# Publicatieblad C 196/2023

| | ISSN 1977-0995 |
| ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------ |
| Publicatieblad
van de Europese Unie | C 196 |
| European flag | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen |

---

| Inhoud | | Bladzijde |
| ------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- |
| | IV   Informatie | |
| | INFORMATIE AFKOMSTIG VAN DE INSTELLINGEN, ORGANEN EN INSTANTIES VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE | |
| | EUROPEES PARLEMENTZITTING 2022-2023Vergaderingen van 17 t/m 20 oktober 2022STRAATSBURG | |
| 2023/C 196/01 | Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen van 17 oktober 2022 | 1 |
| 2023/C 196/02 | Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen van 18 oktober 2022 | 75 |
| 2023/C 196/03 | Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen van 19 oktober 2022 | 225 |
| 2023/C 196/04 | Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen van 20 oktober 2022 | 362 |

---

| Verklaring van de gebruikte tekens
*
Raadplegingsprocedure ***
Goedkeuringsprocedure ***I
Gewone wetgevingsprocedure (eerste lezing) ***II
Gewone wetgevingsprocedure (tweede lezing) ***III
Gewone wetgevingsprocedure (derde lezing) (De aangeduide procedure is gebaseerd op de in de ontwerptekst voorgestelde rechtsgrond.)
Afkortingen van de commissies
AFET
Commissie buitenlandse zaken DEVE
Commissie ontwikkelingssamenwerking INTA
Commissie internationale handel BUDG
Begrotingscommissie CONT
Commissie begrotingscontrole ECON
Commissie economische en monetaire zaken EMPL
Commissie werkgelegenheid en sociale zaken ENVI
Commissie milieubeheer, volksgezondheid en voedselveiligheid ITRE
Commissie industrie, onderzoek en energie IMCO
Commissie interne markt en consumentenbescherming TRAN
Commissie vervoer en toerisme REGI
Commissie regionale ontwikkeling AGRI
Commissie landbouw en plattelandsontwikkeling PECH
Commissie visserij CULT
Commissie cultuur en onderwijs JURI
Commissie juridische zaken LIBE
Commissie burgerlijke vrijheden, justitie en binnenlandse zaken AFCO
Commissie constitutionele zaken FEMM
Commissie rechten van de vrouw en gendergelijkheid PETI
Commissie verzoekschriften DROI
Subcommissie mensenrechten SEDE
Subcommissie veiligheid en defensie FISC
Subcommissie belastingaangelegenheden Afkortingen van de diverse fracties
PPE
Fractie van de Europese Volkspartij (Christen-Democraten) S&D
Fractie van de Progressieve Alliantie van Socialisten en Democraten in het Europees Parlement Renew
Fractie Renew Europe Verts/ALE
Fractie De Groenen/Vrije Europese Alliantie ID
Fractie Identiteit en Democratie ECR
Fractie Europese Conservatieven en Hervormers The Left
Linkse Fractie in het Europees Parlement - GUE/NGL NI
Niet-fractiegebonden leden | * | Raadplegingsprocedure | *** | Goedkeuringsprocedure | ***I | Gewone wetgevingsprocedure (eerste lezing) | ***II | Gewone wetgevingsprocedure (tweede lezing) | ***III | Gewone wetgevingsprocedure (derde lezing) | AFET | Commissie buitenlandse zaken | DEVE | Commissie ontwikkelingssamenwerking | INTA | Commissie internationale handel | BUDG | Begrotingscommissie | CONT | Commissie begrotingscontrole | ECON | Commissie economische en monetaire zaken | EMPL | Commissie werkgelegenheid en sociale zaken | ENVI | Commissie milieubeheer, volksgezondheid en voedselveiligheid | ITRE | Commissie industrie, onderzoek en energie | IMCO | Commissie interne markt en consumentenbescherming | TRAN | Commissie vervoer en toerisme | REGI | Commissie regionale ontwikkeling | AGRI | Commissie landbouw en plattelandsontwikkeling | PECH | Commissie visserij | CULT | Commissie cultuur en onderwijs | JURI | Commissie juridische zaken | LIBE | Commissie burgerlijke vrijheden, justitie en binnenlandse zaken | AFCO | Commissie constitutionele zaken | FEMM | Commissie rechten van de vrouw en gendergelijkheid | PETI | Commissie verzoekschriften | DROI | Subcommissie mensenrechten | SEDE | Subcommissie veiligheid en defensie | FISC | Subcommissie belastingaangelegenheden | PPE | Fractie van de Europese Volkspartij (Christen-Democraten) | S&D | Fractie van de Progressieve Alliantie van Socialisten en Democraten in het Europees Parlement | Renew | Fractie Renew Europe | Verts/ALE | Fractie De Groenen/Vrije Europese Alliantie | ID | Fractie Identiteit en Democratie | ECR | Fractie Europese Conservatieven en Hervormers | The Left | Linkse Fractie in het Europees Parlement - GUE/NGL | NI | Niet-fractiegebonden leden |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | --- | --------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------------ | ----- | ------------------------------------------ | ------ | ----------------------------------------- | ---- | ---------------------------- | ---- | ----------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------- | ---- | ---------------------------- | ---- | ---------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------------ | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ---- | ----------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ----------------------------- | ---- | -------------------------------- | ---- | --------------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------ | ---- | ------------------------------ | ---- | -------------------------- | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------- | ---- | -------------------------------------------------- | ---- | -------------------------- | ---- | -------------------------- | ---- | ----------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----- | -------------------- | --------- | ------------------------------------------- | -- | -------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------- | -------- | -------------------------------------------------- | -- | -------------------------- |
| * | Raadplegingsprocedure | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| *** | Goedkeuringsprocedure | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ***I | Gewone wetgevingsprocedure (eerste lezing) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ***II | Gewone wetgevingsprocedure (tweede lezing) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ***III | Gewone wetgevingsprocedure (derde lezing) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| AFET | Commissie buitenlandse zaken | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| DEVE | Commissie ontwikkelingssamenwerking | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| INTA | Commissie internationale handel | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| BUDG | Begrotingscommissie | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| CONT | Commissie begrotingscontrole | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ECON | Commissie economische en monetaire zaken | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| EMPL | Commissie werkgelegenheid en sociale zaken | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ENVI | Commissie milieubeheer, volksgezondheid en voedselveiligheid | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ITRE | Commissie industrie, onderzoek en energie | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| IMCO | Commissie interne markt en consumentenbescherming | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| TRAN | Commissie vervoer en toerisme | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| REGI | Commissie regionale ontwikkeling | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| AGRI | Commissie landbouw en plattelandsontwikkeling | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| PECH | Commissie visserij | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| CULT | Commissie cultuur en onderwijs | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| JURI | Commissie juridische zaken | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| LIBE | Commissie burgerlijke vrijheden, justitie en binnenlandse zaken | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| AFCO | Commissie constitutionele zaken | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FEMM | Commissie rechten van de vrouw en gendergelijkheid | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| PETI | Commissie verzoekschriften | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| DROI | Subcommissie mensenrechten | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| SEDE | Subcommissie veiligheid en defensie | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FISC | Subcommissie belastingaangelegenheden | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| PPE | Fractie van de Europese Volkspartij (Christen-Democraten) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| S&D | Fractie van de Progressieve Alliantie van Socialisten en Democraten in het Europees Parlement | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Renew | Fractie Renew Europe | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Verts/ALE | Fractie De Groenen/Vrije Europese Alliantie | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ID | Fractie Identiteit en Democratie | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ECR | Fractie Europese Conservatieven en Hervormers | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| The Left | Linkse Fractie in het Europees Parlement - GUE/NGL | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| NI | Niet-fractiegebonden leden | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| NL | |
| -- | |

---

IV Informatie

INFORMATIE AFKOMSTIG VAN DE INSTELLINGEN, ORGANEN EN INSTANTIES VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE

EUROPEES PARLEMENT ZITTING 2022-2023 Vergaderingen van 17 t/m 20 oktober 2022 STRAATSBURG

2.6.2023
NL
Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
C 196/1 17 oktober 2022VOLLEDIG VERSLAG VAN DE VERGADERINGEN VAN 17 OKTOBER 2022 (2023/C 196/01) Inhoud 1.
Hervatting van de zitting
3 2.
Opening van de vergadering
3 3.
Verklaringen van het voorzitterschap
3 4.
Goedkeuring van de notulen van de vorige vergadering
4 5.
Samenstelling Parlement
4 6.
Samenstelling commissies en delegaties
4 7.
Onderhandelingen voorafgaand aan de eerste lezing van het Parlement (artikel 71 van het Reglement)
5 8.
Ondertekening van volgens de gewone wetgevingsprocedure vastgestelde handelingen (artikel 79 van het Reglement)
5 9.
Mededeling van de fungerend voorzitter van de Raad
5 10.
Regeling van de werkzaamheden
5 11.
Internationale Dag ter uitbanning van armoede (debat)
10 12.
De rechtsstaat in Malta, vijf jaar na de moord op Daphne Caruana Galizia (debat)
21 13.
De verantwoordelijkheid van Frontex voor schendingen van de grondrechten aan de buitengrenzen van de EU in het licht van het verslag van OLAF (debat)
32 14.
Duurzame brandstoffen voor de zeevaart (initiatief FuelEU Zeevaart) - De uitrol van infrastructuur voor alternatieve brandstoffen (debat)
41 15.
Richtsnoeren voor het werkgelegenheidsbeleid in de lidstaten (debat)
60 16.
Spreektijd van één minuut over kwesties van politiek belang
68 17.
Agenda van de volgende vergadering
74 18.
Goedkeuring van de notulen van deze vergadering
74 19.
Sluiting van de vergadering
74 Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen van 17 oktober 2022 PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA President 1.   Hervatting van de zitting President. – I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 6 October 2022. 2.   Opening van de vergadering President. – The sitting was opened at 17.02. 3.   Verklaringen van het voorzitterschap President. – Good afternoon, dear colleagues, welcome. Could I ask you to take your seats? Quite a lot of work ahead of us. I will start with a few more announcements from my end before we come to the adoption of the agenda. First of all, today we mark International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. And on a day like today, we are reminded that far too many people still do not have access to food, water, clothing, shelter, education or health care. Far too many people are excluded from society, denied the possibility of a dignified job. Far too many people are not given the opportunities to achieve their potential. Dear colleagues, our Europe has always been a front-liner in the fight against global poverty, but yet a lot still needs to be done. And, sadly, the impact of the pandemic and the direct consequences of Russia's illegal war in Ukraine are pushing millions into poverty, and we must work together to counter this. Today we have the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights in the chamber with us, Professor Olivier De Schutter. Thank you for all that you do in strengthening the protection of fundamental rights in Europe and around the world, thank you. Five years ago, Daphne Caruana Galizia, a Maltese investigative journalist, was horrifically assassinated outside her home. They used a car bomb to kill a woman in an attempt to try to silence her to stop her exposing corruption and organised crime. This Parliament has been at the forefront of calls for justice, for respect for the rule of law and for media freedom. And for the last half a decade, we have stood with Daphne's parents, sisters and children. We have legislated, we have demanded answers and we have scrutinised. Last night, as President of this House, I addressed thousands who gathered in Malta and I promised that this House will channel grief into determination to ensure not only better laws for all, but justice for all those involved in her murder and justice for the stories that Daphne died to bring to light. So from here, I would like to say the European Parliament will always stand on the side of truth-seekers, on the side of democracy, on the side of our values. Le 16 octobre marque également le triste anniversaire du meurtre du professeur français Samuel Paty. Samuel Paty était un citoyen français, un Européen, un enseignant qui travaillait pour aider à former la prochaine génération. Il était la personnification de nos valeurs, de la liberté européenne. Il a d'abord été traqué sur Internet avant d'être assassiné par ceux qui tentent de saper notre mode de vie. Nous rendons hommage à sa mémoire et à son héritage, tout en redoublant d'efforts pour poursuivre ceux qui répandent la haine. Last two points: first of all, I must also mention the murder a few days ago of two young men in Bratislava. Our LGBTIQ community must be safe, we must fight hate. Matúš and Juraj should never have been a target. And their murder shows how far we still need to go. And I know that this Parliament will keep fighting and leading that fight. And in view of our wide human rights sanctions package adopted today, I would like to pay tribute once again to the brave, defiant men and women still protesting in Iran. The world really is witnessing a generation standing up, and this women-led movement cannot be left alone. And these sanctions adopted today will hold accountable those who are responsible for the brutal crimes against women, young people and men, demonstrators outraged by the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini. So to the women on those streets: we hear you, the world sees you, we are with you. 4.   Goedkeuring van de notulen van de vorige vergadering President. – The minutes and the texts adopted of the sitting of 6 October 2022 are available. Are there any comments? That not being the case, the minutes are approved. 5.   Samenstelling Parlement President. – Following the election of Mr Silvio Berlusconi, Ms Mara Bizzotto, Ms Simona Bonafè, Mr Carlo Calenda, Mr Andrea Caroppo, Mr Marco Dreosto, Ms Eleonora Evi, Mr Raffaele Fitto and Mr Antonio Tajani as Members of national Parliaments of Italy, Parliament takes note of the vacancy of their seats from 13 October 2022, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Following the appointment of Mr Lefteris Christoforou as a Member of the European Court of Auditors, Parliament takes note of his vacancy from 2 November 2022, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Since Mr Christoforou is still here, we bid you farewell, Lefteris. I have received from the competent authorities of Austria notice of the election to the European Parliament of Ms Theresa Muigg, replacing Ms Bettina Vollath with effect from 10 October 2020. Ms Muigg, welcome. I have also received from the competent authorities of Sweden notice of election to the European Parliament of Mr Johan Nissinen, replacing Ms Jessica Stegrud with effect from 11 October 2020. I wish to welcome these colleagues and recall that they take their seats in Parliament and its bodies in full enjoyment of their rights, pending the verification of their credentials. 6.   Samenstelling commissies en delegaties President. – The S&D, Verts/ALE, ID and ECR groups have notified me of decisions relating to changes to appointments within committees and delegations. These decisions will be set out in the minutes of today's sitting and take effect on the date of this announcement. 7.   Onderhandelingen voorafgaand aan de eerste lezing van het Parlement (artikel 71 van het Reglement) President. – Several committees have decided to enter into interinstitutional negotiations pursuant to the Rule 71(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The reports, which constitute the mandates for the negotiations, are available on the plenary webpage and their titles will be published in the minutes of the sitting. 8.   Ondertekening van volgens de gewone wetgevingsprocedure vastgestelde handelingen (artikel 79 van het Reglement) President. – I would like to inform you also that, together with the President of the Council, I shall, on Wednesday, sign nine acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure in accordance with Rule 79 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure. The titles of the acts will be published in the minutes of this sitting. 9.   Mededeling van de fungerend voorzitter van de Raad President. – Let me also inform you that the laureate of the Sakharov prize for 2022 will be announced on Wednesday afternoon at the end of the meeting of the Conference of Presidents, between 16.30 and 17.00. The announcement will be preceded by the ringing of the bells and I warmly invite you to be present in the Chamber for this important announcement. 10.   Regeling van de werkzaamheden President. – And now we come to the order of business. The final draft agenda, as adopted by the Conference of Presidents on 12 October pursuant to Rule 157, has been distributed. I would like to inform you that I have received two requests for urgent procedure, from the AFET Committee and from the Council, pursuant to Rule 163 on: specific provisions for the 2014-2020 cooperation programmes following programme implementation disruption and proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the non-recognition of Russian travel documents issued in occupied foreign regions. The vote on these requests will be taken tomorrow and, if adopted, the vote will be held on Thursday. We now move to the changes requested by the political groups on Tuesday. In agreement with the political groups, I would like to inform you that the debate on continued internal border controls in the Schengen area in light of the recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union has been advanced and will be held as a third point in the afternoon after the Question Time to the Commission. And the points on the oral questions on UN Climate Change Conference 2022 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt and the Council and Commission statements on impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on migration flows to the EU will be taken only by the Commission. Now for today, the Left group has asked that a Commission statement on Frontex's responsibility for fundamental rights violations at the EU's external borders in light of the OLAF report be added as a third point this afternoon. As a consequence, the sitting would be extended until 23.00. I give the floor to Ms Cornelia Ernst to move the request on behalf of the Left group. Cornelia, you have the floor. Cornelia Ernst,
im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir beantragen eine zusätzliche Debatte, und zwar eine Erklärung der Kommission zur Verantwortung von Frontex für Grundrechtsverletzungen an den EU-Außengrenzen im Lichte des OLAF-Berichts. Diese Aussprache sollte heute als dritter Punkt stattfinden. Wir beantragen das deshalb, weil der OLAF-Bericht bisher ja nur in einem kleinen Kreis, nämlich in der Frontex-Untersuchungsgruppe, überhaupt diskutabel wurde und den Mitgliedern dieser Gruppe und einem kleinen anderen Kreis praktisch nur zeitlich limitiert zur Verfügung gestellt wurde. Aber dieser Bericht ist ein wirkliches Basisdokument für Menschenrechtsverletzungen, ein Nachweis von Menschenrechtsverletzungen – auch durch Frontex: nicht nur, dass Frontex an den Menschenrechtsverletzungen beteiligt ist, sondern es hat sie auch tatsächlich geduldet. Beides ist passiert. Es gab Anweisung, wegzusehen – vom damaligen Frontex-Chef Fabrice Leggeri. Es wurden illegale Praktiken gedeckt. Wir wurden in die Irre geführt. Mehrfach wurden wir belogen im Parlament. Das wissen wir jetzt, und das können wir dort nachlesen. Und es gibt auch eine Petition, dass eine Haushaltsentlastung für Frontex nicht stattfinden soll. President. – Can I ask whether any colleague would like to take the floor to speak against this request? Petri Sarvamaa (PPE). – Madam President, just very, very briefly. It is not factual what you said. This has been discussed in a full committee, which is the Budgetary Control Committee. So it has not just been discussed in the Frontex working group. President. – We put the vote the request to a vote by roll call. I open the vote. I close the vote. And it has a majority. And, therefore we will have a Commission statement on Frontex's responsibility for fundamental rights violations at the EU's external borders in light of the OLAF report to be added as a third point this afternoon, and the sitting is thereby extended until 23.00. On Tuesday, the Renew Group has asked that Council and Commission statements on the growing hate crimes against LGBTQ people across Europe in light of the recent homophobic murder in Slovakia be added as the third point in the afternoon, after the question Time to the Commission. This debate would then be wound up with a resolution to be voted on Thursday. As a consequence, the sitting would be extended tomorrow until 23.00. I give the floor to Vice-President Šimečka to move the request on behalf of the Renew Group. Michal Šimečka,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, as you've already mentioned, on Wednesday night a 19-year-old extremist shot two people in front of a gay bar in downtown Bratislava and injured another. The attacker did not know their names. He didn't know the victims personally. All he knew was that they were members of the LGBTIQ community. That is the sole reason why they had to die. The Slovak police are now investigating the case as an act of terrorism. To my knowledge, this would be the first terrorist attack against or targeting LGBTQ minority in the European Union. What is also important to note is that this act took place against the backdrop or against the culture of hatred, intimidation and intolerance against the LGBTQ minority not just in Slovakia, but in a number of Member States as well. That is why I would like, with your permission and with your support, colleagues, to move this debate and a resolution on growing hate crimes against LGBTIQ people across Europe in light of the recent homophobic murder in Slovakia. I think Parliament now needs to send a strong signal of solidarity, but also of standing for human rights and of making clear that, in the European Union, nobody should feel threatened or nobody should have fewer rights just because of their different sexual orientation. President. – Can I ask: does anybody want to speak against? I see nobody asking for the floor. So I put the request to vote by roll call. Vote is open. Vote is closed. And it's adopted. Therefore, we will have Council and Commission statements on growing hate crimes against LGBTQ people across Europe in light of the recent homophobic murder in Slovakia to be added as a third point in the afternoon, after the Question Time to the Commission. And then the debate will be wound up with a resolution to be voted on Thursday. The deadlines are as follows: motions for resolutions: Tuesday, 18 October at 10.00. Amendments to the motions for resolutions and joint motions for resolutions: Wednesday, 19 October at 10.00. Amendments to joint motions for resolutions: also Wednesday at 11.00. Splits and separates: Wednesday at 19.00. On Tuesday as well, the ECR Group has asked that the Council and Commission statements on recognising the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism to be added in the afternoon. The debate would be wound up with a resolution to be voted on Thursday. I give the floor to Mr Charlie Weimers to move the request on behalf of the ECR Group. Charlie Weimers,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, in retaliation for Ukraine attacking a legitimate military target, the Crimean Bridge, the Russian Federation unleashed a brutal bombardment against civilian targets across Ukraine. Terror is an integral part of the Russian war strategy. But despite recent actions, as well as previous atrocities against the Ukrainian civilian population by the Russian Federation, the leaders of this Parliament last week voted against adding to this session's agenda a debate and a resolution calling for the Russian Federation to be designated a state sponsor of terrorism. Now, we Conservatives would like to give all Members present a chance to correct the record by supporting the ECR Group proposal to debate and adopt a resolution during this part-session calling for Member States to take action. I ask for your support for this proposal. President. – I see that Mr Gahler would like to take the floor. Michael Gahler,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, colleagues, the EPP Group is prepared to hold this debate this week if it gets a majority. However, we think in order also to preserve the unity of the Parliament on the issue of Ukraine, we should let the discussion go a bit further and we should have the resolution in November II and not to have it at short notice. There is a debate that is ongoing not only in Europe in our Member States, we have it in the Council of Europe, we have this debate in the United States, whether to have it or not to have it. So we should thoroughly reflect about how to position ourselves and not to do it too quickly in this week. So debate, yes, but resolution November II, that is our suggestion. President. – Can I ask whether any Member would like to vote against the proposal to have the debate? Yes, go ahead, Ms Donato. Francesca Donato (NI). – Madam President, I oppose myself to this request because I think that, on the basis of the facts that we have and that we know, labelling the Russian Federation as a state who supports terrorism is arbitrary. We could do the same thing against Ukraine after the US have assessed that the murder of Darya Dugina has been made by Ukrainian secret services, and that is no doubt a terrorist assault. So if we do want to label some states for terrorism, that would be ones that we could label like at least formally. President. – Can I ask Mr Weimers whether you, Charlie, would you be OK with the resolution being done at a later plenary so we can vote once ? Or would you insist that the resolution be done this week? Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Madam President, I appreciate the proposal put forward by colleague Gahler and I would accept that. President. – OK, so we would vote once, and I open the vote to have a debate this week with resolution in November. Vote is open. Still, many colleagues have not voted. I close the vote. And it is approved. So there will be the Council and Commission statement on recognising the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism to be added in the afternoon, and the resolution will be in November. Also for Tuesday, the ID Group has asked that the Commission statement on combating violence against women – Strong and immediate measures to condemn the aggressors and support the victims be added as the last point in the evening before the explanation of votes. I give the floor to Ms Virginie Joron to move the request on behalf of the ID Group. Virginie Joron,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, l'Union européenne prétend que la lutte contre les violences faites aux femmes et contre les violences sexuelles est une de ses priorités. Mais c'est avec gravité que nous découvrons des affaires d'agression sexuelle passées sous silence au sein des institutions européennes ou de grandes entreprises. Au moment où l'Union européenne apporte son soutien aux femmes iraniennes, au moment où la lutte contre les violences sexuelles est au cœur de nos débats parlementaires, il est inadmissible de découvrir dans la presse, des années après, qu'une jeune femme a été violée par son supérieur dans les bureaux de la Commission. Elle n'aurait reçu aucun soutien, ni de son service, ni de l'institution. L'agresseur n'a pas écopé de prison ferme et a continué de percevoir son salaire de la Commission. Ainsi, nous vous demandons que le débat suivant soit ajouté: „La lutte contre les violences faites aux femmes – des mesures fortes et immédiates pour condamner les agresseurs et accompagner les victimes”. Mes chers collègues, nous souhaitons votre soutien à cette initiative, au même moment où nous apprenons avec stupeur l'horreur qu'a subie Lola, douze ans. Quelles que soient nos différences, nous devons combattre ensemble ce laxisme pour éviter de telles situations. President. – I understand that the Greens and the Left Group have counter-proposals to make. I give the floor first to Ms Terry Reintke. Let me also, Terry, welcome you officially as the new Co-Leader of the Green Group. Terry Reintke,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, as you rightly said, we would have a counter-proposal and the title of the counter-proposal that we would like to put forward is „fighting sexualised violence and violence against women: the importance of the Istanbul Convention and the need for a comprehensive directive against gender-based violence”. And we would like to propose this for Wednesday, as the fourth point of the agenda. Let me give you the reasons why. First of all, because we believe that the timing is crucial. We do not want such an important topic to be moved to be the last item of the agenda, so we would like to have it moved up, for Wednesday. The second point, and I really want to make sure that you understand this, we in this Parliament, we are not only a House for talking, we are a House for delivering. The Istanbul Convention and the directive against gender-based violence are two very important proposals that can really change the situation on the ground and make more tangible our fight against sexualised violence and violence against women. This is why we ask you to support our proposal. President. – I also give the floor now to Ms Manon Aubry to present the counter-proposal on behalf of the Left Group. Manon Aubry,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, on peut reconnaître une chose à l'extrême droite, c'est qu'elle ne manque pas de culot et d'hypocrisie. Le groupe ID se déguise soudainement en chevalier blanc qui va venir défendre le droit des femmes et la lutte contre les violences faites aux femmes. Ce serait presque émouvant si vous n'étiez pas systématiquement opposés aux droits des femmes. Où étiez-vous, chers collègues, quand il s'agissait de voter pour la formation obligatoire des députés européens contre le harcèlement sexuel? Où étiez-vous, collègues, quand il s'agissait de voter en faveur d'un accès universel au droit à l'avortement? Où étiez-vous, collègues, quand il s'agissait de soutenir la convention d'Istanbul sur la lutte contre les violences faites aux femmes? Oui, vous étiez très occupés, très occupés à vous attaquer systématiquement aux droits des femmes, très occupés à soutenir vos collègues qui remettent en cause le droit à l'avortement en Hongrie et en Pologne. Vous étiez très occupés, comme votre ancien collègue Gilbert Collard, à tenir des propos répugnants à l'égard d'une femme à l'Assemblée nationale. Alors oui, collègues, on ne joue pas à des jeux politiques avec la vie des femmes. Personne n'est dupe. Vous ne serez pas le défenseur des droits des femmes, vous en êtes le fossoyeur. C'est pour cela que nous faisons cette proposition alternative qui, manifestement, ne vous convient pas: „Cinq ans après #MeToo, harcèlement et violences sexuelles au sein des institutions européennes”. President. – We're going to put the request of the ID Group first to a vote by roll call. I open the vote. I close the vote. And it is rejected. I now put the request by the Greens/EFA Group to vote by roll call. Vote is open. I close the vote. And it is adopted. And, therefore, we will have a Commission statement on fighting sexualised violence and violence against women, the importance of the Istanbul Convention and a comprehensive proposal for a directive against gender-based violence. And it is added as the second point on Wednesday afternoon. Then we go to Wednesday. The Left Group has asked that Council and Commission statements on neo-colonial statements of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative at the inauguration of the European Diplomatic Academy be added as the sixth point in the afternoon, after the Commission statement on the Lukashenka regime's active role in the war against Ukraine. I give the floor to Mr Marc Botenga to move the request on behalf of the Left Group. Marc Botenga,
on behalf of The Left Group. – Madam President, just quickly, dear colleagues, what's the difference between a garden and a jungle? A garden is a nice place where civilised human beings walk around. A jungle is the heart of darkness where wild animals live. Now, many people in Africa, Asia, Latin America remember very well how in the name of civilisation, European colonialism treated them like wild animals, enslaving them, torturing them, and even exhibiting them in human zoos. Therefore, when the highest diplomat of the European Union compares Europe to a garden, but especially the rest of the world, to a jungle, the message these people hear is that Europe is still driven by neocolonialism. We cannot let that message pass. Therefore, I would ask you to put this topic on the agenda for discussion on Wednesday. President. – Is there anyone who wishes to speak against? I see Ms Kanko would like to take the floor. Go ahead, Assita. Assita Kanko (ECR). – Madam President, is what Josep Borrell said smart? Am I a big fan of Mr Borrell? No. Am I often unhappy when I hear what he says? Yes, but I can only say that what he said about Europe being a garden and the rest of the world being a jungle has nothing to do with neocolonialism, and people in Africa are not the rest of the world. There is also China. There is also the US. There are plenty of other places in the universe, and people in Africa today are not the people who were in Africa at the time of colonisation. These people today are bankers. These people today are engineers. These people today are fighting for a modern world. Stop seeing the Africa of the past. I fought against this. Mr Borrell did not say anything that is neocolonial. President. – So I put the request of the Left Group to a vote by roll call. I open the vote. I close the vote. And it is rejected. And, therefore, the agenda remains unchanged and the agenda is now adopted. PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. PINA PICIERNO Vicepresidente 11.   Internationale Dag ter uitbanning van armoede (debat) Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulla dichiarazione della Commissione sulla Giornata internazionale per l'eliminazione della povertà (2022/2878(RSP)). Nicolas Schmit,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, „end poverty in all its forms everywhere” is the first of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals. According to the United Nations Global Compact, more than 700 million people – or 10% of the global population – still live in extreme poverty. I am glad that Parliament decided to remind everyone that today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, and I very much welcome this debate. Poverty is the root cause of many human rights and labour rights violations. For example, child labour, forced labour and human trafficking are each deeply connected to poverty. When it comes to the European Union, according to Eurostat figures, in 2021, there were an estimated 95.4 million people in the EU at risk of poverty or social exclusion, which was equivalent to 21% of the total population: a really frightening figure. According to AROPE rates, up until last year, relative poverty – linked to insufficient income – was declining from 2016 to 2018, but picked up again in 2019 and 2020. When it comes to adequate income, having a job is increasingly not necessarily a viable route out of poverty. In 2019, almost 1 in 10 workers experienced in-work poverty, a situation that is absolutely inacceptable. The COVID-19 pandemic halted the positive trend in poverty reduction over the past 25 years. The combined impacts of Russia's war of aggression towards Ukraine and of climate change may be further detrimental if we do not take bold measures to support the most vulnerable, but also those households that are suffering from skyrocketing energy price increases without seeing their income being adapted to this evolution. The European pillar of social rights and the Porto targets put combating poverty at their core. The Union strategy to address poverty is reflected in the European pillar of social rights and its principles, whose objectives are providing equal opportunities for all, fair working conditions and social protection to fight against poverty and inequalities. Lifting at least 15 million people, including at least 5 million children, out of poverty and social exclusion is our joint European target, proposed by the Commission in its action plan for the implementation of the pillar, and welcomed last year at the Porto Social Summit and endorsed by the European Council. We have to stick to this objective because poverty is hitting more and more families. All EU Member States have set their own national targets to reduce poverty, adding up and exceeding the EU targets. Prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, social indicators for 2021 mainly flagged up positive changes. This was thanks to the contribution of social protection and social inclusion systems. The at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate for children remains higher than the rate for the general population. This is a real challenge, as children growing up in poverty or social exclusion are less likely to do well in school, enjoy good health and realise their full potential later in life. This is something we just cannot accept. Young people have been strongly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, young people are generally less well covered by social protection systems, resulting in a higher risk of poverty or social exclusion for 16 to 29 year olds. They often face job precariousness and a lack of affordable housing. While latest data confirm an improvement in the poverty and relative income situation of older people, older women face a significantly higher poverty risk and lower pensions than men do. Women's lower earnings and under-representation in the labour market translate into their higher risk of poverty. Other factors make women more vulnerable, such as single parenthood, disability and a migrant background. Women are also very often over-represented in sectors where wages are low and precariousness is high, and they are very often obliged to work part-time. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has caused a clear deterioration of the socio-economic outlook, and it has triggered a humanitarian crisis, with millions of Ukrainians having fled their country. At the same time, the criminal destruction of mainly civil infrastructure in Ukraine has pushed poverty up dramatically in this country. Against this critical context and key challenges, strong action is needed. We need to continue to tackle the source of the soaring energy prices, which are driving high inflation. We need to prevent households falling into a precarious economic situation, in particular lower-income families. We also need to review the adequacy and coverage of social safety nets, in particular, minimum income benefits and access to enabling services. Wage policies and adequate minimum wages are key to countering poverty, in particular in-work poverty, and to protecting households' purchasing power. I call on all Member States to swiftly transpose and implement – even before transposition – the directive on minimum wages. I must say I have noticed that a certain number of Member States have now increased their minimum wages, by more than 5, 7 or 10%. Other countries have indexed their minimum wages. To effectively fight against poverty and inequality, we need an integrated approach based on the coordination of different measures and policies. The Commission has recently adopted a communication that provides guidance to Member States on making greater use of distributional impact assessments, and to better target the different measures. Concrete initiatives are put forward through the implementation of the European pillar of social rights. The objective of the European child guarantee is to break the vicious circle of intergenerational poverty. Now it's time to put this child guarantee into practice, to implement it through national action plans. The recently adopted European care strategy – a sector where an overall majority of women are working – gives not only children a better education and better care but also supports long-term care systems. Finally, the Council recommendation on adequate minimum income ensuring active inclusion education and skills are key in finding good jobs with a decent wage, and so help to reduce poverty. Addressing energy poverty is a key part of the approach to the fight against poverty. With Parliament, we are working on combating homelessness, a form of extreme poverty which affects 700 000 people or more in Europe. The Commission recently put forward a regulation on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices which sets a revenue cap on companies that produce electricity at a lower cost. Therefore, we also propose that excessive profits should go to support households and companies. We need a holistic approach to tackle poverty and inequalities. We have to make sure social policies are considered on an equal footing as other policies, be it economic, fiscal or taxation policies. Fairness is one of the four strands of this Commission economic strategy. These are constituent elements of our unique social market economy. But we Europeans cannot ignore that hundreds of millions of people live in extreme poverty outside Europe. They are struggling to survive. This year, about 5 million children have already died from poverty. Today, on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, more than 11 000 kids will have died from hunger, absence of health care and disastrous living conditions. This is not fate. This could be avoided. Our commitment has to be clear and solid. Social justice is the condition and foundation of peace. Therefore, the EU should be at the forefront of building a fair, just and sustainable world economy that eradicates poverty. Cindy Franssen,
namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, mijnheer de commissaris, collega's, het is vandaag de Internationale Dag tegen armoede. Mensen in armoede verdienen onze aandacht echter niet alleen vandaag, maar álle dagen van het jaar. Armoede treft nog altijd 91 miljoen mensen – waaronder 18 miljoen kinderen – in Europa. De kosten voor levensonderhoud inzake energie, huisvesting en voeding rijzen de pan uit. Mensen kunnen nauwelijks overleven en de koopkrachtcrisis raakt niet alleen de lagere inkomens maar ook de lage middeninkomens. Dit alles is absoluut onaanvaardbaar. We hebben onszelf opgelegd om tegen 2030 15 miljoen mensen uit de armoede te halen. We moeten en zullen dit realiseren. Net dáárom is de uitrol van het actieplan van de sociale pijler zo essentieel. Net dáárom is het goed dat belangrijke dossiers zoals de richtlijn voor Europese minimumlonen tot een goed einde zijn gebracht. Net dáárom moeten we toekomstige dossiers – inzake een sociaal klimaatfonds, inzake platformwerknemers, inzake loontransparantie – met overtuiging steunen. En net dáárom moeten we de strijd tegen dakloosheid en voor betaalbare huisvesting voortzetten. Het mag dus niet bij woorden en goede intenties blijven. We hebben een geïntegreerde en structurele anti-armoedestrategie nodig die de oorzaken van armoede aanpakt en de EU weerbaarder maakt voor toekomstige crisissen. Dat zijn we onze Europeanen verschuldigd. Armoede mag in onze samenleving geen plaats hebben. Zoals u zelf ooit in een webinar hebt gezegd: „Armoede hoort thuis in een museum.” Europa zal sociaal zijn, of zal niet zijn. Pedro Marques,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, caro Comissário Nicolas Schmit, colegas, na Cimeira Social do Porto, após uma boa proposta da Comissão Europeia apresentada pelo Comissário Nicolas Schmit, os líderes europeus comprometeram-se a reduzir o número de pessoas em risco de pobreza, reduzir em 15 milhões o número de pessoas em situação de pobreza, incluindo 5 milhões de crianças. Portugal não fez só a Cimeira do Porto, onde estes objetivos foram consagrados, mas fez também já a garantia-criança ou a rede de creches gratuitas. Gostávamos de ver os planos de muitos mais países saírem do papel, pois com a crise energética provocada pela guerra de Putin, corremos o risco de ver aumentar a pobreza em vez de a diminuir. Estamos à espera de novas iniciativas de países como Portugal ou da Presidência espanhola do Conselho da União Europeia para avançar com uma nova cimeira social que concretize as prometidas medidas? Não temos esse luxo. O Inverno está à porta. Neste Dia Internacional da Erradicação da Pobreza, perante a emergência social, relembramos a Comissão e o Conselho da sua responsabilidade. É preciso agir agora. Dragoș Pîslaru,
în numele grupului Renew. – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar Nicolas Schmit, dragi colegi, Uniunea Europeană clar luptă împotriva sărăciei, de aceea avem pilonul european al drepturilor sociale. Noi, aici, în Parlamentul European, luptăm pentru o agendă socială în Europa. Avem lucruri pe care am reușit să le împingem și să le adoptăm, iar progresele din acest mandat legate de Garanția pentru copii, de strategia de îngrijire, de salariul minim și toate celelalte proiecte pe care le avem, se duc în această direcție. Dar ce avem nevoie acum în Europa este de o dimensiune socială care să fie luată în calcul mai bine de statele membre. Avem nevoie de a întări colaborarea europeană pe acest domeniu. România, de exemplu, este pe primul loc în Europa în ceea ce privește sărăcia. Dar când ne uităm câți bani europeni au venit către România în ultima vreme, faptul că Garanția pentru tineri nu a fost bine implementată, Garanția pentru copii încă nu are un plan de acțiune transmis oficial. Toate aceste lucruri sunt preocupări reale pe care statele membre le au de rezolvat. Aceasta înseamnă, de fapt, să avem mai mult decât discursuri, ci și implementare. Sara Matthieu,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, last plenary I got the feeling that a big part of this Parliament is living on another planet. Poverty is rising in Europe all over and more and more people are unable to pay for their basic needs, like feeding their children or heating their homes. So, this should indeed send a huge alarm system to all of you and to our European leaders. But instead, you opted for business as usual. Colleagues, we urgently need minimum incomes above the poverty line. We need to implement the Minimum Wages Directive as soon as possible. We need to ban home evictions and energy cuts. Let this International Day for the Eradication of Poverty be a wakeup call to us all. Let us fight poverty together. There is no time to lose. Dominique Bilde,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, avec la crise sanitaire, l'UE s'est occupée d'empêcher les Français de sortir à l'extérieur de chez eux. Avec la crise énergétique, vous nous faites désormais vivre l'enfer à l'intérieur de chez nous. La lutte contre la précarité énergétique se résume en réalité par le port des pulls et des cols roulés dans nos foyers. J'ai honte pour vous. En cette journée mondiale consacrée à l'élimination de la pauvreté, nous en sommes réduits à aborder l'avenir dans la misère et le froid. Une situation dont l'Europe est entièrement responsable. La transition écologique, la volonté d'enterrer le nucléaire à terme, la dépendance organisée vis-à-vis du gaz étranger et le dogmatisme autour des énergies intermittentes comme l'éolien auront bel et bien fini par nous coûter cher, très cher. Votre projet de mix énergétique vert est en train de plonger le budget des ménages dans le rouge. La stagnation des salaires ainsi que l'inflation, qui fait fondre comme neige au soleil l'épargne des peuples d'Europe, nous conduisent droit à l'appauvrissement général. Nous avions déjà pointé du doigt votre plan pour l'élimination du sans-abrisme en 2030. Le problème est qu'en dépit de ce que vous racontez, le phénomène est loin de se résoudre. Pire, il s'aggrave à une vitesse telle que les acteurs de terrain ne savent plus où donner de la tête. Il est temps d'en finir avec cette politique désastreuse. La France doit reprendre la main en baissant la TVA, en investissant dans le nucléaire, en sortant du marché européen de l'énergie et en arrêtant immédiatement les politiques que les Verts réclament pendant que les peuples subissent. Seule solution pour endiguer la pauvreté: récupérer notre souveraineté. Elżbieta Rafalska,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! Ubóstwo jest największym i najtrudniejszym problemem społecznym. Jest też skazą na bogatych społecznościach. Wymaga pilnych rozwiązań systemowych i działań, też doraźnych działań kryzysowych. Zwalczanie ubóstwa, szczególnie biedy dzieci, oraz wsparcie najsłabszych jest zadaniem państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej, ale jest też naszą moralną powinnością. Eliminacja biedy jest też jednym z pięciu celów zrównoważonego rozwoju ONZ. Poniżej międzynarodowej granicy ubóstwa - mając dziennie do dyspozycji nieco mniej niż 2 dolary, żyje 8% populacji. Liczba osób żyjących w skrajnym ubóstwie zmniejszyła się, ale też w nierównym stopniu. Największe postępy w eliminacji głębokiego ubóstwa uczyniły kraje azjatyckie. Znaczny spadek ubóstwa odnotowano także w Afryce Subsaharyjskiej, ale nadal 44% społeczeństwa żyje tam poniżej międzynarodowej granicy ubóstwa. Zatrudnienie jest czynnikiem przeciwdziałającym ubóstwu. Jednak wiemy, że wiele osób pracujących cierpi ubóstwo. Ubóstwem zagrożone są rodziny wielodzietne, osoby niepełnosprawne, w tym szczególnie dzieci. Musimy skutecznie zwalczać ubóstwo. Najlepszym rozwiązaniem jest dobra edukacja, niedziedziczenie biedy, dostęp do ochrony zdrowia i poprawa dobrostanu rodzin. Leila Chaibi,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, quelle est la différence entre ces deux paquets de pâtes? Aucune, me direz-vous. Eh bien si, la différence c'est leur prix: 21 % de différence entre ces deux paquets de pâtes; 21 % d'augmentation en un an pour le prix des pâtes. Les prix de l'alimentation ont explosé. Manger des nouilles est en train de devenir un luxe. Mais j'aurais pu venir ici également avec de la viande surgelée, dont le prix a augmenté de quasiment 30 % en un an. Ou avec une pastèque: les pastèques ont augmenté de 40 % en un an. Ou encore avec des biscuits: certains biscuits ont augmenté de 50 %. Entre les prix de l'alimentation et la flambée des prix de l'énergie, de plus en plus de ménages doivent se serrer la ceinture. La situation est devenue intenable. Pendant ce temps, les bénéfices de certaines multinationales explosent, leurs actionnaires se gavent. Chez nous, en France, un exemple est très parlant: le PDG de Total s'est augmenté de 52 % en 2021, alors que Total a versé 2,6 milliards de dividendes exceptionnels la semaine dernière. Tout cela alors que les gens peinent à remplir leur frigo et à se chauffer, et qu'ils doivent choisir entre mettre de l'essence dans leur voiture ou payer la facture d'électricité. Pendant ce temps-là, que fait l'Union européenne? L'Union européenne palabre. Elle nous dit depuis des mois qu'elle va agir. Et depuis des mois, on attend, on attend. Ici, au Parlement européen, on attend en ce moment la proposition que doit faire la Commission européenne pour répondre à l'augmentation des prix de l'énergie. On attend, on attend. La Commission européenne a toujours été très douée pour mettre des plafonds – plafonner la dette, plafonner les aides d'État, plafonner le déficit public. Mais quand il s'agit de plafonner les prix de l'énergie et les produits de première nécessité, de plafonner les profits des multinationales, il n'y a plus personne. Pourtant, c'est le moment. C'est le moment de plafonner. Plafonner les prix de l'énergie, cela aura un véritable impact sur la vie des gens. Monsieur le Commissaire, Madame von der Leyen, Présidente de la Commission européenne, 400 millions d'Européens vous regardent. À vous de mettre la main à la pâte. Presidente. – Grazie on. Chaibi, ricordo a Lei e a tutti i colleghi che non è possibile esibire materiale in Aula di qualsiasi tipo. Lívia Járóka (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! 95,4 millió embert fenyegetett a szegénység vagy a társadalmi kirekesztés 2021-ben, az Eurostat adatai szerint, az Európai Unióban. Ez azt jelenti, hogy közel minden ötödik uniós állampolgár küzd napi szinten a megélhetéséért vagy a társadalmi megbecsülésének a megteremtéséért. A koronavírus járvány okozta gazdasági megtorpanás és az uniós határokon dúló orosz–ukrán háború azonban tovább nehezíti ezt a helyzetet, és a legkiszolgáltatottabb csoportokat, családokat éri el először. Ilyenek például az európai romák is, akiket én képviselek. Mindezek fényében azt javasolom az Európai Bizottság és a tagállamok részére, hogy a magyar jó gyakorlatokból érdemes ebben a nehéz helyzetben párat elvinni, átvenni. Ezeknek hála a súlyos anyagi deprivációban élő magyaroknak a számát 27%-ról 8%-ra tudtuk csökkenteni az elmúlt tíz évben. A romáknál ugyanez a szám 78%-ról 31%-ra csökkent. A családi otthonteremtési támogatással, azzal hogy hároméves korban kötelezővé tettük a gyerekeknek az óvodai oktatást, megszakítottuk a szegénységet jelentő ördögi kört, és nagyon-nagyon fontos, hogy a szülőknek, illetve a 25 év alatti fiataloknak, a sokgyermekes anyukáknak és hamarosan a 30 év alatti édesanyákra is szeretnénk ezeket az adókedvezményeket kiterjeszteni. Kérem, Önök is fontolják meg ezeket a cselekedeteket, mert nagyban enyhítik a szegényeknek a helyzetét. Marlene Mortler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kollegen! Wer satt ist, hat viele Probleme. Wer hungrig ist, hat nur eines. Das müssen wir uns als wohlstandsverwöhnte Menschen und Politiker immer wieder vor Augen halten. Denken wir zum Beispiel an die Jeans, die wir tragen. Egal ob Designerjeans oder Billigjeans – die Näherin in Bangladesch oder anderswo erhält immer den gleichen menschenverachtenden Stundenlohn. Das ist und bleibt ein Skandal. Wir können noch so viel Geld in arme Länder pumpen. Wenn das Geld in einige wenige Hände kommt und dort verbleibt, dann werden wenige immer reicher und viele immer ärmer. Gestern war Welternährungstag. Nach dem Welthungerindex leiden alleine 828 Millionen Menschen an chronischem Hunger.Leave no one behind – der Leitgedanke der Agenda 2030 ist damit für mich pure Heuchelei, wenn wir zum Beispiel auf agrarischen Gunststandorten wie in Mitteleuropa Ackerflächen stilllegen, statt nachhaltige Bewirtschaftung zu befördern. Wachen wir endlich auf! Nutzen wir unsere Potenziale in Wirtschaft, Forschung, Politik, Gesellschaft für gute Bildung, für mehr Gesundheit für die armen Menschen in Europa und weltweit. Agnes Jongerius (S&D). – Voorzitter, kinderen vallen flauw in de klas omdat ze zonder ontbijt naar school gaan. Terwijl energiebedrijven megawinsten maken, draaien mensen thuis de verwarming uit. Het is al eerder gezegd. In Porto hebben de regeringsleiders vorig jaar bindende afspraken gemaakt om de armoede te bestrijden. Terwijl we daar dus afspraken dat de armoede moest worden teruggedrongen, zien we nu dat de cijfers weer omhooggaan. De huidige energiecrisis mag niet gebruikt worden om de doelen naar beneden bij te stellen. Sterker nog, we moeten met z'n allen een tandje bijzetten om die doelstellingen alsnog te halen. Duizenden mensen dreigen in armoede weg te zakken en het enige wat de Commissie op tafel legt, zijn aanbevelingen aan de lidstaten. Eerlijk is eerlijk: daar kopen mensen in armoede niets voor. We hebben een stevig pakket nodig met maatregelen en middelen om de sociale vangnetten te versterken. Max Orville (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, aujourd'hui a lieu la Journée internationale pour l'élimination de la pauvreté. Une journée seulement, alors que chaque jour, 1,3 milliard de personnes vivent dans une extrême pauvreté, dont près de la moitié sont des enfants et des jeunes. Aucun continent n'est à l'abri. Pas même l'Europe, notamment les régions ultrapériphériques françaises: 33 % de Martiniquais, 77 % de Mahorais vivent sous le seuil de pauvreté. Je vous le dis clairement, il nous faut renforcer l'objectif de justice sociale de l'Union européenne et faire de chaque jour une journée de lutte contre la pauvreté. La pauvreté est un phénomène multidimensionnel: elle touche à la santé, à la nutrition, elle frappe dès l'enfance et continue avec des logements vétustes et l'absence d'accès aux biens de première nécessité. La pauvreté doit être combattue sous toutes ses formes. L'éducation a une place de choix, car l'enseignement favorise l'égalité des chances. C'est un puissant outil de réduction des inégalités sociales. L'Union européenne doit prendre toute sa part dans la solidarité internationale pour garantir la dignité humaine. Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, la pauvreté n'est pas inévitable, pas même sur le continent européen, où elle concerne plus de 100 millions de personnes. Nous ne cessons de proclamer que nous ne voulons laisser personne de côté. Mais comment prétendre cela sans faire de l'éradication de la misère la condition sous-jacente, la condition sans laquelle aucune de nos politiques publiques ne pourrait être déployée? La misère est une violation des droits humains qu'il faut combattre si nous voulons assurer l'égale dignité de toutes et de tous. Nous ne devons pas accepter que les plus pauvres soient tenus responsables de leur situation et traités en boucs émissaires de tous les maux de nos sociétés. L'extrême pauvreté est un échec collectif, pas un échec personnel. Pourtant, on persiste à voir les plus pauvres comme de potentiels profiteurs qu'il faudrait encadrer et contraindre. De cette manière, on passe simplement sous silence le fait que la pauvreté est d'abord faite de maltraitance sociale, de violences qui cassent les corps et brisent l'esprit, des violences qui n'existent finalement que parce que nous les tolérons. Voilà pourquoi nous devons reconnaître et combattre l'existence de la précarité sociale comme cause de discriminations. Voilà pourquoi nous devons évaluer toute nouvelle directive, tout règlement, tout projet de politique publique à l'aune de son impact sur les 10 % les plus pauvres. Voilà pourquoi, enfin, nous devons faire en sorte que plus aucune loi, plus aucun budget, plus aucun projet ne soit conçu sans la participation de celles et ceux qui vivent aujourd'hui en situation d'exclusion. Chers collègues, l'éradication de la misère est un programme politique, alors mettons-le en œuvre. (L'oratrice accepte de répondre à une intervention „carton bleu”) Bogdan Rzońca (ECR),
wystąpienie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki skierowanie do Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE). – Bardzo dziękuję, że Pani przyjęła pytanie, z bardzo prostego powodu, ponieważ jest Pani w takiej grupie politycznej, która odgrywa ważną rolę w Parlamencie Europejskim i w kwestiach związanych z Zielonym Ładem. Czy nie ma Pani obaw, martwiąc się o ubóstwo, o to, że może nastąpić jego przyrost? Czy nie ma Pani obaw, że pakiet Gotowi na 55 będzie pogłębiał ubóstwo w Unii Europejskiej? Bo przecież w tym pakiecie są informacje i, powiedzmy, działania, które mają być nakierowane na wzrost podatków od paliw domowych i od paliw samochodowych. Czy pani nie ma obaw w tej kwestii? Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE),
réponse „carton bleu”. – Est-ce que les politiques climatiques et environnementales vont nuire aux plus pauvres et vont aggraver la pauvreté? Non, je ne le crois pas et je crois même l'inverse. Vous savez qui est aujourd'hui en première ligne face au dérèglement climatique? Eh bien, ce sont les plus pauvres, notamment ces pays que nous avons pillés, dont nous extrayons encore du pétrole alors qu'ils sont en première ligne face à la montée des eaux et aux températures extrêmes, face aussi aux violences qui s'imposent à leurs concitoyennes et à leurs concitoyens. La situation est la même sur le territoire européen. Qui sont les premiers à être morts des pollutions du charbon? Eh bien, ce sont les ouvrières et les ouvriers qui ont été exposés à ces impacts-là. Qui habite à côté des sites industriels les plus dangereux, des sites Seveso? Eh bien, ce sont ces personnes en bas de l'échelle sociale, parce que les plus riches savent se protéger. Qui souffre de l'exposition aux pesticides, notamment au chlordécone, et on vient de parler des populations ultramarines en France? Qui vit dans des logements dégradés, dans lesquels il est difficile de se chauffer? Quelle population a une mauvaise alimentation parce qu'elle n'est pas en mesure d'accéder à de la nourriture saine? Alors non, Monsieur, l'écologie, ce n'est pas une peine de plus imposée aux pauvres, mais c'est au contraire une œuvre d'égalité sociale et une œuvre de dignité pour chacune et pour chacun dans notre continent. Guido Reil (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Heute ist der internationale Tag zur Bekämpfung der Armut. Für mich ein sehr wichtiger Tag, denn ich war als Kind selber arm. Und meine Heimat, das Ruhrgebiet, ist das Armenhaus Deutschlands. Jeder Fünfte ist dort arm, und 40 % der Kinder beziehen Hartz IV. Und Herr Kommissar Schmit, Sie haben viele Probleme richtig angesprochen. Immer mehr Erwerbstätige sind arm, immer mehr Rentner. Immer mehr Menschen können sich ihre Wohnung nicht leisten. Sie können es sich nicht leisten zu heizen, und sie haben kein Geld für den Strom. Selbst bei den Lebensmitteln wird es knapp. Die Tafeln in Deutschland wurden im Jahr 2020 von 1,1 Millionen Menschen besucht, und jetzt sind es zwei Millionen Menschen. Zwei Millionen Menschen, die in diesem vermeintlich reichen Land Deutschland auf die Tafeln angewiesen sind! Sie haben aber jetzt Ursachen genannt. Sie haben die Corona-Krise als Ursache benannt, und das halte ich für falsch. Es war nicht das Virus, das die Menschen in die Armut getrieben hat, sondern die Entscheidungen der Politik, die völlig überzogenen Corona-Maßnahmen. Und Sie haben den Ukraine-Krieg als Ursache benannt. Aber ist es der Krieg? Nein, es sind die Sanktionen, die die Menschen gerade in die Armut treiben – die Menschen in Europa in die Armut treiben. Und es hilft den Ukrainern nichts, wenn die Menschen in Europa arm sind. Es schadet den Russen nichts – sie verdienen sich nämlich gerade dumm und dämlich. Wer die Armut bekämpfen will, der muss an die Wurzeln gehen. Und die Wurzeln sind die Nullzinspolitik der EZB, die ungebremste Masseneinwanderung und der Green Deal – die Klima-Gesetzgebung. Das sind die Punkte, die Europa in die Armut treiben. Laura Ferrara (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'eliminazione della povertà significa lotta per la dignità umana, che costituisce la base di ogni diritto fondamentale: della libertà, della giustizia, della pace. Forti di questa convinzione, come Movimento 5 Stelle abbiamo sempre sostenuto misure quali l'introduzione del reddito di cittadinanza e del salario minimo, al fine di tutelare i soggetti più vulnerabili e contrastare povertà ed esclusione sociale. L'impatto socioeconomico della pandemia e della guerra ci impone di reperire ulteriori risorse rispetto a quelle messe in campo con il Fondo sociale europeo Plus, il Fondo di aiuti europei agli indigenti e NextGenerationEU. Abbiamo bisogno di un'Energy Recovery Fund per affrontare i rincari dei prezzi dell'energia e l'aumento della povertà energetica. Se non riusciremo a correggere le disuguaglianze che concentrano la ricchezza nelle mani di pochi e che limitano l'accesso alle opportunità di lavoro, l'accesso a beni e servizi chiave, non avremo mai una società giusta in grado di aiutare chi rimane indietro. Λουκάς Φουρλάς (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, η φτωχοποίηση εκατομμυρίων Ευρωπαίων πολιτών είναι μια πραγματικότητα την οποία πρέπει να δούμε κατάματα. Εδώ και πολλούς μήνες βιώνουμε τον αντίκτυπο ενός πολέμου που ξέσπασε στην αυλή μας με τραγικά αποτελέσματα σε όλους τους τομείς. Η κατακόρυφη αύξηση των τιμών επιτείνει το πρόβλημα και, δυστυχώς, καθιστά ουτοπική την επίτευξη του στόχου για τον τερματισμό της ακραίας φτώχειας έως το 2030. Ο αριθμός των ανθρώπων που δυστυχούν αυξάνεται συνεχώς. Ζητούμενο πλέον είναι μια πανευρωπαϊκή στρατηγική που να υποστηρίζει τους καταναλωτές, τις μικρές επιχειρήσεις και γενικά όσους πληρώνουν το κόστος μιας κατάστασης για την οποία δεν έχουν καμία ευθύνη. Μια στρατηγική που στο επίκεντρό της θα έχει συγκεκριμένες ευάλωτες ομάδες συνανθρώπων μας: τα παιδιά, τις γυναίκες, τις μητέρες που μεγαλώνουν μόνες τα παιδιά τους, τους νέους, τους ηλικιωμένους, τους άνεργους, τους άστεγους και τα άτομα με αναπηρία. Σήμερα, οι συνάνθρωποί μας παλεύουν για αξιοπρεπή διαβίωση. Εμείς καλούμαστε να ελαφρύνουμε το βάρος των νοικοκυριών και των επιχειρήσεων. Καλούμε τα κράτη μέλη να εξετάσουν άμεσα το ενδεχόμενο εξαίρεσης των βασικών τροφίμων από τον ΦΠΑ για όσο συνεχίζεται η κρίση και την άμεση εφαρμογή του κατώτατου μισθού. Η αξιοπρεπής διαβίωση και η κοινωνική προστασία είναι αξίες που η Ευρώπη της αλληλεγγύης καλείται να διαφυλάξει. Pierfrancesco Majorino (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi è la Giornata internazionale contro la povertà e non possiamo certo dire che l'Europa ci arrivi con tutte le carte in regola. Ci sono più di cento milioni di europei poveri. Questo dato, aggravato dalla pandemia e dalla crisi energetica, la dice lunga sulla necessità di una svolta. Abbiamo recentemente fatto passi in avanti straordinari, ad esempio sul salario minimo, ma questa è una svolta di visione o è un'eccezione che conferma la regola? Io confesso di non averlo ancora ben capito. Servono misure immediate contro il caro energia, politiche molto più coraggiose per il diritto alla casa, politiche uniformi per rendere obbligatorio e stabile il reddito minimo garantito e ancora un grande piano europeo a sostegno delle persone senzatetto, a cui spesso non viene garantito nemmeno l'accesso al sistema sanitario, e ovviamente il diritto alla formazione e allo studio, affinché il diritto all'accesso al lavoro venga salvaguardato senza discriminazioni. In altre parole, la lotta alla povertà è un fatto politico e non è un favore da fare a qualcuno. Kim Van Sparrentak (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, colleagues, Commissioner, the projections show us that during the coming winter, people in this Union will die from hunger and cold, and more and more people will lose their home and fall into extreme poverty. Also, homelessness has life-threatening consequences. But, so far in this House, we have seen more support for companies struggling with the rising energy costs than support for citizens. And this abstract number of almost 100 people in the EU at risk of poverty in reality means freezing rooms, empty lunchboxes, and losing your home. That's why I ask our European leaders, when discussing how to respond to the energy crisis, to look beyond mere numbers and to take action for people. Make sure we won't lose sight of ending homelessness by 2030, and make sure no one will die from the cold this winter. Decide on a European moratorium on evictions and a moratorium on being cut off from energy. Anne Sander (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, en cette journée pour l'éradication de la pauvreté, je souhaite d'abord rappeler une bien triste réalité: en Europe, ce sont un peu plus de 10 % des citoyens qui vivent sous le seuil de pauvreté. Les politiques européennes que nous avons mises en place ces dernières années, notamment avec des initiatives comme la mobilisation de 80 milliards d'euros dans le cadre du Fonds social européen en 2014, ont quand même permis d'enregistrer certains succès et de réduire cette tendance. C'est la preuve que notre modèle européen d'économie sociale de marché dispose d'un certain nombre d'armes pour lutter contre la pauvreté. Pour ma part, je considère que le travail, un emploi rémunéré, est sans doute le meilleur des filets de sécurité. Mais on voit bien aujourd'hui, avec le COVID et la guerre en Ukraine, que ce filet de sécurité n'est plus suffisant parce que même ceux qui travaillent sont confrontés à de graves difficultés, notamment en raison du coût des carburants. Donc, plus que jamais, il est de notre responsabilité, au niveau européen, de trouver des solutions, notamment pour lutter contre le prix de l'énergie. Ilan De Basso (S&D). – Fru talman! Fattigdom är ingen naturlag. Ojämlikhet, sociala och ekonomiska klyftor är människans verk. Det håller stegvis på att slita sönder Europa och våra samhällen. Klyftorna ökar och de rika blir rikare. I dag vill jag särskilt uppmärksamma kvinnor och barn och de arbetare som knappt har råd att sätta mat på bordet – de som faktiskt i praktiken är daglönare. Många kvinnor i Europa är arbetslösa eller arbetar deltid och har vanligen också sämre betalt än männen. Samtidigt lever miljontals barn under fattigdomsstrecket och i ett utanförskap i Europa. Det är därför vi måste utgå ifrån en politik som utjämnar barns uppväxtvillkor. För att detta ska vara möjligt krävs en politisk vilja, en progressiv omfördelning inom medlemsstaterna. Vi når dit genom att skapa fler jobb, erbjuda bra utbildningar, trygga anställningar och facklig organisering samt ett bättre skyddsnät till dem som mest behöver det. Fattigdomsbekämpning är vårt gemensamma ansvar, från europeisk nivå till lokal nivå. Europa kan bättre. Rosa D'Amato (Verts/ALE). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, se doveste scegliere tra accendere il riscaldamento o mangiare, cosa fareste? Questa è la domanda che si pongono milioni di cittadini in tutta l'Unione. Già oggi milioni di famiglie vivono in condizioni di povertà. L'inflazione galoppante e la crisi energetica rischiano di far salire drammaticamente questo numero. L'Europa tutta, da quest'Aula ai governi, ha l'obbligo di agire per prevenire una vera e propria emergenza umanitaria e lo deve fare subito. Il Consiglio discute di proposte contro la crisi energetica, discute di price cap, di prelievi sugli extraprofitti, di riforma del mercato. Tutte misure giuste, ma che non rispondono alle urgenti esigenze di aiuto che arrivano dai cittadini più esposti. La pandemia ce lo ha insegnato: la via d'uscita dalla crisi è nella solidarietà. Le divisioni a Bruxelles non devono essere pagate dal popolo in difficoltà. Serve un fondo comune europeo che preveda in via prioritaria aiuti alle famiglie e alle micro e piccole imprese. E, aggiungo, il patto di stabilità e crescita: la sua sospensione va prorogata. Gli Stati hanno bisogno del necessario spazio fiscale per finanziare corposi pacchetti di sostegno. Non c'è tempo da perdere. L'inverno è alle porte. Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, la pobreza es sin duda inmoral y que un territorio rico como Europa tenga 95 millones de personas —el 21,7 % de su población— en riesgo de pobreza y exclusión social debería avergonzarnos. Además, esta pobreza se perpetúa de generación en generación, especialmente en el caso de las mujeres. Hay muchísimas trabajadoras pobres, que, además, lo son desde hace tiempo, sobre todo en los barrios de muchas ciudades donde hay grandes bolsas de marginación, como en mi tierra por ejemplo, en Andalucía, con veinticuatro de los treinta municipios con menor renta de España. Así que urge poner en marcha una estrategia antipobreza para 2030 que debe suponer, por una parte, desarrollar políticas económicas y educativas que no sean generadoras de desigualdad, afianzar nuestros estados de bienestar y también el empleo digno. Por otra parte, necesitamos también poner sobre la mesa un instrumento específico, un instrumento nuevo para romper los círculos de pobreza, sobre todo en aquellos barrios y aquellas zonas donde el futuro es una palabra que conjuga muy mal con la vida digna y el bien común. La subida de los precios de la energía, la especulación con bienes básicos, no apunta en la buena dirección y Europa tiene que acertar con una respuesta valiente y digna que vaya más allá de las simples recomendaciones, porque todas y cada una de las personas cuentan, tanto las que viven dentro como fuera de Europa. Procedura „catch the eye” Στέλιος Κυμπουρόπουλος (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, συνάδελφοι, 95,4 εκατομμύρια Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες αντιμετώπιζαν κίνδυνο φτώχειας ή κοινωνικού αποκλεισμού μέσα στο 2021, με τις γυναίκες να αντιμετωπίζουν ακόμη υψηλότερο κίνδυνο· 95,4 εκατομμύρια. Είναι ένας αμείλικτος δείκτης που φέρνει όλους μας αντιμέτωπους με τη σκληρή πραγματικότητα. Κυρίως όμως πρέπει να γιγαντώνει τη θέληση και τις προσπάθειές μας να κάνουμε πράξη τους στόχους του Πόρτο για μείωση αυτού του αριθμού κατά 15 εκατομμύρια μέχρι το 2030, με ενεργητικές πολιτικές απασχόλησης, επαρκή κατώτατο μισθό και δίχτυ προστασίας για τους πιο ευάλωτους. Μόνον έτσι αυτή η Παγκόσμια Ημέρα δεν θα μείνει στα χαρτιά, αλλά θα αποτελέσει ένα πραγματικό εφαλτήριο συντονισμένης δράσης για μια πιο ισχυρή κοινωνική Ευρώπη. Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, cred că această cifră de peste 95 de milioane de cetățeni europeni care se află la limita sărăciei este una alarmantă. Eu vin dintr-o țară unde procentul este mult mai mare, în România, pentru că încă avem cetățeni care au nevoie de un sprijin consistent din partea statului, din partea Uniunii Europene. Cred că politicile noastre în ceea ce privește combaterea sărăciei trebuie să se axeze mult mai mult pe educație, pe integrarea pe piața forței de muncă și, evident, mult mai multe resurse pentru a pregăti generația viitoare, pentru că, din nefericire, oamenii renunță foarte ușor atunci când se luptă cu sărăcia, la asistență de sănătate de calitate, la educație, și aceste lucruri produc efecte pe termen mediu și pe termen lung. Avem nevoie de mai multă ambiție și determinare în a combate sărăcia. Ljudmila Novak (PPE). – Gospa predsedujoča, velikokrat se sprašujem, kakšno srce imajo tisti ljudje, ki si izplačujejo milijonske, milijardne dobičke, ne vidijo pa, da njihovi zaposleni, njihovi sosedje, someščani, ne morejo plačati osnovnih računov. Naša razprava tukaj mora biti glasen signal, jasen signal vsem tistim, da je njihovo ravnanje sramotno, nedopustno. In kako lahko pogledajo sočloveku v oči, če tako ravnajo? To so vojni dobičkarji in na energetskem področju s takimi visokimi cenami energije se to zagotovo dogaja. To je nedopustno in sramotno. Tako da revščina ni potrebna, kadar bi znali deliti tisto, kar vsi skupaj ustvarjamo. In zato moramo povedati vsem tem izkoriščevalcem – nisem proti delovnim ljudem, sem pa proti izkoriščevalcem. Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, in 2021, like said, 95 million people in the EU were at risk of poverty and social exclusion. This was equivalent to 21% of the EU population, and the risks are growing with the current energy crisis and inflation rate. We are the developed part of the world, but many of our citizens have difficulties in paying their bills at the end of the month. The risk of poverty increases, according to Eurostat, if the individual is a woman, has children, is young or unemployed. For instance, 27% of young adults aged between 18 and 24 are affected by poverty, and the risk varies across the EU. Romania, Bulgaria and Greece reported the highest shares of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion. Dear colleagues, our speeches in the plenary would not resolve the problems. We need, therefore, a European strategy against poverty, with concrete milestones, financial mechanisms and proactive policies implemented at all levels. „No one left behind” should mean something, and this implies effective measures and clear targets to reduce poverty in all our regions. So, I support what Commissioner Schmit said, that we need to act together now in order to end poverty in Europe. Sandra Pereira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, o Dia Internacional para a Eliminação da Pobreza, que hoje se assinala, traz à luz dados preocupantes sobre a pobreza em Portugal. De acordo com o Eurostat, no final de 2021, 2,3 milhões eram pobres ou estavam em risco de pobreza ou exclusão social, o que é equivalente a 22,4 % da população portuguesa. Entre 2020 e 2021, a pobreza agravou-se, não só em Portugal, mas na União Europeia a 27 e os números de 2022 serão ainda mais preocupantes. Enquanto os ricos ficam mais ricos, aumenta a injusta distribuição da riqueza e as desigualdades. É fundamental o aumento dos salários e das pensões, o combate à precariedade e a defesa do emprego com direitos, o reforço dos serviços públicos e o seu acesso universal, políticas de habitação pública, que são medidas que, aliadas à tributação do grande capital e à progressividade dos sistemas fiscais, poderiam inverter a tendência de pobreza que hoje se vive. Mas tardam em chegar, porque são contrárias à lógica neoliberal que há décadas domina as políticas dos Estados-Membros da União Europeia. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, in 1987, over 100 000 people gathered in Paris to declare poverty a violation of human rights. But we seem to have forgotten it. In the EU now, human rights generally refers to civic and political rights. Taking social and economic rights off the table in the human rights debate is a huge con job on the part of neoliberalism. In her excellent book, The Morals of the Market, Jessica Whyte talks about the effort during the past 100 years to redefine and enforce a set of rights that are compatible with the market economy. And we've seen in the EU, which has been criticised by the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty, for relegating social economic rights to second tier aspirational principles. In doing so, he said, the EU has all but declared poverty a necessary evil. And it is little wonder that poverty is still rampant in the EU. Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, I think it is ironic that the theme of this year's International Day for the Eradication of Poverty is „dignity for all in practice” when it comes, as we heard earlier, in the same week that High Representative Borrell tells the globe that Europe is a garden and the rest of the world is a jungle. And apart from the sycophantic racism and arrogance, which is a million miles from dignity, seriously, a garden? There are 95.4 million people in danger of poverty or social exclusion, 21.7% of the EU's population. And this is what he calls a model of social cohesion and economic progress, when all of the trends are going to more inequality and the gap is widening. Meanwhile, in the jungle, as he calls it, it is as it is in a large part because of the policies of Europe and global capitalism. You cannot tackle poverty without tackling the fact that the majority of the world's wealth is owned and controlled by a tiny minority who use it for their own enrichment instead of the needs of the many. We need to end neoliberalism and put people before profit. (Fine della procedura „catch the eye”) Nicolas Schmit,
membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, d'abord, je tiens à vous remercier pour ce débat. Je suis d'accord avec le député qui a dit que chaque jour devait être un jour consacré à la lutte contre la pauvreté. Nous ne pouvons pas nous satisfaire d'un seul jour par an. La pauvreté, c'est un gâchis énorme. D'abord, un gâchis humain, mais c'est aussi un gâchis économique. C'est pour cela qu'il est extrêmement urgent maintenant de prendre des mesures pour que cette pauvreté – qui est déjà très présente, comme beaucoup d'entre vous l'ont dit – ne s'étende pas et pour qu'on puisse effectivement atteindre les objectifs de réduction de la pauvreté. Il est vrai que voir les files d'attente devant les banques alimentaires s'allonger, c'est une situation difficilement acceptable dans une Europe qui, quand même, est une Europe riche. Il faudrait d'abord – et je crois que certains l'ont dit – que les salaires puissent permettre aux gens de vivre dignement. Il est vrai aussi que tous les États membres, pratiquement tous les États membres, ont mis en œuvre des moyens, des mesures pour effectivement freiner l'explosion des prix et son impact sur les ménages, et notamment sur les ménages les plus vulnérables. Il faut maintenant que l'Europe joue aussi pleinement son rôle et que nous mettions en œuvre des politiques courageuses pour limiter cette hausse des prix qui pèse d'abord sur les ménages aux revenus les plus modestes. J'ai entendu aussi qu'il y aurait une sorte de choix à faire entre, d'un côté, la lutte contre le changement climatique et, de l'autre, la lutte contre la pauvreté. C'est un choix complètement faux parce que nous voyons aujourd'hui d'abord que la dépendance par rapport aux énergies fossiles, qui d'ailleurs contribuent à détruire notre planète, est en fait une des raisons pour lesquelles la pauvreté s'élargit en Europe et ailleurs. Donc ce n'est pas un choix, il faut mener les deux ensemble. N'oublions pas que c'est Poutine, avec sa guerre criminelle, qui est à l'origine de cette crise qui provoque la pauvreté; que c'est encore lui qui menace les pays du Sud en bloquant la fourniture des céréales. Cette guerre absurde, criminelle, est une machine, une machine diabolique, oui, diabolique pour provoquer la pauvreté, déstabiliser le monde et déstabiliser les sociétés et pour diviser les populations. Eh bien, il faut qu'effectivement on puisse mettre fin à cette guerre en soutenant le peuple ukrainien. Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa. Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 171) Caterina Chinnici (S&D),
per iscritto. – Sono trascorsi trent'anni da quando le Nazioni Unite hanno dichiarato il 17 ottobre del 1992 Giornata mondiale per l'eradicazione della povertà, ma dobbiamo amaramente constatare come tale obiettivo non sia stato ancora raggiunto. Nonostante vi sia la possibilità per sfamare ogni persona sulla Terra, nel mondo oggi ancora 811 milioni di persone non hanno cibo a sufficienza e 44 milioni rischiano di scivolare nella carestia; 2 miliardi di persone vivono ancora senza sicurezza di acqua potabile e 1,3 miliardi vivono in condizioni di povertà multidimensionale, di cui quasi la metà sono bambini e giovani. 385 milioni di bambini, stando a dati UNICEF, che vivono in condizioni di estrema povertà con meno di 1,90 dollari al giorno. Una povertà che crescendo condiziona pesantemente la loro capacità di costruire un futuro migliore per sé stessi, le loro famiglie e le loro comunità. Dignità per tutti – il tema di quest'anno – non è soltanto un diritto fondamentale in sé, sancito dall'articolo 1 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'UE, ma costituisce la base stessa dei diritti fondamentali. Garantire concretamente il rispetto della dignità umana, in particolare dei bambini più poveri del mondo, deve rappresentare per l'Unione un dovere morale prima che un prioritario impegno politico. 12.   De rechtsstaat in Malta, vijf jaar na de moord op Daphne Caruana Galizia (debat) Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulla dichiarazione della Commissione sullo Stato di diritto a Malta, cinque anni dopo l'assassinio di Daphne Caruana Galizia (2022/2866(RSP)). Didier Reynders,
membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je vous remercie tout d'abord d'avoir inscrit à l'ordre du jour ce débat sur la situation de l'état de droit à Malte, cinq ans après l'assassinat de la journaliste d'investigation Daphne Caruana Galizia. Au nom de la Commission, je voudrais commencer par rendre hommage à la mémoire de Daphne Caruana Galizia. Rendre hommage à sa famille ainsi qu'aux acteurs de la société civile qui se sont battus pour que justice soit faite. Leur rendre hommage pour leur détermination et leur courage. Depuis cet assassinat, la Commission a toujours souligné que Daphne Caruana Galizia, sa famille et la société maltaise dans son ensemble méritaient que justice soit rendue. C'est aussi – je le sais – une priorité pour le Parlement européen. Nous avons assisté encore récemment à certains développements, notamment grâce aux efforts incessants de la famille et de la société civile et au travail de diverses instances européennes, en particulier Europol. L'enquête publique sur cet assassinat – un exercice distinct des procédures pénales en cours –, initiée par l'État maltais et qui a mené à l'adoption d'un rapport en 2021, s'est révélée un exercice remarquable de transparence et d'indépendance. Il est fondamental, cinq ans après les faits, que l'enquête pénale en cours soit menée à bien, complètement, et notamment que les commanditaires de cet assassinat soient tenus pour responsables devant la justice. La Commission reste très attentive à cet égard. De manière plus générale, nous devons plus que jamais protéger la démocratie et l'état de droit. L'Union européenne a intensifié ses efforts à cet égard et le rapport annuel sur l'état de droit joue un rôle central dans ce domaine. En juillet, la Commission a publié la troisième édition du rapport, qui comprend pour la première fois des recommandations spécifiques pour tous les États membres. Je souhaiterais développer nos recommandations relatives à l'état de droit à Malte. Starting with the justice system, the report reflects that a number of reforms started in 2020 have been implemented. Such reforms, in particular, the reform of the system of judicial appointments and of judicial discipline, have contributed to strengthening the independence of the Maltese justice system. However, several challenges remain. For example, the efficiency of justice, in particular, the length of proceedings, has continued to deteriorate in recent years. Several initiatives are ongoing to contribute to the improvement of the efficiency of the justice system. The Commission has recommended in the rule of law report that these efforts be strengthened. Furthermore, while some steps have been taken to depoliticise the appointment of the Chief Justice, the fact that there is no involvement of the judiciary in this process requires further attention. The Commission has recommended that Malta address this situation, taking into account European standards on judicial assessments and appointments and the opinions of the Venice Commission. En ce qui concerne le cadre de la lutte contre la corruption, l'assassinat de Mme Caruana Galizia, qui enquêtait sur l'évasion fiscale, le blanchiment d'argent et la corruption à Malte, montre que ceux qui aident à détecter la corruption de haut niveau peuvent courir des risques sérieux. Nous avons donc accueilli favorablement les recommandations de l'enquête publique sur cet assassinat, qui portent spécifiquement sur la lutte contre la corruption. Cela inclut par exemple des mesures visant à mieux détecter les augmentations inexplicables du patrimoine des agents publics. Néanmoins, nous avons noté, dans le rapport sur l'état de droit, qu'il n'y a pas eu de suivi spécifique de la part du gouvernement maltais sur ces points jusqu'à présent, ce que nous ne pouvons que regretter. Les mesures proposées doivent être mises en œuvre. Dans ce contexte, la Commission a recommandé à Malte de relever les défis liés aux enquêtes et aux poursuites dans les affaires de corruption de haut niveau, notamment en établissant un bilan solide en matière de jugement définitif. Je voudrais également souligner que la Commission renforce sa lutte contre la corruption dans l'Union. Comme l'a annoncé la présidente de la Commission dans son discours sur l'état de l'Union en septembre, nous présenterons des mesures visant à mettre à jour le cadre législatif européen en la matière. In this context, allow me to say a few words on Malta's investor citizenship scheme. Malta is the only Member State that continues to run a „citizenship by investment” scheme. The Commission considers that such schemes are incompatible with EU law. The granting by a Member State of its nationality and thereby of EU citizenship in exchange for a predetermined payment or investment and without a genuine link with the Member State concerned is not compatible with the principle of sincere cooperation and with the concept of EU citizenship enshrined in the treaties. While Malta suspended its scheme in March for Russian and Belarusian nationals, it has not expressed any intention to end it for nationals of other countries. As our concerns remain, the Commission decided last month to refer Malta to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Continuing on the rule of law report, the Commission has also issued recommendations to Malta on media freedom. We recommend that Malta strengthen the rules to enhance the independence of public service media. We also recommend to advance with the introduction of legislative and other safeguards to improve the working environment of journalists, including on access to official documents, taking into account European standards on the protection of journalists. Since the publication of the public inquiry report following the assassination of Daphne Caruana, a committee of experts on media reform has been appointed by the Maltese Government. We are aware that, at the end of September, the government had tabled three bills on the matter. As the Council of Europe has also made clear, I would like to emphasise that in this field, effective consultation with civil society, journalists and media experts is crucial in such a process. The Commission will monitor these developments, notably in the course of the preparation of our fourth rule of law report. In the meantime, the Commission has continued to work in the field of media freedom and pluralism in the European Union. In September this year, we published a proposal for a European media freedom act in which we want to put for the first time in EU law safeguards to protect the editorial independence of the media. Finally, I wish to conclude by referring to our action in relation to strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). Daphne Caruana Galizia had 47 such lawsuits pending against her in Malta and abroad at the moment of her assassination. I understand that some of the proposals tabled by the Maltese Government related specifically to SLAPPs. Replying also to a call from the European Parliament, the Commission took action in this area at EU level by presenting, last spring, an initiative to protect journalists and human rights defenders against SLAPPs. The anti-SLAPP initiative is a combination of legislation by way of a proposal for a directive with non-legislative measures in the form of a recommendation. The recommendation is already applicable. The negotiations on the proposed directive are currently ongoing and the Commission is determined to conclude them as swiftly as possible. Finally, when it comes to check and balances, we recommend that Malta relaunch efforts to establish a national human rights institution. Taking into account the UN Paris principles, it is the Commission's view that every Member State should have such an institution. To conclude, let me say that you can see that the Commission is fully committed to protecting the rule of law everywhere in the European Union, notably as regards media freedom and the protection of journalists. As regards the situation in Malta in particular, we will continue to follow closely the ongoing reforms. This is part of the follow-up to all recommendations made in the rule of law report, as well as in the context of the implementation of the Maltese recovery and resilience plan. We are, of course, open to continuing the dialogue with the Maltese authorities regarding these reforms. We will also continue to insist on the need for the criminal procedure regarding the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia to lead to concrete results. I take note of the fact that the two perpetrators were found guilty on Friday, but that the process is still ongoing as regards the possible mastermind. I thank you for your attention. Of course, I am now looking forward to listening to your remarks and interventions. Manfred Weber,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, the brutal assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta five years ago yesterday took away the life of a brave woman and mother. But at the same time, it was also a massive attack against freedom of media and against democracy in Malta. It shocked Europe and the world to the core. Prime Minister Joseph Muscat promised to leave no stone unturned to get to the truth. But his words were empty, and his government obstructed justice and showed a shameful contempt for Daphne. A public inquiry was only established after Muscat was pushed from the Council of Europe. And the result? They found, and I quote: „The State of Malta should bear responsibility for the assassination by creating a climate of impunity generated from the highest level, which led to the collapse of rule of law.” Quote end. It is totally unacceptable that a government of an EU Member State is partly responsible for the assassination of a journalist. If this is not a serious breach of rule of law, then what is ? The European Commission has to step up its efforts to ensure that the rule of law in Malta is fully restored, and I thank the Commissioner for his statement today. I turn also to our S&D Members in this House. Please stop turning a blind eye to the shameful behaviour of party members in Malta. Last Friday, the court in Malta convicted two men to 40 years' imprisonment for Daphne's murder. But for us, this is only the first step towards justice. We also want justice to be served against the big fish who ordered the killing and not just who for those who carried it out. We want justice served against those involved in the corruption scandals exposed by Daphne, for which she was killed, starting with Muscat and his friends. The European Commission has to be very clear. The Government of Malta has to fully implement the public inquiry recommendations. And finally, we want the Government of Malta to shoulder its responsibility for the assassination and stop impunity once and for all by letting the institutions work freely to deliver justice. We stand to the people of Malta. We stand for rule of law. Thijs Reuten,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, thank you to the Commissioner for all the remarks, which I subscribe to, and for the dignified homage he paid to Daphne Caruana Galizia. The killing of a journalist leaves deep wounds for loved ones left behind first and foremost, but also in society. And when someone keeping those in power accountable is literally under fire, it's not the journalist only that is under threat: ae are all under threat and democracy is in danger. Today, we honour the legacy of Daphne Caruana Galizia. The day a car bomb ended her life left indescribable damage for her family and friends, but it also exposed the problems of Maltese rule of law, as Daphne Caruana Galizia did herself. She paid for this with her life. In order to keep her legacy alive, the wounds to Maltese democracy need to recover. We will not get her back, but bringing all accomplices to her death to justice is the absolute minimum and remains a top priority. A lot has changed in the five years after the tragic and indigestible death of Daphne Caruana Galizia. The current government is constructively working on important reforms, and although we understand that change does not happen overnight, we always aim higher. Therefore, on several reforms, from the judiciary to the citizenship schemes, as mentioned by the Commissioner, we need further progress. In the European Parliament, we are proud to hold the rule of law in high esteem. Journalists are our most important ally in this, everywhere in Europe, and they should never be in danger for fulfilling this crucial role. That's why working on better laws to protect journalists and prevent SLAPPs needs to be a shared priority of this Parliament, the Commission and Member States – all Member States, whether it's Hungary, Greece, Poland or Malta, or any other Member State. Only when we keep our independent media safe, will our democracies be healthy. Sophia in 't Veld,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, colleagues, today we honour Daphne Caruana Galizia. First and foremost, our thoughts are with the family. They have lost a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister. Yesterday, many people in Malta gathered to commemorate Daphne. That is heart-warming because it is a moment for national unity. At such moments, there is no place for partisan divisions, and it is for political leadership to lead by example and to publicly display their unity. That applies to this House as well, because democracy is a common value. Daphne died because she exposed wrongdoing, corruption and crime, and nearly everything she wrote about turned out to be true. Yet hardly any of those cases have been adequately investigated, let alone brought to trial. Justice must be done and the rule of law must prevail. Impunity must end – really and truly. Not just for Daphne, but for all people of Malta and of Europe. In these turbulent and insecure times, Europeans are entitled to stable, reliable, honest government, and journalists are vital for keeping governments honest. They are the oxygen of democracy. Journalists must be able to do their jobs in safety. I salute you, Daphne Caruana Galizia. We will continue to work tirelessly for justice and the rule of law. And oh yeah, a little P.S. message to Mr Joseph Muscat: I believe you need your lawyers for more urgent matters than writing letters to MEPs, telling them what they can and cannot say. Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Daphne Caruana Galizia was murdered five years ago, and yesterday, on the anniversary of her death, everyone seemed to want to honour her life. But are we truly entitled to do so? The truth is, that story is ugly and dirty, and it has left a long-lasting stain on Malta's democracy, Malta's society and that government's legacy. But it is also a very depressing story because it has revealed the real state of democracy and media freedom across the whole of the European Union. Sadly, worse, it is a never-ending story because since Daphne Caruana Galizia's tragic killing, other journalists were murdered in other Member States – and numerous others have received threats. The context is always the same – courageous journalists who are investigating corruption cases linked to high-level individuals in government, construction industry, shipping, energy supply, golden visas – the common thing behind these attacks is always the link between criminal organisations, politicians and bribery. And what good has been done to help journalists? Well, let's see. In Malta, the police inquiry was blocked from advancing and the legislation to protect journalists is still not in place. For the rest of Europe, I have never met journalists who are as afraid as they are in Greece; in France, you can be detained by the police just for covering a demonstration, and in Poland and Hungary, you can be spied on like in the time of the Stasi. Media freedom is not good in the European Union. Alessandro Panza,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi siamo qui per parlare di giustizia, la giustizia che equamente dovrebbe essere riservata agli Stati e pertanto ai cittadini, che hanno bisogno di sentire che le istituzioni europee trattano equamente tutti i casi di violazione. Abbiamo posto sul banco degli imputati la Polonia e l'Ungheria e – Dio non voglia – anche l'Italia, per i loro governi troppo di destra, che mettevano in discussione il cosiddetto Stato di diritto, abbiamo temuto per la democrazia in questi paesi, adottato risoluzioni ed espresso giudizi severi nei confronti di chi ha manifestato una legittima sfiducia nel sistema europeo. Ma niente è stato detto a proposito di Malta. La giornalista Daphne Caruana Galizia ha perso la vita barbaramente per aver denunciato i loschi traffici che vedono Malta crocevia di migranti, droga e petrolio. Il governo Muscat ha permesso che sul suolo europeo facessero ingresso il riciclaggio e la corruzione, tutto questo sotto il silenzio di un'Unione europea di sinistra, troppo impegnata a denigrare i governi di destra. Allora io mi unisco alla voce di Matthew Caruana Galizia e chiedo se la morte della madre sia il prezzo da pagare per la costruzione del gasdotto di Mellitah, già finanziato in parte con i fondi europei e incluso nel quinto elenco dei progetti di interesse comune dell'Unione europea. Siamo di fronte a una grave forma di ingiustizia per cui ci si aspettava un maggiore coinvolgimento, una maggiore attenzione delle alte sfere europee, con l'imposizione magari di adeguate contromisure, e invece niente. Perché questo era ed è tuttora il caso in cui una maggiore attenzione mediatica e istituzionale sarebbe stata opportuna e necessaria. Questo è il caso in cui si verifica una grave violazione dello Stato di diritto, culminato addirittura con un omicidio. Ma come sempre, in questo Parlamento si usano due pesi e due misure, e quando a sbagliare è uno Stato governato dalla sinistra, il perdono viene concesso facilmente e lo sguardo rivolto altrove, anche a costo di sacrificare la giustizia. Presidente. – Vorrei rassicurare l'on. Panza, in questo Parlamento non si utilizzano mai due pesi e due misure. Patryk Jaki,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Otóż w pierwszej kolejności trzeba złożyć hołd zamordowanej dziennikarce Daphne Caruanie Galizii i jej rodzinie. Zginęła ona z powodu tematów, które podejmowała, a wśród nich jest korupcja w socjalistycznym rządzie Josepha Muscata. Należy się jej ogromny szacunek. Podejmowała tematy korupcji, oszustw podatkowych, prania pieniędzy. Co istotne, postępowanie, pomimo upływu lat, nie doprowadziło do skazania żadnych mocodawców, polityków, jak również do prawdziwego rozliczenia afer opisywanych przez Daphne, które były bezpośrednią przyczyną zlecenia jej zabójstwa. Do tego rodzina zamordowanej dalej bywa obiektem jakiejś nagonki, czy to sądowej, czy innej. My w pełni popieramy wolność mediów i stanowczo potępiamy jakiekolwiek bezprawne działania mające na celu wywieranie nacisku na dziennikarzy czy na wolność mediów. Dlatego dalej jesteśmy oburzeni bezkarnością, jaką cieszą się kluczowe osoby w administracji byłego premiera, w tym sam premier, szefowie jego sztabu, ministrowie i inne osoby z administracji. Uważamy, że wszystkie osoby, niezależnie od afiliacji i statusu politycznego, powinny być równe wobec prawa. Wobec tego pytanie jest takie: być może czas rozpocząć, Panie Komisarzu, artykuł 7. wobec Malty? Bo czy w Polsce lub na Węgrzech zginął jakiś dziennikarz, który zajmował się korupcją polityków? Czy zginął w ogóle jakiś dziennikarz? Co to za podwójne standardy? To samo nierozwiązane sprawy zabójstwa Jána Kuciaka i jego narzeczonej Martiny Kušnírovej czy Wiktorii Marinowej, czy greckiego dziennikarza. Gdzie są pociągnięci do odpowiedzialności ich mocodawcy, osoby zamieszane w sprawę? Co to są za podwójne standardy? Jeżeli chcemy naprawdę bronić, chcecie Państwo bronić praworządności, to nie będzie w Unii Europejskiej praworządności, kiedy ochronie nie będą podlegali dziennikarze. Czas na ochronę dziennikarzy. Czas na prawdziwe działanie. Artykuł 7. Panie Komisarzu. Κωνσταντίνος Αρβανίτης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, πέντε χρόνια μετά τη δολοφονία της Daphne, είμαστε πάλι εδώ να συζητάμε για τη Μάλτα, το κράτος δικαίου και την ασφάλεια των δημοσιογράφων. Να ξεκαθαρίσουμε ότι η υπόθεση της Μάλτας πάει πολύ αργά καταρχήν. Υπάρχουν σοβαρά ζητήματα που είδαμε στην επίσκεψή μας στη Μάλτα και, βεβαίως, θέλω να σημειώσω —να προλάβω— ότι δεν μπορεί σήμερα ακόμα να δικάζονται οι συγγενείς της Daphne Galizia με αγωγές. Πρέπει να τελειώσει αυτή η ιστορία. Όμως, άκουσα τον κύριο Weber και ήταν πολύ αυστηρός. Να ξεκαθαρίσουμε εδώ, λοιπόν, αν θα είμαστε πιο επιεικείς όταν η κυβέρνηση είναι δεξιά και κάπως διαφορετικά να το βλέπουμε αν η κυβέρνηση είναι σοσιαλδημοκρατική. Η δολοφονία δημοσιογράφου είναι χτύπημα στη δημοκρατία. Βεβαίως, περιμένουμε να δούμε το ίδιο και για τους δολοφόνους του Καραϊβάζ στην Ελλάδα, της Marinova, του Kuciak, του de Vries στην Ολλανδία. