа сила развиващи се страни. Окуражаващите сигнали от Китай и САЩ внасят надежда за успех на конференцията. ЕС безусловно има водеща роля не само в резултатите за намаляване на емисиите, но и в прозрачните и амбициозни планове за следващите десетилетия до 2050г. Но не трябва да се забравя, че европейската индустрия и граждани плащат цена затова, губейки конкурентоспособност, работни места и доходи. Това налага в разработваната пътна карта към Париж-2015 да се отдели най-малкото еднакво внимание както на постигането на успех в поемането на реалистични и сравними по тежест ангажименти от големите световни замърсители, така и на защитата на интересите на ЕС от прекомерни тежести върху индустрията, малкия и среден бизнес и гражданите. Няма успех, ако сметката остане да се плаща от ЕС. Elena Valenciano (S&D),
por escrito.
– Es fundamental establecer bien la Hoja de ruta que la UE tiene que afrontar estos meses para que la Conferencia de París sea un éxito. El trabajo es mucho, sobre todo porque estamos en peligro de volver a caer en viejos vicios de textos demasiado largos y farragosos o en una eterna búsqueda de un marco legal, que sea aceptado por todos, y que permita que el nuevo Acuerdo tenga carácter vinculante. Los socialistas españoles celebramos el anuncio de la presentación de una Comunicación al respecto y hacemos especial hincapié en el papel que la Comisión tiene que desempeñar para la correcta monitorización de las evaluaciones y de los planes nacionales de marzo. Los cómputos tienen que ser claros y honestos. Los países tienen que presentar planes que tengan en cuenta también el total de lo que se ha dejado de emitir por la bajada de la actividad industrial debida a la crisis o lo que se ha emitido de más gracias a la compra de derechos de emisión a terceros. Si no se hace de esta manera, muchos podrán presumir de cifras y de haber cumplido con Kioto -de hecho, ya lo están haciendo- sin que sea del todo cierto. 15.   Jednominutni govori (članak 163.) Der Präsident. - Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen die Ausführungen von einer Minute zu wichtigen politischen Fragen (Artikel 163 der Geschäftsordnung). Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). - Señor Presidente, en el año 2011 la Comisión se comprometió a presentar una ley europea de accesibilidad. Consistía en recomendar a los Estados miembros unos mínimos para que todas las personas con discapacidad pudieran acceder a todos los servicios en general: hablamos de transporte, hablamos de educación, hablamos de trabajo, hablamos de las nuevas tecnologías... todos los sectores de la sociedad. Se encargó para ello un estudio sobre el impacto socioeconómico que las nuevas medidas iban a traer para mejorar esta accesibilidad de bienes y servicios para las personas con discapacidad. En definitiva, un estudio para calibrar las ventajas de la adopción de estas medidas. Este estudio tenía que entregarse en el año 2013, fue adjudicado en el año 2012 y todavía no sabemos las conclusiones de este estudio. Por esto solicito a la Comisión y solicito al Parlamento que cuanto antes nos den noticias de este estudio, sobre todo para calibrar que son muchas ventajas en positivo, porque al final esto aumentará sin duda la calidad de vida de todas las personas con discapacidad. Adam Gierek (S&D). - Panie Przewodniczący! Moje słowa to apel do przewodniczącego Rady Europejskiej. Panie Tusk! W interesie wielkiego kapitału światowego jest docelowa likwidacja polskiego górnictwa, bo zapewnia niezależność energetyczną naszego kraju i tanią konkurencyjną energię. Polski rząd powinien to zrozumieć i wreszcie zdecydować o przyszłości polskiej energetyki. Nie może się poddawać naciskom różnych europejskich i światowych klimatyczno-energetycznych grup lobbystycznych, m. in. finansowych oraz gazowych. Trzeba przekonać Europę do prawdziwej, solidarnej i uczciwej Unii energetycznej zakładającej renesans węgla, potrzebę prawdziwej efektywności energetycznej, a także konieczność wspólnego negocjowania cen