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο —και το λέω ως πρώην δημοσιογράφος— δεν μπορεί να βάζει νερό στο κρασί του σε ζητήματα δημοκρατίας. Αυτό το παιχνίδι των εντυπώσεων πρέπει να σταματήσει. Θα συνεχίσουμε μέχρι να αποδοθεί δικαιοσύνη για όλους τους δημοσιογράφους που έχουν δολοφονηθεί μέχρι τώρα, αλλά και για τους εγκεφάλους, για ένα σύστημα εξουσίας ώστε να μην τολμάει κανείς να μιλάει. ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΔΗΜΟΥΛΗΣ Αντιπρόεδρος David Casa (PPE). – Sur Presiden, infakkar li iva, ilbieraħ Malta fakkret ħames snin mill-assassinju ta' Daphne Caruana Galizia. Daphne Caruana Galizia, waħedha, kienet kapaċi tiżvela korruzzjoni fl-ogħla livelli. Ma beżgħet minn ħadd anke meta l-apparat politiku ta' Kastilja kien mobilizzat biex jirredikolaha u biex jiżolaha. Faċli ninsew li Daphne kienet fuq kollox mara, u kburija li kienet mara Maltija. L-istorja kuraġġuża ta' Daphne tfakkarna fir-riskju li jiffaċċjaw il-ġurnalisti meta l-gvernijiet ikaxkru saqajhom u jinjoraw il-ġurnaliżmu f'wiċċ evidenza ta' korruzzjoni u kriminalità. Dan huwa meta r-riskju għas-sigurtà tal-ġurnalisti huwa l-ogħla. Sinjur President, jumejn ilu, iż-żewġt aħwa li splodew il-bomba ammettew ħtijiethom u se jqattgħu erbgħin sena ħabs u dan huwa pass importanti, imma pass żgħir. Għad jonqos ġustizzja sħiħa għal dik il-kriminalità li nqatlet għaliha Daphne hi u tesponiha. U fuq dan il-punt għadna lura ħafna. L-assassini nqabdu, issa jmiss lill-politiċi u lill-uffiċjali li lagħbu rwol importanti li jinqabdu, kif qal l-MEP Reuten min-naħa tas-Soċjalisti, issa jmiss li niffukaw fuq il-mandanti, fuq min ippjana l-assassinju. Daphne kien ħaqqha aħjar; il-poplu Malti kien ħaqqu aħjar. U issa se nibqgħu nirsistu b'ħilitna kollha biex niżguraw ġustizzja sħiħa, għax iva, Daphne kellha raġun, u iva, Daphne eroj Maltija. Cyrus Engerer (S&D). – Mr President, five years ago, all of us were shocked. On the day of Daphne's assassination, I stated that this was a terror attack on freedom of speech. I joined the vigil in Sliema with my partner and a friend, only to realise that, due to partisan political reasons, we were not welcome there. I did not agree with all that Daphne wrote, but what happened needed to be fought by us all, away from partisan bickering, which is leaving all of us bruised and citizens alienated. We hold strong to our Maltese values – those of democracy, human liberties, justice and the rule of law, the same values of our European Union. In five years, seven journalists have been – unacceptably – killed in our Union and our European response is anti SLAPP legislation. Important, but not enough. Back home, we are undergoing an overhaul of our judicial, institutional, political and media set up. It gives me hope. Reforms are being praised by international institutions, but when all this is done, this too will not be enough. What we need is to heal as a nation from political divisions rooted in the past. Our challenge is to fight hate, classism, the belief that some opinions are superior to others. Justice for Daphne is being done in our courts. But yet, to honour her, we need to open minds, open hearts and fight partisan hate, and we must do that together. Ramona Strugariu (Renew). – Mr President, one can fight with a gun or one can fight with a pen. History proves that most of the times a pen was a lot more powerful than a gun. For soldiers of the truth like Daphne, the fight for a world with less corruption, for the freedom of speech and for the rule of law cost her life. They killed her, with impunity until today, but they could not kill her story. The Daphne Project - Forbidden Stories is still alive today and continues her work. Governments should honour this fight for the truth, not bury it. There must be an end to impunity for those who silence journalists, activists and media workers. This is what we need to do in this House as well: legislate and work with our governments as well so that it stops and journalists are protected. This is what we owe to Daphne and people like her. Otherwise, there will be no truth left to fight for. And please, dear colleagues and Commissioner, consider naming the European anti-SLAPP Directive, the Daphne Law, because she deserves that. Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, Daphne Caruana Galizia was an anti-corruption fighter. She dedicated her work to uncovering corruption, and she was murdered for it by greedy politicians and businessmen that wanted to keep stealing public funds without being exposed. This must never happen again. It's our duty – it's the duty of the European Union – not only to protect journalists, but also to make sure that the rule of law is strong everywhere in our Union. I spoke to Daphne's sons just earlier today. They told me that there still hasn't been a single corruption prosecution in Malta since the murder of their mother. The mastermind behind the assassination is still at large and some of the policies that enabled the corruption in Malta are still there. You can still buy a passport. The cooperation with the European prosecutor is still not ideal. But I want to say one sentence to you, Manfred Weber. You spoke out very strongly for the rule of law in the fight against corruption. We need to do that wherever it happens, not only when it's a government from the S&D or from the liberals. We only win this fight when we stand together as democrats. Assita Kanko (ECR). – Mr President, of course, we are here today for justice for Daphne Caruana Galizia, a journalist who was just doing her work and who was murdered in Malta, with a bomb in a car. She was killed with complicity of the state and of some rich people. Today, only those who executed the orders are in jail. What about those who requested and who called for the murder? Why is her family still a target of SLAPPs? Of course, we are here today for justice for Daphne Caruana Galizia. But we are also here for what she was fighting for: we are here for press freedom, for democratic values, for the right of the people to know what is going on. This is what Daphne Caruana Galizia gave her life for – for the fight for democracy to survive. Democracy and the rule of law cannot survive without a free press. That's why we must protect it. Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Mr President, five years ago, Daphne Caruana Galizia was assassinated. The ultimate punishment for exposing the corruption at the highest level of the Maltese Government: a government that carries responsibility for her murder by creating a favourable climate for anyone who wanted to eliminate her. Whoever planned and carried out the assassination did so in the knowledge they would be protected. And they still feel protected today. Impunity is still the norm in Malta. The government has no real desire to find out who ordered and paid for the assassination. Too afraid of inconvenient truths. Just like nothing is done to address the corruption, fraud and criminality that Daphne exposed in the first place. It's very concerning. Yes, indeed, this is not about party politics, but listening to this debate and looking at the speakers list, I have to wonder. The S&D has five speaking slots in this debate. Four of them are filled by Maltese MEPs. That's the whole Maltese delegation. Is there really nobody else apart from Thijs Reuten, who did so very eloquently, who is concerned about this, who is committed to this? Is there nobody else who wants to join his call for justice for the family of Daphne? The rule of law cannot be a partisan issue. We need to show up together. We need to work together and we need to fight together. Alfred Sant (S&D). – Mr President, the significant commemoration of Daphne Caruana Galizia's horrible murder is not being enhanced by this debate. The resolution before us replicates the attitudes of many other resolutions before it. They echo the messages of right-wing splinter groups which disparaged the Malta Government on all fronts and mindlessly. Before, measures were needed; indeed, they were needed. They are being carried out in a democratic and open process of give and take. It might seem slow. But it is sure and certain and it is giving results. Reforms already effected and in the pipeline actually put Malta ahead of many other European states in the way, for instance, judicial, constitutional and police systems are or will be run. Inexorably, those responsible for Caruana Galizia's murder have been hunted down and brought to justice within timeframes that compete reasonably well with what happens elsewhere in Europe. The process of justice and reform will continue to the end. However, this debate and the resolution attached to it will bring, I'm afraid, no value added to this process, and they do not reflect well on the objectivity and common sense of this House. Maite Pagazaurtundúa (Renew). – Señor presidente, Malta ha descendido 31 puestos en la clasificación mundial de la libertad de prensa desde el asesinato de la periodista Daphne Caruana en el año 2017. Ha llegado al puesto 78 de 180. El asesinato de la periodista más molesta buscaba, en realidad, el miedo y el silencio de muchos. Y, por los datos de la clasificación, sabemos que las cosas no han cambiado en lo sustancial. La justicia lenta es menos justicia y la impunidad relativa no es justicia. El procedimiento judicial ha sido largo y tortuoso, y solo tenemos la punta del iceberg de toda la trama que llevó al asesinato de Daphne Caruana. Los sicarios han confesado, pero todo lo demás queda impune. La existencia de ciudadanos, señorías, es condición indispensable para que nuestras democracias lo sigan siendo. El oficio de periodista no puede ser un oficio de héroes. Cuando fue asesinada, Daphne tenía las cuentas embargadas por las querellas para acallar su boca, para que no se supiera sobre la corrupción. Y este es uno de los desafíos en la Ley Europea de Libertad de los Medios de Comunicación de la Comisión Europea. El Parlamento Europeo no puede permitir al Consejo rebajas o imposturas en este dosier. No, en este dosier. Diana Riba i Giner (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, el viernes pasado, dos días antes de que se cumpliera el quinto aniversario del asesinato de Daphne Caruana Galizia, los hermanos Degiorgio fueron condenados a cuarenta años de prisión cada uno tras confesar la autoría del crimen. Un paso sin duda importante para que se haga justicia, pero sin olvidar que aquellos que ordenaron la autoría del crimen siguen libres. El clima de impunidad y encubrimiento que envuelve todavía este caso evidencia que no se han realizado las reformas suficientes durante estos cinco años para mejorar el Estado de Derecho en Malta. No podemos permitir que en la Unión Europea los periodistas, activistas y opositores políticos sufran el acoso y las amenazas de los poderosos con el objetivo de silenciarlos y evitar que participen en el debate democrático. Daphne fue una luchadora y una heroína. Le debemos una ley anti-SLAPP a nivel europeo que sea lo más ambiciosa posible y que evite que casos como el suyo vuelvan a repetirse. Hagámoslo posible. Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! To dobrze, że Parlament zajął się sprawą maltańskiej dziennikarki. Szkoda, że jest to dopiero druga debata w ciągu pięciu lat na ten temat. Choć przecież chodzi o morderstwo polityczne. I rzeczywiście jest tak, jak mówili moi przedmówcy, że bardzo dużo nie zostało wyjaśnione w tej sprawie. Nie wyjaśniono także tego kontekstu styku polityki ze światem przestępczym. Byłem w specjalnej delegacji do innego kraju Unii Europejskiej, do Słowacji, też akurat rządzonej przez tą samą opcję polityczną. Zajmowaliśmy się tam sprawą zamordowania Jána Kuciaka, jego narzeczonej, też człowieka, który badał interesy władzy i tych, którzy na kontakcie z władzą chcieli zarabiać pieniądze. Pomyślmy teraz, czy rzeczywiście te sprawy doczekały się także z naszej strony właściwego zainteresowania. A czy nasze zainteresowanie Polską, na przykład, było proporcjonalne do tego, co się u nas dzieje? Zastanówmy się. Proszę o refleksję nad tą sprawą. Andrzej Halicki (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, it has been five years since Daphne Caruana Galizia was assassinated. Five long years without justice. Where are those who ordered the murder? Where are those who paid for it? The socialist Government is still refusing transparency. There is pressure on journalists in Malta. There is a lack of full media freedom. As the deputy chairman of the LIBE Committee, responsible for monitoring of rule of law, I have to say very clearly and loudly, there is no rule of law without media freedom. There is no democracy without media freedom because there is no free and fair elections. We have to restore the rule of law in Malta. Daphne Galizia is waiting for justice but is also still waiting for democracy there. Alex Agius Saliba (S&D). –Sur President, ftit tax-xhur ilu l-President tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea stqarret illi l-isforzi ta' Malta sabiex jissaħħu l-istituzzjonijiet, is-saltna tad-dritt u l-governanza huwa ta' min wieħed ifaħħarhom. Fl-istess ħin illum qegħdin hawnhekk nassistu għad-disa' riżoluzzjoni u dibattitu ta' fatti rreċiklati dwar is-saltna tad-dritt f'Malta. Bir-rispett kollu lejn il-memorja ta' Daphne Caruana Galizia, għadni qed nistenna dibatti u riżoluzzjonijiet f'dan il-parlament dwar l-erba' delitti ta' ġurnalisti oħra li seħħew fl-Unjoni Ewropea wara dak ta' Daphne Caruana Galizia. Delitti li l-proċedura legali tagħhom għadhom lanqas biss bdew jew inkella ma ġewx konklużi. Riformi għad fadlilna bħala pajjiż xi nwettqu, pero' nistaqsi, liema huwa dak l-Istat Membru li għandu sistema perfetta fejn jidħlu l-istituzzjonijiet tiegħu. Id-differenza hija dik illi l-gvern Malti qatt ma kien supperv, sema', iddjaloga u wettaq ir-riformi li ġew proposti. Saħħaħna t-trasparenza fil-ħatra tal-ġudikanti, saħħaħna l-Uffiċċju tal-Avukat Ġenerali, saħħaħna r-riżorsi tal-pulizija u l-FIAU u sa issa diġà għandna tliet persuni ssentenzjati u tlieta oħra, fosthom l-allegat mandant, li qed jistennew il-bidu ta' ġuri sabiex issir ġustizzja sħiħa mal-ġurnalista. Dawn huma l-fatti li minħabba interess politiku partiġjan anka f'din il-Kamra, illum qed jippruvaw jiġu mistura. Moritz Körner (Renew). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir gedenken heute dem Mord an Daphne. Dieser schreckliche Mord war ein Angriff auf Daphne, aber vor allem ein Angriff auf die Pressefreiheit in Europa. Mit einem Angriff auf die Pressefreiheit war es auch ein Angriff auf die Demokratie, weil die Pressefreiheit die Luft ist, die die Demokratie zum Atmen braucht. Aber ich muss ganz ehrlich sagen am Ende dieser Debatte: Ich bin schockiert. Schockiert zum einen von denjenigen, die die Hintermänner immer noch verteidigen und hier aus politischen Gründen eine Debatte ablehnen, und schockiert zum anderen von denjenigen, die die intellektuelle Dreistigkeit besitzen, in dieser Debatte von doppelten Standards zu reden, davon, dass ja über die Probleme in Malta mit der Rechtsstaatlichkeit nicht gesprochen würde und nur immer über Polen und Ungarn. Diese Dreistigkeit, in einer Debatte, in der genau diese Themen angesprochen werden, darüber zu reden, dass wir das nicht tun, die ist schon schockierend. Dieses Parlament – und auch wenn Ihnen das nicht gefällt – wird immer hinschauen, wenn es darum geht, dass der Rechtsstaat verteidigt werden muss, wenn die Demokratie angegriffen wird, und wir werden auch hinschauen, wenn die Pressefreiheit eingeschränkt wird und Journalisten Angst haben müssen. Das ist unsere Aufgabe in diesem Parlament. Fulvio Martusciello (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la storia di Daphne Caruana Galizia è la storia di Ján Kuciak: giornalisti uccisi durante le loro indagini sotto i governi socialisti. E allora io voglio cogliere l'occasione per ricordare in quest'Aula le dichiarazioni che i governi socialisti hanno fatto per cercare verità e giustizia, per chiedere verità e giustizia. Ricordiamo le loro dichiarazioni. Quello che avete sentito è il rumore del silenzio. E il silenzio in questi casi uccide due volte. Josianne Cutajar (S&D). – Sur President, ħafna mill-konklużjonijiet tal-inkjesta pubblika fil-każ tal-qtil ta' Daphne Caruana Galizia saru jew qegħdin fil-proċess li jsiru. Il-livell ta' indipendenza ġudizzjarja perċepita f'Malta għadu għoli. Il-Gvern Malti rreaġixxa billi implimenta numru ta' riformi biex ikunu indirizzati nuqqasijiet fis-sistema demokratika u s-saltna tad-dritt. Dal-kliem mhux qed tgħidu Josianne Cutajar, Maltija kburija, membru ta' partit Laburista fil-gvern. Dal-kliem qalitu Von Der Leyen lill-Prim Ministru Robert Abela; il-Kummissjoni Ewropea fl-aħħar rapport dwar is-saltna tad-dritt. Dad-diskors intqal mill-Kunsill tal-Ewropa. Għadhom kemm instabu u ġew ikkundannati aktar persuni ħatja għal dal-qtil li ħalla tebgħa fuq pajjiżna. U għandna Gvern li qed ikompli jbiddel, li jemmen li dak li kiseb s'issa għadu mhux il-wasla. Il-progress li qed isir f'pajjiżi jirrikonoxxih min għandu ottika imparzjali u oġġettiva. M'għandux ikun dal-parlament li għal darb'oħra jipprova jpinġi stampa mod ieħor. Nagħlaq billi nfakkar li l-protezzjoni tal-ġurnalisti u s-saltna tad-dritt għandhom ikunu protetti u msaħħa kullimkien u f'kull Stat Membru. Διαδικασία „catch the eye” Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, au trecut cinci ani de la acest asasinat care ne-a uimit pe toți, însă în acești cinci ani au mai plecat dintre noi și alți șapte jurnaliști care s-au sacrificat, punându-se în slujba adevărului și încercând să prezinte opiniei publice ceea ce se întâmplă în jurul lor. Astăzi, din păcate, sunt și alți jurnaliști aflați în situația de a fi amenințați. Inclusiv în țara mea, în România, există jurnaliști care sunt persecutați, sunt șantajați, sunt amenințați și cred că avem nevoie de o legislație care să-i protejeze mult mai bine pe cei care luptă împotriva celor care cred că sunt deasupra legii, cred că, prin resursele pe care le au, pot influența viața și destinul oamenilor onești din Europa. Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, la sala de prensa de la sede del Pleno del Parlamento Europeo en Estrasburgo lleva el nombre de Daphne Caruana Galizia, una heroica periodista de investigación vilmente asesinada por llevar a cabo indagaciones con respecto a un grave asunto de corrupción. Ha habido una investigación judicial, ha habido condenas en el Estado miembro de la Unión Europea, nada menos, en el que este crimen fue perpetrado. Pero no podemos ignorar que, como se ha recordado, otros seis periodistas de investigación —hombres y mujeres— han sido canallamente asesinados en Estados miembros de la Unión Europea, entre ellos, Grecia o los Países Bajos. Todos ellos merecen la misma preocupación y todos ellos nos recuerdan el deber que tenemos de poner en marcha esta estrategia de protección de la libertad de expresión contra toda forma de intimidación o de silencio impuesta a través de la amenaza, sea directamente criminal o sea a través de presiones políticas, que intenta acallar las investigaciones que alimentan la libre formación de la opinión pública en una sociedad libremente constituida. Γεώργιος Κύρτσος (Renew). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, να συγχαρώ καταρχάς τον Επίτροπο για την προσπάθεια που κάνει. Έχει φέρει, μαζί με την πίεση που ασκούμε και εμείς, κάποια αποτελέσματα —όχι βέβαια αυτά που επιθυμούμε. Να σας πω, όμως, ότι τα προβλήματα δεν είναι μόνο στη Μάλτα —γιατί μίλησε ο Επίτροπος για χρυσά διαβατήρια, „golden visa”. Αυτή τη στιγμή στην Ελλάδα υπάρχει βιομηχανία χρυσών διαβατηρίων και κάθε φορά που διαμαρτύρεται κάποιος, όπως εγώ, οι υπουργοί μάς λένε —αφού έχουν νομιμοποιήσει διάφορους υπόπτους για διαχείριση μαύρου χρήματος— ότι φέρνουν επενδύσεις. Μίλησε ο Επίτροπος για SLAPP· μα, τον πρωταθλητή στα SLAPP τον έχουμε στην Ελλάδα και είναι ο πρώην διευθυντής του γραφείου του Μητσοτάκη —και ανιψιός του φυσικά— ο οποίος οργάνωσε και την παρακολούθηση, τις τηλεφωνικές υποκλοπές δηλαδή, σε βάρος του συναδέλφου μας, του σοσιαλιστή Νίκου Ανδρουλάκη. Επομένως, όλα αυτά τα βλέπουμε. Δολοφονία, βέβαια, δημοσιογράφου είχαμε και στην Ελλάδα: του Καραϊβάζ πριν από 18 μήνες. Δεν υπήρξε καμία πρόοδος στις έρευνες, δεν υπήρξε καμία ενημέρωση από την κυβέρνηση του κυρίου Μητσοτάκη και δεν υπήρξε κανένα ενδιαφέρον. Και όταν τα έθεσα αυτά στον κύριο Μητσοτάκη, μαζί με άλλα, βρέθηκα εκτός Νέας Δημοκρατίας και απ' ό,τι θυμάμαι ο κύριος Weber υποστήριξε τον κύριο Μητσοτάκη και όχι εμένα. Επομένως, για να τιμήσουμε τη μνήμη της δολοφονηθείσας, νομίζω ότι πρέπει να ανεβάσουμε όλοι το ευρωπαϊκό μας επίπεδο. Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia was a tragic loss for European journalism. She was a genuinely fearless investigative reporter who worked throughout her career to bring important truths to light, and God knows there are very few who do that kind of work in the European media. Fearless reporting is a rarity. What dominates the European media instead is client journalism, and it fills the pages of our newspaper. It gets all the air time in broadcast news. Client journalism trades its freedom for access and profit. So when we talk about threats to media freedom, what we're talking about are the threats to this handful of journalists who actually do journalism, who uncover uncomfortable truths and hold them up to the light. The murder of Ms Caruana Galizia was one such threat. The continued incarceration of Julian Assange is another. Every day he remains in prison, the noose draws tighter around the neck of any journalist who might threaten Western power. So, for anyone who says they care about media freedom, one of the important ways of honouring her legacy on this important anniversary is to demand his release. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, at a time when real journalists are as scarce as hen's teeth, it's only right that we are remembering Daphne Caruana Galizia. She had the courage to speak the truth. I heard an earlier speaker say that there is no rule of law or democracy without media freedom. But what I'd like to know is, how do you tie that in with the treatment of Julian Assange? He's in prison in London. He's been in incarceration for over 10 years now, between the Ecuadorian embassy and prison, for speaking the truth. He told the truth about US-NATO war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I don't hear many people in here call for his release. I want to know why. Why don't ye call for the release of Julian Assange if you care about media freedom? Because as long as he's not free, ye have no credibility talking about media freedom. (Λήξη της διαδικασίας „catch the eye”) Didier Reynders,
membre de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je voudrais d'abord vous remercier à nouveau pour ce débat. Nous le devions à Daphne Caruana Galizia. Je me réjouis tout d'abord que nous puissions continuer notre dialogue sur la situation de l'état de droit dans les différents États membres. Et comme vous le savez, je me tiens à la disposition de votre Parlement, que ce soit en plénière, en commission ou dans un autre format, pour examiner cette situation dans les 27 États membres. S'agissant plus particulièrement de la situation à Malte, je voudrais réitérer que nous apprécions la volonté des autorités maltaises d'avoir un dialogue avec la Commission sur les réformes à mener. Je souhaite toutefois insister sur l'importance de mener à bien toutes les réformes nécessaires en matière d'indépendance et d'efficacité de la justice, de lutte contre la corruption et de liberté des médias, et de les mettre en œuvre concrètement. Je tiens à rappeler l'engagement de la Commission pour la protection des journalistes ainsi que pour la liberté et le pluralisme des médias. Nous avons proposé de nombreuses mesures à cet égard ces deux dernières années et nous allons continuer à soutenir les travaux du Parlement et du Conseil afin que ces initiatives soient adoptées le plus rapidement possible. Vous avez notamment, à plusieurs reprises, évoqué la situation des procédures-bâillons, les SLAPP. Il faut avancer dans le cadre, notamment législatif, de la proposition de directive en la matière, à côté – je l'ai rappelé tout à l'heure – de la recommandation qui est déjà en vigueur. Mais nous devons aussi assurer la mise en œuvre de toutes ces réformes pour honorer la mémoire de Daphne Caruana Galizia. Et je tiens à répéter qu'il est fondamental, cinq ans après les faits, que l'enquête pénale en cours soit menée à bien, complètement, et notamment que les commanditaires de cet assassinat soient tenus pour responsables devant la justice. Rendre justice est indispensable pour Daphne Caruana Galizia, pour sa famille, pour la société maltaise et pour la défense des valeurs ancrées au cœur de l'Union européenne. Je sais que c'est aussi le combat du Parlement européen. Nous aurons l'occasion de revenir à nouveau à la fois sur l'évolution des réformes et sur l'aboutissement des procédures judiciaires. Πρόεδρος. – Έχω λάβει, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 132 παράγραφος 2 του Κανονισμού, δύο προτάσεις ψηφίσματος. Η συζήτηση έληξε. Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί την Πέμπτη. Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 171) Λουκάς Φουρλάς (PPE),
γραπτώς. – Πέντε χρόνια μετά τη δολοφονία της ερευνήτριας και δημοσιογράφου, Daphne Caruana Galizia, και ακόμα περιμένουμε απαντήσεις από τη δικαιοσύνη. Μόνον ένας από τους δολοφόνους έχει μέχρι στιγμής καταδικαστεί για τη δολοφονία της. Η διαφθορά πρέπει να παταχθεί και οι ένοχοι, όσο ψηλά κι αν βρίσκονται, θα πρέπει να παραιτηθούν άμεσα και να πληρώσουν. Στεκόμαστε δίπλα σε όσους αγωνίζονται κατά της διαφθοράς και για να λάμψει η αλήθεια. László Trócsányi (NI),
írásban. – Megdöbbenéssel állunk az előtt, hogy Máltán a hatóságok Daphne Caruana Galizia oknyomozó újságíró meggyilkolása kapcsán késve és nem kellő hatékonysággal folytatták le a nyomozást. Egy újságíró meggyilkolása nem csak embertelen gyilkosság, hanem a sajtószabadság, és maga a jogállamiság elleni legdurvább merénylet. Kulcsfontosságú, hogy a hatóságok mindenkor kellő eréllyel lépjenek fel az ilyen jellegű bűncselekmény elkövetőivel szemben, és biztosítsák a szabadságjogok maradéktalan érvényesülését. Nem véltelen, hogy Máltán a demokratikus érzelmű emberek fel vannak háborodva a baloldali erők halogató magatartása miatt! Furcsának tartjuk, és kettős mércének tekintjük, hogy amikor egy országban baloldali kormány van hatalmon, az Európai Parlament a jogállamiság védelme érdekében csak vonakodva, a jobboldali politikai pártok nyomására hajlandó megszólalni. Ezzel szemben az Európai Parlament baloldali erői teljes támadásba lendülnek, amikor egy országban jobboldali kormány van hatalmon. Ilyenkor vélt és nem megalapozott vádakkal illetnek egyes tagállamokat, mint ahogy ez hosszú évek óta történik Lengyelország és Magyarország esetében is. A hitelesség komoly érték. Amikor azonban egy szervezet kettős mércét kezd alkalmazni, akkor a hitelesség is eltűnik. 13.   De verantwoordelijkheid van Frontex voor schendingen van de grondrechten aan de buitengrenzen van de EU in het licht van het verslag van OLAF (debat) Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η συζήτηση επί της δήλωσης της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την ευθύνη του FRONTEX για παραβιάσεις των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων στα εξωτερικά σύνορα της ΕΕ μέσα από το πρίσμα της έκθεσης της OLAF (2022/2895(RSP)). Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Frontex fulfils a critically important task. Its mission is to help Member States protect the common European external borders, and to uphold fundamental rights in doing so. In particular, in the current difficult situation, with a high number of irregular migrants coming through the Western Balkan routes, we see how essential Frontex is, or when we read a report that on14 October, Hellenic police and Frontex rescued 92 naked migrants in the area of Evros. Right now, Frontex is undertaking briefings with the people concerned to establish the facts. This shows once more how important it is for Frontex to be present at our external borders. To achieve its objective, Frontex must be a robust and well-functioning agency, with the right governance and control systems in place, and it must have the right processes and staff at its disposal to uphold fundamental rights. My services have consistently worked together with the agency on this objective. This work started in the summer of 2020, when the first media reports on possible pushbacks in the Mediterranean appeared. The Commission has been instrumental in pushing forward the work of the Fundamental Rights Working Group of the Frontex management board. This work resulted in recommendations to the management board and Frontex in February 2021, which were endorsed by the management board in March 2021. Since then, the Commission representatives on the management board have worked closely with the board in order to implement the board's conclusions, as well as the recommendations of the European Parliament's Frontex Scrutiny Working Group. This has led to fundamental reforms in the agency structure and internal processes. The OLAF report in February this year confirmed many findings of the board's working group. However, in addition, it identified personal misbehaviour and mismanagement of three members of the management staff of the agency, including its then executive director. This report was addressed to the management board of Frontex, as the appointing authority of the staff members in question, in line with the rules on OLAF investigations. My services cooperated closely with the board from the transmission of the report to the management board in February until the conclusion of the follow-up in June this year. As a result, the executive director of the agency resigned at the end of April from his function, as you know. Also, the second person concerned left agency in the meantime. The third person, who had fully cooperated with OLAF's investigation, was assigned to a different function in the agency at his own request. I am aware that reading the report will have shocked many of you, just as it shocked me. But I am convinced that the management board of Frontex has assumed its responsibility fully and in a very efficient way. This has allowed the agency to continue to operate smoothly while working hard on remedying the remaining shortcomings identified by its control bodies, the board and the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group. Right now, we are in the process of recruiting the new executive director for Frontex, and I hope that this this new executive director will be appointed before the end of this year. Jeroen Lenaers,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, the timing of this debate was a bit spontaneous – I will try to make it work. But first of all, thanks a lot to OLAF for the very thorough work they have done in preparing this report. I think it goes without saying that the behaviour of the three persons concerned, as it is described in the OLAF report, is very concerning, and that they have seriously hurt the image of the agency. We need Frontex as an agency beyond any doubt because of its crucial role in the management of our external borders. I also believe that this report and the resignation of the Executive Director is in a way a very good moment for a fresh start, because the report also shows that the agency is full of brave men and women with integrity that dare to speak out with OLAF and help OLAF reach its conclusions. We need to build on all those men and women that are currently still active at Frontex. We had a very interesting meeting with the authors of the report in the joint CONT and LIBE meeting. They indicated that they did not investigate any allegations of pushbacks or fundamental rights violation and that it goes without saying any such allegations need to be investigated wherever and whenever they appear, but they were not part of the scope of this investigation. One of the other things that I read in the report, if you read between the lines, is that Frontex really also needs guidance from the European Commission about the difficult legal framework in which maritime surveillance takes place, about the difficult position that Frontex is in, about their role in working with, but also for, Member States. We need the new Executive Director to really make a change. We need more guidance from the Commission and we need to work with the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group in this House to help that. One last thing that I want to say as well – and this is to echo what the Commissioner said – we need to address the despicable behaviour of the Turkish authorities with the strongest and most convinced way, because the recent scandals again show in what kind of geopolitical circumstances the Greek authorities, but also Frontex, need to operate and it is hardly achievable. Birgit Sippel,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Seit Jahren steht Frontex in der Kritik. Missmanagement, mangelnde Transparenz, unterschlagene Kenntnis von Menschenrechtsverletzungen an den Außengrenzen, womöglich sogar Beteiligung an Pushbacks. Leggeri war stolz auf sein neues Equipment. Doch das gesetzlich vorgeschriebene Personal wurde nicht rekrutiert. Wozu auch? War er doch offenbar der Ansicht, Grenzmanagement sei gar nicht möglich unter Einhaltung von Grundrechten. Die Liste der Verfehlungen ist lang, und die Verfehlungen sind zum Teil wohl dokumentiert, nicht erst seit dem OLAF-Bericht. Dennoch wurden diese Verfehlungen wieder und wieder abgestritten, wurde Unwissen geheuchelt oder gar dreist gelogen. Das alles legt der OLAF-Bericht schonungslos offen und bestätigt ganz nebenbei, dass Frontex von Pushbacks wusste, an diesen beteiligt war, die Aufzeichnung solcher Handlungen bewusst und gezielt verhindert hat. Geschützt wurde der ehemalige Exekutivdirektor Leggeri dabei von Mitgliedstaaten im Verwaltungsrat, konservativen Teilen der Kommission, aber auch Mitgliedern hier im Haus. Doch sein Rücktritt jetzt ist kein Freifahrtschein. Denn spätestens mit den Erkenntnissen des OLAF-Berichtes ist klar: Ein neuer Direktor oder neue Vertreter im Verwaltungsrat reichen nicht aus. Es braucht neue Strukturen, Vertrauen muss komplett neu aufgebaut werden. Es braucht auch einen neuen Umgang mit Transparenz. Exemplarisch dafür steht, dass der Bericht des OLAF hier im Hause nur eingeschränkt zugänglich gemacht und auch jetzt nicht von offizieller Stelle veröffentlicht wurde, sondern durch ein Nachrichtenmagazin. Das schiere Ausmaß der Probleme muss klar anerkannt werden, und neue Strukturen müssen geschaffen werden. Das ist gerade deshalb notwendig, weil Frontex eine so wichtige Agentur ist. Doch die Veränderungen sind noch nicht klar erkennbar. Es wird Zeit! Jan-Christoph Oetjen,
im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! In der Tat, Frontex hat eine wichtige Aufgabe. Die europäischen Grenzen zu schützen ist eine wichtige Aufgabe. Als europäische Behörde muss Frontex natürlich Grundrechte schützen. Und die Frage, die wir uns, glaube ich, stellen müssen, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, ist: Warum kann so etwas denn eigentlich passieren? Manchmal habe ich den Eindruck – wenn die Innenminister der Europäischen Union darüber sprechen, dass Frontex ein robustes Mandat hat –, dass sich manch einer bestätigt fühlt in der Art und Weise, wie bei Frontex gehandelt wird. Es ist jetzt durch diesen OLAF-Bericht herausgekommen, dass es persönliches Fehlverhalten von drei Personen gegeben hat. Okay, der OLAF-Bericht über Frontex ist in der Tat schockierend, und Frontex muss sich jetzt neu aufstellen. Aber ich bezweifle, dass es eine Art Einzelfall einzelner Personen ist, sondern es ist ein System, das wir umstellen müssen, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren. Ich glaube, dass ein neuer Exekutivdirektor dafür sorgen muss, dass Frontex auf neue Füße gestellt wird, damit diese wichtige Aufgabe des Grenzschutzes in der Tat gut erledigt werden darf unter Einhaltung von Menschenrechten, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, mit transparenten Regeln, und damit sich Frontex als Unterstützung für die Mitgliedstaaten versteht, aber – das sage ich ganz deutlich – auch als Organismus, der die Mitgliedstaaten kontrolliert bei ihrer Aufgabe, die Grenzen zu schützen. Denn Grenzschutz, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, ist nicht unvereinbar mit dem Einhalten von Grundrechten, sondern es gehört zwingend zusammen. Erik Marquardt,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Sie haben ja gesagt: Sie waren schockiert, als Sie den OLAF-Bericht gelesen haben, und das habe ich in letzter Zeit öfter gehört. Man ist schockiert, wenn man diesen Bericht liest. Ehrlicherweise wundert mich das ein bisschen. Also, da stehen keine neuen Sachen drin – da stehen Sachen drin, die wir hier seit Jahren diskutieren. Sachen, von denen behauptet wird, sie seien manchmal Fake News, manchmal türkische Propaganda, manchmal irgendwelche politischen Dinge, die sich andere ausdenken. Also ich glaube: Von diesem OLAF-Bericht schockiert zu sein, muss uns eigentlich dazu bringen, dass wir schockiert von uns selbst sind. Wir wissen das – seit Jahren. Wir wussten das und wir wussten auch, dass wir eigentlich jetzt uns gemeinsam hinsetzen können und Frontex neu aufstellen. Aber wir haben es nicht gemacht. Im Gegenteil: Mir wurden gestern schon wieder Dokumente von Frontex zugespielt, wo klar ist: Frontex weiß auch von weiteren Menschenrechtsverletzungen. Es passiert einfach nichts, es passiert nichts, und ich finde es wirklich entwürdigend – auch für dieses Haus –, dass wir an den Außengrenzen nicht nur Menschen, schreiende Frauen und Kinder und Männer auf seeuntüchtigen Booten zurücklassen, sondern wir lassen da den Rechtsstaat zurück, wir lassen da zurück, wofür eigentlich Europa stehen sollte, unsere gesamten Werte und das, was wir aus der Geschichte gelernt haben. Und ich finde es eigentlich wichtig, dass wir uns vielleicht einfach stärker zusammenreißen, dann nicht erzählen, wir hätten eine Flüchtlingskrise an den Außengrenzen, denn wir haben eigentlich seit Jahren eine wirklich substanzielle Krise des Rechtsstaats. Eine substanzielle Krise des Rechtsstaats, die ich in der Rede jetzt nicht weiter ausführen kann. Aber ich hoffe, dass wir in den nächsten Wochen das lösen oder zumindest irgendwie einen Schritt in die richtige Richtung einschlagen. Silvia Sardone,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa è l'ennesima discussione in cui l'Unione europea si concentra nell'accusare chi osa contrastare l'immigrazione clandestina. Invece di rendervi conto che c'è un enorme problema, continuate a criminalizzare chi si oppone ai flussi di irregolari. Lo avete fatto per anni contro il ministro Salvini, colpevole di aver difeso i confini dell'Italia e di aver fatto crollare gli sbarchi di chi non aveva alcun diritto di stare in Europa: ha stroncato il business dell'accoglienza e per quello è finito imputato in due processi assurdi. Ma queste anime belle che si indignano sono le stesse che in Francia con Macron respingono gli immigrati al confine con l'Italia e in Spagna con i socialisti, usando anche l'esercito, attaccano i migranti che tentano di entrare nel loro territorio a Ceuta e Melilla. Insomma, siete accoglienti con i confini degli altri. Voi auspicate un „liberi tutti” dalla Turchia e dal Nord Africa, portando i paesi del Mediterraneo e, in particolare, l'Italia a essere ancora di più il campo profughi d'Europa. Voi chiedete addirittura che non sia fatta alcuna distinzione tra profughi e clandestini, però, incredibilmente, nulla fate per promuovere le rotazioni dei porti e i ricollocamenti degli immigrati. Insomma, nessuna solidarietà. La vostra è una doppia morale inaccettabile, ed è anche uno dei motivi per cui dalla Svezia all'Italia si affermano alle elezioni coalizioni di centro-destra. I cittadini sono stanchi del vostro falso buonismo e della vostra incapacità di affrontare in modo serio e pragmatico il problema dell'immigrazione. Cornelia Ernst,
im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Herr Präsident! NGOs, Anwälte, Betroffene von Pushbacks haben lange Monate gewartet, endlich diesen Bericht auf den Tisch zu bekommen. Er ist ein Beweisstück dafür, dass Frontex Mitwisser systematischer Menschenrechtsverletzungen an den Außengrenzen ist, Komplize bei der Vertuschung illegaler Pushbacks, deren Folge nicht selten der Tod von Asylsuchenden ist. Dafür wurde sogar die Luftüberwachung ausgesetzt. Wie tief die moralische Verrottung war, beweisen die Kommunikationskanäle des früheren Frontex-Chefs Leggeri und seines Teams, der Anweisungen gab, wegzusehen, um nicht Zeuge von Pushbacks zu werden. Sogar dem eigenen Frontex-Grundrechtsbeauftragten wurden bewusst Informationen vorenthalten und wir, das Parlament, wurden ständig und andauernd belogen und zum Narren gehalten. Es geht nicht um die Verfehlungen Einzelner, es geht darum, dass diese Agentur Gott gespielt hat, um sich über jedes Recht hinwegzusetzen. Dieses System Frontex muss beendet werden! Keinen einzigen Cent Steuergelder darf es für eine Agentur geben, der das Leben von Asylsuchenden nicht mal einen Pfifferling wert ist. Wir brauchen eine Agentur des Respekts vor dem Recht und eine Agentur, die tatsächlich Menschenrechte achtet. Denn Grenzschutz ohne Menschenrechte ist Despotie. Lena Düpont (PPE). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, what happened since the FSWG had concluded the report on the allegations? The agency had taken various actions to improve, to get better, to live up to the revised mandate and the task. Three new DEDs had taken up their responsibility, a new FRO has taken up his duty. accompanied by now 46 fundamental rights monitors, more than first foreseen. The fundamental rights strategies implemented, the FRO is an integral part of the agency's work, the steer mechanism is revised. The cooperation with the consultative forum had been reinstated with the quality it has had before the former ED. Does the OLAF report put things mentioned above in question? No, because mismanagement and misbehaviour can be assigned to three persons, and they had to face the consequences. Can the agency, the Management Board, the European Parliament and the Commission step up the efforts ? Yes they can, because times have not gotten easier. The geopolitical situation has tightened and Frontex, even while under serious constraints, had fully delivered what we had expected of them, support the Member States facing Russia or Belorussia, supporting Ukraine refugees and providing shelter and care. So, colleagues, whether we like it or not, supporting the agency and strengthening it is paramount in these turbulent times. The agency has done its homework. Let's do ours and support them. Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisaria Johansson, corruptio optimi pessima: este adagio latino nos dice que la corrupción de los mejores es la peor de todas, del mismo modo que la desviación de poder de quienes tienen encomendada la tarea de velar por el cumplimiento del Derecho es un daño al conjunto del sistema del que forman parte. Es el caso de Frontex, lamentablemente. No nos sorprende, porque hemos estado encima durante un buen número de años en la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior. Usted lo sabe muy bien. Frontex es, en estos momentos, la agencia gigante de la constelación de la Unión Europea. Cuenta con 750, casi 800, millones de euros en su presupuesto y con un despliegue que aspira a 10 000 agentes uniformados y armados al servicio, precisamente, del cumplimiento del Derecho europeo, que incluye vinculantemente la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Por eso, además de las desviaciones de poder, que atienden a acosos laborales o abusos de poder en el interior de la Agencia, a la Comisión LIBE del Parlamento Europeo le preocupan especialmente aquellas actuaciones en las cuales ha habido violaciones de derechos fundamentales, devoluciones en caliente y cooperación con operaciones ilegales en frontera y con devoluciones ilegales en frontera, como han sido reportadas, lamentablemente, una y otra vez. Por eso, hay que extraer las lecciones y, por supuesto, suscribimos la necesidad de que el Consejo de Administración y el director informen al Foro Consultivo y al responsable de derechos fundamentales de la Agencia para velar por que los derechos fundamentales sean parte esencial de la dieta y del orden del día del trabajo cotidiano de la Agencia y de todos sus agentes. Pero, además de eso, tenemos en estos momentos nada menos que una perspectiva de renovación de la dirección de la Agencia porque —digámoslo claro— la presión política de este Parlamento Europeo —y usted lo sabe bien, comisaria— ha sido determinante en la dimisión de su anterior director. Por tanto, el mensaje es claro. La próxima dirección tiene que estar fundamentalmente comprometida con los derechos fundamentales. Tiene que tener experiencia política de relación interinstitucional y de rendición de cuentas transparente ante el Parlamento Europeo. Pero, sobre todo, tiene que tener un compromiso beligerante, contrastado en su hoja de servicios, con el respeto de los derechos fundamentales, que son vinculantes desde que entró en vigor el Tratado de Lisboa con la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Tineke Strik (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, today we can finally speak freely about the way Frontex was covering up pushbacks. Despite all attempts to keep it secret, reported violations were disregarded, fundamental rights watchdogs were side-lined, the Parliament lied to. The report not only reveals the misbehaviour of a manager, but also the complete failure of the governance of Frontex. Why did the Member States and Commission allow this misconduct to go on for years? Why didn't they prevent this deeply rotten culture? This report is not about an incident or a few people, but about the structural human rights crisis at our borders and within Frontex, an agency that must guarantee our values and rights. Lives, protection, human dignity are at stake, we must see that the lessons learned at all levels. It would be a big mistake to pretend that almost all problems are already solved. No, we must work hard on the structure and culture of the agency on transparency and accountability, and to stop any acceptance of pushbacks. Patricia Chagnon (ID). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, ce soir, votre attitude vis-à-vis de Frontex a le mérite de la clarté. Le changement brutal de direction et la campagne de diffamation dont l'agence a fait l'objet sont éloquents. Longtemps, on nous a dit que Frontex était une agence de gardes-frontières de l'Europe. Nous avons toujours émis nos réserves et votre attitude aujourd'hui lève tout doute. Schengen, qui devrait être un espace de libre circulation protégé, est en réalité un espace de libre circulation ouvert à tous vents. Pour vous, l'immigration n'est pas un problème, c'est votre projet. Nous saurons en informer les peuples d'Europe, qui n'en peuvent plus de l'immigration que vous leur faites subir. Κωνσταντίνος Αρβανίτης (The Left). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, να ευχαριστήσουμε καταρχάς την OLAF που μας επιβεβαίωσε αυτό που γνωρίζαμε. Αλλά γιατί να μην το μάθει και ο κόσμος; Γιατί είναι κρυφή αυτή η έκθεση και γιατί θα πρέπει να μαθαίνουν οι πολίτες γι' αυτήν μέσω του Τύπου; Ο κύριος Leggeri παραιτήθηκε, ή τον „παραιτήσαμε”. Στην Ελλάδα ο κύριος Leggeri βραβεύτηκε για ακριβώς τους ίδιους λόγους. Εδώ, λοιπόν, υπάρχει μια αντίφαση και θέλω να σημειώσω κάποια πράγματα: 92 άνθρωποι γυμνοί στην Τουρκία, 120 άνθρωποι παρουσία του Frontex στην Ιταλία, 75 Αφγανοί πρόσφυγες επαναπροωθούμενοι από τη Βουλγαρία στην Ελλάδα, στα Κύθηρα 10 νεκροί και 15 τουλάχιστον αγνοούμενοι. Έρχονται τα καράβια, κυρία Επίτροπε, από τη Σμύρνη μέχρι όπου φτάσουν, για να σκάσουν στην καλύτερη περίπτωση στα βράχια και να πνιγούν οι άνθρωποι ή κάποιοι να σωθούν και κάποιοι να χαθούν στα διεθνή ύδατα. Αυτό που γίνεται σήμερα είναι γενοκτονία. Πνίγονται άνθρωποι στο Αιγαίο, πνίγονται άνθρωποι στην ευρωπαϊκή θάλασσα. Και εδώ υπάρχει το θέμα για τον Frontex. Έρευνα και διάσωση υπάρχει σε αυτόν τον Οργανισμό; Τι ακριβώς κάνει όταν βλέπει ένα σκάφος να έρχεται από την Τουρκία προς την Ευρώπη; Τους αφήνουμε στα διεθνή ύδατα και μετά τι; Αυτό είναι, λοιπόν, για εμένα το μεγάλο ζήτημα. Και βεβαίως δεν πρέπει να σταματήσει εδώ αυτή η ιστορία αλλά να προχωρήσει. Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, já možná tuto debatu příliš nechápu. V době, kdy nasazují důstojníci Frontexu svoje životy na hranicích Evropské unie, kdy opravdu řada z nich má neskutečně mnoho přesčasů, kdy jsme mohli vidět, že řada z nich neviděla rodiny řadu týdnů, protože musí být v práci a musí dělat svoji práci, aby Evropa byla bezpečná, uděláme tuto debatu a budeme se tady tvářit, že Frontex má problém? Frontex měl problém. Ano, a my jsme to přiznali i ve zprávě discharge, která je poměrně kritická, ale jenom slepec nechce vidět to, jakým způsobem se Frontex změnil. Ano, můžeme tady kritizovat bývalého ředitele, ale on už není ředitel. Novou ředitelkou je paní Kalnajaová, která je ochotná poslouchat naše výtky a provedla ve Frontexu řadu opatření, která napravila tu situaci, která ve Frontexu panovala. A dneska se nemáme bavit o tom, jaká je situace ve Frontexu. Dneska se tady máme bavit o tom, kdo riskuje životy lidí, aby je převezl přes hranice, o pašerácích, o státech, které nespolupracují. Má tady zaznít kritika Turecka. A já opravdu se divím levici a některým i středopravicovým stranám, že rozehrávají tuto nebezpečnou hru. Maria Arena (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, le management des frontières extérieures ne se fait pas sans foi ni loi. Je dirais même que dans ces politiques extrêmement sensibles, le respect des droits humains doit être au centre des préoccupations de cette agence qui est présentée aujourd'hui comme essentielle pour la mise en œuvre de la politique migratoire. Pourtant, on le sait, et ce n'est pas la première fois que Frontex se retrouve sous les feux des critiques, tant pour son inefficacité, et je vous renvoie au rapport de la Cour des comptes, que pour ses violations graves des droits humains, rappelées ici dans le rapport de l'OLAF, qui ne fait que confirmer ce que nous disons depuis des mois et des mois: l'absence du respect des droits humains, systématique à l'intérieur de cette agence. Madame la Commissaire, vous êtes responsable du respect des traités et des conventions internationales qui mettent au cœur du projet européen le respect des droits de l'homme. Le message doit être clair. Le mandat doit être clair. L'organisation de Frontex doit être transparente. Ce sont des lois, ce sont des droits et c'est de la bonne gouvernance en toute transparence. Et manifestement, on en est très loin aujourd'hui. Saskia Bricmont (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, aujourd'hui, c'est une fois encore le travail des ONG, mais aussi des journalistes d'investigation que nous devons saluer. Alors que leurs activités sont de plus en plus criminalisées, sans eux, le rapport de l'OLAF, qui décrit les agissements de l'agence Frontex, n'aurait jamais vu le jour. Et sans eux et sans la presse, le débat d'aujourd'hui n'aurait jamais été possible ni public. Frontex et son ancienne direction ont bénéficié de complaisance et d'un laissez-faire de la part des États membres, trop heureux de voir se hisser les frontières de l'Europe forteresse, frontières toujours plus meurtrières. Trop heureux aussi de ne pas avoir à faire preuve de solidarité et d'humanité pour l'accueil des exilés. Le rapport de l'OLAF est accablant. En sus de ses nombreux dysfonctionnements internes, Frontex a sciemment – sciemment – passé sous silence des violations des droits fondamentaux. Frontex a sciemment laissé faire les autorités nationales se rendant activement coupables de refoulements illégaux, en contradiction totale avec le droit international et le droit européen. L'agence la plus financée de l'Union européenne a menti à ce parlement et méprise de plus en plus ouvertement les valeurs européennes. Nous refusons que l'argent des contribuables européens serve à financer ces agissements. Raison pour laquelle demain le Parlement, ce parlement, doit refuser la décharge budgétaire à Frontex. Ελισσάβετ Βόζεμπεργκ-Βρυωνίδη (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, η έκθεση στερείται νομικής βάσης και δεν οδηγεί σε σαφή και συγκεκριμένα συμπεράσματα. Κάθε συζήτηση για το μεταναστευτικό οφείλει να είναι σοβαρή και υπεύθυνη. Να μιλήσουμε με αλήθειες: η έκθεση συμπίπτει με την έξαρση της τουρκικής επιθετικότητας σε βάρος της Ελλάδας και την εργαλειοποίηση απελπισμένων ανθρώπων. Μόλις προχθές, Τούρκοι οδήγησαν 92 ανθρώπους στον Έβρο, τους κακοποίησαν, τους γύμνωσαν και τους υποχρέωσαν να περάσουν στα ελληνικά σύνορα. Έχει ενημερωθεί η κυρία Επίτροπος, η κυρία Johansson. Οι άνθρωποι αυτοί διασώθηκαν από τις ελληνικές αρχές. Υπάρχει στην έκθεση κάποιο αποδεδειγμένο στοιχείο για παράνομες απωθήσεις; Κάθε άλλο, δεν είναι αυτή η δουλειά της. Η δουλειά της είναι να ελέγξει τους υπεύθυνους για τυχόν λάθη, και τα λάθη διορθώνονται. Γνωρίζετε ότι, καθημερινά, άνδρες και γυναίκες του ελληνικού Λιμενικού διασώζουν ανθρώπινες ζωές στη θάλασσα; Γνωρίζετε —ή μήπως αγνοεί κανείς— ότι η Τουρκία δεν τηρεί την υποχρέωσή της, αλλά αντίθετα καλύπτει —αν δεν στηρίζει κιόλας— τα κυκλώματα των διακινητών και περιφρονεί την υποχρέωσή της που απορρέει από την κοινή δήλωση ΕΕ-Τουρκίας του 2016; Συνάδελφοι, τα λάθη διορθώνονται. Όμως, δεν ακυρώνουμε τον ρόλο του Frontex. Όταν μιλάμε για παρανομίες σε σχέση με την ανθρώπινη ζωή και τις ανθρώπινες αξίες πρέπει να χρησιμοποιούμε αποδεικτικά στοιχεία, επιχειρήματα και συγκεκριμένα πραγματικά περιστατικά. Διαφορετικά, δεν είμαστε σοβαροί απέναντι στο πρόβλημα. Ο Frontex είναι αναγκαίος. Χρειαζόμαστε μια ισχυρή φύλαξη των εξωτερικών συνόρων με παράλληλο σεβασμό στα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα. Το έχουν ανάγκη αυτό οι Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες και τους το οφείλουμε. Pierfrancesco Majorino (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Frontex rappresenta una pagina assolutamente negativa e fallimentare, è perfino un pessimo esempio di gestione di denaro pubblico, ma, ancora prima, è uno strumento di palese violazione dei valori europei. C'è infatti solo da vergognarsi di fronte alla sistematica azione repressiva messa in atto da un'agenzia che dovrebbe contribuire a gestire bene i fenomeni migratori e che invece è diventata un laboratorio della discriminazione istituzionalizzata, come si evince anche dalle rivelazioni sulla relazione OLAF riguardanti pure la declassificazione volta a nascondere casi di evidente violazione dei diritti umani. Spiace vedere che la Commissione europea sia su tutto il tema delle politiche migratorie, non certo solo su Frontex, molto impacciata e contraddittoria. Il patto su migrazione e asilo è infatti un clamoroso esempio negativo e si deve cambiare tutto, mettendo al centro gestione dei flussi migratori, revisione delle regole, azioni antidiscriminatorie, cooperazione tra gli Stati, politiche europee di integrazione e inclusione. In questa cornice serve il contrario di quella che è stata Frontex. Abbiamo infatti bisogno di un'agenzia che aiuti e supporti le azioni di soccorso in mare e in terra, di attraversamento dei confini, di gestione serena dei flussi migratori. Se guardiamo alla realtà di oggi, gli esempi di fronte a cui non possiamo più permetterci di voltarci dall'altra parte ipocritamente sono tantissimi, da ciò che accade nel Mediterraneo, con lo scandalo dei campi libici, a quel che avviene nei Balcani o, giusto per fare un altro esempio, tra Bielorussia e Polonia. Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome this debate today in the interest of serving the truth, but as a Greek member of this House, I cannot allow this debate to fuel the campaign launched by Turkey, slandering Greece over migration in order to overshadow the fact that Turkey consciously and systematically weaponises migrants at the EU's external borders. And I quote Turkish Foreign Minister Çavușoğlu, „Under the supervision of the EU and with the help of Frontex, Greece is killing people in the middle of the sea.” That is a lie. And I quote President Erdoğan, „Greece is turning the Aegean Sea into a graveyard through illegal pushbacks.” And, „Europe and the United Nations must stop these atrocities, which are crimes against humanity.” That is another lie, and it is an even bigger provocation. The truth, dear colleagues, is that Turkey is cramming desperate men, women and children into unseaworthy vessels, violently pushing them towards Greece, while the Greek authorities, with the help of Frontex, are saving lives every day. Just last Friday, as Commissioner Johansson mentioned, 92 migrants were rescued at the Evros River and testified to being abandoned there by the Turkish authorities completely naked. Yes, completely naked. This, dear colleagues, is the naked truth about turkey weaponising migration. And you must finally face the naked truth, with unity and solidarity, if not for Greece's sake, because you owe it to our European culture, values and humanitarianism. Alessandra Moretti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mi rivolgo a voi e chiedo: in che direzione sta andando la nostra Unione europea? Che fine hanno fatto i valori di solidarietà, pace e difesa dei diritti umani che dovrebbero guidare e ispirare le azioni dell'Unione? Che fine ha fatto il diritto internazionale che prevede che ogni persona in cerca di protezione deve – e sottolineo – deve essere accolta nei paesi in cui scappa? Che fine ha fatto la nostra umanità? Sono queste le domande che sorgono quando leggo la relazione dell'OLAF e quando sento le testimonianze di gravissime violazioni dei diritti fondamentali da parte di un'agenzia europea. Non è tollerabile che un'agenzia che opera su mandato dell'Unione non rispetti i suoi principi fondamentali, violando convenzioni, codici, regolamenti interni. Sono italiana, so bene cosa significa vedere migranti che sbarcano sulle proprie coste, capisco l'impegno che viene chiesto al paese che li accoglie, ma conosco anche ciò da cui scappano queste persone, qualcosa che non lascia scampo. Ho visto con i miei occhi anche i migranti che popolano le rotte balcaniche, che camminano a piedi nudi nella neve pur di raggiungere una speranza e che subiscono respingimenti illegali. Colleghi, è il momento di avere coraggio e raggiungere finalmente una politica comune per gestire l'immigrazione, basata sulla solidarietà e sulla cooperazione dentro e fuori l'Unione e che rispetti i diritti umani di tutti, sempre. Διαδικασία „catch the eye” Maria Spyraki (PPE). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, I would like to bring to your attention some details on the aspect that Commissioner Johansson has already included in her introduction. It was the morning of 14 October when the Greek border police found two groups, in total 92 irregular immigrants including 6 children, naked next to the River Evros, which constitutes the border between Greece and Turkey, between the EU and Turkey. According to their testimonies, they had been robbed, they had been subject to personal injuries, as well as assaults on their dignity, by the Turkish authorities, who obliged them through threats and violence to cross the river, to cross the EU-Turkish border. Needless to say that it is obvious that Turkey is failing to implement all the relevant obligations and actions based on the EU-Turkish Joint Statement. I would like to assure this House that the Greek authorities will continue to protect our external borders, our EU borders. The Greek authorities, supported by Frontex, are operating in a very complex, very volatile environment in which Turkey – we can all agree – is weaponising desperate people. And we have to face the truth and to condemn Turkey in this regard. Γεώργιος Κύρτσος (Renew). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, καταλαβαίνω την κριτική στον Frontex και είμαι και υπέρ των αλλαγών. Όμως, ανεξάρτητα από τις αλλαγές, πρέπει να βρούμε τρόπο να κάνουμε τον Οργανισμό ισχυρότερο. Να σας θυμίσω ότι από την προεδρία Juncker υποσχόμασταν έναν Frontex με 10.000 εργαζόμενους, ο οποίος φυσικά δεν υπάρχει ακόμα. Ειδικά στην Ελλάδα χρειαζόμαστε έναν αποτελεσματικό Frontex για δύο λόγους. Ο πρώτος είναι για να μην δίνεται, έτσι, ερέθισμα στον Ερντογάν να εκβιάζει την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση με περισσότερους πρόσφυγες και μετανάστες, διότι θα δημιουργηθούν πολύ συγκεκριμένα προβλήματα. Για παράδειγμα, η νέα κυβέρνηση της Σουηδίας περιόρισε τους πρόσφυγες που θα δέχεται κάθε χρόνο σε 900. Άρα, πρέπει να βγάλουμε ορισμένα συμπεράσματα. Επίσης, χρειαζόμαστε την ισχυρή ευρωπαϊκή παρουσία στα σύνορα Ελλάδας-Τουρκίας για να μην ξεφεύγει η ένταση με βάση συγκεκριμένα συμβάντα, διότι όλοι καταλαβαίνουμε πού μπορεί να οδηγήσει αυτή η ένταση. Carlo Fidanza (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io non dovevo intervenire in questo dibattito, ma devo dire che invece è stato un dibattito illuminante, perché, vedete colleghi, noi siamo tutti a favore di una trasparenza massima, siamo tutti a favore del rispetto dei diritti umani, questo dibattito però ci ha rivelato come in realtà non sia questo l'oggetto del contendere. L'oggetto del contendere è il mandato di Frontex, perché è stato detto in diversi interventi che ora che si sono dimessi i precedenti dirigenti bisogna cambiare la natura e la funzione di questa agenzia, la si vorrebbe trasformare in sostanza in una sorta di maxi ONG che, anziché aiutare gli Stati membri a cercare di proteggere le frontiere, così come previsto dai trattati, a partire dal trattato di Schengen, diventi di fatto un organo, un ente che consenta una promiscuità, che è quella che vediamo quotidianamente, tra chi entra illegalmente e chi invece ha diritto a essere accolto con gli strumenti della protezione umanitaria. Questo è sbagliato. Noi ci opponiamo a questa visione ideologica e continuiamo a ritenere che una politica comune dell'immigrazione si faccia anche con uno strumento efficace che aiuti gli Stati membri a proteggere le frontiere esterne dell'Unione. Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I have to agree with colleagues that the saddest part of this discussion is that, as shocking as it is, it contains nothing new. The report is very clear, and I thank OLAF for it, but we know that Frontex has carried out pushbacks. We know that Frontex has funded the Greek Government in carrying out pushbacks; we know that Frontex has deliberately withdrawn surveillance to a allow for pushbacks; and we know that they deliberately covered up information they had in order not to reveal pushbacks. So they are guilty of some of the crimes that have led to the deaths of 35 000 people on our borders. We have known about these from testimony received time and time again from activists on the ground in Greece, but nothing was done. I salute OLAF, but let's be clear, the terms of reference were limited enough. What I want to know is, what has the Commission done? It has been eight months since this report was completed, and it is not good enough to come in here and say: „Well, it's all about a few bad eggs, the three fellas are now being moved. Ah sure, alright. Nothing to see here”. The report reveals collusion and information passing between Executive Director Leggeri and the Commission. Has that been investigated? What are the recriminations of this? This is the EU's biggest funded agency. It has broken international law. This is not about arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It needs to be disbanded. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, the OLAF report exposes Frontex, and it confirms what we've been saying for a long time. We met Amir Zahiri and Akif Rasouli in Lesvos. They fled Afghanistan, their country destroyed for 20 years by the US and NATO. They arrived in Turkey. They got a boat from Turkey to Greece. The Greek coastguard spotted them. They punctured the boat and there were a lot of people on the boat. They eventually arrested them and they were sent for pre-trial detention. They are still in prison. They're facing 50 years of a prison sentence, possibly. This is a shame on Europe. Frontex are denying people the right to seek asylum. It's international law. The Europe of Frontex is not our Europe, just as Josep Borrell's vision of Europe and the rest of the world as a garden versus a jungle is not our vision of Europe and the world. (Λήξη της διαδικασίας „catch the eye”) Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you all for this very important debate. Frontex fulfils a critically important task. Its mission is to help Member States protect the common European Union external borders and to uphold fundamental rights in doing so. To achieve its objective, Frontex must be a robust and well-functioning agency with the right governance and control systems in place, and it must have the right processes and staff at its disposal to uphold fundamental rights. I said this in the beginning of this debate and we from the Commission side have been working intensively for many, many years to strengthen the governance, address shortcomings, and make sure that Frontex has the proper processes and staff in place. They have appointed new fundamental rights officers. The fundamental rights monitors are in place. Three new executive directors with strong mandates are in place. The new Frontex mandate is in place and soon we will have the new executive director appointed after a thorough process that is now ongoing. More needs to be done – this is clear – to address all identified shortcomings. I trust the Management Board and the interim Executive Director, Aija Kalnaja, that are guiding the agency in the right direction. It is clear that severe misconduct by the former executive director and two other members of the management staff has been identified by the OLAF report is extremely serious and that this has damaged the agency's possibility to fulfil its duties. But let me also stress the obvious. We have courageous, good men and women that protect our external borders 24/7 in compliance with fundamental rights. Protection of our external borders and protection of the fundamental rights goes hand-in-hand, and that is how thousands and thousands of border guards are practising their duties day and night. Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε. 14.   Duurzame brandstoffen voor de zeevaart (initiatief FuelEU Zeevaart) - De uitrol van infrastructuur voor alternatieve brandstoffen (debat) Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η κοινή συζήτηση επί: —
της έκθεσης του Jörgen Warborn, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Μεταφορών και Τουρισμού, σχετικά με τα βιώσιμα ναυτιλιακά καύσιμα (πρωτοβουλία FuelEU Maritime) (COM(2021)0562 - C9-0333/2021 - 2021/0210(COD)) (A9-0233/2022), και —
της έκθεσης του Ismail Ertug, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Μεταφορών και Τουρισμού, σχετικά με την ανάπτυξη υποδομών εναλλακτικών καυσίμων (COM(2021)0559 - C9-0331/2021 - 2021/0223(COD)) (A9-0234/2022). Jörgen Warborn,
rapporteur. – Mr President, Commissioner, honourable colleagues, it is high time to advance the green transition of shipping. With a compromise adopted in the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN), we lay out the world's by far most ambitious pathway to maritime decarbonisation. Europe takes the frontrunner position in tackling emissions by creating demand for sustainable fuels and fostering innovation in green propulsion technologies. This is truly ground-breaking. Never before has any global power drafted such a comprehensive and efficient framework for tackling maritime emissions. I am happy that after almost a year of in-depth dialogue with ports, ship-owners, trade unions, environmental organisations and fuel suppliers from all parts of Europe, followed by intense negotiations in Parliament, we now have a deal on the table. And not just any deal, a deal supported by an overwhelming majority in TRAN with the EPP, S&D, Renew, ID and ECR, including, very importantly, the support from both our associated committees, ENVI and ITRE – a very broad majority of three committees and five political groups. Our compromise is ambitious and it is realistic because, as responsible politicians, we have to take many perspectives into account. On climate, most importantly, but not just setting the most extreme targets that might look good on paper. Instead, thinking about real enforceability, making sure things actually happen in reality. Also thinking about social aspects, protecting jobs, because 75% of our exports go by ship. We secure connectivity for people living on islands, in coastal areas and in the outermost regions. We shield the most vulnerable families from rising prices. Safeguarding the maritime sectors competitiveness, and making sure there won't be carbon leakage and jobs leaving Europe. In the negotiations in TRAN, my guiding principle was to ensure we get the biggest emissions savings possible per euro spent. We do that with an effective scope targetting 90% of maritime CO2 emissions while shielding the very smallest ship-owners and ports from massive economic and bureaucratic burdens. We do it with the phase-in that is rapid but realistic so that we send a strong signal to the market to invest in green ships and ramp up the projections of RFNBOs and biofuels, to deploy onshore power and invest in innovative wind propulsion. We do it with the target-oriented design where we set the pathway forward with strict greenhouse gas limits, but without micromanaging ship-owners or forcing them into some kind of „one-size-fits-all”. The deal before you ensures is that maritime climate targets are met rapidly and effectively, that Europe becomes the benchmark for the rest of the world, that we actually change the way global shipping is powered, going green and making sure the innovation happens here. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to members and staff who were part of these negotiations, especially to my TRAN colleagues from EPP, S&D, Renew, ID and ECR and the shadow rapporteurs from ENVI and ITRE who supported this agreement. I urge all colleagues in plenary to adopt our compromise and to reject all other amendments. Let's move this important and urgent file ahead. Let's go with confidence to trialogues with a strong and united Parliament position. Ismail Ertug,
rapporteur. – Mr President, dear colleagues, I think we have committed ourselves to the Paris Agreement targets, and with the Fit for 55 package, we, as the European Union, have put this legislation on the table. Within this legislation – I think it goes without saying – we have to decarbonise, in particular, the transport sector, and we see that individual transport as well as heavy-goods transport are still emitting very high emissions. Alternative and sustainable fuels are key to decarbonising and, in order to do so, we definitely need to overcome the bottleneck which is and which was for a long time the infrastructure. Therefore, dear colleagues, we have to fast roll out the infrastructure for alternative fuels. Just let me go one step back in near history: in 2013, the European Commission already came up with legislation called AFID, the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive, at that time, and this previous legislation was totally destroyed – I have to say that in these words – by the Member States, by the Council. If they had not completely undermined the legislation at that time, we would have had 677 000 charging stations across the European Union by the end of 2020. And even now, October 2022, we have, I would say, only 377 000 charging stations. Therefore, it was high time that the European Commission submitted the AFIR Regulation within the Fit for 55 package. Two weeks ago, here, exactly at that place, we voted in the Transport Committee overwhelmingly with a majority for this report – 36 yes to no, and I clearly say charging must be as simple as filling up petrol if we want to make a success story out of it. I don't want to miss the opportunity to thank all my shadow colleagues from all the other groups. I guess we have now achieved strong and progressive elements. We have achieved charging stations every 60 kilometres, which will be obligatory until the end of 2025. We have also put in higher power output for light-duty vehicles, for heavy-duty vehicles and, in particular, for hydrogen infrastructure. We have also put more ambition into the hydrogen targets: refuelling hydrogen stations every 100 kilometre until the end of 2027. We have also put into this legal regulation obligatory card payments on charging stations. We have included the electrification of and hydrogen for rail modes. On-shore power supply for ships until the end of 2030 and shoreside electricity for aircrafts until the end of 2025. We have also incorporated exemptions for outer regions and included data provisions which make user information easier. I proposed a European access point, which will also be established within this regulation. Now, hopefully, we will get the support from Members of Parliament on Wednesday at noon. But still one remaining issue is open and for this, I want to ask for your support, dear colleagues, and it is the sanction mechanism. I just want to tell you frankly that this sanction mechanism has nothing to do with ideology. It's just a tool to push the Member States towards the implementation of this regulation. Article 19(a) just says that the Member States need to implement a penalty mechanism for those charge point operators who don't comply with the legislation. Full stop. We also included a recital stating that the European Commission will be demanded to fine Member States EUR 1 000 per non-installed charging station. Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, we have worked now, I would say, for a year and a half, extremely, extremely on this dossier, with all my colleagues on the different reports and the different committees. We had more than 1 000 amendments. We clustered all these amendments into different topics. We have put them all together. We made out of this more than 1 000 amendments, 18 compromise amendments, and we brought 17 of them through, two weeks ago within the Transport Committee. Now it's up to us to take the next step. The next step is to vote for it in this House, and then we have to go to the trilogues, where we already have fixed two dates for trilogues with the Czech Presidency. I think we did our utmost as European Parliamentarians. Now it's up to you to vote and to follow my and our line. I'm really optimistic that this will be the starting point of a new European era where we can install infrastructure for alternative fuels, alternative technology. Once again, No Green Deal without new technologies. Christel Schaldemose,
ordfører for udtalelse, ENVI. – Hr. formand! Den internationale skibsfart er en af de sektorer, hvor CO2-udledningerne er steget mest markant siden 1990'erne. Og fremover mod 2050 forventes udledningerne at stige med op til 130 % i skibsfarten. Vi har derfor desperat brug for en grøn omstilling af skibsfarten. Nye teknologier og nye typer af grøn brændstof er taget op i andre sektorer. Vi har brug for, at skibsfarten også sætter gang i en tilsvarende udvikling. Det haster. EU-Kommissionen erkender, at med den nuværende lovgivning vil det være svært at nå de reduktioner i skibsfartens CO2 før 2030, og det er simpelthen ikke godt nok. I ENVI lægger vi derfor op til, at vi både har brug for, at EU lovgiver om ambitiøse reduktionskrav, samtidig med at vi hjælper til med, at vi får boostet innovationen for sektoren, så vi kan få sat gang i den fornødne udvikling. Der er virkelig brug for, at vi presser alle i den maritime sektor til at bidrage, både leverandører og operatører. Alle skal til at bruge mere grønt brændstof. Ellers kommer skibsfarten ikke tidsnok med i den grønne omstilling. Vi har brug for skibsfarten, men vi har brug for, at den sejler på grønt brændstof. PRESIDÊNCIA: PEDRO SILVA PEREIRA Vice-Presidente Rasmus Andresen,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Industrie, Forschung und Energie. – Herr Präsident! Wir brauchen emissionsfreie Schifffahrt bis spätestens 2050. Seit 1990 sind die Schiffsemissionen um 36 % gestiegen. Sie schaden dem Klima und unserer Gesundheit. Deshalb ist jetzt die Zeit zu handeln. Es ist gut, dass sich die EU-Kommission mit dem Gesetz über Kraftstoffe im Seeverkehr auf den Weg macht und Klimaziele für die Schifffahrt formuliert. Es ist gut, dass auf Druck von uns Grünen, des Industrieausschusses und auch des Umweltausschusses die Emissionsreduktionsziele im Parlamentsbericht verschärft wurden. Es ist auch gut, dass wir Ausbauziele für erneuerbare Kraftstoffe einbauen. Klimaschädliches LNG wird dadurch unattraktiver, und erneuerbare Alternativen werden deutlich attraktiver. Trotzdem hat der Bericht zu viele Schlupflöcher. Industrie- und Umweltausschuss haben bei den Beratungen gezeigt: Mehr ist möglich und nötig. Deshalb möchte ich Sie, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, bitten, für die Änderungsanträge beispielsweise der Grünen-Fraktion und auch vieler anderer Abgeordneter zu stimmen. Hören Sie auf den Teil der Industrie, der möchte, dass wir mehr umsetzen und die Ziele anschärfen. Adina-Ioana Vălean,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, Rapporteurs, Shadow Rapporteurs. First, I would like to thank everybody who was involved in this dossier's reports on the FuelEU Maritime Regulation and Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation. I really appreciate the efforts made by everybody to reach such broad majorities around the compromises. It is very good to see these key proposals moving forward, as they are important deliverables for the Fit for 55 package. Accelerating the uptake of alternative fuels is a cornerstone of our approach to achieve our 2030 climate ambition. It is also an effective contribution to decreasing our reliance on fossil fuel imports and improving energy security and air quality in the EU. FuelEU Maritime will play a crucial role in decarbonising the maritime sector. Imposing gradually stricter greenhouse gas intensity limits on the energy used onboard ships will provide a clear signal to the market of the need for renewable and low-carbon fuels in this sector. It also provides regulatory certainty and facilitates the necessary investment for the energy transition. The additional requirements to use onshore power supply will drastically cut emissions in port areas from the most polluting ships, including minimising harmful air pollution. It is important to ensure that the provisions for zero emissions at berth remain robust. The report adopted in the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) is the result of a well-balanced compromise following months of discussions. It maintains the majority of central elements in the core methodology of the original Commission proposal, such as focus on greenhouse gas intensity, technology neutrality and flexibility mechanisms. Some other amendments could reduce the efficiency and make it more difficult to implement the regulation. I would like to recall some of the key elements behind our proposal. First, the Commission has proposed a level of ambition that ensures we are on track to deliver the climate goals in 2030 and 2050, with maritime transport playing its role as part of the economy-wide effort for decarbonisation. The priority should be to adopt this important piece of legislation quickly, with the reassurance that we would soon review the regulation. Second, regarding the inclusion of a sub-target for renewable fuels of non-biological origin, I would like to recall that FuelEU Maritime is built upon a principle of technological neutrality, which is also strongly supported by the stakeholders. While I agree that we should incentivise the use of these fuels, we should leave it to the market to make technology decision and drive the price down as supply increases. Otherwise, we risk locking in the large majority of the existing fleet on the most expensive fuel option, making them end up paying to comply. That would be a lose-lose situation leading to higher costs for operators while doing nothing for cutting emissions. Other amendments have also been tabled ahead of today's plenary debate on the scope of the regulation, both in terms of the ship size threshold and geographical scope. Regarding the former, in the Commission's opinion, the 5 000 gross tonnes threshold remains the most optimal one where we tackle 90% of emissions while not imposing regulatory burdens on 99% of maritime transport SMEs. We must also keep in mind that the EUR 5.7 billion investment estimate for ports to put in place new infrastructure to meet the FuelEU and AFIR current requirements already requires significant effort. It is extremely doubtful that the ports sector could cover drastically increased investment needs, which would be required if the size threshold is lowered. As regards the geographical scope, our proposal is fair towards third countries and allows them to decide on appropriate action regarding their share of energy used emissions. The only real solution to this problem is a global measure agreed at the IMO, which the EU is pushing for. That being said, I think we can all agree on the need to set a clear path for swift action on renewable and low-carbon fuels in maritime transport. By delivering a robust legal framework with ambitious but achievable targets, we will encourage investment, create demand and allow the supply to scale up in a timely fashion. Let's not forget that decarbonising shipping will require a major effort from operators and ports and that we should do as much as we can to ensure a smooth transition. A few words on the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation: to accelerate the uptake of sustainable alternative fuels, and particularly zero-emission vehicles, we must also ensure that a sufficient network of publicly accessible recharging and refuelling points is available across the EU, and this regulation provides certainty to light and heavy-duty vehicles that they can easily recharge and refuel. I want to welcome the TRAN report, which fully supports the switch to regulation, the setting of binding deployment targets and requirements to achieve full interoperability. This is also a very good starting point for the trialogues, considering that the Council also supports these main principles in its general approach. Some of the proposed amendments go well beyond the scope and parameters of our proposal. Let me therefore reiterate the key reasoning behind our proposal. Deployment of infrastructure should largely be market driven. We are setting mandatory deployment targets to ensure that a sufficient network of electric recharging and hydrogen refuelling infrastructure is deployed across the EU. Member States will have to ensure this. On this basis, market actors should invest further into the recharging and refuelling infrastructure needed to fully correspond to market demand, providing the optimal infrastructure. Targets should also remain technically feasible, considering the investments needed, particularly in the underlying electricity grid infrastructure. 2025 will be upon us very quickly. Those green investments will take some time, especially for truck recharging. Equally, deployment targets should be reasonable and be set at a level that will not crowd out private investments or lead to unused infrastructure in parts and regions of Europe. It would simply make it more expensive for our citizens. Competition between operators of recharging points will be key to having the best services and prices for consumers. We agree on the need to ensure that users have full access to relevant data. Transparent price information and easy payment methods. Overall, we should be careful not to overregulate this nascent and fast-growing market, for example, in the area of roaming, and thereby discourage private investments. When it comes to infrastructure for propulsion fuels in maritime ports, I believe that we need to be careful in what can be prescribed already today. Picking one technology now and mandating such infrastructure in all ports will effectively pre-empt future technology choices by industry. We will have a review on AFIR early on that will provide more clarity on possible decarbonisation pathways for the maritime sector that would allow us to set appropriate targets. As regards targets for rail infrastructure to be certainty under AFIR, I would like to recall that, under our TEN-T proposal, we already propose a full electrification of the TEN-T Core and Comprehensive Railway Networks. Repeating such requirements in AFIR would only create unneeded legislative redundancies. To conclude, I look forward to a fruitful debate and I hope that you can adopt the Parliament position on these two files this week to start trialogues next week already. Thank you very much. Michael Bloss,
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – Mr President, I wonder if the MEPs should now also get to triple the amount of speaking time, as she also got it. So maybe in this House we should also then give it to the MEPs. Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Derzeit verursacht der Verkehr knapp ein Drittel der Treibhausgasemissionen in Europa. Und das muss und das wird sich ändern. Schon bald wird das Reisen mit dem Elektroauto von Schweden bis Bulgarien problemlos möglich sein. Das Laden von E-Autos wird einfacher sein als das Tanken von Benzin. Und statt Abofallen und App-Chaos wird es überall unkompliziert mit Kartenzahlung gehen. Meine Damen und Herren, geben Sie den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern Europas heute dieses Versprechen. Ich appelliere an Sie: Konzentrieren wir uns auf das Pferd, auf das die Autoindustrie setzt – das Elektroauto. Grünen Wasserstoff braucht ThyssenKrupp für CO2-neutralen Stahl, Autos fahren mit Batterie, und LNG ist knapp in Europa. Lassen Sie uns keinen Champagner in den Tank kippen. Schalten wir jetzt auf Turbo in der E-Mobilität und sichern damit Arbeitsplätze, Innovation und Zukunft in Europa. Bronis Ropė,
Regioninės plėtros komiteto nuomonės referentas. – Gerbiamas pirmininke, gerbiama komisare, kolegos. Akivaizdu, kad pasiekti tikrąją Europos Sąjungos nepriklausomybę būtina atsisakyti priklausomybės nuo iškastinio kuro. Alternatyvių degalų infrastruktūros projektų skatinimas paprasčiausiai yra būtinas dalykas. Tiesa, nė vienas Europos Sąjungos regionas ar teritorija negali būti palikti nuošalyje. Šiuo metu viešoji elektrinių lengvųjų automobilių priemonių įkrovimo infrastruktūra Sąjungoje diegiama netolygiai. Ir tai yra didelė problema. Europa šioje srityje bus silpna tiek, kiek savo pasiekimuose silpna bent viena Sąjungos šalis ar nutolusi teritorija. Ir nesvarbu, kiek konkrečioje vietoje gyvena gyventojų – tol kol elektromobilio nebus galima įkrauti keliaujant bet kuria ES kryptimi – nesugebėsime įtikinti vartotojų atsisakyti taršaus keliavimo būdo. Kviečiu bendradarbiauti ir siekti tikslų kartu. Jens Gieseke,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin Vălean, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Für die EVP habe ich zwei Gesetzesvorhaben aus dem Paket „Fit für 55” verhandelt: die CO2-Flottengrenzwerte für Pkw und die Verordnung über den Infrastrukturausbau. Beide Vorhaben sind für mich zwei Seiten einer Medaille. Leider haben sich sowohl das Parlament als auch die Mitgliedstaaten mehrheitlich für das Verbrennerverbot bei Pkw ab 2035 ausgesprochen. Daran wird auch ein rechtlich unverbindlicher Erwägungsgrund nichts ändern. Lassen Sie es mich deutlich sagen: Ab 2035 wird kein Pkw mehr mit Verbrennungsmotor zugelassen werden können. Und ich halte diese Entscheidung immer noch, Herr Kollege Bloss, für rundweg falsch. Jetzt schon zu entscheiden, welche Technologie 2035 das meiste CO2 einspart und gleichzeitig erschwinglich ist für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger – was für eine Hybris! Grüne, Sozialdemokraten und Liberale stehen immer noch fest hinter dem Verbot und treiben es weiter voran. Von Einsicht aufgrund steigender Energiepreise keine Spur. Was heißt das alles für den Infrastrukturausbau? Vor allem eins: Wir brauchen mehr Tempo. Scheuklappen und Technologiefixierung helfen uns nicht. Grüne und Sozialdemokraten wollten das Prinzip Brechstange – keine Rücksicht auf den tatsächlichen Bedarf, nur starre Ziele, planwirtschaftlich, inklusive Strafsystem – und zusätzlich noch ohne Folgenabschätzung die Zuginfrastruktur einbeziehen. Ich glaube, das wäre schlechte Gesetzgebung. Unser Anspruch, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, sollte bessere Rechtsetzung sein. Für uns alle ist klar: Wir müssen den Infrastrukturausbau in allen EU-Mitgliedstaaten voranbringen und nicht nur in einigen wenigen. Daher mein dringender Appell: Unterstützen Sie die Anträge der EVP! Sorgen Sie dafür, dass wir eine Infrastruktur bekommen, die den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern am Ende auch tatsächlich etwas nützt, und dass kein Geld verschwendet wird. Vera Tax,
namens de S&D-Fractie. – Voorzitter, 90 % van alle spullen die we gebruiken in de EU komt binnen via containers, op grote megaschepen, zoals bijvoorbeeld de sneakers die je vandaag draagt of die je graag morgen wilt kopen. Zeg maar, bijna alles wat je online of offline in de winkel koopt, komt via de oceaan bij jou terecht. En 99 % van de brandstoffen die deze containerschepen voortstuwen zijn fossiel, en dus slecht voor de opwarming van het klimaat en de luchtkwaliteit in de havens. En nu komt het! Nog nergens ter wereld zijn er afspraken gemaakt over hoe we deze vervuiling gaan stoppen. Tot nu, in de EU. De wet voor schone scheepvaart gaat ervoor zorgen dat alle containerschepen en alle cruiseschepen die in de EU varen of in de EU komen, duurzaam moeten zijn in de toekomst. Met deze wet maken we eerlijke afspraken over hoe containerschepen en cruiseschepen vanaf 2025 steeds minder CO2 mogen uitstoten, en vanaf 2030 verplicht zijn om elektriciteit te gebruiken als ze voor anker liggen in de havens, zodat er ook geen luchtvervuiling meer is in zeehavens zoals Rotterdam en Amsterdam. Want elk jaar overlijden er in de EU 400 000 mensen vroegtijdig door luchtvervuiling. Waar ik bijzonder trots op ben, is dat deze wet het oorspronkelijke voorstel van de Commissie zelfs ambitieuzer maakt. Dat was mijn missie als onderhandelaar: een nog snellere reductie van de CO2-uitstoot en een verplicht percentage voor gebruik van brandstoffen die nul emissie hebben, zodat de brandstofproducenten deze meest duurzame brandstoffen ook nu al gaan produceren. Met deze ambitieuze schonescheepvaartwet kunnen we voldoen aan de klimaatdoelstellingen en geven we tegelijkertijd brandstofproducenten vóóraf duidelijkheid over de enorme investeringen die nodig zijn om deze maritieme sector te verduurzamen. En met deze wet hoef jij je er in de toekomst geen zorgen meer over te maken of jouw sneakers wel duurzaam over de oceaan zijn gekomen. Jij hoeft alleen nog maar na te denken over welke kleur je graag zou willen. Elsi Katainen,
Renew-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisa komissaari, hyvät kollegat, meriliikenteessä on edessä isot päästövähennykset, sillä noin 98 prosenttia aluksista kulkee vieläkin fossiilisilla polttoaineilla. Olemme erittäin laajan, mutta aivan väistämättömän murroksen äärellä, jossa EU näyttää suuntaa koko maailmalle. Lainsäätäjien tehtävänä on tarjota varustamoille, satamille ja koko merenkulkualalle vakaa ja selkeä näkymä sektorin tulevaisuuteen. Vain siten voi syntyä uusia innovaatioita ja uutta liiketoimintaa. Laivoja, satamia ja niiden infraa ei voi laittaa yhteen muottiin esimerkiksi talvimerenkulun aiheuttamien haasteiden takia. Tarvitsemme käyttöön kaikki kestävät ratkaisut uusista vetypohjaisista polttoaineista nesteytettyyn biokaasuun ja uusiin tuulimekaniikkaa hyödyntäviin innovaatioihin, satamien maasähkövalmiutta unohtamatta. Haluan kiittää kaikkia kanssaneuvottelijoita sekä erityisesti esittelijä Warbornia, jonka johdolla olemme yhdessä neuvotelleet realistisen, pragmaattisen ja myös kunnianhimoisen kokonaisuuden parlamentin kannaksi. Viennistä elävä Eurooppa tarvitsee merenkulkualalle selkeän ja reilun toimintaympäristön, jotta Euroopan kilpailukyky turvataan myös tulevaisuudessa. Sitä kohti vuoteen 2050 mennessä päästöttömän merenkulun lainsäädäntö on avainasemassa. Jutta Paulus,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Seeschifffahrt ist bislang von allen Klimaschutzmaßnahmen ausgenommen. Mit der Verordnung zu nachhaltigen Schiffstreibstoffen hätten – ich sage bewusst: hätten – wir die Chance gehabt, einen schwer zu dekarbonisierenden Bereich, der gemäß allen vorliegenden Studien und Szenarien in den nächsten Jahrzehnten sogar noch wachsen wird, auf den Pfad der Klimaneutralität zu bringen. Doch schon der Vorschlag der Kommission blieb hinter dem Anspruch der Klimaneutralität 2050 zurück, indem die Treibstoffe im Jahr 2050 immer noch 25 % der Emissionsintensität heutiger Treibstoffe haben sollten. Das ist absurd, denn andererseits hat die Kommission einen Entwurf geschrieben für das nächste Treffen der internationalen Schifffahrtsorganisation IMO für Klimaneutralität 2050. Ein solcher Vorschlag ist aber unglaubwürdig, wenn die EU selbst das in ihrer Gesetzgebung für die Schifffahrt nicht anstrebt. Der Umwelt- und der Industrieausschuss dieses Parlaments haben diesen grundsätzlichen Mangel korrigiert und außerdem viele fachlich gut fundierte Vorschläge gemacht, wie die Schifffahrt schneller klimaneutral werden kann, wie zukunftsfähige fossilfreie Treibstoffe gefördert werden können und die Emissionen in den Häfen gesenkt werden können. Aber leider liegt dem Plenum nun, nach den recht ungewöhnlich geführten Verhandlungen, ein Text vor, der nicht nur die höheren Ziele vermissen lässt, sondern auch noch viele, viele Ausnahmen einführt für Eisbrecher, für Fahrten in Randgebiete, für Unternehmen mit wenigen Schiffen und so weiter. Neben uns Grünen haben deswegen viele weitere Kolleginnen und Kollegen wie beispielsweise die liebe Catherine Chabaud Änderungsvorschläge gemacht, wie wir die Schifffahrt auf den Pfad zur Klimaneutralität bringen können. Und ich bitte Sie, diese Änderungsanträge anzunehmen. Roman Haider,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Es gibt an der aktuellen Verkehrspolitik der EU so viel zu kritisieren, dass ich in Wahrheit gar nicht weiß, wo ich überhaupt anfangen soll. Darum zum wesentlichen Problem gleich zu Beginn: Die Pläne zur Abschaffung fossiler Kraftstoffe bedeuten für die Wirtschaft und den Alltag der Bürger eine regelrechte Katastrophe. Und der Ausbau der Infrastruktur für alternative Kraftstoffe ist völlig sinnlos, solange ein grundlegendes Problem nicht gelöst ist: Woher soll der Strom für die Millionen E-Autos kommen? Straße, Schiene, Luftfahrt, Schifffahrt – alle Bereiche des Transportwesens sollen ja auf alternative Kraftstoffe umgestellt werden. Allein um den unrealistischen Zeitplan einzuhalten und die völlig überzogenen Ziele dieses Vorschlags zu erreichen, werden Milliarden an Investitionen nötig sein – und all das, ohne vorher eine leistbare und zuverlässige Stromversorgung sicherzustellen. Eine leistbare und zuverlässige Versorgung der hochindustrialisierten Mitgliedstaaten der EU ist mit Wind und Solarparks technisch nicht machbar. Wir werden also weiterhin zu einem gewissen Ausmaß von fossilen Brennstoffen abhängig sein. Die Regeln der Physik und der Technik lassen sich halt nicht durch ideologische Träumereien ersetzen. Und von den ganzen anderen Problemen, die diese Phantastereien mit sich bringen – dem Verlust von Arbeitsplätzen, dem Verlust der Mobilität, dem Verlust von Know-how oder der zunehmenden Abhängigkeit bei kritischen Rohstoffen, Lithium oder seltenen Erden oder den Problemen bei der Entsorgung und beim Recycling und so weiter –, davon rede ich da noch nicht einmal. Und nicht zu vergessen, dass wir uns aktuell auch in einer dramatischen Energie- und Versorgungskrise befinden. Schauen Sie endlich den Tatsachen ins Gesicht! Mit diesen Vorhaben treibt man die Verkehrsarmut weiter voran. Mobilität wird zum Luxusgut, vor allem im ländlichen Bereich. Legen Sie endlich realistische und auch technisch umsetzbare Pläne zur Energieversorgung in den EU-Staaten vor. Dann und nur dann können wir darüber reden, wie es mit dem Ausbau der Infrastruktur für E-Autos ausschaut. President. – Let me tell you that, due to time constraints, I will close the request for „catch the eye”, respecting the requests that have already been made. Carlo Fidanza,
a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, a distanza di poco meno di dieci anni dalla prima direttiva sulle infrastrutture per i carburanti alternativi, di cui sono stato relatore, lavorando già allora con il collega Ertug, che ringrazio per la collaborazione, si è scelto di dare vita a un regolamento, proprio per dare un quadro più chiaro all'industria, agli operatori e ai consumatori. Devo dire francamente che ci saremmo però aspettati, a maggior ragione dopo la crisi e la guerra in Ucraina, una pausa di riflessione, una pausa di riflessione sull'intero pacchetto del „Fit for 55”, che invece viene ancora utilizzato in chiave ideologica, e devo dire che, purtroppo, anche questo regolamento risente di questa impostazione. È un tassello di un'ideologia che ci sta spingendo a una transizione troppo rapida verso il tutto elettrico, ignorando quelle che possono essere le conseguenze sul piano geopolitico della dipendenza a cui ci consegneremo nei confronti della Cina che, come sappiamo, oggi detiene gran parte delle tecnologie e delle materie prime. Una conseguenza sociale, perché stiamo ignorando l'impatto che questa rivoluzione imposta dall'alto avrà sulle tasche dei cittadini europei e anche degli Stati membri, perché ancora non si capisce bene chi dovrebbe pagare questa transizione così accelerata. Si fa quindi di un approccio ideologico una normativa europea, ignorando, devo dire, Commissaria, il principio della neutralità tecnologica, che non è a sufficienza tutelato in questa normativa. Vedete, si cela tutto questo, si vende tutto questo come qualcosa di ambizioso, però quando l'ambizione si rifiuta di fare i conti con la realtà, rischia di diventare utopia, e le utopie, lo sappiamo, molto spesso hanno generato danni molto ingenti. João Pimenta Lopes,
em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhor Presidente, o caminho para a redução das emissões de gases com efeito de estufa no setor marítimo deve ser feito no quadro dos avanços científicos e tecnológicos e considerar os meios e as condições de partida e necessidades de cada Estado no quadro das suas estratégias de desenvolvimento e soberania. A abordagem de uma mesma solução que a todos obriga, impõe enviesamentos, agrava assimetrias em benefício e ao serviço dos mercados e da liberalização do setor do transporte marítimo e dos portos. Ganham os grupos económicos e as potências europeias que lideram as ditas ambições. Uma abordagem que ignora as consequências diversas da liberalização destes setores, que omite a relação entre a dinamização de um comércio internacional desregulado e emissões e a necessidade das relações comerciais mutuamente vantajosas que perspetivem o direito à soberania alimentar, a salvaguarda da produção nacional, a redução dos circuitos de produção-consumo, a defesa dos direitos sociais e o respeito pelo ambiente e a biodiversidade. A discussão deveria ter no seu epicentro as possibilidades de desenvolvimento de cada Estado em função das suas necessidades, no quadro da reversão dos processos de liberalização e privatização do setor marítimo e portuário e da recuperação do controlo público de setores estratégicos e considerar simultaneamente os desafios que se colocam no quadro das oportunidades de desenvolvimento da indústria naval e indústrias conexas em cada país que esta diretivas proporcionam. É essa perspetiva de desenvolvimento soberano e de cooperação que serve os países e os povos. Andor Deli (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Az alternatív üzemanyag-infrastruktúra nagyon fontos, ugyanakkor az EP javaslata sajnos nem veszi figyelembe a tagállamok közötti eltéréseket, így azt sem, hogy a töltőállomások ilyen arányú kiépítéséhez elengedhetetlen az energetikai infrastruktúra nagyarányú előzetes megerősítése. Mindezek további hatalmas kiadások a tagállamoknak, egy olyan időszakban, amikor ott lebeg a gazdasági válság, a recesszió veszélye. Megeshet, hogy a kiépítendő infrastruktúra kihasználtságával is gondok lesznek. Egyrészt, mert az elektromos meghajtású járművek megfizethetetlenül drágák az európai polgárok nagy többsége számára, másrészt, mert az autógyártást hátráltatják a beszállítási láncok fennakadásai, és nincs elég villanyautó a piacon. A zöldítés inkluzív kell, hogy legyen. Úgy gondolom, hogy a rendeletek testre szabásán és a megfelelő támogatási rendszeren kellene inkább dolgozni. A papír mindent elbír, de az Unió polgárainak megvalósítható, reális szabályozásra van szükségük. Petar Vitanov (S&D). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, over the past year we should all have seen that Europe's prosperity is in direct relation with its independence – independence from imported fuels and energy sources. The war in Ukraine has forced us to take a hard look at problems that we have turned a blind eye to for a long time. On the other hand, the environmental catastrophe is not just knocking on the door, but it is making its way across the continent. Decarbonising transport offers excellent opportunities to take a step toward a real change. By shifting to a sustainable, renewable and efficient energy solution across all transport modes, the Union can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution to improve citizen's quality of life and create new high-quality jobs while modernising and strengthening European industry and its competitiveness. And I want to thank Mr Ertug and Mr Warborn and of course, all the shadows, for their outstanding job on the two reports and to encourage my colleagues to support the outcome achieved in the TRAN Committee. And yes, I do realise that some measures might be painful, but paying the price today will guarantee our benefit tomorrow. Caroline Nagtegaal (Renew). – Voorzitter, commissaris, „Staat er geen laadfile bij de laadpalen? Wordt mijn laadpas wel geaccepteerd?” Laadstress: een bekend fenomeen voor menig elektrisch rijder. En ook voor mij. En mijn hoop is dan ook dat dit plan ervoor zorgt dat deze stress tot het verleden gaat behoren. En niet alleen voor weggebruikers moeten de zorgen verdwijnen. Ook onze vaarwegen en luchthavens verdienen de juiste infrastructuur. Ik realiseer me ook echt dat dit een uitdaging wordt. Denk aan het beperkte elektriciteitsnet en problemen bij het betalen. Daarom moeten lidstaten, wat de VVD betreft, nú beginnen met het versterken van het elektriciteitsnet en het werken aan slimme technologieën – denk aan smart charging. Want zo kunnen we de druk op het stroomnet verlichten. Ook betalen moet eenvoudiger worden, met een betaalpas of een laadpas, zodat laden – óveral in de EU – toegankelijk wordt. Ik zie dat de transportsector zich keihard inzet voor die duurzame toekomst, maar dat kan niet van de ene op de andere dag. Gun ze dan ook een realistisch tijdspad. We moeten nú doen wat nodig is om het energieaanbod voor de transportsector toekomstbestendig te maken. En om dat in goede banen te leiden, pleit ik voor een nationaal coördinator die de uitrol overziet en lokale overheden helpt met die uitdaging. Want één ding is wat mij betreft duidelijk: met deze voorstellen hoeven we helemaal niet minder te rijden, minder te varen of te vliegen, maar wél schoner. Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, sehr verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Gas und Öl sind von gestern. Sie fördern Krieg, Klimakrise, Luftverschmutzung. Jeder einzelne dieser Punkte ist Grund genug für einen Wandel weg vom Verbrenner und hin zu alternativen Antrieben, um grenzenlos sauber mobil zu sein. Wer ein E-Auto kauft, sollte sich auf die vorhandene Ladeinfrastruktur eben verlassen können. E-Ladesäulen müssen europaweit verfügbar und zuverlässig sein. Nutzerfreundliche Bezahlung muss Standard werden, nach dem Motto: Laden so leicht wie Tanken. Und noch mehr: Wir brauchen den Wandel nicht nur auf der Straße. Nur etwas mehr als die Hälfte der Schiene ist heute elektrifiziert in Europa, und die Schiene kann noch mehr. 100 % Ökostrom und 100 % elektrisch – europaweit. Zwei Hindernisse hin zu sauberen Infrastrukturen müssen wir noch am Mittwoch korrigieren. Erstens: Kleinere Flughäfen außerhalb der TEN-T-Korridore haben ihren Beitrag zu leisten. Erst recht Besitzer und Besitzerinnen von Business- und Privatjets haben genug in der Tasche, um ihren Anteil zu begleichen, und müssen ihre Infrastruktur ebenso elektrifizieren. Reiche dürfen nicht aus der Verantwortung genommen werden. Das zweite Hindernis ist der Ausbau von LNG für Lkws und im Seeverkehr. Saubere Mobilität sieht da anders aus. Lasst uns das Spiel umdrehen: Nicht dort, wo Nachfrage ist, sondern nur dort, wo keine Alternative ist, sollte LNG möglich sein. Die Antriebswende geht mit der Verkehrswende Hand in Hand. Philippe Olivier (ID). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, si le sujet n'était pas si sérieux, nous pourrions nous amuser de vous voir débattre de vos contradictions. La proposition de règlement sur l'utilisation de carburants plus écoresponsables pour le transport maritime est évidemment louable et nous la voterons. Mais comment ne pas souligner les incohérences, non pas simplement de votre démarche, mais de votre modèle? Vous vous agitez pour trouver des substituts au fioul lourd, le pire carburant du monde, qui est le carburant des super-cargos, alors même que votre modèle économique induit la généralisation de ce type de transport. Il y avait, selon Equasis, 57 700 cargos sur les mers en 2018. Il y en a près de 100 000 aujourd'hui. On constate les limites de l'exercice consistant à vouloir concilier mondialisme et écologisme, concilier votre principe théologique de libre circulation effrénée avec la juste protection de la planète. Le contraire de la mobilité n'est pas l'immobilité, mais la proximité. Vos vertueuses propositions de réglementation écologique ne seront crédibles que si, dans le même temps, vous avez la lucidité de revoir votre logiciel mondialiste, qui est par nature écocide. Beata Mazurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! Musimy postawić sprawę jasno: unijny rynek elektromobilności jest bardzo zróżnicowany i wszelkie plany infrastrukturalne muszą te różnice uwzględniać. To, że użytkownicy pojazdów elektrycznych będą mogli korzystać ze stacji do ładowania i tankowania wodoru odpowiednio co 60 i 100 kilometrów, brzmi wspaniale, ale reprezentując Polskę, która jest na początku swojej drogi ku elektromobilności, stanowczo domagam się wydłużenia vacatio legis umożliwiającego przygotowanie się do realizacji celów określonych w projekcie. Rozwój infrastruktury paliw alternatywnych musi być powiązany ze wzrostem liczby pojazdów zasilanych takimi paliwami. Budowanie wielu stacji dla stosunkowo niskiej ilości pojazdów jest ekonomicznie nieuzasadnione i będzie niosło za sobą wydatki publiczne mocno obciążające budżety krajowe. Szczególnie teraz, w momencie, w którym mierzymy się z kryzysem energetycznym i wysoką inflacją. Zadajemy sobie również pytanie: ile rodzin z mniej zamożnych państw członkowskich stać aktualnie na zakup takich aut? Realizacja ambitnych celów transportu zero i niskoemisyjnego? Tak. Ale połączona z realną sytuacją na rynku pojazdów elektrycznych i poszanowaniem krajów znajdujących się na różnym etapie rozwoju elektromobilności. Mam nadzieję, że podczas negocjacji z Radą uda się wypracować bardziej sprawiedliwy kompromis wydłużający czas wdrażania przepisów. Έλενα Κουντουρά (The Left). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρία Επίτροπε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Πράσινη Συμφωνία προβλέπει μείωση των εκπομπών τουλάχιστον κατά 90% μέχρι το 2050 για τον τομέα των μεταφορών. Η μετάβαση στην ηλεκτροκίνηση και τη βιωσιμότητα έχει πολλαπλά οφέλη για το κλίμα, το περιβάλλον αλλά και για την υγεία των ανθρώπων. Βασική, λοιπόν, προϋπόθεση για τη μείωση αυτή και για να συνεχίσουν οι πολίτες να μετακινούνται απρόσκοπτα είναι η διαθεσιμότητα σταθμών φόρτισης εκεί που χρειάζεται στην καθημερινότητά τους: στους δημόσιους δρόμους, σε επαγγελματικούς χώρους, σουπερμάρκετ και εμπορικά κέντρα. Σημασία επίσης έχει να διαθέτουν πρόσβαση σε θέσεις φόρτισης και τα ταξί στα σημεία που περιμένουν για επιβάτες, γιατί κάνουν δεκάδες χιλιάδες χιλιόμετρα κάθε μέρα. Τέλος, θα ήθελα να τονίσω ότι για να πετύχει η πράσινη μετάβαση πρέπει να είναι δίκαιη. Να δοθεί επαρκής ευρωπαϊκή και εθνική χρηματοδότηση για τις υποδομές, τα οχήματα να έχουν προσιτό κόστος και —πάνω απ' όλα— να μην ξεχνάμε ότι ο βασικός πυλώνας της μετάβασης θα είναι τα μέσα μαζικής μεταφοράς, στα οποία δυστυχώς μέχρι σήμερα δεν δίνεται η προσοχή που τους αρμόζει. Maxette Pirbakas (NI). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, ces modifications du règlement visant à introduire des carburants renouvelables et alternatifs dans le transport maritime sont très importantes pour nos régions ultrapériphériques puisque celles-ci ne sont reliées au continent et entre elles que par la mer ou par l'air. Tout ce qui influe sur le prix du fret maritime est donc considéré avec inquiétude dans les cinq départements français d'outre-mer. Or, ces nouvelles règles, malgré des aménagements spécifiques aux régions ultrapériphériques, vont immanquablement faire grimper les prix du transport. La proposition parle de 90 milliards d'euros de surcoûts à absorber. Dans ces territoires où le pouvoir d'achat et l'économie locale dépendent pour partie du coût du fret, vous comprendrez bien qu'il nous faudra des compensations pécuniaires si nous ne voulons pas creuser l'appauvrissement des populations et des entreprises ultramarines. La neutralité carbone, oui, mais à condition qu'elle se double d'une neutralité pouvoir d'achat. Ceci étant dit, Madame la Commissaire, nous voyons avec intérêt se profiler une vague d'investissements dans les installations portuaires, notamment pour les électrifier. Mais je vous rappelle que c'est grâce notamment à l'outre-mer français que l'Union européenne dispose de ports dans les Caraïbes, dans l'océan Indien, dans le Pacifique, qui sont autant de bases avancées pour notre puissance commerciale et pour la conception décarbonée des transports que nous portons souvent. Nous n'en faisons rien ou peu. Ces ports se sont épuisés et sont bien loin des hubs régionaux que certains pourraient devenir si on les y aidait. Mes chers collègues, grâce aux investissements verts, nous aurons demain l'opportunité d'investir dans nos outre-mer, dans leurs installations portuaires et dans leur transition écologique. Faisons-le vraiment massivement, aidons les régions ultrapériphériques à se développer et l'Europe ne s'en portera que mieux. Henna Virkkunen (PPE). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, Rapporteur and colleagues, in order to reach our climate targets, we must work to decarbonise the transport sector, as we know it is the only sector where emissions have increased. At the same time, it is important to remember that the maritime sector, like aviation, they are global industries, so unilateral changes that could hinder the competitiveness of European companies must be avoided. There are also challenges, as we know, regarding the availability of renewable maritime fuels. As such, I am glad that the Parliament's position here is ambitious but also realistic. It is vital that we progressively increase the share of low-carbon fuels, respect technology neutrality and ensure necessary incentives for funding research and development in this area. While we are creating these Europe-wide regulations, we must take the special conditions of Member States also into account. For Finland, this included the compensation formula for ice navigation. I commend the rapporteur and my colleagues for taking this into consideration and including it in the final report. Εύα Καϊλή (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρία Επίτροπε, θα ήθελα να συγχαρώ όλους τους εισηγητές για τη συνεργασία μας και για το θετικό αποτέλεσμα της δουλειάς αυτής. Οι διαπραγματεύσεις δεν ήταν εύκολες, αλλά ψηφίζουμε πλέον για νέες δικλίδες ασφαλείας στον κλάδο της ναυτιλίας, ενώ λαμβάνονται υπόψη και οι περιφερειακές ιδιαίτερες ανάγκες, όπως πιθανές εξαιρέσεις νησιωτικών περιοχών για τις οποίες η μόνη βιώσιμη αλλά και προσιτή λύση —προς το παρόν τουλάχιστον— έρχεται από τη ναυτιλία. Είναι επίσης εξαιρετικά σημαντικό το ότι αναγνωρίζεται η ανάγκη συντονισμού με τον Διεθνή Ναυτιλιακό Οργανισμό, τον IMO, και παρότι εμείς μπορούμε και παραμένουμε πιο φιλόδοξοι. Σημαντικό είναι επίσης ότι ενισχύθηκε η αρχή „ο ρυπαίνων πληρώνει”. And I will continue in English because I think it's very important to reject plenary amendments that wish to water down the requirements of the RFNBO sub-targets. In fact, while the 2% minimum use target set for 2030 is a good start, but we could aim even higher for the following years as we are going to have reviews of this regulation and then we can also increase that. There are good examples, like renewable hydrogen from non-biological sources like solar panels, that is expected to play a key strategic role in the decarbonisation of the generally hard-to-decarbonise transport sector. José Ramón Bauzá Díaz (Renew). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, este debate se produce en el mismo instante en que miles de gasolineras en Francia se encuentran totalmente desabastecidas debido a una huelga que amenaza con paralizar el país. Y lo que pone de manifiesto, una vez más, es la enorme dependencia de los combustibles. Cuando no hay combustible accesible y a un precio razonable, nuestras economías se contraen y aumenta la tensión social. Por eso mismo, señorías, deberíamos hacernos dos preguntas. Una: ¿está Europa preparada para renunciar hoy a los combustibles fósiles por completo? Es evidente que no. Y dos: ¿debería Europa desarrollar un mercado de combustibles alternativos a gran escala para complementar la oferta y, en un futuro, sustituir al petróleo? Por supuesto que sí. Pero ese mercado no se crea de la noche a la mañana y electrificar nuestro parque móvil tampoco. Por eso mismo, hay que dejar de buscar culpables y encontrar soluciones. Necesitamos inversión, necesitamos seguridad jurídica y necesitamos tiempo. Por eso mismo, señorías, actuemos con prudencia o, si no, nos quedaremos solos. Nos quedaremos solos y, lo que es peor, a quienes estaremos afectando, y de primera instancia, será a nuestros ciudadanos, y supuestamente deberíamos preocuparnos por ellos. Además, los que más padecerían eso mismo serían los que tienen menor capacidad económica, y eso no es justo. Así que, señorías, actuemos con prudencia y seguro que actuaremos bien. Karima Delli (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, mes chers collègues, vous le savez, 90 % des marchandises en Europe passent par la mer. Le maritime, c'est 13 % des émissions de CO2 des transports et une nuisance sans précédent lorsqu'on parle de qualité de l'air. Et de plus en plus de villes, comme à Marseille, à Ajaccio et partout en Europe, se mobilisent contre ces super-paquebots qui polluent l'air. On a des solutions, je vous demande de les voter. Ne pas faire du gaz et du GNL une énième énergie de transition. Nous n'atteindrons pas nos objectifs de neutralité carbone avec du fossile. C'est facile: sortons du gaz, notamment du mix énergétique. Nous devons miser sur l'hydrogène, vu que la Commission européenne s'est donné une grande ambition en ce qui concerne l'hydrogène vert et aussi l'ammoniac. Mais misons enfin sur l'avenir: les bateaux à voile. Oui, le vélique. On le sait désormais, nous avons énormément de savoir-faire en Europe. Et pour l'air que nous respirons: l'obligation pour les navires de croisière de se brancher quand ils sont à quai – et j'insiste, l'obligation –, sous peine d'être interdits dans les ports en 2030. Aussi, j'ai déposé un amendement pour étendre cette application à tous les bateaux à partir de 2035. Parce que ces bateaux géants émettent autant que 30 000 voitures roulant à 30 kilomètres-heure. Il est donc grand temps de passer à l'électrique, car ce n'est plus possible de faire subir les fumées de ces bateaux, notamment, aux populations. Je vous le dis, l'Europe a tout pour être le grand leader au niveau mondial dans la décarbonation du secteur maritime. L'heure n'est plus à de simples mesurettes. Alors nous allons prendre tous ensemble ces mesures et nos responsabilités, et demain le vote donnera justement une belle et grande orientation à ce secteur maritime. Sylvia Limmer (ID). – Herr Präsident, verehrte Kollegen! Im Zuge von Green Deal, Klimagesetz und Fit-für-55-Paket möchte Brüssel nun also auch darüber bestimmen, welche Kraftstoffe für den freien Personenverkehr in Zukunft erlaubt sein sollen. Das jüngste ökosozialistische Klima-Ei, das kurz vor dem finalen Legen in Brüssel steht, ist das EU-weite Verbot von Verbrennungsmotoren. Ende Oktober soll es eingetütet werden. Und weil es nach wie vor an einer geeigneten Infrastruktur fehlt, schiebt man nun eine Verordnung hinterher, die das regeln soll. Aber selbst Deutschland, der derzeit leider unrühmliche Weltmeister grüner Idiotie, scheitert. Man floppt jämmerlich beim jährlichen nötigen Zubau von Ladestationen. Dabei entfallen auf die Niederlande und Deutschland knapp 60 Prozent aller Ladepunkte in der EU. Die geforderten eine Million Ladestationen EU-weit bis 2025 sind daher schon jetzt ein Witz. Im Übrigen führt jeder zusätzliche Strombedarf zu einem Mehrbedarf an fossilen Energieträgern bei der Stromproduktion. Nicht nur deshalb ist die emissionslose Fortbewegung ein grünes Lügenmärchen. Aber der Bürger soll sowieso kein eigenes Auto mehr besitzen, er soll Fahrrad fahren oder öffentliche Verkehrsmittel benutzen. Daher: Die Abschaffung der sozialen Marktwirtschaft durch politische Verbote und staatliche Subventionierungen lehne ich kategorisch ab. Denn nichts anderes ist die Einmischung Brüsseler Technokraten in die persönlichen Eigentumsrechte der Bürger und die Innovationskraft unserer Wirtschaft. Maria Spyraki (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner Vălean, dear colleagues, today we make an important step forward for a quick and efficient facilitation for the decarbonisation in the shipping sector. And according to my opinion, I strongly believe that we have managed to propose a piece of legislation that focuses on reducing shipping's climate impact while encouraging and accelerating investments in that direction. What is of utmost importance is that the report now recognises the structural role of the commercial operators in the shipping sector. Needless to say that we focused on this aspect during our internal negotiation, and I would like to thank once again my colleague Warborn for his excellent collaboration. The commercial operator, which can be the ship-owner, which can be the charterer or any other entity, is the entity responsible for making the choice on the compliant fuels used by this ship. The current approach now fully reflects the „polluter pays” principle, which was established under the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, constitutes the fundamental stone of our EU environmental legislation. Therefore, the application of the polluter pays principle shall not be subject of contractual negotiations, but an unquestionable EU environmental principle that must be respected by all relevant stakeholders. We also aim to achieve consistency between this regulation in line with ETS and the MRV legislation. This report also reflects to the shared responsibility between the commercial operator and the fuel supplier to a very satisfying degree. An obligation on fuel suppliers is provided to compensate shipping companies for the payment of penalties if they fail to deliver compliant fuels pursuant to a contractual arrangement. It is a balanced approach. It has been secure and I believe that this report should also work as a solid base for the trilogue discussion with the Commission and the Council. Once again, thank you very much all co-rapporteurs and the rapporteur. Alessandra Moretti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questo in discussione è un regolamento estremamente importante. Infatti, la disponibilità di infrastrutture di ricarica e rifornimento in primis per auto, veicoli commerciali leggeri e camion, ma anche per il settore marittimo e dell'aviazione è un parametro chiave per determinare la quota futura di mercato di veicoli a basse e zero emissioni in Europa negli anni a venire. Più punti di ricarica ci saranno, più sarà interessante per consumatori e operatori passare a tecnologie di propulsione più pulite, come i veicoli elettrici e a idrogeno. Ci troviamo oggi davanti a un bivio: con questo atto legislativo definiremo il percorso per i prossimi decenni nel settore della mobilità, ed è un passo importante per arrivare a un'Europa autonoma da un punto di vista energetico, grazie a fonti rinnovabili verdi. Avere punti di ricarica in numero adeguato, efficienti e facili è il modo più corretto per rendere davvero praticabile e concreta la nostra volontà di raggiungere gli obiettivi dellaClimate Law e di REPowerEU. Per un'Europa pulita, un'Europa autonoma energeticamente, un'Europa più forte. Nicola Danti (Renew). – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, il cammino per la decarbonizzazione del settore marittimo è ancora lungo e incerto. Il regolamento sui combustibili per la navigazione delinea una traiettoria di riduzione delle emissioni realistica e graduale e permette di dare slancio agli investimenti in ricerca e sviluppo, rispettando il principio della neutralità tecnologica. Alcuni scommettono infatti sull'idrogeno, altri su ammoniaca e metanolo, o ancora sui biocarburanti o sulle batterie, senza dimenticare il ruolo che il gas naturale liquefatto potrà avere in una fase di transizione, garantendo una prima e immediata riduzione di CO2. Proprio perché all'orizzonte non si profila un'unica scelta vincente sulle altre, tutti gli attori del settore dovranno dare il proprio contributo, dagli operatori, a cui si applicano obblighi stringenti, ai porti, che dovranno installare le infrastrutture per l'alimentazione da terra, ai fornitori di carburanti sostenibili, passando per la cantieristica navale, a cui è richiesta creatività e innovazione. Il compromesso che ci apprestiamo a votare rappresenta, a mio avviso, un buon equilibrio tra gli opposti estremismi, tra chi non considera costi e impatti sociali e chi invece sembra trascurare la crisi climatica. Cari colleghi, non dimentichiamoci infine che questa è una sfida che potremo vincere solo se sapremo agire anche nei consessi internazionali. Questo è un elemento essenziale per evitare la concorrenza sleale di operatori e porti di paesi terzi e garantire al contempo la decarbonizzazione del settore marittimo a livello globale. Aurélia Beigneux (ID). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, alors que la France est paralysée par les blocages des stations-service et des pénuries, vous nous proposez aujourd'hui de mettre dans le même sac le fret maritime et les automobilistes du quotidien. Un porte-conteneurs rejette autant d'oxyde de soufre qu'un million de voitures. Alors, comment pouvez-vous demander des efforts aux automobilistes alors que ces super-cargos continuent de sillonner les océans? Le fret maritime est le bras armé de la mondialisation que vous avez promue et qui finit de détruire notre industrie. La voiture, de son côté, est le premier moyen de transport pour nos citoyens, en particulier les plus modestes. Dans le second dossier, vous nous parlez de carburants alternatifs dans l'automobile, mais encore une fois, vous manipulez les Européens. Votre rapport fait l'exploit de considérer que le seul carburant alternatif est l'électrique. Preuve que les technocrates ne sont manifestement pas des ingénieurs. À l'heure où le prix de l'électricité explose, où est le bioéthanol? Où est l'essence de synthèse? Vous nous promettiez l'Europe de la recherche et des nouvelles technologies. Mais vous nous apportez l'Europe du travail des enfants dans les mines de lithium. Alors que la crise énergétique s'aggrave de jour en jour, vous avez choisi votre idéologie face au salut des Européens. Радан Кънев (PPE). – Г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, колеги, на първо място искам да приветствам доклада, който ни е предложен и да поздравя докладчика и докладчиците в сянка за постигнатия, знам от опит като докладчик в сянка на ЕНП в Комисията по околна среда, много, много труден компромис. На второ място обаче съм длъжен да предупредя за рисковете, които видях и в работата в комисията, виждам и в днешния дебат. Преди всичко рискът, който произтича от факта, че в предложения текст се предлага твърде малко свобода на пазара да определи технологиите, по които ще постигнем чиста и устойчива мобилност. Трябва да си даваме сметка, че ние дължим всички технологични пробиви, на които се радваме днес и които в огромната си част водят към по-чиста и по-устойчива среда за живот, именно на пазара на частната инициатива, на творчеството на откривателите и предприемачите, и не на последно място на пазарната конкуренция. Catherine Chabaud (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, il y a deux semaines, nous avons voté une résolution appelant l'Europe à se tourner vers la mer. Et ce soir, je rappelle que nous pouvons en faire la championne des navires verts et permettre leur construction en Europe. En effet, le texte que nous allons voter sur les carburants alternatifs pour le transport maritime est une opportunité pour accélérer toutes les solutions de décarbonation émergentes, qui peinent à se développer faute de cadre législatif et de soutien politique. Ce texte est une opportunité d'atteindre nos objectifs climatiques. Il souligne l'intérêt du Fonds pour les océans tel que prévu dans le cadre de la directive SEQE-UE, qui soutiendra les innovations, mais qu'il faut renforcer. Nous devons mieux prendre en compte la contribution de la propulsion vélique – à la voile – par un facteur de récompense proposé par mon collègue Pierre Karleskind et en faire le moteur de la relance de l'industrie navale européenne, comme le propose l'amendement que j'ai déposé. Nous devons élargir la portée de manière à couvrir la quasi-totalité des émissions et à pouvoir expérimenter les solutions sur les bateaux les plus petits. Nous devons inclure un sous-objectif supplémentaire pour l'utilisation des carburants alternatifs d'origine non biologique: 6 % pour 2035. Enfin, nous devons fixer un objectif de 100 %, au lieu de 80 %, de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre en 2050. Je vous invite à aller voir l'exposition proposée par Pierre Karleskind dans l'espace Emilio Colombo, qui vous en apprendra beaucoup plus sur la propulsion vélique. Ljudmila Novak (PPE). – Spoštovani predsedujoči, spoštovana gospa komisarka! Državljani se morajo čutiti varne, ko kupujejo nova prevozna sredstva na alternativna goriva, še posebej, če veliko potujejo izven vsakdanjih poti in poznanega območja. Če jih bo skrbelo in bodo v dvomih, ali bodo s svojim vozilom prišli pravočasno na cilj, se bodo težje odločali za nakup takšnega vozila. Zato podpiram ta predlog in strategijo za pravočasno in zadostno izgradnjo polnilnic za alternativna goriva. Čeprav je na razpolago vedno več infrastrukture za prevozna sredstva na alternativna goriva, pa je vprašanje, ali bodo vse države zmogle v predvidenem času zagotoviti dovolj polnilnic na svoji cestni infrastrukturi. Ob tem naj še spomnim na načrtovano ukinitev uporabe vozil z motorji z notranjim izgorevanjem. Tudi na tem področju znanost napreduje, zato bi morali upoštevati tudi predloge strokovnjakov in omogočiti še naprej uporabo tovrstnih vozil vsaj v nekaj odstotkih. Jan-Christoph Oetjen (Renew). – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Die Dekarbonisierung des Verkehrssektors ist sicherlich eine der spannendsten Aufgaben, der wir uns gerade zu stellen haben, denn sie ist notwendig, wenn wir die Klimaziele erreichen wollen. Aber gleichzeitig ist sie wirklich schwierig, diese Aufgabe, denn wir müssen auf der einen Seite ein Gleichgewicht halten zwischen der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit unserer Wirtschaft, zwischen den Preisen, die die Verbraucher zu zahlen haben, und gleichzeitig ambitionierten Klimazielen, die wir erreichen wollen. Ich finde, dass wir im Großen und Ganzen eigentlich ein gutes Kompromisspaket hier auf dem Tisch haben, das wir auch unterstützen. Ich möchte allerdings gerne zwei Gedanken hier an dieser Stelle äußern. Das eine ist: Wir setzen sehr, sehr stark auf die Elektrifizierung. Beim Auto ist das allen bewusst und auch schon irgendwie in das Selbstverständnis der Bürgerinnen und Bürger übergegangen. Aber auch für den maritimen Bereich wird der Strom eine große Rolle spielen, wenn es darum geht, in Häfen beispielsweise die Schiffe tatsächlich mit Strom zu versorgen. Wir haben allerdings Netze, die darauf nicht ausgelegt sind. In ganz Europa haben wir diese Netze nicht, die darauf ausgelegt sind. Ich bin fest davon überzeugt, dass eine der schwierigsten Herausforderungen nicht ist, Ladesäulen zu bauen, sondern die Netze für den Strom darauf auszurichten, dass diese Stromkapazitäten auch tatsächlich zur Verfügung stehen. Das zweite ist: Für den maritimen Bereich wissen wir noch nicht, welches die beste Lösung sein wird. Und wir werden verschiedene beste Lösungen je nach Nutzungssituation, je nach Schiffsgröße, je nach Anwendung, je nach Region bekommen. Ich glaube, dass wir darauf aufpassen müssen, dass wir technologieoffener an diese Geschichte rangehen. LNG wird eine wichtige Rolle spielen, aber natürlich auch Wasserstoff und andere alternative Kraftstoffe. Und dafür müssen wir wahrscheinlich auch noch ambitioniertere Ziele setzen. Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, caros colegas, votamos esta semana duas propostas de regulamento, quer o Marítimo, quer as infraestruturas que são centrais para atingirmos as metas climáticas de 2050. O transporte marítimo será, porventura, um dos setores com maiores exigências neste processo de transição. Consciente desta necessidade, a Comissão tem revelado ambição nos textos que nos apresenta, sustentada em estudos de impacto e na sua devida quantificação. Apesar disso, o Parlamento, em quase todos os pacotes „Fit for 55”, reiteradamente tem escalado o nível de ambição para valores que consideramos irrealistas. Dou como exemplo o aumento da potência instalada dos postos de carregamento, da distância entre eles, o aumento das datas para a sua implementação ou também o sistema de ar precondicionado nas cabines das aeronaves. Em todos eles tem faltado aquilo que julgo basilar no nosso trabalho como colegisladores, o princípio da proporcionalidade. Contudo, e como em ambos os textos foram atingidos compromissos muito importantes, como as derrogações e as isenções para países periféricos como Portugal e também para as regiões ultraperiféricas, algo que não constava do texto inicial da Comissão, hoje saudamos e estamos em melhores condições para apoiar estas propostas. Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, quiero expresar mi apoyo a estas iniciativas porque el despliegue de una infraestructura de recarga y repostaje de combustibles alternativos suficiente, visible y accesible es condición imprescindible para la descarbonización del transporte. Obliga a la industria a innovar en la producción de vehículos y combustibles. Pero también los legisladores debemos ofrecer seguridad jurídica a la industria y garantías a profesionales del transporte y a la ciudadanía sobre la red de puntos de recarga. Hay que priorizar el despliegue de estas infraestructuras en la red principal de las RTE-T y también garantizar medios de pago más sencillos y homogéneos que los que existen hoy, especialmente para la movilidad eléctrica. La actual dispersión desincentiva tanto como la escasez de puntos de recarga. En cuanto a la normativa sobre combustibles renovables bajos en emisiones para el sector naval, apuesto nuevamente por hacer la transición con y no contra la industria. Los ahorros que se nos anuncian por costes indirectos asociados a la contaminación y mejoras operacionales deben aplicarse a la innovación. Se abre una inmensa oportunidad para que la construcción naval europea consolide nuestro liderazgo mundial en soluciones sostenibles para este modo de transporte. Tenemos la obligación de aprovecharla. Por último, quiero llamar la atención sobre la sensibilidad que debemos en este tema a las regiones ultraperiféricas. Son especialmente dependientes del transporte marítimo. Justifiquemos bien las excepciones, pero admitamos la especificidad de estos territorios. Benoît Lutgen (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, ce règlement apporte des réponses, des balises, des objectifs pour le secteur aérien, pour le secteur maritime, pour le secteur routier aussi, notamment pour le transport de poids lourds et pour les véhicules légers. Mais reconnaissons que pour les automobilistes et par rapport à leurs inquiétudes – notamment celle de ne pas avoir de bornes en suffisance –, ce texte ne va pas suffisamment loin: il ne concerne que le réseau transeuropéen. Il sera urgent d'apporter une réponse rapide pour toutes les zones, pour l'ensemble des réseaux, pour que les obligations aussi permettent d'atténuer les craintes de la population. Les craintes sont nombreuses. Est-ce que je pourrai me payer un véhicule électrique? Est-ce que je pourrai en payer le fonctionnement? Est-ce que je pourrai avoir suffisamment de stations de recharge près de chez moi? C'est un enjeu, bien sûr, pour les citoyens, pour leur emploi et pour leur travail. C'est un enjeu économique, touristique. Et donc rapidement, je pense qu'on devra ajouter toute une série d'obligations, notamment pour que le réseau soit suffisant partout sur l'ensemble des routes européennes. Je terminerai en disant que le tout à l'électrique tel qu'il est décidé – je n'ai pas voté ce tout à l'électrique – est pour moi une folie, notamment de dépendance à l'égard de la Chine. La stratégie européenne et l'innovation notamment ont eu beaucoup à perdre avec cet objectif fixé pour 2035 de 100 %. Un objectif de 90 % aurait permis d'avoir cette flexibilité pour le marché, pour de nouvelles technologies également. Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! Elektryfikacja i dekarbonizacja transportu jest kluczowym elementem planu na zieloną Europę. Musimy jednak pamiętać, że żaden operator transportowy i żaden konsument nie zainwestuje w pojazd nisko- lub zeroemisyjny, jeżeli nie będzie miał pewności, że jest w stanie eksploatować go zgodnie ze swoimi potrzebami, co oznacza możliwość szybkiego naładowania. Jeśli więc chcemy przekonać obywateli Europy do przejścia na e-mobilność, ładowanie samochodów powinno być tak łatwe jak dzisiaj tankowanie. Gdy popatrzymy na statystyki i liczbę punktów ładowania, widzimy, że mamy wiele do zrobienia. Musimy też pamiętać, że są kraje, gdzie nadal większość energii elektrycznej pochodzi z węgla. Dlatego sprostanie tym regulacjom przy dzisiejszej społeczno-ekonomicznej i politycznej sytuacji może okazać się bardzo problematyczne. Ale musimy tę sytuację wziąć pod uwagę. Dlatego też zgadzam się, popieram sprawozdanie i gratuluję panu sprawozdawcy. Zgadzam się z Panią Komisarz, która powiedziała, że potrzebujemy celów bardzo ambitnych, ale możliwych do realizacji i do osiągnięcia. Intervenções „catch the eye” Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, the proposed regulation sets a number of mandatory national targets for the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure in the EU. Alternative fuels: we talk about electricity, we talk about hydrogen, we talk about LNG. For the life of me I don't really understand at this stage how LNG can be considered still an alternative fuel, given that the process of everything to do with it is filthy. Most of it comes from fracked gas, water tables are destroyed. There is huge methane emissions during the transport process, and we're talking about buying into contracts with the US for years to come. A lot of it won't even come on stream for a few years. I think the EU has gone down the wrong path in buying into long-term contracts for LNG. It's not the way forward. Pierre Karleskind (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, il est gratuit. Il est vraiment renouvelable. Il est réellement décarboné. Il ne provoque pas de marées noires. Il n'y a pas de risque d'explosion au moment de son chargement. Cela fait 8 000 ans qu'on l'utilise pour transporter des marchandises et des personnes. Ce carburant alternatif très innovant, c'est – vous l'avez compris – le vent. Si je vous parle du vent, vous allez imaginer peut-être ces caravelles du XVe siècle, ces flûtes du XVIe siècle ou bien ces jonques qui ont été utilisées et qui sont encore utilisées. Et pourtant, comme l'a dit ma collègue Catherine Chabaud tout à l'heure, vous pouvez aller voir cette exposition juste à la sortie de l'hémicycle qui présente des projets. Des projets qui, dès aujourd'hui, proposent le transport de marchandises dans le même laps de temps, à la même vitesse, pour le même emport et avec des gains d'émissions de gaz à effet de serre et de consommation de 45 % – 45 %, c'est moins de carburant et moins d'émissions, c'est plus de profits, c'est plus d'investissements et c'est plus d'investissements également pour les autres carburants alternatifs. Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, these are the first main files of the „Fit for 55” package that we've had to deal with in the TRAN Committee and I have to say, looking on them, I'm not that hopeful that we will meet our environmental goals. I mean, shipping emits 3% of global CO2 emissions, yet the International Maritime Organisation has so far failed to adopt global reduction measures in this field. We, of course, see the same problems with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which again fails to regulate an international sector, which is aviation. Europe has to take a lead in this area with strong regulation but yet we seem happy to bend the knee to the market, expecting industry to deal with this and eat its own profits, if you like. It is not going to happen. At the same time, we see a major U-turn on alternative fuels to include LNG. This is an absolute sick joke. It is against energy independence and environmental preservation. It makes a mockery of what we're trying to do. The future of humanity depends on us doing a lot better. (Fim das intervenções „catch the eye”) Adina-Ioana Vălean,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, colleagues, honourable Members, for a very interesting debate. I think I addressed at the beginning some of the amendments and questions you have around these two files. The debate was very interesting also. It shows that we are in the make of two very important legislative files. Some have doubts. Some would like more ambition. But I think we have to keep in mind that this is for the first time that we are acting on maritime decarbonisation. We have to keep in mind that both files have an industrial angle to it, and I hope that we will be able to create the right market for alternative fuels to be taken up in our sectors. So this being said, I would encourage the plenary to support these two files, solid compromises, and have, why not, a pragmatic approach to these two files, keeping in mind that of course, depending on how it goes, it can revise. The Commission stands ready to support you in the negotiations with the Council, as usual, and I am very confident that we will deliver together something very good for both sectors in transport and for our citizens. Jörgen Warborn,
föredragande. – Herr talman! Fru kommissionär och ärade kollegor! Jag tycker att det känns betryggande att få höra ett så starkt stöd för den färdplan som vi har tagit fram mellan transportutskottet, industriutskottet och miljöutskottet. Visst, som kommissionären säger, det finns några få negativa röster, men totalen känns övervägande positiv. Vi har tyvärr fått vänja oss vid förhandlingar, globalt sett, som har mynnat ut i väldigt storslagna målsättningar men sedan gett tomma löften. De stora förändringarna i verkligheten har uteblivit, men förslaget vi har på bordet är något helt annat. Europa tar med aktiv handling täten i omställningen av sjöfarten. Det här är världens, utan motstycke, mest ambitiösa lagstiftning på klimatområdet för sjöfarten. Det är den enda heltäckande, genomförbara och riktigt konkreta planen för att dramatiskt minska sjöfartens klimatavtryck. För det handlar inte bara om att ställa ut de mest storslagna löftena, om man inte samtidigt kan leva upp till dem i verkligheten. Här har vi gjort just detta. Vi har pekat med hela handen vartåt vi ska. Vi garanterar sektorn långsiktiga spelregler och förutsägbarhet, så att de kan våga investera. Vi utformar reglerna så att rederierna och hamnarna kan fokusera sina resurser på de åtgärder som ger störst klimatnytta och mest „pang för pengarna”. För det är så vi klarar klimatmålen snabbt och effektivt. Det är så vi säkerställer att europeiska konsumenter inte ska bära hela världens klimatkostnader. Det är så vi skyddar jobben för sjömännen, för hamnarbetare och alla anställda i exportindustrin. Det är så vi blir ett föredöme för andra länder att följa. Kompromissförslaget som vi har förhandlat fram har stöd av fem politiska grupper och utskotten ITRE, ENVI och TRAN. Jag tycker att det talar sitt tydliga språk om vilken bra balans vi har hittat. Jag vill uppmana kollegerna att stödja det här kompromissförslaget på bordet. Ismail Ertug,
Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident! Ich glaube, es ist noch einmal deutlich geworden, dass es wichtig ist, dieses Dossier zu unterstützen, auch deshalb, weil wir zum einen die Infrastruktur brauchen, um eben dieses sogenannte Henne-Ei-Problem zu lösen. Ich glaube, dass wir das in der Elektromobilität geschafft haben. Das sieht man auch am Hochlauf der verschiedenen Technologien und an den Verkaufszahlen der Fahrzeuge. Aber dasselbe muss uns auch bei der Wasserstofftechnologie gelingen. Auch hier stehen wir jetzt an einem Punkt, wo die Industrie zum einen zurückhaltend reagiert, weil sie zwar investieren will, aber die Infrastruktur noch nicht sieht, und die Infrastrukturbetreiber aus denselben Gründen auch nicht tätig werden. Ich glaube, mit diesem ambitionierten Ansatz, dass wir die Ziele der Wasserstofftechnologie verglichen mit dem Kommissionsvorschlag jeweils drei Jahre nach vorne ziehen und auch die Abstände zwischen den verschiedenen Infrastrukturen reduzieren, geben wir einen großen Anreiz dahingehend, mit einem Aufbau eines redundanten Systems in die nächsten Jahre zu gehen. Warum brauchen wir in meinen Augen beide Systeme – sowohl die Elektrifizierung als auch den Aufbau der Infrastruktur? Erstens, weil es genannt worden ist: Wir haben nicht überall das Netz zur Verfügung, das eben problemlos alles elektrifizieren kann. Dort, wo wir letztendlich das Netz auch ausgleichen können, da bedarf es nach meiner Auffassung einer guten Wasserstoffnutzung. Das wäre zusammengenommen tatsächlich der Mix, der uns in Zukunft in der Europäischen Union helfen wird, unsere Mobilität, unseren Mobilitätssektor zu dekarbonisieren. Dass wir genug Elektrifizierung und Energie brauchen, ist vollkommen unbestritten. Deshalb wird uns das auch nicht alleine gelingen. Wir werden auch Importe aus anderen Regionen dieser Erde machen müssen. Aber das müssen wir mit REPowerEU – und das werden wir nach meiner Auffassung auch gut können – noch einmal verfolgen. Unterstützen Sie meine Änderungsanträge. Presidente. – O debate conjunto está encerrado. A votação realizar-se-á na quarta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2022. Declarações escritas (artigo 171. o ) Eugen Jurzyca (ECR),
písomne. – Európsky parlament bude hlasovať o povinnosti, aby boli elektrické nabíjacie stanice pre automobily k dispozícii aspoň každých 60 km pozdĺž všetkých diaľnic a rýchlostných ciest najneskôr do konca roku 2025. Predkladatelia pritom nepreukázali, že na trhu je previs dopytu po kapacitách elektrických nabíjacích staníc nad ponukou, a už vôbec nie, že súkromný sektor je natoľko paralyzovaný, že by nedokázal z vlastnej iniciatívy vybudovať stojany na nabíjanie tam, kde je po nich dopyt. Budem hlasovať proti, lebo to považujem za zlú cestu boja proti emisiám skleníkových plynov. Ak ňou pôjdeme ďalej, budeme centrálne nariaďovať napríklad aj hustotu výrobcov elektrických nabíjacích staníc a komponentov do nich. Oveľa lepším riešením by podľa mňa bolo, keby štát predražil negatívne externality (emisie skleníkových plynov) a trh by zabezpečil zvyšok (výrobu a nákup áut na alternatívne pohony, ich nabíjanie, výrobu toho nabíjania ...). Trh (teda vlastne občania) by lepšie rozhodol o tom, či sú elektromobily efektívnejším nástrojom boja proti emisiám skleníkových plynov než práca z domu, bicykle, kolobežky či napríklad pružnejšie sťahovanie sa za prácou. A teda aj o tom, kde sú nabíjacie stanice potrebné každých 20 km a kde stačia každých 200. Ελισσάβετ Βόζεμπεργκ-Βρυωνίδη (PPE),
γραπτώς. – Η προτεινόμενη νομοθεσία σχετικά με τη αύξηση της χρήσης ανανεώσιμων πηγών καυσίμων και καυσίμων χαμηλών εκπομπών άνθρακα στις θαλάσσιες μεταφορές στοχεύει εκτός από την προώθηση των βιώσιμων καυσίμων στη ναυτιλία και στην εισαγωγή ειδικών ρυθμίσεων για τα πλοία που φτάνουν ή αναχωρούν από λιμένες της ΕΕ. Είναι ζωτικής σημασίας να αυξήσουμε σταδιακά το μερίδιο των καυσίμων αυτών σε όλους τους τομείς των μεταφορών, να σεβαστούμε την τεχνολογική ουδετερότητα αλλά και να εξασφαλίσουμε τα απαραίτητα κίνητρα για τη χρηματοδότηση της έρευνας και της ανάπτυξης στους εν λόγω τομείς. Προκειμένου να διαφυλαχθεί η ανταγωνιστικότητα της ευρωπαϊκής ναυτιλίας, επιχειρείται μια παγκόσμια προσέγγιση για τη σταδιακή μείωση των εκπομπών αερίων του θερμοκηπίου στις θαλάσσιες μεταφορές. Στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο καταλήξαμε σε ένα ισορροπημένο συμβιβαστικό κείμενο, φιλόδοξο και ρεαλιστικό, όπου δίνουμε ιδιαίτερη έμφαση στην περιβαλλοντική αρχή „ο ρυπαίνων πληρώνει”, που αποτελεί τον ακρογωνιαίο λίθο του περιβαλλοντικού δικαίου της ΕΕ. Σε αυτόν τον τομέα προβλέπονται συγκεκριμένες συμβατικές υποχρεώσεις μεταξύ πλοιοκτητών και παρόχων εμπορικών υπηρεσιών. Παράλληλα, το κείμενο ενσωματώνει σε ικανοποιητικό βαθμό την υποχρέωση των προμηθευτών καυσίμων να παρέχουν καύσιμα που πληρούν τις απαιτούμενες κοινοτικές προδιαγραφές στους λιμένες των κρατών μελών της ΕΕ και αποτελεί τη σωστή βάση για την έναρξη των διαπραγματεύσεων για την τελική νομοθεσία. 15.   Richtsnoeren voor het werkgelegenheidsbeleid in de lidstaten (debat) Presidente. – Segue-se o debate sobre o relatório da Deputada Alicia Homs Ginel, em nome da Comissão do Emprego e dos Assuntos Sociais, sobre a proposta de decisão do Conselho relativa às orientações para as políticas de emprego dos Estados-Membros (COM(2022)0241 - C9-0199/2022 - 2022/0165(NLE)) (A9-0243/2022). Alicia Homs Ginel,
ponente. – Señor presidente, comisario Schmit, antes de empezar, me gustaría agradecer el trabajo de todas las personas implicadas en este informe. Cuando empecé a trabajar en él el pasado mes de junio, nos marcamos tres objetivos principales: el primero, proteger a los trabajadores y trabajadoras; también fortalecer, por supuesto, el Estado del bienestar; y el tercero, garantizar que las transiciones verde y digital fueran socialmente justas y que no dejaran a nadie atrás. La pandemia de COVID-19, la emergencia climática, la guerra de Putin y el aumento exponencial del coste de la vida piden que pongamos en marcha políticas progresistas que aseguren una recuperación democrática, inclusiva y socialmente justa. El futuro de Europa pasa por crear empleos de calidad y blindar la inversión social. A diferencia de aquellos que apuestan por desmantelar el Estado social y volver a políticas de austeridad draconianas, los socialdemócratas defendemos que quien tenga mayor capacidad económica contribuya en mayor medida. La fiscalidad justa y progresiva es la principal herramienta para luchar contra la desigualdad y contra la pobreza. Reforzar el escudo social no es una opción, sino que es una obligación, y más en tiempos de crisis. Y no lo digo solo yo: el propio Fondo Monetario Internacional se mostraba contrario hace unos días a las bajadas de impuestos generalizadas y demandaba a los Estados miembros desplegar políticas inclusivas y justas con el foco puesto en las clases medias y trabajadoras, que están ahora mismo en dificultades. Políticas como las que incluimos en estas orientaciones y con las que algunos grupos parecen tener ciertas dificultades. Y hablo en concreto de crear un paquete de resiliencia social que asegure la financiación de los ERTE, que tanto han ayudado a trabajadores y trabajadoras, y un mecanismo de rescate social para los más vulnerables. Tenemos que seguir avanzando. Esto ya fue adoptado en resoluciones pasadas del Parlamento Europeo y no podemos ir hacia atrás. Tenemos que seguir hacia adelante. También hablo de activar esquemas de renta mínima en todos los Estados miembros a través de una directiva. Y hablo también de asegurar la universalidad en el caso de los sistemas de salud y los cuidados de calidad, que tan necesarios han sido durante la pandemia. Se acabó también el trabajar gratis. Europa debe estar al lado de sus ciudadanos y ciudadanas y, sobre todo, de los de hoy, pero también de los de mañana. Por eso nos vamos a asegurar de que todos aquellos jóvenes que realicen unas prácticas reciban una remuneración justa, tengan condiciones de trabajo dignas y accedan al sistema de seguridad social. A mí, personalmente, me hubiera gustado ir un paso más allá prohibiendo las prácticas no remuneradas, una acción que me parece una explotación laboral para nuestros jóvenes. Pero, una vez más, a la derecha le ha faltado no sé si decir compromiso o valentía. Y por eso pedimos también en estas orientaciones sobre el empleo hasta 20 000 millones de euros para la Garantía Infantil Europea, con el fin de sacar a cinco millones de niños y niñas de la pobreza o la exclusión social de aquí a 2030. Putin ha provocado una guerra en Ucrania y los europeos y europeas estamos viviendo las consecuencias de esta guerra. Ante esa situación, es más necesario que nunca reforzar el escudo social, tener interiorizado qué significa la igualdad de oportunidades. Por todo ello, pido al resto de grupos, no ya compromiso o valentía, sino un poco de sentido común a la hora de respaldar el informe tal y como salió de la Comisión de Empleo y Asuntos Sociales. President. – I regret to inform you that we cannot have „catch the eye” in this debate. We are just starting this debate and, afterwards, we still have another topic on our agenda with 27 one-minute speeches. Nicolas Schmit,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, first let me thank the rapporteur, Ms Alicia Homs Ginel, and the shadow rapporteurs for delivering this important report. We very much welcome the broad support expressed for the Commission proposal on the updated guidelines for the employment policies of Member States. Against the background of the current crisis and the economic uncertainty ahead of us, let me underline the importance of adequate labour market skills and social policies for navigating the crisis and accompanying the transitions while preserving jobs and ensuring social protection. This year, we targeted the narrative of the employment guidelines for the post-COVID-19 environment and the war in Ukraine. But we also focused on the implementation of the European pillar of social rights and the new EU 2030 headline targets on employment, skills and poverty reduction. Additionally, we brought in new elements related to fairness in the green transition to make sure that it will be a just transition. And we added policy elements in the context of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, including increasing energy costs. We see that all these new elements were also very much welcomed by Parliament. We acknowledge and appreciate the contribution provided by Parliament's report. We agree on the further integration of the Sustainable Development Goals into the European semester. And we also agreed that in order to effectively eradicate risks at work, both mental and physical health should be protected. You will debate the important topic of mental health in this plenary session. We cannot but agree with a strong focus on the involvement of social partners also and especially during times of crisis, notably to address the impact of the increasing cost of living. We agree that new forms of work should be compliant with labour law and social protection. Dear President, honourable Members, the Treaty-based employment guidelines are of key importance for economic and social governance. They provide detailed guidance for the Member States when drafting their employment skills and social policies. They ensure that they make steady progress towards their national targets in terms of employment, skills and poverty reduction. set with the European pillar of social rights action plan. The employment guidelines are the core of the European semester, defining its social dimension. Promoting coordinated employment and social policies across the EU has to go hand-in-hand with economic and fiscal policies. We have to address job preservation, especially in those sectors, industrial sectors mainly, that are most affected by soaring energy prices. It is also important to tackle labour market shortages through inclusive employment policies that promote skilling, reskilling and upskilling. We have to target 9 million young people called NEETS for whom we should open job opportunities and good education if needed. A balanced coordination of economic and social policies is necessary to ensure upward social and economic convergence and to enhance the resilience of the EU, in particular in times of crisis. Such coordination has to be at the heart of the semester process. The updated employment guidelines will provide further steering on how to modernise labour market institutions, education and training, social protection and health systems. We want to make them more effective, more inclusive and fairer. The guidelines will also help Member States address emerging social challenges, including increasing energy poverty, in a context of a dramatic rise in energy prices. They also provide a framework to guide wage-setting in the currently high inflation context, in full respect of national practices and of the role of social partners, with the aim to preserve purchasing power and reflect the current socio-economic conditions. The guidelines foster the acquisition of skills and competences throughout people's lives, which is necessary to respond to current and future labour market needs and ensure a successful twin transition. The upcoming European Year of Skills will further reinforce efforts towards these goals. Finally, we should not forget the importance of protecting the most vulnerable, notably women, young people and children, who are among the most affected in the current cost of living crisis, after already being hit by the COVID-19 crisis. Very importantly, this also refers to Ukrainian people that had to leave their country following Russia's criminal war of aggression against their country. In that regard, the guidelines reiterate that Member States should offer them an adequate level of protection through adequate job opportunities and social services, in line with the Temporary Protection Directive. We welcome and appreciate that Parliament shared the approach chosen by the Commission. We are on the same page when it comes to providing the right solutions to all citizens in a spirit of social justice. Helmut Geuking,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, sehr geehrte Frau Homs Ginel! Vielen Dank für die gute Zusammenarbeit. Es war eine richtige Fleißarbeit von Ihrer Seite her, und Sie haben da ein Werk geschaffen, was jetzt auf dem Tisch liegt, was wir debattieren müssen. Ich hatte Ihnen bei den Verhandlungen gesagt, dass da ganz viele Sachen drinstehen, die eigentlich in so einen Bericht nicht reingehören. Es ist ein Leitfaden, ein Leitfaden für Beschäftigungspolitik. Sie haben da zum Beispiel Sachen reingesetzt, wo mir eigentlich als Sozialpolitiker und als Bundesvorsitzender der Familienpartei Deutschlands natürlich das Herz aufgeht, wenn ich das mit den Kindern lese, mit den 20 Millionen, was Sie angesprochen haben – keine Frage. Allerdings – mal ganz ehrlich: Gehört das in diesen Bericht rein? Ist das nicht eigentlich zu schade, dieses wichtige Thema als einen Nebenaspekt in so einem Leitfaden für Beschäftigungspolitik mal eben nebenbei mit abzuhandeln? Da sage ich Ihnen ganz ehrlich: Das ist eine Herzensangelegenheit von meiner Seite her, und das gehört da garantiert nicht rein. Da bedarf es eines eigenen expliziten Berichts, der dem auch gerecht wird, gerade in der heutigen Zeit – der Kommissar hat es angesprochen –, anhand von Pandemie und anhand des Krieges, wo die Familien und die Kinder so sehr darunter leiden in ganz Europa. Wir dürfen da pfiffige Ideen haben, und daher dürfen wir dies nicht in solchen Berichten verschwenden. Das ist das Problem, was wir allgemein haben. Nichts gegen Sie, Frau Homs Ginel, aber das ist hier im Parlament mittlerweile Usus, dass man Berichte verfasst und man versucht, alles da reinzupacken, alles, was gar nicht dazugehört. Es ist völlig egal, Klimawandel, Klimaschutz, Green Deal – alles muss in die Berichte rein. Man möchte dann Begriffe wie zum Beispiel universal festzurren – Begriffe, die überhaupt nicht justiziabel sind anstatt effektiv. Dafür werden die Berichte mittlerweile missbraucht. Ich appelliere an die Konferenz der Präsidenten, hier einmal tätig zu werden und mal klarzustellen, wofür Berichte überhaupt da sind. Die einzelnen Themen, die da behandelt werden, sind wichtig, die sind gut und viel zu schade, um als Beiwerk in einem Bericht mal ebenso erwähnt zu werden oder da rein zu finden. Deswegen haben wir ein Problem mit der EVP, hier um Zustimmung zu ringen. Wir geben uns Mühe, ich appelliere zumindest, 42 und 14/2 abzulehnen, damit wir ... (Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.) Agnes Jongerius,
namens de S&D-Fractie. – Voorzitter, mijnheer de commissaris, de arbeidsmarkt van vandaag is niet meer de arbeidsmarkt van twee jaar geleden. Er is een hele hoop veranderd. De COVID-crisis heeft de digitalisering in een stroomversnelling gebracht en de Russische invasie in Oekraïne zet vandaag een enorme druk op werknemers en bedrijven. Die situatie vraagt om actie. Europa moet werknemers in nood steunen en zorgen voor fatsoenlijke arbeidsomstandigheden die de realiteit van de arbeidswereld van vandaag de dag beter weerspiegelen. Ik roep vanaf deze plek de lidstaten op om te voldoen aan de Europese fatsoensnorm. Dus: verhoog de minimumlonen, verbied de nulurencontracten en reguleer AI op de werkplek. Verleng SURE en maak er een permanent steunprogramma van. Zo kunnen we de werkgelegenheid op peil houden en gaan bedrijven niet kopje onder. Ik denk dat we echt steun moeten bieden om werkgelegenheid te behouden. We willen niet dat mensen kopje onder gaan. We willen ook niet dat bedrijven nodeloos kopje onder gaan. En als we de groeiende ongelijkheid willen tegengaan, dan moeten de sociale vangnetten in Europa sterker zijn dan ze nu zijn. Max Orville,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire Schmit, face aux conséquences sociales de la pandémie de COVID-19, de la guerre en Ukraine et de la hausse du coût de la vie, il est plus que jamais nécessaire de coordonner nos politiques sociales et de l'emploi. Les lignes directrices que nous proposons et le cycle du Semestre européen permettent d'allier une bonne gouvernance économique et une relance plus juste, plus durable, qui accompagne les transitions verte et numérique. Elles permettent de fixer un cap pour la réalisation des trois grands objectifs de l'Union européenne pour 2030 en matière d'emplois, de compétences et de réduction de la pauvreté. La poursuite des réformes et des investissements judicieux par les États membres sera fondamentale pour soutenir les créations d'emplois et renforcer la justice sociale. Nous avons le devoir de soutenir les générations futures par la mise en œuvre efficace de la garantie européenne pour l'enfance. Nous avons l'obligation de moderniser nos marchés du travail pour qu'ils soient plus résilients et plus inclusifs. Nous devons assurer des formations de qualité, l'investissement dans les compétences et l'apprentissage tout au long de la vie. Dans le contexte actuel d'incertitude accrue, des mesures de soutien en faveur des ménages vulnérables sont indispensables. J'appelle solennellement le Conseil à tenir compte des demandes du Parlement afin d'assurer des politiques sociales et de l'emploi inclusives, protectrices et tournées vers l'avenir, qui ne laisseront aucun citoyen au bord du chemin. Rosa D'Amato,
a nome del gruppo Verts/ALE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, innanzitutto grazie all'on. Alicia Homs Ginel per il lavoro proficuo e per la collaborazione con gli altri colleghi, con cui abbiamo lavorato veramente bene. Con queste linee guida per le politiche occupazionali degli Stati membri proponiamo di contrastare l'inflazione e il suo impatto sociale. Ce la possiamo fare. Serve un piano europeo per la formazione e riqualificazione dei lavoratori, che si investano risorse nei green job. È la transizione ecologica che crea più e nuovi posti di lavoro. Chi lo perderà (per esempio in una acciaieria che chiude) potrà ritrovarlo in un'azienda che installa pannelli solari, idrolizzatori per l'idrogeno verde, ma va formato. Aumentiamo di 20 miliardi il fondo per la garanzia europea per l'infanzia, garantiamo a tutti i bambini un accesso equo ed efficace alla sanità e all'istruzione, alloggi adeguati e una sana alimentazione. Il patto di stabilità e crescita, poi, va quantomeno sospeso. Ricordiamoci la Grecia, l'austerity, le politiche „lacrime e sangue” dei falchi del rigore ammazzarono almeno 700 bambini. L'equilibrio di bilancio non vale la vita delle persone. I governi poi introducano un salario minimo, contrastino lo sfruttamento del lavoro e garantiscano un reddito minimo. Lo dico anche a chi è a destra in questo Parlamento, ai meloniani, ai salviniani e ai renziani che ostacolano questo progetto e queste proposte, qui come nel mio paese, in Italia. La battaglia è unica: tutela dei diritti sociali e tutela dell'ambiente. Dominique Bilde,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, l'Union européenne ne manque jamais d'imagination quand il s'agit de gaspiller du temps et de l'argent sur des textes inutiles. Et quel meilleur exemple que ces lignes directrices? Presque chaque année, les institutions bruxelloises perdent leur temps à établir ces lignes non contraignantes, juste là pour orienter sur des sujets qui ne relèvent, en général, même pas de leurs compétences. Pensez-vous donc que les États membres sont si incompétents, si incapables de prendre seuls des décisions? Êtes-vous allés si loin dans vos illusions fédéralistes que vous vous sentez obligés de dire quoi faire à nos gouvernants? Quel que soit le sujet sur la table, vous n'avez qu'une seule réponse: plus d'UE. Vous la rêvez toute puissante et présente dans tout. Et dans les quelques domaines que nous avons encore réussi à préserver, malgré vos assauts, vous vous permettez conseils et orientations. Cela vous surprendra peut-être, mais nous n'avons pas besoin de vos conseils. Nous élisons démocratiquement nos gouvernements et, qu'on les soutienne ou pas, c'est à eux que revient la charge de nous gouverner. Nous rejetons fermement cette ingérence européenne qui donne des leçons alors qu'elle devrait se taire. Nos États membres sont les mieux placés pour savoir seuls de quoi ils ont besoin. En cette période troublée faite de crises à répétition, la décence voudrait que vous laissiez les pays faire ce qu'il faut pour sortir leur population de la crise. Les peuples ont le regard tourné vers vous, chers collègues, et les récentes élections révèlent la défiance qu'ils ont vis-à-vis de l'Union européenne. Il serait temps de les écouter. Beata Szydło,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! Nie da się ukryć, że rewizja warunków, wytycznych dotyczących zatrudnienia jest konieczna, ponieważ zmieniły się realia po pandemii, a przede wszystkim wojna na Ukrainie weryfikuje naszą rzeczywistość gospodarczą i społeczną. Musimy sobie zadać pytanie: co powinno być naszym celem? Czego obawiają się w tej chwili najbardziej Europejczycy? Rosnące ceny energii i paliw, inflacja, obawa o to, że nie będzie ich stać na to, żeby przetrwać nadchodzącą zimę, obawa o utratę miejsc pracy, przedsiębiorcy, którzy martwią się, że będą musieli zamykać swoje firmy – to jest rzeczywistość, z którą się mierzymy, i powinniśmy przede wszystkim zrobić wszystko, żeby realnie i racjonalnie móc pomóc Europejczykom. A więc trzeba przede wszystkim zastanowić się, z czego wynikają te problemy. Trzeba wyciągnąć wnioski i zweryfikować również te plany, które są aktualnie realizowane w Unii Europejskiej, dotyczące np. polityki klimatycznej, ETS. Trzeba zająć się problemami związanymi właśnie z tymi programami, projektami Fit for 55. To jest podrażanie kosztów europejskiej gospodarki i tworzenie rzeczywistości, kiedy ona staje się niekonkurencyjna, a życie Europejczyków staje się bardzo drogie. A więc powinniśmy przede wszystkim odstąpić od planów, które powodują dzisiaj wiele, wiele problemów dla Europejczyków. José Gusmão,
em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhor Presidente, o relatório que vai ser votado sobre as orientações para as políticas de emprego tem alguns acordos importantes que melhoram a proposta da Comissão ao nível das condições de trabalho, dos salários, dos serviços públicos e do combate à pobreza. E tem também outras formulações interessantes sobre o papel do Parlamento neste processo e, nomeadamente, sobre a equiparação do Parlamento Europeu ao Conselho em tudo o que diz respeito ao Semestre Europeu. Mas é nas divergências em torno deste relatório que encontramos os debates mais esclarecedores e é de facto esclarecedor ver como a direita e a extrema direita europeias se opõem a que o Parlamento detenha um papel equiparável ao do Conselho Europeu e como defendem, por exemplo, que empresas que beneficiem de apoios públicos no âmbito do PRR ou do orçamento comunitário, possam pegar nesses dinheiros públicos e transferi-los diretamente para os acionistas, sem sequer terem que assegurar a manutenção do emprego e das condições de trabalho dos seus trabalhadores. Portanto, a direita europeia quer que os dinheiros públicos sirvam para financiar empresas que despedem trabalhadores e que pegam nesse dinheiro e o transferem diretamente para os acionistas sem passar na casa de partida. E é também a direita que mais se tem batido por formulações altamente equívocas no que diz respeito às pensões de reforma, como as que se centram no envelhecimento ativo e que encerram de forma muito mal disfarçada os projetos de aumento da idade da reforma, ou seja, de imputação aos trabalhadores dos custos que esta crise tem gerado e que, de facto, não têm chegado a todos, nomeadamente aos seus responsáveis. Lívia Járóka (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Kevés égetőbb és fontosabb kérdés van a jelenlegi gazdasági kilátások mellett az Unió számára, mint a tagállamok foglalkoztatáspolitikája. És sokkal rosszabb a helyzet a legeslegszegényebbek között is, akiknek az elmúlt években sikerült valamennyire fölhúzniuk magukat, hisz a Covid-válság és az orosz–ukrán háború gazdasági bizonytalanságot, napi harcokat hozott, és nagyon nehéz megvédenünk azokat a munkahelyeket, amelyeket teremtettünk. Magyarországon 2010-ben egymillió munkahelyet ígértünk, abból 700 ezret tudtunk eddig megvalósítani. 3,8 millióan dolgoztak akkor, most 4,5 millióan dolgoznak. Mégis óriási feladat most az, hogy ezek a munkahelyek megmaradhassanak, ezeknek a családoknak a biztonsága megmaradhasson. Ezért Önöknek is javaslom, hogy ahogy mi akkoriban változtattunk, Önök is változtassanak. Segélyezés helyett alternatívát kell adni, nem minimumjövedelmet vagy különböző segélyeket a legkiszolgáltatottabbnak, hanem munkahelyet. Ez most a legeslegfontosabb, és ne felejtsék el, hogy ezekre a legszegényebb csoportokra erős forrásként tekintsenek, integrálásuk GDP-hozadékot hoz. Sara Skyttedal (PPE). – Herr talman! Varje år beslutar Europaparlamentet om ett sådant här medskick om riktlinjer för medlemsstaternas arbetsmarknadspolitik. Poängen är att samordna vår ekonomiska politik. Kommissionens förslag inför årets beslut fokuserar av uppenbara skäl på konsekvenserna av Rysslands krig i Ukraina, inte minst den pågående energikrisen. Rätt rekommendationer i EU:s planeringstermin har potentialen att skapa förutsättningar för fler jobb – och i längden ett mer konkurrenskraftigt och välmående Europa. Därför är det så trist att år efter år se hur Europaparlamentets inspel i denna fråga kidnappas av vänstergrupperna i parlamentet, som i stället väljer att uppmana EU-kommissionen att ta över allt fler av medlemsstaternas kompetenser. I morgon röstar vi bland annat om en skrivning som efterfrågar ett nytt direktiv om minimiinkomster, alltså en ny gemensam socialbidragsnorm. Det är illa nog i sig, men dessutom riskerar gemensamma normer i nästa steg att leda till att det efterfrågas gemensam finansiering av dessa normer. Det sista unionens ekonomi behöver just nu är transfereringar mellan medlemsländernas socialförsäkringssystem. Det är beklagligt att vänstergrupperna vägrar att hålla fokus på vad de här medskicken är tänkta att handla om. Vi hade kunnat fokusera på rekommendationer för att stärka konkurrenskraften inför de tuffa åren som väntar. Men i stället dominerar vänstersidans destruktiva linje som snarare skadar planeringsterminen. Marc Angel (S&D). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, we need to invest in our workforce. And when it comes to the digital and environmental transition, our human capital must be at the heart of all our action. For my political family, the Socialists and Democrats, this is self-evident. But all too often, curiously, we find that others seem to backtrack or to oppose such policies. What more noble cause is there than to invest in the people that make up our society and work for our common prosperity? And that means investing in all our citizens, women and men in all their diversity, persons with disabilities, minorities, vulnerable groups and people who were granted temporary protection. And there will be no better moment to invest in our human capital than in these challenging times. Delaying our action will lead to a loss of trust, not only into our common European project, but also in politics at national level. It is therefore crucial that the excellent report of our S&D colleague Alicia Homs calls for minimum income, universal access to health care, affordable housing, the implementation of the child guarantee, the prolongation of SURE, the social rescue facility and fair and progressive taxation. These are concrete actions to support our human capital in these difficult times. We cannot afford to leave anyone behind. Until now, our citizens have been resilient. It is time to learn from them, to truly listen to them, and to make our proposals a reality for all. Sylvie Brunet (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, cher Nicolas, chers collègues, je veux redire ma conviction qu'il est urgent de mettre en place un semestre structurellement plus social. À cet effet, je voudrais souligner quelques points. Il faut apporter des réponses sociales aux grandes crises que nous traversons, hélas! – que ce soit la pandémie, que ce soit la guerre – et je pense notamment au programme SURE, qu'il est absolument important de rendre permanent pour accompagner le chômage partiel. Il est également indispensable de lutter contre la grande pauvreté, de continuer à lutter contre la grande pauvreté. Nous nous sommes donné comme objectif de réduire de 15 millions le nombre de personnes pauvres d'ici à 2030. Je me demande où nous en sommes en ce qui concerne ce grand objectif; je n'ai pas personnellement de chiffres. Par ailleurs, il est aussi important d'instaurer des objectifs de création d'emplois de qualité, bien rémunérés, décents, par la coordination des politiques sociales et de l'emploi. Enfin, puisque 2023 sera l'année des compétences, il faut continuer à investir en matière de formation pour ces compétences et pour les transitions numérique et verte. Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (ECR). – Señor presidente, señor comisario Schmit, 22 % de desempleo en 2030: este es el objetivo que nos propone la Comisión Europea en estas orientaciones. Es vergonzoso. Uno de cada cuatro trabajadores en paro. ¿Esto es todo lo que nos puede ofrecer la Unión Europea? ¿Uno de cada cuatro de nosotros en la calle? Pero, al mismo tiempo, la Agenda 2030 habla de pobreza cero. ¿Pobreza cero? ¿Cómo? Se ven claras las intenciones: cultura del subsidio. Se provoca pobreza y luego se mercadean las ayudas. Cambiemos el rumbo, el empleo es la mejor política social. Hablemos de crear riqueza, competitividad, un mercado de prosperidad donde podamos ganarnos dignamente, con nuestro esfuerzo, el sustento de nuestras familias y ser libres (y no, como aquí se propone, dependientes de ningún Gobierno). Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση αποτελεί οδικό χάρτη νέων σκληρών αντεργατικών μέτρων με πρόσχημα την πανδημία και τον ιμπεριαλιστικό πόλεμο στην Ουκρανία. Στο όνομα της άκρως ανταγωνιστικής αγοράς εργασίας, επιδιώκει να θωρακίσει τα ευρωπαϊκά μονοπώλια στον διεθνή ανταγωνισμό, μπροστά στη διαφαινόμενη καπιταλιστική κρίση. Πίσω από διακηρύξεις χωρίς κανένα αντίκρισμα και κατοχύρωση για αξιοπρεπείς μισθούς και συλλογικές διαπραγματεύσεις κρύβονται οι τρομακτικές αντεργατικές μεταρρυθμίσεις με τη βούλα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, όπως ο νόμος Χατζηδάκη στην Ελλάδα, προωθείται η διάλυση του ημερήσιου χρόνου εργασίας, προτείνεται ο καθορισμός μισθών ως και στο ελάχιστο με κριτήριο το καλάθι προϊόντων νοικοκυριού για εξαθλιωμένους, η γενίκευση της τηλεργασίας και των εργολαβικών δουλεμπορικών, η κινητικότητα των εργαζομένων, καθώς και η χαριστική βολή στην κοινωνική ασφάλιση. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, κλιμακώνονται οι διώξεις κατά των εργαζομένων που αγωνίζονται για τα δικαιώματά τους, όπως αυτές κατά των απεργών συνδικάτων βάσης στην Ιταλία, τα „διαδηλωτοδικεία” στην Ελλάδα, η επιστράτευση εργαζομένων σε διυλιστήρια στη Γαλλία. Η αντιλαϊκή πολιτική Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-κυβερνήσεων-μονοπωλίων είναι αιτία πολέμου για τους εργαζόμενους και είναι αναγκαία η κλιμάκωση της πάλης με την πανεργατική απεργία στην Ελλάδα στις 9 Νοέμβρη. Anne Sander (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, notre débat arrive dans un contexte difficile en France, puisqu'un conflit social menace notre économie tout entière, entraînant une pénurie de carburant. C'est un véritable coup de massue pour les travailleurs et les entreprises, déjà en proie à la crise énergétique et à l'inflation. Dans la situation actuelle, en France, mais aussi ailleurs en Europe, soutenir l'emploi est essentiel et constitue notre premier levier d'action pour lutter contre la pauvreté. Cette dernière année, en Europe, les chiffres du chômage ont connu une légère baisse. Toutefois, les jeunes demeurent, ici encore, les plus touchés et peinent à s'insérer dans la vie active. Il est donc plus que jamais impératif de mettre l'accent sur la formation pour développer les compétences des travailleurs d'aujourd'hui et de demain. L'adéquation entre la formation et les besoins des entreprises est vraiment essentielle au bon fonctionnement du marché du travail: c'est le meilleur moyen pour lutter contre le chômage. Alors que le spectre de la récession plane sur l'Europe, nous devons redoubler d'efforts. Tatjana Ždanoka (NI). – Mr President, dear colleagues, the Commission is putting forward the document like only the existing challenges are to be solved: gender pay gap, tackling undeclared work, youth employment, etc. But being previously the Rapporteur on guidelines, I agree that these are certainly important issues, but these are not the main challenges the employment market will face in the upcoming period. In-work poverty: this will become a real disaster and not only for poorer EU Member States like mine, Latvia, but also for western and central European countries. The problem of uncontrolled employment of third-country nationals will become screaming very soon. And finally, of course, drastic job loss. We have to look for new solutions. We may come up with an ambitious proposal for a minimum income directive, not only the Minimum Wage Directive. We also have to start discussions about unconditional basic income. One thing is absolutely clear: in an unusual situation, the usual solutions will not work. Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, cred că în această perioadă este absolut esențial să cuplăm agenda europeană la nevoile cetățenilor europeni. Criza generată de război, criza energetică, inflația au pus pe masa decidenților europeni provocări uriașe. Tocmai de aceea, cred că politicile pe care le pregătește Comisia trebuie să răspundă acestor așteptări, pentru că oamenii au facturi foarte mari, au ore de muncă în plus, însă venituri mult mai mici raportat la necesități. Tocmai de aceea, cred că este esențial să înțelegem că putem combate sărăcia și proteja locurile de muncă prin investiții și politici adaptate la nevoile societății de astăzi. Nicolas Schmit,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I agree with you that in the current cost of living crisis, we need to support workers; we have to help companies and ensure decent working conditions for all. Strengthening the social shield is more necessary than ever. The updated employment guidelines are, in this respect, a very important element and can serve as guidance for Member States to overcome the crisis we are facing and especially to improve social cohesion. This afternoon, we had a very important debate on poverty eradication. Well, to eradicate poverty, the first and best way to do so is good-quality jobs with decent wages. Yes, we have to invest in our economy, but we also have to invest in people – investing in people, in their skills, but also investing in gender equality, in diversity, which is a decisive element of inclusive labour markets. All that starts with children – because if children are lost, if children do not get the right opportunities, well, what happens then? Once they are older and they try to get into the labour market, they will not be able to find good jobs. They will not have decent wages. And we are going in the direction of more exclusion, of more inequality. This is an important part of good labour market policies: start with children. Without that, there are no inclusive labour markets and Europe will not be able in the coming years and decades to build a green and digital economy. Yes, digital skills are key. And where and when should you learn digital skills? Yes, certainly, lifelong learning, but the best is to learn when you are young, when you are at school, and to give older children the right opportunities. Labour markets are changing and there is a broad understanding that equality and fairness, but also good working conditions, are essential for a strong, innovative European economy that benefits all. Alicia Homs Ginel,
ponente. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, no puedo coincidir más con la conclusión que acaba usted de hacer. Estamos de acuerdo en que, en estas guías de empleo, hemos tenido en cuenta las transiciones verde y digital, y muchos otros temas que afectan de manera directa o indirecta el mercado laboral. ¿O me van a decir, los señores de la derecha, que los niños que se encuentran en riesgo de exclusión y de pobreza no es porque sus padres y sus madres tienen trabajos precarios y, por tanto, se ven obligados a que sus hijos vivan en esa situación? ¿O me van a decir también, los señores de la derecha, que hay otras, de las tantas propuestas que hemos hecho en este informe, que no afectan de manera directa o indirecta a los trabajadores de los cuales estamos hablando? ¿O también me van a decir que estamos revisando las guías de empleo cada año? Llevamos sin revisarlas desde antes de la COVID-19. ¿De qué estamos hablando? No queremos que la Comisión quite competencias a los Estados miembros. Eso no lo hemos dicho en ningún momento dentro de este documento. Lo que es terrible es que la derecha esté del lado de los más privilegiados, como hace siempre, y no de los más vulnerables, que es a los que tenemos que proteger. Otros hablan de la cultura del subsidio. Yo les digo que ayudamos a los más vulnerables porque merecen las mismas oportunidades que todos los ciudadanos y ciudadanas. Y así lo avalan tanto el FMI, como el BCE, como la OCDE. Por tanto, yo no veo error en la línea que estamos siguiendo para proteger a los trabajadores, a la clase trabajadora y a los más vulnerables. Y tampoco veo error en todas esas políticas progresistas de ayudar a los que más lo necesitan. Yo creo que deberían hacer una reflexión y mirar si, quizás, los que estén equivocados sean ustedes, que defienden siempre a los más privilegiados. Presidente. – O debate está encerrado. A votação realizar-se-á na terça-feira, 18 de outubro de 2022. Declarações escritas (artigo 171. o ) Sandra Pereira (The Left),
por escrito. – Não é possível fazer este debate sem ter presente que as orientações para as políticas de empregos dos Estados-Membros se inserem no processo do Semestre Europeu, que usurpa competências soberanas dos Estados, que impõe, condiciona e controla as opções políticas democráticas e soberanas no plano da política orçamental, mas também da política social e laboral, processo que funciona como controlo de execução do Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento e do Tratado Orçamental. Esta íntima relação e as ameaças, incluindo de sanção, que dela emanam são responsáveis por anos de estagnação económica, da desregulação e regressão de direitos laborais e sociais, do aprofundamento de desigualdades, da limitação do investimento público ou da liberalização de sectores estratégicos. Da nossa parte, não isentamos a responsabilidade que a União Europeia e as suas políticas têm tido na degradação das condições laborais e sociais, no aumento da exploração, do desemprego e da pobreza, na redução de salários, caminho que, aliás, a direita deste Parlamento quer seguir neste relatório. 16.   Spreektijd van één minuut over kwesties van politiek belang Presidente. – Seguem-se as intervenções de um minuto sobre questões políticas importantes (artigo 172.o do Regimento). Maria Walsh (PPE). – Mr President, we cannot begin to understand what the community in Donegal has been going through for the past ten days since the explosion in a service station and an apartment block. The tragedy in Creeslough stole ten precious lives from a very small rural community in the north west of Ireland. No words can comprehend what the families and those who are still working tirelessly on the front lines have gone through and are continuing to go through in the process. And it is important we honour the lives lost and share our support, solidarity and hope from the European Parliament to the community in Donegal. A book of condolences will be placed outside the EPP Group meeting room here in the Parliament for all colleagues, staff and friends as we stand together as a European community with heartfelt sympathies. I want to thank for the support shown to the people of Creeslough and Donegal, and I also share my thanks to the President of our European Parliament, Roberta Metsola. Κώστας Μαυρίδης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η ρωσική εισβολή στην Ουκρανία ανέδειξε την κατεπείγουσα ανάγκη η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να αποκτήσει γεωπολιτικό ρόλο στη γειτονιά της και στον κόσμο. Ζούμε στην εποχή όπου αυταρχικά καθεστώτα επιτίθενται στις δημοκρατικές κοινωνίες μας. Οι πολεμοχαρείς παραβάτες του διεθνούς δικαίου δεν αντιμετωπίζονται με soft power· ο Πούτιν και ο Ερντογάν δεν αντιμετωπίζονται με ανακοινώσεις ανησυχίας. Δεν θα διασφαλίσουμε την ενεργειακή μας ασφάλεια, τους οικονομικούς, περιβαλλοντικούς, τεχνολογικούς στόχους μας, χωρίς δικό μας γεωπολιτικό ρόλο, με κοινή άμυνα και ασφάλεια. Η ρωσική εισβολή στην Ουκρανία, όμως, ανέδειξε και μια τεράστια υποκρισία. Υπάρχει ένα καθεστώς που εργαλειοποίησε τους μετανάστες, που φυλακίζει διαφωνούντες και Κούρδους, που κατέχει έδαφος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στην Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, που επεμβαίνει στη Λιβύη, στην Ανατολική Μεσόγειο, στο Αιγαίο. Δεν μπορεί να το χαϊδεύουμε με ανακοινώσεις ανησυχίας, αλλά πρέπει επιτέλους να προχωρήσουμε σε κυρώσεις. Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Mr President, production of green hydrogen is inextricably linked to the availability of large quantities of renewable electricity. In an Irish context, that means implementing an ambitious offshore wind energy strategy with urgency. Green hydrogen will be the clean fuel that drives our long-distance public transport systems, our marine transport and heavy goods vehicles, and it will not only be electric batteries due to the discharge requirements and recharging capabilities. We need to ramp up our offshore wind electricity generation to give us the ability to electrolyse water to give us the green hydrogen our economy needs. Ireland sadly suffers from regulatory inertia, and this often stops us from being first movers. The EU adopted its own hydrogen strategy in 2020, with updates since then, but Ireland has consistently lagged behind. Similar to anaerobic digestion, Ireland doesn't need any more pilot projects. We don't need any evidence base anymore. We just need to ensure that we use the technologies that are already there and evidence-based by use across the European Union. Ireland easily has the capacity to generate over 30 gigawatts of wind-powered electricity, if it can get its act together with regard to wind energy and planning. Our target of five gigawatts by 2030 is relatively low, and we must aim to do an awful lot better. Grace O'Sullivan (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, in May of this year, Israeli soldiers shot and killed journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. The EU condemned it. A month later, President von der Leyen flew to Tel Aviv and signed a multi-million euro deal for Israeli gas. Last month, Israel raided Palestinian civil society organisations, which are funded by the EU. The EU condemned it. In the last few days, a city the size of Cork has been besieged by the Israeli army. Josep Borrell said the situation was just „worrisome”. Now he must tell us how many human rights violations are permitted before facing consequences from the EU. How many more journalists murdered? How many schools and neighbourhoods demolished? How many internments? How many sieges before the EU acts on apartheid? Gunnar Beck (ID). – Herr Präsident! Die deutsche Regierung hat den Deutschen Rekordenergiepreise beschert und will sie nun mit 200 Milliarden Euro entschädigen. Widersinnig, aber nicht ungerecht. Sofort jedoch klagt Italiens Noch-Premier und Goldman-Sachs-Banker Mario Draghi, Deutschland verstoße gegen Wettbewerbsrecht und den Binnenmarkt. Das ist Unsinn. Draghi lässt nur gerne die Deutschen – und ich will hinzufügen: die Nordeuropäer – für alle Finanz- und Staatskrisen zahlen. Dennoch versprach Kanzler Olaf Scholz sogleich Draghi, den Francesco Cossiga einst einen elenden Finanzknecht nannte, mehr Geld für Italien und die EU, obwohl Deutschland noch den 750 Milliarden schweren EU-Coronafonds hauptfinanziert. Die Deutschen haben Niedrigrenten und das geringste Privatvermögen im Euroraum. Nur ihre Regierung leidet am Helfersyndrom. Sie zeigt sich reich und spendabel, weil sie den Deutschen seit Jahren mit beiden Händen das Geld aus den Taschen zieht. Cristian Terheș (ECR). – Mr President, dear colleagues, Ursula von der Leyen must immediately and unconditionally resign from her position as President of the European Commission due to the fact that her actions are currently criminally investigated by the European Public Prosecutor's Office. The EPPO just announced few days ago that it is investigating the way the contracts were signed between the European Commission and the producers of vaccines. And this is what the Court of Auditors just stated in a report released a few days ago, and I quote: „the Commission had signed up to November 2021, EUR 71 billion worth of contracts on behalf of the Member States to purchase up to 4.6 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses”. That means that she purchased 10 doses of vaccines for every EU citizen, based on contracts that were never released to the public. This is how the contracts that she signed with these pharmaceutical companies were released to the public. How is this possible in a European Union that is called on to be transparent with the way it is using people's money? So I'm asking again and calling again for immediate and unconditional resignation. Sandra Pereira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, em Portugal, este fim de semana, dezenas de milhares de trabalhadores, jovens e reformados saíram à rua em Lisboa e no Porto. Não aceitam a degradação dos salários, a degradação das pensões, o ataque aos serviços públicos, a especulação nos preços dos bens essenciais e energéticos. Gritaram bem alto que o custo de vida aumenta e o povo não aguenta. Ao mesmo tempo, verifica-se uma acumulação de milhares de milhões de euros nos lucros dos grupos económicos, da alimentação, da energia, da grande distribuição comercial, das multinacionais. Em nenhuma circunstância é aceitável o aumento das injustiças sociais e menos ainda nesta situação concreta. Daqui, saudamos os trabalhadores e os seus sindicatos por mais esta iniciativa de força, que é simultaneamente um sinal de esperança, de confiança, da possibilidade de um outro caminho. E reafirmamos o nosso compromisso com os trabalhadores e a sua luta pela defesa e melhoria das suas condições de trabalho e de vida. Dino Giarrusso (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'iniziativa „Good Food Good Farming” ci dice che quasi un cittadino europeo su tre ha i capelli contaminati da pesticidi: dato allarmante, che rivela l'enorme contaminazione di terreni e acque. Le strategie Farm to Fork e sulla biodiversità per il 2030 indicano una riduzione del 50 % entro il 2030, ma molti Stati sono indietro nell'accogliere la proposta di regolamento che fissa vincoli per gli Stati membri. L'Italia ha un piano nazionale scaduto dal febbraio 2019 e il governo Draghi sembra non aver colto l'importanza della transizione ecologica, che passa anche da una rivoluzione culturale riguardo coltivazioni e allevamenti. Abbiamo il dovere di spiegare ai cittadini quanto e come sia importante ripulire la nostra agricoltura e dunque le nostre acque, il nostro sangue, i nostri capelli dai pesticidi e da ogni tipo di veleno. È una transizione che porterà benefici per tutti e che può essere anche un business e rilanciare l'agricoltura anziché affossarla, come dice chi non vuole cambiare nulla. Però servono coraggio, visione e risorse. L'Europa li possiede? Vuole spenderli? Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, eu sunt profund dezgustat de modul cum defilează prin acest Parlament personaje, de altfel nulități politice, care își permit să disemineze minciuni și dezinformări care probabil îi sunt pe plac lui Putin. Recent, în această sală, un domn, pe numele său Reil, de altfel o nulitate politică, și-a permis să spună că România și Bulgaria nu merită să fie acceptate în Schengen. Mi se pare un afront de neacceptat, pentru că noi suntem o națiune puternică, o națiune europeană, și probabil acel domn, atunci când a vizitat țara noastră, s-a plimbat noaptea pe cel mai frumos drum din lume, cum este Transfăgărășanul, și evident că nu a văzut nimic. Însă suntem o națiune care știm ce vrem și merită să ne luptăm mai departe pentru a fi acceptați în spațiul Schengen. Și, evident, nu vom cădea în capcana populismului și demagogiei pe care unii le practică în acest Parlament. Елена Йончева (S&D). – Г-н Председател! Накъде ни водите, дами и господа, накъде тласкате Европа, тази Европа, за която се бориха поколения, за да живеем всички ние в мир? Защо чуваме всеки ден призиви за въоръжаване, а не за дипломатически преговори? Защо говорите за възможна ядрена катастрофа, а не за европейска стратегия за спиране на братоубийствения конфликт? Нима вече имаме европейски комисар на войната? Да, недопустимо е да падат бомби на европейския континент. Но какво направи Брюксел, за да не допусне кошмарът в Украйна? Минските споразумения бяха ваша отговорност, сега мирът е наша отговорност. Кажете ни кой е вече европейският комисар на войната и защо не чуваме неговата загриженост за това кой и защо взриви Северен поток? Кой се опитва да унищожава Южен поток? Кой обстрелва най-голямата ядрена централа в Европа? България е само на няколко километра, няколкостотин километра от войната и утре пожарът може да се пренесе и при нас, защото сме мълчали, когато е трябвало да говорим. Ние сме длъжни да спрем саморазрушаването на Европа и днес са необходими не танкове, а мъдрост и смели решения. Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew). – Señor presidente, hoy traigo a este Pleno el SOS de los atuneros cañeros europeos en Senegal, que pueden acabar en el desguace si la Comisión Europea no desbloquea el pago de las ayudas que necesitan para sobrevivir. Tenían licencias en vigor. Pagaron por ellas. Una decisión imprevisible, arbitraria e injusta del Gobierno de Senegal les dejó cinco meses amarrados a puerto y sin derechos de pesca. Las pérdidas acumuladas, sumadas a la inflación que afecta a muchos de sus costes, y la mala campaña en los dos meses que han podido trabajar les han puesto en una situación crítica. Puede revertirse. Basta con aplicar las previsiones que el Fondo Europeo Marítimo, de Pesca y de Acuicultura contempla para el cese de actividad por causas de fuerza mayor. Están en juego centenares de empleos de europeos y senegaleses. Está en juego que barcos con una trayectoria artesanal y sostenible acaben en el desguace. El comisario Sinkevičius no contesta ni a sus cartas ni a las peticiones reiteradas de muchos diputados. Si de verdad defiende la pesca sostenible que practica el sector europeo, escuche este SOS y resuelva este asunto de inmediato. Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, a redução da atividade agrícola no meu país, Galiza, é uma das principais causas do declínio demográfico do campo galego. O abandono das terras agrícolas, o aumento dos preços da energia, a alta dependência de insumos do mercado externo, como o aumento dos preços, faz com que muitos produtores passem por uma situação tremendamente complicada, sem que o governo galego se preocupe. Em vez de ter milho para os animais, temos eucaliptos, o que impede a possibilidade de cultivo de cereais a preços competitivos. De Estrasburgo, quero expressar a nossa solidariedade para com os agricultores, os produtores e os ganadeiros da minha terra, que sofrem com os preços especulativos dos insumos. Custa mais produzir e são necessárias medidas estruturais para reduzir a dependência de outros mercados. Um país que ama as suas áreas rurais deve colocar quem produz no centro da recuperação do sistema agrícola e não substituir os produtores da terra por macroempresas especulativas. Gianantonio Da Re (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'articolo 3 del trattato sull'Unione europea stabilisce che l'Unione europea „promuove la coesione economica, sociale e territoriale, e la solidarietà tra gli Stati membri”. Il principio è lodevole e condivisibile, però vale solo sulla carta. Ultimamente di solidarietà tra gli Stati membri ne abbiamo vista poca. Basti pensare al fallimento della gestione dei flussi migratori e dell'ostruzionismo dei paesi frugali sull'adozione del Recovery Fund. Ancora oggi, di fronte alla grave difficoltà economica in cui si trovano i cittadini europei a causa del caro energia, assistiamo all'ennesimo spettacolo di un'Europa divisa e ipocrita. Il principio di solidarietà viene invocato infatti solo quando risponde agli interessi dell'élite europea e non quando è necessario per i reali bisogni delle famiglie e delle nostre imprese, per le quali sono indispensabili adeguati e immediati aiuti economici, più coraggio e determinazione. Ladislav Ilčić (ECR). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovane dame i gospodo, izbori u Bosni i Hercegovini su održani prije petnaest dana, a još uvijek nisu prebrojani svi glasovi. Izgleda da su neki članovi biračkih odbora glasali umjesto birača koji nisu izašli na izbore, a jedan je čak sebe više puta potpisao umjesto birača za koje je glasao. Osim toga, Željko Komšić, koji je izabran za hrvatskog predstavnika, je u sredinama gdje žive Hrvati dobio manje od jedan posto glasova. Ne zanima me kako se on po nacionalnosti izjašnjava niti njegova krvna zrnca. On je izabran glasovima Bošnjaka i zato samo njih može predstavljati. Tako sad Bošnjaci imaju dva predstavnika u tročlanom predsjedništvu, Srbi jednog, a Hrvati nijednog. Za sve su to krive europske institucije i visoki predstavnik koji ne samo da podržavaju već i potiču ovakve udare na demokraciju. Ne možemo očekivati demokratski razvoj BiH ako su izbori tako nedemokratski. Dakle, treba nam promjena izbornog zakona koji će jamčiti legitimno predstavljanje konstitutivnih naroda i povećanje tehničkih sredstava poput uvođenja otiska prsta jer BiH ima pravo na demokratsku i europsku perspektivu. João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, a sistemática e brutal agressão de Israel à Palestina e ao seu povo, que prossegue impune, e a recorrente violação do direito internacional, só são possíveis com a conivência e o apoio dos Estados Unidos da América e da União Europeia. Daqui denunciamos e condenamos a escalada de provocações, violência e destruição de propriedade palestinos, promovida pelo governo israelita e a expansão de colonatos, a estratégia de anexação de Jerusalém Oriental de Israel, com as tentativas de expulsão das populações palestinas, nomeadamente no bairro de Sheikh Jarrah, as incursões sionistas ao redor da mesquita Al-Aqsa, o recurso à prisão administrativa, o agravamento do bloqueio a Gaza, território que vive uma das mais graves crises humanitárias do mundo, uma agressão persistente de Israel, que procura minar as deliberações de relevantes resoluções da ONU e o caminho para a construção do Estado palestiniano independente, com as fronteiras de 1967, com capital em Jerusalém Oriental. Toda a solidariedade para com a luta heroica do povo palestiniano e os seus inalienáveis direitos nacionais. Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, pandemija COVID-19 otkrila je strukturne nedostatke koji otežavaju da se na krize odgovori brzo, učinkovito i koordinirano. Prisjetimo se samo prizora praznih polica u trgovinama s početka pandemije. Takve scenarije želimo u budućnosti izbjeći. Zato je važno da je Komisija predstavila dugoočekivani instrument koji jamči funkcioniranje jedinstvenog tržišta u kriznim situacijama. Njegovim aktiviranjem državama članicama zabranit će se uvođenje ograničenje izvoza proizvoda u druge države članice. Nažalost, Komisija je predvidjela izuzeća od primjene ove uredbe za medicinske proizvode i uređaje te medicinske protumjere, što ne pridonosi izgradnji otpornog jedinstvenog tržišta u uvjetima krize. Sjetimo se da su države članice u kojima je koncentrirana proizvodnja zaštitne opreme, kao što su maske i rukavice, početkom pandemije ograničile izvoz zaštitne opreme u druge države, prouzročivši tako njezinu nestašicu, a upravo takve situacije želimo izbjeći. Stoga pozivam Vijeće i Parlament da u svoj pregovarački okvir uključe i primjenu uredbe na medicinske proizvode i protumjere. Solidarnost među državama članicama nikad više ne smije biti dovedena u pitanje. Tudor Ciuhodaru (S&D). – Domnule președinte, sunt medic, medic de urgență în Iași, România, în Spitalul Clinic de Urgență Nicolae Oblu. Am ascultat cu uimire și revoltă declarațiile reprezentanților unor companii farmaceutice în Comisia COVID. E oficial! De acum, întreg eșafodajul politico-juridic și economic legat de introducerea pașaportului verde digital și achiziționarea a miliarde de doze de vaccinuri s-a prăbușit și de aceea vă solicit astăzi, încă o dată, am și votat împotriva pașaportului verde digital de fiecare dată, să renunțați de urgență la acest act aberant, care nu arată decât că te-ai vaccinat, în rest, poți transmite boala, iar pe de altă parte să suspendați imediat aceste contracte de miliarde de euro, România are un miliard de euro dat pe astfel de vaccinuri, care nu mai corespund normelor, și aceste contracte să fie renegociate. E de importanță majoră și sunt convins că mă veți susține în acest demers, pentru că astfel de erori nu trebuie să se mai repete. Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Herr talman! Jag skulle vilja ta tillfället i akt och uppmärksamma alla de modiga män och kvinnor från våra länder som rusat till Ukrainas försvar, och särskilt de som betalat det högsta priset för att försvara det lilla landets rätt att freda sig från imperialismens klor. En av dem som offrat sina liv för Ukraina är min landsman, löjtnant Edward Selander. Han stupade den 18 juli. En av dem som tjänat under honom i den svenska armén har detta att säga, och jag citerar: „Löjtnant Edvard Selander var den bästa officer jag arbetat med. Han förkroppsligade alla värden vi som försvarsmakt står för. Ingen var mer angelägen om att skapa dugliga krigare än honom, och han levde efter en ofelbar moralisk kompass.” Kära kollegor, jag skulle vilja be er att ägna en tanke åt alla dem av våra medborgare som offrat sina liv för Ukrainas och Europas säkerhet. Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, the European Parliament will soon award the Sakharov Prize, although obviously the decision does not rest with MEPs, but rather with the Conference of Presidents. And, of course, Sakharov was a dissident in his hemisphere, and in recognition of that, we award a prize in his name every year. The Sakharov Prize should be for the exercise of intellectual freedoms, and it is in that way we seek to oppose those freedoms everywhere. But, of course, instead we have traditionally used this as a stick to appease our so-called enemies. So this year, for once, why don't we do something for what it's really supposed to be about? Today, freedom of thought is under threat at home. Julian Assange is a dissident in our own hemisphere. He's persecuted not by our so-called opponents, but by our like-minded partners for upholding the essential responsibilities of a journalist, holding power to account for exposing the war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we recognise Assange with the Sakharov Prize, it can deliver a genuine victory for freedom of thought. Instead of harping on about human rights in places where we have no power, for once we have a chance to do something meaningful. So let's organise to have the award of the Sakharov Prize for Julian Assange. Peter Pollák (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, dnes vôbec nie je neobvyklé prečítať si nenávistné odkazy na internete a v zmysle: treba zabiť všetkých cigánov, treba zabiť všetkých buzerantov, či treba zabiť všetkých Židov. Aj takéto nadávky na internete, žiaľ, mnohí dnes tolerujú. Aj vrah zo Slovenska je príkladom toho, ako mnohí dokázali tolerovať a podceňovať nenávisť voči Židom, LGBT či Rómom. Ak by tento bratislavský vrah velebil Bin Ládina, dávno by bol v base. No keďže jeho ideálom bol len Hitler či Breivik, všetci toto prehliadali. Skončilo to teroristickým činom, masakrom dvoch ľudí v centre Bratislavy. Poviem vám vlastnú skúsenosť. Keď sa rasisti vyhrážali, že znásilnia moju cigánsku manželku a po jednom zabijú moje negerské deti, a pod oknami nás niekto sledoval, napriek vyspelým technológiám páchateľa nevypátrali. Ako je možné, že keď sa niekto vyhráža menšinám smrťou, tak hovoríme, že je to sloboda slova? No ako je možné, že terorizmus je pre nás červenou čiarou, no fašizmus spoločnosť toleruje? Nenávisť voči inakosti, Rómom, Židom či LGBT nie je sloboda slova. Fašizmus je rovnakým zlom ako aj terorizmus. A k tým, ktorí fašizmus šíria, sa musíme postaviť rovnako razantne ako k tým, ktorí šíria terorizmus. Иво Христов (S&D). – Г-н Председател, критичното мислене и свободата на словото са два от стълбовете на Европа. За руската дезинформация тук се говори постоянно. Уви, тревога буди и пропагандната война, в която нашите медии и институции са инструментализирани отвън. В наши позиции и медии четем, че Русия едновременно е окупирала Запорожката атомна електроцентрала и сама я обстрелва, че Путин първо е построил, а после сам е взривил Северен поток. Какво ни предлага председателят фон дер Лайен със своя призив за война до победен край срещу една ядрена сила? Ядрената война и удавянето в пропаганден конформизъм са два пътя към самоунищожението, а европейците очакват мирни инициативи от Брюксел. Мирът е смисълът на европейския проект. Когато приемаме да финансираме войната, да ретранслираме пропагандата, ние жертваме авторитета, принципите и бъдещето на съюза. Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Mr President, freedom of speech is precious. Without it, democracy would not exist. With social media, the marketplace of ideas has been enhanced in an unprecedented way. However, this comes with responsibility. Disinformation and fake news are a threat to the freedom of speech. There is a difference between information and affirmation. We can debate about differences of opinion, and in many cases there are different sides to a story. But there is a difference between facts and opinions. It is not because we have strong convictions that we should resort to disinformation, or worse, start believing in conspiracy theories. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of Western civilisation. Let us use it wisely and responsibly. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, tens of thousands of people from Haiti have been protesting against the US-installed regime of Ariel Henry. Now the puppet leader is calling for foreign military intervention to crush the protests and the US have been looking for backing at the UN Security Council for the same. The last thing the people of Haiti need now is another foreign military intervention called in by a despised leader that doesn't even have a proper mandate to govern. The people of Haiti had their own solution to the crisis – it's called the Montana Agreement. A commission was set up in August last year by a wide range of civil society groups and they signed an agreement, and it was to be implemented beginning in February. But the US and the UN and others blocked it. The Haitian people need an end to foreign interference. They've been interfered with for 200 years. They're not allowed to think independent. The West has destroyed the place. They've done everything to cripple the place for years. And now they certainly need an end to foreign interference, not more foreign boots on the ground. We said we were interested in sovereignty when Ukraine was invaded by Russia. Are we not interested in sovereignty when it comes to Haiti? Does that not count because it doesn't suit US imperialism? Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, stojíme nepochybně na prahu potravinové krize nejen v Evropě, ale zejména v afrických státech a dalších chudých státech po celém světě. Chybí potravinové zdroje, a to v celosvětovém měřítku. A důsledek energetické krize je ten, že se tato potravinová krize ještě dále prohlubuje. Zdražují základní lidské potřeby, služby, výrobky a samozřejmě také potraviny. Máme zde nedostatek hnojiv, nedostatek všech podpůrných ošetřujících prostředků. A právě energetická krize ještě tento nedostatek prohlubuje, protože výroba těchto hnojiv je energeticky velmi náročná. Toto jsou důsledky Putinovy války. Myslím si, že je naší povinností co nejvíce pomáhat Ukrajině tak, aby tato Putinova válka co nejdříve skončila Putinovou porážkou. Presidente. – Este ponto da ordem do dia está encerrado. 17.   Agenda van de volgende vergadering Presidente. – A ata da presente sessão será submetida à aprovação do Parlamento amanhã ao início da tarde. 18.   Goedkeuring van de notulen van deze vergadering Presidente. – A ordem do dia já foi publicada e encontra-se disponível no sítio Web do Parlamento Europeu. 19.   Sluiting van de vergadering (A sessão é encerrada às 23h20)

2.6.2023
NL
Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
C 196/75 18 oktober 2022VOLLEDIG VERSLAG VAN DE VERGADERINGEN VAN 18 OKTOBER 2022 (2023/C 196/02) Inhoud 1.