za gaz, wykazując przy tym całkowity nonsens dążenia do tzw. bezwęglowej gospodarki. Bernd Lucke (ECR). - Herr Präsident! Griechenland hat gewählt, und das Volk hat gesprochen. Nachdem wir über viele Jahre hinweg ein System der wirtschaftspolitischen Steuerung aufgebaut haben, was in vielfältigen gesetzgeberischen Akten und in Verträgen niedergelegt worden ist, sagt das Volk nun einfach: nein! Es akzeptiert nicht die Maßgaben, die von der europäischen Ebene kommen. Es hat seinen eigenen Willen. Damit steht die Europäische Union vor einem Problem. Wie geht man damit um angesichts der Tatsache, dass hier der demokratische Wille des Volkes ausgedrückt wird? Wie kann man auf der Einhaltung von Regelungen und Empfehlungen auf der europäischen Eben bestehen, wenn das Volk in demokratischer Wahl sagt, so wollen wir es nicht haben? Das ganze Problem zeigt, wie schlimm der Konflikt ist zwischen dem Anspruch der Europäischen Union, in Staaten hineinzuregieren, und dem Willen des Volkes, seinen eigenen Weg gehen zu können. Wir müssen zurückkehren zur Nichtbeistandsklausel, zu dem Prinzip der Verantwortung für das eigene wirtschaftspolitische Handeln. Dies ist die einzige Möglichkeit, die Verantwortung der Staaten wieder hervorzukehren. Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). - Gospodine predsjedniče, za razliku od slovenskog ministra poljoprivrede, gospodina Židana koji praktički već najavljuje tužbu protiv Europske unije oko spora koji postoji po pitanju priznavanja i uporabe vinske sorte teran, želim pozvati sve zainteresirane strane na razumno, u duhu dobrosusjedstva i prijateljstva, i nadasve stručno rješavanje spora. Teran je nedvojbeno posebna vrsta vinske sorte koja se stoljećima uzgaja na području cijele zemljopisne Istre i na Krasu. Stoljećima istarski i kraški proizvođači uzgajaju lozu i proizvode vino teran u kojemu uživaju zbog njegove iznimne kvalitete. Pozivam stručnjake i proizvođače terana iz Hrvatske, Slovenije i Italije da zajednički utvrde sve stručne relevantne činjenice kako bi se razriješila ova situacija. Naravno, kao Istrijan moram reći da je teran dio našega istrijanskoga identiteta i da se mi Istrijani naprosto našega vina terana ne možemo odreći. Marina Albiol Guzmán (GUE/NGL). - Señor Presidente, en el Estado español estamos viviendo en los últimos tiempos un aumento de la represión, con el objetivo de criminalizar la protesta social. El bipartidismo se hunde, el régimen se derrumba y por eso el Gobierno y los poderes económicos se revuelven y actúan de manera absolutamente autoritaria. El resultado es que a Alfon le piden cuatro años de cárcel, a ocho sindicalistas de Airbus les piden sesenta y cuatro años de cárcel en total, a Tamara y a Ana, tres años por reclamar un convenio colectivo, a Isma y a Dani les piden ocho años de cárcel; y estos son solo algunos de los ejemplos, porque ahora mismo hay trescientos activistas sociales y sindicalistas a la espera de juicio, cuando, además, la Comisión Europea reconoce que en el Estado español no se está garantizando el derecho a un juicio justo. Amnistía Internacional ha denunciado el uso excesivo de la fuerza policial, el aumento de las multas a los manifestantes y los malos tratos a los detenidos. ¿Este Estado policial cabe en esa Europa de las libertades de la que ustedes tanto hablan? Davor Škrlec (Verts/ALE). - Gospodine predsjedniče, govorim u ime građana Hrvatske koji su zabrinuti načinom na koji Vlada Republike Hrvatske provodi i pokreće postupak istraživanja nafte u Jadranskom moru. Svjesni smo važnosti energetske sigurnosti Europske unije, ali ne po cijenu ugrožavanja okoliša, i ne pod cijenu ugrožavanja tisuća radnih mjesta u gospodarskom sektoru koji između ostalog proizvodi zdravu hranu za građane Hrvatske, ali i za građane Europske unije. Ministarstvo gospodarstva i Agencija za ugljikovodike izbjegavaju izvršavati obveze po direktivama Europske unije. Izbjegavaju kvalitetno provoditi javno savjetovanje s građanima Republike Hrvatske i izbjegavaju konzultacije s drugim