Opening van de vergadering
77 2.
De rekeningen laag houden: sociale en economische gevolgen van de oorlog in Oekraïne en de invoering van een belasting op uitzonderlijke winsten (debat)
77 3.
Mentale gezondheid (debat)
105 4.
Hervatting van de vergadering
116 5.
Stemmingen
116 5.1.
Specifieke bepalingen voor de samenwerkingsprogramma's voor de periode 2014-2020 naar aanleiding van de verstoring van de programma-uitvoering (C9-0289/2022 - Michael Gahler) (stemming)
117 5.2.
De niet-erkenning van Russische reisdocumenten die zijn afgegeven in bezette buitenlandse gebieden (C9-0302/2022 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar) (stemming)
117 5.3.
Benoeming van een lid van de Europese Rekenkamer - Laima Liucija Andrikienė (A9-0239/2022 - Claudiu Manda) (stemming)
117 5.4.
Aanpassing van een aantal rechtshandelingen op het gebied van justitie aan artikel 290 VWEU (gedelegeerde handelingen van de Commissie) (A9-0237/2022 - Jiří Pospíšil) (stemming)
117 5.5.
Richtsnoeren voor het werkgelegenheidsbeleid in de lidstaten (A9-0243/2022 - Alicia Homs Ginel) (stemming)
117 5.6.
Kwijting 2020: Algemene begroting van de EU – Europese Raad en Raad (A9-0236/2022 - Isabel García Muñoz) (stemming)
117 5.7.
Kwijting 2020: Algemene begroting van de EU – Europees Economisch en Sociaal Comité (A9-0238/2022 - Isabel García Muñoz) (stemming)
117 5.8.
Kwijting 2020: Europees Grens- en kustwachtagentschap (A9-0235/2022 - Tomáš Zdechovský) (stemming)
117 5.9.
Bezwaar op grond van artikel 112, leden 2 en 3, van het Reglement: Werkzame stoffen, waaronder 8-hydroxyquinoline, chloortoluron en difenoconazool (B9-0460/2022) (stemming)
118 5.10.
De toetreding van Roemenië en Bulgarije tot het Schengengebied (B9-0462/2022, B9-0463/2022) (stemming)
118 6.
Samenstelling commissies en delegaties
118 7.
Algemene begroting van de Europese Unie voor het begrotingsjaar 2023 — alle afdelingen (debat)
118 8.
Hervatting van de vergadering
143 9.
Wijziging van de agenda
143 10.
Goedkeuring van de notulen van de vorige vergadering
143 11.
Werkprogramma van de Commissie 2023 (debat)
144 12.
Vragenuur (vragen aan de Commissie) - Bescherming van kritieke infrastructuur in de EU tegen aanvallen en het afweren van hybride aanvallen
151 13.
Toenemende haatmisdrijven tegen lhbtiq-personen in heel Europa in het licht van de recente homofobe moord in Slowakije (debat)
164 14.
Voortdurende controles aan de binnengrenzen van het Schengengebied tegen de achtergrond van de recente uitspraak van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie (C-368/20) (debat)
173 15.
VN-conferentie over klimaatverandering 2022 in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypte (COP27) (debat)
183 16.
Gevolgen van de Russische invasie van Oekraïne op de migratiestroom naar de EU (debat)
197 17.
Opzetten van een alomvattend kader voor vermiste kinderen en vermiste personen die gevaar lopen (debat)
211 18.
De erkenning van de Russische Federatie als staatssponsor van terrorisme (debat)
215 19.
Stemverklaringen
222 19.1.
Richtsnoeren voor het werkgelegenheidsbeleid in de lidstaten (A9-0243/2022 - Alicia Homs Ginel)
222 19.2.
De toetreding van Roemenië en Bulgarije tot het Schengengebied (B9-0462/2022, B9-0463/2022)
222 20.
Agenda voor de volgende vergadering
224 21.
Goedkeuring van de notulen van deze vergadering
224 22.
Sluiting van de vergadering
224 Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen van 18 oktober 2022 VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS Vizepräsident 1.   Opening van de vergadering (Die Sitzung wird um 9.02 Uhr eröffnet) 2.   De rekeningen laag houden: sociale en economische gevolgen van de oorlog in Oekraïne en de invoering van een belasting op uitzonderlijke winsten (debat) Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zum Thema „Die Rechnungen niedrig halten: soziale und wirtschaftliche Folgen des Krieges in der Ukraine und Einführung einer Steuer auf Zufallsgewinne” (2022/2867(RSP)). Ivan Bartoš,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, Mr Vice President of the European Commission, we welcome the Parliament's initiative to keep this issue high on the agenda. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and the weaponisation of energy supplies have driven energy prices to an unprecedented level and created a very difficult situation for many households and companies. Russia's aim is clear: hit our societies and our economies to create internal dissent and to fracture social cohesion. We will not let this happen. The EU is collectively doing all in its power to address various dimensions of the crisis and in particular to mitigate the effect of rising prices. I will address the main dimensions of this coordinated response. A) The energy supply. First, we are taking all possible measures to avoid energy shortages this winter. In only a few months, we have diversified our supplies, replenished our storage facilities close to their maximum, ensured safety of supply, and taken steps whenever possible to encourage the economy to consume less. We see that the price increases weigh more heavily on low-income families whose energy needs account for a higher percentage of their budget; without government support, many cannot afford that. The explosion of energy prices is also hitting SMEs and energy-intensive companies hard. Many are facing an explosion of their costs. Many risk going bankrupt. Some production has been discontinued. Some companies have closed down. Others have no alternative but to move their production outside Europe. We must stop that. In order to address these challenges, energy ministers at the end of September reached an agreement on allowing to offer regulated electricity prices also to small- and medium-sized enterprises, not only households and micro-enterprises. Demand reduction measures, including a voluntary overall reduction target of 10% of gross electricity consumption and a reduction target of 5% of the electricity consumption in peak hours. Capping market revenues obtained by power generators using low-cost technologies other than gas. Mandatory temporary solidarity contribution applying to the profits of businesses active in the oil, gas, coal and refinery sectors, which has significantly increased compared to prior years. The second dimensions, or the „B)” if you like: fiscal measures. At the national level. Member States are doing their part and have taken over the past few months numerous fiscal measures to alleviate costs for businesses and families. These include lower indirect taxes, social transfers to households, direct interventions on prices paid by consumers, and extraordinary taxes on windfall profits on which I will speak later. We need to make sure that these measures are temporary and well targeted so that they make a genuine difference for the most affected parts of our society. Our fiscal resources are not unlimited. Let's use them efficiently. The third dimension: social measures. On the social front, the Czech Presidency decided to dedicate the informal meeting of employment and social ministers a few days ago, on 13 and 14 October, to a discussion on the impact of energy poverty and the Ukrainian crisis. In this context, I am pleased to mention that the recent adoption of the Minimum Wage Directive, which is a powerful and very concrete signal of the importance of the EU, attaches to ensuring a decent standard of living of all workers. It is only, though, with our combined efforts that we can rise to this challenge, and I look forward to an efficient cooperation with you on all the proposals and initiatives we will work together on. And, finally, the fourth dimension: windfall profits. Let me turn now to issues that that matter for windfall profits. On 7 October, a new regulation on emergency measures to reduce energy prices entered into force. The regulation introduces measures to collect and redistribute the energy sector's surplus revenues to households and small- and medium-sized enterprises. More particularly, the new regulation addressed two types of windfall profits. First, it limits revenues of the electricity generators, including intermediaries that use so-called infra-marginal technologies to produce electricity such as renewables, nuclear and lignite. This is done via the introduction of a cap on the market revenues of infra-marginal technologies at 180 eur/mwh. Member States will be able to redirect the surplus revenues generated via the introduction of such a cap towards supporting and protecting final electricity consumers. Secondly, the regulation introduces a mandatory temporary solidarity contribution on the profits of businesses active in the crude petroleum, natural gas, coal and refinery sectors. The solidarity contribution will be calculated on taxable profits as determined under national tax rules in the fiscal year spending in 2022 and/or in 2023. The solidarity contribution will apply in addition to regular taxes and levies applicable in the Member States. This regulation was adopted in less than two weeks as an emergency solution to current crisis. What I presented here today was an overview of what we, as the EU, managed to achieve in only a few months to ensure that families and companies are sheltered from the worst economic consequences of this unjustified war of aggression. We do not know what the future holds or how long the current conflict will last, but we will certainly maintain our resolve to seek collective and articulated responses to ensure a sustainable cost of living for our citizens. Valdis Dombrovskis,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Minister, honourable Members of the European Parliament. Russia's illegal aggression against Ukraine is causing a socio-economic upheaval across Europe and beyond. Families and businesses face a surge in food and energy prices there are the financial and monetary implications. Lower-income households are worst hit as they spend proportionately much more on food and energy. Businesses are also affected by rising energy costs, higher financing costs and lower consumer confidence. The current shock is very different from the COVID-19 pandemic, so our policies must be different too. There are three questions to ask at the moment: how to minimise the costs caused by this war; how to distribute those costs fairly and how to lay the ground for future prosperity. I will address each one in turn. First, we need to work on the root causes of inflation in the energy markets. This requires action to secure alternative sources of supply, to reduce our energy demand and to address the current situation in electricity and gas markets. The European Union has set up a platform for the joint purchase of gas, and we are increasing gas imports from reliable suppliers like Norway and the United States. Member States have agreed energy consumption reduction targets and exceptional measures while we prepare a broader review of the functioning of the electricity markets. The Commission will present this afternoon additional measures to address gas prices and guarantees of security of supply for next winter. And we are also mobilising additional financial resources for Member States to introduce REPowerEU chapters in the recovery and resilience plans. Honourable Members, the more successful we are regarding energy, the stronger the economic and social position will be. Second, we must protect vulnerable households and businesses. It will not be possible to shield everyone from the economic consequences of the war. However, the public sector must protect those most exposed to high energy and food prices. Above all, this means providing income support to those whose purchasing power is most under threat and the worst-affected businesses. To achieve that, our support must be targeted, temporary and retain incentives to reduce energy consumption. A price cap on market revenues for infra-marginal producers and the solidarity levy for the fossil fuel sector will allow Member States to channel these revenues from the very large profits gained through unexpected circumstances towards those who need support the most. To provide generalised fiscal support would be not very helpful. It would fuel inflation, bring even higher energy prices, and potentially further weaken the economy. The European Central Bank is doing its job to contain inflation. The EU and the Member States need to do their job as well. Fiscal policy and monetary policy should not work at cross-purposes. This means providing effective support measures that are well-targeted and compatible with prudent fiscal policies that do not add to price pressures. Honourable Members, we also must look beyond this crisis. So, lastly, we must stay on course with the current policies to build a solid basis for Europe's future prosperity. I am referring in particular to the reforms and investments agreed by some Member States in the recovery and resilience plans. Hundreds of billions of euros in grants will be disbursed to Member States over the next few years as a means of milestones and targets identified in their plans. And in the next months, we expect them to request EUR 225 billion in loans that remain available. To conclude, honourable Members, although this has been a brief overview, I hope I outlined many initiatives on the comprehensive approach that the Commission is applying to the current situation. Thank you, and I look forward to the first debate. Markus Ferber,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Ratsvertreter, lieber Herr Exekutiv-Vizepräsident, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Es ist ja nicht zum ersten Mal seit dem Ausbruch des furchtbaren Krieges in der Ukraine, dass wir uns mit der Frage beschäftigen: Was sind die Konsequenzen, die wir daraus ziehen? Und wir hören viel, was wir tun wollen. Aber bisher ist wenig getan worden. Wenn wir nüchtern analysieren, was zu tun ist, dann geht es zunächst mal darum: Wie kann man mehr Angebot schaffen? Wir haben eine hohe Nachfrage, aber ein reduziertes Angebot. Und wenn ich mir anhöre, was heute vorgetragen wurde, dann haben Sie viel vor. Das hören wir seit einem halben Jahr. Aber bis heute ist nichts gemacht worden. Ich kenne ein Grünbuch der Europäischen Kommission aus dem Jahr 2000, wo bereits darüber nachgedacht wurde, eine Einkaufsgemeinschaft in der Energieversorgung zu schaffen. Das ist 20 Jahre lang vom Rat blockiert worden – jetzt ist die Not plötzlich da. Jetzt kommt was. Heute beschäftigen Sie sich in der Kommission mit dem Arbeitsprogramm für das kommende Jahr. Wenn ich mir anschaue, was da für Schwerpunkte sind, um die aktuellen Probleme zu adressieren, dann finde ich nichts. Ganz im Gegenteil: weitere bürokratische Lasten, keine Entlastungen für die Unternehmen, keine Entlastungen für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Sie machen die falschen Schwerpunkte, und das, was Sie tun, machen Sie viel zu spät. Das ist keine vernünftige Politik. Iratxe García Pérez,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, estamos en tiempos difíciles. Sabemos que esta crisis del coste de la vida está impulsada por la guerra, la crisis de la energía y los excesos de beneficios, elevando la inflación a niveles que no habíamos vivido en Europa desde hace muchísimo tiempo. Eso deja a muchos hogares sin poder pagar sus facturas y de eso es de lo que tenemos que estar hoy aquí hablando. Esta realidad nos apremia con una llamada desgarradora: la de la desigualdad social y el aumento de la pobreza y la de los más golpeados por esta crisis. Nuestras políticas —las de la Unión Europea y las de los Gobiernos nacionales— deben centrarse ahora mismo en dar respuesta efectiva a este problema, en que la gente pueda pagar las facturas. Los socialdemócratas europeos tenemos ideas concretas sobre cómo apoyar a las familias y a las empresas, cómo reformar el funcionamiento del mercado de la energía y reforzar el bienestar social de una manera justa. En primer lugar —y más urgente—, hace falta un paquete de solidaridad de invierno de la Unión Europea, que incluya transferencias de renta para mitigar el impacto del alza de los precios de la energía. No podemos esperar más porque la gente no puede tener que elegir entre encender la calefacción o pagar la cesta de la compra. Los problemas que estamos atravesando confirman que hace falta una capacidad presupuestaria europea permanente de cara a las crisis, así como reforzar el instrumento SURE que pusimos en marcha durante la pandemia. En segundo lugar, tenemos que asegurarnos de que haya redes de seguridad social fuertes y eficaces. Los Estados miembros deben aplicar de forma inmediata la Directiva de salario mínimo. Sabemos que el Reglamento ha previsto dos años para que los Estados miembros puedan hacer la transposición, pero, en estos momentos de necesidad, necesitamos —es evidente y es urgente— que se haga ya. Ningún hogar debe estar desconectado de la red eléctrica. Y, en tercer lugar, necesitamos más ingresos para poder financiar estas ayudas. Se trata de una cuestión de justicia social y equidad fiscal. No puede ser que estemos pidiendo solidaridad a las familias, a los que más necesitados están, y no apliquen esa solidaridad quienes se están realmente llenando los bolsillos con los beneficios que esta crisis energética está provocando. Defendemos el principio de implementación urgente de un impuesto sobre los beneficios caídos del cielo y un impuesto mínimo para las multinacionales, no solo para las empresas del sector energético. Por último, Europa tiene que presentar de manera urgente una reforma en profundidad de los mercados energéticos para diversificar nuestras fuentes de energía y para disminuir nuestra dependencia de Putin y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Los últimos años han sido los más difíciles para la Unión Europea. La guerra ha vuelto a nuestras puertas y trae consigo lo peor: el extremismo, el auge de los nacionalismos que esperábamos muertos en nuestra Unión. Necesitamos solidaridad europea. A la Comisión y al Consejo les pido que rompan el bloqueo y aporten soluciones. La ciudadanía lo está esperando. Dragoș Pîslaru,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Vice-President Dombrovskis, Commissioner Gentiloni, distinguished Members of the Council, dear colleagues, we are indeed living in difficult times and in difficult times what we need is three important ingredients: we need ambition, we need flexibility, and we need solidarity. Ambition is important these days because regardless of the pain that we are feeling, all of us today, we need to be resolved and keep the important goals that we've set at the European Union level. And that means that the dual transformation, the green and the digital, the way we would like to get the strategic autonomy, we should not, you know, cancel our results on this. On the second time, we need flexibility. We need to have creative instruments that can reunite the resources that we put together. Then we also need in times of difficulty, a solidarity that only us at European level can achieve together. For that, it is important to have a view of the citizens, the entrepreneurs and the self-employed. And Renew Europe is proposing something that you have already seen in the public sphere: a shield, a shield that will not necessarily imply that states know everything for our citizens, but that we go close to them and allow them to have the necessary micro investments to do that. And REPowerEU is exactly the instrument that we have been working together these days in the Parliament, we've seen the Commission, we've seen the general approach of the Council, and this is something that can go down and have the micro investments at the vulnerable level, at the SME and micro-enterprise level. This is a way of pushing forward with solidarity. This is the Renew way. This is the European way. Ernest Urtasun,
en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señor vicepresidente, hoy desde Estrasburgo quisiera trasladar, en primer lugar, todo mi apoyo a los y las trabajadoras francesas que hoy se movilizan en favor de una compensación salarial justa por causa de la inflación. En Europa, la guerra de Putin no ha hecho más que recrudecer una bomba social que viene fraguándose tras décadas de neoliberalismo y una crisis financiera que puso en jaque nuestro contrato social. La situación actual requiere enterrar de una vez por todas las políticas del pasado y afrontar sin complejos políticas de protección, redistribución y transición ecológica. Solo hace falta contemplar lo que está sucediendo estos días en el Reino Unido. Esta nueva agenda económica, además, es una condición ineludible también para salvar nuestra arquitectura jurídica democrática de las garras de un renacido fascismo que amenaza hoy a todo el continente. Por lo tanto, hay seis cuestiones que creo que son urgentes: reformar el funcionamiento de nuestro mercado eléctrico, sí, reformarlo y decretar la prohibición de los cortes de suministros; gravar los beneficios extraordinarios de las empresas y no solo de las eléctricas; establecer una moratoria sobre los desahucios —nadie debe quedarse en la calle este invierno—; contener los efectos de la subida de tipos, particularmente sobre la explosión del precio de las hipotecas variables; garantizar una cesta de la compra asumible para toda la población; y, por último, poner en marcha —sí— un nuevo fondo para la transición ecológica y la protección social, tal y como ha propuesto el comisario Gentiloni, entre otros. Al Consejo, le decimos: no es el momento de arrastrar los pies. Las decisiones valientes deben tomarse ahora. Antonio Maria Rinaldi,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, di fronte ai problemi insorti dopo l'invasione dell'Ucraina, il nostro disappunto è rivolto verso la Commissione, perché non ha preventivamente effettuato uno studio sull'impatto sociale ed economico che si sarebbe generato a causa dell'ulteriore impulso impresso all'aumento dei prezzi e alla struttura dei costi delle imprese. Ritengo che la Commissione debba meditare la soluzione indicata da Keynes nel suo „How to pay for the war” del '39. A otto mesi dall'inizio della guerra siamo ancora senza soluzioni condivise tra paesi membri e i cittadini europei sono nel dilemma se pagare le bollette o fare la spesa per mangiare, mentre le imprese se pagare i maggiori costi dell'energia innalzando i prezzi o cessare la produzione, licenziando i propri dipendenti. La situazione finanziaria appare precaria a livelli pubblici e privati, non avendo predisposto strumenti per affrontare sin dai primi sintomi una possibile crisi sistemica. Questa condizione non può legittimare l'iniziativa indipendente di singoli paesi membri, che creano gravi asimmetrie all'interno del mercato unico. Se la Commissione permette che gli Stati intervengano direttamente con proprie risorse senza offrire proprie alternative, si stabilirà una concorrenza illecita nel mercato comune europeo, in palese violazione degli articoli 107 e 108 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea. Il caso più evidente è il piano di aiuti per 200 miliardi di euro varato dalla Germania a supporto del proprio sistema produttivo. Le conseguenze differite di questa politica opererebbero contro il consenso delle popolazioni verso le istituzioni, causando disturbi per la stabilità degli accordi europei, proprio nel momento in cui si esamina finalmente la loro validità in un mondo in rapida evoluzione. Zdzisław Krasnodębski,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Dziś potrzeba odważnych i szybkich interwencji rynkowych, by ochronić konsumentów przed negatywnymi skutkami wysokich cen energii. Trzeba na przykład doprowadzić jak najszybciej do ograniczenia cen hurtowych gazu. Konieczne jest zamrożenie cen uprawnień ETS i wprowadzenie mechanizmów ograniczających wzrost ich cen. Jednocześnie Komisja powinna dbać, by najsilniejsze państwa nie utrudniały konkurencji na rynku wewnętrznym swoimi interwencjami i pomocą dla przedsiębiorstw. Ale trzeba, panie Przewodniczący, czegoś więcej niż tylko doraźne rozwiązania. Konieczne jest przemyślenie i zmiana całej dotychczasowej polityki energetycznej i klimatycznej Unii. W swoim inauguracyjnym przemówieniu w 2019 r. pani Przewodnicząca mówiła, że jej Komisja będzie geopolityczna. Tymczasem ta Komisja w swoich szczytnych, klimatyczno-energetycznych projektach ignorowała polityczne realia, tak jakby nie było Chin i Rosji. I to także jest jedna z przyczyn obecnej dramatycznej sytuacji: ta polityka, tej Komisji. Manon Aubry,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, vous aurez sans doute remarqué aujourd'hui que la France est en grève. Un mouvement social qui grandit, comme la colère populaire monte partout en Europe. Parce que quand le prix des pâtes augmente de 40 %, l'huile de 127 %, le beurre de 32 % et que les salaires ne suivent pas, ce sont des repas qui sautent, des loisirs qui passent à la trappe et des familles contraintes de choisir entre faire le plein et se chauffer. Alors, comme depuis que je suis toute petite, je sais que je vais entendre à la télé des éditos sur les responsabilités des syndicats et des reportages sur la prise d'otage des Français. Bien sûr, c'est la galère de ne pas pouvoir prendre le train, de ne plus avoir d'essence pour la voiture, que les enfants n'aient pas école. Mais qui est responsable de cette situation de blocage? Les salariés qui défendent leurs droits? Ou la poignée d'ultra-riches qui s'accaparent tout et s'accrochent à leurs privilèges? Si vous la remarquez cette grève, c'est parce que ce sont des métiers essentiels qui s'arrêtent de travailler. Imaginez maintenant un instant ce qui se passerait si les actionnaires se mettaient en grève. Rien, absolument rien. Et pourtant, pendant que les utiles subissent l'inflation de plein fouet, les inutiles eux, multiplient leurs profits, leurs dividendes: plus 52 % pour le PDG de Total qui gagne déjà 312 fois le SMIC, plus 28 % pour les actionnaires des entreprises européennes. Alors je pose ici une question simple: et si c'était eux qu'on réquisitionnait plutôt que les salariés? Vous avez enfin, et je m'en félicite, à la Commission européenne, commencé à parler du bout des lèvres des super-profits et c'est une victoire pour nous qui nous battons sur le sujet depuis des mois. Mais tant que la taxation que vous proposez sera limitée au secteur de l'énergie et repoussée à l'année prochaine, le pas en avant ne sera en réalité qu'un tout petit orteil. Je vous le dis, il faudra aller plus loin. Les peuples européens attendent un blocage immédiat des prix de tous les produits de première nécessité. Comme l'ont clamé les 140 000 manifestants contre la vie chère ce dimanche à Paris, l'urgence est claire, ce qui doit enfin augmenter, ce sont les salaires plutôt que les dividendes des actionnaires. Gilbert Collard (NI). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, rien n'a été fait. Rien ne se fera. Malheureusement et pour notre désespoir, cette Union européenne en laquelle on croyait tant nous apporte cauchemars, pauvreté et impuissance. Impliqués dans une guerre qui n'est pas la nôtre, nos peuples souffrent, peinent. La crise de l'énergie n'a pas été abordée comme elle devait l'être. L'achat groupé d'énergie a été bloqué. Et aujourd'hui, on parle, on pérore, on essaie d'être les juges d'une guerre qui n'est pas la nôtre. Mais ce qui est nôtre, ce qui est vôtre, ce qui est mien, c'est la souffrance des peuples, leur manque d'argent, le froid qu'ils vont subir, la détresse dans laquelle ils sont. Et de cela, cette Union européenne étoilée est responsable. Christian Ehler (PPE). – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Es ist schon ein bisschen erschütternd: Wir spulen hier alle unsere alten Platten ab. Die Kommission betont, was sie alles machen wird, es hat aber noch nicht angefangen. Der Rat betont, was er machen wird. Er hat aber bei Artikel 122 sozusagen immer darauf gesetzt, dass die großen Jungs handeln – Olaf leiht Macron Energie, aber der gleiche Macron ist dann das Problem, warum es keine Leitungsverbindungen von Spanien nach Frankreich gibt, wir fordern den Sozialismus, wir fordern die Energiewende ... Ich glaube, wir sollten uns wirklich mal gemeinsam dazu bekennen, dass die einzige Lösung für diese Fragen ist, dass wir ein gemeinsames Europa brauchen. Ohne einen vertieften europäischen Energiemarkt wird keine der vorgeschlagenen Lösungen in irgendeiner Weise realistisch sein – weder gemeinsame Steuererhebung, weder die Stärkung der Versorgung –, weil wir eben wissen, dass wir die LNG-Terminals in Spanien brauchen, um in Deutschland LNG zu haben, weil wir wissen, dass wir einen vertieften Strommarkt brauchen. Ich glaube, wir sollten uns heute zunächst mal zu Europa bekennen. Ohne Europa wird keine unserer Vorstellungen realisierbar sein. Dieses Europa ist die Lösung und nicht das Problem. Pedro Marques (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Comissários, Conselho, Colegas, travar os populismos na Europa é ajudar as famílias no momento em que sofrem. As famílias e as pequenas e médias empresas não aguentam esta escalada dos preços da energia e estão a falar alto, como hoje em França, dizendo-nos a todos que não aguentam. Precisamos de uma resposta europeia para que ninguém fique para trás, senão acabaremos a sofrer todos, porque somos só um mercado e só se rirão, outra vez, os populistas. Saibamos aprender com o que fizemos mal na crise financeira e com o que fizemos bem na crise COVID. Salvámos a Europa com mais Europa na crise COVID. Vamos utilizar o que já temos e vamos construir uma resposta europeia para esta crise e para o futuro. E façamo-lo de um modo coeso e justo, construindo um mercado único de energia, comprando e transportando a energia em conjunto pela Europa, parando em conjunto a especulação nos mercados de energia e procurando os recursos onde eles estão. Estão a acumular-se nas mãos dos super ricos, estão a acumular-se nos super lucros de muitas empresas. E, por favor, não brincando com aqueles que estão a sofrer mais. Quem se lembraria nesta altura de pedir ao BCE que aumente ainda mais as taxas de juro? O PPE não conhece de todo a realidade da vida dos europeus, o seu sofrimento? Não sabe o que custa aquecer as casas e comprar alimentos hoje em dia? Tinha mesmo que pedir ao BCE que inflija mais sofrimento às famílias, aumentando mais os juros, levando ao aumento das prestações das casas? O PPE está pelas famílias e pelo emprego ou estamos de volta ao tempo dos moralistas do PPE que inventaram a austeridade como resposta à crise financeira? Quo vadis, PPE? Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les Commissaires, Monsieur le Ministre, depuis le début du conflit, les citoyens européens font preuve de solidarité avec le peuple ukrainien. Et c'est bien notre devoir, notre responsabilité, notre honneur. À l'heure où Vladimir Poutine utilise l'alimentation et l'énergie comme armes de guerre, nos concitoyens sont confrontés à des répercussions économiques sans précédent qui affectent tout le monde, tous les secteurs. Face à cela, l'Union européenne va notamment mettre en place la contribution sur les superprofits. Ainsi, près de 140 milliards d'euros permettront aux États membres d'accompagner ceux qui en ont le plus besoin. Mais ne nous arrêtons pas à cela. Instaurons un bouclier énergétique européen, limitons les prix de l'électricité et du gaz, effectuons des achats groupés à l'échelle de l'Union européenne. Messieurs les Commissaires, chers collègues, les Européens nous regardent. Maintenons notre cap, celui du pacte vert et celui de notre indépendance. Oui, continuons ensemble à travailler pour une Europe plus solidaire, souveraine et écologique. (L'oratrice accepte de répondre à une intervention „carton bleu”) Manon Aubry (The Left),
intervention „carton bleu”. – Monsieur le Président, j'ai été assez intéressée par votre intervention parce que – enfin, j'ai envie de dire – vous utilisez les mots „taxation des super-profits”, „contribution”. Vous avez dit taxation des super-profits, je l'ai entendu, et je me félicite que la République en marche et Renew acceptent enfin qu'il y a des super-profits faits par de grandes entreprises et qu'il faut les taxer. Je pose donc une question: puisqu'il n'y a pas que le secteur de l'énergie qui fait des super-profits, êtes-vous favorable à la taxation des super-profits de l'ensemble des multinationales? Je pense notamment à des entreprises comme LVMH ou des grandes banques qui ont, elles aussi, fait des super-profits sur la crise. Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Renew),
réponse „carton bleu”. – Chère collègue, vous le savez, dans notre position que nous avons notamment envoyée à la présidente von der Leyen avant son discours sur l'état de l'Union, nous avons – notre groupe – défendu une taxation sur les superprofits, et même – et je reprends ce que j'ai dit, je pense – une contribution, parce qu'on le sait bien, ce sont les mécanismes internes à l'Union européenne. Il nous semble d'abord important de nous focaliser sur ceux qui tirent profit de la situation telle que nous la vivons à l'heure actuelle. Pour nous, c'est cela qui est absolument prioritaire: se concentrer sur toutes les entreprises qui bénéficient du contexte de la guerre, donc notamment les entreprises dans le secteur de l'énergie. Ensuite nous devrons voir comment nous évoluerons en fonction du contexte. Sara Matthieu (Verts/ALE). – Voorzitter, collega's, in mijn thuisstad Gent zie ik elke dag mensen die hun energiefactuur niet meer kunnen betalen of voor wie het transport te duur is geworden, en dat terwijl energiebedrijven en andere sectoren recordwinsten boeken. Dat is om razend van te worden, want we zitten niet allemaal in hetzelfde schuitje in deze crisis. Zij levert cynisch genoeg ook winnaars op. Die grote winnaars leveren geen ander product dan een jaar geleden, maar die worden wel slapend rijk door een oorlog. Daarom moeten we ervoor zorgen dat de overwinsten terugvloeien naar de kwetsbare gezinnen om hun huizen te isoleren, om zonnepanelen te installeren. Het voorstel van de Commissie gaat echter niet ver genoeg. We moeten de helft van die overwinsten afromen in álle sectoren die nu slapend rijk worden. Dat moet met terugwerkende kracht, ook voor eerder geboekte winsten, bijvoorbeeld voor de farmaceutische bedrijven tijdens de COVID-crisis. We moeten ervoor zorgen dat de lidstaten die centen teruggeven aan de mensen die het echt nodig hebben, de mensen die vandaag moeten kiezen tussen eten en hun woning verwarmen. Jean-Lin Lacapelle (ID). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, le conflit en Ukraine, que nous devons avant tout déplorer, est pourtant une aubaine pour les élites européistes. Ce conflit doit s'arrêter par la seule voie possible, celle de la négociation. Je salue en ce sens la proposition de Marine Le Pen qui appelle à une grande conférence pour la paix. En France, d'autres voix s'élèvent enfin pour nous expliquer que l'application des accords de Minsk aurait pu nous éviter cette tragédie. Deux anciens ministres de Jacques Chirac et de Nicolas Sarkozy, Luc Ferry et Pierre Lellouche, se sont d'ailleurs très clairement exprimés dans cet esprit récemment. Non, Madame von der Leyen, il ne peut y avoir de solution armée à ce conflit car l'issue en serait incertaine. Il y aurait à coup sûr un seul grand perdant: l'Europe, la nôtre, celle des nations, des peuples, dont l'Union européenne, mondialiste, immigrationniste et vassal des États-Unis, est la négation permanente. Mais sans doute, du côté de la Commission ou dans ces travées, certains préfèrent une bonne guerre à une mauvaise paix. Pourtant, la paix n'a pas de prix. Et puisqu'on parle de prix, l'Ukraine ne doit pas être le prétexte d'un nouvel impôt européen – puisque les Européens doivent, paraît-il, comme partout dans le monde, avoir vocation à payer des dégâts dont ils ne sont pas à l'origine. Le président ukrainien a lui-même estimé le montant de la reconstruction de son pays à 55 milliards d'euros – en euros, pas en dollars, bien entendu. Rappelons-nous tout de même le récent rapport de la Cour des comptes de l'Union européenne, pourtant particulièrement inspiré par des vues européistes, qui s'est montré d'une très grande sévérité sur la corruption gouvernementale en Ukraine. Voulez-vous un impôt pour financer une guerre sans fin? Nous, nous ne voulons ni un impôt de guerre, ni un nouvel impôt européen. Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR). – Voorzitter, commissarissen, collega's, we zijn terechtgekomen in de gevarendriehoek waar ik hier voor de zomer al voor waarschuwde. Klimaat, energiebevoorrading en koopkracht zijn de drie hoeken van die driehoek. In plaats van nu onze tijd te verliezen met semantische discussies over sowieso inefficiënte prijsplafonds, moet er dringend een kader uitgewerkt worden dat op langere termijn zekerheid biedt en waarin kernenergie als stabiele en duurzame bron een prominente plaats verdient. Inzake de overwinstbelastingen willen sommige lidstaten, waaronder België, zelfs nog verder gaan dan de Europese plannen en zij begeven zich daarmee op glad ijs. De energieprijzen zijn vandaag zelfs niet meer de hoofddeterminant van de inflatie. Het probleem is veel breder geworden dan enkel maar energie. Sociale onrust is op dit moment blijkbaar onvermijdelijk geworden. Om die inflatie onder controle te krijgen moet helaas de broeksriem aangetrokken worden, zowel budgettair als monetair. Dat dit uitmondt in een recessie is vandaag – helaas, door het te lang aarzelen in sommige beleidsdomeinen – bijna onvermijdelijk geworden. José Gusmão (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, uma das principais consequências económicas e sociais da guerra foi o regresso da lógica da austeridade. E infelizmente, não é só no PPE que assistimos a esse regresso. Em Portugal, os salários e pensões vão ter uma das maiores reduções em termos reais dos últimos anos e a maior diminuição do peso dos salários no rendimento nacional da história da nossa democracia. E isto acontece com o governo socialista, com o mesmo governo que se opôs até à última hora, e só será levado arrastado, à tributação dos lucros extraordinários das empresas da energia e que ainda agora acaba de decidir uma redução na tributação das grandes empresas. O mesmo governo socialista cujo ministro das Finanças acaba de apoiar o aumento das taxas de juro, também aí o PPE não está sozinho, e, portanto, aquilo a que assistimos é o regresso, um pouco por toda a Europa, das receitas que falharam espetacularmente na resposta à crise financeira e que estão novamente a ser adotadas por governos das mais variadas famílias políticas. Tiziana Beghin (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in tutta l'Unione europea il caro energia sta spingendo milioni di famiglie sotto la soglia della povertà e, siccome il mio è il paese delle piccole e medie imprese, da noi sta anche mettendo seriamente a rischio tre milioni e mezzo di posti di lavoro. Quindi bene l'acquisto congiunto di gas, è quello che noi chiedevamo da tempo, ancora meglio l'abbandono dell'indice del prezzo del mercato di Amsterdam, dove ormai la maggioranza degli operatori non sono società energetiche ma speculatori. E infine ottimo fissare un tetto al prezzo del gas, è una misura che noi chiediamo dall'inizio della crisi e che potrà sicuramente aiutare i cittadini, se implementata correttamente. Ma quello che farebbe davvero la differenza per imprese e famiglie sarebbe creare un nuovo Recovery Fund energetico, recuperando quindi congiuntamente i capitali sul mercato e trasferendoli agli europei in difficoltà. Le misure contro il caro bollette non servono subito, servivano ieri, e una sola di queste non basterà, servono tutte e servono adesso. Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE). – Señor presidente, señores comisarios, señor presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, sabemos que existe una enorme preocupación por la desorbitada subida de los precios. Necesitamos, por esta razón, una actuación decidida de la Comisión y de los Estados miembros que permita, mediante medidas temporales, actuar con carácter inmediato. La Comisión y el Consejo debaten imponer a las empresas del sector de combustibles fósiles una contribución solidaria. Es fundamental que una medida tan excepcional como esta cumpla su objetivo y que los fondos vayan directamente a los consumidores y las empresas que más lo necesitan. Además, las contribuciones deben focalizarse en los beneficios, no en la facturación. Son dos conceptos muy diferentes. Es también sumamente necesario establecer medidas que permitan a la industria financiar los precios del gas con créditos fiscales, menos cotizaciones y una reducción del IVA. Hay que ayudar a nuestra industria, porque el primer objetivo de la Unión Europea y de los gobiernos debe ser preservar el empleo. Biljana Borzan (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, građani se lome pod teretom računa, a pohlepa je nerijetko jedini razlog rasta cijena. Potrošačima svaki dan stižu računi koje oni ne razumiju. Moramo ih zaštititi dok sklapaju ugovore s energetskim kompanijama. Trebamo zajedničku nabavu energenata, ograničiti cijene plina, odvojiti cijene plina od struje, zaustaviti špekulacije na energetskom tržištu. Odgovor na krizu je solidarnost, ali to ne znači da građani trebaju po tko zna koji put sami snositi teret. Vrijeme je da uzmemo onima koji imaju i da damo onima koji nemaju. Nekima je kriza bogomdana. Digitalni divovi, premda ostvaruju goleme profite, otpuštaju radnike. Farmaceutske tvrtke su prodajom cjepiva postale bogatije od država koje su javnim novcem financirale ta cjepiva. Višak dobiti energetskih kompanija u ovoj godini bit će 200 milijardi eura. To je ratno profiterstvo. Mi socijalisti u krizi ne predlažemo samo ideje, već dajemo i rješenja. Porez na neočekivanu dobit mora se odnositi na sve koji su značajno profitirali u ovoj krizi. Pandemija je stvarala novog milijardera svakih 30 sati, a gurnula gotovo milijun ljudi u ekstremno siromaštvo. Samo deset najbogatijih ljudi ima više nego trećina čovječanstva. Vrijeme je da svatko plati svoj dio. Ne znamo zato što nam je novac potreban, a potreban nam je, već zato što je to prije svega pošteno. Jordi Cañas (Renew). – Señor presidente, señores comisarios, ¿es aceptable que, mientras se multiplican por 100, 200 o 300 las facturas eléctricas que pagan nuestros ciudadanos, autónomos, pymes y empresas, las grandes compañías eléctricas multipliquen por tres, por cuatro y por diez sus beneficios? La respuesta es bien sencilla: no. ¿Es aceptable que, mientras los ciudadanos pagan por esta crisis, haya compañías que se beneficien de ella? No, porque entonces no es una crisis. Es una crisis para los de siempre y la pregunta es: ¿deben pagar una vez más siempre los mismos esta crisis? La respuesta, obviamente, es: no. ¿La propuesta de gravar los beneficios caídos del cielo es suficiente? No. ¿Es necesaria? Sí, porque ¿son beneficios caídos del cielo? No. Son beneficios que salen del sufrimiento de los ciudadanos, de los autónomos, de las pymes y de las empresas, y que van a engordar las cuentas de beneficios de compañías que se benefician —¡sí!— de la crisis. Luego, para que no paguen siempre los mismos, por una vez que paguen los que se benefician de esta crisis. Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Die Rezession und die hohen Energiepreise machen vielen Europäerinnen und Europäern Angst. Immer mehr Menschen haben Angst vor dem Winter. Deshalb ist es gut, dass Mitgliedstaaten ihre Ressourcen nutzen, um beispielsweise Gaspreisdeckel einzuführen. Das Problem ist nicht, dass Mitgliedstaaten handeln. Das Problem ist, wenn auf europäischer Ebene nicht gehandelt wird. Mit mehr europäischer Solidarität kommen wir besser durch diesen Winter. Das bedeutet für uns auch, dass wir eine europäische Deckelung beim Gaspreis und verpflichtende Energieeinsparung für alle Mitgliedstaaten jetzt brauchen. Wir Grünen waren hier im Haus die Ersten, die sich für eine Übergewinnsteuer für Energiekonzerne eingesetzt haben. Wir freuen uns, dass die Kommission jetzt eine Abschöpfung von Übergewinnen auf den Weg gebracht hat. Wir müssen jetzt aber auch dafür sorgen, dass die Abschöpfung der Übergewinne national gut umgesetzt wird. Die Mitgliedstaaten sollten nicht 33 %, sondern mindestens 50 % der Gewinne von Ölkonzernen abschöpfen. Wir müssen Schlupflöcher schließen, damit die Gewinne nicht einfach in andere Staaten abwandern und sich die Konzerne arm rechnen können. Wir brauchen ein Abkommen mit der Schweiz, damit die Gewinnverlagerung nicht mehr stattfindet. Dafür müssen sich jetzt die Finanzministerinnen und -minister einsetzen. Paolo Borchia (ID). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, Luigi Einaudi, secondo Presidente della storia della Repubblica italiana, definì l'inflazione un'odiosa tassa sui poveri. Sono parole profetiche alla luce di quanto stia pesando l'aumento dei prezzi dell'energia sulle categorie a basso reddito e ritengo che, in un mondo normale, si inizierebbe a riflettere su quanto le politiche dell'Unione su clima ed energia siano state deleterie perché – siamo onesti – il Green Deal sta diventando una questione per ricchi. L'obiettivo è condivisibile, il percorso e gli strumenti non più. È stata scatenata per anni una guerra al gas che ha ridotto gli investimenti e ha portato il nostro continente a essere sempre più dipendente dalla Russia. Non possiamo più aspettare, adesso serve un bagno di umiltà e di realismo e serve decidere se l'Unione vuole agire come un circolo ristretto per ricchi o viziati o se, al contrario, si abbandonerà l'overdose di ideologia e si inizierà a lavorare per la gente comune. Nicola Procaccini (ECR). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, il costo della bolletta energetica non è più sostenibile per le famiglie e sta dando il colpo di grazia alle aziende produttive, ancora sanguinanti per la crisi economica scatenata dal COVID-19. Ci sono molte misure che l'Unione europea avrebbe potuto prendere per contenere il costo dell'energia: il tetto al prezzo del gas, il disaccoppiamento dei prezzi energetici, la tassa sugli extraprofitti, gli acquisti comuni dai paesi terzi, ma nulla è stato fatto fino ad oggi. Vi ricordo che fu proprio l'approvvigionamento di energia dal carbone a indurre le prime nazioni europee a unirsi settant'anni fa. Dunque, quando noi conservatori diciamo che l'Unione europea dovrebbe occuparsi meno di tante piccole cose, ma dovrebbe occuparsi meglio di poche grandi cose, evidentemente non stiamo sbagliando. Il tempo a nostra disposizione è sempre meno. È questo il momento per dare un senso all'esistenza dell'Unione europea, dopo sarà troppo tardi. Sira Rego (The Left). – Señor presidente, a estas alturas nadie duda de que comer, vestir y vivir cuesta más porque ha subido el precio de la energía. Y tampoco hay duda de que esto se produce por un modelo de mercado eléctrico agravado por la guerra y la escasez de combustibles fósiles. Podemos seguir debatiendo, podemos seguir lanzando titulares, pero es urgente empezar a hacer, porque la inacción lo único que demuestra es su complicidad con los oligopolios. Fíjense, en España, mientras el oligopolio de la energía obtenía beneficios estimados en miles de millones, a cada familia, solo la cesta de la compra, le aumentaba 567 euros más al año. Es decir, sus beneficios salen de nuestros bolsillos porque aquí no se hace lo suficiente y eso genera un malestar que vemos, por ejemplo, en las movilizaciones de hoy en Francia. Sin embargo, esto es evitable. Bastaría con cambiar el modelo marginalista, bastaría con anteponer el interés general y promover el control y la intervención pública, y bastaría con considerar la energía como un derecho y no como un negocio. Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αλήθεια, ποιον κοροϊδεύετε ισχυριζόμενοι ότι για την εκτίναξη των τιμών του ρεύματος, των καυσίμων, των τροφίμων και του πληθωρισμού φταίει μόνο ο ιμπεριαλιστικός πόλεμος στην Ουκρανία; Ξέρετε πολύ καλά ότι η κούρσα αύξησης των τιμών ξεκίνησε από το φθινόπωρο του 2021. Στο „σκαμνί”, λοιπόν, να κάτσει η στρατηγική της πράσινης μετάβασης που προωθούν η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και όλες οι κυβερνήσεις, επιβάλλοντας το χρηματιστήριο ενέργειας, την απελευθέρωσή της, το εμπόριο ρύπων, τα πράσινα τέλη και την απολιγνιτοποίηση. Αυτή είναι η ενιαία στρατηγική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και των κυβερνήσεών της, παρά τις μεταξύ σας αντιθέσεις στα Ευρωπαϊκά Συμβούλια για το μοίρασμα της λείας. Την ώρα που τρέφονται οι ενεργειακοί όμιλοι με τρελά κέρδη, επιδοτήσεις και κάθε είδους φοροαπαλλαγές, αποτελούν εμπαιγμό τα περί επιβολής φόρου απροσδόκητων κερδών. Τα επιδόματα-κοροϊδία που τα πληρώνει ο λαός από την τσέπη του δεν ανακουφίζουν το λαϊκό εισόδημα. Στη Γαλλία σήμερα, στην Ελλάδα στις 9 Νοέμβρη: απεργιακός ξεσηκωμός για αυξήσεις στους μισθούς και τις συντάξεις, κατάργηση των άδικων φόρων, ρεύμα και καύσιμα και είδη λαϊκής κατανάλωσης φτηνά, κανένα σπίτι χωρίς ρεύμα. Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, inflation is a big threat. When putting together fiscal support for the economy we should have in mind that if it leads to fiscal expansion, this inflation will be more difficult or more costly. And the highest cost for inflation is always paid by the people. So that's why redirecting of existing money and using new resources like windfall tax is a must. The second: energy savings are still in the centre. Issuer energy savings and quick build-up of new clean, effective resources is the best way how to reduce the risk and reduce the costs. Last but not least, we should not forget about keeping single market functioning. We should rethink if more stringent or at least coordinated state-led rules are not the best way to promote efficiency of the single market and avoid disruptions. Last but not least, we shouldn't forget that Putin's policy is likely leading to world global recession. If it happens, we shouldn't forget that the highest price is paid by the least developed countries. Mohammed Chahim (S&D). – Voorzitter, terwijl ik hier voor u sta, dreigt er voor miljoenen huishoudens een donker scenario deze winter. Niet alleen de energierekening rijst de pan uit, maar ook de uitgaven voor dagelijkse boodschappen en transport. En deze energiecrisis vergroot de bestaande maatschappelijke ongelijkheden. Tijdens de COVID-crisis kwam er elke 30 uur gemiddeld een nieuwe miljardair bij. Hoe zou dat nu zijn? Wie profiteert het meest van deze crisis? De rijken worden rijker en de armen worden armer, maar we gaan over tot de orde van de dag. Het geloof in de vrije markt is zo groot dat er weinig politici durven in te grijpen. Maar nu worden ook mensen geraakt die tot nu toe het hoofd nét boven water kunnen houden, die niet direct afhankelijk zijn van de overheid om te overleven. En wat gaan we hieraan doen? Hoe zorgen we ervoor dat de energierekening betaalbaar wordt? Het prijsplafond in combinatie met overwinstbelasting is hierbij de sleutel, maar het is niet de enige stap. Hopelijk komen de regeringsleiders komende vrijdag tot een akkoord om de losgeslagen energiemarkt te temmen. Waar wachten jullie op? Nú gezamenlijk inkopen en nú werken aan hervorming van de markt! Dan kunnen we met een geruster hart de komende winters tegemoet. Dita Charanzová (Renew). – Mr President, well, it's our duty to back Ukraine against the terrorist Putin's regime, but it is also our duty to protect and support our citizens and our companies in this energy crisis. Millions of Europeans don't know how they will make it through this winter – steep increases in food prices, double-digit inflation. What we need is a crisis management and we need it now. This House proposed concrete solutions: exempting staple foods from VAT, more money for SMEs and bigger companies, decoupling electricity prices from the prices of gas. And we know how to finance this plan: windfall tax. And this needs to be properly implemented by all Member States. Winter is coming and all our talk must now be backed with concrete actions. Viola von Cramon-Taubadel (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Während Putin militärisch verliert, hofft er mit dem Wechsel der Jahreszeiten auf einen Sieg. Er setzt auf kalte Temperaturen, auf sinkende Temperaturen und damit auch auf sinkende Solidarität in der EU. Auch wenn wir auf die Temperaturen keinen Einfluss haben, auf den Zusammenhalt in der EU haben wir Einfluss. Mit Russlands Energieerpressung wissen Millionen nicht mehr, wie sie ihre Rechnungen bezahlen können. Kleine und mittlere Unternehmen müssen ihre Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter entlassen, aber Energieunternehmen erzielen Milliardengewinne. Im Zuge dieser riesigen Herausforderung ist es unbedingt geboten, eine vorübergehende Sondersteuer auf Mitnahmeeffekte zu erheben, um eben mit diesen Einnahmen diese meistverletzlichen Gruppen zu unterstützen. Aber im Grunde müssen wir uns komplett unabhängig von Energie aus autokratischen Staaten machen. Erst diese Selbstemanzipierung wird den notwendigen Schutz vor Autokraten und deren Erpressungsversuchen gewährleisten. Dieser Winter wird uns alle in Bezug auf Solidarität und sozialen Zusammenhalt auf eine Probe stellen. Aber ich bin zuversichtlich, dass wir hier in der EU diesen Test gemeinsam bestehen werden. Tom Vandendriessche (ID). – Voorzitter, collega's, deze energiecrisis overkomt ons niet zomaar. Het is het gevolg van een doelbewuste politieke keuze waarvan de gevolgen ook voorspelbaar waren. Vanuit ecologisch dogmatisme werden kerncentrales gesloten. Vanuit liberaal moralisme werd een onbezonnen economische oorlog ontketend. Het ene na het andere sanctiepakket werd afgekondigd. Daarmee dacht men de oorlog te stoppen en Rusland zonder geld te zetten. Het omgekeerde gebeurde. De energieprijzen exploderen, waardoor Poetin precies méér geld ontvangt om zijn gruwelijke oorlogsmachine te financieren. Torenhoge inflatie is het gevolg. Spaargeld en koopkracht gaan in rook op. Industrie delokaliseert. Pensioenfondsen dreigen omver te vallen. Europa is economisch zelfmoord aan het plegen. Gewone mensen betalen daar de prijs van. Een Vlaams gezin betaalt nu al vier keer meer voor energie. Zij worden vergeten en in de steek gelaten. En wat doet de Europese Unie? Nog meer sancties. Nog meer wapenleveringen. De Europese Unie werd ooit opgericht om vrede en welvaart te brengen. Dit is helaas oorlog en collectieve verarming geworden. Ze hebben ons in het moeras van deze oorlog getrokken en hebben er geen flauw benul van hoe lang die nog zal duren en hoe we daar eigenlijk ooit opnieuw uitraken. Deze Europese Unie leidt ons naar de economische ondergang, als het al niet naar de loopgraven is. Deze waanzin moet stoppen. Alexandr Vondra (ECR). – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I've told this over and over again. We can't fight two wars, advance against Putin and carbon, it's above our weight. Yes, we must contain Putin at any price. Yes, we must support Ukraine. Yes, we must be independent of Russia supplies. Yes, we are capping the prices and introducing the windfall tax. But it's not enough to keep social stability and prices under control. Most liberal democracies is the home and friendly cooperation inside the EU are in danger. Therefore, we should slow down our radical decarbonisation effort by mitigating the ETS system, by allowing LNG long-term contracts, by capping the energy prices, the gas from the electricity. And finally, also by rehabilitating fully the nuclear energy as the stable source of baseload. This is the way to cheaper ... (the President cut off the speaker) András Gyürk (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Európa súlyos válságba jutott, brutális rezsiszámlák, tönkremenő iparágak, létükért küzdő kisvállalkozások. Az ok egyértelmű, a háború és az arra adott elhibázott válasz, vagyis a rosszul megalkotott szankciós politika. Ezért elviselhetetlenek ma az energiaárak. A megoldás a szankciók újragondolása, mert az energiaellátás fizikai és nem ideológiai kérdés. Nem kockáztathatjuk Európa energiabiztonságát, nem sodorhatjuk veszélybe a munkahelyeket. Olyan politikát kell folytatnunk, ami bírja az emberek támogatását. Ezt a célt szolgálja például a szankciókról szóló magyarországi nemzeti konzultáció. Az egyre súlyosabb válságból ugyanis csak széles tagállami és társadalmi támogatottsággal tudunk kilábalni. Ezért is elfogadhatatlan, hogy ebben a helyzetben Brüsszel 600 milliárd eurónyi forrást tart vissza. Most minden tagállamnak azonnal meg kell kapnia a neki járó forrásokat, hogy azok a lehető leghamarabb eljussanak a polgárokhoz. Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, Putin's armed forces have underwhelmed. But he retains a strong grip on energy supply, for now. He will try to weaponise the winter to weaken resolve and support for Ukraine. The EU and Member States must introduce a range of measures and supports to help households and businesses and protect citizens from the worsening energy price hikes. Immediate actions of the energy crisis should not be at the detriment of the future needs of our energy system. Yet the market should be for the benefit of society, not siphon the life from it. It is only right to apply a windfall charge to actually give that money back to citizens. To reduce energy bills for consumers in the longer term, the answer is clear: embrace the energy efficiency principle and get renovating the built environment. But for now, the windfall profits being made by producers and, above all, by traders of the energy system must be subjected to storm force taxes. These astronomical and immoral profits must be taxed as soon as possible. Gabriele Bischoff (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Viele haben es hier gesagt: Diese Energiekrise bedroht Millionen von Europäerinnen und Europäern in ihrer wirklichen Existenz, und normale Beschäftigte können solche Preissteigerungen nicht stemmen. Am schlimmsten trifft es die Ärmsten. 30 % in Europa können keinerlei Rücklagen bilden. Deshalb ist die erste Antwort: Löhne rauf, Preise runter und Solidarität mit den Streikenden hier in Europa. Die Übergewinnsteuer wurde bereits erwähnt, um das zu finanzieren. Was mir aber wirklich riesengroße Sorgen macht, sind die explodierenden Energiepreise, die Millionen Arbeitsplätze in energieintensiven Industrien betreffen. Wenn man hier nicht schneller handelt und wenn man das hier einfach laufen lässt, dann bricht das das industrielle Rückgrat Europas. Und was ist die Folge davon? Nicht nur Arbeitslose und verarmende Regionen, sondern auch mehr globale Abhängigkeit und weniger strategische Autonomie. Deshalb muss Europa jetzt schneller handeln und kann nicht mehr nur darauf setzen, dass sich das Problem erledigen wird. Wer gute Zukunftsperspektiven will, handelt jetzt mutig. Nicola Beer (Renew). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Energie, Ernährung sind der Boden sozialen Friedens – und der ist brüchig allerorts. Die Menschen sind extrem verunsichert. Sie machen sich Sorgen über Preissteigerungen bei Energie, bei Nahrungsmitteln, und dass die Inflationsspirale sich weiterdreht. Das ist eine Situation, die Putin schafft, um Ängste zu schüren und den Zusammenhalt zu untergraben. Und umso wichtiger ist es, dass wir das eben nicht zulassen, dass wir nicht nur reden, sondern geschlossen handeln, schnell mit einem gemeinsamen Plan die Preise senken, die Inflation bekämpfen. Wir erhöhen die Energieproduktion in Europa, und daher ist die deutsche Entscheidung zum Weiterbetrieb der Kernkraftwerke wichtig. Wir kaufen mehr gemeinsam ein bei verlässlichen Partnern. Wir bauen erneuerbare Energien schneller aus und entwickeln Zukunftsenergien weiter. Wir sparen Energie, wir bekämpfen Inflation durch strukturelle Maßnahmen. Wir entlasten Bürger und Unternehmen, bis alle Maßnahmen sicher greifen – von Strompreis- und Gaspreisbremse bis Bürokratieabbau. Das funktioniert nicht auf Knopfdruck, aber wir kommen voran. Und jetzt gilt es doch, durchzuhalten, mit Zuversicht unseren Zusammenhalt zu bewahren. Das beweist unsere Demokratie gegenüber dem Aggressor Putin und unsere unverbrüchliche Solidarität mit der Ukraine. Claude Gruffat (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, je me réjouis de l'opportunité que nous avons d'appeler une fois de plus à la taxation des super-profits. Néanmoins, la situation est loin d'être réjouissante. D'un côté, des millions de citoyennes et de citoyens font face à l'augmentation extrême des prix dans des secteurs vitaux comme l'énergie et l'alimentation; de l'autre, l'insolente santé des grands groupes leaders du secteur, qui s'enrichissent outrageusement, comme leurs actionnaires, sur les mêmes secteurs de l'alimentation et de l'énergie. 50 %, c'est l'augmentation du chiffre d'affaires de Total en 2022. 50 %, c'est l'augmentation du salaire du PDG de Total, Patrick Pouyanné, en 2022. Mais zéro, c'est le montant payé par Total au titre de l'impôt sur les sociétés en France depuis 2020. Regardez en conscience, vous qui avez été élus par les Européennes et les Européens, et demandez-vous si nous pouvons laisser subsister une telle injustice. Il est urgent que cet argent qui dort dans les poches des actionnaires soit mis à la disposition des plus fragiles qui peinent à faire face à ce choc des prix qui va durer entre cinq et dix ans. Il s'agit d'un enjeu social, d'un choix de société. Nous devons limiter les systèmes de concentration de richesses et donc d'appauvrissement du plus grand nombre. Gunnar Beck (ID). – Herr Präsident! Die Ölpreise haben sich seit Anfang 2021 verdoppelt, die Kohlepreise haben sich verdreifacht und die Gaspreise mehr als verfünffacht. Laut dem Internationalen Währungsfonds werden die Preise bis mindestens 2026 weiter stark steigen. Ein Hauptgrund: die Verdoppelung des Preises für CO2-Zertifikate und ganz allgemein die EU-Klimarettungspolitik. Es profitieren von den Preissteigerungen die Energieunternehmen und die EU selbst. Firmenübergewinne wollen Sie nun teilweise abschöpfen – so weit richtig. Doch wem zum Nutzen? Nicht den Verbrauchern, sondern der EU selbst für noch ehrgeizigere Klimaziele. Nur der EU-Anteil an den weltweiten CO2-Emissionen liegt bei rund 8 %. Keine andere Weltregion, nicht einmal die USA, teilen Ihre Klimaziele. Unser Einfluss auf das Weltklima ist gleich null. Wissen Sie was? Ihr Ziel ist gar nicht die Weltrettung, sondern Massenverelendung und zivilisatorischer Rückschritt für Europa. Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR). – Señor presidente, mientras el responsable del 27 % de las emisiones globales —China— planifica nuevas centrales térmicas de carbón, ustedes siguen discutiendo cómo trasladar a los europeos los sacrificios que impone su agenda globalista. Su fanatismo climático es responsable de la dependencia de Europa de terceras potencias. El sistema que ustedes crearon para beneficiar a las renovables es el que ha provocado esos beneficios. Gobiernos socialistas, como el de España, obtienen ingresos extraordinarios a costa del IVA, esquilmando a las clases medias y trabajadoras. Piden sacrificios a todos, pero no están dispuestos a asumir ninguno. Quieren rebajar la factura climática, reducción drástica del gasto político de todas las instituciones. Devuelvan a las familias y empresas el IVA que los Estados han obtenido de forma extraordinaria, del mismo modo que los beneficios de las eléctricas. Detengan su plan para ahogar a las empresas con nuevos impuestos, cargas, regulaciones y sanciones. Son tan hipócritas que, ayer mismo, se pedían nuevas sanciones a las empresas europeas contaminantes. Incrementemos la producción de energía utilizando todas las fuentes conocidas. Pongan fin al comercio especulativo de los derechos de emisión de CO2 y permitamos que las familias puedan deducirse en renta el coste de las hipotecas para la compra de sus viviendas. Si no son capaces de hacerlo, déjenlo. Nosotros estamos preparados y dispuestos. Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, budžeti građana napadnuti su s barem tri strane: inflacija koja potječe još i prije rata, rast cijene energenata i na kraju urušavanje privrede, što će smanjiti zaposlenost i prihode mnogima. Ovdje u Francuskoj sindikati su pozvali na opći štrajk od danas 18.10. Prošli tjedan smo bili u Bruxellesu. Tamo svako malo netko prosvjeduje oko Parlamenta, od poljoprivrednika do građana zbog povećanih cijena životnih troškova. A zima još nije niti počela. Dakle, još niti prvi od tri mjeseca jeseni nije prošao. U našoj Hrvatskoj je i prije ove krize bitno veći dio kućnih budžeta odlazio na režije u odnosu na brojne druge europske zemlje. Cijene za građane uglavnom se nisu promijenile i najveći dio tereta pada na Hrvatsku elektroprivredu koja je počela gomilati velike gubitke, a prijeti joj i skori bankrot ako se ovako nastavi. Ove troškove može se neko vrijeme sanirati iz proračuna i fondova koji će se pak recesijom i urušavanjem privrede sve teže puniti. Ta brana može držati vodu neko vrijeme, ali vrlo vrlo kratko. Jedino rješenje je da se nabave dovoljne količine jeftine energije, inače će nam kolabirati i gospodarstva i kućanstva. Kad je naša Hrvatska bila u ratu, nitko nije ovako dijelio krizu s nama, nego smo još dobili i embargo na oružje. Ovakva samoubilačka politika treba se dokinuti. Agnes Jongerius (S&D). – Voorzitter, het werkwoord is „leven” en niet „overleven”, terwijl overleven voor steeds meer mensen de realiteit is. Steeds meer mensen weten aan het begin van de maand niet hoe ze aan het eind van de maand hun huur, hun rekeningen of hun boodschappen kunnen betalen. De huidige crisis laat de kwetsbaarheid van onze essentiële diensten zien. Energieprijzen staan bloot aan de macht van de markt en aan de grillen van autocraten. De Europese plannen voor een energieplafond en een belasting op woekerwinsten helpen om de ergste klappen op te vangen, maar ik denk dat we niet alleen naar de symptomen, maar ook naar de onderliggende ziekte moeten kijken. In de Europese pijler van sociale rechten staat dat we allemaal recht hebben op fatsoenlijke toegang tot essentiële diensten zoals energie, water en transport. Hier moet Europa garant voor staan, want dat is een stevig fundament waar mensen hun leven op kunnen bouwen. Morten Løkkegaard (Renew). – Hr. Formand! Politik består ofte af ubehagelige valg, og dette er sandelig et af dem. Europæerne er pressede, vinteren venter, Europa vil blive ramt historisk hårdt. Skal vi som politikere så gribe ind over for et velfungerende marked i forsøget på at lave nødløsninger? Umiddelbart vil svaret jo være nej. Men omvendt kan vi jo ikke lade europæerne i stikken. Vi står i en ekstraordinær krise, og det kræver ekstraordinære løsninger. Det afgørende nu er, at den løsning, vi kommer op med, rent faktisk sikrer, at energimarkedet fortsat fungerer, så priserne kan regulere sig selv, også i fremtiden, og så investorerne også i fremtiden har lyst til at investere i grøn energi. Men lige nu, der gælder det altså om at komme gennem vinteren, og det kræver ekstraordinære løsninger. Ciarán Cuffe (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, in an age of private yachts and super-jets, as the super-rich get richer, it is time for windfall taxes. Five months ago this week, on 19 May, this House adopted a resolution calling for a windfall tax on energy companies. But two weeks ago, we rejected a call for a tax on the excessive profits of corporations benefiting from the crisis. While we've been debating this tax for five months, households across Europe have seen their energy costs soar, small businesses shut down, and millions are falling below the energy poverty line. We have solutions: introduce a windfall tax, differentiate between fossil fuels and renewables and share the revenues with households. We also need to ban evictions and disconnections and we need to increase the minimum wage to a living wage. The crisis is here right now. Households and small businesses are experiencing it and it's not far off in the future. So now is the time for action. Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Voorzitter, „Als de muziek stopt, wordt het qua liquiditeit ingewikkeld. Maar zolang de muziek speelt, moet je opstaan en dansen. En we dansen nog steeds.” Dit zijn de woorden van Chuck Prince, CEO van Citigroup, in 2007, vlak voor de financiële crisis. Vandaag staan we opnieuw op die dansvloer. De mensen thuis kijken naar ons om in te schatten wat de muziek gaat doen over een week, een maand, een jaar. Maar als ik vandaag naar mijn ambtsgenoten luister, hoor ik meer van hetzelfde: meer roekeloze uitgaven, meer Europese schuldendeling, meer ondoordacht klimaatbeleid, meer regulering, meer overheid, meer EU. Wat veel collega's vandaag benoemen, is niet de oplossing, maar juist het probleem. We staan aan de vooravond van een wereldwijde recessie. Het is tijd om af te kicken van de verslaving aan gratis geld, subsidies en overheidsbemoeienis. De muziek is gestopt, het feestje voorbij. Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, os níveis históricos de inflação vão para além de números ou estatísticas. Mostram-nos as dificuldades das famílias sem dinheiro para fazer face aos seus gastos essenciais. Os aumentos dos preços dos alimentos, da energia ou dos transportes, estão a lançar famílias no desespero, famílias que a quem sobra uma grande parte do mês no fim do seu salário. E a fase crítica do inverno ainda está por vir. Mas há já muitas pessoas sem dinheiro para aquecer as suas casas, vivendo mesmo em situações de verdadeira pobreza energética. E é por isso que, mais do que lamentos, precisamos de medidas concretas. Limites aos preços aplicados ou impostos sobre os lucros extraordinários têm de ser medidas concertadas a nível europeu e têm de ser destinadas a proteger as famílias e as empresas, garantindo o bem-estar das pessoas e mantendo a nossa economia funcional. Uma palavra final aos governos nacionais, em particular ao português: não podem limitar-se a medidas superficiais e a culpar a conjuntura internacional. Exige-se muito mais, exige-se responsabilidade política na gestão desta crise. Jonás Fernández (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señor presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, los precios siguen altos, las facturas de la luz y del gas siguen en niveles muy elevados y el Banco Central Europeo está subiendo los tipos, y seguirá haciéndolo. Y yo creo que es importante que las autoridades políticas —la Comisión, el Consejo y el Parlamento— lleguemos al acuerdo de que no podemos dejar la inflación solo en manos del Banco Central Europeo, porque en esa situación los tipos subirían tanto que lo pasaríamos ciertamente mal. Y, si no dejamos solo la responsabilidad en manos del BCE, ¿qué podemos hacer? Yo creo que, en el ámbito energético, aún hay mucho que hacer. Creo que recibimos positivamente los anuncios de la Comisión, pero la capacidad de consolidar el mercado energético europeo sigue estando pendiente. Tenemos mucho que hacer ahí. Además, necesitamos financiación para ayudar a las familias y a los hogares, y a la propia acción política de la Comisión. Y yo creo que la contribución solidaria que la Comisión ha propuesto bien podría ayudar a fondear un instrumento europeo que redujera, por cierto, los problemas dentro del mercado único. Guy Verhofstadt (Renew). – Mr President, Mr Commissioner, it has been eight months now since this energy crisis started. Eight months, and I have still not seen a coherent plan by the European Commission. I find it hugely disappointing because your job is not to come up with a fragment approach but with a global structural approach. And there isn't one. You are talking about price caps, okay. You're talking about windfall tax. But what is the whole picture? What will you do to tackle this energy crisis? I think you have to do three things. That is an energy purchase platform that is completely different to what you are doing now. You will buy together 15% in 2023 — it is the opposite of what you have to do, to buy together 85%. Where is the security fund for the investments that we absolutely need? And where is the energy assistance plan for households or companies, the same as we did with COVID-19? Why do we not repeat it now? You are right when you criticise in this op-ed the German approach with the 200 billion but it is not only necessary to criticise it, you have to also to come forward with an alternative. And we are going to do that with a number of MEPs. In a few moments, we are going to send you a letter about it, with these cross-party proposals. Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident der Kommission, verehrte Ratsvertreter, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Der Winter steht vor der Tür. Viele Haushalte und Betriebe fragen sich: Wie kann ich meine Strom-, meine Gasrechnung noch bezahlen? Wie komme ich mit den hohen Lebenshaltungskosten zurecht? Es ist von vielen Kollegen schon gesagt worden: Wertvolle Zeit ist vergeudet worden. Aber jetzt haben wir endlich Vorschläge der Kommission auf dem Tisch – spät, aber, wie gesagt, es liegt was auf dem Tisch: Solidarabgabe, Erlösabschöpfung beim Strom, Gaspreisbremse, gemeinsamer Einkauf von Gas, neuer Benchmark für FFT, also einiges ist jetzt auf dem Tisch. Ich möchte heute meine Redezeit nutzen, um die Mitgliedstaaten aufzufordern, doch endlich hier tätig zu werden, und um auch in Richtung der Ratspräsidentschaft noch einmal zu bitten, den Mitgliedstaaten endlich auf die Finger zu klopfen. Bislang hat jedes Land, jeder Mitgliedstaat sein Ding gemacht. Wir sind weit davon entfernt, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, einen europäischen Energiebinnenmarkt zu haben. Aber wenn wir die Probleme in den Griff kriegen wollen, dann müssen wir gemeinsam handeln, was auch heißt, dass wir alle verfügbaren Ressourcen, die wir im Lande haben, zur Energieerzeugung nutzen müssen. Irene Tinagli (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, for months, we've been saying to people that the rising cost of energy was something limited and temporary. But it's not been like that. And, let's face it, it will not be like this in the future. Governments had to intervene massively to support families and businesses and will have to do that again in the future. But it's not going to be sustainable in the long term, we know that. So what does it mean? It means that this will affect the competitiveness of our businesses, will affect the single market and bring about fragmentation and will also have spill-overs that will aggravate and accelerate a possible recession all over the European Union. So we need to intervene very quickly, urgently, on two fronts: one, provide a genuine European instrument to provide support to those countries that don't have the fiscal space, and also to restore the single market. And then we need an incisive intervention on the energy market – yes, the joint procurement. But we need something more ambitious on the gas price, decoupling gas from energy prices. If we're not ambitious now, we will regret it when it will be too late. Radan Kanev (PPE). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, Minister, colleagues, let me be, as usual, very straightforward. I am deeply concerned by the ease and speed with which the Council, including my own government, approved the windfall tax. I am concerned because a windfall tax does not necessarily reduce bills, which is the theme of our debate, but rather subsidises the most unsustainable of all forms of electric generation – those from natural gas, it distorts natural market incentives and eventually jeopardises the business plans and investments of more sustainable and viable alternatives. And I am extremely concerned by the populist zeal with which this House discusses extension of the windfall tax to other businesses. It is market-based innovation and competition that could lead us out of this crisis, and not breaking the free market. Dan Nica (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, intrăm în iarnă și din nou avem zeci de milioane de cetățeni europeni care nu știu dacă își vor putea plăti facturile în această iarnă și nu știu dacă nu cumva vor trebui să renunțe fie la a-și cumpăra mâncare, fie să-și cumpere medicamente, pentru că, ghiciți ce s-a întâmplat? Inflația asta ne-a adus într-o situație absolut imposibilă. Uleiul a devenit un produs prohibitiv, zahărul la fel, pâinea la fel, carnea la fel. Iar toate acestea se datorează unei lipse de acțiune a Comisiei Europene, care nu a luat măsurile pe care trebuia să le ia de un an de zile. Aceste măsuri au dus la inflație. 80% din inflație este datorită sau din cauza prețurilor la energie. Iar aceste măsuri, care nu au fost luate la timp, acum aduc costuri. Vorbiți de profituri excepționale. Păi de un an de zile sunt profituri excepționale, iar profiturile excepționale s-au tradus în inflație. În loc să opriți posibilitatea ca toate companiile din energie să facă de un an de zile, în fiecare lună, profituri excepționale, le-ați lăsat să funcționeze și acum cu toții plătim acest preț. Opriți posibilitatea de a face profituri excepționale de către aceste companii, taxați-le corespunzător și vom avea poate o posibilitate să traversăm și să supraviețuim în această iarnă. Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, ante la terrible crisis energética, la crisis de inflación, la dificultad para pagar las hipotecas por la elevada tasa de los tipos de interés o la crisis de suministros, ya existe una herramienta para empezar a hacerles frente: son los fondos de NextGenerationEU, que sé que el comisario conoce muy bien. Estamos hablando de 800 000 millones de euros que, en un altísimo porcentaje, están pendientes de ejecución, pendientes de gasto, de inversión. Quiero aprovechar esta ocasión para animar a la Comisión a que ponga toda su capacidad para hacer que ese dinero, esos 800 000 millones de euros se ejecuten de una manera rápida y eficaz, y a que garantice que lleguen a la economía real, a las familias y a las empresas; también a que haga su labor de fiscalización con los Estados miembros para garantizar que esas reformas que acompañan esa inversión sean las reformas adecuadas. No más subidas de impuestos, sino incentivos fiscales y aquellas medidas que hagan nuestra economía más competitiva y ayuden a que entre esa liquidez tan necesaria. Señor comisario, existe un instrumento y se llama NextGenerationEU y apelo a la Comisión a que haga su trabajo y de verdad consiga que los fondos se gasten rápido. Στέλιος Κυμπουρόπουλος (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αξιότιμε κύριε Επίτροπε, αγαπητοί και αγαπητές συνάδελφοι, η εισβολή της Ρωσίας στην Ουκρανία σε λίγες μέρες συμπληρώνει 8 μήνες και αποτελεί το μοναδικό ενεργό μέτωπο επί ευρωπαϊκού εδάφους. Από εκείνη τη στιγμή, οι κοινωνικές και οικονομικές συνέπειες, κυρίως για την Ευρώπη και ευρύτερα για τον κόσμο, ήταν και εξακολουθούν να είναι σημαντικές. Κύματα προσφύγων έρχονται κατά χιλιάδες για να βρουν ασφάλεια στα κράτη μέλη, ενώ παράλληλα το ζήτημα με τις εξαγωγές της Ουκρανίας σε σιτηρά και πρώτες ύλες έχει δημιουργήσει προβλήματα στην εφοδιαστική αλυσίδα της ευρωπαϊκής αγοράς. Ως επιστέγασμα, η ενεργειακή κρίση έρχεται να χτυπήσει εκ νέου τους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες, με πολλές από τις εταιρείες ενέργειας να αισχροκερδούν σε αυτό το θολό τοπίο. Η κυβέρνησή μας στην Ελλάδα το έκανε: εισήγαγε έναν προσωρινό έκτακτο φόρο με σκοπό τη φορολόγηση των εταιρειών ενέργειας για τα υπερκέρδη που σημειώνουν οι εταιρείες όσο διαρκεί αυτή η κρίση και τα χρήματα που εισπράττονται κατευθύνονται απευθείας στους καταναλωτές με σκοπό την όσο το δυνατόν μεγαλύτερη ελάφρυνσή τους. Αυτό πρέπει να κάνουμε συνολικά ως Ευρώπη και πρέπει να το πράξουμε άμεσα, γιατί τα βάρη που σηκώνουν οι οικογένειες και οι επιχειρήσεις είναι άμεσα και συνεχώς αυξανόμενα. PREDSEDÁ: MICHAL ŠIMEČKA podpredseda Vystúpenia podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky Maria Walsh (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome the reactive measures, such as the proposed introduction of a windfall tax, but it should not have taken European leaders over 236 days of a crippling crisis to introduce such measures. While this debate focused primarily on using the windfall tax mechanism on fossil fuel companies, we must utilise this instrument for the large building suppliers and supermarkets. Ensuring families, feeding their families and building their homes and growing their businesses can survive the coming weeks and months. In addition, it is incredibly important we recognise that the cost of living crisis is affecting people's mental wellbeing. Following this debate, we will lead a dedicated discussion on mental health. These two discussions are connected now more than ever. This emphasises the need for a comprehensive EU approach to mental health and not just talking about in times of crisis, but as a cornerstone for all 27 Member States. Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiamas Pirmininke, gerbiamas Komisijos narį, aš sutinku su kolegų pasakymais, kad mums iš tikrųjų šioje situacijoje reikia kuo skubiau apriboti viršpelnius. Tai yra įvesti mokesčius, apriboti viršutines dujų kainas, ypatingai tos, iš kurių gaminama elektra, ir teisingai paskirstyti gautas pajamas smulkiam ir vidutiniam verslui bei skurdesnėms Europos, europiečių šeimoms. Tačiau aš noriu atkreipti dėmesį į dar vieną dalyką, kad mums reikia labai atsakingai įvykdyti prisiimtus įsipareigojimus. Gaila, kad komisaras V. Dombrovskis išėjo, norėjau jam pasakyti, kad jo šalies ūkininkai gauna mažesnes tiesiogines išmokas, kaip ir mano šalies Lietuvos ūkininkai. Nors tas buvo pažadėta, kai buvo stojimo procesas. Todėl kviečiu Jus, Komisijos narį, ir Komisijos narį V. Dombrovskį pasirūpinti, kad visi įsipareigojimai būtų įgyvendinti. Tik veikdami solidariai galėsime atsikratyti priklausomybės nuo Putino energetikos šantažo ir sustabdyti nacionalizmą ir populizmą Europoje. Γεώργιος Κύρτσος (Renew). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, μιλάμε πολύ, αλλά το αποτέλεσμα, κατά την άποψή μου, είναι αρνητικό για την οικονομία και την κοινωνία. Εάν θέλουμε να βγούμε από το αδιέξοδο, πρέπει πρώτα να αλλάξουμε τον τρόπο λειτουργίας της αγοράς ενέργειας σε σχέση με το φυσικό αέριο, που είναι το πιο αδύναμο σημείο μας εξαιτίας του Πούτιν. Δεύτερον, πρέπει να αποσυνδέσουμε τη χονδρική τιμή της ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας από το φυσικό αέριο. Τρίτον, πρέπει να περιορίσουμε —όπως έχει ειπωθεί— τα υπερκέρδη και να τα φορολογήσουμε γρήγορα. Τέταρτον —το οποίο θεωρώ πολύ βασικό, πρέπει να σταματήσουμε να στέλνουμε τόσα χρήματα στον Πούτιν. Είναι χαρακτηριστικό ότι η Ελλάδα, η χώρα μου, έστειλε τον Αύγουστο 1,2 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ για ρωσικό φυσικό αέριο και πετρέλαιο· τριπλάσιο ποσό σε σύγκριση με τον Αύγουστο του 2021. Δεν είναι δυνατόν να επιδοτούμε έτσι έναν επιθετικό πόλεμο. Τέλος, δεν μας φταίει, κατά την άποψή μου, η Ευρώπη αλλά η έλλειψή της στον στρατηγικής σημασίας τομέα της ενέργειας. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, it makes sense to tax the windfall profits of energy companies. But the rate proposed, 33%, is way too low. If the tax is calculated only on excess profits, the rate should be at least double that and in some cases 100%. This should not be a one-off tax. We need a permanent windfall tax mechanism, one that applies to all sectors. It should apply to any company that makes excess profits off problems of others. We need a windfall tax on the profits of weapons manufacturers. Just look at the profits and share prices of the EU arms industry of late – Rheinmetall, Thales, Airbus, Leonardo. And long before the war in Ukraine, these companies were making a fortune off the misery of the people in Yemen by supplying arms to the Saudi-UAE coalition that are committing a genocide there, the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet at the moment. Why do we allow these companies to make crazy profits off the misery of others? Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, discutăm despre stoparea creșterii facturilor, cu consecințe sociale și economice, dar acum, când noi discutăm, în foarte multe state membre se regularizează facturile, se ridică facturile, de 10 ori costul la energie. Și iată, nu numai în țara mea, unde m-au sesizat cetățenii că au crescut prețurile la energia electrică de 10 ori, iată, și în Belgia am primit chiar acum, când este dezbaterea, o scrisoare de la un cetățean la care factura a fost crescută de la 35 de euro la 450 de euro pe lună și o factură de regularizare de peste 3 700 de euro. Care sunt măsurile concrete? Pentru că nu putem să stăm în sezonul rece să discutăm de opt luni cum am putea să scădem facturile? Vin de la o întâlnire cu SME Connect, în calitatea mea de vicepreședinte a Intergrupului pentru IMM-uri, și întrebarea concretă a întreprinzătorilor din Germania, din Austria, de unde au participat, din Slovacia, cum scădem facturile la energie? Și acesta trebuie să fie răspunsul pe care noi trebuie să-l dăm și la cetățeni, și la IMM-uri, dacă vrem să nu avem consecințe sociale și economice. Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Mr President, these are not normal times. This is not a free market. This is a market that's been held to ransom by Putin. So we do need to have extraordinary measures put in place. I very much welcome the proposals around a windfall tax. We do need to show in solidarity with citizens, with small businesses, with families that simply are unable to afford electricity bills and other gas utility bills in the weeks and months ahead. Member States have gone to extraordinary levels in some countries to try and buffer the impact that inflation is having on people. But the European Union must do more in terms of bringing forward a windfall tax, a solidarity tax, that can be dispersed to people and entities and businesses that most need it. We also need to be brave in the area of decoupling of the wholesale electricity price from gas prices. We can't have a situation where we are continually blackmailed, held to ransom by Putin and his cronies in the efforts to keep the lights on, businesses going and families warm this winter. We do need to be brave. We do need to change how we price electricity in Europe. Martin Hojsík (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, táto kríza je výsledkom našej závislosti na fosílnych palivách, predovšetkým na plyne, a trápi ľudí po celej Európe, aj firmy. Závislosti, ktorá ničí klímu, a závislosti, ktorá dala všetky zbrane do ruky i najväčšiemu dealerovi, Putinovi. Závislosti sa však najlepšie zbavíme spoločne, a preto mi chýba silnejšia iniciatíva od Komisie, silnejšie kroky od Komisie, ktoré pomôžu, ako pomôcť obyvateľom a firmám, tak lepšie rozvíjať zelenú energiu a energetickú efektívnosť. Daň z nadmerných ziskov nemôže byť len na národnej úrovni, pretože obchody s energiami sa dejú na celoeurópskej úrovni. Obchodníci nakupujú v jednej krajine elektrinu na budúci rok a predávajú v inej. Nákupy, ktoré boli pod 100 eurami, sa zrazu musia kompenzovať za vyše 300. Potrebujeme európske riešenie a ja ho očakávam ako od Komisie, tak od Rady v nasledujúcich dňoch. (Ukončenie vystúpení podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky) Paolo Gentiloni,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, let me start by reiterating our support for the Ukrainian resistance. I don't think that this is a formal-only statement because we also have to refuse the narrative that supporting Ukraine means not being able to support our citizens. We will not sacrifice freedom in favour of the economy. Putin will not divide us. He will not prevail if we act together, with ambition. Of course, we know that we are living through a multiple crisis – a geopolitical, energy, inflation crisis – with an impact on the real economy and with some risk of financial spillovers. This global external shock is asymmetric in terms of its consequences. First of all, for low-income countries that have huge, huge debt and food-insecurity problems, but also among advanced countries, the EU is the most affected, by a large margin. We have risks for our competitiveness and risks of fragmentation, and social risks, of course, which we are discussing today. So we will assess the evolution of this crisis – I will present our economic forecast on 11 November, but for sure, the economy is slowing down and this multiple crisis has to be addressed. As you know, the Commission will adopt later today a new energy package. I have to say, it is a huge package. Gradually, we are finding common ways among Member States. Of course, it will not be the last. I have three key words for the coming weeks and months on my side and the Commission side. The first key word is coordination because of course all the national measures are facing the social consequences of this crisis. We know that the European family is spending 20% of their income on food and 15% of their income on energy, so 35%, but this is an average. Of course, we have several countries and several low-income households where food and energy are near to 50% of family expenditure. And the increase that we are looking at is putting these households in a very dangerous situation, and the same is happening for, especially, small and medium companies. So we need to react to support, but also to ensure that this support does not undermine monetary policy efforts because reducing inflation is in the common interest and it is especially in the common interest of the most vulnerable households. So it's an interplay that's not easy because we need, of course, a monetary policy. We don't need exactly the same monetary policy in all areas of the world because Europe has particular roots for its own inflation and needs a particular reaction, but this is for the ECB to decide, and our fiscal coordination should complete monetary policy and not compete with it. My second key word is solidarity. From a social point of view, many things were raised in this discussion and I think that our solidarity contribution on windfall profits is a first step. It is connected to energy for the legal reasons that you know very well, but this doesn't mean that Member States could not go further to address these issues. Solidarity also means looking at the risks of fragmentation, and we have the same concern that we had during the pandemic because, of course, we have different fiscal space in different countries and we should discuss the possibility of looking to further possible common financial tools based on loans to address these risks of fragmentation. Finally, competitiveness – because the risk that there is in the asymmetric consequences of this crisis is for Europe to lose competitiveness. So our two main commitments, first, on the clean energy transition, and second, on implementing reforms and investments of Next Generation EU are not only important because we have to implement what we decide, but they are also important if we want to avoid a difficult situation for the Union in terms of global competitiveness. Ivan Bartoš,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, thank you very much for this very timely debate on such a crucial topic. The cohesion of our societies is at stake. At the end of the day, there will be a price to pay for all of us as a result of Russia's actions. Let us make sure that the burden is fairly distributed. I completely agree with Ms García Pérez, who echoed the recent resolution of this House that citizens should not be obliged to choose between heating and eating. I also take good note of what many of you have said that everybody should contribute in a situation of crisis, especially those with higher profits. Let me underline once again that Member States and the EU are doing their utmost to cushion the blow on our companies and citizens. We are closely following the evolution of the situation and will adapt our policies according to the needs. This is not an easy task, and it requires swift action across several policies and continuous articulation between Member States and EU institutions. In times like these, we should not forget that coordination between Member States is absolutely key to ensuring the integrity of the single market and maintaining a level playing field between our economies, as Mr Niedermayer said. Finally, we look forward to receiving a new proposal, which the Commission is going to present this afternoon. Let me assure you that the Council will discuss them swiftly so they can be have a positive impact already this winter. Thank you very much once again for your attention and this debate. Predsedajúci. – Rozprava sa skončila. Písomné vyhlásenia (článok 171) Clara Aguilera (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D),
raštu. – Europa yra atsidūrusi ant ekonominės ir socialinės krizės slenksčio. Karo Ukrainoje pasekmės Europai yra skaudžios. Dešimtmečiais nematyta infliacija ir kainų didėjimas bei iki aukštumų išaugusios energetikos kainos gresia itin dideliais praradimais bei ekonominiu nuosmukiu. Realybė yra tokia, jog mūsų žmonės ir smulkus verslas neišgali sumokėti išpūstų energijos sąskaitų ir dauguma rizikuoja atsidurti skurde. Žmonės negali būti priversti rinktis tarp šildymo ar maisto, todėl tos priemonės, kurias siūlo Komisija turi būti skubiai patvirtintos. Dabar ne laikas politiniams nesutarimams- mūsų žmonėms ir įmonėms reikia sprendimų dabar, kad jie išgalėtų patenkinti bent jau būtiniausius poreikius ar aprūpinti savo šeimas. Nepateisinama, jog energijos įmonės skaičiuoja viršpelnius, kai tuo tarpu sąskaitos paprastiems vartotojams išaugo dešimteriopai. Privalo būti užkirstas kelias manipuliavimui energijos rinkoje, o nepateisinami viršpelniai paskirstyti paremti tuos, kuriems labiausiai reikia paramos. Privalome apsaugoti savo maisto gamybos sektorių ir negalime leisti, kad nei mūsų žmonės, nei įmonės taptų energijos įmonių kreditoriais. Dabar yra laikas būti solidariems ir socialiai atsakingiems ir atsigręžti į savo žmones, kurie moka didžiulę kainą už karo Ukrainoje pasekmes. Marc Botenga (The Left),
schriftelijk. – Dat overwinsten – de miljarden winst die boven op de normale winst van een multinational komen – vandaag op de agenda staan, is de verdienste van onze fractie. Laat daar geen twijfel over bestaan. In België, zoals in andere landen, ontkenden de traditionele partijen een jaar geleden nog dat overwinsten überhaupt bestonden. Ook vandaag gaan hier in het debat een aantal rechtse, liberale en extreemrechtse politici de kwestie liever simpelweg uit de weg. Onder druk van de mensen moeten jullie er vandaag over debatteren, maar nog steeds proberen jullie actie uit te stellen. De Groenen willen grote multinationals nog steeds de helft van hun overwinsten laten behouden, terwijl de Europese Commissie met een eenmalige belasting op een klein derde van de energieoverwinsten al tevreden is. Nee, collega's, overwinsten zijn onaanvaardbaar. Zoals een deel van het grootbedrijf profiteerde van de COVID-crisis als pandemieprofiteurs, zijn de multinationals die nu overwinsten incasseren oorlogsprofiteurs en crisisprofiteurs. Hoe komt het dat het zolang duurt voordat er actie wordt ondernomen? Omdat jullie vastzitten in een totaal neoliberaal dogma: de zogenaamde competitiviteit van het grootbedrijf – uitgedrukt in hun dividenden en winsten – is absoluut heilig. De werkende klasse – tja... die mag verdrinken. Dit kan niet langer zo doorgaan. Milan Brglez (S&D),
pisno. – Države članice in posamezne skupine prebivalcev, še zlasti tiste najbolj ranljive, nimajo enakovrednega položaja pri soočanju z aktualno energetsko krizo, predvsem ko gre za oblikovanje ukrepov za blaženje učinka nepremostljivo visokih računov za elektriko in plin ter vsesplošne rasti cen. Prav zato pričakujem, da se bodo države članice združile v tej različnosti in s pomočjo Komisije usklajevale odzive na ravni Unije. Na mizi imamo že precej izčrpen seznam političnih orodij, ki bi lahko prispevala k naslavljanju aktualne krize. Nekatera so se izkazala kot učinkovita že v času pandemije, kot je na primer program SURE za ohranitev delovnih mest, ki mora postati trajni mehanizem. Kot ustrezen predlog ocenjujem tudi uvedbo davka na nepričakovan dobiček bančnega sektorja, energetskih, farmacevtskih pa tudi drugih podjetij, ki v času te krize ter od začetka pandemije in agresije na Ukrajino beležijo izredno visoke dobičke. Ti prihodki bi lahko predstavljali nove lastne finančne vire Unije, pri čemer bi akumulirana sredstva bilo potrebno skozi ustrezne mehanizme usmeriti do ljudi, predvsem tistih, ki jim najbolj preti zdrs v (energetsko) revščino. Menim, da imamo dovolj možnosti izbire pri oblikovanju skupnih mehanizmov. Za to pa potrebujemo politično voljo in preudarnost, ki naj bo utemeljena na kolektivnem zavedanju evropske politike o izjemni odgovornosti za dobrobit vseh prebivalk in prebivalcev Unije. Estrella Durá Ferrandis (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Ibán García Del Blanco (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Isabel García Muñoz (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Nicolás González Casares (S&D),
por escrito. – En un momento de crisis como el actual, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción o comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para eliminar nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Enikő Győri (NI),
írásban. – Már tavasszal is láttuk, hogy a háború és a szankciók miatt romlani fog az Unió gazdasági teljesítménye, erre májusi plenáris hozzászólásomban már én is figyelmeztettem. Azóta azonban még inkább elszabadult az infláció és a kilátások is sokkal borúsabbak. Az IMF októberi világgazdasági előrejelzésében az áprilisihez képest kétharmadnyival alacsonyabbra becsüli az uniós gazdasági növekedést. A szárnyaló inflációnak 70%-ban a magas energiaárak a mozgatórugói. Ennek pedig beláthatatlan következményei vannak mind a lakosságra és a vállakozásokra, mind pedig az Unió versenyképességére. Ha ez a szankciós politika folytatódik, az Európai Unió teljesen lemarad a versenytársai mögött. Hiszen az USA önellátó energiából, Kína továbbra is hozzájut orosz gázhoz és nyersanyagokhoz. Ha minden így megy tovább, Európában cégek sora fog bezárni és iparágak fognak eltűnni. Ráadásul a tagállamok, miközben igyekeznek megmenteni a polgáraikat és a cégeiket, egyre jobban eladósodnak. Itt az ideje, hogy észhez térjen az EU. Úgy kellene átalakítani a szankciós politikánkat, hogy ne Európa fizesse meg a háború árát. Máskülönben a jövő európai nemzedékei számára nem marad más, mint a felhalmozott adósságok visszatérítése egy hanyatló gazdaságú kontinensen. Robert Hajšel (S&D),
písomne. – Nové opatrenia navrhované Európskou komisiou s cieľom bojovať proti vysokým cenám energií idú dobrým smerom, ale opäť neprispejú k okamžitému zníženiu zálohových platieb a faktúr za plyn alebo elektrinu na Slovensku. Štáty ako Slovensko potrebujú najmä uvoľnenie nevyužitých prostriedkov zo štrukturálnych fondov a ich využitie na okamžité sociálne kompenzácie pre podniky a samosprávy, ako aj pre zraniteľné domácnosti. Pokiaľ ide o budúcnosť, navrhovaný spoločný nákup plynu je pre menších hráčov ako Slovensko určite výhodný. Ja sa prihováram aj za zastropovanie cien plynu využívaného na výrobu elektriny, ako je to v Španielsku alebo Portugalsku, kde to malo za následok ozajstné zníženie cien. Zároveň musíme nájsť alternatívny mechanizmus k burze TTF v Amsterdame, ktorý - ak nie zabráni - aspoň obmedzí špekulácie generujúce ďalší rast cien. Alicia Homs Ginel (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Έλενα Κουντουρά (The Left),
γραπτώς. – Εδώ και έναν χρόνο η ακρίβεια πλήττει βάναυσα το σύνολο των επιχειρήσεων, νοικοκυριών και εργαζομένων και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση κινείται αμήχανα, χωρίς συλλογικό σχέδιο, συζητώντας ακόμη ποια μέτρα πρέπει να λάβει για την αντιμετώπιση αυτής της κρίσης. Εδώ και έναν χρόνο εμείς ζητάμε θεσμικές παρεμβάσεις που να διορθώνουν το παρωχημένο, γεμάτο στρεβλώσεις μοντέλο της ευρωπαϊκής αγοράς ενέργειας, το οποίο έχει αποδείξει με δραματικό τρόπο ότι η κρίση αυτή δεν λειτουργεί προς όφελος των καταναλωτών, νοικοκυριών και επιχειρήσεων αλλά προς όφελος των υπερκερδών. Η ΕΕ θα πρέπει επιτέλους να αποφασίσει αν θα πορευτεί στη βάση της αρχής της αλληλεγγύης, υιοθετώντας ρεαλιστικές λύσεις για την αντιμετώπιση ενός πολύ δύσκολου χειμώνα. Διεκδικούμε μέτρα με άμεσο αντίκτυπο, όπως η δημιουργία ενός ταμείου αλληλεγγύης που θα τροφοδοτηθεί από ένα ευρωομόλογο και θα στηρίξει την άμεση αντιμετώπιση της ακρίβειας στην ενέργεια σε κάθε κράτος μέλος. Μέτρα για τον δημόσιο έλεγχο των ενεργειακών υποδομών, τον έλεγχο και τη ρύθμιση της αγοράς ενέργειας και τη δομική μεταρρύθμισή της, διότι δεν νοείται αντιμετώπιση της κρίσης με ασυδοσία και αισχροκέρδεια. Μέτρα για την υψηλή φορολόγηση των υπερκερδών που συσσώρευσαν ενεργειακές εταιρείες αλλά και άλλες πολυεθνικές στην πλάτη των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Μέτρα για την αποσύνδεση της τιμής χονδρικής από το φυσικό αέριο, όπως πέτυχε η Ιβηρική χερσόνησος, και για την προστασία των ευάλωτων καταναλωτών από τις αποκοπές ρεύματος. Javi López (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. César Luena (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Cristina Maestre Martín De Almagro (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Adriana Maldonado López (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Dan-Ștefan Motreanu (PPE),
în scris. – Doresc să îmi exprim în primul rând sprijinul pentru propunerea Comisiei Europene de a flexibiliza politica de coeziune și de a oferi statelor membre posibilitatea de a aloca până la 10 % din alocarea națională pentru perioada 2014-2020 către măsurile de atenuare ale impactul actualei crize energetice. Cele 40 de miliarde puse astfel la dispoziția statelor membre sunt extrem de necesare în contextul energetic actual și le vor permite acestora să-și consolideze intervențiile pentru sprijinirea gospodăriilor vulnerabile, acordarea de granturi pentru capital de lucru pentru IMM-uri, precum și pentru măsurile care vizează ocuparea și crearea de noi locuri de muncă. Aș dori însă să atrag atenția, în contextul Summitului Consiliului European care va avea loc în această săptămână, asupra nevoii urgente de a decupla prețul la electricitate de prețul gazului. După cum bine știm, în organizarea actuală a pieței UE, prețul la electricitate este dat de producătorii care au costul de producție cel mai ridicat - în prezent de cei care produc electricitate - bază de gaz natural, ceea ce reprezintă o barieră ce trebuie eliminată numaidecât pentru a permite consumatorilor europeni să beneficieze de prețurile scăzute ale electricității produse din surse regenerabile. Victor Negrescu (S&D),
în scris. – În contextul crizelor concomitente cu care ne confruntăm la nivel european, cetățenii nu ar trebui să se afle în situația de a alege între a se încălzi și a realiza alte nevoi de bază. Prețurile la facturi trebuie să scadă astfel încât cetățenii și IMM-urile să fie protejați de consecințele negative ale acestor crize. Pentru a veni în sprijinul lor, în special al categoriilor cele mai vulnerabile, Grupul social-democrat din Parlamentul European a propus soluții concrete, menite să contracareze efectele acestor crize. Trebuie să interzicem specula pe piața energiei și să introducem sisteme de taxare a celor care au profitat de acest context. Prin inițiativele noastre am propus, totodată, reglementarea în domeniul energiei, separarea legăturii dintre prețul electricității și cel al gazelor, plafonarea dinamică a prețului gazului și reforma piețelor de energie în Europa. Planul european pentru iarnă trebuie să vizeze o componentă de solidaritate, care să permită un răspuns european comun, coordonat și eficient. Inma Rodríguez-Piñero (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Marcos Ros Sempere (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D),
por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer. La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general. Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa. Alfred Sant (S&D),
in writing. – The current crisis brings with it the need for extraordinary public sector action requiring the mobilisation of new funds in significant volumes. They must cover support to citizens and families badly hit by the surging inflation and aid to SMEs adversely affected in their competitive stance. For multiple reasons, the funds needed cannot only be raised by issuance of new debt. In such circumstances it makes sense to tax those economic sectors which contrary to the rest have seen their profits rise hugely as a result of the crisis. They should be identified in a stringent manner and the nature of their windfall receipts duly assessed. On this basis non-punitive taxes on their windfalls should be defined and charged, on a once only basis or for the duration of the crisis and their persisting high profitability. It is not clear that doing this on a European rather than on a national basis would be fairer or more effective. This is the problem that should be clarified as soon as possible, politically and economically. In implementing a windfall tax, no matter how structured, care must be taken not to unbalance markets in the medium term, even as it remains impossible to predict when the energy crisis will end. Edina Tóth (NI),
írásban. – A Parlament végre az emberek mindennapjait érintő témában is folytat vitát, mégpedig a háború okozta válságról és annak gazdasági következményeiről. Az elhibázott brüsszeli szankciós politika miatt ma az embereknek, családoknak, vállalkozásoknak jelentősen megemelkedett árakkal, rezsiszámlákkal kell szembesülniük, mindezt a megkérdezésük nélkül. Nem engedhetjük, hogy Brüsszel rossz döntéseinek a polgárok, családok, vállalkozások fizessék meg az árát, nem engedhetjük, hogy Magyarország energiaellátása veszélybe kerüljön! Brüsszel elhibázott szankciós politikáját ki kell javítanunk. A megemelkedett árakon az segítene, ha Brüsszel gyökeresen változtatna a rossz szankciós politikáján. Ehhez olyan megoldásra van szükség, ami széleskörű társadalmi támogatottsággal bír. Ezért a magyar kormány Európában elsőként fordul a polgárokhoz a nemzeti konzultáció révén. Csak így lehetünk erősek, csak így léphetünk fel határozottan és vethetünk véget az elhibázott szankciós politikának. Míg nincs béke, addig a lakossági fogyasztókat védelemben kell részesíteni. Meg kell védeni a családokat, meg kell védeni a vállalkozásokat! Anna Zalewska (ECR),
na piśmie. – W wyniku rosyjskiej wojny na Ukrainie od 8 miesięcy nasi sąsiedzi zza wschodniej granicy przeżywają codzienne piekło. Morderstwa, gwałty, odgłosy wystrzeliwanych rakiet, alarmy bombowe ponownie zawitały do granic Europy. To ogromne wyzwanie dla nas, Europejczyków. Wiele Państw i całych społeczeństw włączyło się w aktywną pomoc dla Ukrainy, przyjmując miliony uchodźców, wysyłając broń, leki, wsparcie humanitarne. Wojna na Ukrainie to sprawdzian dla Unii Europejskiej, dla europejskich wartości, tj. solidarność, braterstwo, gotowość do wzajemnej pomocy. Wiele krajów, szczególnie w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej, zdaje go perfekcyjnie, w tym mój kraj, Polska, który jest liderem w niesieniu pomocy Ukraińcom. Wojna Putina z cywilizowanym światem to dla nas ogromne koszty społeczne i gospodarcze, rekordowa inflacja w państwach UE, rosnące w zatrważającym tempie ceny energii. Naszym obowiązkiem jest zminimalizować koszty tej wojny, chronić obywateli i ich portfele! Wojna to nie jest czas na realizację nierealnych, niepoliczonych politycznych celów klimatycznych UE, których konsekwencją będzie pogłębianie się ubóstwa w Europie! Musimy dziś zawiesić EU ETS! Musimy zrewidować politykę klimatyczną UE! Musimy zagwarantować Europejczykom bezpieczną zimę, bezpieczną przyszłość! Musimy nadal wspierać Ukrainę, musimy wygrać tę wojnę! Nie zrobimy tego, niszcząc gospodarki państw UE, zwiększając ubóstwo! Carlos Zorrinho (S&D),
por escrito. – O aumento do custo de vida e dos preços dos bens essenciais e as pressões inflacionistas que reduzem o poder de compra são fenómenos pós-pandémicos que a Guerra da Ucrânia agravou. Esse agravamento foi ainda mais notório devido ao contexto de desigualdades intersectoriais na economia europeia e às brutais diferenças de rendimentos entre os mais afluentes e os mais vulneráveis. Neste contexto, as medidas de emergência propostas pela Comissão Europeia são um contributo positivo e devem ser adotadas o mais rapidamente possível. As taxas solidárias sobre os lucros excecionais devem ser aplicadas nos setores em que eles ocorrem, designadamente na energia, no setor farmacêutico e no setor bancário e deve ser garantida uma eficiente redistribuição dos recursos com efetivo impacto na redução dos preços para as famílias e para as empresas mais vulneráveis. A aplicação destas medidas é também uma oportunidade para combater de forma mais estrutural as desigualdades e as iniquidades dos sistemas de rendimentos na União Europeia. As medidas agora tomadas devem ser mantidas enquanto se justificarem, devendo ser complementadas com outros mecanismos fiscais solidários e, em particular, com a concretização da taxa mínima efetiva de 15 % sobre os lucros em todos os Estados-Membros. 3.   Mentale gezondheid (debat) Predsedajúci. – Ďalším bodom programu je vyhlásenie Rady a Komisie o duševnom zdraví (2022/2868(RSP)). Ivan Bartoš,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr. President, honourable Members, Mr Commissioner, mental health is a topic of utmost importance. As the Director-General of the World Health Organisation, Dr Tedros, noted in the introduction of the World Mental Health Report of June this year: „Mental health is a lot more than the absence of illness: it is an intrinsic part of our individual and collective health and well-being.” Ultimately, there is no health without mental health. The topic of last week's World Mental Health Day – Make mental health and well-being a global priority for all – is also testimony to its importance. I very much welcome all the initiatives organised to highlight the day, including the one focusing on inclusive, accessible mental health promotion, prevention and the services for refugees and migrants that took place in the European Parliament. I do not need to go through all the list of the crises we have gone through in the past years and which are still ongoing. All of them have a serious impact on the functioning of our health system and on the mental resilience of our population – from the COVID-19 pandemic to Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and its subsequent humanitarian consequences, energy and food crises, as well as subsequent economic difficulties for populations all across Europe. I would mention in particular the mental health impact of these crises on both the youngest and the eldest in our societies who will need specific support, allowing them to cope with the challenges ahead. Therefore, I very much welcome the „Healthier Together” initiative of the Commission of December 2021, as well as the allocation of 27 million for mental health care. Even though mental health is a primary competence of the Member States, it is a recurring topic for discussion about ministers in the Council, often in the framework of broader discussions. For instance, when ministers discussed the humanitarian and sanitary situation due to the war in Ukraine at the Council meetings in March and June this year, they exchanged views and best practices related to mental health support for the people of Ukraine. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council approved a conclusion on the economy of wellbeing, which includes a dedicated section on mental health and which calls for a mental health strategy of the European Union. Most recently, I welcomed the adoption of the EP's first reading position on the regulations on the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and on serious cross-border health threats in line with the agreement reached between the coordinators. Both texts recognise the impact of an important outbreak of a communicable disease on the continuity of health care, including mental health issues. The Council will adopt accordingly its positions on 24 October 2022. To conclude, let me assure you that the Presidency of the Council we will continue to follow attentively the relevant developments and challenges in the field of mental health. Stella Kyriakides,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen. Mental health is precious for each and every one of us. And I want to thank the European Parliament for shining a light on Europe's mental health. Even before the pandemic, mental health problems affected 85 million people in the EU, and COVID-19 only exacerbated the problem. Now with economic worries, soaring energy prices, rising food costs and daily images of a brutal war, these are all putting incredible pressure on people. Many citizens and families are forced to choose between heating their homes and filling their fridges. We live in turbulent times, filled with uncertainty, and it is so easy to feel lost, to feel hopeless, to feel alone. Experts, not surprisingly, have warned of an approaching tsunami of mental health challenges. This warning was confirmed during the Conference on the Future of Europe, especially echoed by our young people. I welcome that this House adopted the resolution already last July calling for action at European and national levels. We need to take urgent, ambitious and coordinated steps to protect the mental health of our citizens, especially for the most vulnerable amongst us – for children, for the elderly, for young people, for those who are suffering in silence, who do not have a voice. I assure you that we are listening and we are playing our part. In the State of the Union Address, President von der Leyen committed to work on a comprehensive approach to mental health. We have started already to prepare this work, which will involve several EU policies and actions. First of all, we need to improve our understanding of mental health issues and prioritise prevention and promotion of better mental health. We have to improve access to mental healthcare – one of the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights. We are supporting Member States in reforming mental health systems and implementing national programmes, including on suicide prevention. We have already allocated more than EUR 28 million to mental health actions under EU4Health programmes in the last three years. Some Member States have also used the Resilience and Recovery Facility to focus on mental health. The key to success is ensuring that mental health is addressed in a comprehensive way at home, at school, at work, and in the healthcare system. Identifying children facing challenges, supporting parents and families are important to prevent mental health issues. And I can say that because I have worked in the mental health area as a psychologist for many years of my life. We must build inclusive and equal societies that reject stigma and truly listen to citizens. Societies that hear cries for help, no matter how quiet these cries sometimes are, and respond with accessible care. Together, I am convinced we can achieve more. We need commitment from all actors throughout our societies, in research, in employment, in media. We need to show how business, sport and education can constructively contribute. We need to work with all Member States, with NGOs, with healthcare professionals and Parliament. But, most importantly, we need to respond to the needs of our citizens and those of our health professionals. Ladies and gentlemen, protecting mental health is an investment. It is an investment in our people. It is an investment in our economies. It is an investment in the future. And let us not forget, there can be no health without mental health. So I truly look forward to working closely with you to prepare this comprehensive approach, to listening to you and to working together in order to promote healthy minds and build healthy societies. Maria Walsh,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, Council representatives, I welcome this much-needed debate and our Parliament's support of it. Commissioner, you've been dedicated to our citizens' mental health long before your mandate as our Health Commissioner began, and I want to thank you for your continued support. At this very podium last month, in her State of the Union, President Ursula von der Leyen proposed a dedicated initiative for mental health. Finally, a Commission president who is listening to the thousands of Europeans who demand and expect their mental health to be supported by our EU. In the past 10 to 15 years, our citizens have faced the great recession in 2008, Brexit and nearly three years of pandemic, and are now facing great uncertainty with inflation, the cost of living, an energy crisis, a climate crisis and multiple wars. We desperately need to understand that mental health is about being proactive and preventative in our care and should never solely focus on existing in a stressful cycle of reactive support. We need the initiative introduced by the President to promote well-being. We need the initiative to protect the rights of people who live the experience of mental health and tackle the stigma and discrimination they face on a daily basis. We need each of our 27 EU ministers responsible for mental health, working collectively with experts and organisations, but not just in silo. Creating an EU mental health strategy is now needed more than ever, and we need that strategy to be implemented in weeks, not years. These are the actions we need to tackle to improve the daily lives of millions of our EU citizens. Estrella Durá Ferrandis,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, señor presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, aunque las crisis económicas e incluso los conflictos bélicos son letales para la humanidad, siempre constituyen oportunidades para las políticas públicas y para nuestras instituciones europeas. Es el momento de cuidar de nuestra salud, de la salud mental de la ciudadanía europea. El informe final de la Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa incluyó la necesidad de una estrategia europea de salud mental a largo plazo. Y en mi Grupo —el Grupo S&D— llevamos tiempo pidiéndola: una estrategia que incluya la salud mental en todas las políticas —las educativas, las medioambientales, las de empleo— y, por supuesto, que garantice un acceso universal a servicios de salud mental de calidad. Una estrategia europea que incluya no solo recomendaciones a los Estados miembros, sino que legisle allá donde es posible legislar, como, por ejemplo, en la salud y la seguridad laboral. Este Parlamento ya lo ha pedido: necesitamos una directiva sobre riesgos psicosociales en el trabajo, el reconocimiento de determinados trastornos mentales como enfermedades ocupacionales, la regulación, por supuesto, del teletrabajo y el derecho a la desconexión y una directiva sobre la aplicación de la inteligencia artificial al contexto laboral. Por lo tanto, podemos y debemos hacer mucho más. María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos,
en nombre del Grupo Renew. –Señor presidente, desde el Grupo Renew saludamos este importante debate. Efectivamente, señora comisaria, la pandemia puso encima de la mesa este problema de la salud mental, pero también es verdad que no ha hecho más que empeorarlo. Entre 2020 y 2021, en lo que respecta a la salud mental en personas de entre quince y veinticuatro años, todos los problemas se han duplicado y nueve millones de adolescentes de entre diez y diecinueve años se han visto afectados por problemas de salud mental, de tal forma que el suicidio se ha convertido en la segunda causa de muerte entre la población joven en Europa. No podemos mirar para otro lado ante esta realidad. Por eso, es imperativo que trabajemos en la salud mental desde las edades más tempranas y desde aquellos espacios donde están los jóvenes y los adolescentes: en los colegios. Pero, además, tenemos que luchar todavía contra el estigma que sigue existiendo en nuestras sociedades; tenemos que mejorar el refuerzo de los servicios de salud mental que deben ser considerados esenciales. Desde el Grupo Renew le pedimos una estrategia europea de salud mental. Llevamos haciéndolo desde hace tiempo, para asegurar una inversión adecuada en el tratamiento y la prevención de los problemas de la salud mental en Europa. Kim Van Sparrentak,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, young LGBTIQ+ people are often struggling with their mental health. Numbers show that they are four times more likely to be bullied in schools and are five times more likely to commit suicide because they do not feel accepted and have to deal with hate speech and violence. What definitely doesn't help is that we increasingly see hate and disinformation being spread about our community on social media. This hate is fuelled by far-right groups and amplified by social media algorithms. Worse, these lies about our community are then repeated in the political arena, also in this House, legitimising hate. Online violence leads to offline violence. We see that with the increase in bomb threats against gender clinics and with the devastating recent shooting outside a queer bar in Bratislava, where two people lost their lives. We have to do better for our LGBTIQ+ community. We need to do everything that we can to stop the amplification of hate and disinformation online by banning these polarising algorithms. But we also have to collectively stand up against this hate being legitimized offline, especially in the political arena. Let me be clear: if we tolerate hate against minorities, we tolerate the erosion of our values and our democracies, and we accept that young generations will grow up feeling unwanted and unloved. We have to do better. Ivan David,
za skupinu ID. – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, jsem psychiatr, bývalý ministr zdravotnictví a ředitel psychiatrické nemocnice. Dlouhodobě se zabývám organizací péče o duševně nemocné. Bohužel musím konstatovat, že v této oblasti Evropská unie pokračuje po naprosto chybné cestě. Tzv. reformy, které začaly ve Spojených státech a Spojeném království před šedesáti lety, vedly k přemístění duševně nemocných z podfinancovaných psychiatrických ústavů na ulici mezi bezdomovce, do útulků a dále do vězení jako zvláštní formy sociální péče. Evropské státy tuto perverzní praxi bez poučení opakují a prohlubují. Stojí za tím nesmyslná ideologie. Cílem přestalo být vyléčení. Pokud jde o sociální příčiny duševních poruch, ty se v zemích Evropské unie stále zhoršují. Jde o materiální a duchovní bídu, zhoršení možnosti sociálního a pracovního uplatnění a rostoucí sociální izolaci, které vedou k nedostatečné odolnosti jedinců, kteří pak snadno podléhají stresu. Řešte příčiny a následky kvalifikovaně, ideologický přístup situaci nenapraví. Joanna Kopcińska,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowna Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! To bardzo ważna debata. Liczba osób dotkniętych problemami zdrowia psychicznego stale wzrasta, a według ostatnich szacunków co trzecia osoba zmagająca się z problemami zdrowia psychicznego nie ma dostępu do profesjonalnej opieki medycznej. Dodatkowo stan ten pogorszyła pandemia COVID-19. Z tego powodu właściwa reforma działań systemu ochrony zdrowia psychicznego musi być ukierunkowana na rozwijanie środowiskowego modelu opieki psychiatrycznej oraz wyrównywanie dostępu poprzez wdrażanie programów w centrach zdrowia oraz tworzenie odpowiednich modeli systemu ochrony zdrowia psychicznego dla dorosłych, dzieci i młodzieży. Jeśli chcemy rzeczywiście i realnie przyczynić się do poprawy zdrowia psychicznego naszych obywateli, to tu w Parlamencie Europejskim nie zapominajmy o współpracy z państwami członkowskimi i organizacjami międzynarodowymi, wymianie informacji, dobrych praktykach lekarskich oraz kontakcie z wyspecjalizowaną kadrą medyczną. Aktywnie twórzmy programy pilotażowe oddziaływań terapeutycznych, skierowane do osób z doświadczeniem traumy, uzależnionych od nowych technologii cyfrowych, programy wsparcia walki z depresją i zaburzeniami lękowymi i tym samym pomagajmy osobom z problemami psychospołecznymi budować własną autonomię i większą niezależność w społeczeństwie. Wsłuchujmy się w potrzeby obywateli, tak aby ośrodki zdrowia psychicznego były umiejscawiane blisko miejsca zamieszkania i oferowały wsparcie psychologów, psychoterapeutów i terapeutów środowiskowych. Choć na efekty zmian wciąż trzeba będzie poczekać, to już dziś musimy myśleć o organizacji, o reorganizacji opieki psychiatrycznej, przygotowując i zwiększając wykwalifikowane zespoły terapeutyczne. Kateřina Konečná,
za skupinu The Left. – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, co se týče nově oznámené iniciativy v oblasti duševního zdraví, ráda bych viděla komplexní plán, který ochrání práva lidí s problémy s duševním zdravím, zvýší povědomí a ukončí stigma a diskriminaci v oblasti duševního zdraví. Aby to bylo možné, musí jít EU cestou vytvoření komplexní dlouhodobé strategie, respektive plánu duševního zdraví, a to ideálně po vzoru Plánu pro boj s rakovinou. Doba pandemie Covid-19 nám ukázala, že péče o duševní zdraví je v našich systémech zdravotnictví často opomíjenou a podfinancovanou oblastí. Přístup k příslušné péči neustále klesá, nejhorší je to u dětí a teenagerů. Duševní zdraví je meziodvětvové téma. Špatné duševní zdraví má často své kořeny v sociálním, ekonomickém, fyzickém a kulturním prostředí a nejde pouze o osobní a zdravotní problém. Musíme mít na paměti, že současná špatná ekonomická situace a souběh různých krizí bude mít dále značné dopady na duševní zdraví populace a náš problém se bude jen dále akcelerovat. Má otázka na Komisi tedy je, jak budou dotčená generální ředitelství spolupracovat, aby byla tato iniciativa co nejúčinnější, a kdy můžeme očekávat nějaký konkrétní plán? Ewa Kopacz (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! W Europie 9 milionów młodych ludzi żyje z zaburzeniami psychicznymi. Samobójstwo jest drugą przyczyną śmierci wśród młodych ludzi. Około 1200 młodych ludzi w Europie co roku popełnia samobójstwo. Jest druga, równie bezradna grupa społeczna. To są ludzie starsi, seniorzy. Żyjący niekiedy w cierpieniu, ubóstwie. Zostawiają swoje listy pożegnalne, prosząc rodzinę o przebaczenie. Przy łóżku zostawiają kartkę i piszą, że właśnie zapłacili wszystkie bieżące rachunki. Zostawiają swoje numery kont bankowych. Odchodzą w ciszy. Popełniają samobójstwo. Czekali na naszą pomoc, nie tylko krajową, ale również europejską. Czekali na naszą pomoc, która do nich na czas nie dotarła. Jeśli nasza reakcja na te straszne fakty skończy się tylko na tej debacie, to będziemy mogli mówić, że będzie tylko i wyłącznie gorzej. Liczę na panią, Pani Komisarz, i wiem, że Pani nie tylko zawodowo, ale i jako człowiek - bardzo wrażliwy - zrobi wszystko, żeby ulżyć szczególnie tym dwóm grupom społecznym. Radka Maxová (S&D). – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, pane ministře, duševní zdraví je zásadní jak pro osobní pohodu, tak pro blahobyt naší společnosti. Dotýká se všech oblastí našeho života, ať je to zaměstnanost, veřejné zdraví, má dopad na začlenění, kvalitu a udržitelnost společnosti i hospodářství. Problémy s duševním zdravím v Evropské unii a Spojeném království trpí 85 milionů lidí, což nás stojí ročně 600 miliard eur. Navíc všichni vidíme negativní dopady koronavirové pandemie, energetické krize a války na Ukrajině právě na duševní zdraví. I přesto duševní zdraví nemá na úrovni Evropské unie zaslouženou pozornost. Proto Evropský parlament volá po komplexní strategii Evropské unie pro duševní zdraví, která by zohlednila meziodvětvové dopady různých politik právě na duševní zdraví. A také potřebujeme rok 2024 vyhlásit jako Evropský rok duševního zdraví. Jsem velmi ráda, že jsem mohla iniciovat poziční dokument frakce S&D, ve kterém po takové strategii voláme, a věřím, že Komise náš poziční dokument vezme při přípravě iniciativy v oblasti duševního zdraví v potaz, protože právě tuto iniciativu vyhlásila předsedkyně Komise ve svém projevu o stavu Unie před dvěma týdny. Jordi Cañas (Renew). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, señor presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, la salud mental es la gran olvidada de las políticas públicas de salud en toda Europa. Es la gran olvidada que se mueve, además, en la incomprensión y el estigma de las personas que la padecen, muchas veces entre la soledad, la tristeza y el aislamiento. Las crisis desvelan determinadas situaciones y esta crisis ha desvelado el profundo impacto que tiene la salud mental sobre nuestros ciudadanos y la incomprensión que sufren. Por lo tanto, es el momento de que la salud mental deje de ser esa gran olvidada y, por eso, es tan importante y tan necesaria la estrategia europea para la salud mental. Y ese marco es un marco muy importante, muy necesario, pero que requiere del compromiso de los Estados. Requiere también más profesionales, más recursos, más prevención y más inversión. Porque sin más profesionales, sin más recursos, sin más prevención y sin más inversión no podremos ofrecer la salud mental que necesitan nuestros ciudadanos, no podremos ofrecer los tratamientos y el acompañamiento que necesitan. Por lo tanto, sí a esta iniciativa. Ojalá venga más pronto que tarde y ojalá se pueda implementar al conjunto de Europa en beneficio de nuestros ciudadanos. Dolors Montserrat (PPE). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, la salud mental es una pandemia silenciosa en aumento que no podemos ignorar. En Europa, los suicidios crecen y la salud mental se deteriora. En España, el suicidio es la principal causa de muerte no natural; once personas se quitan la vida cada día y 220 lo intentan. Cuando una persona dice que se quiere suicidar, no es una llamada de atención, está haciendo una llamada de auxilio. Los episodios que generan ansiedad, estrés o depresión entre los más jóvenes, como pueden ser el bullying, los cambios bruscos de hábitos —como ocurrió con la COVID-19— o la presión social, hacen que su salud mental se vea perjudicada. La vergüenza a hablar de lo que les afecta, el miedo al estigma, el pensar que no te creen: eso no puede ocurrir. Hay que prevenir, hay que alfabetizar en salud mental en todos los ámbitos: familiar, educativo, sanitario y laboral. Obliguemos a los países a priorizar el cuidado de la salud mental. Utilicemos los fondos europeos para ello. Apostemos por la prevención de los trastornos mentales y las mejores terapias para los pacientes. Reclamamos la Estrategia europea de salud mental, porque, recuerden, no hay salud sin salud mental. Véronique Trillet-Lenoir (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, Madame la Commissaire, chère Stella, la santé mentale des citoyens européens, en particulier des jeunes, est un enjeu de santé publique majeur qui a été révélé et aggravé par la pandémie. Le constat est partagé dans tous les pays européens et nous l'avons évoqué dans la stratégie européenne des soins: nous avons besoin d'une prise de conscience collective, d'actions de prévention coordonnées, d'aide aux parents, d'adaptation de nos systèmes de santé et de partage des données. Chère Stella, nous regardons en effet la santé comme un investissement et la santé mentale comme un pilier de la santé en général. Merci de votre initiative. Mais si cette initiative ne s'appuie pas sur une gouvernance robuste et sur un système de financement adapté, alors nous échouerons à mettre en place une véritable politique de santé européenne. Les soins de santé sont des prérogatives nationales. D'accord, mais lorsqu'un constat est aussi largement partagé, il faut avoir le courage de convaincre les États membres de dépasser ces prérogatives, comme ils l'ont fait dans le passé. Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, pane ministře, desátého října jsme oslavili Den duševního zdraví a já jsem rád, že se toto téma dostává na pořad jednání Evropského parlamentu a dokonce i Evropská komise si ho vzala za své. Já si myslím, že je důležité tady hovořit o tom, že lidé mají duševní problémy nejenom po covidu, že mít duševní problémy a žít s nimi, naučit se žít, jak tady říkali moji předřečníci, je normální, že je normální o těchto věcech mluvit a že je důležité, aby Komise více toto téma akcelerovala ve svých vyjádřeních. Já budu rád, paní komisařko, když nezůstane jenom u slov, ale bude i u činů, kdy Evropská komise se zúčastní na permanentním zastoupení České republiky také semináře, který Česká republika k tomuto tématu s odborníky pořádá, a bude se snažit právě zohlednit ty nejnovější trendy v oblasti a bude se snažit toto téma více akcentovat ve svých vyjádřeních. Sara Skyttedal (PPE). – Mr President, at least one in four will battle depression at some point in their life, and I'm one of the people that have done so. It's likely that dozens of members of this Chamber are going through it right now. Politically, mental illness has been an area full of mistakes. Member States have limited what therapies public health services can provide. There have been politically motivated regulations prohibiting research in psychedelics, even though it has the potential to treat patients that don't respond to traditional treatments. There are many restrictions on the legal possibility for families to get care for loved ones that don't have the capacity to ask for help themselves. People are often left alone to tackle the darkness of their mind due to overregulated mental health. I am convinced that we can learn from one another in Europe to do this better. It is clear that we need more flexible care, closer to patients and their needs. But some of you want to regulate more when you need to deregulate, centralise when we need to decentralize. Therefore, members of the left part of this Parliament, I know that your instinct is to regulate every area that you care about, but I am begging you: this time, back off. Cindy Franssen (PPE). – Voorzitter, geachte commissaris, beste collega's, 10 oktober was de dag van de mentale gezondheid en deze problematiek kan niet genoeg onder de aandacht gebracht worden. De kosten van geestelijke gezondheidsproblemen in alle EU-lidstaten bedragen naar schatting meer dan 4 % van het bbp. De kosten van werkgerelateerde depressies worden geraamd op 620 miljard euro per jaar. Ander onderzoek heeft aangetoond dat het aantal kinderen en jongeren met mentale problemen is verdubbeld sinds de pandemie. Daarom moeten we af van het taboe dat nog steeds rust op mentale gezondheid. Ik ben dan ook tevreden dat Commissievoorzitter Von der Leyen in haar State of the Union een initiatief rond geestelijke gezondheidszorg aankondigde voor 2023. Na de aanpak van de economische gevolgen van de pandemie, met onder andere het SURE-mechanisme voor tijdelijke werkloosheid en de succesvolle uitrol van de vaccinatiecampagne voor de fysieke bescherming van de gezondheid van onze burgers, is het nu de hoogste tijd om ook de gevolgen van onder meer de pandemie op het vlak van mentale gezondheid met dezelfde gedrevenheid aan te pakken. Vystúpenia podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky Stelios Kympouropoulos (PPE). – Mr President, dear Commissioner Kyriakides, dear colleagues, mental health has been marginalised for a long time. The COVID-19 pandemic brought the spotlight to the importance of mental well-being. Young people, women, disabled persons and other people are at risk of being disproportionately impacted by mental ill health. We are also less likely to receive tailored mental health support. To that end, a human rights-based European standard on mental health that addresses the socio-economic elements of mental health is imperative to achieve an equitable approach to mental health care. How will the European Commission assure that different communities, including vulnerable groups, are centralised in this work? Moreover, decentralisation is a key priority in reforming mental health systems. There is still a substantial number of persons with psychosocial impairments living in institutions across Europe and lacking community-based services. This new European initiative should boost the decentralisation process towards the implementation of community-based services. Sara Cerdas (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Comissária, colegas, a doença mental abrange todos os estratos sociais e todas as faixas etárias e só se agravou com a pandemia da COVID-19. Atualmente, é a segunda causa de morbilidade e durante os últimos dois anos os sintomas de ansiedade e depressão mais do que duplicaram. A questão que se coloca aqui é, fundamentalmente, se vamos acender a luz e ver o problema que temos em frente ou se vamos continuar às escuras, sem dar resposta aos cidadãos. Eu apelo aqui a que haja um verdadeiro debate deste problema de saúde pública e que possamos trazer mais iniciativas legislativas para combater o estigma, melhorar a acessibilidade aos cuidados de saúde mental e contribuir para a reinserção de todos os cidadãos na sociedade de uma forma saudável e funcional. Colegas, não ignoremos os cidadãos, dos mais jovens aos mais idosos. Temos de encarar o problema de frente, temos que ter mais ação e temos aqui que trabalhar para uma verdadeira estratégia europeia em saúde mental. Eu digo aqui, acendamos a luz. Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, saúdo muito este debate, é um debate que sinto na pele, já que o meu finado pai foi internado por transtorno bipolar ao saber que minha mãe tinha Alzheimer. Nunca pensei estar na pele de tantas famílias. Por isso o meu apoio a este debate e ao movimento galego pela saúde mental. No meu país estamos abaixo da média europeia. Faltam psicólogos e psiquiatras nos centros de saúde, unidades hospitalares para a infância e juventude. Mais de 10 000 galegos aguardam uma consulta. Falta a prevenção. E o ano passado houve 331 casos de suicídio. Para lutar contra a alienação, o suicídio, a estigmatização, a discriminação, os estereótipos, as carências materiais e afetivas, a pobreza e o trabalho indecente que provoca muitas vezes as causas de saúde mental. Por isso, é tão importante reforçar a saúde pública para atender a saúde mental. Aqui e também no meu país. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, access to mental health care is a human right, and it's linked to the fact that poverty is a violation of human rights. The right to timely access to affordable, preventive and curative health care of good quality is enshrined in UN and EU conventions. Yet, in Ireland, more than 4 200 children are on the waiting list for the children and adolescent mental health service. More than 520 children are waiting for over a year. Ireland spends 6% of its health budget on mental health: less than half than a lot of other countries in Europe. Commissioner, I realise that health remains a Member State competency, but in Ireland, we have a medicalised mental health model that's a disaster. Can the EU pressure Ireland to invest seriously in public health talk therapy? After all, the EU were able to pressure us into bailing out failed useless banks, which actually has had a huge impact on mental health in Ireland. Antoni Comín i Oliveres (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ci sono due sfide principali per le nostre politiche di salute mentale. Primo, essere pienamente consapevoli dei determinanti sociali. Tutti gli indicatori degli ultimi anni confermano gli effetti devastanti della crisi economica, sia quella del 2008 sia quella derivata dal Covid sulla salute mentale. I tassi di patologie acute e non acute, i tassi di suicidio, eccetera, salgono velocemente negli adulti, ma soprattutto nei bambini e nei giovani, ma questi impatti non sono distribuiti uniformemente, le classi sociali più vulnerabili sono quelle in cui la salute mentale peggiora più drammaticamente, le famiglie povere e disoccupate sono il ceto più debole della nostra società e i loro figli sono quindi l'anello più debole di queste famiglie. È proprio lì che la salute mentale è più minacciata. La seconda sfida è la trasformazione del nostro sistema sanitario. Dobbiamo muoverci con decisione verso il paradigma comunitario e questo significa almeno tre cose: generare tutta la diversità dei dispositivi aperti, alternativi all'istituzionalizzazione, in modo che le persone con disturbi mentali possano sviluppare la propria vita senza essere separate dalla comunità, mettere i pazienti e le loro famiglie al centro della pianificazione del modello assistenziale e della salute in prima persona e, infine, promuovere il necessario cambiamento culturale affinché tutti noi impariamo a convivere con le persone con problemi di salute mentale nella nostra vita quotidiana, vedendole soprattutto come cittadini con il nostro stesso diritto alla felicità. Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, diljem Europe, prema podacima Svjetske zdravstvene organizacije, 110 milijuna ljudi živi s mentalnim poremećajima koji rezultiraju s gotovo 250 tisuća smrti godišnje. Ovo su strašne brojke. Pandemija COVID-a 19, dodatni izvori stresa za naše građane, inflacija, pad standarda, rat u Ukrajini, prijetnje nuklearnim ratom, klimatske promjene, a posebno kod mladih, cyberbullying - međuvršnjačko nasilje... Sve to ima socioekonomsku pozadinu. Emotivna bol, kolegice i kolege, snažna je jednako kao i fizička, a mentalno zdravlje, odnosno mentalni problemi, nisu odredište već proces. U tom procesu potreban nam je integrirani pristup. Vjerujem da bi razvoj psihijatrije u zajednici bio dobar korak, neki pilot projekti napravljeni su već u Republici Hrvatskoj. Trebamo graditi društvo koje terapije i razgovor s psihologom smatra normalnim i poželjnim. I da mentalno zdravlje ne bude tabu tema: ne možemo samo nekome reći bit ćeš dobro. Treba mu pomoći. Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiama Komisijos nare, iš tikrųjų noriu padėkoti už pranešimą ir dėmesį psichinei sveikatai. Būdamas gydytojas galiu pasakyti, kad iš tikrųjų psichinė sveikata nulemia ne tik psichinės sveikatos būklę, bet nemažai nulemia ir fizinę žmonių sveikatą. Pandemija, karas, įtampos parodė, kad psichinei sveikatai dėmesio iš tikrųjų nėra pakankamai. Todėl mes turime vienyti pastangas, kad ne tik šalys narės, bet ir europiniu lygiu priimtume sprendimą, kad žmonės su psichine negalia būtų labiau integruoti į kasdieninį mūsų gyvenimą, kad jiems būtų nuimtos tos stigmos, kurios dar egzistavo, netgi aplinka, kuri egzistuoja mūsų kiekvieno kasdieniame gyvenime, reikėtų taip pat būtų pritaikyta žmonėms su psichine negalia, kad jie galėtų lengviau orientuotis ir būtų labiau įtraukti į mūsų bendrą darbą, kad jie galėtų jaustis pilnateisiais Europos Sąjungos piliečiais. Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left). – Mr President, up until recently, we didn't talk about mental health and we didn't do anything for people with mental health. That's changed now. Now we talk an awful lot about mental health, but we don't do anything for people with mental health. We just talk about it. And now politicians have copped on that this is a popular thing to talk about and to pretend to do something about. What I'm hearing today is a lot of rich people telling poor people maybe they should do a bit of yoga and think about wellness, when in fact their mental health is far more impacted by the fact that they don't have a house, they can't afford to rent a house and they have no hope of ever buying a house! There are families with children living in tents and we're talking about mental health. Sort out the basic quality of life for people! If you'd done it for my mother, her mental health would have been a lot better, but all you do is talk about it. You're not serious about it. This is pure fluff and bullshit. President. – I would also like to remind colleagues to mind their language, out of respect for everyone here and for our colleagues. Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamna comisar, sănătatea, toți spunem că este prioritate. Sănătatea mentală, de asemenea, este o prioritate. Dar chiar dumneavoastră, doamna comisar, ați spus că în perioada pandemiei, în perioada COVID, a crescut numărul de cazuri, și da, a crescut pentru că, sau din cauză că, ați luat măsuri care nu se justifică și chiar OMS a spus acest lucru. Răspunde cineva de aceste cazuri? Acum oamenii sunt presați de costurile cu energia, de costul vieții. Din nou, vom avea o creștere a cazurilor, răspunde cineva de neluarea măsurilor? Nu puteți să vă spălați pe mâini și să spuneți: sănătatea este de competență națională, atât timp cât ați luat măsuri la nivelul Uniunii Europene în perioada de pandemie sau dacă o fi fost pandemie. Doamna comisar, sănătatea nu trebuie doar vorbită, vorbele trebuie acoperite prin fapte, și de aceea eu aștept un răspuns concret. Am întrebat și la cealaltă dezbatere: avem sau nu soluții pentru rezolvarea costurilor la facturi? Avem sau nu soluții acum unitare, la nivelul Uniunii Europene, legate de sănătatea mentală? Pentru că da, acești oameni sunt marginalizați. Acești oameni nu își permit, și familiile lor nu își permit, să le asigure o îngrijire așa cum ar trebui să o facă. (Ukončenie vystúpení podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky) Stella Kyriakides,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, on 10 October we celebrated Mental Health Day. And that is why today I'm wearing a green ribbon, to raise awareness and to make sure that we don't forget about mental health. Now, I want to thank you for the many important interventions I heard today. MEP Walsh spoke about the need for us to be the voices and the need for us to finally do something about it now. And I think that the fact that we are having this discussion is exactly that. We need to be the voices. MEP van Sparrentak spoke about the LGBTQI community struggling with mental health issues. Online violence, hate speech, bullying. We can and need to do so much more. I heard MEP Kopcińska and MEP Kympouropoulos – community models, that's exactly where we need to be heading. it is crucial. We need to make mental health services community services. We need to reach out to the citizens to find the vulnerable and support them to work towards prevention. We heard various colleagues speak about stigma. People are embarrassed to speak about mental health issues and I want to highlight MEP Miranda and MEP Skyttedal and thank them for sharing, because the more people speak out about mental health issues, the more we are able to highlight this, the more we are able to prioritise and do something about it. The darkness of the mind is something we need to overcome and bring light to it. And thank you for sharing light. MEP Kopacz spoke about the elderly and MEP Monserrat spoke about the suicide risk and MEP Véronique Trillet-Lenoir spoke about the need to actually move forward with this. And I want to tell you that we will be coming forward with initiatives this summer. So a great deal has been said. I don't think I need to repeat it, but I cannot ignore what MEP Flanagan has also said. He said: „we're all about talk and we are not doing anything about it”. I have been doing, trying, doing something about it and working in this area all my working life. And I believe the MEPs in this room and many who are not in this room but have put their voices across today are doing this because we are doing something about it. And as a Commission we're coming forward with an initiative this very summer. So let us all work together. We need to be on board together with this. We need to have strong cooperation and collaboration with everyone. We need to deliver mental health in an all-policies approach. And the European Parliament will and can play a key role in this initiative. Ivan Bartoš,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, thank you very much for your views. Our discussion confirmed that mental health is an issue which cannot be ignored. The Presidency of the Council is determined to contribute to the necessary cooperation in the area of public health and stand ready to facilitate discussion and cooperation. As a matter of example, we are organising the conference under the auspices of the Czech Presidency on 14 November in Brussels, which focuses on resilient mental health in the European Union. And we are, of course, ready to examine the relevant proposals from the European Commission in this regard. Although the urgency of the COVID-19 crisis is over for the time, other crises are seriously impacting the mental resilience of our population and those are ongoing. Therefore, public health, including mental health, should remain a political priority for all the reasons that we outlined here, that you outlined here today. Of course, there are many areas that are directly influencing the, let's say, mental resistance of a society. It is a fear of the future. So a lot of delivery is done on the other areas that are going to the prevention of such situation. But, of course, when we talk wellbeing historically and mental health, it is something that goes across the politics. That's why so many discussions on the other topics also include the topic as relevant to the solution. Predsedajúci. – Rozprava sa skončila. Písomné vyhlásenia (článok 171) Bartosz Arłukowicz (PPE),
na piśmie. – Już dawno w Unii Europejskiej nie przeżywaliśmy kryzysów, mających bezpośredni wpływ na zdrowie i życie naszych obywateli. Jako lekarz z zawodu nie mogę pozostać na ten fakt obojętnym. Cieszę się, że dostrzegliśmy w tej Izbie problem narastającej od dłuższego czasu presji otoczenia na nasze zdrowie psychiczne. Dziękuję również Pani Komisarz za jej pełne zrozumienie problemu i obiecane działania. Wojna za naszą wschodnią granicą, potencjalne zagrożenie nuklearne, czy to z uwagi na okupowanie ukraińskich elektrowni atomowych czy wyrażane pośrednio, a dotyczące ewentualnego użycia broni nuklearnej, wreszcie codzienne obrazy z masakr, których doświadcza ludność cywilna Ukrainy z rąk rosyjskiego agresora tuż za naszą wschodnią granicą. Dodajmy do tego malejącą moc nabywczą, rosnące ceny energii i opału w przeddzień okresu zimowego oraz pocovidowe zaburzenia psychiczne, jakich wielu z nas, w mniejszym lub większym stopniu doświadczyło. W Polskich warunkach sytuacja ma się jeszcze gorzej. Z uwagi na konstrukcję systemu bankowego i liczoną w milionach liczbę kredytów hipotecznych zaciągniętych w czasach koniunktury we frankach szwajcarskich obecne zobowiązania hipotekobiorców wzrosły nawet dwukrotnie. Każdy z nas czuje dziś niepokój, który bezpośrednio rzutuje na nasze zdrowie psychiczne. Musimy zrobić wszystko, by chronić zdrowie naszych obywateli. Josianne Cutajar (S&D),
in writing. – The past years have been extraordinary, but one thing has stayed the same: mental health disorders remain a silent issue affecting billions worldwide. It is undeniable that the effects of COVID along with the more recent war in Europe and the energy crisis are affecting us all. It is not once that citizens come to me disheartened, with a fear that they live in an unstable Europe, in an unsafe world. It is high time we put forward a comprehensive, holistic EU Mental Health Strategy. During her State of the Union speech, President von der Leyen committed to delivering a new EU-wide initiative on mental health. We must make sure that this initiative will come sooner rather than later. We must ensure that it will raise awareness, address the stigma, facilitate access to help for those in need and that it will pay special attention to vulnerable groups. Let us also teach our citizens, especially our youth, how to recognize bullying online and how to protect their mental health. We need to strive towards teaching tolerance and responsibility online amongst an uprising, negative and, at times destructive, culture. Jarosław Duda (PPE),
na piśmie. – Zapowiedź Ursuli von der Leyen, że Komisja przygotuje kompleksowe podejście do kwestii zdrowia psychicznego napawa mnie wielką nadzieją. Już kilka lat temu 84 miliony Europejczyków zmagało się z problemami psychicznymi, doświadczało braku wsparcia i stygmatyzacji. Niestety zarówno pandemia i jej społeczne i ekonomiczne skutki oraz wojna w Ukrainie spowodowały zaostrzenie tego problemu. Ludzie młodzi są w szczególny sposób narażeni. W większości krajów liczba osób z problemami psychicznymi pomiędzy 15 a 24 rokiem życia podwoiła się. Według Eurofound, w zakresie dostępu młodzieży do wsparcia i usług specjalistycznych najbardziej problemowym obszarem jest zdrowie psychiczne. Dlatego też Europa potrzebuje strategii na rzecz zdrowia psychicznego, uwzględniającej zarówno badania naukowe, prewencję, jak i edukację nauczycieli, kadr medycznych i pracowników socjalnych. Ponadto strategia ta powinna ujmować podnoszenie świadomości, przeciwdziałanie dyskryminacji i stygmatyzacji osób dotkniętych zaburzeniami psychicznymi i ich rodzin, a także rozwiązania na rzecz dostępności wysokiej jakości usług specjalistycznych. Szczególne znaczenie ma efektywne reagowanie na problemy psychologiczne dzieci i młodzieży. To oni przesądzą o przyszłości Europy, dlatego najwyższy czas zainwestować w zdrowie i dobrostan młodego pokolenia. Krzysztof Hetman (PPE),
na piśmie. – Izolacja i odosobnienie w trakcie pandemii u wielu osób doprowadziły do ogólnego pogorszenia zdrowia psychicznego, depresji czy lęku. W tym okresie jeszcze bardziej niż zwykle widoczne było, jak ważne jest odpowiednie wsparcie i opieka dla osób cierpiących na dolegliwości psychiczne. Niestety pandemia boleśnie uświadomiła nam braki i w tej dziedzinie, szczególnie jeżeli chodzi o dostęp do leczenia w zakresie zdrowia psychicznego dla najmłodszych. Ogromnym problemem jest niewystarczająca liczba psychiatrów specjalizujących się w pracy z dziećmi. Państwa członkowskie powinny podjąć niezwłoczne działania, aby ten problem rozwiązać. Bardzo ważne jest także odpowiednie wsparcie w szkołach. Nauczyciele i opiekunowie powinni otrzymać podstawowe przeszkolenie w zakresie zdrowia psychicznego dzieci i młodzieży, aby mogli na wczesnym etapie rozpoznawać niepokojące sygnały, stanowić wsparcie dla uczniów i wspierać działania prewencyjne. Pandemia była oczywiście trudnym okresem, który u wielu osób doprowadził do znacznego obniżenia kondycji psychicznej, ale i z tej sytuacji wyniknęło coś dobrego. Zmienia się nasze podejście do zdrowia psychicznego, które w przeszłości często było bagatelizowane. Widzimy, że bez zdrowia psychicznego nie ma zdrowia ogólnego. W ostatnich trzech latach UE wydała aż 28 mln EUR na promocję zdrowia psychicznego, a przewodnicząca Komisji zapowiedziała utworzenie nowej inicjatywy na rzecz zdrowia psychicznego. To duża i ważna zmiana. Romana Jerković (S&D),
napisan. – Drago mi je što raspravljamo o ovoj ključnoj temi. Gotovo milijardu ljudi diljem svijeta, a čak 84 milijuna u Europi, nosi s poremećajima mentalnog zdravlja. Procjenjuje se da ukupni troškovi povezani s mentalnim bolestima u 28 zemalja EU-a iznose više od 4 % BDP-a, odnosno više od 600 milijardi EUR. Depresija je danas jedan od vodećih uzroka invaliditeta, a samoubojstvo četvrti po redu uzrok smrti mladih od 15 do 29 godina. U Hrvatskoj čak 44 tisuće djece i mladih ima poteškoća s mentalnim zdravljem te se bilježi povećanje suicida i hospitalizacija u Psihijatrijskoj bolnici za djecu i mladež u Zagrebu za čak 30 %. Europski plan borbe protiv raka značio je veliku prekretnicu diljem Europske unije, osigurana su i velika financijska sredstva. Voljela bih da se takav fokus stavi i na mentalno zdravlje i zato je važno da što prije usvojimo ovu strategiju te započnemo s provedbom akcijskih planova jer su brojke vezane uz poremećaje mentalnog zdravlja zaista alarmantne. Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE),
kirjallinen. – Hyvä mielenterveys kuuluu jokaiselle. Mielenterveyden hoitaminen ei katso ikää, sukupuolta tai elämäntilannetta vaan se koskettaa meitä kaikkia. Jokainen tarvitsee hyvää mielen hoitoa, ja meidän pitää tehdä töitä sellaisen yhteiskunnan eteen, jossa kaikki sitä myös saavat ja voivat elää tavalla, joka edistää omaa mielenterveyttä. Koronaviruspandemian jälkeen mielenterveyden priorisoiminen on tärkeämpää kuin koskaan. Jos nuoristamme iso osa kamppailee mielenterveytensä kanssa, Euroopan tulevaisuus ei näytä valoisalta. Erityisesti nuorten mielenterveyden hoitamiselle on siis suuri tarve, joka pitäisi huomioida terveydenhuollossa. Samaan aikaan hoiva-ala on kaikkialla aliresursoitu, vaikka tarvitsisimme lisää resursseja myös mielenterveyden hoitoon. Meidän tulee ylläpitää rakenteita, jotka luovat edellytyksiä hyvälle mielenterveydelle. Näitä ovat muun muassa perheiden tukeminen, laadukas päivähoito ja koulujen palvelut. Aivan yhtä tärkeää on työympäristöjen ja johtamisen kehittäminen niin, että ne luovat ja tukevat jokaisen hyvinvointia. Mielenterveys näyttää nyt kohoavan korkealle unionimme agendalla, mikä on hyvä uutinen. Merkittävä askel oli esimerkiksi komission puheenjohtajan Unionin tila -puheessaan esittämä EU:n mielenterveysstrategia. Odotan innolla komission ensi vuonna esittelemiä mielenterveystoimia. Mielenterveyspalveluiden pitää olla riittäviä ja laadukkaita, jotta ne voivat tukea meitä elämän tyrskyissä. Nopea pääsy palveluiden piiriin ja ennaltaehkäisy on ensiarvioisen tärkeää, jotta mielenterveyden hoitovelka ei kasaannu. Siksi mielenterveys pitää huomioida terveyspolitiikassa paremmin niin EU:n tasolla kuin myös kansallisesti. Mielenterveyden hoitaminen on investointi tulevaisuuteen. (Rokovanie bolo prerušené o 11.43 h.) Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA varapuhemies 4.   Hervatting van de vergadering (The sitting resumed at 12.00) 5.   Stemmingen President. – The next item is the vote. (For the results and other details of the vote: see Minutes). 5.1.   Specifieke bepalingen voor de samenwerkingsprogramma's voor de periode 2014-2020 naar aanleiding van de verstoring van de programma-uitvoering (C9-0289/2022 - Michael Gahler) (stemming) 5.2.   De niet-erkenning van Russische reisdocumenten die zijn afgegeven in bezette buitenlandse gebieden (C9-0302/2022 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar) (stemming) President. – A second request for urgent procedure, on the „Non-recognition of Russian travel documents issued in occupied foreign regions.” Before the vote, again, only the mover and one speaker against may be heard, along with the Chair or rapporteur of the committee responsible. I will now give the floor to Mr López-Aguilar. Juan Fernando López Aguilar,
Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. – Madam President, colleagues, again, it'll be short. Just to explain the subject matter of the issue, you know that Russia has decided to illegally annex some territories in Ukraine and recognise independence for other territories in Georgia, started to issue travel documents, namely so-called Russian passports, to the residents of those illegally occupied territories. The Commission has decided to come up with a proposal to put an end to that illegal practice, with a common approach by all of the Member States. That is why the Commission is coming up with that decision – precisely to have a common approach not to accept those travel documents or passports illegally issued by Russia. And I simply suggest, in order to stand up to the kind of strong political signal that we have endorsed all the way against Russian aggression, that we also endorse the urgent procedure concerning the Commission's decision. 5.3.   Benoeming van een lid van de Europese Rekenkamer - Laima Liucija Andrikienė (A9-0239/2022 - Claudiu Manda) (stemming) 5.4.   Aanpassing van een aantal rechtshandelingen op het gebied van justitie aan artikel 290 VWEU (gedelegeerde handelingen van de Commissie) (A9-0237/2022 - Jiří Pospíšil) (stemming) 5.5.   Richtsnoeren voor het werkgelegenheidsbeleid in de lidstaten (A9-0243/2022 - Alicia Homs Ginel) (stemming) 5.6.   Kwijting 2020: Algemene begroting van de EU – Europese Raad en Raad (A9-0236/2022 - Isabel García Muñoz) (stemming) 5.7.   Kwijting 2020: Algemene begroting van de EU – Europees Economisch en Sociaal Comité (A9-0238/2022 - Isabel García Muñoz) (stemming) 5.8.   Kwijting 2020: Europees Grens- en kustwachtagentschap (A9-0235/2022 - Tomáš Zdechovský) (stemming) —
after the vote on amendment 3: Petri Sarvamaa (PPE). – So the oral amendment reads as follows: „Deplores the unbearable modus operandi by the Turkish authorities in supporting human trafficking and non-cooperation with the Greek authorities; strongly condemns the inhuman and cruel operations, which often lead to life-threatening situations and severe injuries of refugees; highlights in this regard the impactful work of the Agency and its personnel, which operates under challenging and sometimes perilous conditions to fulfil its mandate and ensure the functioning of the Union's external borders together with the Member States”. President. – Is there any opposition to the oral amendments? Yes, there is clear opposition, so the oral amendment cannot be taken. 5.9.   Bezwaar op grond van artikel 112, leden 2 en 3, van het Reglement: Werkzame stoffen, waaronder 8-hydroxyquinoline, chloortoluron en difenoconazool (B9-0460/2022) (stemming) 5.10.   De toetreding van Roemenië en Bulgarije tot het Schengengebied (B9-0462/2022, B9-0463/2022) (stemming) President. – Thereby we conclude our votes this afternoon. (The sitting was suspended for a few minutes) 6.   Samenstelling commissies en delegaties Puhemies. – Keskustelut jatkuvat. Ensimmäiseksi minulla on ilmoitus. ECR-ryhmä on toimittanut puhemiehelle päätöksiä, jotka koskevat muutoksia valiokuntien ja valtuuskuntien jäsenten nimityksiin. Nämä päätökset merkitään tämänpäiväisen istunnon pöytäkirjaan ja ne tulevat voimaan päivänä, jona tämä ilmoitus annetaan. 7.   Algemene begroting van de Europese Unie voor het begrotingsjaar 2023 — alle afdelingen (debat) Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana Nicolae Ștefănuțăn ja Niclas Herbstin budjettivaliokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö neuvoston kannasta esitykseen Euroopan unionin yleiseksi talousarvioksi varainhoitovuodeksi 2023 — kaikki pääluokat (12108/2022 — C9-0306/2022 - 2022/0212(BUD)) (A9-0241/2022). Nicolae Ștefănuță,
Raportor. – Doamnă președintă, eram un pic emoționat pentru că tocmai am dat un vot, istoric, un vot important prin care România este mai aproape astăzi de Schengen. Dar astăzi vorbim despre bugetul Uniunii Europene, banii pe care îi avem și ce vom face cu ei. Spunea Martin Luther King, domnule comisar, doamnă președintă, colegii mei raportori din umbră, că „măsura noastră nu este locul în care ne aflăm atunci când avem confort, când avem pace, ci locul în care suntem atunci când avem încercări și necazuri.” Când am fost numit raportor pentru bugetul Uniunii 2023, m-am simțit onorat pentru că urma redresarea economică. Însă, pentru mulți europeni, pentru majoritatea europenilor, anul acesta este anul inflației, este anul frigului din case, iar pentru milioane de ucraineni este cel mai negru an. Anul care le-a luat pe cei dragi, le-a luat casele, anul care i-a făcut pe oameni, din oameni normali cu casele lor, în strămutați, în refugiați. Anul în care viața li s-a schimbat. În această încercare, curajul și demnitatea lor ne-au emoționat. Ucrainenii ne-au adus aminte ce prețioase sunt democrația, pacea, libertatea. Ei pentru asta luptă și pentru asta trebuie să luptăm și noi. Noi nu ne lăsăm bătuți, stăm în picioare și spunem azi uniți, că Uniunea Europeană arată curaj așa cum nu a mai făcut-o niciodată. Cu cuvinte, cu fapte, cu bani, cu arme, acolo unde distruge Putin, noi trebuie să reconstruim. Acolo unde alungă Putin, Europa trebuie să primească cu brațele deschise. Acolo unde Putin aduce spaima și teroarea, Europa aduce pace și liniște. Bugetul Uniunii Europene trebuie să fie un scut pentru democrația europeană și trebuie să arate un lucru simplu: că suntem uniți și la bine, și la greu. Dăm astăzi răspuns prin buget la trei mari probleme ale oamenilor, ale cetățenilor. 1.
Avem un război la graniță care ne afectează și pe noi. Nu putem accepta ca dictatorii să câștige acest război. Ucraina trebuie să câștige pentru ca democrația și regulile să dureze. Dacă nu, suntem toți în pericol, suntem noi în pericol.Acest război are consecințe în Ucraina, dar și în Moldova și în toate țările Uniunii. De aceea am mărit bugetul acolo unde războiul a lăsat consecințe grave. 853 de milioane de euro pentru consecințele războiului din Ucraina și Europa, pentru a ajuta refugiații, pentru a avea bani pentru propria noastră apărare, pentru mobilitatea noastră militară. Bani pentru tineri prin Erasmus+. Bani pentru Moldova care are mare nevoie de ajutor acum. Bani pentru ca toate statele noastre să facă față fluxului de oameni, și statul dumneavoastră, domnule președinte, a fost mult încercat în această perioadă. 2.
Avem o criză energetică majoră, cu un preț foarte scump, pe care îl plătim. Pe toate facturile la energie din iarna aceasta ar trebui să apară fața lui Vladimir Vladimirovici Putin, pentru că oamenii, toți europenii, suferă și suferă din cauza lui. Dar noi nu putem doar să arătăm unde este vina. Trebuie să dăm răspunsuri clare oamenilor.Așa că Parlamentul propune peste 533 de milioane de euro, mai mult de jumătate de miliard pentru energie, prin ajutor pentru facturi la energie, ajutor pentru surse regenerabile de energie și adaptare la schimbări climatice. Acești bani trebuie completați, desigur, cu programul REPowerEU și cu alți bani, pentru a nu lăsa economia europeană să cadă din cauza energiei.Cetățenii trebuie să aibă acces la energie ieftină și sigură în această iarnă, iar dacă am învățat ceva ca europeni din pandemie, este că împreună suntem mult mai puternici. Atunci când statele au dat răspunsuri separat, Uniunea Europeană a avut de suferit și vedem asta și în cazul Italiei astăzi. 3.