državama u podregiji Jadrana te time ugrožavaju javni interes građana Hrvatske, ali i onemogućuju vlade ostalih država da rade u javnom interesu svojih građana. Zbog toga pozivam Vladu Republike Hrvatske da poštuje vlastite zakone i provodi ih u javnom interesu. Ignazio Corrao (EFDD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei parlare di come noi ci ostiniamo a considerare il fenomeno mafioso come qualcosa di non prioritario nell'Unione europea. Il fenomeno mafioso che noi trattiamo di tanto in tanto in commissione o su determinate tematiche è in realtà una priorità assoluta, perché determina la corruzione, alimenta il terrorismo, attraverso i proventi illegali, e genera emergenze e situazioni di miseria, che poi sfrutta per avere il consenso popolare. Dovremmo imparare a fare una lotta davvero seria e coordinata tra Stati, attraverso un procuratore antimafia, attraverso un monitoraggio fatto da una commissione permanente contro la criminalità organizzata. Dovremmo utilizzare uno strumento meraviglioso, che potrebbe essere il reddito di cittadinanza che è uno strumento che, oltre a garantire dignità, a garantire equità, potrebbe sconfiggere alla base quella che è la principale fonte di alimentazione delle criminalità organizzate ovvero la miseria e la povertà. Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τα μέτρα της λεγόμενης ποσοτικής χαλάρωσης Draghi και του επενδυτικού πακέτου Juncker προσφέρουν κρατικό χρήμα στα μονοπώλια και καταδικάζουν στη φτώχεια τους λαούς. Την ίδια γραμμή στηρίζει η νέα γραμμή ΣΥΡΙΖΑ-Ανεξάρτητοι Έλληνες στην Ελλάδα, διαβεβαιώνοντας ότι θα τηρήσει τις αντιλαϊκές δεσμεύσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και του ΝΑΤΟ και θα προωθήσει τα συμφέροντα των επιχειρηματικών ομίλων που στηρίζουν αυτήν την Κυβέρνηση, ονομάζοντας, κυνικά, τη φτώχεια του λαού „λιτό βίο”. Για αυτό λοιπόν, δεν συνιστά αλλαγή υπέρ του λαού η κυβερνητική αλλαγή στην Ελλάδα. Το ΚΚΕ - και με την ενίσχυσή του στις εκλογές - θα προσφέρει όλες του τις δυνάμεις ώστε ο λαός να μη δείξει ανοχή στην Κυβέρνηση, να σηκώσει ανάστημα για την ανάκτηση των απωλειών του με μια ισχυρή εργατική λαϊκή αντιπολίτευση, να αναμετρηθεί με τον πραγματικό αντίπαλο: την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, τα μονοπώλια και την εξουσία τους. Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). - Pane předsedající, pro mnoho lidí je Norsko zemí, kde by chtěl žít každý. Kromě mě. Pro mě je Norsko zemí, kde se ročně odebírají stovky, ne-li tisíce dětí místní sociální službou bez toho, aniž by k tomu byl zjevný důvod. Ptám se, jak dlouho budeme ignorovat tyto praktiky? Jak dlouho budeme tady kritizovat kdejakou zemi a nepodíváme se na zemi, která s námi sousedí? Já jsem se osobně přesvědčil, že k nápravě tohoto stavu nepomáhají právní prostředky. Nemůžeme se tedy divit, že matky z Litvy a z Polska své děti unesly zpátky do svých zemí. Další příkladem je Eva Michaláková z České republiky, která bojuje za své děti. Nebyla jí prokázána žádná vina a přesto se děti nemohou vrátit zpět k matce. Matka je nemůže obejmout a nemůže s nimi mluvit česky. Ptám se tedy, jak dlouho budeme ignorovat to, že občané České republiky a Evropské unie nemají právo být.. (Předsedající řečníkovi odebral slovo.) Siôn Simon (S&D). - Mr President, my constituency of the West Midlands is currently missing out on GBP 718 million of EU funding, entirely due to the incompetence and arrogance of the Conservative Government of the UK. Every other Member State has been able to agree its operational programmes with the Commission. The Tory Government of the UK cannot because they insist that they want to give the money to local enterprise partnerships which, unelected and unaccountable as they are, the Commission is unsurprisingly not happy with as channels for public funds. In the West Midlands we are talking about GBP 140 million for the Black Country, GBP 107 million for Coventry and Warwickshire, GBP 201 million for greater Birmingham and Solihull, GBP 127 million for Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, GBP 90 million for The Marches and GBP 54 million for Worcestershire. We are not getting it because of the Tory Government. Jan Zahradil (ECR). - Pane předsedající, můj příspěvek se týká Německa, tak možná, že bude zajímavý i pro Vás. V Německu od 1. ledna letošního roku platí zákon o minimální mzdě, kterému se musí podřídit i přepravci, často ze zemí východní Evropy. Ten zákon ukládá vyplácet minimální mzdu ve výši 8,5 EUR za hodinu. To je mimochodem čtyřnásobek české minimální mzdy! Já jsem přesvědčen, že v této situaci můžeme směle říci, že minimální mzda směřuje k narušení jednotného trhu, že nabourává mzdové systémy jednotlivých členských zemí a že v podstatě vytváří nepřímou překážku volného pohybu služeb. Myslím, že je to narušení jednoho ze základních principů Evropské unie, že se s tím smířit nemůžeme a že s tím Komise musí něco dělat. Navíc není vůbec jasné, jestli je tady právní oprávněnost, aby se tento zákon vztahoval i na služby poskytované přepravci. Urmas Paet (ALDE). - Mr President, I cannot speak today without mentioning the situation in Ukraine, because the conflict in Ukraine needs an immediate international intervention. The most logical way to go about this would be to reach a new ceasefire and also allow a UN peacekeeping force into the country. This step would end the violence and Ukraine's further loss of any territory. But I also want to stress that, in recent months, there have been several situations which have been very close to crashes between passenger planes and military planes flying without transponders in Europe. The activity of Russian military planes has increased considerably in European airspace, especially in the Baltic Sea region. Flying with transponders and communication systems switched off represents a grave threat to passenger planes. This means that the aviation rules need to be changed in such a way that military planes could not fly without working transponders. Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, it is never easy to talk about war or its grave consequences. War is a costly business, especially if Russians are involved. Take it from me because I was unfortunate enough to have been forced to serve in the Russian army in the 1980s. Ukraine, as Mr Paet said, is in deep crisis. GDP shrank by nearly a tenth, the currency fell by more than 50 %, inflation is up to 25 % and foreign currency reserves fell by half within one year. Hence our question is: have we taken the necessary commitments for all kinds of aid to Ukraine, because we could not foresee the events during our discussions about the Multiannual Financial Framework? I am fully aware that there are also other crises going on around the European Union, for instance the Palestinian authorities receiving EUR 500 million each year. Now it has been proposed by the German Chancellor that we donate the same amount of money to Ukraine. Well, the size of the economy is different. I will stop here. Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Τουρκία εδώ και σαράντα χρόνια κατέχει χώρα μέλος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, κατέχει ουσιαστικά ευρωπαϊκό έδαφος, δημιουργώντας τραγικές συνέπειες, όπως οι 200.000 Ελληνοκύπριοι πρόσφυγες, οι οποίοι είναι οι μοναδικοί Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες πρόσφυγες. Αλλά υπάρχουν ακόμη και πιο τραγικές πτυχές αυτής της τραγωδίας, όπως είναι οι αγνοούμενοι. Δυστυχώς, η Τουρκία και για αυτό το εξαιρετικά ανθρωπιστικό θέμα, αντί να επιδείξει ευαισθησία, επιδεικνύει το ίδιο απάνθρωπο πρόσωπό της. Αρνείται πεισματικά να ανοίξει τα αρχεία του τουρκικού στρατού για να μπορέσει να ερευνηθεί η τύχη αυτών των αγνοουμένων. Ταυτόχρονα, ορισμένες περιοχές τις χαρακτήρισε ούτως καλούμενες „στρατιωτικές περιοχές” για να απαγορεύει την ανεύρεση των αγνοουμένων. Ταυτόχρονα, εκτέλεσαν εν ψυχρώ, το 1974, 70 άμαχους από την κοινότητα Άσσιας, τους οποίους μετέφεραν κάπου αλλού και δεν καταμαρτυρούν σήμερα πού βρίσκονται. Εμείς