Ultima prioritate, doamna președintă, și vă rog să îmi permiteți să închei, este economia și societatea europeană. Sănătatea trebuie să rămână o prioritate în Europa, altfel nu am învățat nimic din pandemie. Statul de drept și valorile UE nu trebuie să se schimbe în vremuri de criză. Trebuie să susținem cultura și trebuie să susținem organizațiile societății civile și valorile europene. Churchill, în timpul celui de-al Doilea Război Mondial a spus așa: „Dacă nu susținem acum cultura, dacă tăiem banii, pentru ce mai luptăm cu arme?” Exact așa trebuie să fie și filosofia noastră și să nu renunțăm la valori.Si vis pacem para bellum, dacă vrei pace, trebuie să te pregătești de război, iar noi trebuie să fim pregătiți astăzi să răspundem la ceea ce europenii așteaptă de la noi. Niclas Herbst,
Berichterstatter. – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Der Kollege hat ja zu Recht kritisiert, dass dies kein Haushalt wie jeder andere sein darf – dass man es auch merken muss. Wenn wir uns Rubrik 7 anschauen, dann kommt man bei einer schnellen Durchsicht sehr schnell auf die Idee, es könnte ein Haushalt wie jeder andere sein. Aber ich will daran erinnern, dass wir bereits am Beginn dieses Verfahrens als Haushaltsausschuss eine Summe gegenüber dem Haushaltsplanentwurf unseres Präsidiums gekürzt haben, die mit 33 Millionen so groß war wie nie zuvor. Wir wissen also sehr wohl auch in diesem Haus, dass wir viel zu tun haben und dass in diesen schwierigen Zeiten auch das Parlament und alle Institutionen vorangehen müssen. Ich glaube aber auch, dass am 24. Februar kaum jemand widersprochen hätte, wenn wir gesagt hätten, wir müssen hier unsere Resilienz stärken, wir müssen abwehrbereit sein gegen hybride Kriegsführung, wir müssen Cybersicherheit zu einem echten Schwerpunkt machen. Meine Damen und Herren, das müssen wir auch wirklich. Das ist der einzige echte Schwerpunkt, den wir personell setzen in diesem Haushalt: Cybersicherheit. Ich bin froh darum, dass wir fraktionsübergreifend hier einig zusammenstehen und das auch durchsetzen werden. Ich sage auch dazu: Ich bedanke mich für die konstruktive Atmosphäre – auch bei der Ratspräsidentschaft –, weil ich weiß, dass wir natürlich hier alle in einem Boot sitzen. Wir haben mit CERT-EU bereits ein Instrument, das koordiniert, das vorangehen kann und das wir stärken können. Ich glaube sehr sicher, dass wir als Parlament zusammen – wenn ein konstruktiver Wille vorhanden ist – in den Verhandlungen hier gemeinsam einen Weg finden werden, um alle zum Nutzen aller Institutionen einen guten Weg zu finden. Aber – das sage ich auch – es ist keine Option, dass wir hier nicht handeln und die Risiken einfach Risiken sein lassen. Wir müssen abwehrbereit sein. Wir müssen unsere Resilienz stärken, meine lieben Freunde. Gerade die anderen Institutionen zählen auch auf uns. Natürlich ist es unsere Rolle als Parlament, die anderen Institutionen ebenfalls zu stärken. Ich nenne hier den Gerichtshof, den Rechnungshof. Denn gerade in einer Zeit, und das sollten wir als Parlament auch selbstbewusst sagen, in der die Gemeinschaftsmethode immer weiter an den Rand gedrängt wird und zwischenstaatlich gehandelt wird, brauchen wir auch Kontrollinstrumente. Gerade wenn der Artikel 122 immer im Mittelpunkt des Handelns steht, müssen wir die Institutionen, die hier wirklich auch kontrollieren, wie zum Beispiel den Rechnungshof, stärken. Auch hier sollten wir als Parlament uns nicht auseinanderdividieren lassen und ganz klar die Meinung vertreten: Wenn es um 800 Milliarden Euro geht, dann sind ein paar Stellen an dieser Stelle wirklich nicht die falsche Investition. Es gibt genug zu kontrollieren, gerade bei dieser Summe. Ich bin der Meinung, wir sollten uns anders als in den Vorjahren natürlich nicht an diesen Eifersüchteleien zwischen Institutionen beteiligen. Dafür ist die Lage zu ernst. Wir haben viele große Aufgaben, und ich sehe auch meine Aufgabe in meinem Bereich darin, dass die großen Linien, die der Kollege Ștefănuță ja gerade beschrieben hat, dadurch nicht in den Hintergrund treten und wir uns in kleinteiligen Diskussionen zwischen den Institutionen erschöpfen, sondern gemeinsam Lösungen finden, die dieser Haushaltslage wirklich angemessen sind – und da bitte ich auch alle Beteiligten darum. Wir sollen ja sparsam sein, meine Damen und Herren, und deshalb schenke ich dem Hohen Haus jetzt 57 Sekunden als Zeichen dafür, dass wir in den Verhandlungen hoffentlich gute Ergebnisse erreichen können. Jiří Georgiev,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, Commissioner Hahn, ladies and gentlemen, I am honoured today to attend the debate in the plenary session of your House on the position of the European Parliament on the draft budget of the European Union for 2023. We already had the opportunity to exchange views on this topic on 13 September 2022, when I presented the Council's position. Meanwhile, the Commission has presented an amending letter to the draft budget, and this adjustment will have an impact on the positions of both institutions. We live in very difficult times. The war on our continent affects the lives of millions of people. The severe energy crisis, combined with the historically high level of inflation, the enduring post-pandemic recovery and the disruption of the global supply chains have fundamentally changed our economies. All these developments have led to a large number of new needs: relief to Ukraine, humanitarian aid, food aid to third countries, support for refugees, cost of strategic autonomy, and measures to face the energy crisis. At the same time, Member States are struggling with their public finances. Some Member States have difficulties in respecting the Stability and Growth Pact. Even if they could afford huge increases in public spending, be it on national or European level, carry the risk of bringing more inflation. In other words, we have many needs, but little leeway. We have to prioritise. We have to make choices. What's more important and what we can wait for. In a world that's upside down, we cannot implement our activities and programmes like nothing has happened. As our Minister of Finance recently said, we have to identify negative priorities. It's essential to back out of some policies and reinforce others, and to create margins in the budget to allow the Union to act. To illustrate the importance of margins, I would like to come back to a discussion we had last week in the Budget Trialogue. In its position, the European Parliament has increased the budget line for humanitarian aid by EUR 250 million. In these troubled times, the Council also considers it very important to foresee sufficient money for humanitarian aid. But I question the proposal of the European Parliament last week. How robust is the proposed increase? What does it cover? More importantly in these unprecedented times, if this envelope is enough, what can the Union do? The proposal of the European Parliament leaves no margins in the budget. Again, in these unpredictable times, we need margins to allow the Union to react. Madam President, Honourable Members, Commissioner, please allow me now to make some preliminary remarks on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's position that are subject to the vote of the plenary. It's clear that, in principle, the European Parliament and the Council share the same priorities for the entire MFF period and for next year as well. However, our positions are very divergent in terms of amounts. The European Parliament, at this stage, does not indicate an intention to reprioritise. The European Parliament proposes an increase above the Council position of EUR 3.3 billion in commitment appropriations and EUR 1.8 billion in payment appropriations. As I explained earlier, the Council cannot accept the European Parliament's requests for an almost full use of the margins for each heading, with the exception of heading three, as well as for the substantial use of special instruments. This year, we need to consider more carefully than ever before how the money should be allocated. A very well balanced budget for 2023 is an essential condition to create trust for a more secure future, avoid unnecessary expenditure and foresee sufficient flexibility in order to promptly respond to new challenges that may occur next year. Allow me now to touch upon a few points in more detail. Regarding heading one and, in particular, the financing of research and innovation. The Council recognises that Horizon Europe is an essential instrument to support a successful digital transition, and to contribute to the Union's economic recovery, the Green Deal and a climate neutral economy. However, the European Parliament's proposal to increase the allocation foreseen by the Council by almost EUR 1 billion considerably diverges from the financial programming and can put pressure on the sector to fully digest the amounts made available. In these times of crisis, is this the area where we really want to use so much of our scarce resources? Moreover, the Council is surprised by the European Parliament's proposal to make use of more than EUR 836 million resulting from research decommitments made under Article 15 of the Financial Regulation. This amount is not included in the MFF agreement, nor does it seem to correspond to the calculation of the Commission. The Council takes note of the European Parliament's statement that new initiatives under heading one should be financed with fresh money. This means that such money would not be available for other policy ambitions. Regarding the expenditure for natural resources and environment, the Council acknowledges the crucial role of the Life Programme, but it's difficult to understand the European Parliament's intention of frontloading this expenditure with the proposal to increase the allocation for 2023 by more than EUR 100 million, compared to the Council position. The Council reaffirms its strong commitment to ensuring sufficient funding for the important areas of migration, borders, security and defence. However, we consider excessive the increases proposed by the European Parliament for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, as well as for the Border Management Instrument, given their real absorption capacities. Regarding the external action of the union, the Council takes note of the proposed increase of EUR 415 million, as compared to the Council position and to the draft budget to be fully financed with special instruments. This reinforcement includes the European Parliament's demands to increase humanitarian aid by EUR 250 million. As I mentioned earlier, this is a sensitive issue. Indeed, like the European Parliament, the Council also wants sufficient means to provide humanitarian aid to the people in need, be it in Ukraine or elsewhere. But at the same time we must recognise that it's almost impossible to make a robust forecast for these needs. Events will be unpredictable and unprecedented. We are ready to examine this issue closely, and I am sure we will find a common approach. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, some words on heading seven, administrative expenditure. I am very happy that the revised calculations of the automatic salary increase have created limited margins under this heading and that we do not have to use the little flexibility we have in the budget for this heading. At the same time, I will not hide from you that, after the significant increase of the establishment plan of the European Parliament in the Budget for 2022, the Council deeply regrets that your House proposes to increase the European Parliament's establishment plan again in the budget for 2023, now with 150 posts. I am afraid this will complicate our discussions during the conciliation in the coming months. To sum up, I think we have some work to do in the coming months. In the contacts I have had so far with the rapporteurs and several members of the Committee on Budgets, I have perceived an understanding for the Council's position. Several of the proposals the European Parliament will vote on tomorrow show that we share the same priorities. However, we need to find a balanced compromise to bridge the huge difference between the figures proposed by the Parliament and by the Council. Moreover, I have a strong confidence in the Commission, which will act – I am sure – as an honest broker in the conciliation. Thank you very much for your attention. Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Minister, honourable Members, first, I really would like to express my regret that I miss, due to this scheduled debate, the parallel college debate where we will discuss and decide about a long list of necessary measures related to the energy crisis and of course, some of them with some financial implications. But I understand, we are one week away from the start of the consultation on the draft budget for 2023 and that's why, probably, this meeting was scheduled now. It has become a habit for me to say that the negotiations on the annual draft budget take place in a context of multiple crises. First, COVID-19, now the unprovoked and unjustified Russian war against Ukraine and its consequences for the Ukrainian people, as well as its consequences in Europe and around the world. In such times, it is more than ever important to put aside our differences and to work together on reaching our shared goals and priorities. I would like to thank the European Parliament, especially the Committee on Budgets and all specialist committees for the intensive work on the Commission's proposal for the draft budget 2023. This resulted in more than 1200 proposed amendments. Therefore, I really congratulate two rapporteurs, Mr Ștefănuță and Mr Herbst for reaching wide support among political groups. First, I appreciate that the amendments proposed by Parliament to reinstate the expenditure at the level proposed by the Commission in the draft budget. Second, Parliament proposes more money for a number of programmes for 2023. This includes research and innovation, energy independence and the twin transition. It covers boosting competitiveness, including Parliament's support for the future flagship programmes and employment opportunities, crisis response and health supporting our shared priorities. Both the European Parliament and the Council have now set the framework of their respective negotiating mandates. As usual at this point, the positions of Parliament and the Council diverge substantially. But I can only reiterate my regret about the significant cuts proposed by the Council. They do not follow the Council's own priorities, but at the same time Parliament requests substantially increases; this would require extensive mobilisation of special instruments thereby going significantly beyond the Commission's proposal. We are not even halfway through the long-term budget. With the developments in the first two years, it has become clear that we must manage our resources carefully and preserve flexibility to be able to respond to unforeseen challenges. Unfortunately, given the limited availabilities, we will have to face some tough choices between what we would like to do and what we finally can do. On the one side, we have a moral obligation towards our neighbours in Ukraine. We must also meet the expectations of our citizens to respond to geopolitical and economic challenges at Union level. On the other side, we have to use the available resources in the most efficient way to meet the most urgent needs. Today's debate and the exchange of views should increase mutual understanding and facilitate, as always, a common approach. So I am confident that the negotiations will continue in the positive spirit we had until now, and that Parliament and the Council will manage to reconcile their positions. Inevitably, a clear prioritisation of tabled amendments, as well as concessions from both sides, will be necessary. As regards the next steps, we already presented the amending letter in last week's dialogue. The amending letter addresses some elements included both in the Council's position and in Parliament's amendments. Therefore, I would like to ask the Parliament and the Council to consider this amending letter as a starting point in the negotiating process. A timely agreement on a solid EU budget is the best way to stimulate economic recovery. Support our society, respond to the expectations of our citizens and, last but not least, respond to the consequences of the Russian war against Ukraine and, finally, another important and stronger assurance to our citizens that we are able to take decisions in due time. Michael Gahler,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Kommissar hat es richtig angesprochen: Letztlich bringt der russische Angriffskrieg auf die Ukraine die gesamte Finanzarchitektur durcheinander. Wenn wir uns ehrlich machen, brauchen wir – nicht nur für den außenpolitischen Bereich – eigentlich eine neue finanzielle Vorausschau, damit wir den Aufgaben gerecht werden können, die wir tatsächlich auch angehen müssen. Dazu gehört natürlich unmittelbar die umfängliche Hilfe für die Ukraine, also insgesamt auch für diese gesamte Region, wo alle Haushaltszeilen bis aufs Äußerste angespannt sind. Und deswegen können wir eigentlich nur darauf hinarbeiten, dass das, was an Prioritäten der Prioritäten nötig ist – und das ist unter anderem eben das, was wir für die Ukraine tun können –, dass das getan wird mit den begrenzten Mitteln, die wir haben. Aber wir sollten auch in anderen Bereichen, ob es in Palästina ist oder in anderen dringenden Notlagen, die Mittel zur Verfügung stellen, die wir haben. Ansonsten werden wir unsere Glaubwürdigkeit in dem Bereich verlieren. Antoni Comín i Oliveres,
rapporteur pour avis de la commission du développement. –Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, j'ai eu l'honneur d'être le rapporteur de l'avis de la commission du développement pour le budget de l'année 2023, et à ce titre, je tiens à souligner clairement que nous avons – je crois que vous serez d'accord – un problème très grave: la marge de dépense autorisée par le cadre financier pluriannuel de l'Union pour le cycle 2021-2027 est totalement épuisée, ce qui ne permet pas à l'Union de faire face aux défis urgents de son action extérieure. Il y a d'abord eu la pandémie de COVID puis la brutale agression russe contre l'Ukraine, avec ses effets au niveau mondial, tels que la crise de la sécurité alimentaire et la crise énergétique. Tout cela a considérablement accru les besoins d'aide humanitaire et, surtout, placé les objectifs de développement durable dans une situation critique. À cet égard, la situation est particulièrement préoccupante pour ce qui est des objectifs liés à l'urgence climatique et à la nécessité d'aider nos pays partenaires à mettre en œuvre des actions d'adaptation et d'atténuation au regard du changement climatique. Il y a évidemment un décalage entre les événements, qui sont arrivés de façon imprévue, et les prévisions financières et l'Union. Pour faire face à cette situation, il est pourtant extrêmement urgent que les États membres réforment le cadre financier pluriannuel. C'est un objectif difficile – c'est facile à dire, ce n'est pas facile à faire –, mais il faut assumer cet objectif et approuver une augmentation très ambitieuse du chapitre budgétaire consacré à l'action extérieure, surtout pour l'intelligence géopolitique. Si l'Union ne se montre pas comme un partenaire fiable pour le développement des pays partenaires, notre concurrent géopolitique qu'est la Chine ne va pas manquer l'occasion. Il faut avoir cette ambition géopolitique et la concrétiser à travers le budget. Dragoș Pîslaru,
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Madam President, Commissioner, dear distinguished Members of the Council, dear colleagues, it is in times of crisis when the Union needs to be closer to its citizens with strategies, action and, most importantly, with the needed budgetary and financial needs. As Chair of the Employment Committee, I wanted us to be more ambitious when it comes to the European Social Fund Plus, which is a key driver for strengthening the social dimension, investing in people and promoting employment. I wanted to see it in 2023, the European Parliament making the political call for the investment in children and young people by supporting additional allocation to Child Guarantee, by supporting the social dialogue. Not all these requests have been, right now, put together, but I still believe that this is important for the European Parliament. I hope that in the context of the revision of the MFF, we can keep our ambitions and ask for more resources to invest in people and mitigate the increasing inequality, documented, evidence-based, support the implementation of the European Care Strategy and promote the upskilling and reskilling by allocating more resources to the European Year of Skills. We need to put the resources in what we have been right now deciding to have in 2023. We need to have a strong call for increased flexibility and sufficient resources to respond to major crisis and accelerate the process of programming so that in 2023 we start finally, in all Member States, the implementation of 2021-2027 MFF funding. We need the Member States to spend all available resources for people. We cannot afford to waste more time in not spending the money that we have, for the well-being of our citizens. Thank you all, especially to my colleague Nicolae Ștefănuță, for all the work. Christian Ehler,
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – Madam President, Let's be realistic. I mean, what the Council has been suggesting is that no less than 40% of all the suggested cuts fall on Horizon Europe. So 40% is on innovation – the innovation we need for everything we are going to endeavour in the coming years. If you look a little bit closer, it is just 7% of the budget, but you impose 40% of the cuts. I mean, if you give a madman a nail and you puncture the Horizon budget, you come up with your proposal. You cut EUR 180 million off the proposal on Digital Europe. At the same time, you're selling to the international audience a CHIP programme; you're selling that. You promised already. You want to have 3.3 billion for that budget, and rightly so. It is one of Europe's ambitions. But at the same time, you cut the digital budget before we even started the discussion of where and how to finance new ambitions. So, let's be realistic. Either you say „No” to innovation in Europe, or we should start to negotiate. Andreas Schwab,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Binnenmarkt und Verbraucherschutz. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, Ratspräsidentschaft, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Stellungnahme des Binnenmarktausschusses ist wie immer relativ ausgeglichen, weil wir ja ein Stück weit das Geld verdienen, das die Mitgliedstaaten und die Kommission ausgeben. Deswegen war es kein großes Problem, uns hier auf die Stellungnahme zu verständigen, aber ich möchte deswegen ganz speziell zwei Themen herausgreifen, die für die Kolleginnen und Kollegen des Binnenmarktausschusses von besonderer Bedeutung sind. Wir wissen, dass wir im Haushaltsverfahren als Parlamentarier unseren Haushalt verteidigen, die Kommission ihren Haushalt verteidigt und der Rat versucht, möglichst wenig zu zahlen. Das respektieren wir. Aber bei der Gesetzgebung zum Gesetz über digitale Märkte und beim Gesetz über digitale Dienste geht es eben darum, dass wir in ganz Europa eine neue regulatorische Einheit schaffen, die uns gemeinsam nicht nur eine bessere Durchsetzung des Prinzips der sozialen Marktwirtschaft ermöglicht, sondern auch der Kommission Einnahmen beschert und den Mitgliedstaaten Zuständigkeiten abnimmt. Deswegen plädieren wir gemeinsam – und ich bin hier als Berichterstatter des Binnenmarktausschusses nur einer von vielen – dafür, dass wir der Europäischen Kommission in dem Bereich, wo sie den Mitgliedstaaten Zuständigkeiten abnimmt, neues Personal zur Verfügung stellen, das bei den Mitgliedstaaten nicht mehr gebraucht wird. Das Parlament hat an der Stelle nur regulatorische Interessen und unterstützt ein Stück weit die Idee der Europäischen Kommission. Wir wissen, dass es im Haushaltsverfahren nicht so ganz einfach ist, deswegen möchte ich den Kollegen, die sich um dieses Verfahren kümmern, Niclas Herbst und dem Kollegen Lewandowski, für ihre Unterstützung herzlich danken und wünsche, dass wir uns mit der Frage intensiv auseinandersetzen. Vlad Gheorghe,
Raportor pentru aviz, Comisia pentru transport și turism. – Doamnă președintă, în 2023 și în fiecare an, bugetul Uniunii trebuie să răspundă nevoilor cetățenilor europeni, români, bulgari, germani sau olandezi. Banii trebuie să ajungă la oamenii care plătesc facturile de energie, inflația record, seceta, urmările pandemiei și ale războiului lui Putin. Transport, turism, piața muncii, toate sunt decontate de cetățeni, mai ales dacă guvernele naționale și Uniunea Europeană le tratează prea birocratic, incoerent, insuficient și tardiv. Au fost ani grei pentru noi toți, dar nu știu cum se face că unii plătesc mai mult. Șoferii de tir, profesorii, cadrele medicale, pensionarii în special, antreprenorii mici și mijlocii, fermierii și toate categoriile vulnerabile. Avem datoria să-i sprijinim mai mult, și în Comisiile mele, la buget și transport și turism, am reușit să obțin finanțare pentru parcări sigure și transport în comun mai bun. Parchetul European condus de Laura Codruța Kövesi și toate instituțiile europene care opresc infractorii trebuie să primească bugetul cerut. Rezultatele lor se văd rapid, iar banii europeni sunt recuperați. Bugetul 2023 respectă această linie și este bine că o face. Țările membre sunt bogate și Uniunea are bani ca toți să o ducem mai bine, dar trebuie să oprim corupția și toate infracțiunile care ne căpușează, inclusiv cele de mediu, de la tăierile ilegale la comerțul cu deșeuri. La fel cum cei care ne atacă din exterior sau din interior, toți trebuie să plătească. Încălcarea statului de drept, nerespectarea sancțiunilor impuse Rusiei, nu le mai putem tolera. Am cerut ca Fondul pentru Reconstrucția Ucrainei să primească banii confiscați oligarhilor. Am cerut ca banii europeni să ajungă direct la cei care ajută ucraineni din prima zi. Pierre Karleskind,
rapporteur pour avis de la commission de la pêche. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le Ministre, la pêche a subi depuis quelques années plusieurs crises que toute l'Europe a subi, mais peut-être de façon plus aiguë pour la pêche. Je pense d'abord au Brexit qui a remis en cause un certain nombre d'accès aux eaux, mais aussi aux quotas. Je pense évidemment à la crise de la COVID et puis, maintenant, à cette guerre en Ukraine qui a des impacts directs sur le prix du pétrole et donc sur la capacité à retrouver des équilibres économiques. Pourtant, le secteur de la pêche a été là. Les pêcheurs ont été vaillants. Ils sont même allés en mer dans des moments qui étaient particulièrement difficiles. Alors, après la gestion que je qualifierais de calamiteuse du Fonds européen pour les affaires maritimes et la pêche 2014-2020, le fonds le plus mal consommé de tous les fonds européens sur cette période de programmation, eh bien, il est temps, peut-être, qu'on se remue un peu sur la gestion de son successeur, le Feampa, parce que la pêche n'a plus besoin qu'on mette de petits pansements sur une hémorragie. La pêche a besoin de réformes et d'investissements profonds. Il faut que ce fonds d'investissement soit effectivement structurant pour un secteur qui a un besoin profond de renouvellement, parce qu'on ne parle pas ici d'un secteur qui a besoin d'une vitalité économique et d'en retrouver le ressort. On parle tout simplement d'un secteur qui contribue à notre souveraineté alimentaire, à notre alimentation. Ce n'est pas substituable. C'est pour cela, Monsieur le Commissaire, que nous comptons sur la Commission pour une mise en œuvre efficace et que, Monsieur le Ministre, nous comptons sur les États membres pour enfin adopter les programmes opérationnels et avoir une gestion efficace et rigoureuse de ce fonds. Monika Vana,
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. – Madam President, Commissioner, Council, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM), I would very much like to thank the rapporteurs and the Budget Committee for their very good work. As was already mentioned, the circumstances for this year's budgetary procedure are very challenging, and I very much acknowledge the efforts to achieve a very good compromise. The FEMM Committee delivered a strong opinion, and I am glad that some crucial elements are reflected in the Parliament's overall amendments in the budgetary resolution. First of all, the proposed increase of the Daphne Strand by EUR 2 million above the draft budget is a clear acknowledgement of the importance of tackling the alarming problem of gender based violence. Although this is considerably less than our Committee would have liked to see, it is a crucial signal to increase the funding for the Daphne Strand. Secondly, the very good wording regarding the Commission's efforts for a methodology to measure the gender impact of the Union's funding. The budgetary resolution includes concrete demands on measures, on scope and on gender disaggregated data. This type of scrutiny is very important, and Parliament's strong stance on the EU4 Health programme and the inclusion of our Committee's perspective that universal health coverage across the Union needs to include quality access to sexual and reproductive health and rights is necessary to involve. Lastly, specific support for equality for civil society organisations defending women's rights and the rights of the LGBTIQ community under heading six „Neighbourhood and the World” is very important, and I would like to stress that this will be crucial to defend in the upcoming negotiations. PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. PINA PICIERNO Vicepresidente Janusz Lewandowski,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Prezydent! Budżet 2023 to jest pierwszy budżet czasu wojny w pacyfistycznej ze swej natury Unii Europejskiej, ostatni budżet perspektywy 2014-2020, którą projektowałem, i ostatni rok na kontraktowanie krajowych planów odbudowy. Może dziwić, że w tak nadzwyczajnych okolicznościach pozycja budżetowa Rady to jest business as usual, czyli cięcia, w części przeczące preferencjom czy deklaracjom prezydencji czeskiej. Stanowisko Parlamentu odpowiada na te nadzwyczajne uwarunkowania, bo kiedy, jak nie teraz, trzeba sięgnąć po wszystkie możliwości budżetu europejskiego, nie tylko skromne marginesy, ale też np. te commitments? A nasze jednomyślne praktycznie głosowanie oznacza jedność w Parlamencie, czyli to jest dobra przesłanka skutecznych negocjacji. Priorytety Parlamentu Europejskiego są zrozumiałe dla ludzi. Trzeba zmierzyć się z następstwami społecznymi, ekonomicznymi pandemii i wojny, trzeba zwiększyć konkurencyjność i odporność antykryzysową Europy, wspierać inwestycje, które tworzą miejsca pracy w takich obszarach jak zielony ład czy gospodarka cyfrowa. Mam nadzieję, że właśnie taki budżet wyłoni się z koncyliacji. Ludzie nie czekają, nie oczekują sporów międzyinstytucjonalnych, ludzie czekają na efekty. Europe should deliver. Victor Negrescu,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the European Union is facing unprecedented challenges and a series of crises that directly affect citizens. The effect of the pandemic and of the war in Ukraine have led to rising inflation, rising energy prices and falling purchasing power across Europe. In this context, we must identify together the best solutions and endow our Union with the appropriate means to respond to citizens' pressing needs. The Socialists and Democrats Group requested that the 2023 European budget uses all financial and technical means available to protect citizens and SMEs from the effects of this crisis, offering the Union real prospects for development. Our political group has pushed for increased resources of around EUR 300 million on energy-related measures, including research, investment and the development of green energy, designed to protect citizens against increased energy prices. In the same line, we propose the allocation of additional financial resources of EUR 60 million for SMEs by supplementing the specific related programmes but also by supporting the recovery of the cultural and creative sectors affected by the pandemic. Increased attention has also been given to health by increasing by EUR 150 million the actions aimed, for example, at providing solutions for the long-term effects generated by COVID. To these extremely important issues we added concrete actions related to the war in Ukraine: the support of States on the front line, such as Romania and Poland, and refugees, especially young people and minors from the conflict areas. The increase of EUR 250 million in humanitarian aid funds, the addition of funds for the Eastern and Southern Neighbourhoods, including the Republic of Moldova, and the allocation of an additional EUR 100 million for Member States to assist them in receiving migrants, will allow us to better manage the effects of the war. An important aspect is the increase in funds for the management of the external borders of the Union and the fact that, once again, at the request of the S&D Group, the European Parliament calls for and includes additional amounts for the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen Area. To this measure is added an increase of EUR 210 million for the Erasmus+ programme, both for the access to education of young Ukrainians and for the continuation of mobility and educational programmes affected by the increase in living costs. I am particularly happy that the pilot project that I have proposed together with Vice-President Kaili will allow us the monitoring of children coming from Ukraine in such a way as to prevent human trafficking and ensure a safe future. I also welcome the inclusion of a reference in our resolution by which the Commission is invited to identify solutions for saving the unspent funds from the previous financial period and allocating these resources to the frontline countries affected by the war in Ukraine. In these uncertain times of our workers, it is also of paramount importance to continue supporting social dialogue and workers' training and ensuring a stable funding for those initiatives. Everyone is feeling the effect of the current crisis and the European programmes are seriously affected by the galloping inflation. That is why we call for the review of the multiannual financial framework in order to build an ambitious and flexible budget that provides concrete and common answers to the challenges we face in such a way no one is left behind. Fabienne Keller,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le Représentant de la présidence tchèque de l'Union, chers collègues, 2023 est encore une année exceptionnelle pour le budget de l'Union européenne en raison, en particulier, des conséquences de la guerre en Ukraine. Je dis bien „encore” car 2021 et 2022 l'ont déjà été pour faire face à la crise sanitaire. L'Europe, chers collègues, a su se montrer à la hauteur. Mais pour être à la hauteur, il faut se donner les moyens. C'est ce que nous avons fait avec l'achat groupé de vaccins et la mise en place d'un certificat COVID européen. C'est ce que nous avons fait aussi avec l'adoption d'un plan de relance exceptionnel et le principe d'une dette commune. C'est en étant plus solidaires, en assurant une meilleure coordination entre les États membres que nous sommes plus forts ensemble. De nombreux défis nous attendent et nos concitoyens attendent que nous les relevions à l'échelle européenne. Toutefois, vous le savez, chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire, nous atteignons les limites du contrat financier pluriannuel seulement trois ans après son adoption. L'inflation et l'augmentation des prix de l'énergie ont des conséquences sur tout les budgets, en particulier sur ceux de nos institutions et de nos agences. Ce sont elles qui font fonctionner l'Union européenne. Nous devons nous montrer exemplaires dans la gestion de ce budget sans pour autant empêcher leur fonctionnement au service des citoyens. Je voudrais remercier mon collègue Nicolae Ștefănuță, qui a su trouver avec les différents groupes un compromis et proposer un budget ambitieux et nécessaire en fixant des priorités pour faire face aux grands enjeux à venir. Le budget européen, c'est la clé de voûte de notre Union. Il est essentiel à son bon fonctionnement. Sans cela, les politiques et les réformes que nous votons ici n'auront aucune chance d'aboutir. Sans cela, par exemple, et c'est central, la mise en œuvre du paquet „Fit for 55” et du pacte vert ne serait qu'une utopie. Ce budget, c'est ce qui nous permet d'être à la hauteur. Nous devons l'être face à la montée des populismes en Europe qui font de l'Europe un bouc émissaire. Ce budget, nous devons le protéger aussi contre ceux qui l'utilisent à leurs propres fins, sans respecter les principes fondamentaux de l'état de droit qui sont les fondements essentiels de la construction européenne. Pour cela, nous avons le mécanisme de conditionnalité sur l'état de droit et nous ne devons pas avoir peur, chers collègues, de l'utiliser. C'est pourquoi j'appelle encore une fois la Commission à utiliser ce mécanisme pour protéger, Monsieur le Commissaire, ce budget européen. Francisco Guerreiro,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear all, the European Union budget for 2023 is not a merely standard procedure where we should just present normal budgetary lines and carry on with our standard work. We live in times of urgency. We have to tackle the climate catastrophe that we are on. We have to address war in our borders. We have to prepare for possible humanitarian crisis. And we need to mitigate the huge impacts that energy prices and overall high inflation will have on our citizens' life. The EU budget is the most powerful tool that we as a Union have to try to influence also the rest of the world into doing what needs to be done. Although we understand the special circumstances that led to the timing of this year's amending letter by the Commission, it does not employ the best practices and it influences the European Parliament's ability to fulfil properly its role as a budgetary authority. We would hope that this doesn't repeat itself. Let me address just three main issues on this amending letter. First, we will welcome the humanitarian aid increase, although it is still not as sufficient as we think. With the escalation of Russian attacks on civil targets in Ukraine, we have to expect further increases on humanitarian needs next year. Unfortunately, this goes also for humanitarian needs regarding climate change. In the amending letter, it is stated that further reinforcements in the course of 2023 are likely to be needed in the EU, so it has to sustain its 2022 humanitarian assistance and support the sharp increase of number of people in need. So we would like to question why this proposal was not made now, and will this be a proposal on the negotiations? Secondly, it is a positive sign that we see a reinforcement of the Union civil protection mechanism. To be able to react to more severe impacts on climate change, although there should also be increases in the parts of the budget that invest on fighting climate change and speed up our efforts. In this regard, the EU budgets is the best way to do that. Finally, on the issue of the European Union recovery instruments: the reinforcement of EURI of 450 million is extremely large. The European Parliament has warned repeatedly that having the EURI line in heading 2b is unsustainable, and that the NextGenerationEU interest costs and repayments should be counted over and above MFF ceilings. Will the Commission ever make this proposal? How is it planning to deal with the situation? And also finalising the position on the Council for us is quite disappointing in conditions that we are living in. The Council calls for prudence in its approach, but for us it is quite questionable and disappointing. We need more ambition for next year's budget, not blunt cuts. And overall we believe that the European Parliament has presented a realistic and powerful proposal and with the rapporteur, Ms Ștefănuță, and all my shadow colleagues, I think we can push for a 2023 budget that properly reflects our priorities, our visions and our citizens' needs. Joachim Kuhs,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, werte Kollegen! Machen wir uns doch ehrlich: Der Haushalt 2023 ist im Grunde genommen schon Makulatur, bevor er beschlossen wurde. Pflichtschuldig führt der Entschließungsentwurf zwar in Ziffer 2 Dutzende oder viele Probleme auf, aber die Lösungsansätze, die korrespondieren überhaupt nicht mit diesen Problemen. Anstatt der EU – den EU-Bürgern – eine Entlastung zu verschaffen, wirkt der Entwurf als Fortsetzung der derzeitigen rückwärtsgewandten Politik der EU. Fast alle Länder in der EU sind mit einer explodierenden Inflation konfrontiert, die unsere Industrien zerstört und so viele Menschen in Armut, Elend und zum Teil sogar in Selbstmord stürzt. Wir werden mit Energiekosten konfrontiert, die sich viele Bürger wirklich nicht mehr leisten können. Vorgestern hat mir einer meiner Söhne berichtet, dass er jetzt gut die Hälfte seines Lehrergehaltes für Wohnkosten aufbringen muss. Das ist doch absurd! Außerdem haben sich viele Lebensmittelpreise verdoppelt. Doch was geschieht mit den Gehältern? Wenn man nicht zufällig in einer EU-Behörde arbeitet, dann bleiben die Gehälter vorerst gleich. Wie also hilft die EU unseren verzweifelten Bürgern? Beendet sie die Energiekrise? Beendet sie den Krieg? Stoppt sie den Klimawandel-Wahnsinn? Nein, leider nicht. Der vorliegende Haushaltsentwurf verschafft der Ukraine, der Green-Deal-Politik und vielem woken Unsinn einen endlosen Geldfluss. Anscheinend finden wir es wichtiger, dass wir zu unserem Schaden Russland sanktionieren und einen tödlichen Krieg in der Ukraine finanzieren, als dafür zu sorgen, dass unsere hart arbeitenden Bürger und unsere Familien ihre Stromrechnung und ihre Lebensmittel bezahlen können. Nur für die Statistik: Das Wort Gender wird 98 Mal genannt, die Ukraine 92 Mal, das Klima 74 Mal. Das Wort Familie, das Rückgrat der Union, kommt kein einziges Mal vor. Um die Sache noch schlimmer zu machen, fördert der Entwurf Militarismus und Russophobie. Einst pazifistische Linksparteien, auch hier im Haus, lehnen Diplomatie, Frieden und Neutralität ab und degradieren unsere Union zu einer Militärunion. Werte Kollegen, nicht, dass wir uns falsch verstehen, in dem Entwurf finden sich viele gute Ansätze, die ich auch unterstützen kann, und ich habe ja auch 300 Anträge gestellt auf Änderung. Aber wir setzen falsche Prioritäten. Wir handeln nicht für die Menschen, sondern wir nehmen immer mehr fremde Interessen wahr. Das darf nicht sein. Damit muss endlich Schluss sein! Bogdan Rzońca,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Dziękuję bardzo posłom sprawozdawcom, którzy w duchu kompromisu dotarli do pewnego wytyczonego celu. Mam nadzieję, że jutro rzeczywiście wszyscy razem przegłosujemy wspólne dobre stanowisko do tego budżetu na rok 2023. Oczywiście cały czas traktowaliśmy sytuację Komisji Europejskiej jako podejście bardzo konserwatywne. Obawiamy się, czy wystarczą środki na pokrycie wszystkich potrzeb w zarządzaniu dzielonym. Dlatego z zadowoleniem też przyjmujemy dołączenie do stanowiska Rady tradycyjnej deklaracji o płatnościach. Efektem jesiennych negocjacji budżetowych powinno być wspólne stanowisko Rady, Komisji i Parlamentu Europejskiego w tej sprawie. Niestety w opublikowanym 5 października liście korygującym Komisji Europejskiej nie widać zwiększenia pomocy dla państw członkowskich przyjmujących uchodźców. Ubolewam nad tym. Polska i inne kraje tych uchodźców ciągle mają, uchodźców z Ukrainy. Rozwój działań wojennych w Ukrainie sugeruje, że niezbędne będzie wkrótce dalsze wsparcie humanitarne, niezależnie od tego, ile środków będzie dostępnych w ramach rezerwy na rzecz solidarności i pomocy nadzwyczajnej. Z zadowoleniem przyjmujemy też wykreślenie tzw. instrumentu elastyczności w dziale siódmym, bo gdy jest wojna, to nie czas dyskutować o administracji. Dokumenty budżetowe dobrze odzwierciedlają sytuację w Unii Europejskiej, bo pokazują, że mamy do czynienia z inflacją, z Putinflacją, mamy do czynienia z agresorem rosyjskim, mamy do czynienia z drożyzną energetyczną, żywnościową, że jakość życia spadnie, że trzeba będzie te wszystkie długi, które Unia zaciągnęła, jakoś spłacać, a więc szukać fresh money, szukać nowych pieniędzy. Rozumiemy to, ale też oczywiście stawiamy pytanie, kto do takiej sytuacji doprowadził. I może ktoś w Polsce usłyszy o tej prawdziwej sytuacji w Unii Europejskiej, bo polska opozycja tu w Parlamencie mówi ciągle, że kryzys jest tylko w Polsce. Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, κύριοι του Συμβουλίου και κύριε Hahn από την Επιτροπή, θεωρεί απαράδεκτη και κατώτερη των περιστάσεων την πρόταση του Συμβουλίου για τον προϋπολογισμό του 2023. Έχουμε πόλεμο στα σύνορά μας· έχουμε έναν πληθωρισμό που τρέχει στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση με 10% —ρεκόρ δεκαετιών· έχουμε μια έξαρση της ακρίβειας και της φτώχειας· μείωση της απασχόλησης· ορατό τον κίνδυνο της ύφεσης το 2023 για την ευρωπαϊκή οικονομία. Και εσείς έρχεστε με έναν προϋπολογισμό γεμάτο περικοπές, κύριοι της τσεχικής προεδρίας. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, από τη Δεξιά μέχρι και την Αριστερά, είναι ενωμένο ζητώντας πράγματα απολύτως στοιχειώδη και αναγκαία. Είναι δυνατόν να αντιμετωπίσουμε τις ανάγκες του σήμερα και του αύριο με έναν προϋπολογισμό γεμάτο περικοπές της τάξης του 1% του ευρωπαϊκού ΑΕΠ; Δεν βλέπετε ότι πρέπει άμεσα, εντός του 2023, να αναθεωρηθεί το πολυετές δημοσιονομικό πλαίσιο, που είναι ολοφάνερα κατώτερο των περιστάσεων; Πρέπει να ξεπεράσουμε, κύριε Hahn, το ταμπού του 1% για τον κοινοτικό προϋπολογισμό και πρέπει να τρέξουμε να δημιουργήσουμε πρόσθετους ίδιους πόρους χωρίς νέες καθυστερήσεις στη διοργανική συμφωνία, διότι αλλιώς θα κινδυνέψει και το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης. Επίσης πρέπει, όπως δημιουργήσαμε το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης, να ενισχύσουμε την κεντρική δημοσιονομική ικανότητα της Ένωσης και με νέα εργαλεία. Ένα ευρωομόλογο ή ένα νέο ευρωπαϊκό ταμείο για την αντιμετώπιση της ενεργειακής κρίσης. Το προτείνει η Επιτροπή, το ζητά η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα. Δεν είναι δυνατόν ο εθνικός εγωισμός και οι νεοφιλελεύθερες ιδεοληψίες ορισμένων κρατών μελών να φρενάρουν την ευρωπαϊκή ενοποίηση. Δεν είναι δυνατόν η Γερμανία να λέει „200 δισεκατομμύρια για το δικό μου εθνικό πρόγραμμα”. Δεν είναι δυνατόν να θέλουμε να έχουμε έναν πακτωμένο προϋπολογισμό του 1% για να αντιμετωπίσουμε όλες αυτές τις κρίσεις. Είμαστε ενωμένοι και διεκδικούμε σοβαρές βελτιώσεις στον προϋπολογισμό. Andor Deli (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Európa rendkívüli helyzetben van, ami rendkívüli megoldásokat kíván. A 23-as év nagyon nehéz lesz. Az orosz–ukrán háború minden tagállam gazdaságát megtépázza, a kilátások pedig cseppet sem rózsásak. Európa nem maradhat erős, és Ukrajnának sem tud hatékony támasza lenni, ha közben a gazdaságai meggyengülnek. Azonnali tűzoltásra van szükség. Ezért 23-ban legyen megkönnyítve minden tagállam számára a hozzáférés az őket megillető uniós forrásokhoz. A költségvetési és pénzügyi szabályokat adaptálni kell a jelenlegi rendkívüli helyzethez. Ideiglenesen teljesen fel kellene függeszteni a szokványos bürokratikus és politikai feltételeket. Az európai integráció egy 70 éves békeprojekt, így nem meglepő, hogy a költségvetési szabályozás eddig nem ismerte a háborús viszonyokat. De ennek immár vége. Európa gazdaságának sokkal gyorsabb és hatékonyabb támogatási rendszerre van szüksége a jelenleginél, ezen kellene dolgoznunk. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, caro Comissário, caro representante do Conselho, caras e caros colegas, o orçamento para 2023, segundo a nossa proposta, é um orçamento que ajuda as famílias e as empresas a responderem aos desafios, aos problemas que a invasão da Rússia na Ucrânia nos trouxe. Queremos mais crescimento, mais solidariedade interna. Não nos podemos também esquecer da ajuda humanitária e do apoio à Ucrânia e a outros países em África, por exemplo, e a solidariedade externa é essencial. Mas falta uma coisa, Sr. Comissário. Temos de ter um orçamento que ajude a que a Europa tenha força, seja uma Europa geopolítica, que tenha autonomia estratégica e por isso precisamos programas para a união da energia, do digital, da saúde, reforçar o mecanismo de proteção civil, termos segurança e defesa. É necessária uma revisão do Quadro Financeiro Plurianual, porque o nosso orçamento está a rebentar pelas costuras e não temos recursos suficientes para esta União Europeia autónoma de que precisamos. Tenho também um pedido para o Conselho. Vocês têm muitos recursos à vossa disposição. Seria criminoso perderem um único cêntimo do que está disponível. Só no Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014-2020, os Estados-Membros têm cerca de 100 mil milhões de EUR a executar até 2023. Têm de o fazer. Para além disso, é urgente que utilizem o Quadro Financeiro Plurianual atual. Os acordos de parceria têm zero de execução. As empresas precisam, as famílias necessitam. Os investigadores estão à espera dos recursos. As autarquias locais têm de avançar com investimentos que permitam, em conjunto, competitividade e coesão. Nils Ušakovs (S&D). – Madam President, I would like to talk today about the European Parliament's buildings policy. We see these days more and more kids all across Europe, from Latvia to Belgium, from Sweden to Portugal, many thousands of them coming to school with either empty lunchboxes or no money to buy themselves lunch in the school canteen. That's because their parents have to make a choice between paying their heating bills and paying for their children's food. It's a hard choice, actually. At the same time, this House keeps moving forward with the plans to tear down the iconic European Parliament Spaak building in Brussels, because it's 30 years old and is not energy efficient enough. Erecting new premises is already estimated to cost at least EUR 500 million. Taking into account skyrocketing prices, we can easily imagine that the final cost will be around EUR 1 billion. With EUR 1 billion, you can actually heat the Spaak building for roughly one century, irrespective of the level of energy efficiency in this building. My country, Latvia, recently celebrated the arrival of the first Next Generation EU payment – EUR 200 million. It's roughly 20% of the price of one planned new European Parliament building – one of many EP buildings. The European Union budget is not only about money and lines; it's about values. And what kind of values are we promoting, when we discuss spending EUR 1 billion on the new EP house in Brussels during the deepest crisis in recent history? What kind of message are we sending to European citizens during the first wartime winter, when we discuss creating a new hotel for MEPs in Strasbourg instead of the Madariaga building and new offices for MEPs and administration in the Osmose building via, frankly speaking, I would say a not-extremely-transparent deal with the private sector. Are we indeed talking about European values now? Therefore, I urge you to vote in favour of the amendment that calls for reconsideration of the Spaak building project and a stop to the Osmose project. Moritz Körner (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Herr Kommissar! Wir haben hier einen schwierigen Jahreshaushalt vor uns. Wir sehen die Energiekrise, wir sehen Inflation, und wir wissen, dass unsere Möglichkeiten im Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen begrenzt sind. Deswegen gibt es drei Prioritäten auch in diesem Haushalt. Zum einen: Wir müssen alles tun, um Inflation zu bekämpfen, wir müssen die Bürgerinnen und Bürger unterstützen. Und wir dürfen gleichzeitig aber auch die richtigen Projekte für die Zukunft nicht vergessen. Denn das wäre ein Fehler, sich in einer Krise nicht auch schon tatsächlich auf die Zukunft vorzubereiten. Jetzt haben wir hier eben eine große Rede der AfD, der ID-Fraktion, gehört. Das seien alles die falschen Prioritäten und man würde den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern ja gar nicht helfen. Das haben wir hier eben gehört. Deswegen will ich hier – weil wir das viel zu wenig machen – mal schauen: Was wurde denn konkret beantragt von der ID-Fraktion? Ich kann Ihnen das sagen: die gesamten Mittel für die Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft zu streichen – ohne Begründung. Die Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft hat alleine in ihren ersten sieben Monaten, in denen sie gearbeitet hat, 5,7 Milliarden Euro Schäden am EU-Haushalt und an den Haushalten der Mitgliedstaaten ermittelt. 576 Ermittlungen in nur sieben Monaten. Das wollen Sie nicht, das wollen Sie wegkürzen, wegstreichen. Ihnen geht es nicht um die Steuergelder der einfachen Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Ihnen geht es nicht darum, den Bürgern zu helfen. Sie spielen immer noch Ihre Spielchen. Das können wir auch sehen. Sie stellen ja diese Anträge. Das ist lächerlich. Lassen Sie das einfach. Alexandra Geese (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich würde auch gerne dem Kollegen von der AfD, der nicht genug Zeit hatte, hier noch ein paar Minuten zuzuhören, mal sagen, dass es nicht die EU ist, die hier den Krieg finanziert. Und es ist auch nicht die EU, die die Energiepreise in die Höhe treibt, die unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger gerade den Schlaf kosten. Es ist Wladimir Putin, der mit seinem verbrecherischen Angriffskrieg auf die Ukraine diese ganze Krise ausgelöst hat. Und das möchte ich gerne dem Kollegen sagen, der einer Partei angehört, deren Jugendorganisation sich 2016 mit der Jugendorganisation von Putins Partei verbündet hat. Und hier hinzukommen und solche Reden zu halten, das ist einfach eine Unverschämtheit! Putins brutaler Angriff ist eben nicht nur ein Angriff auf die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine, sondern ein Angriff auf unsere demokratische und freiheitliche Lebensform und auf eine regelbasierte globale Ordnung. Er zeigt: Demokratien sind friedlich und Autokratien beginnen Kriege. Und deswegen ist es so wichtig, dass wir hier unsere maximale Solidarität mit der Ukraine zum Ausdruck bringen, auch mit diesem Haushalt, und natürlich auch die Länder innerhalb und außerhalb Europas unterstützen, die unter den Folgen besonders zu leiden haben. Und deswegen finanzieren wir mit diesem Haushalt auch das AMIF-Programm für Länder, die Geflüchtete aufnehmen, und haben das auch aufgestockt, aber natürlich auch Mittel für humanitäre Hilfe. Die Verbrechen in der Ukraine dürfen uns aber nicht vergessen lassen, dass die größte Krise unseres Planeten unaufhaltsam voranschreitet, und das ist die Klima- und die Biodiversitätskrise. Die Überschwemmungen in Pakistan, aber auch die Dürre in Europa haben gezeigt, welche gravierenden Auswirkungen diese Krise bereits heute auf uns Menschen hat, wie schnell ganze Systeme zusammenbrechen. Man denke nur an die AKW in Frankreich, die aufgrund von Wassermangel zum Teil nicht mehr gekühlt werden können. Und deswegen ist es gut, dass wir hier Mittel für den Übergang zu sauberer Energie, für die Kreislaufwirtschaft, für die Klimawandelmitigation erhöhen, und auch eben für das LIFE-Programm und die Biodiversität. Denn beim Erhalt der Biodiversität, da geht es nicht um das Überleben eines einzelnen schönen Schmetterlings. Es geht um die Wahrung der wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen für die kommenden Generationen. Dafür müssen wir hier in Europa die Weichen stellen. Wir müssten es noch mehr tun, aber das geht schon mal genau in die richtige Richtung. Matteo Adinolfi (ID). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, il particolare momento storico in cui viviamo, con forti ripercussioni sul piano economico e sociale, ci obbliga a un'attenzione ancora maggiore ai temi legati alla gestione del bilancio comunitario. La sensibilità dei cittadini, gravati prima dal Covid e ora dal caro bollette, imporrebbe quel richiamo a una condotta etica già ribadita dalla Corte dei conti nella sua relazione speciale n. 13 del 2019. Purtroppo ciò non corrisponde alla realtà dei fatti. Negli ultimi giorni, in particolare, è tornata alla cronaca la vicenda dell'Agenzia dell'Unione europea per l'asilo. L'attuale Direttrice, Nina Gregori, incaricata solo tre anni fa di ripristinare la credibilità dell'Agenzia in seguito alle brusche dimissioni del suo predecessore, accusato di cattiva amministrazione e molestie al personale, è finita a sua volta al centro di una nuova inchiesta con accuse di nepotismo, irregolarità nella gestione finanziaria e insabbiamento di denunce interne. L'Agenzia, lo scorso gennaio, aveva ricevuto un nuovo nome e un nuovo mandato rafforzato per contribuire a unificare il modo in cui gli Stati membri gestiscono le richieste di asilo, ma dopo solo tre anni dal precedente scandalo, la storia sembra ripetersi con una nuova inchiesta dell'OLAF ai danni della Direttrice Gregori. Casi come questo, con un'Agenzia dell'Unione che conta più di 2 000 dipendenti e che finisce regolarmente sui rotocalchi e sui giornali per gli scandali che la coinvolgono piuttosto che per il proprio operato, minano la fiducia dei cittadini nelle istituzioni europee e, francamente signora Presidente, trovo inconciliabile questa cattiva gestione dei fondi dei nostri contribuenti durante la più dura crisi economica dalla Seconda guerra mondiale ad oggi. Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR). – Voorzitter, minister, commissaris, collega's, het komende budgettaire jaar is zeker een sleuteljaar. Dit als gevolg van de uitdagingen waarvoor de Unie staat. Ze zijn welbekend: de oorlog in Oekraïne, de gevolgen van COVID, geopolitieke verhoudingen, energie et cetera, et cetera. Maar 2023 is ook een sleuteljaar omdat het een scharnierjaar is in onze meerjarige financiële planning. Volgend jaar is het laatste jaar met betalingen uit de vorige planningsperiode en het jaar waarin de Commissie een uitgebreide evaluatie – liefst revisie – van het huidige financiële kader zal voorstellen. Maar de alsmaar stijgende prijzen zouden toch ook de goede huisvader in de EU wakker moeten maken. Zo is de EU op dit moment massaal aan het lenen op de financiële markten voor het herstelplan. De uitgaven daarvoor zijn – alhoewel aan bepaalde voorwaarden gebonden – toch redelijk goed gekend. Ik heb al herhaalde malen gewezen op de besparingen die kunnen bereikt worden door het leenritme in de nabije periode op te voeren, om zo gebruik te maken van de huidige, nog wat lagere rentevoeten. Verder zijn er de verhoogde EU-uitgaven volgend jaar als gevolg van het EU-herstelplan. De kwaliteit van die investeringen en hervormingen is uiteraard cruciaal. Maar ook hier zouden we toch echt moeten opletten om die inflatiespiraal waar we in terecht dreigen te komen niet verder te stimuleren. Het frontloaden van uitgaven naar aanleiding van urgente noden kan vanzelfsprekend lijken, maar in het kader van reeds algemeen stijgende prijzen kunnen verhoogde uitgaven ook een zeer negatieve invloed op dat prijsniveau uitoefenen. We moeten opletten dat we niet in een helse vicieuze cirkel terechtkomen. Sira Rego (The Left). – Señora presidenta, después de las lamentables palabras del señor Borrell justificando la política de construcción de muros en Europa, con sus fantasías de invasiones, jardines y junglas, es más sencillo entender el escandaloso aumento de la partida presupuestaria destinada al control migratorio. No deja de ser contradictorio que, ahora que sufrimos con dureza los efectos del cambio climático y de la crisis energética, y que aún nos estamos recuperando de la pandemia, veamos incrementar las partidas para la militarización de las fronteras, mientras se recortan las de las políticas climáticas o las de los programas de salud. Seguramente nos iría mejor si, en lugar de incrementar un 13 % los gastos para el control migratorio, esos recursos se destinaran a reforzar los servicios públicos, el empleo y la acogida digna en los lugares de llegada, a luchar contra el cambio climático, a desplegar un escudo social frente a la crisis energética o a promover la paz. Esperemos que, en estas tres semanas de trabajo, el resultado final se ciña más a las necesidades reales y evite alimentar los discursos de la extrema derecha. Clara Ponsatí Obiols (NI). – Madam President, as we move on to the next budget, it's important that we look at how the previous budgets have been used, but if we look at the use of Next Generation funds, what are the two pillars of fund management in Spain? Kafkaesque bureaucracy and obsessive centralism. That's not news. Let's look at the figures. While Spain is the main beneficiary of the Recovery and Resiliency Facility, 80% – 80%! – are yet to be completed. It's even worse than under the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework, when 76 were failed. This was rock-bottom, but now they are even better. Now, for SMEs, which are the core of the Catalan economy, only 9% of the assigned net resources were distributed in 2021. This outrageous inefficiency of the Spanish management of EU funds makes one wonder whether it is an active boycott. Who knows? What is sure is that Spanish bureaucrats and politicians just don't give a damn. They are just lost in translation. To them, Next Generation means no rush. Their job is to drive people in business crazy with endless red tape and paperwork until the next generation. Catalonia needs independence to get rid of this nightmare, and the European taxpayers would also be much better off. Siegfried Mureșan (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the budget is always one of the most important tools that we have to influence the lives of the people. This is valid at local level, at national level, and also at European level. The budget of the European Union should be a budget for investments, for cohesion, for making our economy more modern, cleaner, greener, more digital, and also for financing our traditional priorities: farmers, rural development and cohesion amongst European areas. This is the primary scope of the budget. However, unforeseen developments always occur. Since the beginning of this multiannual financial framework, we had to cope with the COVID pandemic, with the economic and social consequences generated by this pandemic, and now with the war in Ukraine, which means we have to help many host communities which have received hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees. We have to invest in reducing our dependency on Russian fossil fuels, in improving our efficiency, and we have to invest in renewables more and faster than we thought. The budget should never become just a budget of crisis, just a budget to react to unpredictable crises. It should still be allowed to finance investments. This is why the budget needs to be enough in terms of volume. This is also why, together as the Commission, as Parliament and as the Council, we will need to work on the revision of the multiannual financial framework, so that it can fund what we planned to fund before the crisis, but can also give answers to the people during times of crisis – because people expect us to react. Congratulations to the general rapporteur for making the most of this tight budget under difficult circumstances. Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Presidente do Conselho, Senhor Comissário, não passaram ainda dois anos desde que concluímos a negociação do QFP 2021-2027 e as suas insuficiências são já muitas. Estávamos confrontados com a COVID. Construímos uma resposta europeia ancorada no orçamento da União Europeia. Temos agora uma nova realidade: a agressão da Rússia à Ucrânia. Agora, se queremos uma resposta europeia ao impacto da guerra, ao aumento dos preços da energia, ao aumento das taxas de juro e à insegurança alimentar, mitigar o impacto social, criar um pacote de solidariedade para o inverno, como? Criar um instrumento do tipo SURE? Se queremos capacidade de reação a consequências imediatas da guerra, apoio aos refugiados, distribuição justa dos encargos entre os Estados-Membros, apoio aos países da vizinhança; se queremos construir uma autonomia estratégica da União Europeia, desde logo autonomia energética; se queremos a ciência e a inovação a contribuírem para estes objetivos, para acelerar o investimento ambiental e socialmente sustentável em energias renováveis, em medidas de eficiência e poupança energética, em tecnologias sustentáveis que apoiem uma política industrial compatível com os objetivos de Paris; se queremos manter o bom funcionamento do mercado único europeu e impedir a sua fragmentação; se queremos dar continuidade às propostas que a Presidente Von der Leyen nos apresentou no debate sobre o estado da União: sem uma revisão do QFP, podemos querer, mas não conseguiremos dar resposta. O debate sobre o orçamento de 2023 está a mostrar-nos a necessidade e a urgência de uma revisão abrangente do atual QFP e a posição expressa aqui pelo Conselho, no início deste debate, não nos deixa descansados. Há ainda um longo caminho a percorrer nesta negociação do Orçamento 2023, se queremos coerência entre ambição política e capacidade orçamental. Charles Goerens (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, le budget de l'année 2023 est tout sauf un exercice de routine. En effet, le contexte politique et géopolitique actuel nous place devant des défis inédits. Il s'agit ni plus ni moins de la question de savoir si nous voulons rester en première ligue. Même dans les affaires a priori européennes, nous ne sommes pas toujours les premiers à intervenir, à proposer des solutions, bref, à jouer le rôle qui devrait être le nôtre et nous revenir tout naturellement. Les États-Unis, il faut le reconnaître, sont, budgétairement parlant, de loin, le premier soutien pour l'Ukraine. Cela ne veut pas dire que l'Union européenne ne fait rien. Au contraire, ce que fait l'Europe, c'est bien, c'est utile et indispensable, c'est à notre honneur, mais ce n'est pas assez. La question qui se pose à nous est la suivante: serons-nous encore à même d'apporter le soutien suffisant à l'Ukraine lui permettant de se défendre contre l'agresseur russe au cas où la direction politique des États-Unis ne serait plus la même que celle de 2022? Les exercices 2023, 2024 et 2025 seront donc d'une importance capitale. Si nous voulons répondre à cette question centrale, il nous reste très peu de temps. La révision à mi-parcours du cadre financier pluriannuel – que nous, Parlement européen, sommes les seuls à réclamer à ce stade –, devrait être le point de départ pour une réorientation de la politique européenne et se traduire dans des choix budgétaires conséquents, aussi bien au niveau du volume que de la qualité, pour le moyen et le long terme. Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Die Klimakrise, die Frage der Energiesicherheit, die Naturschutzkrise, die Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, ökonomische und soziale Folgen von diesem fürchterlichen Angriffskrieg durch Wladimir Putin – dies sind nur einige der großen Krisen und Herausforderungen, vor denen wir oder in denen wir als Europäische Union stehen. Und wir werden alle nicht müde darin, dies immer wieder zu betonen – wir Abgeordneten, die EU-Kommission oder aber auch die Mitgliedstaaten. Gleichzeitig erleben wir aber auch, dass ein großer Teil der Institutionen in der Europäischen Union nicht dazu bereit ist, daraus die richtigen haushaltspolitischen Konsequenzen zu ziehen. Denn die Wahrheit ist, dass unsere Jahresbudgets gar nicht in der Lage dazu sind, mit diesen großen Krisen zu hantieren, genug Flexibilität für die großen Herausforderungen zu haben. Und deshalb möchte ich die EU-Kommission auffordern, die Revision des Finanzrahmens möglichst zeitnah Anfang des nächsten Jahres vorzulegen. Und ich möchte die Mitgliedstaaten bitten, darauf konstruktiv zu reagieren und nicht wieder Abwehrkämpfe zu halten. Ansonsten werden ihre Sonntagsreden unglaubwürdig. France Jamet (ID). – Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs, les années passent, les budgets passent et, invariablement, se ressemblent tous. Toujours prompte à en demander plus aux États, plus à leurs citoyens, l'Union européenne veut des sous, des sous et encore des sous. Tout ça pour quoi? Moins de souveraineté, moins d'entreprises, moins d'agriculteurs, de pêcheurs, d'emplois, de service public, moins de croissance, moins d'énergie et moins de pouvoir d'achat. En revanche, plus de bureaucratie, plus d'ingérence et une classe moyenne qui s'effondre. Sans oublier, cela n'a échappé à personne, une crise énergétique majeure, crise énergétique dont certains voudraient nous faire accroire qu'elle est le seul fait du conflit ukrainien. Mais la réalité, en France notamment, c'est qu'elle est due au démantèlement de notre filière nucléaire organisé par Bruxelles et à des décisions politiques qui vont plonger demain des millions de familles et de personnes dans l'indigence et le froid. Alors, l'UE est-elle moins efficace parce qu'elle manque de moyens? Non. Elle atteint au contraire son but ultime: mondialisation, délocalisation, dérégulation, uberisation de notre société; et immigration de masse, sans laquelle il n'y aurait pas eu de Samuel Paty, sans laquelle il n'y aurait pas eu de Lola. Outre le laxisme et la docilité du gouvernement de M. Macron, le déclassement et l'ensauvagement de nos sociétés, c'est vous. Nous ne voterons pas un sou de plus pour cette Europe-là. Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Panie Ministrze! Chcę podnieść trzy problemy związane z tym budżetem. Pierwszy to moim zdaniem niedostateczny poziom płatności. Otóż realizujemy ostatni rok płatności związanych z poprzednią perspektywą finansową, a płatności w tym budżecie zostały zaprojektowane bardzo konserwatywnie. Co więcej, ten list korygujący zmniejszył tę kwotę wolną z pięciu i pół miliarda do niewiele ponad trzech. Co jeszcze zawęża pole działania. Niewypłacalność, Panie Komisarzu, to nie jest najlepsza reklama dla projektu europejskiego. Oczywiście mówię o potencjalnej niewypłacalności, ale mieliśmy te złe doświadczenia z lat 2014-2016 i trzeba o nich pamiętać. Druga kwestia to inflacja. Ona przekroczyła już 10%. Pewnie na wiosnę przyszłego roku będzie o parę punktów procentowych wyższa. W projekcie dotyczy to wszystkich wydatków. W projekcie budżetu tego nie widać. No i wreszcie ostatnia rzecz - pomoc dla Ukrainy. Ona nawet po tym liście korygującym jest absolutnie niedoszacowania, a już pomoc dla krajów sąsiadujących z Ukrainą na przyjmowanie uchodźców jest wręcz symboliczna. Ja tylko chcę zwrócić uwagę, że Polska do tej pory wyłożyła na tę pomoc prawie 9 mld euro, a otrzymujemy wsparcie zupełnie symboliczne. W 2023 roku zwyczajnie tego tolerować nie można. João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, aí está mais um orçamento insuficiente para responder às necessidades com que se confrontam os povos e os trabalhadores. A proposta para o Orçamento de 2023, quando considerados os valores previstos para a inflação para este ano, representará uma diminuição real em relação ao orçamento de 2022. Situação agravada nas dotações para a política de coesão, pescas, agricultura e desenvolvimento rural, que, inalteradas e condicionadas por via dos seus regulamentos, ficarão aquém para responder à agudização da situação socioeconómica que enfrentam pequenos e médios produtores, micro, pequenas e médias empresas. Se para estes a resposta é curta, daqui denunciamos a opção pelo aumento das dotações para o militarismo e a guerra. Avançámos propostas que pretendem mitigar estas limitações, entre outras, o aumento das verbas para os fundos da coesão e os apoios à produção no FAEMPA e no FEAGA, a criação de um POSEI de transportes para responder aos problemas das regiões ultraperiféricas, apoios aos serviços públicos e à reversão da liberalização e recuperação do controlo público do setor da energia - aí estão algumas de muitas propostas para responder aos problemas com que os povos se confrontam. Mislav Kolakušić (NI). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovani kolege, dragi građani, radi zaštite proračuna Europske unije, danas, s ovog mjesta, pozivam da odmah raskinemo ugovor o nabavki cjepiva protiv COVID-a 19 u vrijednosti od 71 milijarde eura. Taj ugovor je upravo pod kriminalnom istragom europskog javnog tužiteljstva. Vjerovali ili ne, Europska komisija naručila je 4,6 milijardi doza za manje od 450 milijuna stanovnika Europske unije. Ovako izgledaju stranice, odnosno više desetaka stranica, ugovora kojim se namjerava potrošiti sedamdeset jedna milijarda. To nisu stranice nebitne. Te stranice se odnose na kvalitetu cjepiva, na cijene, odgovornost proizvođača za štete nastale primjenom cjepiva i za opoziv cjepiva. Moramo raskinuti štetni ugovor odmah. Presidente. – Grazie, ricordo ai colleghi che non è consentito mostrare materiale in Aula. Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Madam President, I think that it's completely clear that for the past two years, Europe has really been deciding on its priorities in unprecedented circumstances in which we had to tackle the economic and social consequences of the pandemic. Now, this year, the circumstances under which we are negoitating the annual budget for the next year are even more dramatic. Europe gave a clear answer to the unprovoked, brutal Russian aggression and took a stance together with the brave people of Ukraine. We all feel, we all see that a new and different Europe is being shaped by the war and that a new Europe is emerging, one that has to focus on key priorities and sound policies. This definitely means focusing on securing energy supplies, continued investment in security and defence and support for humanitarian aid, but also preventing the new migration crisis. The announced joint procurement act for the European defence industry is the right incentive for cooperation between the Member States, as well as for the industry that has been mobilised like never before. Likewise, with the European chips act, we have the possibility to increase Europe's independence with regard to semiconductor production in times when global supply chains are significantly disrupted. But all these efforts require an appropriate budgetary architecture. They all require the revision of the MFF. This is something that is urgent, this is something that is crucial. In the end, this can only be achieved if Parliament is united in its message for this, but also for this annual budget. I hope that, together with our colleagues from the Commission, but also from the Council, we can continue in building a resilient and secure Europe. Evin Incir (S&D). – Madam President, as the S&D shadow rapporteur for the AFET and DEVE opinions, I would like to stress the importance of continuing to be a strong voice for democracy, human rights, rule of law and equality, especially in these times of backlash in the EU and beyond. It is important that the EU enhances its financial support for international partner organisations and ensure contribution is also made in core resources. It is important we step up our struggle to reach the Sustainable Development Goals. We have only eight years left until 2030. The Agenda 2030, with its 17 SDGs, contains our tools to save humanity. We need to conduct a feminist foreign and development policy in defence and support of women and girls worldwide. The bravery women and girls have shown, among other places, in Iran, in Afghanistan, and different parts of Kurdistan demands our full support. The Middle East and North Africa are regions in need of extra support in order to turn backlash into progress. Therefore, the support for UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority is imperative. Putin's heinous aggression in Ukraine is a hard reminder of that. We can't take respect for international law and our multilateral systems for granted. We must defend it everywhere and at all times. Dacian Cioloș (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, pe două puncte aș vrea să insist. În primul rând, Cadrul european financiar multianual pe care l-am adoptat în 2020 nu a fost creat pentru a face față crizelor succesive cu care ne confruntăm: pandemie, război, inflație ridicată, prețuri mari la energie, refugiați, insecuritate alimentară și criză umanitară. Avem o flexibilitate a bugetului care este permisă, dar ea nu este suficientă. Și deci cred că trebuie să găsim un nou echilibru între predictibilitatea resurselor, pe de o parte, dar și capacitatea Uniunii de a interveni financiar la timp. De aceea, e nevoie să ne concentrăm acum pe o revizuire a Cadrului financiar multianual și să găsim acel echilibru delicat care trebuie atins de buget. Cred că pentru perioada următoare trebuie să investim și să investim în tineri și în competențele lor, în tranziția industriei și în incluziunea socială. În al doilea rând, aș vrea să atrag atenția că suntem la sfârșitul lui 2022 și în continuare multe state membre nu au adoptat programele operaționale pentru coeziune sau planurile strategice pentru agricultură și de multe ori, sunt aceleași state membre care se plâng că Uniunea Europeană nu își ajută suficient cetățenii. Aș vrea deci să atrag atenția asupra faptului că responsabilitatea nu e doar a Uniunii, ci și a statelor membre, pentru ca banii europeni să poată să ajungă la cetățenii europeni. Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE). – Gerbiama pirmininke, Komisijos nary, Tarybos atstove, gerbiami kolegos, mes galime daug kalbėti apie būtinas priemones krizei įveikti, bet jei tam nėra numatyta lėšų, vargu, ar pasieksime rezultatą. Rengiant daugiametę finansinę programą niekas negalvojo, kad užpuls pandemija, kad Rusija pradės karą, kad smogs infliacija, drastiškai pakils energijos kainos. Todėl akivaizdu, kad 2023 metų biudžetas visa tai turi atspindėti. Žemės ūkis suvaidino strateginį vaidmenį, užtikrinus maisto tiekimą visų minėtų krizių metu, jo gyvybingumas yra prioritetas. Turime kuo skubiau panaikinti diskriminacinę tiesioginių išmokų skyrimo tvarką, visomis priemonėmis remti jaunuosius ūkininkus, suteikti visiems prieigą prie technologijų ir tinkamos energetikos, investuoti į biologinės įvairovės apsaugą. Be maisto nebus ir Europos, todėl bet kokie siūlymai mažinti lėšas šiai sričiai yra nesuprantami ir nepateisinami. Patricia Chagnon (ID). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, je voudrais à cette tribune dénoncer une pratique qui me paraît relever d'une forfaiture budgétaire. Je mesure tout à fait la dureté de ce terme, mais il ne m'en vient pas d'autre à l'esprit. Le budget est au service des habitants, des filières économiques, des collectivités territoriales et, oui, au service de l'avenir. Cet acte, vous le détournez en transformant le budget européen en moyen de pression politique sur les États. Vous ne menez pas une politique budgétaire, mais vous menez une guerre idéologique contre les opposants de votre vision politique. Le chantage financier contre la Hongrie procède de cette méthode contestable. Et que dire des menaces de Mme von der Leyen adressées aux Italiens à la veille de leur élection quand elle prévient: „Si vous votez mal, on pourrait vous suspendre les versements des fonds européens”. Vos manœuvres désespérément autoritaires et impérialistes n'arrêteront pas la marche qui s'est engagée partout en Europe. Bien au contraire, elle s'accélère. Rien n'arrêtera les peuples des nations libres de l'Europe pour reprendre leur destin en main. Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR). – Voorzitter, geachte commissaris, beste collega's, het is toch te gek voor woorden dat de Europese Unie komend jaar opnieuw vele miljoenen wil betalen voor problematische Palestijnse schoolboeken – boeken waarin terrorisme wordt verheerlijkt, wordt aangezet tot haat en geweld en antisemitisme welig tiert. De Commissie laat het allemaal gebeuren. Ze heeft de geldkraan richting de Palestijnse Autoriteit recent gewoon weer helemaal opengezet en stelt daarbij aan de schoolboeken geen enkele voorwaarde. Ik vind dat onbegrijpelijk. Bestrijding van antisemitisme behoort een topprioriteit te zijn, ook in ons externe beleid. Nu de Commissie het laat afweten, moeten wij als Parlement onze verantwoordelijkheid nemen. Als ECR-Fractie stellen wij daarom voor 30 miljoen euro in de reserve te plaatsen en het geld pas vrij te geven als de problemen met de schoolboeken zijn opgelost. Ik roep u dan ook op om amendement 823 van de Begrotingscommissie te verwerpen en ons amendement 415 te steunen. Laten we de vrede bevorderen en het haatzaaien stoppen. Γιώργος Γεωργίου (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, η ύφεση σπάει κόκκαλα. Σείεται όλη η Ευρώπη από τις κινητοποιήσεις των εργατών. Ακρίβεια, ενέργεια και ένας εφιαλτικός πληθωρισμός που εξανεμίζει το εργατικό εισόδημα. Δίνετε, βέβαια, μέσα από τον προϋπολογισμό κάποια ψίχουλα για τα φτωχά νοικοκυριά. Η αλήθεια είναι, όμως, ότι τη μερίδα του λέοντος τη μοιράζονται οι πολυεθνικές των φαρμάκων και της ενέργειας. Εμείς θέλουμε έναν άλλον προϋπολογισμό· έναν προϋπολογισμό ο οποίος στην πράξη θα προστατεύει την ευημερία των πολιτών, θα προστατεύει τους μισθούς και τα εργατικά δικαιώματα και θα λαμβάνει υπόψη τις ανάγκες που δημιουργούνται, τις νέες ανάγκες στην παιδεία, στην υγεία, στη σίτιση, στη στέγαση. Γιατί —για να είμαστε ειλικρινείς— δεν έχουν όλοι τα ίδια προβλήματα. Γιατί κάποιοι κερδίζουν από τον πόλεμο, τον οποίον επιτέλους πρέπει να σταματήσετε. Όχι σε άλλη στρατιωτικοποίηση του Ουκρανικού. Όχι σε νέες πολιτικές λιτότητας. Και, επιτέλους κύριε Επίτροπε, φορολογήστε τα υπερκέρδη των πολυεθνικών. Τολμήστε μία φορά —μπορείτε; Jan Olbrycht (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Panie Ministrze! Rok 2023 jest trzecim rokiem wieloletniej perspektywy finansowej. W normalnej sytuacji byłby to już rok bardzo poważnego zaawansowania w wydatkach. Niestety warunki zewnętrzne spowodowały, że wydatki się będą kumulowały w drugiej części, a więc rozpocznie się to zapewne w roku 2023. W związku z tym zakładamy, że na to będą potrzebne większe fundusze. Na dodatek pojawiają się zupełnie nowe sytuacje, nieprzewidziane do tej pory, i zapewne będzie tak, że Komisja, podobnie jak w roku 2022, będzie reagowała na nadzwyczajne sytuacje w Europie i na świecie. Nie możemy wykluczyć, że pojawią się nowe zobowiązania, że pojawią się nowe obietnice, że pojawią się nowe deklaracje wydatków, w szczególności jeżeli chodzi o kwestie energetyczne czy kwestie dotyczące wojny. Jeżeli tak będzie, to budżet musi być przygotowany na tego typu działania. Musi być bardziej elastyczny. Musi dać możliwość szybkiego reagowania i dostosowania się do sytuacji. Dlatego też, tak jak mówili moi koledzy, jestem absolutnie za rewizją budżetu i chciałbym na ręce pana komisarza wyrazić zadowolenie, że po raz pierwszy w dokumencie dotyczącym planu komisji pojawia się sformułowanie rewizja. Było to dla mnie miłym zaskoczeniem, bo do tej pory Komisja używała tylko sformułowania przegląd. VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND Vizepräsident Alex Agius Saliba (S&D). – Sur President, filwaqt illi l-Ewropa kienet qed tirkupra mill-kriżi tal-pandemija, sabet ma' wiċċha numru ta' kriżijiet oħrajn: minn dik tal-gwerra, inflazzjoni għolja, prezzijiet esaġerati tal-enerġija u tal-ikel, diżokkupazzjoni li kompliet tiżdied, faqar u inugwaljanzi soċjali li splodew. U waqt dawn l-isfidi kollha, irridu nibqgħu nindirizzaw l-isfidi tat-tibdil fil-klima u t-tranżizzjoni diġitali. Din is-sitwazzjoni ser timpatta b'mod negattiv il-qagħda soċjali u ekonomika tal-Unjoni Ewropea u l-aktar li ser iħossu dan l-impatt negattiv ser ikunu ċ-ċittadini tagħna li ser jaraw il-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħhom tonqos. U għalkemm qed naraw dan kollu jseħħ quddiem għajnejna, għadna xorta waħda m'aħniex preparati. Il-baġit tas-sena d-dieħla huwa kruċjali sabiex jagħti soluzzjonijiet għal dawn l-isfidi. Din m'hijiex sitwazzjoni ta' business as usual; għaldaqstant irid isir sforz biex ngħinu lil dawk l-aktar vulnerabli. Għaldaqstant fid-dawl tar-rata ta' inflazzjoni għolja li qed nesperjenzaw, nappellalkom sabiex tagħtu s-sapport tagħkom lil żewġ emendi li ħa nkunu qegħdin immexxu 'l quddiem bħala grupp tas-Soċjalisti u d-Demokratiċi, li ser ikomplu jsaħħu d-djalogu soċjali u jagħtu aktar għodod lill-imsieħba soċjali, sabiex ikunu fuq in-naħa tal-ħaddiema f'dawn iż-żminijiet diffiċli. Barry Andrews (Renew). – Mr. President, Commissioner, as a member of the Development Committee, I wish to express my deep dissatisfaction at the wholly inadequate allocation of humanitarian aid funding for 2023. I do so in the context of the vast increase in humanitarian need: a further 40 million people in humanitarian need this year alone. I do so in the context of the many resolutions that we have passed expressing our solidarity with the women and girls of Afghanistan, with the floods in Pakistan, with the humanitarian consequences of the crisis in Ukraine. And I do so in the context of your own commitment, Commissioner, on 7 June, that the amending letter would be to better account for the impact of the war on humanitarian needs and food security. And yet the proposal still stands at less than the 2022 allocation despite those factors. I recognise the difficulties that the rapporteurs have had to deal with. I recognise the collaborative approach of Mr Ștefănuță, and I really, really welcome that, and I acknowledge the difficulties here. And I know that everyone loses in budget negotiations, but if we're not careful, people will lose their lives because of this allocation. Eugen Jurzyca (ECR). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, pri riešení dnešnej energetickej a inflačnej krízy by nemalo byť tabu ani šetrenie v rozpočte Únie. Ani občan v ťažkých časoch nemôže riešiť svoje problémy bez šetrenia vo svojom rozpočte. Preto by sme časť zdrojov potrebných na zvládnutie krízy mali prioritne presúvať z neefektívnych fondov tam, kde cielene pomôžeme zraniteľným. Priestor na efektívnejšie využitie verejných prostriedkov máme. Na neefektívnosť vo viacerých fondoch Európsky dvor audítorov dlhodobo upozorňuje. Aj občan v ťažkých časoch hľadá možnosti na zvýšenie príjmov. Aj my by sme sa mali znova viac zamerať na skutočné zdroje hospodárskeho rastu. Akoby sme na ne rezignovali počas rokov spoliehania sa na lacné peniaze emisnej banky a na verejné dlhy. Andrey Novakov (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, I don't remember the last time when we adopted the budgeting piece for an ordinary time. If somebody remembers, please let me know. But I do not. And it looks like this is the new normal. I welcome the efforts to spend the unused 40 billion to support families and small businesses across Europe with these difficult times. I think we have a very important role as Members of this Parliament, and the role is to tell the story to a bus driver in Germany, to a farmer in Spain or a grocery store owner in Bulgaria. What is the European budget doing for them? In order to tell the story, we need a key element of this proposal. How many families will be supported? With how much per family? Plus how many small businesses will be supported? For what? These are all questions that we seek answers to, and in order to be more efficient, we have to know. We often debate here about the lack of energy resources, a lack of gas, a lack of liquidity in our funds. But we don't speak about the lack of trust in the Union. So in order to be more effective, we have to explain in a very simple manner to our voters what is this Union doing with this budget for every single citizen in times of war? Eero Heinäluoma (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, ensi vuoden budjetti ei todellakaan ole tavanomainen. Venäjän käynnistämä hyökkäyssota Ukrainaa vastaan on asettanut niin Euroopan unionin kuin sen kansalaisetkin poikkeuksellisten haasteiden eteen. Unionin on tuettava Ukrainaa niin kauan kuin on tarpeen. Samalla tiedämme, että sodan seuraukset – korkea inflaatio, kohonneet energiahinnat ja toimitusvarmuuteen liittyvät riskit – heijastuvat myös Eurooppaan. Tämäkin on otettava huomioon lähiaikojen EU-päätöksissä. Talouskriisi koettelee myös jäsenvaltioita ja kaikkia EU-kansalaisia. On tärkeätä, että EU-budjetissa vastataan näihin haasteisiin ja laitetaan menoja tärkeysjärjestykseen. Osaaminen, tutkimus sekä Ukraina tarvitsevat rahoitusta. Samalla parlamentin on syytä näyttää esimerkkiä ja olla pidättyväinen omissa menoissaan, nyt ei ole suurisuuntaisten rakennushankkeiden aika. Андрей Слабаков (ECR). – Г-н Председател, за мое съжаление все повече се убеждавам, че Европейският съюз цели да създаде общество от необразовани и ниско културни хора, които да се поддават лесно на манипулации и на лъжи. Иначе не мога да си обясня факта, че Комисията предлага бюджет за „Творческа Европа” и „Еразъм +”, който е с 20% по-малък в следващите от предните две години. Културата и образованието пострадаха най-тежко, твърдя го със сигурност, и продължават да се възстановяват бавно и трудно след Ковид пандемията. Творците и изпълнителите останаха без никакво препитание, учениците загубиха повече от година в обучение от дистанция. Сега пандемия няма, но има инфлация и енергийна криза, проблеми, за които е отговорна точно Комисията, според мен. В такъв момент трябва да се погрижим точно най-уязвимите сектори да бъдат спасени. Както обикновено обаче, винаги първо се орязват парите за култура и образование. Въпреки опитите да коригираме този абсурд и пренебрежителен подход, парите за 2023 г. са вече направо смешни. За пореден път европейските политици обясниха ...... (председателят отнема думата на оратора) Angelika Winzig (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Minister, Herr Kommissar! Ich kann durchaus einigen Einsparungsvorschlägen etwas abgewinnen, aber mit Sicherheit nicht bei Horizon in Rubrik 1. Europas Zukunft hängt von vier strategischen Eckpfeilern ab: Forschung, Entwicklung, Innovation und Digitalisierung. Ich weiß, dass viele hier mit Wirtschaft und mit Technologie nichts anfangen können. Aber denken Sie an den Green Deal, der nur mit neuen Forschungsergebnissen und mit neuen Technologien überhaupt implementiert werden kann. Nur 17 % der globalen Forschungs- und Entwicklungsausgaben stammen aus der Europäischen Union. Und auch bei den Investitionen in unsere Unternehmen haben wir noch Aufholbedarf. Hier liegen wir prozentuell hinter den USA, hinter China, hinter Japan und hinter Südkorea. Gerade jetzt, in einer Zeit des Wandels, gilt es, sich stark im globalen Wettbewerb zu positionieren und auch unsere Führung, unseren wirtschaftlichen Führungsanspruch zu untermauern. Daher muss der Fokus bei den Programmen liegen, die Europa im geopolitischen Umfeld mit Sicherheit stärken. Elisabetta Gualmini (S&D). – Mr President, the general EU budget for 2023 is a powerful political tool. There is a lot of politics inside, not only economics. In times of skyrocketing inflation and economic recession, politics has to deliver. If politics does not deliver, we will have explosive populist upsurges, anti-system protests and nationalist outcries. During the pandemic, we were able to basically double the budget of the EU: with Next Generation EU, SURE, REACT-EU, we got another EUR 1 000 billion – exactly like the multiannual financial framework. We were kind of magic. Now we have a similar challenge with the energy crisis. Increasing resources for Erasmus+, the Just Transition, is good news, but it is not enough. We need fresh money coming from new own resources to provide on-the-spot responses to gas deprivation and energy prices. We cannot lose the credit we had during the pandemic. We cannot lose the battle against inequalities and social despair. We cannot lose face in front of our people's expectations. We simply cannot. Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, σήμερα για εμένα είναι μια ιδιαίτερη στιγμή. Είναι η τελευταία φορά που βρίσκομαι σε τούτο εδώ το βήμα —το πλέον δημοκρατικό, φιλελεύθερο, αντιπροσωπευτικό, πλουραλιστικό βήμα, όχι μόνο της Ευρώπης αλλά και ολόκληρης της ανθρωπότητας— για να σχολιάσω τα του προϋπολογισμού του 2023. Για 8 ολόκληρα χρόνια βρισκόμουν σε αυτό το βήμα για να εξάρω πραγματικά τις προσπάθειες του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και της Επιτροπής Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού. Σήμερα, το μόνο που έχω να απευθύνω από τα βάθη της καρδιάς μου είναι ένα τεράστιο ευχαριστώ σε όλους τους αγαπητούς φίλους και συναδέλφους που μαζί, μέσα από την Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού, δώσαμε μάχες και αγώνες για έναν πιο κοινωνικό, αναπτυξιακό, ανθρώπινο προϋπολογισμό της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης· για τους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες, για τους λαούς της Ευρώπης. Ένα τεράστιο ευχαριστώ για τη συνεργασία, για τη συμπαράσταση που είχα όλα αυτά τα χρόνια από εξαίρετους συναδέλφους, αρχής γενομένης από τον πρόεδρο της Επιτροπής Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού. Θέλω επίσης να εξάρω τη στήριξη και τη συνεργασία των συναδέλφων μου από το Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα, ιδιαιτέρως του αγαπητού μου συναδέλφου και συντονιστή, José Manuel Fernandes, και να ευχαριστήσω όλους και όλες ξεχωριστά στην Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού. Όμως, ευρισκόμενος εδώ, θέλω να εξάρω τις τεράστιες προσπάθειες και να τονίσω ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο έχουν μεγάλη τύχη, διότι στο τιμόνι του προϋπολογισμού της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης βρίσκεται ο αγαπητός Επίτροπος Johannes Hahn, ο οποίος πραγματικά συμβάλλει τα μέγιστα για να πραγματοποιήσουμε τα οράματα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Ευχαριστώ πραγματικά από καρδιάς ιδιαίτερα και εσάς, κύριε Αντιπρόεδρε, για την όλη συνεργασία. Δυστυχώς, είναι η τελευταία παρέμβασή μου εδώ, όμως θα έχω την ευχέρεια και την ευκαιρία από τα νέα μου καθήκοντα και τη νέα θέση στο Ευρωπαϊκό Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο να συμβάλλω στην υλοποίηση των οραμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου. President. – I left you a few segments since this was your last speech. But I know you will quite often in this House, so I wish you many happy returns. Ilan De Basso (S&D). – Herr talman! Det finns en enorm kraft i vår budget, och tillsammans med medlemsstaterna kan vi definitivt göra skillnad för vanliga människor. Men då måste vi orka prioritera – och det avgör på vems och vilkas sida vi faktiskt står. Ojämlikheten fortsätter att plåga vår kontinent, och vi får inte låta dem som redan är förfördelade stå tillbaka också i denna kris. Ty de rika har alltid råd med smöret. EU spelar en viktig roll. Gemensamma satsningar på energi, forskning – de kommer att underlätta längre fram. Men det tar tid. Här och nu är det trots allt medlemsstaterna som måste ta ansvar för dem som har det svårast. Med en ny svensk regering som sluter avtal på slott, är jag minst sagt orolig. Ivern att minska anställningstryggheten och utförsäkra sjuka går före att hjälpa vanligt folk. „Slottsregeringen” finns till för de egna. För att samhället ska hållas ihop måste alla hjälpas upp ur krisen i både Sverige och EU. Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, between 2021 and 2024, the European Union will allocate over EUR 1 billion in funding to the Palestinian Authority. Fine, yet a proposal to condition just EUR 20 million of that funding is refused over and over by this House. I am referring, honourable colleagues, to the initiative which seeks to remove anti-Semitic references and incitement to violence propagated in the textbooks of Palestinian children. The EU is very clear that it has a zero-tolerance approach to anti-Semitism, and I would like to think that this is an approach that we all share. The Georg Eckert Institute study is clear that Palestinian textbooks do in fact contain anti-Semitic references. So I ask you, colleagues: why is it that a majority of this House refuses to condition EUR 20 million of the EUR 1 billion funding for the Palestinian Authority on removing the anti-Semitic references from the textbooks of Palestinian children? It is utterly perplexing that we failed to take this action. Funding conditionality is a routine feature of EU programmes. We condition commitments on a host of indicators from gender-mainstreaming to sustainability. So why is funding conditioning to fight anti-Semitism resisted so heavily? This is a question I put to colleagues ahead of the vote on the budget, and it is a question that I will continue to put in the times to come. Jonás Fernández (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, el debate que estamos teniendo hoy, y que repetimos cada año, sin duda es relevante, es interesante y alinea los intereses del Parlamento Europeo y, con ello, la representación de los ciudadanos. Pero es cierto también que en estos debates siempre echamos de menos los cambios estructurales que debemos acometer en el presupuesto de la Unión y, especialmente, después de haber emitido cientos de millones de euros en deuda. Una deuda que tenemos que repagar en los próximos años. Y, aquí, el debate de los presupuestos entronca con la discusión sobre los recursos propios. Algunos recursos propios están en camino: hay iniciativas legislativas, esperemos que en trílogo brevemente, para levantar esa financiación que nos permita amortizar la deuda. Pero hay otros que siguen pendientes. Algunos de ellos son: la tasa digital, que está en el aire después de los acuerdos de la OCDE; la necesidad de revisar algún tipo de imposición en el mercado único, vinculado al acuerdo también de la OCDE; y, quizás, también las contribuciones solidarias del sector energético que hemos aprobado, que hemos impulsado a través de esta Comisión y del Consejo, y que deberíamos, de alguna manera, ayudar a consolidar en el presupuesto comunitario. Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Spoštovani gospod komisar, spoštovane kolegice, kolegi, poročevalci. Proračun za vsako leto je najpomembnejši politični dokument, ki ga sprejemamo in mora hkrati slediti viziji, razvoju in pa tudi odgovarjati na trenutne razmere, ki se pojavijo. Zagotovo je leto 2023 nepredvidljivo leto, ki bo postreglo zagotovo še z veliko presenečenji. Zato je prav, da je proračun, ki ga pripravljamo, do določene mere fleksibilen in da odgovori na te izzive, ki jih povzroča vojna v Ukrajini. Najprej pomoč Ukrajini v njenem boju proti agresorju, po drugi strani pomoč tudi državam, ki so sprejele begunce kot posledica te ukrajinske vojne, hkrati pa širom po Evropi odpravljanje posledic, ki jih ta vojna povzroča. Poznamo problem energetske krize, ki ustvarja energetsko revščino, stisko pri ljudeh, povzroča padec gospodarske moči, konkurenčnosti naše ekonomije. Zato je tudi potrebno na to najti odgovore. Inflacija je poseben problem. Ob vseh teh izzivih pa moramo seveda paziti tudi na to, da bomo ohranili te tako imenovane klasične politike, kot sta kohezijska politika in kmetijska politika. To sta politiki, ki izpolnjujeta najbolj dva principa: princip solidarnosti in subsidiarnosti. In ti dve politiki ljudje občutijo. Zato moramo narediti te politike enostavne in paziti, da bo črpanje teh sredstev v prihodnje še bolje. Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Mr President, as Vice-President in charge of Parliament's budget, I would like to reaffirm our political will to negotiate constructively with other European institutions to reach a budget that can respond to our political priorities in these challenging times. But as Commissioner Hahn rightly said, the budgetary cuts proposed by the Council don't even respect its own political priorities and this is not acceptable. From the point of view of Parliament's budget, this context of war and high inflation implies the need to respond to the increase of expenses due to inflation, in particular the rise of energy costs; the need to strengthen our capacity to respond to the increasing cybersecurity challenges, including additional specialised human resources, and the need to be prudent in our building policy. That's why I hope the amendment to this effect can be adopted. Finally, I hope that the budget, in its final version, can respond to these needs, meeting citizens' expectations. Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjereniče, ministre, izvjestitelju, kolegice i kolege, Europska unija trenutno se suočava s iznimno složenim izazovima u vidu visokih cijena energenata, visoke inflacije, upitnog gospodarskog rasta te posljedica rata u Ukrajini. Znanost i istraživanja imaju ključnu ulogu u poticanju budućeg rasta i jačanju otpornosti Europske unije i njenog gospodarstva na krizu. Jedini način da Europa ostane konkurentna na globalnom tržištu u ovim teškim okolnostima jest veće ulaganje u inovacije, posebno ona vezana uz digitalizaciju, gdje se sigurno ne možemo niskim cijenama natjecati s Kinom i drugim globalnim igračima. Zbog toga bilo kakvo smanjivanje proračuna za program Obzor Europa nije prihvatljivo. Također, kohezijska i poljoprivredna politika ne mogu biti glavni izvor financiranja hitnih prioriteta tijekom naredne godine zbog toga što se time ugrožava provedba dugoročnih ciljeva. Potpora ruralnim područjima i slabije razvijenim regijama mora ostati jedan od glavnih prioriteta u skladu s istinskim ciljevima kohezije i ZPP-a. Nema i neće biti jedinstvene Europe u kojoj su neki dvostruko bogatiji od drugih, imaju pristup vrhunskim zdravstvenim, obrazovnim i ostalim javnim uslugama, a drugi nemaju. Za kraj, posebno ističem zdravstvo kao jedan od prioriteta na kojem se ne smije štedjeti. Pri tome osobito je važno jačati dugoročno ulaganje u europske referentne mreže. One predstavljaju ogroman iskorak u omogućavanju dostupnosti vrhunske zdravstvene zaštite za sve građane EU-a, bez obzira na državu ili regiju u kojoj žive. Na taj način ulažemo i postavljamo temelje za stvarnu europsku zdravstvenu uniju. Spontane Wortmeldungen Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar Hahn, evident că toate speranțele sunt spre bugetul Uniunii Europene în aceste momente de grea încercare pentru Uniunea Europeană. După criza de sănătate, ne-am trezit cu acest război care a pus și pune la grea încercare securitatea europeană. Evident că nu a fost suficient doar războiul. Avem această criză energetică. Și fac apel pe această cale către dumneavoastră, domnule comisar, pentru că înțelegeți foarte bine provocările la care sunt expuse statele din imediata vecinătate a Uniunii Europene. Ați fost recent la Chișinău, ați asigurat-o pe președinta Maia Sandu de susținerea Uniunii Europene. Republica Moldova, Ucraina, Georgia și celelalte state au nevoie de susținerea Uniunii Europene pentru a depăși toate aceste provocări care vin din partea Moscovei, pentru a-i ține în zona sa de influență. Avem obligația să menținem același ritm de susținere financiară pentru aceste state. (Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen) Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, we have well noted the different positions expressed by the honourable Members of this House and also by the Council. The Commission services are examining thoroughly all the amendments proposed by the Parliament, together with those proposed by the Council. To facilitate the upcoming negotiations, the Commission will present a detailed assessment of the amendments proposed by the Parliament and of the Council position in the so-called letter of executability. We will send this letter shortly after tomorrow's vote on the Parliament's amendments. Our three institutions succeeded over the past years to agree on many ground-breaking files that have changed the Union's budgetary and financial landscape. I believe that successful negotiation requires both institutions to set clear priorities, including negative ones, so that we can focus our discussions in the conciliation on a limited number of programmes where meaningful adjustments could be made. My team and I are at your disposal, like ever, and ready to facilitate the work of the rapporteurs and the Presidency during the conciliation procedure. Jiří Georgiev,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President. honourable Members, Commissioner Hahn, ladies and gentlemen, I listened really carefully to arguments raised during this interesting debate and I will inform my colleagues in the Council subsequently. I am convinced that the debate has certainly helped to clarify the European Parliament's position and your priorities. And let me assure you that the Council will do its best to engage in a constructive dialogue allowing us to come to an agreement on the budget for 2023 within the deadlines foreseen by the Treaty. Nicolae Ștefănuță,
rapporteur. – Mr President, Commissioner, thanks for being here today in the House of European democracy. Thanks to all the colleagues who have supported a reasonable, strong budget that responds to the European citizens. Domnule președinte, noi am plecat la război acum câțiva ani cu un arc și cu săgeți. Dar noi trăim în epoca în care suntem atacați cu drone, în care lumea a luat foc, în care avem cinci crize consecutive: pandemia, inflația, energia, noi state candidate, toate aceste lucruri trebuie să găsească un răspuns astăzi în ceea ce facem noi. Trebuie să schimbăm armele pe care le avem în dotare, nu să dăm vina pe săgeți. În acest moment avem păreri instituționale diferite pe buget. Consiliului i se pare că trebuie să facem economii pentru a avea bani rezervați pentru crize viitoare. Însă eu mă întreb care criză viitoare, că deja avem cinci crize pe care le-am menționat. Ce să le spunem oamenilor: mai puneți o geacă peste sau o să le spunem că Uniunea Europeană încearcă să vă ajute acum? Noi, Parlamentul, credem că trebuie să răspundem acum și de aceea punem acei bani pe care-i mai avem, puțini cum sunt, îi punem spre politicile care contează pentru oameni, pentru Uniunea Europeană și suntem uniți în asta. Am avut în Comisia pentru buget un vot de 31 la zero. Nici măcar euroscepticii domnului Kuhn, care spunea că Uniunea Europeană nu ar trebui să mai aibă bani și să acționeze, nici măcar ei n-au îndrăznit să voteze contra. Și chiar vreau să îl întreb pe domnul Kuhn, care nu mai este în sală, evident, cum ar arăta Europa dacă noi nu am reacționa? Costul inacțiunii nu este oare mai mare? Și atunci, domnule președinte, și atunci, domnule comisar, eu vă încurajez să găsim împreună soluțiile care trebuie, să găsim soluțiile acum pentru criza politică în care ne aflăm. Pentru că lupta este una dreaptă, este una dreaptă, este pentru oameni, este pentru democrație și este pentru libertate. Niclas Herbst,
Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident! Ich glaube, die Debatte hat mehrere Punkte gezeigt. Zum einen waren es gerade die Kolleginnen und Kollegen aus den Fachausschüssen, die die Prioritäten der Ratspräsidentschaft verteidigt haben und dafür auch einstehen wollen und das auch finanzieren wollen. Ich glaube, das ist eine ganz gute Botschaft. Das Zweite ist: Ich glaube, es ist auch angekommen, dass das Parlament hier in großer Einigkeit steht, dass wir hier natürlich über das eine oder andere Thema, wie zum Beispiel die palästinensischen Schulbücher, lebhaft diskutieren, aber bei den großen Punkten absolut einig sind und als Parlament hier auch geschlossen stehen. Und das Dritte ist: Ich habe festgestellt, dass sowohl Kommissar Hahn als auch der stellvertretende Minister Georgiev die ganze Debatte – diese lebhafte Debatte – die ganze Zeit verfolgt haben. Das heißt, sie haben die nötige Zähigkeit, damit wir auch in den Verhandlungen zu einem guten Ergebnis kommen. Ich freue mich darauf. Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen. Die Abstimmung findet am Mittwoch, 19. Oktober 2022, statt. (Die Sitzung wird um 14.43 Uhr unterbrochen) VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS Vizepräsident 8.   Hervatting van de vergadering (Die Sitzung wird um 15.01 Uhr wieder aufgenommen) 9.   Wijziging van de agenda Der Präsident. – Gemäß Artikel 158 Absatz 2 wird auf Vorschlag der Präsidentin und im Einvernehmen mit den Fraktionen die morgige Sitzung aufgrund der gestrigen Änderungen der Tagesordnung bis 23.00 Uhr verlängert. Wenn es keine Einwände gibt, gilt diese Änderung als angenommen. 10.   Goedkeuring van de notulen van de vorige vergadering Der Präsident. – Das Protokoll der gestrigen Sitzung und die angenommenen Texte sind verfügbar. Gibt es Einwände? Im Moment nicht. Das Protokoll ist damit genehmigt. 11.   Werkprogramma van de Commissie 2023 (debat) Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zum Arbeitsprogramm der Kommission für 2023 (2022/2841(RSP)). Ich weise die Mitglieder darauf hin, dass im Zuge dieser Aussprache eine Rednerrunde der Fraktionen vorgesehen ist und dass es deshalb keine spontanen Wortmeldungen gibt und keine blauen Karten akzeptiert werden können. Maroš Šefčovič,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, indeed, it is my pleasure to present to you the Commission Work Programme for 2023, immediately following its adoption by the college literally a few minutes ago. Let me begin by saying that the programme is a true testament to our commitment to build a Union that stands firm and united in the face of a unique set of crises whose effects are being felt so acutely in the everyday lives of Europeans. The work programme sets out a bold agenda, explaining how we intend to tackle the most pressing challenges, including the energy crisis. At the same time, it outlines how we want to double down on the long-term generational tasks, making our European Union green, digital, fairer and more resilient. I would like to underline how much we appreciate the valuable cooperation with this House in preparing the 2023 Commission Work Programme. We have engaged closely through our structured dialogues in the Parliamentary committees and through our exchanges in the Conference of Presidents and the Conference of Committee Chairs. I particularly appreciate the priorities outlined by these two bodies in the statement and the 2022 summary report respectively. Honourable Members, the 2023 Commission Work Programme is unique in more ways than one. First and foremost, it was shaped following Russia's invasion of Ukraine that brought the horrific reality of war back to Europe. At the same time, this Commission Work Programme is the first since the successful end of the Conference on the Future of Europe. This inevitably means that the Commission's work will be guided by the need to support people and businesses through the testing times, while we will strengthen citizens' engagement as a part of our policymaking. To underline this approach, I would like to underscore that four out of five new initiatives outlined in the Commission Work Programme directly or indirectly follow up on the proposals made by the Conference on the Future of Europe. I am also pleased to announce that several initiatives in the work programme come in response to proposals from this House, from Article 225 resolutions adopted by this House. These include further action on asbestos removals, a common statute for European cross-border associations and action against the piracy of live online content. Honourable Members, for the year ahead, we are announcing 51 flagship initiatives grouped under 43 policy objectives or packages. Before I touch on some of these key initiatives, it is worth noting the unique circumstances in which the 2023 Commission Work Programme was drawn up. The terrible human suffering caused by Russia's illegal war in Ukraine has been accompanied by social and economic turmoil. Our response to the invasion has been swift, determined and united. The EU has already adopted over 180 measures hitting Russia where it hurts while offering strong support to Ukraine and its people. We have mobilised over EUR 7 billion to strengthen Ukraine's economic, social and financial resilience and an additional EUR 3.1 billion in military support under the European Peace Facility. We will not falter in our continued support for Ukraine, even as Russia continues to use energy as a weapon, causing hardship in Europe and beyond. It is clear we cannot afford to take a „business as usual” approach, while a united front is our only chance to successfully tackle the current challenges. Honourable Members, our work next year will be far-reaching and impactful. We are feeling first-hand the increasingly severe effects of climate change. Our continent suffered severely from heatwaves, droughts, forest fires this summer. This has further strengthened our determination to implement the European Green Deal. We propose to create the European Hydrogen Bank to invest EUR 3 billion into kick-starting a hydrogen market in the EU. We will also reform the EU electricity market to decouple electricity prices from the effects of gas prices, to ease the pressure on households and businesses. We will propose legislation to contribute to a more resilient and sustainable food system, and we will overhaul the EU's animal welfare laws in response to both the Conference on the Future of Europe and the European Citizens' Initiative. We will propose a targeted revision of the legislation on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals, which is known by REACH, to promote sustainable chemicals. And we will work on further greening of the freight transport. Digital solutions will be key in making our economy more efficient and less resource intensive and without critical raw materials – very simple – no green and digital solution. So we will therefore present the European Critical Raw Materials Act with measures to boost Europe's strategic autonomy on the critical raw materials to help ensure an adequate and diversified supply while prioritising re-use and recycling. We will propose the common European mobility data space to boost the digitalisation of the mobility sector. And we will also continue to help businesses thrive in our single market with a patent licensing package that provides a stable regulatory environment and the revision of the Late Payments Directive, which will help reduce burdens in particular for SMEs. The European Year of Skills will help businesses with the challenges of reskilling and upskilling their workforce. To strengthen our security in an increasingly multipolar world, we will adopt a space strategy for security and defence and update the EU maritime security strategy as well. We will continue to push our ambitious trade agenda to come forward with a new agenda for Latin America and the Caribbean. And to further promote our European way of life, we will continue to focus on the key areas of education, health, migration and security. We will adopt a comprehensive approach to mental health and other key initiatives to emerge from the Conference on the Future of Europe, which I particularly appreciate having been the chair of the Group on Health and I particularly appreciated because I saw personally how important this is for our young people, for our young generation. We will also put forward a prevention package with initiatives on smoke free environments and vaccine preventable cancers, a new cybersecurity skills academy and proposal on the digitalisation of travel documents. We will continue to push for European democracy, including with the defence of democracy package to bolster democratic resilience from within and defend our democratic systems from outside interests. And we will present a proposal for the European Disability Card. Honourable Members, to close, let me underline that good policymaking is clearly a team effort. Faced with a unique set of crises this year, our Union has shown once again just how much it can achieve when it is united. As we enter the final two years of this mandate, it is all the more important to have constructive negotiations in good faith on the key pieces of legislation which will shape our shared future. Thank you very much for the great cooperation so far. I am very much looking forward to your interventions and I am ready to answer your questions. Jan Olbrycht,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, let me first express my thanks on behalf of the EPP Group for the very good cooperation with the Commission on the programme from last year. And I think that it is important, especially in this Chamber, to remind all of us that this is the third year of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) – I mean, 23 – but this is our fourth year of this term. So the end of the term is coming. And the question is, how will we be judged? How will we be evaluated? How did we behave facing this completely new situation? I mean, „we” as in Parliament, preparing legislation, and you the Commission. I think how well you are prepared to adapt to the new situation is very important. So when we look at the European Commission programme, we can see, of course, the ongoing processes, the pending elements which we will have to finalize, and we will have the new initiatives which are proposed by the Commission. But there is also the part which is not written in the programme which is the question of the capacity to adapt to completely new, unexpected situations. This is probably next year's activity. So we will be, as you will be, evaluated for the response to completely unexpected situations concerning the war, climate change, food crises, etc. So that's why we have to take care of everything that can happen – not only everything that is planned but all that can happen. So that's why we as the EPP would like to concentrate everything on the jobs, especially the jobs for citizens, farmers, SMEs, businesses. This is also about the functioning of European energy markets. This is also the question of protecting EU citizens from outside threats. So I think this is very important. And the question of how to fight foreign interferences and the attack against democratic values and our way of life. This is for us two basic elements, because when we speak about the social market economy, we are speaking about people. So we have to take care of their life. And we have to take care of the programmes but, of course, take care not to create victims of the programmes. We cannot have people falling victim to our ambitions. We have to be very rational and very clear. Let me finish, Mr Commissioner, by expressing that I found in your documents, for the first time, the expression that you are not ruling out a revision of the MFF. This is the first time we have heard this from the Commission. Up to now, it has been only a „review” or even an „ambitious review”. But this is the first time I have read about the possibility of revision. I can keep your promise and we will see how it will happen. Pedro Marques,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Vice-President Šefčovič, colleagues, I'd like to thank the Commission for its strong work on the assistance for Ukraine, the sanctions against Russia and the measures responding to the disruptions in the energy markets. However, this coming winter, in the next year, will be one of the hardest in our memory. Our response must be adapted to the unprecedented circumstances, as my colleague Mr Olbrycht just said, and I fully concur. If I'm honest with you, Commissioner, I'm concerned that what is being proposed falls short of what European citizens expect, specifically in terms of the economic and social response to the crisis. At the initiative of my group, the Conference of Presidents adopted in June a clear set of demands for this work programme. Commissioner, we are left wondering if the President of the Commission even received a copy of such demands. Those demands included the strengthening of the social rights action plan, the urgent organisation of a new social summit, and a comprehensive European anti-poverty strategy adapted to the current situation. They are nowhere to be found in this document before us today. It is not acceptable that on this matter, on the social dimension, we might be satisfied with generic lines on the need to deliver on the Porto social agenda and summit. My group firmly believes that the successes of temporary instruments like SURE and like Next Generation EU should be built upon and converted into a permanent fiscal capacity and common crisis response instruments. We must learn from the lessons that the past brought us. Jumping from one ad hoc temporary instrument to another is simply not good enough. We hope the Commission will accept the need for a full reform of the economic governance review, including the fiscal rules, sooner and not later. We expect the proposals to be delivered rapidly. For the electricity market, it's exactly the same. The market system „does not work any more”, said the President of the Commission in this Parliament four months ago. Two weeks ago, she committed to presenting proposals for the reform of the electricity market by the end of the year. It is disappointing that, in this proposal for the work programme, it is delayed now until the third quarter of next year. We need reforms now, not a year from now. It's very important that we can deliver now on this matter. With difficult times comes the risk of the rise of the extremists, of the populists, of the anti-democratic. We need to be able to deliver towards the central democratic forces and we cannot be taken hostage by some governments in Europe, particularly those subject to Article 7. Let me remind you that, in the candidacy of President von der Leyen, she committed to and I quote, „make use of the clauses in the Treaties that allow proposals on taxation to be adopted by co-decision and decided by qualified majority”. Will the Commission live up to these promises on the matter of qualified majority voting? Commissioner, I will conclude by urging the Commission to turbocharge its ambition on the socio-economic response to this crisis. We must do more, we must do it better, and we must do it now. Malik Azmani,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, we are living through extraordinary times. A still lingering global pandemic, war in Europe and all its profound consequences, uncertainty and economic headwinds. 2023 will be the last year before vital European elections, and we need to be in sixth gear and not in neutral. Now is the time to double down on delivering for the citizens of Europe. What does this mean in practice? It means turning challenges into possibilities. Let us be honest, Putin does not just want to destroy Ukraine; he wants an international alliance to reinvent the world order. China has a similar ambition. We must make sure Europe shapes the world of tomorrow, not dictator Putin and autocrat Xi. This is a turning point moment. Our way of life must prevail, and that's why we need a more sovereign, strong and independent Europe, on food security, on industrial competitiveness, on energy and raw materials, and on security and defence. We need increased possibilities for defence cooperation on the MFF; a hydrogen alliance that will power Europe and make us more independent; a euro that is as powerful as the dollar, with a willingness to use the power of our single currency to enforce secondary sections globally. We must use our economic power to become the geopolitical force we should be. We need a complete asylum and migration package adopted to ensure a thriving economy and shape a changing world with our values. We say yes to new trade agreements, yes to more support for citizens and small and medium-sized enterprises, and yes to increased cooperation with our allies and friends colleagues. We are a threat to the autocrats of the world, because we harness the forces of our citizens instead of suppressing them. That is why we must act upon the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe, and we await the Commission's proposals. Friends, this has been a parliamentary mandate unlike any other in the history of this House. Thank you, Commissioner Šefčovič, for your continued dedication and hard work. In 2023, let's keep our foot on the accelerator and seize the chance to mould the changing world around us. Let's deliver. Let's renew Europe together. Philippe Lamberts,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, really striking to see how much interest a debate on the Commission work programme for 2023 elicits here in this House. I'd like to spend my two and a half minutes talking to my friends of the European People's Party, arguably the biggest group in this Parliament. Let me just tell you a story. Forty years ago, the European car industry convinced the European Union not to regulate them. They promised: „We are going to reduce emissions, improve our product and all the rest of it. Trust us. Don't regulate us”. And they succeeded. Now, when they failed to deliver, the European Union started regulating them and putting them emission targets. And then they fought tooth and nail against really ambitious targets. When that failed, then they started fighting to make sure that the measurements – the way we would measure the emissions – would be totally removed from reality. They succeeded. But of course, when the European Union reconsidered and started measuring real emissions, then they started cheating. What is the net result of that? Well, the world champions of the electric cars are Tesla (US), Build Your Dreams (Chinese). That is the net result of such a strategy. And the European People's Party was aiding and abetting the strategy of the European car industry, not least Angela Merkel, who even destroyed a trilogue deal just to weaken the objectives. Now the EPP does it again, targeting the REACH regulation. And of course in the name of moratorium, one in, one out, because all this, you know, is a burden on our companies. A burden? Are you serious? We are talking about keeping this planet liveable for humanity. You call that a burden or the hobbyhorse of the Greens? It is about life and death – right? – and also about leadership, industrial leadership. And your calls have been partly heard. Maroš, I regret to say that, because indeed the European Commission delayed by three quarters the revision of the landmark Chemicals Regulation of the European Union, whereas actually this text is almost ripe. Don't do this. I mean, don't listen to the, not the sirens, but the cries of the European People's Party. By the way – when I have to judge as to their presence – they do not carry a lot of weight. Ignore them. I mean, yes, I know you put that on the fourth quarter, but there's no legal obligation for the Commission not to be earlier if you already do it. And so at least this Parliament will be able to adopt it in the first reading before the end of the term. Jean-Lin Lacapelle,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, nous débattons aujourd'hui sur les orientations de la Commission pour 2023. Sur bien des domaines cruciaux, sur l'énergie, sur l'économie, sur la santé, mes collègues se sont déjà exprimés avec talent. Je vais vous parler d'autre chose, d'une priorité absolue qui n'est pourtant mentionnée qu'en passant dans un misérable paragraphe de votre texte. Cette année, Frontex, l'agence de surveillance des frontières extérieures de l'Union européenne, a dénombré une hausse de 70 % des entrées irrégulières entre janvier et septembre par rapport à la même période en 2021. Face au constat de cette déferlante migratoire, votre seule réponse est de limoger le directeur de Frontex – dont je rappelle qu'il était français –, de refuser honteusement aujourd'hui même de valider ses comptes et d'imposer encore plus de migrants aux États membres à travers le pacte sur l'asile et l'immigration. Je vois déjà nos adversaires qui ricanent et qui nous accusent d'être obsessionnels. Mais parmi ces clandestins, chers collègues, il y a les terroristes du Bataclan. Il y a ceux de Bruxelles, il y a ceux de Nice, il y a ceux de Londres, il y a ceux de Berlin. Parmi ces clandestins, il y a les assassins de Lola, douze ans, violée, égorgée, mutilée et découpée en morceaux vendredi dernier à Paris. Pour vous, pour la Commission, ces migrants ne sont peut-être que des sujets de droit abstrait ou un simple problème statistique. Mais pour les parents de Lola, qui aurait pu être notre fille, c'est une vie brisée dont vous portez collectivement la responsabilité. Avec ces clandestins qui arrivent, combien de futurs tueurs? Combien de futures victimes? Ceux qui se moquent de ce sujet sont odieux, indignes, irresponsables. Ils ont le sang des morts sur la conscience. Vous devez en faire votre priorité. Vous devez l'inscrire urgemment dans votre programme d'action. N'attendez plus, réveillez-vous, agissez! Hermann Tertsch,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señor presidente, es una tragedia que realmente no se sepa aquí reaccionar con una enmienda, una enmienda en general. Tenemos a la mitad del continente amenazado por una guerra real, tenemos a parte del continente ardiendo, tenemos a la otra parte del continente aterrado ante una inminente crisis como no se ha conocido, con miedo al hambre, con miedo a los cierres, con miedo al desempleo. Y nosotros seguimos en la misma senda, con esta sobredosis de ideología, de sostenibilidad, de los mismos planes que teníamos antes, cuando no había nada de lo que estamos hablando. La postura de Ucrania: en Ucrania estamos en el lado bueno de la historia, pero no lo están Francia y Alemania, que han estado retrasando insistentemente todo lo que es una defensa real de Ucrania, como se tenía que haber hecho. Y, en cuanto a las vacunas, ¿qué pasa con las vacunas? ¿Vamos a tener claridad sobre las vacunas en algún momento aquí, en este Parlamento, sobre lo que ha pasado con las vacunas, o vamos a tener un silencio absoluto aquí, sin ninguna transparencia en absoluto? Aquí estamos viendo que no se cambia: seguimos con la obcecación de los planes de ingeniería social; estamos con los planes del ecologismo radical, que tiene atrapada a toda esta Cámara y que no tiene en cuenta, para nada, los intereses de los trabajadores. Acaban de quitarle los caladeros a todos los pescadores de las provincias vascas, de las provincias gallegas y de las andaluzas, por unas cuestiones que no vienen al caso. En estos momentos de alarma alimenticia, están haciendo cosas de ese tipo. Ideología pura. Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το πρόγραμμα της Επιτροπής για το 2023 είναι άτολμο, αναβλητικό και κατώτερο των περιστάσεων, κύριε Šefčovič. Δύο αρμόδιοι Eπίτροποι, ο κύριος Gentiloni και ο κύριος Breton, πρότειναν ένα ευρωομόλογο με κοινό δανεισμό, με εγγύηση της Επιτροπής για την αντιμετώπιση της ενεργειακής κρίσης, όπως κάναμε με το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης για την αντιμετώπιση της πανδημίας. Τι λέει για αυτή την πρόταση η Επιτροπή στο πρόγραμμά της; Τίποτα. Η Πρόεδρος von der Leyen μας είπε ότι με την ενεργειακή κρίση δεν δουλεύει καλά η αγορά στο φυσικό αέριο και έχουμε ακρίβεια, φτώχεια και τα πρόθυρα μιας ύφεσης. Τι πρότεινε η Επιτροπή για την αντιμετώπιση αυτού του προβλήματος; Μέχρι τώρα, τίποτα. Μέχρι και ο κύριος Charles Michel, ο Πρόεδρος του Συμβουλίου, ασκεί κριτική στην Επιτροπή για την αδράνεια. Έχουμε μια επικίνδυνη αύξηση των κοινωνικών ανισοτήτων και των ανισοτήτων ανάμεσα στα κράτη μέλη. Τι έχει κάνει η Επιτροπή γι' αυτό; Τίποτα ουσιαστικό. Η κοινωνική ατζέντα παραμένει μια άδεια ετικέτα εδώ και χρόνια, μετά τη Σύνοδο στο Γκέτεμποργκ. Και τι κάνετε για να αναθεωρήσετε —όπως σας ζητάει ομόφωνα το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και η Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού— το Πολυετές Δημοσιονομικό Πλαίσιο; Μπορούμε να συνεχίσουμε με έναν προϋπολογισμό της τάξης του 1% του ευρωπαϊκού ΑΕΠ όταν αυξάνονται οι προκλήσεις; Mario Furore (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Unione europea è di fronte alla sua più grande sfida, quella della revisione della sua governance economica. Il patto di stabilità ha mostrato negli anni le sue debolezze e non risponde più alle esigenze dei cittadini europei. È arrivato il momento di una profonda riforma che archivi l'austerità una volta per tutte e favorisca gli investimenti verdi e la transizione sostenibile ed energetica, che sono peraltro necessari per raggiungere quegli obiettivi che ci siamo fissati proprio in quest'Aula. Notiamo tuttavia con rammarico che, nel programma di lavoro della Commissione, mancano anche quest'anno interventi per una piena uguaglianza delle persone LGBTQ+, una promessa fatta dalla Presidente Ursula von der Leyen proprio qui nel 2020. La paternità e persino l'unione di molte coppie gay non vengono riconosciute ovunque in Europa e questa è un'ingiustizia alla quale dobbiamo subito rimediare. Aspetto quindi che la Commissione europea presenti al più presto un'iniziativa legislativa per difendere i diritti di tutti. Basta con le discriminazioni. Maroš Šefčovič,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would also like to thank all honourable Members for their interventions, for their support, for their critical remarks, for their encouragement to work on some of the files faster than we propose in the Commission work programme. And I can assure you that we will do our utmost to come up with the proposals as soon as they are ready, as soon as they are of good quality. If you would allow me to be a little bit more concrete, I would also like to thank the honourable Members and subscribe to what Mr Olbrycht said that indeed we had good cooperation and a good exchange of views between the committees, between the Conference of Presidents, and I think that such good cooperation, that this spirit of partnership, would be very important this year and the whole of next year because, as Mr Olbrycht rightly points out, now we are working for the legacy of this legislator, of this Parliament. The people will judge us in the future on how we managed to cope with these unprecedented crises: COVID-19, economic challenges, Russian aggression against Ukraine, and how we demonstrated that we can adapt to these new challenges and the new situations. And I think that if you look at it from the perspective of how we dealt so far with the crisis, we managed the COVID-19 situation, we introduced the Next Generation EU budget, we are really coming up with unprecedented proposals when it comes to energy. And we will have a whole-morning discussion on this tomorrow, and the discussion on this package in the College in the Commission was just about to conclude as I was leaving to meet you and address the plenary on our Commission work programme. So we will have the whole debate about this tomorrow. But I can confirm to Mr Olbrycht that, yes, another analysis and revision of the MFF will be presented in the second quarter of the next year. This will give us an opportunity to look at how we managed with the MFF that we have at out disposal, how it works in combination with Next Generation EU, and what are the challenges we have to meet in this regard in future years to come. To Mr Marques, I again would like to reassure you and, of course, the S&D Group that the social dimension is very important to the European Commission. We are already preparing for what most probably will be another social summit to be held again in Porto in the spring of next year. And that when it comes to the concrete deliverables, you are very aware of the action plan on how to implement the European Pillar of Social Rights, which was adopted and which we are gradually fulfilling and bringing to fruition one by one, and we will definitely continue with that. What I think would be very important – and this would be my request to the whole European Parliament – tomorrow we will be debating the energy situation. Mr Papademos and also several other honourable Members asked to intervene on this topic. So you will see the package we are proposing. But I think what will be very important for all of you, especially for citizens of Europe, is how can we help them also financially in this very difficult situation when it comes to the vulnerable households, when it comes to the to the SMEs, when it comes to big industry. I think for the SMEs and households, we would have a recipe for how to help. But we need your assistance to get REPowerEU to be finally adopted by the Council and the Parliament. We need to push it over the finishing line because it creates the possibility to use the financial firepower we have to help SMEs and households. And it would be my plea that we should treat this file as the top priority of all of us, because that is the vehicle we can use to help the SMEs and to help the households, and to liberate space for the governments across Europe to use State aid to help the energy-intensive industries, because we know that it's very important. I totally agree with Mr Azmani that we should be masters of our destiny. We should be those who shape the world, because we Europeans value human rights, we value the rule of law, we are fighting for the environment, we are fighting to make sure that rules and international law are respected across the world. And for that we need to do much more, we need to be – I totally agree with you – more autonomous, stronger in energy, stronger in critical raw materials, to be sure that we can invest even more and become stronger when it comes to all future-oriented new technologies – be it renewables, be it hydrogen or be it electric vehicles. To come back to Mr Marques on some of the concrete responses on social policies and social measures, I think one which will be clearly felt by every single citizen across Europe is our proposal, which we are going to present to you, to digitalise and create a European social security pass. This would be something like a European social card, which would again help our citizens to use the freedoms of the European Union, offer the guarantees, increase the flexibility of how they can benefit from the size of the European labour market. And we are also looking in great depth at how SURE was used. What are the results, what are the conclusions and how can we use that experience for our future work? Mr Azmani also referred to the trade agreements. You will see from our Commission work programme that we would like to push further our cooperation in the field of trade with Chile, with Mexico, with New Zealand, with other countries too, just to simply make sure that we remain this very important trading superpower that we are, and to bring also our approach with a new type of trade agreement where we take care of sustainable development, high-quality environmental standards and respect for social standards too. To respond to Mr Lamberts, I totally agree with him that the future is electric, and you know how much we have worked on this through our European Battery Alliance. It would seem we set a very good example because we see the focus the United States of America is putting on this very technology. We have to make sure that we would be absolutely competitive in that regard. Concerning REACH, right now we are finalising our impact assessment, we are finalising our consultations with the key stakeholders and we are also creating the space, a good feed-in, for our regulatory scrutiny board. I can assure you that once this file is ready, we will not hesitate to present it to Parliament and to the Council. If you allow me to close with one additional request: if you would look through our annexes, you will find not only the annex about what we want to do next year, but also one on the pending files which we now have at different stages of trilogues. It's 116 files. 116 files! So I think that we again have to talk between us, the two communitarian institutions, the European Parliament and the Commission, on how we are going to accelerate the work on these spending files. So that next year, when I come to see you, we can say that this list is much shorter, that we delivered on the spending files and that we would focus on the right priorities and we will have the next occasion when we will be working on this joint declaration of priority files for the next year. So to repeat my two requests at the end: REPowerEU and pending files, because this would help us to move to better territory and to respond to the expectations of our citizens. Der Präsident. – Danke, Herr Vizepräsident, und uns allen viel Erfolg bei der Umsetzung des Arbeitsprogramms. Die Aussprache ist geschlossen. Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171) Sara Cerdas (S&D),
por escrito. – A estratégia renovada para as regiões ultraperiféricas, publicada em maio de 2022, „define as prioridades da ação da UE para apoiar a recuperação e o crescimento sustentáveis nas suas regiões ultraperiféricas, concretizando o seu potencial de crescimento e ajudando a colmatar o fosso de qualidade de vida entre estas regiões e o resto da União”. Para tal, e como reconhecido na referida Comunicação, cumpre que a legislação a ser adotada no próximo ano tenha em atenção as especificidades destas regiões, sem se esquecer de analisar os impactos da legislação nestas regiões. Vimos tal acontecer nas negociações do pacote legislativo „Fit for 55” e coube aos colegisladores – o Parlamento Europeu e o Conselho da União Europeia (UE) – garantir a proteção destas regiões, assim como assegurar que se atinja o potencial da transição climática nas mesmas, sem deixar ninguém para trás. Apela-se a uma melhor consideração das especificidades nas propostas legislativas vindouras, em áreas como o ambiente, a governação económica, a digitalização, entre outras. Só desta forma se assegurará uma maior proximidade do trabalho da UE aos cidadãos, mesmo àqueles que vivem nas regiões mais remotas, demonstrando que a legislação europeia é inclusiva e responde às necessidades de todos os cidadãos. Alin Mituța (Renew),
in writing. – Today, the Commission presents its Work Programme 2023 in the European Parliament. Hopefully, next year the citizens will be directly involved in the creation of the Work Programme, together with the other European Institutions. The Conference on the Future of Europe showed us that the citizens want to be more involved in the decision making process at the EU level. Not only 5 years, when they vote, or every 20 or 30 years when something similar to the Conference happens. And not only on specific legislative proposals, but also in agenda setting processes, such as the creation process of the European Commission Work Programme. A permanent consultation mechanism should be created as a result of this key request, that will integrate the citizens in the political discussion revolving around the Work Programme. In this way we can provide a substantial path of involvement for the citizens that need to be at the centre of European politics. Representative democracy should be reinforced by a meaningful participatory democracy in order for the EU to stay connected to its citizens. Christine Schneider (PPE),
schriftlich. – Ich begrüße, dass die Kommission komplexe und belastende Gesetzesvorhaben wie z. B. die Chemiekalienregulierung REACH verschieben wird. Auch die Ankündigung einer Prüfung der Gesetzgebung im Hinblick auf die europäische Wettbewerbsfähigkeit ist ein positives Signal. Ich bedaure aber, dass die Kommission nach wie vor an dem umstrittenen Naturschutzpaket festhält, ohne auf die europäische Landwirtschaft zuzugehen. Wir brauchen weniger Belastung und Bürokratie und mehr Planungssicherheit für unsere Betriebe. Ansonsten riskiert Europa die Schwächung der eigenen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. 12.   Vragenuur (vragen aan de Commissie) - Bescherming van kritieke infrastructuur in de EU tegen aanvallen en het afweren van hybride aanvallen Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Fragestunde mit der Kommission zum Schutz kritischer Infrastruktur in der EU vor Angriffen und zur Bekämpfung hybrider Angriffe. Wie Sie wissen, wird diese Fragestunde etwa 90 Minuten dauern. Die Redezeiten sind 1 Minute für die Frage, 2 Minuten für die Antworten, 30 Sekunden für eine Zusatzfrage und 2 Minuten für die Antwort. Ich möchte eigentlich eine sehr lebhafte Debatte – Frage, Antwort, Frage, Antwort, Frage, Antwort. Wir sind alle gefordert. Ich weise darauf hin, dass eine mögliche Zusatzfrage nur dann zulässig ist, wenn sie in einem engen Zusammenhang mit der Hauptfrage steht und keine neue Frage enthält. Wenn Sie eine Frage stellen möchten, ersuche ich Sie, Ihren Antrag jetzt zu registrieren, falls Sie das noch nicht getan haben, indem Sie die Funktion Ihres Abstimmungsgerätes für spontane Wortmeldungen nutzen, nachdem die Stimmkarte schon eingeschoben war. Während der Fragestunde erfolgen die Wortmeldungen vom Platz, und ich bitte vor allem, die Redezeit einzuhalten. Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Thank you, Commissioner. It was almost three years ago that Russia disconnected itself twice from the internet with success – because it didn't hurt their economy, it didn't hurt their society. At the same time, they invested about 3 billion in a new submarine, the Belgorod, which is for deep seawater investigation. It's not to win a Nobel Prize, I can guarantee. The GUGI institute was also erected and was invested in significantly. Despite the several calls from Parliament to do something about protecting our infrastructure below sea, nothing happened, so what we did, Commissioner, is ask for an academic study. The universities of Copenhagen and Oslo created a good study, with dozens of recommendations on what to do about protecting our subsea infrastructure. I was wondering whether President von der Leyen has read this great study because what I heard from her was not half of what is needed. I would suggest that we work together on this and reach out to the Commission and make a plan for this to even better protect our infrastructure. But the real question, dear Commissioner, is this: the favourite weapon of President Putin will be gas and it will be alternative gas paths and our LNG terminals are being recognised and reconnaissanced by cyber actors from Russia at this point in time. I would really like an effort from the European Commission to protect our LNG structures in Netherlands, in Germany and in Spain as well. Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, let me start by welcoming this debate, I think it is very timely. Let me also say as an opening statement that the era of Europe's naïveté and innocence on security matters is over. And I'm very happy that this awakening of the European Union to security is something that happened before the war. We have enacted two massive legislative packages: the Common Entities Resilience Directive and the Network and Information Systems 2 Directive, on which Groothuis was the rapporteur, precisely because we didn't expect for the war to remind us of the need to act. And I think that for the first time now at the European Union level, we have a robust set of rules that allow us to align protection against digital and physical threats at the same level of intensity and protection. And this is remarkable. This is new, this is remarkable. Is this the answer to all our problems? No. First of all, the political agreements on these two texts have to be incorporated into EU law. But a few hours ago in the College of Commissioners, we adopted a recommendation, a Council recommendation that asked precisely Member States to frontload this new tools and these rules already now. And we are also asking them to enact crisis coordination mechanisms that were absent from the text, because you would remember that the Member States resisted a crisis coordination mechanism; we had to fight in conciliation together to make this happen. So to cut a long story short: yes, we are much better prepared than ever before in the European Union. No, we are not yet where we want to be in the sense of countering every possible threat, especially against the state actors. But we will get there. And with your help, I am confident that we shall make it. Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Thank you, Commissioner, for that answer. I believe I agree with you, but it's much, much more than the NIS2 and the Critical Entities Directive. It's about placing sensors in our sea; it's about connecting civilian coastguard capabilities with military attribution capabilities; it's also about PESCO projects, for example. To make our submarines work for this task. It's not there yet. And I'd really like to see industry data for any cable cut that we have in Europe, to be reported, that you have oversight, insight and then do something. It's much more than we had, and I'd really like for the Commission to do more than the proposal of NIS2 and the Critical Entities Directive. Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, in our network information system to the directive, we have introduced – you would remember – the specific requirement for Member States to include undersea cables in their cybersecurity strategies, so we are going underwater for the first time, and we have a legal avenue to go underwater. I would also agree with you that, given the emphasis on LNG as an alternative source of energy to Russian gas, yes, we need to do more. The problem there is that we still have to see these new LNG terminals emerging in some of our Member States. There is expertise around these facilities. In others, since we are constructing these terminals now, we have a golden opportunity to make them security-proof from the start. In our recommendation today, we specifically reiterate the need for Member States to work on undersea cables. We have some challenges. You are very experienced. You know that one challenge, one difficulty that we have is the issue of length and shared jurisdiction. These are issues that we need to approach intelligently, not dogmatically; not as lawyers, but as security practitioners. In this new emerging world of geopolitical reality, after everything that has been happening around us, I'm sure that this growing awareness on security under the sea will be something that is a given, not something that will be have to be asked about. Tom Vandenkendelaere (PPE). – Mijnheer de vicevoorzitter, goed dat dit debat hier op de agenda van onze plenaire vergadering deze week in Straatsburg komt te staan. Want inderdaad, al te lang zijn we blind geweest voor de bescherming, de noodzakelijke bescherming, van onze kritische infrastructuur. Het is pas wanneer er ongelukken gebeuren dat we beseffen hoe slecht het eigenlijk gesteld is met onze mogelijkheid om dat te doen. Ik denk – eerlijk gezegd – dat de bescherming van onze kritieke infrastructuur in Europa een van de grootste uitdagingen binnen ons gemeenschappelijk veiligheids- en defensiebeleid zal zijn van de komende jaren. Voor die bescherming van de kritische structuur hoop ik dat we allemaal samen ook naar partners, naar bondgenoten, kijken om samen die uitdaging aan te pakken. Mijn vraag aan u, mijnheer de vicevoorzitter, is dan ook hoe u de samenwerking met de NAVO ziet wat betreft het beantwoorden van die uitdaging van de bescherming van de kritieke infrastructuur. Dus, hoe kan onze EU-NAVO-samenwerking helpen in het aanpakken van deze uitdagingen? Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Thank you. Tom, yes, you are absolutely right. This is a battle that we will never win alone. As Europeans, we have to align our brainpower and our firepower, if you like, to broader international entities, work with international organisations and like-minded partners and allies. And this is precisely – when you have the time to read the Council recommendation that we just adopted from the College – you will see that we have specifically introduced this dimension, the external dimension on protecting critical infrastructure, working with third countries and neighbours. And most importantly, I think, is the commitment that we have obtained to set up a joint EU-NATO task force on protecting critical infrastructure. I think this is a very important, significant novelty. NATO is very well placed to help us in that regard. And we also cover the cyber elements, not only the physical infrastructure in this very important task force with our NATO partners. Equally, we will come forward with a blueprint on critical infrastructure incidents and crises that would allow Member States to have a playbook each time a crisis scenario develops or a threat situation unravels. And part of this playbook or blueprint ecosystem would be the EEAS – I'm in contact with my colleague, High Representative Josep Borrell, who is preparing the EU hybrid toolbox which has been announced in our Strategic Compass Initiative. So there again, as you see at the international dimension, there is a new alignment of planets, if you like, that goes in the right direction. Tom Vandenkendelaere (PPE). – Mijnheer de vicevoorzitter, dank u wel, ook voor dit antwoord. Ik ben blij te zien dat we actief naar bondgenoten stappen om hieraan samen te werken. We verwachten later dit jaar de derde gemeenschappelijke EU-NAVO-verklaring. Mag ik aannemen dat dit ook allemaal verwerkt zal zijn in deze verklaring? Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Yes, the task force arrangement with NATO is something that has already been agreed upon and the actual terms of reference will be announced soon. Let me add to this NATO dimension that we also need to engage more closely with our neighbours and accession countries. I was in the Western Balkans last week. I met all leaders along the Western Balkan Road. One of the things that came out very strongly is that they have to be an integral part of our security arrangements. The Western Balkans and in our neighbourhood countries the threat landscape is equally important and threatening as it is against us. So, we have to create this broader ring of friends that would have an increasingly similar level of protection against any type of threat towards our critical infrastructure and our cybersecurity. Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D). – Thank you. And hello, Vice-President. I have a question on the attacks, but you already responded. My question will be, therefore, on money. I mean, how can you tell us that what happened with Germany and the strategic gas storage owned by Gazprom cannot happen anymore? And what do we do about Huawei investments, for instance, in critical infrastructure? Is there any plan to actually address the fact that such kind of companies cannot have any say in our infrastructure? And second point, what's inside this defence of democracy package that President of the Commission came and announced in front of the Parliament? We were all very happy about it. But what will you put in it that would make sure that infrastructure that is critical for democracies – like, for instance, the Belgian Parliament which could not actually have a debate on Uyghurs – will not be attacked anymore? What kind of sanctions, what kind of protection? Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, let me repeat what I said in my opening statement, which I think covers partly your question: the era of naivety is over. For many years, for decades now, there was a certain feel-good factor in the European Union, a certain innocence about the type of threats that we were facing; a feeling that somehow it will work out well. It took a pandemic to find out that we do not manufacture masks and ventilators anymore, and that the raw materials of the pharmaceutical industry are not under our control. It took a war to realise that we need our own umbrella and reliable energy providers. Now, it takes this hybrid, constant threat against our critical infrastructure to make sure that we have a level of protection that is commensurate to the threat. On your first question: yes, when the Critical Entities Resilience Directive and these two Directives are implemented – now frontloaded, as we're recommending today – this would require all Member States to have automatic coverage and notification of all critical entities that matter to the Single Market. That would give us this level of protection, this shield that we were lacking. As to your second question: yes, I appreciate also the great work you did on disinformation on the ad hoc committee that you chaired. However, you should prepare for a meaningful set of rules under the Defence Protection and Defence of Democracy Initiative that the President announced, which would cover the issues of foreign intervention, propaganda and fake news, which are tarnishing our democracies. Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D). – Mr President, very good question. Thank you for your response. I like it very much. It has been fun, by the way. My second question is: of course the era of naivety is over, but how do you react when you learn that the German head of cybersecurity is actually working with Russian interests? When will we have a total clean-up of our institutions that are supposed to protect and guarantee our security? Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – In my view of security, what matters is to have in place robust systemic regulatory rules, systems that allow us to defend ourselves regardless of the individuals involved. And I think this is a golden rule for security. Any kind of individual with any kind of pathologies, real or alleged – it is not up to me to issue an opinion – would have a much more difficult role to be a „loose cannon” if the system in place is robust. And to also link this answer to your first question – you were asking about Huawei and the way of foreigners, including attempting to control our critical infrastructure – we have precisely set up these rules, like the 5G toolbox. That was an ideal, I think, in my view, framework that we developed, together with Thierry Breton, to set up the parameters within which each Member State could proceed with 5G technology instead of decreeing one single model, top down, „take it or leave it”. So I think that through these intelligent approaches to security, which combine very strong regulatory measures and, at the same time, this new awareness about the need of security, the possibility for individuals to play games would be significantly reduced. Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Mr Commissioner, well, of course, we know all that this debate we are having today is partially because of the Nord Stream attacks, but our critical infrastructure is vulnerable and has many vulnerabilities towards other means rather than physical attacks, also coercion, sabotage, espionage, etc. And partially because some colleagues already covered, let's say, the physical aspects, we will be discussing next plenary the NIS 2 Directive. So cybersecurity will be also done in our session. I want to focus on the aspect of espionage. Our information services in the Czech Republic, where I am from, uncovered a certain Russian spy within our institutions. But this is a problem for even European institutions, for national Member States and, of course, for our companies. And I don't hear often that we are dealing with espionage and how are we dealing with it? Not only, of course, from Russia, from China, too. And I would like to hear from your perspective and from the Commission what is being done in this regard. Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Yes. As you may understand, the European Union does not have its own intelligence agency, and I do not think it would be wise that we create an additional layer on intelligence agency at the European level. What I think is much more valuable, and it is happening, is to be able to harvest from the richness of the intelligence information that our national agencies develop so that we can all pool resources and face common challenges. For this, there is an element of trust that is needed. Our national intelligence agencies do not always feel this need to share. I think this is something that is changing increasingly. But then we should not forget either that these national intelligence agencies are crafted in a way not to share even, very often, within their national situation. So my job within this EU Security Union that we are constructing is to create a synergetic culture of exchange, information and awareness between our intelligence bodies. I think this is happening. Europol is also emerging as a hub of information exchange on very dubious practices, and I think that we are reaching now a point where this level of trust is emerging naturally as a result of the commonality of threats that we are facing. Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Thank you very much for the answer. I do understand that, of course, the European Union cannot have its own intelligence services. And I thank you for the information about the cooperation for national Member States. But if we were very specific and let's say there was a Russian spy in the European Commission, who is the one who would uncover that? Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Yes, this is nicely put. It's a lateral question to your previous one, but not the same. Indeed, for all our security, for all our personnel employed in the institutions, not only the Commission, but in all the European Union institutions, we have very strong internal rules not only of screening and determining threat profiles depending on the type of jobs that our staff assumes, but also very comprehensive training courses from the start of the professional career in the institutions that inform our staff of the risks involved, of the dangers involved. And I would like to see, working together with my colleague Johannes Hahn, who is in charge of our administration and our budget, I would like to see that the very successful level of expertise that we have in the Commission in these areas is also shared broadly amongst the institutions, including this House, which by its specificity as being an assembly, has more openness, more people coming in, more exposure if you like, to security risks. I take this opportunity of your very hospitable reception this afternoon to reiterate our call for a common security approach between institutions against these kind of threats or risks. We are doing, by the way, exactly this: working together on cybersecurity through the EU-CERT Network, which is a success story. I am sure that we can build on top of this EU-CERT success to do more, including in the sensitive area you just mentioned. Antonius Manders (PPE). – Mr President, we are talking now about protecting critical infrastructures and we all talk about material infrastructures. But we also have to talk about immaterial infrastructures, because if we want to have a future in Europe, a future of the EU, we need to promote EU emotion and identity. I am nearly 50 years with my wife together. Do you know why? I love her, and I hope she loves me. That's why we are together. We are connected. Fans are connected to their club in the EU and due to the UEFA's policies now the Premier League is the so-called Super League and this will kill the EU football clubs in the EU. Are you prepared to start an open dialogue with UEFA – how to save the football clubs within the EU, to give them more EU identity and emotion? Because in the future we need the people to love the EU. Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Yes, I agree with you that when it comes to protecting our Union, it does not only concern critical infrastructure, being physical or cyber, but it's also a Union of emotions. We very often come across as something very rigid, very dry, very technocratic, and I'm all for introducing these emotional elements, both in our policies and in our communications. Eurovision moments, if you like. Now on UEFA and European football in general, I agree that football is a vector of cohesion, of diversity, of richness in our societies. Football is something that is happening as we speak in our villages, in playgrounds, in schools, in stadiums. It's something that does not have to do with football clubs or elites or money or its owners, it has to do with us, with who we are. And your question allows me to reiterate our collegial common commitment in this Commission to protect at any cost the European model of sport. European sport and European football will always be open to competition linked to amateur sport, part of our way of life, of the type of society we stand for. It will never be a game between elites, rich owners of clubs that play amongst themselves, share huge gains of the TV rights at the expense of the national championships. This is something that will not happen, and I understand there are other options, I fully respect, but I'm here to defend the European model of sport as an element of our identity as people of Europe. Antonius Manders (PPE). – I agree completely with you. It's not about money, it's about emotion. And my question was, at the moment, the Premier League is the super league, which is only filled with money and the EU clubs cannot compete anymore. All the money is going to the UK nowadays. My question is: are you willing to set up an open dialogue with UEFA and the Commission and perhaps some people who are entrusted to save the EU football clubs in the future to ensure that they are not completely eclipsed by the clubs from the Premier League, which is the case nowadays with their loads of money from all countries of the world Nobody knows where the money from Qatar is coming from who invested in clubs in the UK. It's not possible in Europe. How can we save the EU competition? Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege, darf ich nur sagen, die Fragen sind nicht in einem direkten Zusammenhang mit dem Thema, das wir heute in der Fragestunde behandeln, aber ich merke, dass hier zwei Fachexperten auf dem Gebiet der Champions League miteinander reden, und daher darf ich noch einmal dem Herrn Vizepräsidenten das Wort erteilen. Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – I do not want to repeat myself. Simply to clarify that the national football championships are under the remit of the national arrangements. This is not part of EU law, and UEFA has the autonomy to liaise with national football associations and regulate the national championships, like the Premier League. What is of European competence, and where my previous reply applies is to any idea of a pan-European arrangement like the so-called „European Super League”. That would be a closed circuit of the richest clubs that would share among themselves something like EUR 5 billion per year at the expense of the rest. This is what is fully against the European model of sport. So, replacing national arrangements is not our job, but safeguarding the openness of European football at European level; yes, it is, and it is linked to the European model of sport, which needs protection. Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Nord Stream 2 wurde angegriffen, und es wurde hier ein schwerer Schaden hervorgerufen, der die Energieversorgung Europas und vor allem Deutschlands massiv beeinträchtigt. Schweden wollte zusammen mit Dänemark und Deutschland eine Untersuchungskommission machen und diesen Vorgang untersuchen. Schweden hat sich nun daraus zurückgezogen und hat unter Verweis auf die nationalen Interessen hier diese Informationen nicht weitergegeben. Das ist also europäische Solidarität? Ich glaube nicht, denn da verstehe ich etwas anderes darunter. Hier entsteht bei mir der Eindruck – und nicht nur bei mir, sondern bei vielen Menschen –, dass bewusst etwas unterdrückt werden soll, weil es nicht in das Narrativ passt, das hier verbreitet wird. Deshalb meine konkrete Frage an Sie: Hat die Kommission Informationen über den Sachstand der Ermittlungen, und wenn ja, welche sind das? Und wenn nein, warum nicht? Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Sorry, I wouldn't like to use this occasion to play detective. It's not my role. And I think that we have to rely on the authorities that are investigating through regional and collective arrangements. When the CR Directive is in place, all this would happen automatically. We would be notified, we would have involvement, we will know what happened. But now are in this area that our Council recommendation aims to complete, to fulfil, by introducing the obligation to work together to investigate similar incidents. And we had a first meeting of stress tests in our energy sector with Member States' security experts, and there was unanimous support from our security experts to continue working together to investigate the real causes of these incidents. An additional difficulty that we are having in this specific incident, which we tried to remedy also with a recommendation, is that this incident took place not in the territorial waters of Denmark. It was extraterritorial. So this adds an additional layer of complication. That's why in our recommendation today, we keep open the issue of territoriality, or extraterritoriality if you like, that would allow us to investigate similar cases together, including in situations that fall outside the territoriality clause. Bernhard Zimniok (ID). –
(Beginn des Redebeitrags bei ausgeschaltetem Mikro) ... nicht mit Ihrer Antwort zufrieden. Denn das grenzt nicht nur an Naivität, die Sie am Anfang angesprochen haben in einem anderen Zusammenhang, sondern das ist schlicht und ergreifend ein Boykott, Ihre Aufgaben zu tun. Denn Sie müssen hier sicherstellen, dass unsere kritische Infrastruktur geschützt wird. Und wenn das nicht der Fall ist, müssen Sie die Schuldigen benennen. Und wenn Sie diese nicht benennen, dann schaffen Sie hier einen Fall, wo kein Mensch mehr der Europäischen Union glaubt, wenn Sie dann hier irgendjemanden beschuldigen. Nennen Sie die Schuldigen! Sagen Sie, wie der Sachstand ist, denn das kann – nach drei Wochen – mit Sicherheit nicht zufriedenstellend sein. Ich möchte Sie jetzt noch einmal fragen, und ich wiederhole meine Fragen: Ist das alles, was Sie bisher haben? Ist das alles, was Ihnen vorliegt? Hier geht es um massive Beeinträchtigungen des stärksten Landes in Europa. Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – I'm not sure whether the honourable Member was here with us from the beginning when I had the chance to explain the new regulatory architecture we are building in Europe to defend ourselves against any threat to our critical entities' resilience. I explained in great detail, I would say, what is for the European Union to do and what is for the Member States to do. The question that she asks me requires me to position myself outside of my institutional role as the Member of the Commission in charge of the Security Union. I am not in charge of the investigation. I'm in charge of establishing, together with the co-legislators, a European architecture for security within which we can find out the truth. This is the crucial difference that apparently you are missing. Der Präsident. – Der Herr Kollege Zimniok war zu dem Zeitpunkt, als Sie Ihre einführenden Bemerkungen gemacht haben, noch nicht da, daher konnte er das nicht wissen. Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor comisario, sé que me comprende bien si le interpelo directamente sobre una cuestión relacionada con el objeto de este turno de preguntas, en vivo y en directo, pero seguramente no expresada hasta el momento, y es la de que se pueda no solamente proteger las infraestructuras críticas frente a ataques híbridos, sino compartir la información, no solamente entre los Estados miembros, sino con la ciudadanía. Resulta chocante que exista todavía controversia con respecto a la secuencia fáctica que conduce al ataque en el gasoducto Nord Stream, que conduce a la interrupción de las comunicaciones o que permite el espionaje a primeros ministros o a dirigentes de la Unión Europea y a altos funcionarios de la Unión Europea, lo que impide explicar al conjunto de la opinión pública europea, de manera clara y transparente, cuál es la secuencia fáctica detrás de esos hechos claramente escandalosos. La pregunta es: además de invertir en la protección de las infraestructuras críticas, ¿tenemos algún plan para poder hablar de lo que realmente sucede y explicárselo a la opinión pública europea? Margaritis Schinas,
vicepresidente de la Comisión. – Señor López Aguilar, sí, estamos construyendo una arquitectura institucional, por primera vez a nivel europeo, que nos permitirá tener un sistema, que no tenemos hoy, dentro del cual los Estados miembros tendrán que notificar a la Unión Europea su nivel de protección para todo tipo de empresas, entidades, expuestas a este tipo de amenazas, y también una obligación de trabajo conjunto entre los Estados miembros y las instituciones para determinar soluciones y depurar responsabilidades. Sí la tendremos: tenemos el acuerdo político y espero que sea votado y puesto en marcha lo antes posible. Lo que no se puede es, en el momento en que estamos, con todas estas investigaciones aún en curso con los Estados miembros implicados, ofrecer aquí, en el Pleno, una apreciación. No sería correcto, no tengo la información necesaria para hacerlo. Lo que sí puedo afirmar —y se lo he dicho a su colega— es que tuvimos por primera vez la reunión de los expertos de los Estados miembros, y les pedimos que funcionasen como si la Directiva ya se hubiese puesto en marcha. Y estamos muy satisfechos de que esta primera reunión de expertos nos haya mostrado que los Estados miembros empiezan a converger y se dan cuenta de la necesidad de trabajar juntos en relación con este tipo de incidentes. Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). –
(inicio de la intervención fuera de micrófono) ... vicepresidente Schinas expresaba claramente que la aspiración es, efectivamente, que no vuelva a pasar que, sobre un suceso tan conmocionante como la interrupción del suministro de gas o un atentado contra el Nord Stream, se puedan tener dudas prolongadas en el tiempo con respecto de la causalidad, de quién lo ha hecho, de la responsabilidad, y de qué es lo que la Unión Europea puede hacer, no solamente para trasladar esa información de manera transparente al conjunto de la opinión pública, sino para protegerse en su conjunto frente a la reiteración o la reproducción eventualmente en el futuro de un suceso de esa gravedad. Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – The only thing that I could add – and I think it is an important piece of information that President López Aguilar requests me to provide – is that when I announced that amongst the novelties of the Council recommendation that we're presenting today, we have this idea of blueprints on critical infrastructure playbooks that our Member States can use when they are faced with these types of situations and incidents. These blueprints, let me assure you, will include timely communication and information to citizens. So to clarify your concern, this would not only be a situation where security experts discuss among themselves and investigate jointly, but as part of these blueprints that will be developed there will be an obligation to communicate externally to citizens. This is an important element. Andrey Kovatchev (PPE). – President, Vice-President, I am going directly to the two questions which I have. It is common sense that a perpetrator who is guilty of destroying infrastructure and making a lot of casualties needs to pay for this destruction. We talked a lot about the assets of the Russian Federation – state and local authority assets – in the territory of the European Union, but also the assets of the Russian National Bank. And when we talk with High Representative Borrell, who was answering that the EU is looking for a possibility to seize or use these assets for the restoration of the damages in Ukraine. Where is the stage now? What we are going to do in this direction? And many of these assets, the properties are used for espionage in the territory of the European Union, pretending this is cultural or educational entities where they are using them for espionage. And I will ask my second question on the on the Internet. Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Thank you, Mr Kovatchev. Let me start by reiterating that I am personally very much in favour of using the frozen assets of the Russian Central Bank for the reconstruction of Ukraine. I think this is morally, politically and, yes, also legally, right, because we could have doubts if we were in a different situation. But we are in a situation of an all-out war where the Russian army is bombing schools, maternity wards, hospitals, churches, monasteries, households, apartment blocks. So this is the type this is the type of war we are obliged to deal with and to use these frozen reserves of the Russian Central Bank for the reconstruction of this damage. It makes perfect sense. But, you know, we do not live in a world of politics. We live also in a world of lawyers and insurance brokers and experts and international arbitrators. So when my colleague Josep Borrell told you that we have to get it right, this is what he has in mind. So let us distinguish between what is politically, morally, legally, ethically correct and how we can best organise it. Let me remind this House that there is a precedent. The Americans used frozen assets from the central Bank of Afghanistan to finance the restoration and reconstruction of Afghanistan. So this has happened before. It's not something that is totally alien in the world of international relations. Andrey Kovatchev (PPE). – Thank you very much, Vice-President, for this answer. One second issue on the responsibility of big platforms, Internet platforms. We have now the DSA and the DMA, but we see that these big platforms, especially private companies, US companies, are monetarising disinformation. Democracy cannot fall victim to a business model of a private company. We see that the fact-checkers, content moderators and trusted flaggers, especially in small-language markets, are not good enough to fight against disinformation campaigns started by the Russian Federation. Especially in small-language markets like in central and eastern Europe, we see a lot of spread and visibility of such Russian propaganda on the Internet platforms, especially on Meta, on their platform Facebook. So, the implementation of DSA/DMA: how can we push these companies that they do their best to demonetarise the visibility of disinformation? Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Thank you for this question. Let me tell you that as Vice-President in charge of promoting our European way of life, I feel very proud that in this political cycle, we managed to have this agreement on the DSA and DMA, which is the European way of digital governance. This is something that we should be collectively proud of, this House, the Commission and the Member States. This was not given and it was done. In Europe, through the DSA and the DMA, we were able to ask questions that have not been properly answered in certain parts of the world and have never been even asked in another part of the world. We found the right balance, and I think this would be the answer to the problems you raise. Of course, we are in a situation, like with the Critical Entities Resilience Directive, where these rules have to be enacted. This would be the final protection against it. Until then, I also want to be fair with the platforms. I have met many of them and I also attended a plenary debate here in the last plenary session. I think the platforms are increasingly aware of the need to deliver on Russian propaganda and disinformation. They know, and they know that we are watching them, and I think that they are making a considerable effort to live up to the expectations bestowed on them. But I would agree with you that their ever-increasing fact-checking capacity and rebuttal capacity should cover all linguistic sections, and especially some of our lesser spoken words on the continent, where the battle of narratives is even more acute. So I fully agree with you on the need for them to do more in these particular settings. Der Präsident. – Ich habe noch drei Fragesteller. Wenn sich sonst jemand noch zu Wort melden möchte, bitte ich, dass er von seinem Registrierungsrecht Gebrauch macht. Ich habe auf der Liste Herrn Adam Bielan, Frau Karen Melchior und Herrn Billy Kelleher. Adam Bielan (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! W ciągu ostatniego roku wschodnia granica Unii Europejskiej i NATO stała się obiektem bezprecedensowej agresji ze strony Łukaszenki i Putina. W czasie brutalnego ataku Rosji na Ukrainę Kreml nasilił jednocześnie taktykę wojny hybrydowej, w tym zakrojonej na szeroką skalę kampanii dezinformacyjnej, której mój kraj, Polska, stał się ofiarą już w sierpniu zeszłego roku. Nikt nie ma wątpliwości, iż obecny reżim rosyjski zagraża stabilizacji i bezpieczeństwu nie tylko w regionach sąsiednich, ale i w całej Europie. Już dawno Unia Europejska, uzupełniając NATO, powinna podjąć zdecydowane działania na rzecz zwiększenia zdolności zapobiegania zagrożeniom hybrydowym w obszarach takich jak terroryzm państwowy, cyberataki czy bezpieczeństwo energetyczne. Jakie są dalsze kroki w celu umocnienia współpracy Unii Europejskiej i NATO w zakresie zapobiegania atakom hybrydowym ? Czy i jak Unia minimalizuje niepotrzebne powielanie działań obronnych? I czy Komisja rozważa wprowadzenie obowiązkowego poziomu wydatków na cyberbezpieczeństwo, aby wzmocnić krajowe zdolności w tym zakresie? Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Thank you, Mr. Bielan, for reminding me of this particularly painful experience that we have witnessed three times in the current Commission of the weaponisation of human suffering and migration by authoritarian leaders who use the pain of people to hurt the European Union. We saw it for the first time in the Greek-Turkish border in Evros in March 2020, where 20 000 desperate people were put in buses from Istanbul to the border under the promise that they will be in Munich soon. We saw it again when Lukashenko was selling visas, tariffs and airplane tickets, promising Iraqi Kurds a German residence permit and instead abandoning them in a -5oC forest in the borders with Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. So this weaponisation, this instrumentalisation of migration is in itself a major hybrid threat. And I fully agree that this is something that we need to face. But I must also say that I am very proud because the European Union rose to the level of this threat. We stopped this phenomena both in Evros, we arranged with countries of origin and transit to stop all incoming flights to Minsk, and we held our Spanish partners to face similar events in the Spanish cities of Delta and Melilla. So these hybrid threats will not be something that we will take lightly. We are aware, we know and by now, if I may say, we have also developed a know-how on how to cope with these situations. Adam Bielan (ECR). – Dziękuję Panie Komisarzu, szczególnie za Pańskie słowa dotyczące sytuacji na granicy polsko–białoruskiej. Chciałbym dopytać Pana Komisarza o ochronę infrastruktury krytycznej. Działania sabotażowe na Nord Stream wskazują na konieczność podjęcia wszelkich dostępnych środków mających na celu zwiększenie odporności podmiotów krytycznych. Pomimo że projekt dyrektywy w sprawie odporności podmiotów krytycznych nie został jeszcze formalnie przyjęty, czy Komisja Europejska zamierza uruchomić mechanizmy współpracy wskazane w tym projekcie? Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – The answer to your question is yes, absolutely. Precisely, this Council recommendation that the College of Commissioners has adopted an hour ago is precisely meant to frontload the regulatory provisions of the directive, now when we are facing this incident, so that we can cope as of now, before these texts are published in the Official Journal. And let me again, I think I will not repeat everything I said on the essence of this protection, but I would concentrate on three important elements that can be very helpful. First, risk assessments. We need to be able to have comprehensive risk assessments on the type of threats, on the origin of threats and the likelihood of threats. Two, as I was telling President López Aguilar earlier, we need blueprints, playbooks for response. What do we do in what situation? And this is also provided for. And finally, stress tests. We need to be able to test the limits of our resilience, work together, bring expertise together. And this is something that is particularly relevant in the area of energy and pipelines. Karen Melchior (Renew). – Thank you Commissioner for being here today in this very important debate. As mentioned previously by colleagues, the recent Nord Stream attacks have shown the fragility of our physical critical infrastructure. However, we must not forget the significant increase in cyber attacks since Russia again invaded Ukraine. Also here in particular, it has been on energy infrastructure. We welcome, I welcome, the work done on ensuring security both online and offline. And we must look at Ukraine that has been dealing with such attacks from Russia since 2012. In 2017, a group of Russian hackers managed an attack which took down the IT systems of the Danish shipping company Maersk. The global cost of this attack was to the tune of USD 10 billion. So it is not a question about if we will be hacked; it is a question about when, and how strong our defence will be. When we saw in 2017 that even one of the largest shipping companies was not spared, how can we then make sure that our European companies have the defences that they need? How can we support them? And also, finally, how can we, as Europe, learn from Ukraine's experience on cybersecurity, and how can we continually exchange with Ukraine also before they become a member of NATO? Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Let me thank you for bringing up the Maersk incident, because actually I was saying that we started with this package of CER Directive and NIS2 Directive physical and digital together before the war. And one of the reasons that we started with this parallel track of protection was precisely because we had this pattern of attacks to companies. You mentioned Maersk, but the most blatant, if you like, universally known attack was the attack on the Colonial Pipeline in the United States, where there was a combination of a digital attack against the critical infrastructure. So the combination, including ransomware, although our American friends were very effective at dismantling this and also recuperating the ransom paid. But the guiding, the original idea of this parallel protection track between the Critical Entities Resilience Directive and NIS2 Directive was precisely that – to make Europe a place where similar incidents and threats would not be so easy as they were in the case of Maersk's and in the case of the Colonial Pipeline. So, yes, I was saying it earlier and I repeat it proudly now, we are now better prepared. We are much better prepared from the time where these incidents happened. Now, on Ukraine. The Ukrainians are doing a great job in defending themselves against the cyberattacks. And this is something that they are not doing alone. They are doing it with the help of their friends. And without going into much detail, let me assure you that the European Union is part of this ring of friends that allows Ukraine to defend themselves successively in the cyberwar. We are not alone. Other international partners and entities help Ukrainians in this struggle. And the only thing that I can tell you is that when this war is over, there will be many pilgrimages to Kyiv to find out how precisely this battle was so successful. Because I can assure you that we have very good results in the fight against cyberthreats. Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Europe's age of innocence came crashing down around us on 24 February this year. But in advance of the invasion of Ukraine by our psychopathic neighbour in the Kremlin, the Russian navy were off the south-west coast of Ireland the previous month, in January 2022. They were observing undersea cables where the most dataflow between the United States of America, Europe and the UK takes place, where there is the most critical infrastructure in terms of communications, digital flow, dataflow, financial transactions, law, the internet and all the connectivity of a modern world in terms of digital connectivity. From that perspective, Commissioner, I would like to ask, how do you see this particular directive assisting the Irish Government, the Irish Defence Forces and others in ensuring that we have some level of resilience, we have some level of observance as to what is happening in the vast oceans around the west coast of the European Union and how we will put measures in place? Bearing in mind not every country there is a member of a military organisation. Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Yes, Mr Kelleher, I have the fullest respect for the constitutional arrangements of our Member States, and I'm not here to express any opinion on the neutrality status or the membership that any Member State can have with international organisations - in the case of Ireland, NATO and others -, but you are raising a very important, relevant element, namely how all Member States can be covered against these types of threat. And you gave me the opportunity to reiterate that Ireland will be fully, fully covered by this shield that we are building with the Critical Entities Resilience Network and the infrastructure and the Network Information System Directive. This would be a parallel shield, if you like, against digital and physical threats that would cover all Member States regardless of their being a member or not, of international security arrangements and organisations. This is EU law that would cover all our Member States. Now, on the specific incident that you mentioned, I am aware of it. I think this pertains more not to the security/homeland competence, which is both mine and the Commission's, but both on the defence side, but in case that these threats would materialise against the critical infrastructure of Ireland in its territorial waters, the CR Directive would fully cover it. And even if there was an extra territoriality element to it, I was telling earlier your colleagues that with our Council recommendation today we leave open the issue of territoriality coverage so as to be able even to go beyond in cases like that. Billy Kelleher (Renew). – On the 14 May 2021, there was a devastating cyberattack on the Irish healthcare system, on the HSE. It ground it to a halt and cost lives in loss of data, loss of information, cancellation of appointments for people. So from that perspective, I just urge the Commission, knowing fully that they are very conscious of the threats in terms of cybersecurity, that this would be put front and centre as well as to the physical elements with regard to the digital concerns that are out there. NIS, DORA and the many other areas that this Parliament has debated must be a critical part of any measures we put in place to address cyber attacks, both physical and digital. Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Yes, I fully agree with the honourable Member that, first of all, we are of course, very well aware of the attack against the Irish health system, and this is also the type of attack which is now becoming very common - for a very simple reason that the attackers prefer attacks against our health systems, hospitals, because these are places that hold a huge amount of data and this is gold for them. So we have seen recently a shift from the traditional attacks against financial institutions, banks, towards national health systems, hospitals and so on and so forth. So yes, we are fully aware that we have to prioritise under our shield of NIS 2 related instruments the attacks against health systems. This is an area which is particularly sensitive in our coverage. This is an area that is even more important because you would have seen that a few months ago we have proposed, for the first time ever, and I think it's also a world first, a new initiative for an EU health data space that would give access to citizens and researchers to our health data potential that would facilitate research, but also mobility in the internal market. Of course, under the full protection of GDPR and privacy laws. But to get it right in the area of health data is one of the most important priorities of our cybersecurity strategy, let me assure you. Anna Bonfrisco (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, grazie Vicepresidente, è stato davvero molto interessante ascoltare le Sue parole e io mi auguro che Lei abbia ragione nel costruire rapidamente questo scudo per i paesi europei, composto dalla direttiva CER, dalla NIS 2, dal Cyber Resilience Act, che sia davvero efficace, altrimenti avrà ragione il collega Glucksmann, che ha messo già in evidenza i nostri ritardi. Allora Le domando: questo impianto normativo riuscirà a essere rapido tanto quanto rapidi sono gli attacchi? E la seconda domanda è: il peso amministrativo sulle nostre aziende, sulle imprese, per poter allinearsi alla riduzione del rischio, ridurrà anche la loro competitività rispetto ad altre imprese nel mondo? E quindi cosa può fare l'Unione europea per sostenere lo sforzo di queste imprese? Sì con le linee guida, ma anche con risorse. Μαργαρίτης Σχοινάς,
Αντιπρόεδρος της Επιτροπής. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ναι, η κυρία Bonfrisco έχει δίκιο όταν ρωτάει πόσο σίγουροι είμαστε ότι αυτή η νέα ασπίδα προστασίας θα παραγάγει τα αποτελέσματα που χρειαζόμαστε. Η απάντηση είναι ότι είμαστε πολύ πιο σίγουροι ότι τώρα έχουμε ένα επίπεδο προστασίας που δεν είχαμε ποτέ στην Ευρώπη. Αυτό βέβαια δεν σημαίνει ότι αυτοί που μας επιτίθενται θα σταματήσουν να μας επιτίθενται —το αντίθετο, θα εντείνουν τις προσπάθειές τους. Είμαστε στόχος και θα συνεχίσουμε να είμαστε στόχος, αλλά την ίδια στιγμή θα έχουμε ολοένα και καλύτερες άμυνες, ολοένα και πιο πειστικές άμυνες. Στη δεύτερη ερώτησή σας για το πότε όλο αυτό το νομοθετικό περιβάλλον, το νομοθετικό πλαίσιο, θα εφαρμοστεί στην πράξη, είμαστε τώρα σε μια „άχαρη” στιγμή, διότι έχουμε την πολιτική συμφωνία σε αυτά τα δύο πολύ σημαντικά νομοθετικά κείμενα, αλλά δεν έχουμε την τυπική συμφωνία που τα θέτει σε εφαρμογή. Αυτό θα συμβεί μόλις περάσουν από τις ψηφοφορίες εδώ, στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, τα αντίστοιχα κείμενα και εγκριθούν και τυπικά από το Συμβούλιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Αλλά είμαστε στο τέλος. Και τρίτον, συμφωνώ απόλυτα. Προσυπογράφω και με τα δύο χέρια τη διαπίστωση της κυρίας Bonfrisco ότι αυτό δεν είναι μόνο ένα θέμα εθνικής ασφάλειας. Είναι και ένα θέμα οικονομικής ασφάλειας και ανταγωνιστικότητας για τις ευρωπαϊκές επιχειρήσεις —έχει απόλυτο δίκιο να το επισημαίνει. Κάθε φορά που μπορούμε να βοηθήσουμε σηκώνοντας αυτό το τείχος προστασίας, δεν βοηθάμε μόνο κυβερνήσεις και πολίτες. Βοηθάμε και επιχειρήσεις να μπορέσουν να είναι ανταγωνιστικές σε αυτό το ολοένα πιο αβέβαιο παγκόσμιο σκηνικό ασφάλειας. Anna Bonfrisco (ID). – Signor Vicepresidente, Lei sa che l'Italia è il settimo paese al mondo per cyber attacchi? Il primo paese in Europa. C'è bisogno quindi di sostenere un processo importante perché l'Italia è un paese strategico rispetto ad alcune grandi infrastrutture; all'inizio del dibattito venivano citate quelle sottomarine, ma ce ne sono anche molte altre. Cosa intendete fare? Μαργαρίτης Σχοινάς,
Αντιπρόεδρος της Επιτροπής. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δεν έχω καμία αμφιβολία ότι η Ιταλία είναι ένα πολύ σημαντικό κράτος μέλος για όλα αυτά τα θέματα που συζητάμε, τόσο λόγω μεγέθους όσο και λόγω πολιτικής σημασίας, όπως επίσης και διότι πάρα πολλές δυνάμεις ενδεχομένως να μπουν στον πειρασμό να δημιουργήσουν τέτοιου είδους απειλές για ένα κράτος όπως η Ιταλία. Επαναλαμβάνω, όμως, αυτό που είχα πει και στον κύριο Kelleher, ότι πέρα από τις εθνικές συνθήκες και καταστάσεις, αυτό το ρυθμιστικό πλαίσιο που τελειοποιούμε, το πλαίσιο για την προστασία των κρίσιμων υποδομών και το πλαίσιο για την ασφάλεια των δικτύων, θα καλύπτει επαρκώς όλα τα κράτη μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, ανεξαρτήτως μεγέθους και έκθεσης στον κίνδυνο επιθέσεων στον κυβερνοχώρο και επιθέσεων εναντίον των κρίσιμων υποδομών της κάθε χώρας. Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Dear Commissioner Schinas, ευχαριστώ πολύ – thank you very much for being here today with us. I believe this debate is extremely timely indeed. The sabotage of Nord Stream 2 can be seen as an alarm bell that is telling us that we can be hurt substantially through physical actions, not to mention the already well-known capacity of third actors to interfere in our democratic processes through hybrid means. While it is certainly true that we must create and empower ad hoc bodies and entities such as the hybrid response team, I have always considered it essential to follow a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach in order to increase our resilience. To this extent, the strategic compass clearly states that one of the main points will be a reinforcement of the cyber diplomacy toolbox. Therefore, I would like to ask you to elaborate further on the way forward for moving this will from paper to concrete actions. Will it be possible to include provisions on cyber actions in the international agreements that we signed for trying to prevent cyber attacks as much as possible? And what about the diplomatic responses to be put in place in case these efforts fail? Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Thank you for this question. It's a last question, but indeed, it covers an area that has not been covered so far, an area which is not under my remit of EU security Vice-President, but an area which is particularly relevant to the issues we are discussing today. This diplomatic toolbox is a fantastic instrument that we have at our disposal to be able to hit, to be able to act. And we used it, as you know. We used it against a few cases, but we used it effectively each time that we had solid evidence on the perpetrators and the culprits of these attacks. This is an instrument which is in the remit of our foreign policy head, Josep Borrell, with whom I'm working very closely on all of these areas. What I can tell you is that, as far as I am concerned, I would plea for more frequent and effective use of this facility, although we have the difficulty of unanimity, as you well know, because each time that we have to use it, we have to find and seek unanimous agreement in our Member States, which is not the easiest thing to do at European Union level. But the instrument is good. The instrument is good. This also reinforces my perception that when we are discussing security and threats, the threats we are facing are mutually dependent. So if we have a failure in a high-voltage line in Germany, for example, then we have millions of customers in France, in Italy, in Spain, cut off from the grid. And if we have an undersea gas pipeline being attacked, this would have an impact on many countries far from the scene of the attack. So this interconnection of threats and the fact that they are mutually dependent compels us to use every instrument we have at our disposal, both within the remit of EU law and in the remit of our foreign policy. President. – I think this Question Time has been a big success, we will close it now. 13.   Toenemende haatmisdrijven tegen lhbtiq-personen in heel Europa in het licht van de recente homofobe moord in Slowakije (debat) Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Zunahme der Hassverbrechen gegen LGBTIQ-Personen in Europa angesichts des jüngsten homophoben Mordes in der Slowakei (2022/2894(RSP)). Ivan Bartoš,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, good afternoon and thank you for the invitation to this debate. The Czech Presidency deeply deplores the terrible attack at an LGBTIQ establishment in Bratislava, which caused the death of two young people on Wednesday, 12 October, and the hateful anti-Semitic manifesto which led to this horrific act of unjustifiable violence. Let me be very clear from the start. There is no place for homophobia anywhere in Europe. Sexual orientation and gender identity are aspects of who we are. No one should feel a need to conceal their true selves in order to avoid discrimination, hate or even violence. All citizens of a Union are equal and should live freely, safely and without discrimination, regardless of their sex, race, colour, religion or sexual orientation. These are principles and values solemnly enshrined in the EU Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU legislation. They are not up for discussion. Our common European commitment to decency, tolerance and equal treatment is the very foundation of the idea of a just society. This is a source of pride of Europeans and for good reason. It is also necessary not to overlook the anti-Semitic motivess that are expressed in his manifesto. There is no place for anti-Semitism anywhere in Europe, and the Czech Presidency is determined to keep working on fighting this form of hatred. If we look over the past years, progress is undoubtedly made on LGBTIQ rights. However, the most recent survey by the Fundamental Rights Agency has shown that as many as 43% LGBTIQ persons feel discriminated against. One in ten LGBTIQ respondents were physically or sexual attacked and trans and intersex respondents experience attacked at higher rate. What makes matters even worse is the fact that most of these injustices go unreported. Overall, across the EU, only 11% of discrimination suffered is reported and only a small percentage of hate-motivated incidents are reported. At the same time, we have seen in recent years a sharp rise in hate speech and hate crime in Europe. Those developments are linked to a number of factors, including disinformation as well as the growing use of internet, including social media. EU action to address the dissemination of hatred content, including all forms of violent extremism and terrorism online, is therefore particularly relevant. In this regard, much has been done to cooperate with internet companies, but this cooperation needs to be stepped up. In particular, more information about how they handle borderline content would be useful. The Council has discussed violent extremism and terrorism in light of the increasing polarisation in our societies. The conclusion is clear: we need further efforts to prevent radicalisation leading to violent extremism and we as politicians, should lead by example. So the discourse that somehow covers those things that I mentioned should not be a part of the political discourse in a democratic society the way it was described. So how to address the situation that is currently raising not only on the internet, we need to cooperate on the EU and internationally to counter those extremist narratives, always in full respect for the principles of freedom of speech and expression. As requested by European Parliament in some of its resolutions, the Commission proposed the extension of the list of EU crimes to cover hate speech and hate crime. The Presidency will continue to seek the necessary consensus to reach an agreement. Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I am really grateful that you have included this debate on growing hate crimes against LGBTIQ people across Europe on the agenda, considering the recent homophobic murders in Bratislava. My thoughts are with the families and friends of 23-year-old Matúš Horváth and 26-year-old Juraj Vankulič, the victims of the shooting in Slovakia, but also with the LGBTIQ community all over the world. This attack reminds us of this summer's terrorist attack prior to Oslo Pride, killing two and injuring several others, and other attacks that have targeted the LGBTIQ community in recent years. These abhorrent murders are a threat to our societies built on human rights and equality. In recent years, hate speech and hate crime targeting persons based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics, but also targeting organisations supporting LGBTIQ rights have increased globally, including across the European Union. As we have already heard from the minister, the 2019 FRA LGBTI survey clearly documents that one in ten LGBTIQ respondents in the EU were physically or sexually attacked in the five years before the survey because they are LGBTIQ. Trans and intersex respondents experienced attacks at up to twice the rate of the rest of the community, while only one in five incidents of physical or sexual violence was reported to any organisation. The European Commission is determined to ensure that everyone feels safe and free to be who they are and love who they want, wherever they are. The Commission has taken important steps to end the exclusion of and discrimination and violence against sexual and gender minorities. Two years ago, we adopted the LGBTIQ equality strategy, which combines targeted actions with the mainstreaming of LGBTIQ equality in all policy areas. As part of the strategy the Commission adopted last December a communication accompanied by a draft Council decision to extend the current list of EU crimes to hate crime and hate speech. If this Council decision is adopted by Member States, the Commission will be able in a second step to propose secondary legislation which would allow the EU to criminalise other forms of hate speech and hate crime than the ones currently laid down in the framework decision on combatting racism and xenophobia. The Commission is also focusing on creating dialogue and exchanges of good practices among Member States. We have set up an LGBTIQ expert subgroup, which meets regularly and agreed on guidelines for strategies and action plans to enhance LGBTIQ equality, which also covers hate crimes. And on hate speech and hate crimes since 2016, a high-level group on combating hate speech and hate crime provides a forum for dialogue and good practice exchange among national authorities. The work has focused on better support of victims, stepping up hate crime, training for law enforcement and enhancing reporting and hate-crime data collection. The high-level group has just adopted key guiding principles on cooperation between civil society organisations and law enforcement, in particular, to address the persistent underreporting of hate crimes. This summer, these two work strands came together in a dedicated session on tackling hate crime and hate speech against LGBTIQ people. The sessions served to highlight promising practices from both Member States and civil society organisations. The Commission also continues to provide funding under the citizens equality rights and values programme to initiatives aimed to tackle hate crime and hate speech, as well as to enhance LGBTIQ equality. Equality bodies can play a key role to collect reports of discriminatory acts. This is why we will soon present a new proposal on equality bodies to strengthen their independence and to make sure that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, at least in the field of employment and occupation, is part of the remit in all EU Member States. We continue to push for the adoption of the 2008 proposal for a horizontal anti-discrimination directive that would extend protection against discrimination to all other areas of life. Dear members, hate has no place in Europe. All institutions must join forces to put an end to it. SĒDI VADA: ROBERTS ZĪLE Priekšsēdētājas vietnieks Frances Fitzgerald,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, colleagues, the brutal murder of two young men in Slovakia last week was chilling and shocking. Chilling and shocking because in 2022 many of us were hoping that hate crimes such as this were a thing of the past. And let us be clear, this was a hate crime. This attack took place outside a well-known gay bar in the city centre, a safe haven for many people in Bratislava. This was not only an attack on the LGBTQI+ community, but this was attack on all of our European values – let's make no mistake about that. This is one serious case. But attacks on the LGBTQI+ people are happening in all EU countries with alarming regularity. The LGBTQI+ community in Slovakia and indeed across Europe are still subject to hate-filled rhetoric, which is often driven by some politicians – let's be clear, they don't show much leadership on this, quite the opposite – and by extremist groups, which in the end leads to the sort of situation that we have just seen. Hate, intolerance and intimidation towards this community still exists in Europe, and it must be challenged on every opportunity and every place that we see it being used. I commend the immediate, massive and positive response of Slovak civil society and citizens to the murders as seen in the many marches across the country and abroad. And I call on all European governments and the European Commission to show a genuine commitment to making meaningful progress in the protection of the LGBTQI+ people by ensuring a zero-tolerance approach to the physical, verbal and psychological abuse that the community is suffering. We need to continue to work on these issues. Cyrus Engerer,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, it started with a word – they call us „poofter”, „dyke”, „faggot” – but it ended with a knife, a fist or, in this case, a gun. That is the reality we face when our communities and our leadership do not take hate speech seriously. This is the result of inaction in the face of growing radicalisation of far-right and conservative narratives. Last Wednesday, Slovakia, Europe and the world lost two of our siblings to hate and intolerance. Hate and intolerance which many of us saw coming. Our community saw the warning signs in every tweet and every post and every alt-right hand gesture hidden in photographs. Our community has lived lives where phrases have turned into fists and insults have turned into injuries. And we have begged you to pay attention while many have accused us of only seeking attention. Commissioner, Juraj and Matúš were killed because we have allowed the right-wing to distract our political discourse with talk of pronouns and wokeness in the face of rising radicalisation and violence by their supporters. Madam Commissioner, Deputy Prime Minister, I urge you to take more action on the rising hate. Once again, our community is begging you. Michal Šimečka,