καλούμε την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να πάρει μέτρα απέναντι σε αυτή την υπό ένταξη χώρα για μια χώρα μέλος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης όπως είναι η Κύπρος. Επιτέλους, η Ευρώπη πρέπει να απαντήσει για αυτό το ..... (Ο Πρόεδρος διακόπτει τον ομιλητή) Alessia Maria Mosca (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la creazione del Fondo strategico per gli investimenti si lega a un rafforzamento del processo di integrazione europea, come spesso ha ricordato il Presidente Juncker nel presentarlo. Per questo, è necessario coinvolgere direttamente i cittadini e quindi bisogna che si trovino i modi per esprimere al meglio questa potenzialità. Allora, perché non consentire che i cittadini si sentano maggiormente parte del progetto? Si potrebbero trovare nuove forme di finanziamento del Fondo che li coinvolgano direttamente, attraverso una sorta di „microdonazione” o crowd funding per finanziare il progetto europeo per eccellenza, quello che più di altri ha concretamente influenzato la vita di milioni cittadini europei: l'Erasmus. Ho fatto circolar questa proposta ricevendo moltissime risposte entusiaste, soprattutto da parte dei giovani. Questo significa che c'è una grande voglia di Europa ma che non trova le risposte adeguate, soprattutto i canali attraverso cui concretizzare questo desiderio. È nostra responsabilità avere il coraggio e l'audacia per sperimentare nuove strade e dare queste risposte. Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I would like to use this opportunity to bring to your attention a gross infringement of the rights of my constituents, the citizens of Gibraltar, who are also fellow citizens of the EU. I refer to the issue of the Single European Sky recast proposal. The Commission had originally included explicit language referencing the Cordoba Agreement and the fact that the proposal would apply in full to Gibraltar. In March 2014, this plenary voted in favour of an amendment to exclude Gibraltar and its citizens. That vote was discriminatory and unacceptable. Imagine the outcry if we had excluded EU citizens on the basis of gender or ethnicity! Yet we did so on the basis of nationality. This is now blocked in Council – and rightly so – by the UK Government, but as a result no citizen in Europe can now benefit from the new Single European Sky regulations. So I call on fellow Members to stand up for EU citizens and ensure that this Parliament reverses the discriminatory position. Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). - V zelo občutljivem in strateško pomembnem delu Evrope divja vojna. Za nas, ki smo se pred več kot dvajsetimi leti s strahom ozirali na večerna televizijska poročila z balkanskih bojišč, se vračajo podobe groze, razdejanja in trpljenja nedolžnih ljudi. Novo področje, od koder ljudje bežijo in iščejo zaščite drugje, ne doma. Na obeh straneh front v Ukrajini umirajo borci na obeh straneh, največje breme nosijo civilisti. Imeli bomo novo generacijo travmatiziranih otrok. Ali ni to čas, da vojni, ki je nismo znali preprečiti, ampak smo jo tudi pogosto podpirali in pomagali ustvariti sami, pristopimo s programi in sredstvi graditve miru, potrpežljivih pogajanj za zaustavitev sovražnosti, učinkovitimi ukrepi za zaščito civilnega prebivalstva. Čas je, da vojno vidimo takšno, kot je po svoji naravi. Ne razlikuje med žrtvami in mrtvimi, ki so naši in drugačni. Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! 19. stycznia ministerstwo rolnictwa Francji poinformowało o zawarciu dwustronnego porozumienia z Rosją w sprawie wznowienia eksportu świń i produktów wieprzowych. Jest to ewidentne łamanie unijnych zasad, co gorsza Komisja Europejska była informowana o trwających negocjacjach, a mimo to nie podjęła działań mających na celu ukrócenie tego procederu. Relacje Unii Europejskiej z Rosją to sprawa najwyższej wagi politycznej, Federacja Rosyjska wielokrotnie próbowała skłócić państwa członkowskie i zdestabilizować nasz jednolity rynek. W obliczu tak kryzysowej sytuacji wynikającej zarówno ze wprowadzonego embarga na produkty rolne, jak i konfliktu zbrojnego na Ukrainie (chyba nikt nie ma już złudzeń, że to dwie różne sprawy), podziały wewnątrz Wspólnoty doprowadzą do osłabienia naszych rynków, nie wspominając o utracie wiarygodności politycznej na arenie międzynarodowej. Wzywam państwa członkowskie do pełnej solidarności, a Komisję Europejską do rzetelnego pełnienia swoich obowiązków. Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D). - Mr President, in 1984, 37 Cammell Laird shipworkers were jailed for 30 days and lost their right to a proper redundancy and pension because of striking against politically motivated job cuts. Last year in the Committee on Petitions Eddie Marnell explained that, in spite of the fact that no law was broken, the strikers were never told why. Investigations into historical miscarriages of justice, like the battle of Orgreave, have shown that, despite denials from the then government, secret closure plans existed and Conservative ministers at the time sought to influence police tactics and put pressure on them to escalate industrial disputes. Access to official documents is key to ensuring justice for those on the receiving end. These workers' fundamental rights were violated and the Commission should press the UK Government to release the information needed to ensure that Cammell Laird workers and our coalfields get the long-awaited justice they deserve. Gabriel Mato (PPE). - Señor Presidente, aunque tengo la tentación de hablar de Gibraltar español, no voy a hablar de ello. Voy a hablar de ciencia y de investigación, ya que es uno de los pilares que se ha fijado la Unión Europea en los próximos años. En España, concretamente en las Islas Canarias, contamos con el mejor cielo astronómico del mundo y con uno de los centros más importantes de investigación astrofísica: el Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, que desde hace treinta años coopera para servir a la ciencia, principalmente a la europea. En la actualidad, el IAC trabaja en coordinación con instituciones y otros centros de investigación para lograr que Canarias sea sede en el hemisferio norte del proyecto Cherenkov Telescope, que creará la mayor red de telescopios de rayos gamma del planeta, un proyecto global que cuenta con el apoyo del Gobierno de España y que permitirá a esta institución ampliar y servir al desarrollo de la ciencia en Europa en las próximas décadas. La instalación de la red de telescopios Cherenkov en Canarias supondría un salto cualitativo en el conocimiento del universo y un nuevo impulso para un centro puntero como es el Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias. Desde aquí les pido un apoyo decidido a este proyecto. Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D). - Señor Presidente, en el año 2006 el Banco Europeo de Inversiones concedió 800 millones de euros en préstamos a la Generalitat Valenciana para financiar el programa Crea Escola, para la renovación y mejora de centros educativos. Nueve años después, el programa sufre un gran retraso. Casi cien centros no han recibido ni un euro y, lo que es peor, miles de alumnos estudian en centros en condiciones lamentables. Es hora de que el BEI tome medidas para garantizar que la Generalitat Valenciana cumple con su parte y ejecuta las obras de renovación de colegios. Y quiero llamar la atención especialmente sobre un colegio: el colegio Ciutat de Cremona, de Alaquàs, cuyos alumnos llevan ocho años estudiando en barracones, en unas condiciones lamentables. Han creado una plataforma para reivindicar un centro educativo porque el Gobierno valenciano no les da respuestas, incumple sus promesas y, lo que es peor, lleva dos años suprimiendo plazas para conseguir que el centro acabe desapareciendo. No podemos consentir que se supriman colegios públicos porque hay gobiernos que no son capaces de cumplir sus promesas. Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! W poniedziałek na posiedzeniu unijnej Rady ministrów rolnictwa Komisja Europejska zapewniała, że nie zgodziła się na zawieranie przez kraje Unii Europejskiej dwustronnych porozumień z Rosją w sprawie złagodzenia embarga na wieprzowinę. Nie mniej jednak uważam, że sygnał sprzeciwu wobec takiej nawet potencjalnej sytuacji powinien wyjść również z Parlamentu Europejskiego. Rosja niezmiennie podejmuje próby, by stworzyć podziały w Unii Europejskiej, dlatego nie możemy tolerować żadnych dyskryminacyjnych praktyk wobec jakiegokolwiek państwa członkowskiego. W przypadku kontaktów i negocjacji z Rosją, ale również w sytuacjach kryzysowych oraz szczególnie w obliczu napiętej sytuacji na Ukrainie, musimy być spójni, zjednoczeni i solidarni. Момчил Неков (S&D). - Заради огромния брой конфликти по света, принудително разселените хора са над 50 милиона души, а напусналите родните си места за последната година са 7 милиона. За последните 2 години в моята страна България са потърсили убежище 18 хиляди бежанци, а отделно по Дъблинския регламент има запитване за връщане на още 8 хиляди. Това поставя България в ущърб спрямо другите европейски държави, защото бежанците остават в тези страни, в които за първи път са прекрачили границите на Европейския съюз. Освен за преразглеждане на европейското законодателство в областта на миграцията, поставям категорично и най-важните въпроси, които са от първостепенно значение за нашата страна – приемането ни в Шенген и въпросът с бежанците. И двата са безусловно свързани с външната ни граница и трябва да намерят отражение в работната програма на Европейската комисия за тази година. Прилагането на Шенгенското споразумение у нас трябва да е приоритет не само на България, а и на цяла Европа. Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). - Pane předsedající, vážené kolegyně a kolegové, ráda bych vás upozornila na skutečnost ve vztazích Evropské unie a Ruska, kterou považuji za alarmující. Ruské ministerstvo pro vzdělávání vydalo oficiální dokument, v němž vyzývá zástupce vysokých škol k proaktivnímu informování o aktivitách Evropské unie na území Ruska, které označuje za evropskou propagandu. My, kteří jsme zažili totalitu, víme, že ruský stát chce tímto získat větší kontrolu nad školami a akademickou obcí. Ruské ministerstvo chce informace o programu Erasmus, chce před besedami s odborníky z Evropské unie předem studenty informovat o oficiálním ruském stanovisku. Tyto akce ruští představitelé považují za hnízdo destruktivních myšlenek, které jsou pro studenty velmi nebezpečné. Chci upozornit Evropský parlament na tuto situaci a podpořit zastoupení Evropské unie v Moskvě, které vyjádřilo své znepokojení. Jednostranný krok ruského ministerstva je nebezpečným signálem o omezování svobody. Studenti vždy stáli na počátku prodemokratických změn ve společnosti a ruský režim se toho zřejmě obává. Paul Brannen (S&D). - Mr President, last Friday I visited dairy farmers in my constituency in Northumberland in the north-east of England and I met with farmers Chris McDonald and Richard and Dennis Gibb. Richard and Dennis have 300 cows on their farm and as a result of the fall in the price of milk over the last eight months they are now receiving a dip in income of a quarter of a million pounds. They are clearly struggling, as are dairy farmers across the UK. What is to be done? One thing that customers can do is ask their supermarket managers if they are ensuring that they are paying a fair price for all of the milk that they have on sale in the supermarket. Customer power can be used to deliver a fair price for our farmers. It is right that dairy farmers milk cows, but it is wrong if supermarkets and customers milk dairy farmers. Der Präsident. - Damit ist dieser Tagungsordnungspunkt geschlossen. 16.   Sastav odbora: vidi zapisnik 17.   Sastav Parlamenta: vidi zapisnik 18.   Kalendar sljedećih dnevnih sjednica: vidi zapisnik 19.   Prekid zasjedanja Der Präsident. - Ich erkläre die Sitzungsperiode des Europäischen Parlaments für unterbrochen. (Die Sitzung wird um 20.25 Uhr geschlossen.)