za skupinu Renew. – Vážený pán predsedajúci, nikdy sme túto debatu nemali mať. Matúš s Jurajom sa mali aj dnes po práci alebo po škole vrátiť domov za svojimi milovanými. Mali mať nedotknuteľné právo žiť, žiť naplno, žiť slobodne a bez strachu. Chcel by som preto aj z tohto miesta vyjadriť úprimnú sústrasť najbližším obetí tohto teroristického útoku v Bratislave, vôbec prvého na LGBTIQ komunitu v Európskej únii. Ak v tomto hrozivom čine vôbec dokážeme nájsť nejaký záblesk nádeje, tak sme ho videli práve v uliciach slovenských miest posledné dni, kde sa desaťtisíce ľudí prihlásili k rešpektu, rovnosti a prijatiu. A vidíme tu nádej, aj tu, tento týždeň v Európskom parlamente, kde moji kolegovia a kolegyne naprieč celým kontinentom, naprieč ideologickým spektrom vyjadrujú solidaritu s LGBTIQ komunitou na Slovensku a vyzývajú na skoncovanie s jazykom nenávisti, ale aj s realitou diskriminácie. Áno, tento odporný čin spojil Európu a jej odkaz je jasný. Nikdy, nikdy sa nezmierime s tým, že v dnešnej Európskej únii sú ľudia, ktorí len kvôli odlišnej sexuálnej orientácii musia žiť v neustálom strachu bez plnohodnotných práv, ktorí musia byť večným terčom a obeťou politických hier a ideológií, a že Európa a tento Parlament budú vždy stáť na ich strane. Terry Reintke,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, so many moments have passed now where we had to express our condolences and our solidarity with victims of hate crime and terror. Of course, first and foremost, also today our love and solidarity goes to the victims, their loved ones and the whole LGBTI community in Slovakia. But I want to take this opportunity and say something else as well. Words have consequences. This attack did not start when the shooter picked up the gun. This attack started long before. It started with words, with words of hatred, uttered on social media, on the Internet, but also unfortunately uttered in places in this Parliament. Words that deny us fundamental rights. Words that deny us equality. Words that go as far as denying our very existence. Words that frame us as a threat to society and that dehumanise us, just because we love someone or because we were assigned the wrong gender at birth. I want to say this to the far right: stop these hate campaigns. Your words have consequences. And I want to say to all of us: we cannot start at launching investigations after terror attacks like this have happened. We have to start when these words of hatred are being uttered. We have to stand up to this hatred in our societies and not just as queers, but everyone who believes in democracy, freedom, fundamental rights and peaceful societies. Johan Nissinen,
för ECR-gruppen. – Herr talman! Tack för ordet i denna mycket viktiga debatt, som också är min första, mitt första tal i kammaren. Nyligen sköts två homosexuella män till döds utanför en gaybar i Bratislava. Det är en mycket tragisk händelse. Som hbt+ person tycker jag att det är väldigt hemskt att se detta, för jag kan tänka att det skulle kunna vara både jag och min pojkvän som var utsatt för det här eller någon av mina vänner. Även om Europa är väldigt öppet och tolerant, känner jag mig inte trygg att gå och hålla min pojkvän i handen när jag är ute i det offentliga, för jag vet att man kan bli utsatt för både hot, hat och trakasserier. Jag är långt ifrån ensam om att känna samma sak. Det som hände är ingen isolerad händelse. Vi måste alla jobba för att göra samhället tryggare, oavsett politisk tillhörighet. Som ordinarie ledamot i utskottet för kvinnors rättigheter och jämställdhet mellan kvinnor och män kommer jag att arbeta över partigränserna för att göra samhället tryggare. Jag sträcker därför ut handen till er andra att vara med i det arbetet. Malin Björk,
on behalf of The Left Group. – My thoughts and hearts go out to the families and loved ones of Juraj and Matúš. My heart goes out to all my LGBTQI siblings in Slovakia who, rightfully so, feel scared and threatened. We in the European Parliament, we stand with you and we stand up for you. But the kind of hatred that ends up taking lives does not appear from nowhere out of the blue. We all know this. We know that this kind of hate against LGBTI people, it exists in far right circles where an ideology of hate and an ideology of violence meet each other. And it is being legitimised by words and deeds, by political leaders that fuelled the discrimination by using hateful rhetoric, scapegoating LGBTI communities. Words matter. Matúš and Juraj, saying your names is to remember you, saying what killed you, far right LGBTQ phobia commits us all to do everything we can to stop it. We need legislation. We need education. We need institutions. We need that every politician and public figure to stand up against this hatred. And we have to start this now. Miroslav Radačovský (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, som zo Slovenska, som predsedom strany Slovenský patriot. Strana Slovenský patriot ako jediná strana na Slovensku má v piatom bode svojho volebného programu, a vôbec programových cieľov, uvedené boj proti všetkým formám extrémizmu a hnutiam smerujúcim k potláčaniu základných ľudských práv a slobôd. Netvrdím, že keby každá politická strana si osvojila tento program a dala si to do základných priorít, že by sa dalo predísť tomu, čo sa udialo v Bratislave, ale snáď by to pomohlo. Snáď by to pomohlo viac ako zvolávať rôzne schôdze a rozprávať, o čom si spisovať deklarácie do programu každej politickej strany, tak ako to má politická strana Slovenský patriot, ktorej som predsedom. Na druhej strane sa však musím ohradiť voči určitej časti spektra liberálneho, ktorí sa snažia navodiť situáciu, ako keby Slovensko bolo štát xenofóbov, homofóbov, rasistov: nie je to pravda. Slováci to nemajú v génoch. My sme nikdy neboli strojcami zvrátených ideológií fašizmu, rasizmu, svetových vojen, gilotíny, otrokárstva. Na veľmi krátke obdobie Slovensko malo obdobie rasizmu, fašizmu, ale s tým sme sa dokázali v Slovenskom národnom povstaní rýchlo vysporiadať. Jednoducho chcem tu z tohto miesta prehlásiť, že Slováci nikdy neboli, nie sú ani nikdy nebudú národom extrémistov, homofóbov a rasistov. Konanie jedného poloblázna, kto je, o ktorom ani nevie ... (Predsedajúci odobral rečníkovi slovo) Ivan Štefanec (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, Matúš a Juraj sa stali obeťami mladého extrémistu a naše myšlienky sú stále s nimi a s pozostalými. Je šokujúce, že sme dnes svedkami terorizmu voči menšine. Je šokujúce, že vrah na sociálnych sieťach beztrestne propagoval rasizmus a nenávisť, a je šokujúce, že sa vyhrážal aj celej spoločnosti, osobitne aj zvoleným predstaviteľom. Len si uvedomme, že tento vrah aj v deň činu čakal dokonca na premiéra. 19-ročný vrah, mimochodom študent elitnej školy, pred svojím teroristickým útokom zverejnil manifest vyjadrujúci nenávisť voči ľuďom inej rasy, iného náboženstva, inej sexuálnej orientácie a aj svoj obdiv k masovým vrahom. Všetci sme ale iní, každý odniekiaľ pochádzame, každý máme svoje názory, vieru, predstavy, ale čo nás spája, to je schopnosť počúvať sa a tolerovať sa. Je potrebné hovoriť aj o úlohe škôl vo vzdelávaní, o nezastupiteľnej úlohe rodiny vo výchove, o nešírení nenávisti na sociálnych sieťach, ale aj o rešpektovaní demokraticky zvolených predstaviteľov. To, čo dnes potrebujeme, je tolerancia, tolerancia jedného k druhému, tolerancia k inému vierovyznaniu, k inej sexuálnej orientácii, len tak dokážeme poraziť zlo extrémizmu, nenávisti a netolerancie. Monika Beňová (S&D). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, podobne ako moji predrečníci, aj tí, ktorí budú hovoriť po mne, aj ja by som chcela vyjadriť hlbokú spoluúčasť za to, čo sa stalo v Bratislave. A musím povedať, že pre mňa bolo také príjemné prekvapenie, že všetky relevantné politické strany a hnutia na Slovensku tento hanebný čin odsúdili. Bolo to veľmi dôležité posolstvo pre verejnosť, že aj politické strany a hnutia, ktoré sa hlásia ku konzervatívnejšej politike alebo ku konzervativizmu, povedali, že nie, toto nie je cesta. Stojí teraz pred nami otázka, že ako naložiť s tým, čo sa stalo. Nemôžeme povedať, že slovenská spoločnosť by bola iná ako ostatné európske spoločnosti. My nie sme viac homofóbnejší alebo viac rasistickejší, alebo čokoľvek viac oproti iným európskym národom. Sme úplne rovnakí. Ja som chodila podporovať dúhové pride-y v čase, keď väčšina z dnešných politikov Európskeho parlamentu ešte chodila do škôlky alebo do školy. Som tu 20 rokov a pamätám si, ako sme s Kingou Gál pripravovali fundamental rights report po prijatí Lisabonskej zmluvy, ako sme hľadali každé jedno slovo na ochranu práv menšín, ale aj na sociálne práva. Takže moje záverečné slovo, pán predseda, by bolo o tom, aby sme hľadali spoločnú reč, aby sme hľadali spoločné riešenia, aby sme nevyužívali plénum na to, čo nás rozdeľuje, ale na to, čo nás môže spojiť, ako môžeme zlepšiť situáciu ... Maite Pagazaurtundúa (Renew). – Señor presidente, no podemos devolver la vida a los jóvenes Matúš y Juraj. Su asesino de diecinueve años se suicidó, pero, antes de hacerlo, le parecía cómico no sentir remordimiento. Había deshumanizado la mirada hacia las personas a las que asesinó por una mezcla de prejuicio, intolerancia y fanatismo. Las autoridades investigan los asesinatos tal vez como el primer caso de terrorismo con lobo solitario en Europa por motivación homófoba. Por tanto, un crimen ideológico, meditado, en el último eslabón del odio organizado. Veintiuna personas murieron, al menos, por algún tipo de homofobia solo en cinco países europeos entre 2015 y 2020. La intolerancia verbal genera monstruos. Es el momento, señorías, de abrir los ojos. Y las instituciones europeas tenemos que afrontar nuestra responsabilidad, la tipificación de los delitos de odio de motivación social como eurodelitos. Para ello, Hungría y Polonia deben dejar de bloquear su adopción y Chequia, en su calidad de actual presidencia del Consejo, tomar las riendas de este dosier para un acuerdo necesario. No podemos devolver la vida. Por eso, debemos prevenir el crecimiento de la intolerancia y evitar la impunidad, la social, la institucional y la judicial. Marcel Kolaja (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, Mr Vice Prime Minister, Juraj and Matus, two young Slovak boys whose lives were violently ended just for being who they were. So first I have a message for everyone who spreads hatred – be it politicians, media or organisations fighting against equal rights – your words do not just hurt LGBT people, their families and their friends, hatred leads to violence and violence leads to murder. Second, as a matter of fact, LGBT people feel often insecure. How can we as a society accept that there are citizens who do not feel secure in their countries, in their hometowns? As European politicians, we share the responsibility to ensure that Europe is a safe space for everyone. And, therefore, I call on the national governments that block the inclusion of hate crime on the list of EU crimes to stop that. Silvia Modig (The Left). – Arvoisa puhemies, Bratislavan murhat ovat järkyttäneet koko eurooppalaista sateenkaariyhteisöä. Homobaarin edustalle murhatut nuoret ihmiset joutuivat viharikoksen kohteeksi vain ja ainoastaan siksi, että he kuuluivat sateenkaarivähemmistöön, koska tämä oli ainoa asia, jonka murhaaja heistä tiesi. Vaikka murhasta on vastuussa oikeudellisesti vain tekijä, vastuu on silti meidän kaikkien, koska meille poliitikoille sanat ovat tekoja. Niin Slovakian poliitikoilta kuin tässä salissa olen kuullut toistuvasti vihapuhetta. Olen kuullut, miten minä ja olemassaoloni on uhka niin lapsille kuin koko yhteiskunnan perustalle. Olen kuullut, miten olen epäkelpo vanhemmaksi ja miten minulle ei kuulu samat oikeudet kuin muille ihmisille. Bratislavan murhat ovat se pahin lopputulema, johon vihapuhe voi johtaa. Ihmisoikeudet ovat kokonaisuus. Niitä ei voi kannattaa valikoiden. Jos olet valmis polkemaan yhden ryhmän ihmisoikeuksia, olet valmis heikentämään ihmisoikeuksia, myös omiasi. Jokaisella tulee olla oikeus elää itsenään, omana itsenään, ilman pelkoa väkivallasta ja syrjinnästä. Tämä ei valitettavasti toteudu tämän päivän Euroopassa. (Puhuja suostuu vastaamaan sinisen kortin puheenvuoroon) Hynek Blaško (ID),
vystoupení na základě zvednutí modré karty. – Pane předsedající, dovolte mi, abych vyslovil plnou podporu tomu, co říkal zde pan kolega Radačovský. Jsem Čech. Můj táta byl Slovák. Takže vlastně mám polovinu příbuzných na Slovensku a nikdy jsem se nesetkal s tím, co je tady popisováno. Všichni pochází z různých společenských vrstev. Samozřejmě tento akt všichni odsuzují, ale nejstrašnější na celé věci je to, že se tady paušalizuje, že tím, že se to stalo, tak že je česká nebo slovenská společnost špatná? To přeci nemůžete myslet vážně. President. – Under the new procedure we can have statements or questions. That was a statement, in my opinion; there was no question. Would you like to reply? Under the new rules you have a right to reply. Silvia Modig (The Left),
vastaus sinisen kortin puheenvuoroon. – Edelliselle puhujalle haluan todeta, ettei yksikään jäsenvaltio ole vapaa viharikoksista. Ei Slovakia, ei minun maani Suomi. Sitä on kaikkialla ja juuri sen takia se on meidän jokaisen vastuulla huolehtia siitä, että me emme tue vihapuhetta. Me nousemme vastustamaan sitä joka kerta kun me sitä kuulemme. Tässä salissa olen toistuvasti kuullut vihapuhetta sateenkaarivähemmistöjä kohtaan, etnisiä vähemmistöjä kohtaan, romaneita kohtaan, kielellisiä vähemmistöjä kohtaan. Me voimme aloittaa tästä huoneesta. Se, että tätä yritetään kääntää siihen, että nyt teitä tai jotain tiettyä kansallisuutta syyllistetään, on asian ohi puhumista. Vastuu on meidän jokaisen, ja me voisimme aloittaa tästä huoneesta. Vladimír Bilčík (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, smútok, ktorý cítime po tom, čo chladnokrvný fanatik vzal život dvom mladým ľuďom, bude trvať ešte veľmi dlho. Matúš a Juraj, nikdy nezabudneme. Chcem dnes pripomenúť, že máme jeden recept na nenávisť, ktorý je okamžitý a účinný. Naše slová majú veľkú moc. Ľudia vo verejnom priestore, dávajme si, prosím, veľký pozor na to, ako s LGBTIQ+ ľuďmi hovoríme, aké odkazy im v politike posielame. Každý z nás nielen môže, ale hlavne musí byť hrádzou proti posmeškom, zraňujúcim narážkam a podlej nenávisti. Ohraďme sa proti neslušným slovám a postavme sa za ľudí, na ktorých iní útočia. Ako politici musíme prichádzať aj s opatreniami, ktoré uľahčia život našim LGBTIQ+ spoluobčanom, susedom či priateľom a skutočne zrovnoprávnenia ich každodenné fungovanie. Máme voči nim dlhodobý dlh, ktorý je načase splácať, zvlášť v krajinách, ako je Slovensko. Dámy a páni, verím, že na to máme. Marc Angel (S&D). – Dear President, Commissioner, Deputy Prime Minister and colleagues, hate speech, especially when coming from public figures, leads to hate crime. This must stop. Last Wednesday it was Matúš and Juraj who were brutally murdered by a far-right radicalised student in Bratislava. Today our thoughts are with their families and friends. Next week, anyone belonging to the queer community – one of your kids, one of your grandkids, someone from this Parliament – could be a victim of a coward homophobic or transphobic crime. In too many Member States, far right, conservative and populist parties and religious fundamentalists spread LGBTIQ-phobia, copying the Kremlin's narrative. They scapegoat and publicly target the LGBTIQ community to divide societies. This must stop. And therefore, I urge the Commission to take concrete sanctions against Member States not complying with EU values. I call on the Council to finally unblock the horizontal anti-discrimination directive, to come forward with an agreement on the Gender-based Violence Directive and to unblock the inclusion of hate crime and hate speech to the list of EU crimes. I encourage the Members of the Slovak National Parliament to establish – just like recently in Hungary – an LGBTIQ intergroup to work closely with civil society and monitor discrimination, hate speech and hate crime. LGBTIQ rights, just like women's rights and children's rights are human rights. (The President cut off the speaker) Pierre Karleskind (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, „sale pédé”, „vieille gouine”, „travelo”: à force de s'accumuler, les mots et les insultes finissent par devenir des actes, finissent par devenir des balles et tuent. Matúš et Juraj, Malte, le mois dernier en Allemagne, Samuel en Galice l'année dernière, David dans un parc en Belgique en 2021. Alors, je me tourne vers les bancs de l'extrême droite, qui sont totalement vides. Aucun orateur du groupe ID n'est venu, probablement par honte, par honte que ce jeune ait été influencé par vos idées d'extrême droite, qu'il soit le fils d'un leader de l'extrême droite slovaque. Peut-être est-ce par honte que vous n'êtes pas là. Mais je veux me tourner aussi vers le Conseil et vers la présidence tchèque du Conseil. Parce que, je le dis, à force d'accepter que s'accumulent les propos et les crimes de haine, alors même que la Commission fait une proposition pour en faire un crime européen et que vous bloquez les débats, eh bien, vous vous rendez complices de ce qui est en train de se passer. Réveillez-vous! Il est temps d'agir, d'avancer. J'espère que la prise de conscience est brutale; pour nous tous, elle l'est. Magdalena Adamowicz (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Po raz kolejny nienawiść zabiła. Homofobiczna mowa nienawiści zabija. Dosłownie, nie w przenośni. Nie możemy pozwolić na sączące się z ust polityków nawoływania do nienawiści w ramach testowania nowych pomysłów na haniebną kampanię wyborczą. Nie możemy pozwolić na nawoływanie do poszukiwania i zwalczania wspólnego wroga niczym na najhaniebniejszych kartach naszej historii. Nie możemy pozwolić na czasem cichą, a innym razem szyderczą akceptację tłumu dla nienawiści do drugiego człowieka. Nienawiść rodzi nienawiść! Akceptacja dla mowy nienawiści rodzi zbrodnię przeciwko konkretnym ludziom. Dlatego wzywam Radę: zdecydujcie wreszcie o dodaniu mowy nienawiści i przestępstw z nienawiści do listy przestępstw unijnych! Mowa nienawiści i przestępstwa z nienawiści niszczą fundamentalne prawa i wartości, na których opiera się Unia. Catch-the-eye procedure Maria Walsh (PPE). – Mr President, hate kills. Tepláreň bar, once a safe space for Bratislava's LGBTI+community, has now fallen silent, with flowers lining the pavement outside following the homophobic murder of Matusz and Juraj. Backsliding on LGBTI+ rights is a growing issue within our EU, with Europe's LGBTI community increasingly living in fear and experiencing high levels of verbal and physical violence. Words prompt actions and rhetoric incites hatred. This gunman was motivated by far-right ideology, which has been fuelled by the reckless and irresponsible statements of politicians. I stand with the two victims and the thousands of people who took part in the vigil for them, demanding action on LGBTI+ rights, demanding safety and demanding respect. I send my sincerest condolences to the family and friends of both victims. We continue our work for equality in their name. Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisaria Dalli, este Parlamento ha debatido muchas veces acerca del incremento en la Unión Europea de los delitos de odio, pero no podía faltar a este debate que no es solamente sobre un delito de odio, sino sobre un crimen contra la comunidad LGTBI por razón de orientación sexual perpetrado por un pistolero de extrema derecha. Por tanto, además de lo que se ha dicho y de la declaración del Consejo que creo que suscribimos y apoyamos desde este Parlamento Europeo, hay que decir que cualquier forma de complicidad con la extrema derecha lo es directamente con el incremento del discurso del odio, que conduce directamente al delito de odio. También hay que decirle al Consejo que tiene que moverse a fondo para levantar el bloqueo impuesto por Polonia y Hungría a la inclusión de los delitos de odio que proceden del discurso del odio en los eurodelitos contemplados en el artículo 83 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea. Necesitamos cuanto antes una legislación europea contra los delitos de odio. Martin Hojsík (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, Matúš Horváth a Juraj Vankulič, dovoľte mi v prvom rade popriať úprimnú sústrasť všetkým ich blízkym a priateľom. Matúš Horváth a Juraj Vankulič boli zavraždení, pretože nenávisť sa stala úplne bežnou vecou. A nehovorím len o extrémistoch, akých máme aj tu. Hovorím aj o vrcholových predstaviteľoch strán na Slovensku, ktoré patria do skupiny EPP a SND. Hovorím o bývalom predsedovi vlády, ktorý je predsedom najsilnejšej politickej strany v terajšej koalícii a patrí do EPP, a hovorím o predsedovi strany, ktorá je členskou stranou SND, ktorí normalizujú nenávisť voči LGBTIQ komunite na Slovensku. Nenávisť zabila Matúša a Juraja. Nenávisť môže vraždiť ďalej, pokiaľ sa im nepostavíme, ale musíme si upratať aj u nás doma. Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Der brutale Mord an Juraj und Matúš in Bratislava setzt unsere gesamte Community unter Schock. LGBTI in ganz Europa haben Angst – Angst davor, Opfer von ekligem Hass und von Gewalt zu werden. Der Mord in Bratislava ist keine Einzeltat. Er reiht sich ein in unzählige Gewaltverbrechen allein in diesem Jahr gegen unsere Community in ganz Europa: der Mord an Malte C. in Münster, der Anschlag auf den London Pub in Oslo mit mehreren Verletzten und Todesopfern. Und auch auf Prides in Deutschland wurden Transpersonen angegriffen, Regenbogenfahnen angezündet, und es wurde mit Pflastersteinen nach Menschen geworfen. Europa ist leider keine Freiheitszone für queere Menschen. Menschen trauen sich nicht mehr, sie selbst zu sein. Hasserfüllte Rhetorik und das Anzweifeln von Menschenrechten für LGBTI bilden dafür einen traurigen Rahmen. Man kann bei Menschenfeindlichkeit nicht neutral sein. Man muss Haltung zeigen, Stellung beziehen – in ganz Europa. Das ist unser Auftrag. Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, v prvom rade chcem vysloviť úprimnú sústrasť príbuzným a blízkym týchto dvoch mladých ľudí. Hanebný teroristický čin, ktorý sa stal na Slovensku, je odsúdeniahodným skutkom zúfalého mladíka, ktorý podľahol extrémizmu a neonacistickej propagande. Nikdy nesmieme pripustiť šírenie nenávisti voči žiadnemu človeku, žiadnej menšine či komunite, v tomto prípade LGBT. Z manifestu vraha vyplynulo, že nenávisť prechovával aj voči rôznym náboženstvám, rasám či ďalším skupinám. Žiaľ, musím konštatovať, že vulgarizácia verejného diskurzu v posledných rokoch na Slovensku, a to aj vplyvom izolácie spôsobenej pandémiou, má nesmierne negatívny vplyv na našu spoločnosť, a priamo tak stupňuje obrovskú polarizáciu či nenávisť. V KDH sme na tento trend dôrazne poukázali a už dávnejšie sme spustili kampaň Za čiarou. Želám si, aby sme v dôsledku tejto obrovskej tragédie viac vážili svoje slová a skutky. Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – Señor presidente, la noche del 12 de octubre, un estudiante de diecinueve años de Bratislava atacó y mató a tiros a dos jóvenes de Bratislava, a Matúš y a Juraj. Es un crimen de odio. No es un ataque hacia el colectivo LGTBI. Es un ataque hacia toda la humanidad. Es un ataque hacia todos nosotros porque se dirige a todo lo que es el corazón de nuestros valores. Se dirige a lo que defendemos como Europa. Y por eso hay que reflexionar. Lamentablemente, el miedo, la violencia y la discriminación siguen siendo una realidad a la que se enfrentan muchísimas personas del colectivo LGTBI en una gran parte del mundo. Sigue siendo peligroso para muchos integrantes de este colectivo enseñar sus sentimientos y simplemente ser ellos mismos. Por eso hay que defender que los derechos humanos no son una ideología. Los derechos humanos son nuestra prioridad y, por eso, tenemos que estar a la vanguardia de su defensa. (End of catch-the-eye procedure) Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Deputy Prime Minister, honourable Members, you have all pointed out, rightly so, that words have consequences. And especially what is said by us politicians, which is far reaching, and thus we should speak responsibly and face consequences when we fuel hatred. You are right that hate speech and hate crime have seen a sharp rise across Europe and have become a particularly serious and worrying phenomenon. Resolute action is needed to tackle the EU-wide challenge. We must strengthen our set of regulatory and policy tools. The extension of the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime would be a crucial step to ensuring minimum common rules on how to define criminal offences and sanctions applicable in all EU Member States. There is no time to lose. I call on Member States to swiftly adopt the Council decision after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament so the Commission can present a legislative proposal that would ensure protection of all individuals and groups at risk of experiencing hate crime and hate speech. This terrible shooting is not an isolated incident. Several such incidents happened in the past. They are a threat to all LGBTIQ persons against our democracies and our open European societies. It is unacceptable that people have to pay a price for who they are, sometimes even pay with their lives, as in this case. What is happening to our brothers and sisters only strengthens my resolve to continue working for and marching with the LGBTIQ communities around Europe and beyond, even where we are not welcome. We know that we are doing the right thing. This is about people and their human rights. The right to live and have the good quality of life which every human being should have. The right to live and fighting hate is not an ideology. Ivan Bartoš,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Madam Commissioner, I share the frustration expressed by many of you regarding the lack of progress on several files, including the extension of the list of EU crimes. However, as you know, the proposal did not receive yet unanimous support within the Council, as required by the Treaty. If the Presidency receives indications that unanimity could be achieved, it will bring back this file to the table of the Council. Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, LGBTIQ people all over Europe look at us. They expect and demand that we do all we can to ensure that their basic rights are protected. And they are right to do so. Let us continue to work together towards this goal by doing everything we can to protect the LGBTIQ community and to ensure that they can enjoy full acceptance and inclusion. Sēdes vadītājs. – Esmu saņēmis divus rezolūciju priekšlikumus, kas iesniegti saskaņā ar Reglamenta 132. panta 2. punktu. Debates ir slēgtas. Balsošana notiks ceturtdien. 14.   Voortdurende controles aan de binnengrenzen van het Schengengebied tegen de achtergrond van de recente uitspraak van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie (C-368/20) (debat) Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir debates par Padomes un Komisijas paziņojumiem par robežkontroles turpināšanu pie iekšējām robežām Šengenas zonā, ņemot vērā Eiropas Savienības Tiesas neseno spriedumu (C-368/20) (2022/2871(RSP)). Ivan Bartoš,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, thank you for inviting me to this debate. I'm sure you all agree that the Schengen Area is one of the greatest achievements of the European Union. But this key achievement has been under considerable strain in the past years due to successive, at times simultaneous, threats: terrorism, illegal and uncontrolled migration, COVID-19 and, most recently, hybrid attacks, including instrumentalisation of migrants. The rules governing the movement of persons across borders are enshrined in the Schengen Borders Code. As you know, the code is part of a more general framework of an area of freedom, security and justice. This framework is intended to strike a fair balance between the free movement of persons and the need to safeguard public policy and internal security. The Schengen Area, without internal border controls, has been made possible thanks to effective external border controls, as well as a whole range of compensatory measures, for example, on police cooperation, migration returns and visas. In a crisis situation, those compensatory measures are not always sufficient to safeguard public policy or internal security. Therefore, the Schengen Borders Code provides for the possibility to reintroduce and prolong internal border controls, always as a last resort, taking into account the principles of necessity and proportionality, and limited to the time that is strictly needed to respond to serious threat. The Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgment of 26 April 2022, confirmed that it is up to the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to issue an opinion when it has concerns as regards the necessity or proportionality of the planned reintroduction or prolongation of internal border controls. Last but not least, when it comes to finding long-lasting solutions to the challenges we face at our borders, I should recall the importance of the proposal for an amendment to the Schengen Borders Code presented by the Commission in December 2021. In the view of the Council, the proposal contains appropriate new tools to address the security threats which the EU is facing, in particular hybrid threats at our external borders. It also contains a wider array of alternative measures, notably in the field of police cooperation, which would reduce the need to reintroduce internal border controls. In addition, it creates a solid legal basis for travel restrictions in case of threats to public health. The Council considers this a priority file and reached a general approach on it in June 2022. We stand ready to start negotiations with Parliament as soon as you are ready. Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Deputy Prime Minister, honourable Members, Schengen is dead: that is what some people claimed and other people feared in the spring of 2020, when Member States set up internal border controls to stop the spread of COVID-19 but at the same time caused a lot of problems for individuals and transports. At the time, we worked very hard to keep internal borders open. And, I assure you, Schengen is very much alive. Those COVID-19 border shutdowns did show us that we should never take free movement for granted. So we embarked on an ambitious Schengen reform to learn from past crises – migration, terror and COVID-19 – and equip Schengen for the future. Our area of freedom, security and justice; the most valued achievement of our Union and the foundation of our prosperity. A reform to jointly take responsibility for Schengen. A move from administrating Schengen to governing Schengen, as we outlined in the Schengen strategy last year: introducing an annual cycle of governance managed by the newly appointed Schengen Coordinator; kicked off by the new State of Schengen report showing the health of the Schengen area, good and bad; monitoring progress with Schengen parameters; and now implementing the new Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism that we proposed to help quickly identify problems and correct them. We set up the Schengen Forum to give Schengen strong political direction with a key role for you, the European Parliament, and in dedicated Schengen Council meetings, Ministers decide on priorities, building trust and cooperation. An area without internal border controls must have strong external border controls fully compliant with fundamental rights. External border controls are a common responsibility. And let us be clear we need to do more to protect our external borders. We are putting in place a European integrated border management with a strategic approach to border management for the next five years. We are looking forward to receiving Parliament's input. For better protecting the external borders, we also need a fully functioning agency. Frontex now have a stronger mandate and more resources, with soon a new Executive Director. Giving the agency a strong governance framework. We also share common responsibility for security and our improving police cooperation. Europol's new mandate is fully in place and we are building state-of-the-art digital security systems. The new Schengen Information System will soon be online, followed next year by Entry/Exit and ETIAS, the European Travel Information and Authorisation System. Once all these systems are operational and interoperable, our Union will be more secure. Protecting Europe by connecting Europe. Honourable members, the court is clear: internal border controls must be temporary, exceptional and only happen when necessary and proportionate. My message to ministers at last week's Justice and Home Affairs Council was also clear: I expect Member States to comply with the court judgement. There is a growing awareness in the Council and growing resolve to address the long-lasting problem, to address it sustainably, and we are doing that by putting our new system of Schengen governance in action. I asked our new Schengen Coordinator to develop a roadmap to swiftly move away from internal border controls. He had a very constructive first meeting with Member States last week. They now need to follow the roadmap, address internal border checks and restore this area of free movement and they need to do so with no further delay. If not, the Commission will consider necessary next steps. And while it is good and right to enforce the rules, we must also adapt our rulebook to changing times to meet evolving challenges. That's why we proposed to revise the Schengen Borders Code. Learning the lessons of the 2015 migration crisis, of terrorist attacks and of the pandemic, reinforcing the rules to make internal border checks truly a measure of last resort, subject to clear conditions and safeguards. Member States must assess the risks for border regions and look for alternatives first. Reinforced police cooperation is better than passport controls. Everyone must now do their part. The Council has already agreed its mandate to start negotiations on the Schengen Borders Code, as we just heard from the representative of the Council. Now is Parliament's turn. Let us pass this legislation. We need to make sure that when new Member States join Schengen, which I hope can be possible soon, the only proof you need, by the way, that Schengen is still very much alive and we fully welcome the millions of proud new citizens into the Schengen. Everyone can enjoy free movement to the full in a fully functioning Schengen area. Lena Düpont,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Der Schengen-Raum ist einer der wichtigsten Bestandteile unserer Europäischen Union. Er ist noch nicht perfekt. Er steht enorm unter Druck. Ihn zu bewahren, diese Errungenschaft zu schützen, ist vielleicht die Aufgabe unserer Generation. Dazu gehört allerdings auch eine ehrliche Bestandsaufnahme. Drei Mitgliedstaaten wollen Teil des Schengen-Raums werden und sollten endlich auch aufgenommen werden. Die Anziehungskraft – Frau Kommissarin, Sie haben es gerade erwähnt – ist also ungebrochen. Gleichzeitig finden in mehreren Mitgliedstaaten interne Grenzkontrollen statt, ausdauernder, als es der Schengener Grenzkodex vorsieht. Warum ist das so? Weil uns klar werden muss, dass die Zeiten, in denen wir ausschließlich von friedlichen oder freundlich gesinnten Nachbarn umgeben waren, vorbei sind. Alles, was um uns herum passiert, hat Auswirkungen auf die Außengrenzstaaten, hat Auswirkungen auf den Schengen-Raum, hat Auswirkungen auf alle Mitgliedstaaten. Das anzuerkennen, braucht eine mentale Einstellung, aber es braucht vor allem praktische Lösungen. Denn warum halten einige Mitgliedstaaten interne Kontrollen für notwendig? Weil wir im Bereich Stärkung und Sicherung der Außengrenzen besser werden können und müssen. Weil wir den Kampf gegen Schleuserkriminalität und Schmuggel, gegen illegale Migration, gegen grenzüberschreitende Kriminalität und organisierte Kriminalität verstärken müssen. Weil wir uns noch nicht so eng abstimmen, wie wir es sollten. Was brauchen wir also, um Schengen zu schützen? Eine bessere Zusammenarbeit der nationalen Behörden. Starke Agenturen, die die Mitgliedstaaten bei der Sicherung der Außengrenzen und im Kampf gegen jegliche Form von Kriminalität unterstützen. Und ein Asyl- und Migrationspaket, das funktioniert, das belastbar ist und zu dem im Übrigen auch der wichtige Vorschlag gegen instrumentalisierte Migration gehört. Matjaž Nemec,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, it's about time. Today Parliament is discussing, at my request, this groundbreaking ruling on Schengen. It has been six months since the European Court of Justice ruled that Austrian and Italian border controls have been illegal under EU law since November 2017. But despite this ruling, nothing has changed. Austria and five other Schengen states again blocked the controls for another six months, breaking EU law yet again. I strongly condemn these controls. We need to act now, dear colleagues, because the Commission has said nothing so far about this ruling, because the Commission also never issued an opinion on these controls as law demands. While the Commission itself said in court that these controls were not in line with European law, I want to know: what will the Commission do now? It's time to step up and protect the rule of law and Schengen. Start infringement procedures, issue opinions on the controls? Can you really accept this complete disregard for rule of law just because France and Germany are breaking it? Are we going to let Schengen slip away in front of our eyes? Ladies and gentlemen, the law needs to be respected. The court decision needs to be respected. Dear colleagues, we have to cherish and protect our Schengen, because if we lose Schengen, we lose the European Union. Jan-Christoph Oetjen,
im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Der Beschluss des Europäischen Gerichtshofs ist eine Ohrfeige, eine Ohrfeige für die Mitgliedstaaten, die Grenzkontrollen eingeführt haben. Aber er ist genauso eine Ohrfeige für die Kommission. Denn es ist eigentlich Aufgabe der Kommission, zu überprüfen, ob die Grenzkontrollen wirklich als letztes Mittel genutzt werden, ob es wirklich keine andere Alternative zu den Grenzkontrollen gegeben hat. Das tut die Kommission nicht. Und die Mitgliedstaaten tun es auch nicht, weil es bequem ist, einmal Grenzkontrollen eingeführt zu haben, und dann schwierig, politisch wieder davon runterzukommen. Das ist doch die Wahrheit, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Deswegen erwarte ich nach diesem Urteil, dass jetzt genau das passiert, was die Frau Kommissarin gesagt hat, nämlich, dass die Mitgliedstaaten kritisch überprüfen: Ist das wirklich notwendig? Das gilt für mein eigenes Land, nämlich Deutschland, genauso wie für Frankreich, für Schweden, für Österreich und für alle anderen Mitgliedstaaten, die diese Grenzkontrollen eingeführt haben. Denn ansonsten ist das Schengen-Versprechen ein hohles Versprechen. Wir wollen, dass Schengen lebt. Deswegen wollen wir, dass Bulgarien und Rumänien und Kroatien Teil dieses Schengen-Raums werden. Aber dafür muss der Schengen-Raum funktionieren, und dazu gehört, dass es keine Grenzkontrollen gibt. Erik Marquardt,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich glaube, dass wir uns noch einmal darüber im Klaren sein müssen, dass, wenn wir über die Kontrollen an den Außengrenzen reden, am Ende eigentlich ein Satz gilt: Grenzen sind nur geschützt, wenn Menschenrechte an diesen Grenzen auch geschützt werden. Was wir jetzt aber erleben, ist, dass auch durch diese Menschenrechtsverletzungen an den Außengrenzen, durch dieses Chaos, auch dadurch, dass wir nicht nur Mauern an unseren Grenzen bauen, sondern auch eine Mauer aus Lügen über die Situation an den Außengrenzen, dass wir durch diese Situation eigentlich ein Chaos haben, was sich auch auf die Binnengrenzen überträgt. Wir können Migration besser organisieren, wir können Asylanträge besser aufnehmen, wir können das alles gut organisieren, wenn wir diese Aufgabe auch wirklich einmal annehmen. Dass wir es nicht tun, dass die Mitgliedstaaten es nicht tun und dass wir auch dabei zugucken – auch als EU-Kommission –, dass EU-Regeln verletzt werden, das sehen wir auch an den Binnengrenzen. Ich komme aus Deutschland, und ich muss sagen, dass ich mich ehrlicherweise auch in diesem Haus hier ein bisschen schämen muss. Ich finde es nicht richtig, dass die Bundesregierung – meine Partei gehört dieser Bundesregierung an – die Binnengrenzkontrollen zu Österreich einfach verlängert. Und ich muss deutlich sagen, dass ich mich eigentlich sogar freuen würde, wenn wir das nicht nur dem politischen Wettstreit überlassen, sondern wenn endlich nicht mehr das Recht der Stärkeren in Europa gilt – und die Mitgliedstaaten fühlen sich vielleicht manchmal stärker –, sondern wenn wir wieder die Stärke des Rechts nach vorne holen würden. Deswegen glaube ich sogar, dass Vertragsverletzungsverfahren das richtige Mittel sind, um am Ende eine Entscheidung zu haben: Wie können wir EU-Regeln am besten umsetzen? Um auch eine Entscheidung zu haben: Wie können wir den Schengener Grenzkodex am besten reformieren? Ich glaube, es geht jetzt auch darum, bei den Mitgliedstaaten dafür zu sorgen, dass diese wunderbare Errungenschaft an den Binnengrenzen, die wir haben, am Ende eine Errungenschaft ist, die nicht leichtfertig aufs Spiel gesetzt wird. Patricia Chagnon,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, vous êtes toujours très rapides à vanter les avantages de la libre circulation, de l'espace Schengen, mais bien plus discrets quand il s'agit d'admettre le lien avec les infractions, voire avec les drames liés à l'absence de contrôles aux frontières. Toutes sortes de réseaux criminels, terroristes et mafieux, ainsi que des trafiquants de toutes sortes profitent de la libre circulation entre pays et donc entre juridictions. Et la conséquence la plus dramatique est peut-être l'arrivée, l'installation et la circulation de migrants clandestins, de plus en plus nombreux sur le continent européen. En réalité, l'espace Schengen, qui devrait être un espace de libre circulation protégé, est un espace de libre circulation ouvert à tout vent. Vos propositions d'étendre l'espace Schengen aujourd'hui à la Roumanie et la Bulgarie, demain aux Balkans, de passer de 27 à 30, voire 36 États membres, avec une poussée vers l'Est, comme le déclarait le chancelier allemand Olaf Scholz samedi dernier, témoignent de votre obstination à avancer votre projet idéologique. Après votre camouflet de 2005, votre refus de référendum, depuis, sur le sujet de l'avenir de l'Europe confirme vos velléités impérialistes et votre mépris pour la volonté des peuples, que vous avez décidé d'ignorer. Rob Rooken,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, Raad, „Als je geen grenzen hebt, heb je geen land.” Dit zei voormalig Amerikaans president Trump, en hij had gelijk. Schengen – en dat is zojuist al eerder gezegd – kan alleen voortbestaan als de buitengrenzen van de EU streng worden bewaakt, als de muren van Fort Europa geen scheuren kennen. Maar op dit ogenblik bereikt de illegale immigratie record na record. De mensensmokkel-ngo's brengen tienduizenden illegalen naar Europa. De EU laat het allemaal gebeuren in naam van de humaniteit. Het is dus niet meer dan logisch dat landen opnieuw grenscontroles gaan invoeren. Het is ook goed dat de rechter nu heeft erkend dat die grenscontroles ook wettig zijn, ook als ze langer dan een half jaar duren. Maar laten we de achterliggende problemen niet vergeten. Allereerst, zelfs vandaag nog, de sabotage van de bescherming van de EU-buitengrens door een links-liberale meerderheid hier. Ten tweede, de continu gedoogde mensensmokkel. En ten derde, de niet-naleving van het Dublin-akkoord. Het wordt tijd dat we de industriële mensensmokkel beëindigen, Dublin nu eindelijk eens gaan naleven, en onze grenzen veel steviger gaan beschermen. Laat Fort Europa maar werkelijkheid worden. Clara Ponsatí Obiols (NI). – Mr President, the continued border controls and closures in some Member States must end now. The Court of Justice has now indisputably established what we knew all along: that continuous border controls and closures are illegal. The latest extension of border controls by France until 23 April, arguing new terrorist threats, makes a mockery of the Union's law and the court. Worse, by keeping controls and blocking crossing points in Catalonia, France is endangering the livelihood and personal ties of thousands of Catalans north and south of the border. One month ago, I stood here asking that the border at Banyuls be open, but the rocks blocking the road are still there. France shows no intention of changing course. Now I ask you, Commissioner, to act. I ask you to uphold a cornerstone principle of this union and protect the freedoms of European citizens. Make France open the borders now. Vladimír Bilčík (PPE). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, when you ask the citizens of Slovakia what they see as the biggest benefit of the European project, Schengen has for years topped the list of their answers. Schengen is Europe. If we weaken, undermine or dismantle Schengen, we weaken, undermine and ultimately destroy Europe. Free movement of people inside the European area is the cornerstone of our values. We must cherish it and stand up for it, especially when Schengen faces existential threats. Unfortunately, temporary border controls between Member States of the Schengen Area have become a new norm. They complicate travel, work and freedom for many central Europeans. Any Member State should use internal border checks only in exceptional circumstances and as foreseen by the Treaties. Dear colleagues, as the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice tells us, we as European lawmakers must insist on the principle of rule of law and its due application. Member States must work on the basis of common rules. There is only one Schengen and there are no bilateral solutions, only joint European solutions, to safeguard it. We must invest together in a more effective protection of the Schengen external border, give more power and resources to Frontex and insist that our accession partners in the Western Balkans are serious and work with us by harmonising their respective visa policies with the EU. Schengen is European freedom that we must protect and spread. Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, depuis 2015, plusieurs États membres, dont la France, ont réintroduit des contrôles aux frontières intérieures en lien avec le terrorisme et la guerre en Syrie. Mais ces contrôles, censés être temporaires, durent depuis sept ans. Cette durée est inadéquate et le maintien des contrôles remet en cause le fonctionnement fluide de l'espace Schengen, qui est l'un des acquis principaux de l'Union. Par ailleurs, le maintien indéfini contrevient au droit de l'Union. C'est ce qu'a rappelé la Cour de justice à l'égard de l'Autriche dans son jugement d'avril dernier. Il y a donc un message très clair à passer aux autorités nationales pour qu'elles se conforment au droit et cessent ces contrôles dont l'efficacité n'a d'ailleurs jamais été réellement évaluée. Ensuite, il serait utile de savoir pourquoi la Commission, en sept ans, n'a pris aucune mesure en infraction. Comme rapporteure sur la révision du code frontières Schengen, j'essaierai de contribuer à encadrer strictement les réintroductions de contrôles aux frontières intérieures afin de revenir à l'esprit d'origine de l'espace Schengen, à savoir celui d'un espace de libre circulation. Abir Al-Sahlani (Renew). – Herr talman! Fru kommissionär, representanter från rådet, kollegor! Schengen är utan tvekan en av de största vinsterna vi har med EU. Och när man frågar våra medborgare vad som är vitsen med EU är den fria rörligheten en av de första saker som våra medborgare nämner. Det är vad ett fördjupat samarbete betyder och vad det leder till. Det är detta förtroende vi får för varandra, när vi gör det vi har bestämt att vi ska göra. Det är det det blir: Våra medborgare får nytta. Men tyvärr är den här friheten ständigt under attack och hotad i flera medlemsstater, när man plockar kortsiktiga och billiga poänger genom att införa och förlänga gränskontroller i en blek ansats att visa styrka och auktoritet. Resurserna för att upprätthålla dessa olagliga gränskontroller kan användas på så många andra sätt. Ring mig om ni vill ha tips på hur ni kan använda dem, istället för att hindra vanliga svenskar från att åka till Danmark för att jobba och tjäna sitt levebröd. Det man ofta glömmer att säga är att de här gränskontrollerna är skadliga ekonomiskt för våra gränsregioner. Jag vill därför uppmana EU-domstolen att slå ned på dessa godtyckliga och olagliga gränskontroller nu. Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Herr Präsident! In Österreich wurden dieses Jahr 75 000 illegale Migranten aufgegriffen. Das sind so viele wie in den Jahren 2017 bis 2021. In Deutschland wurden bis Ende September bereits über 150 000 Asylanträge gestellt. Dabei sind die Aufnahmekapazitäten durch die siebeneinhalb Millionen Ukrainer in Europa – allein in Deutschland circa eine Million – schon völlig überlastet. Im Landkreis Fürstenfeldbruck in Bayern werden deshalb zur Unterbringung von Flüchtlingen Beschlagnahmungen von Privatimmobilien bereits geprüft. Offensichtlicher kann man die Interessen unserer eigenen Bevölkerung, die zudem noch zunehmend verarmt und verelendet, doch gar nicht mehr verraten. Das Problem sind nicht die vom EuGH als illegal eingestuften Grenzkontrollen im Schengen-Raum, sondern dass wir eine Grenzschutzagentur namens Frontex haben, die alles tut, außer die Außengrenzen wirkungsvoll zu schützen. Grenzschutz heißt: illegale Migranten an der Grenze abweisen, und illegal sind sie, weil sie aus sicheren Ländern einreisen. Ich mache den Migranten keinen Vorwurf. Wir sind es, die Fehlanreize hier schaffen wie Rundumversorgung und so weiter. Das ist seit 2015 offensichtlich, aber statt hier grundlegende Änderungen in der Migrationspolitik im Sinne unserer Bürger vorzunehmen, wird weiterhin die unkontrollierte Masseneinwanderung forciert. Eines muss jedem klar sein: Die Migrationsfrage ist die Schicksalsfrage Europas. Wir können ein zerstörtes Land wiederaufbauen, eine durch grüne Realitätsverweigerung erzeugte Energiekrise meistern, auch die Fehler der EZB ausbügeln. Ein Bevölkerungsaustausch, wie er hier seit Jahren rigoros durchgezogen wird, ist aber irreversibel. Daher mein Appell an euch alle: Stoppen wir diesen Wahnsinn – jetzt! Ernő Schaller-Baross (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Az Európai Bíróság ítélete megerősítette, az Európai Unió legfőbb vívmánya egy belső határok nélküli olyan térség létrehozása, ahol a személyek szabadon mozoghatnak. A belső határokon történő határellenőrzés visszaállításának kivételes és arányos intézkedésnek kell maradnia, amelyre csak végső lehetőségként kerülhet sor. Ha azt akarjuk, hogy polgáraink számára fontos maradjon az Unió, akkor elengedhetetlen a schengeni rendszer megőrzése. Évek óta hangoztatjuk: annak érdekében, hogy békét és biztonság legyen a schengeni belső határokon belül, külső határainkat kell megvédeni. Magyarország hosszú idő óta komoly személyi és anyagi ráfordítással hatékonyan szavatolja az EU külső határainak védelmét. Ezt mi az egész Európai Unióért vállalt szolidaritásunk jegyében végezzük. Azonban támogatást nem, csak bírálatot kapunk érte. Az idei esztendő határvédelem tekintetében is rendkívüli. 2015 óta a legerőteljesebb év az illegális bevándorlás tekintetében. Az Európai Unió ismerje fel, a válság időszakában kifelé védekezés, befelé összetartás szükséges. Ioan-Rareș Bogdan (PPE). – Domnule președinte, excelențele voastre, distinsă doamnă comisar Ylva Johansson, pe mine m-au trimis aici românii, iar ei știu cel mai bine cum e să stai la ușa Schengen, în ciuda regulilor care ți-ar permite să călătorești fără restricții. Țara mea, România, este umilită și nedreptățită de 11 ani. Orice decizie am lua, orice temă am avea pe masă, interesul cetățeanului trebuie să fie superior celui de grup, mai ales atunci când acest cetățean reclamă încălcarea valorilor Uniunii Europene. Când împiedici libertatea de circulație și invoci rațiuni superioare fără să aduci argumente, nu ești decât un șmecher în costum. Iar oamenii simt asta și renunță să mai creadă în politicieni și în eurosistem. Vă mai dau un motiv pentru care crește euroscepticismul. Facturile la energie sunt consecința faptului că Uniunea Europeană a închis ochii la abuzurile lui Putin și i-a acceptat cadoul otrăvit, care nici nu era cadou, costa scump. Și asta pentru că șmecherilor în costum nu le-a păsat de prețul energiei și de consecințele sale. Trebuie să-i putem privi pe toți cetățenii europeni în ochi. Putem toți să facem asta? Cine-i poate privi în ochi pe românii cărora le-a fost refuzat 11 ani accesul în Schengen? Votul de azi din Parlament e un semnal pozitiv, dar nu suficient. Românii au dreptul la libertate deplină, la fel ca toți europenii. Nu trebuie să existe europeni de rang unu și europeni de rang doi. Marea familie europeană nu trebuie să rămână la stadiul de discurs. Birgit Sippel (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Grenzfreies Reisen im Schengen-Raum – eine unserer größten Errungenschaften ist gefährdet. Denn ganz unabhängig von dem Corona-Flickenteppich im Frühjahr 2020 — es gibt Probleme. Da sind die jahrelangen Binnengrenzkontrollen, die manche Mitgliedstaaten eingeführt haben und scheinbar ewig verlängern. Wir Sozialdemokraten haben diese beliebig verlängerten Grenzkontrollen seit Jahren als das bezeichnet, was sie nun auch aus Sicht des Europäischen Gerichtshofes sind: schlicht illegal. Binnengrenzkontrollen müssen zeitlich befristet sein. Der EuGH hat hier klare Grenzen aufgezeigt, die einzuhalten sind. Und wenn nötig, muss es endlich auch Konsequenzen geben. Mitgliedstaaten und Kommission müssen mehr tun, um diese eine unserer größten Errungenschaften effektiv zu schützen. Denn wir wollen, dass sich die Menschen in der Europäischen Union frei bewegen und sich begegnen können. Valter Flego (Renew). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, Schengen je jedan od najvećih uspjeha Europske unije, a jačanje Unije ne radi se rušenjem postojećih elemenata, nego dodavanjem i nadogradnjom istih i jasno je da u mozaiku zvanom Schengen nedostaju Hrvatska, Rumunjska i Bugarska. A znate li koliko nas koštaju troškovi takozvanog non-Schengena? Svakih dodatnih sat vremena čekanja na granici između Hrvatske i Slovenije naše vozače autobusa košta oko sto eura po satu, a autoprijevoznike dodatnih 50 eura po satu. Ako bi opet uveli, ne daj Bože, granične kontrole u svih 27 država članica, izgubili bi između 2,5 i 5,1 milijarde eura, a ukidanjem Schengena, na primjer, prosječan Slovak izgubio bi 100 do 350 eura godišnje. I nemojte zaboraviti da je čekanje na granici također razlog zašto neki turist ne želi ići u neku turističku destinaciju. Zato, molim vas, prestanimo se zatvarati i jako se jako veselim 1.1.2023. godine i proširenju Schengena na Hrvatsku pa da mogu ovdje u Europski parlament iz svog Buzeta doći, a da me nitko ništa na granici ne pita. Susanna Ceccardi (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ormai molti anni fa, l'Europa ha deciso di rimuovere le frontiere interne che separavano gli Stati membri, per sviluppare lo scambio di merci e persone a livello continentale. Una scelta che ha favorito lo sviluppo di reti, le infrastrutture e il commercio all'interno delle diverse aree europee. Il benessere e lo sviluppo economico, però, non si realizzano se non sono accompagnati dal rispetto di un dovere fondamentale: la sicurezza. L'impero di Roma si basava sulla pax romana, che garantiva ai popoli al suo interno di prosperare, mentre le legioni dell'imperatore ne vigilavano i confini, amministrando la possibilità per i barbari di accedere o meno. Quando è venuta meno la sicurezza dei confini, è venuta meno anche la prosperità dei popoli. Domandiamoci allora questa pax europea come pensiamo di amministrarla e di difenderla se rinunciamo alla sicurezza interna e alla difesa delle frontiere esterne. Da anni i paesi che si affacciano sul Mediterraneo sono quelli che regolano gli ingressi che poi si riversano in tutta Europa. Negli anni in cui ha governato la sinistra, le politiche dell'accoglienza indiscriminata hanno fatto entrare centinaia di migliaia di irregolari. Ora, per nostra fortuna, proprio al confine meridionale dell'Europa è tornata al governo la Lega in Italia e questo immenso lavoro di controllo e vigilanza dei nostri confini europei lo faremo noi italiani. Ci aspettiamo il vostro sostegno. Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria Johansson, nunca como en esta legislatura habíamos discutido tanto sobre Schengen: „en problemas”, „bajo presión”, „en muy mal estado”... Tenemos razones para estar preocupados porque Schengen se identifica como el activo más preciado de la construcción europea. Significa libre circulación de personas, sin fronteras interiores. Y ¿qué ha sucedido? Que una sucesión de episodios de crisis, y particularmente la pandemia, han puesto de manifiesto que los Estados están simplemente violando Schengen, que hace tiempo que dejó de ser un acuerdo, como a menudo se le evoca. No, es Derecho europeo legislado. Hay un código de fronteras Schengen. Y, este debate sobre la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia, lo que pone de manifiesto es que un Estado miembro en particular violó el código de fronteras Schengen frente a otros Estados miembros. Y lo ha hecho, además, discriminatoriamente con respecto de sus ciudadanos. Y esto nos recuerda, por tanto, que las condiciones para la interposición de fronteras interiores tienen que estar objetivadas, tienen que ser correctamente comunicadas a la Comisión y estar coordinadas por la Comisión y, además, tienen que estar limitadas en el tiempo. Y eso es exactamente lo que dice la sentencia. No nos sorprende porque es lo que venimos diciendo en este Parlamento Europeo una y otra vez. Por tanto, la conclusión es clara: necesitamos deducir las lecciones, necesitamos una gobernanza Schengen a la altura de este gran activo de la construcción europea y, sobre todo, necesitamos no solamente un Schengen plenamente operativo, sino un Schengen en conjunto, que incluya de una vez a Croacia, a Rumanía y a Bulgaria antes de final de año. Vlad-Marius Botoș (Renew). – Domnule președinte, doamna comisar Johansson, domnule viceprim-ministru Bartoš, Uniunea Europeană are chiar în numele ei, ideea care a stat la baza acestei construcții economice și politice: uniunea. Pot fi momente în care poate părea că e mai bine și simplu să fii singur, fiecare pe cont propriu. Dar chiar această pandemie prin care am trecut ne-a arătat că soluția este unitatea. Programul NextGenerationEU este o altă dovadă că împreună avem mai mari șanse de a face față provocărilor cu care ne confruntăm. Războiul din Ucraina vine să accentueze această demonstrație. Fără sprijin de la toate statele care prețuiesc democrația și respectarea legii, Ucraina nu ar fi reușit să țină piept Rusiei și îi ține, zi de zi. Toate statele membre ale Uniunii Europene, odată cu semnarea tratatelor, au semnat pentru unitate, pentru respectarea legilor, pentru o Uniune în care este adevărat, avem provocări, dar care ne aduce mai multe beneficii. Controalele la granițele interne ale Uniunii și ținerea în afara spațiului Schengen a unei țări precum România, care a îndeplinit toate criteriile tehnice, nu fac decât să anuleze această unitate de care avem atâta nevoie. Așa cum s-a pronunțat Curtea Europeană de Justiție, controalele la granițele interne trebuie să înceteze. Acum. Irena Joveva (Renew). – Gospod predsedujoči! Če kdaj, smo v času najhujših covid restrikcij lahko res vsi videli, katera prednost Evropske unije je med najbolj ključnimi. Videli smo, kako je, ko so praktično vsi državni mejni nadzori spet nazaj, v Sloveniji so nas zaprli celo v občine. Zdaj pa povejmo bobu bob še enkrat: mejni nadzori znotraj schengna – brez upravičenih razlogov – so nedopustni. Onemogočajo prosti pretok ljudi. Otežujejo življenja tistim, ki delajo v sosednji državi. Predvsem pa vnašajo nepotreben razdor med državami. Še več, po tem, ko to stori ena država, morajo še ostale. V skladu z regulacijo je možen samo začasni nadzor za pol leta in vsi razlogi za podaljševanja tega obdobja, ki ponekod traja že več let, so v bistvu za lase privlečeni. Komisija naj v teh primerih poda uradno javno mnenje in zaščiti interes Unije z dejanji, z odločnostjo. Države članice pa naj se dogovorijo o skupnih rešitvah – zakonitih in upravičenih. Meje glede tega, ali je to mogoče ali ne, so namreč samo v glavah. Catch-the-eye procedure Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, en la Europa de Schengen y de la cooperación transfronteriza, cinco enormes piedras cortan desde enero de 2021 el paso fronterizo del Coll de Banyuls, entre la parte norte y la parte sur de Cataluña, en la frontera entre Francia y España. Fíjense que estamos hablando de un cierre total, general y absoluto, no de una reintroducción de controles; un cierre que tenía que ser temporal, pero que ya lleva casi dos años; un cierre que afecta a la comunicación y al día a día de las poblaciones limítrofes, pero también, por ejemplo, a la prestación de servicios de emergencia. Los criterios aducidos por Francia, en su momento, para justificar el cierre y prolongarlo tres veces de ninguna manera pueden ser compatibles con los criterios de necesidad y de proporcionalidad a los que se refiere la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea. Señora comisaria, haga que se cumpla esta sentencia, haga que se reabra el Coll de Banyuls y se restablezca allí también la libertad de circulación. Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I suppose the first thing to say is it's very nice to be vindicated. For years, we've been raising the illegality of internal Schengen border controls, and it's really good to see the ECJ rule unequivocally that they are illegal. And congratulations to Stefan Salomon, who took the case in the first place. But the issue actually is what has happened since the ruling was made in April. And the answer, of course, is absolutely nothing. Countries with illegal border controls still have them. Germany, France, Austria, Sweden, all the countries that cry blue murder about rule of law in Hungary are just ignoring the judgment and doing whatever they like regardless. And the Commission has done nothing to force them to implement it. France has had its Schengen border controls for seven years, for God's sake, it's absolutely farcical. And the latest thing they want is to change the law to suit themselves so that they can keep their border controls as long as they like. So ignoring the law, ignoring ECJ rulings on the law, and changing the law to suit yourself, it's what you give out about Poland and Hungary for . We can't have one rule of law ... (The President cut the speaker off) Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, the Court of Justice finds that border controls within Schengen are incompatible with EU law. It criticises the Commission for being so slow to intervene when Member States decide to impose internal border controls. Why doesn't the Commission hold Member States to account for breaches of the free, agreed movement of people within the Schengen area? Why does the EU give Member States a wide latitude to do what they want as long as they're keeping out migrants? It's the external borders where the greatest abuses occur, where the EU tacitly endorses migrant pushbacks unless Member States build steel walls against people, many of whose homes and communities and environments we have helped to destroy in the first place. It is positive that the Court has reaffirmed the illegality of internal border controls. But are we going to see the EU respect human rights of the people that we are talking about? And are the EU going to start respecting their own EU law? (End of catch-the-eye procedure) Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for your intervention and thank you for your strong vocal commitment to the fully-functioning Schengen area and the free movement. We have a common goal, a stronger and resilient Schengen area without internal border controls. Many of you have raised the importance of now welcoming Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria into Schengen, and I fully agree. Mr President, any legislation is only as good as its effective implementation. And you have raised this many of you. It is not in line with the Schengen acquis to maintain internal border controls for years if there are no new threats. The Court of Justice made it clear, internal borders controls are a temporary exceptional measure and should be interpreted strictly. As I mentioned, I have entrusted our new Schengen coordinator to work with the concerned Member States on how they now must align with the Court judgment. Depending on this outcome, the Commission may come up with an opinion on necessity and proportionality, and to do that swiftly. And I hear the clear voice from you in the European Parliament. Can I also say that there is a clear link with the strengthening of police cooperation and the renewal of the Schengen Borders Code to make sure that Member States have access to better tools to protect citizens. Internal border controls are not the best use of resources. We need to reinforce the security of the Schengen area. We need to reinforce the scrutiny of the Schengen area to ensure the proper functioning. This is also part of making Schengen resilient and strong. Thank you very much for the debate. Ivan Bartoš,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Madam Commissioner, the Council remains committed to upholding the integrity of the Schengen area. As Commissioner Johansson said, at the Home Affairs Council last week, we held an exchange of views on the overall state of the Schengen area and indeed the Member States committed to implementing a series of recommendations which would reduce the need to reintroduce internal border controls. There is also a strong consensus around the fact that internal border controls are exceptional measures and must obey to the principles of proportionality and necessity. Respecting these principles is key to the protection of Schengen and is fully in line with the recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Let me also underline once more the importance of the proposed amendment to the Schengen Borders Code, which contains several elements that will equip us to deal more efficiently with the current challenges at our borders. We look forward, therefore, to engaging with this Parliament to negotiate the revised Schengen Borders Code and to continuing our open, constructive discussion on this important topic. President. – The debate on this item is closed. Written statements (Rule 171) Andrus Ansip (Renew),
kirjalikult. – Kui Bulgaaria ja Rumeenia 1. jaanuaril 2007 ELiga ühinesid, oli neil veel vaja teha edusamme sellistes valdkondades nagu kohtureform, korruptsioon ja (Bulgaaria puhul) organiseeritud kuritegevuse vastane võitlus. Mõnede liikmesriikide jaoks on Bulgaariale ja Rumeeniale kohaldatav jälgimismehhanism olnud piisavaks ettekäändeks, et mitte lubada neid riike liituma Schengeni ruumiga. Leian, et kõik vajalikud tingimused Schengeni acquis' täielikuks kohaldamiseks olid Bulgaarias ja Rumeenias täidetud juba 2011. aastal, ning ei pea seetõttu Bulgaaria ja Rumeenia tõrjumist Schengeni viisaruumist põhjendatuks. Nõukogu peaks tegema kõik vajaliku, et võtta 2022. aasta lõpuks vastu otsus Schengeni acquis' sätete täieliku kohaldamise kohta Bulgaaria Vabariigi ja Rumeenia suhtes, et tagada mõlemas liikmesriigis 2023. aasta alguses isikute kontrolli kaotamine kõikidel sisepiiridel. 15.   VN-conferentie over klimaatverandering 2022 in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypte (COP27) (debat) Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir debates par: —
jautājumu, uz kuru jāatbild mutiski un kuru uzdeva Pascal Canfin, Lídia Pereira, Javi López, Nils Torvalds, Pär Holmgren, Catherine Griset, Alexandr Vondra, Petros Kokkalis Vides, sabiedrības veselības un pārtikas nekaitīguma komitejas vārdā Padomei, par ANO 2022. gada Klimata pārmaiņu konferenci (COP 27) Šarm eš Šeihā (Ēģipte) (O-000041/2022 - B9-0027/22) (2022/2673(RSP)), kā arī —
jautājumu, uz kuru jāatbild mutiski un kuru uzdeva Pascal Canfin, Lídia Pereira, Javi López, Nils Torvalds, Pär Holmgren, Catherine Griset, Alexandr Vondra, Petros Kokkalis Vides, sabiedrības veselības un pārtikas nekaitīguma komitejas vārdā Komisijai, par ANO 2022. gada Klimata pārmaiņu konferenci (COP 27) Šarm eš Šeihā (Ēģipte) (O-000042/2022 - B9-0028/2022) (2022/2673(RSP)). Lídia Pereira,
Autora. – Senhor Presidente, caros colegas, bem sabemos que o desafio das alterações climáticas é enorme e tem de ser enfrentado. Por essa razão, este Parlamento tem sido a instituição europeia mais ambiciosa na exigência da transição climática. De resto, como se sabe, os europeus são hoje quem mais faz na luta contra as alterações climáticas. Também por isso, ações de ativistas que mais não fazem do que estragar obras de arte e património não passam de espetáculos mediáticos que devemos condenar e que não têm qualquer consequência prática e nem qualquer ganho para o planeta ou para a causa ambiental. Não é estragando o património cultural que preservamos o património ambiental. Sabemos as nossas prioridades para esta COP 27. A injustificada invasão russa da Ucrânia faz da transição energética europeia uma urgência ainda maior. Putin, além da morte e da destruição que espalha, está a prejudicar a economia europeia e mundial e a ser um dos principais responsáveis pelo prolongamento do funcionamento de centrais a carvão e pelas suas consequências no meio ambiente. Mas a nossa autonomia pode ser garantida e os preços da energia podem baixar com investimentos em energias renováveis. O plano REpowerEU aumenta ainda mais a ambição climática da UE, para além das reduções em curso, decorrentes da Lei Europeia do Clima, podendo ir além da redução de 55 % das emissões previstas até 2030. Assim, perguntamos ao Conselho e aos governos nacionais o que falta, além da coragem política, para subscreverem as posições do Parlamento a este respeito? Da mesma forma, perguntamos à Comissão o que pensa fazer para que todas as partes cumpram a meta geral do Acordo de Paris? Como pensa aumentar o papel da iniciativa privada na transição e se não considera que internamente temos deixado para trás o apoio à adaptação e ao aumento da resiliência dos territórios? Caros colegas, apesar do conflito com a Rússia, o retorno aos combustíveis fósseis tem de ser evitado a todo o custo. E os líderes políticos europeus, que estão hoje a bloquear as interligações energéticas, em particular com a Península Ibérica, devem ser denunciados. Precisamos de solidariedade e de responsabilidade. E temos de o dizer, há líderes europeus que bloqueiam as interconexões energéticas com Portugal e Espanha para poderem vender energia mais cara ao resto da Europa e, assim, bloqueiam soluções que ajudariam as pessoas a ter acesso a energia mais barata e renovável. Emmanuel Macron e o seu governo são hoje o rosto do egoísmo europeu. Temos de atingir os objetivos no que toca aos investimentos públicos e privados para travarmos e para nos adaptarmos às alterações climáticas, com consequências tão graves como as que temos assistido por toda a Europa. Os países mais pobres têm de ser apoiados na sua transição para energias limpas e temos de aumentar rapidamente e com estratégia o investimento em inovação e tecnologias limpas. Enquanto no PPE queremos a descarbonização, a esquerda radical quer a desindustrialização e a destruição da economia. As cidades, enquanto territórios onde se concentram grande parte da população e das emissões de gases de efeito de estufa, têm de assumir um papel de maior relevância na mitigação e na adaptação às alterações climáticas. Aliás, nem tudo deve ficar nas mãos dos governos nacionais, em particular quando muitos deles não demonstram capacidade para fazer o que tem de ser feito, como, por exemplo, o que acontece com o governo português, face à desertificação que afeta o sul da Europa ou os fogos florestais que todos os anos dizimam várias vidas. Mas vamos para esta COP com os olhos postos no que o mundo pode fazer melhor. O Egito, sendo um país com um grande passado, pode ser também o país onde se dá um passo de gigante em direção a um futuro melhor. Temos o dever e a obrigação de deixar um mundo melhor às novas e às futuras gerações. Ivan Bartoš,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, let me begin by thanking the European Parliament for the interest it takes on the issue of climate change, and the forthcoming COP 27 in particular. In light of the climate crisis, of the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events linked to the human-caused climate change and of the complex political and economic framework arising from the war of aggression by Russian Federation against Ukraine, the EU must keep a leading role in the fight against climate change. It is in that spirit that the EU is effectively preparing for COP 27, which will dedicate a substantial part of its agenda to adaption, loss and damage and climate finance as they are key for the hosting African continent. In that regard, the EU looks forward to working alongside other parties to implement the results of COP 26, in view of keeping a balance between mitigation, adaptation and climate finance. We will continue to support and constructively engage in the two-year Glasgow-Sharm el Sheikh work programme on the global goal on adaptation. In accordance with the process set out at COP 27, the EU will contribute to the optimisation of the Santiago Network for averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change. I understand that the Parliament is particularly interested in the action that the Council has been taking to ensure that significant progress is made during COP 27. As regards nationally determined contributions, the Council reiterates ahead of the climate conference in Sharm El Sheikh that international engagement through strong, rule-based multilateralism is crucial for achieving successful results in addressing climate change. In line with the EU position expressed at the previous COPs, the Council currently prepares an ambition proposition in view of COP 27, which should be agreed by the Ministers at the Environment Council on 24 October. All United Nations climate change parties have been urged to revisit and strengthen by the end of 2022 their nationally determined contributions as necessary to align them with the Paris Agreement goals. Similarly, in Glasgow, parties were asked to present or update their long-term low greenhouse gas emissions development strategies towards reaching net zero emissions by 2050. Ambitions and actions are essential in this critical decade to ensure the credibility of the implementation of the Paris Agreement and to reach climate neutrality in a sustainable way. Therefore, the Council encouraged all parties to accompany their nationally determined contribution with robust and solid domestic policy frameworks and actions to increase their short- and long-term ambitions and to enhance climate action, including the use of domestic carbon prices. As you know, the negotiation between our institutions on the legislative proposal of the Fit for 55 package are ongoing, and it is difficult to prejudge the outcome at that stage. Nonetheless it is important to note that on that ambition we have mutually confirmed our agreed goal of at least 55% emission reduction by 2030. I can assure that the Czech Presidency is doing its utmost to make as much progress as possible on all the Fit for 55 files concerned. Let me now focus briefly on climate finance. Making all financial flows consistent with the pathway towards 1.5 degrees Celsius goal and climate resilience development is essential to the implementation of the Paris Agreement and for the shift to a climate-neutral, adaptive, resilient, global economy and society. In this context, we welcome the forthcoming debate at COP 27 and, in this context, the EU calls on all countries to scale-up their efforts to mobilise finance from all resources to support climate action and to mainstream climate actions in all financial flows. We also renew our strong commitment to continue scaling up our international climate finance towards reaching the goal of mobilising at least USD 100 billion per year as soon as possible and/or to 2025. In addition, we are looking forward to cooperating with other parties toward implementing the Glasgow Climate Pact's goal to collectively at least double the provisioning of climate finance for adaption to developing countries from 2011 levels by 2025. We also welcome the deliberation of the new collective qualified goal on climate finance, taking place until 2024 and reaffirms the EU continued constructive engagement in these deliberations. Mr President, honourable Members. Madam Commissioner, I'm sorry I will not be able to stay during an entire debate, neither for the next point that is mainly about Russia which was added to the agenda yesterday. It was a long day and I have to catch my plane to Prague later on today. So sorry for that, but my colleagues will address the things. Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Deputy Prime Minister, honourable Members, thank you for this important debate as we look ahead to the upcoming COP 27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, I will take this debate on behalf of Vice-President Timmermans. The COP 27 conclusions of the EU Council of Ministers planned for 24 October will reconfirm the EU's commitment towards the Glasgow Climate Pact and to keeping the 1.5 degree goal within reach. We have enshrined our commitments into the EU climate law and are pursuing their implementation. The EU is ready to demonstrate how we are staying the course in Sharm. We have been reassuring our partners that the EU's energy security will not be achieved to the detriment of climate action. With our „Fit for 55” package and RepowerEU, we are fully committed towards delivery and implementation of our NDC and to climate neutrality by 2050. This is a continuous sign of the EU's leadership in addressing the climate crisis. COP 27, as every COP, is also a moment for accountability on climate mitigation. The world needs more and a faster transition, not less. For food security, energy security, climate security, geopolitical security, Sharm el-Sheikh must reaffirm the demand for the implementation of nationally determined contributions and long-term strategies, as well as for the parties to revisit the targets in their NDCs to accelerate global efforts to maintain the 1.5 degree goal within reach. The COP must also adopt a mitigation work programme to cut emissions in this critical decade, to implement what we agreed in Glasgow on phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, phasing down coal, reducing methane emission and aligning our indices with the 1.5 degree goal. The EU and its 27 Member States are the largest contributor to the international public climate finance, contributing over EUR 23.5 billion in 2020. We have contributed our fair share to the collective USD 100 billion by 2020 goal and will continue to do so. But we also recognise that further work is needed from now until 2025 to fulfil the commitments made by developed countries. It is therefore important that other developed countries continue to increase their contributions and deliver on their commitments. But public finance alone cannot deliver the trillions of dollars of investment required annually for climate finance. While it plays an important role in support for adaptation and support for the most vulnerable countries and communities, the scale of investments needed requires action by all countries to mobilise private investment and shift finance flows towards the low-emission climate resilient development. That means especially stronger engagement of the private sector. To do so, we need to align all financial flows with the Paris Agreement long-term goals. The smartest and the most efficient thing we can do is to put a price to carbon and stop subsidising it. Avoiding and reducing emissions while increasing our resilience to climate change needs to be mainstreamed into every investment decision, domestically and globally, as well as into national budgets and the development finance system. In recent years, the EU and its Member States have launched policy initiatives to make finance flows consistent with low GHG emissions and climate resilient development. Cooperation is the key lever and it can ensure peer learning. Developing countries should be supported in implementing initiatives specifically aimed at making finance consistent with climate objectives. On climate adaptation, we see three building blocks for an outcome in Sharm el-Sheikh. Encouraging the development of more national adaptation plans in developing countries – these plans are the foundation tools to inform action at national level and are catalysts for increasing ambition and attracting finance. Second, in forming the global stocktake in 2023, in reviewing overall progress made on adaptation through general recommendations on insights acquired this far. And third, identifying key issues and interlinkages with other environmental agreements such as the Biodiversity Convention and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Honourable Members, with our domestic experience in implementing the EU Green Deal and external policy instruments and dialogues, we are in a position to help our partners to advance their transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy. We cement that position and offer our joint strong support to the Egyptian COP 27 Presidency for a successful outcome in Sharm. Peter Liese,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir sind im Moment vielfältigen Herausforderungen ausgesetzt, aber der Klimawandel ist nach wie vor langfristig das größte Problem. Und wir müssen bei allen anderen Schwierigkeiten den Klimawandel im Blick haben und ihn bekämpfen. Das geht natürlich nur international. Deswegen ist diese COP so wichtig. Und zwei Dinge stehen im Vordergrund. Erstens: die Hilfe für Afrika und andere am wenigsten entwickelte Länder. Hier bitte ich den Rat und die Kommission, sich die Mandate des Parlaments bei EHS und CBAM sehr genau anzusehen. Wir haben nämlich sehr konkrete Forderungen, wie wir hier helfen können, und das sollte vielleicht auch schon vor der COP aufgenommen werden in die jeweiligen Triloge. Dann Ambitionen: Vielen Dank an die tschechische Präsidentschaft, dass Sie drei Berichte priorisieren und dass wir da vielleicht die Einigung schon vor Scharm El-Scheich haben. Und ich denke, dann sollten wir stolz sein. Wir sollten nicht unser Licht unter den Scheffel stellen und es nicht – wie einige Anträge – so erscheinen lassen, dass wir als Europäer das Problem sind, wenn das internationale 1,5-Grad-Ziel nicht erreicht wird. Wenn wir unsere Pläne erfüllen – und mit dem, was das Europäische Parlament verlangt, werden wir sie übererfüllen –, dann werden wir 2030 selbst dann, wenn die Amerikaner ihre Pläne erreichen – was nicht so sicher ist –, 2,5 Mal weniger Pro-Kopf-Emissionen haben als die Amerikaner. Deswegen ist es, glaube ich, richtig, stolz zu sein und den Rat daran zu erinnern, was das Parlament an zusätzlicher Ambition bringt, und nicht sein Licht unter den Scheffel zu stellen. Also gehen wir mit Optimismus und Überzeugungskraft nach Scharm El-Scheich. Javi López,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, la comunidad internacional se reúne de nuevo para abordar el cambio climático. Lo hacemos en la COP27, en Egipto, y lo hacemos cuando continúa habiendo una gran grieta, una gran brecha, una gran distancia entre nuestras aspiraciones retóricas y las acciones, los hechos que acometemos. De hecho, además, ocurre esto cuando estamos a punto de llegar al punto de no retorno. Mientras tanto, los fenómenos meteorológicos extremos se multiplican: las sequías, las inundaciones o las olas de calor. El Parlamento Europeo, en una Resolución acordada, envía tres mensajes sobre el trabajo importante que se tiene que hacer en Sharm el-Sheikh. En primer lugar, aumentar la ambición en términos de mitigación: descarbonizar nuestras economías. Nosotros vamos a esa conversación con el Pacto Verde encima de la mesa y, además, habiendo vivido en nuestras propias carnes qué significa la dependencia de las energías fósiles. Hoy, descarbonizar no solo es acción climática, también es minimizar el poder y la fortaleza de algunas de las autocracias que ponen en juego un mundo basado en normas. En segundo lugar, necesitamos grandes inversiones en adaptación, porque el cambio climático es una absoluta realidad y porque sabemos que esas inversiones son eficientes económicamente, disminuyen la posibilidad de catástrofes en el futuro y son socialmente justas, porque luego las catástrofes acaban afectando siempre a los más vulnerables y a los países en vías de desarrollo. En tercer lugar, continuar con una conversación que se empezó en Glasgow, que es la de pérdidas y daños operativizando un mecanismo financiero real para los países en vías de desarrollo. Sin duda, la financiación climática es una gran asignatura pendiente, porque hemos incumplido sistemáticamente todos los compromisos a los que se han llegado. Por todo ello, reclamamos que Europa, con el Pacto Verde Europeo a la cabeza, pueda liderar una conversación global que se enfrente, desde la justicia, la ciencia, la responsabilidad y la solidaridad, a la que es la mayor amenaza que vive la humanidad, porque nuestra forma de vida depende de todo ello. ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΔΗΜΟΥΛΗΣ Αντιπρόεδρος Nils Torvalds,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, Minister, ever since Parliament handled the climate law, we have been trying to raise the ambition. Everybody hasn't been on board, but we have been persistent, and we will be in the future also. It doesn't require some sort of genius to understand that losses and damages will be the main topic during the conference. And sad to say, we have more losses and damages in the world for the moment being than probably for the last ten years before. You just need to go to the Gulf of Finland and look at the amount of gas being flared by the Russians just some kilometres away from the Finnish border. So we have a lot of things to do and take care of. Yesterday, we sat down with a young lady from Kenya, Elisabeth Wathuti, and heard about her version, how her world looks. And the conclusion is very simple: there is a lot of work to be done in Sharm and a lot of work to be done afterwards. Pär Holmgren,
för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Herr talman! I kväll har vi med oss en ung klimataktivist från Kenya, Elizabeth Wathuti. Vi var några som träffade henne och pratade med henne i går om de miljontals människor som just nu bokstavligen verkligen är i fronten för klimatkrisen, klimatkatastrofen – människor som riskerar svält, människor som inte har tillgång till någonting så självklart som rent dricksvatten, och mammor som vandrar en mil varje dag för att åtminstone försöka gräva upp lite vatten ur annars uttorkade vattendrag – och om det faktum att de som har orsakat minst av utsläppen nu riskerar att drabbas värst av konsekvenserna. Detta gäller inte minst just unga kvinnor i fattiga delar av världen: Det här är verkligen kärnan i klimaträttvisan: generation, geografi och genus. Vi får aldrig glömma de perspektiven, och vi får heller aldrig glömma bort eller blunda för det faktum att det är vi i den rika världen som har orsakat mer än hälften av de totala utsläppen sedan industrialiseringen. Vi fokuserar ofta på utsläppen här och nu, men det som orsakar klimatförändringarna är de totala utsläppen, och där måste vi i den rika världen kliva fram och ta fullt ansvar. Det räcker tyvärr inte längre att bara prata om klimatanpassning. Vi måste nu, inte minst under COP27, fokusera på „loss and damage”, skador och förluster. Där måste vi i den rika världen kliva fram och ta fullt ansvar för det som vi har orsakat. Aurélia Beigneux,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, Madame le Commissaire, les semaines se suivent et se ressemblent dans cet hémicycle. Nous sommes devant un énième texte qui accable encore une fois notre continent. Pour vous, l'Europe n'est pas assez verte et pour vous, nos concitoyens ne font pas assez d'efforts. Mais des efforts, nos nations en ont fait, la preuve en est: l'Europe est le continent le plus vertueux sur le plan environnemental, bien loin devant la Chine ou encore les États-Unis. Nos citoyens subissent une crise énergétique sans précédent, alors même qu'ils se remettaient difficilement de la pandémie. Alors, dans ce contexte, vos objectifs de décarbonation sont tout simplement suicidaires. Jusqu'à présent, les choix utopistes de l'Union européenne sont intenables – escroquerie du tout carbone, neutralité climatique irréalisable, parcs éoliens massacrant nos écosystèmes, racket des contribuables européens au profit des pays en développement, chantage aux migrants climatiques ou encore rôle exorbitant donné à la Commission dans les futures négociations de la COP, ... La liste est bien longue. Et tout cela pour quel résultat? Cela va se traduire par un appauvrissement et un déclassement européen sur fond bien évidemment de culpabilité climatique, pendant que vous laissez les mains libres à tous les projets mondialistes ultra-polluants. Face à vous, nous prônons une écologie qui valorise le local plutôt que le global, une écologie réaliste et inspirée par nos entreprises sur le terrain. Hermann Tertsch,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señor presidente, en este contexto de crisis dramática, económica, energética y alimentaria, aquí estamos viendo cómo la Comisión y este Parlamento siguen con lo mismo, siguen con la misma letanía, como si no pasara nada. Aquí seguimos por el camino místico de la transición ecológica. Cuanto más ecológicos seamos nosotros, más radicalmente ecológicos seamos, vamos a estar mejor y el mundo va a estar mejor. Es radicalmente falso. Están ustedes pidiendo unos sacrificios a la población europea, a las naciones europeas, que no se corresponden en absoluto con los resultados que vaya a haber. Vamos a tener un drama alimentario en Europa muy pronto. Estamos con una crisis energética de terror y ustedes siguen como si no pasara nada y lo único que anuncian son castigos, sanciones, multas y represión para las empresas, para los individuos. Y todo es represión y falta de libertad. Ustedes creen que con esa ingeniería social van a solucionar algo y lo único que están haciendo es condenarnos. Petros Kokkalis,
on behalf of the The Left Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, COPs are always about emissions. However, this one is really about justice. As António Guterres explained, today it is Pakistan. Tomorrow it could be any country. In fact, already today we experience a climate disaster every day on the planet, and this is only going to get worse as global emissions keep actually rising. These disasters of our own making fall on those least responsible and those least able to shelter and recover. Yet the Council has so far failed to heed our call for the creation of a new loss and damage finance facility. Tens of countries in the Global South are bonded into unsustainable debt to us and are thus unable to tackle these climate disasters, leading to extreme poverty and lethal instability. These, colleagues, cannot be good, neither for our garden nor for our souls. We call for the EU to lead the world in pushing for a new global financial architecture beyond the Washington Consensus, mobilising trillions in new and additional public finance to provide adequate action on mitigation, adaptation and loss endowments. From new special drawing rights and debt relief for climate action to the Bridgetown Agenda and a broader reform of the Bretton Woods Institutions, including the World Bank and the IMF, multiple ideas are already being discussed and costed. This is the time to reckon with the white man's burden and the crimes of our colonial past and save the world and ourselves while doing it. Anything less would only damage the EU's global diplomatic standing and also would delegitimise the core process itself. Edina Tóth (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr ! A háború hatására mérsékelt célkitűzésekkel indulnak neki a világ országai a COP27 klímakonferenciának. A visszafogottság oka az energiaválság és az elhibázott szankciók. Mindezek ugyanis tovább emelték és emelni is fogják az energiaárakat mind európai, mind pedig globális szinten. Úgy vélem, hogy a mostani klímacsúcs esélyt adhat számunkra arra, hogy számot vessünk és újragondoljuk az intézkedések hatásait. Ha minden marad a régiben, az EU gazdasága összeomlik. Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim! Ilyen helyzetben nem lehetünk felelőtlenek. Átgondolt és betartható vállalásokra van szükség, mert az eltúlzott intézkedési javaslatok, továbbá az EP állásfoglalásában szereplő korai céldátumok már a versenyképességünket is veszélyeztetik. Nem hagyhatjuk, hogy a hibás uniós döntések miatt polgáraink és vállalkozásaink teljes mértékben kiszolgáltatottá váljanak a magas áraknak. Tegyünk együtt a zöld környezetért, de csakis az emberekkel együtt, és ne az emberekkel szemben. Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, A Uachtaráin. These are special times from a climate and energy perspective. The decisions to be taken at COP27 will shape climate and energy policies and have an impact on all of us. With worrying peaks of energy poverty affecting vulnerable families, small businesses and local authorities all over the EU, we must act urgently. Making our energy system independent of Russian fossil fuels and fossil fuels in general is the big challenge. An acceleration of what is the most important legislation in the current mandate, the Fit for 55 package, is top priority. It is vital that Fit for 55 is adopted as a unit in order to show the strong leadership and commitment of the EU and its Member States to ambitiously contribute to closing the gap necessary to limit global warming. I am happy to be travelling to Egypt as part of the ITRE delegation. We need to act urgently and move from commitments to results. We need to act now. Mohammed Chahim (S&D). – Mr President, in Glasgow we completed the Paris rulebook. In Egypt we have to deliver on the Paris Agreement on our climate goals. When it comes to decarbonising the world, we have a momentum to engage with developing countries to share the benefits and advantages of the global energy transition. Let this African COP be more than just a symbolic gathering, let's pave the way for a real European-African partnership with a strong pillar for sustainable energy. A lot of sustainable energy potential in Africa is still untapped. This represents a unique opportunity to provide affordable, reliable and sustainable energy for Africa and Europe. Solar panels have a very high yield in Africa. If we cooperate more, both Africa and the rest of the world can benefit tremendously from their capacity for renewable energy. As the Green Deal is on its way to deliver on climate neutrality in Europe while leaving no one behind, the Paris Agreement reminds us that we have to do the same for the rest of the world. Martin Hojsík (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, klimatická kríza sa týka nás všetkých. Nie je to európsky problém, je to naozaj, skutočne svetový problém, a preto nesmieme zabúdať, že to, čo sme zažili toto leto v Európe, si zažili v Pakistane, si zažili v Amerike a je možné, že si túto zimu zažijú v Austrálii a na južnej pologuli. Je to nielen globálny problém, ale aj riešenie je globálne. Európa v tom nestojí sama a musíme viesť, ale musíme spolupracovať. Spolupráca s Afrikou, spolupráca s Áziou, spolupráca s Amerikami je základom riešenia. Je základom riešenia nielen pre záchranu klímy, je základom riešenia aj pre vysokú infláciu cez zelené energie, je základom riešenia pre ochranu biodiverzity cez využívanie prírody ako riešenia, či už pri zachytávaní emisií, alebo pri adaptácii na zmenu klímy. Je základom riešenia pre rozvoj a bohatstvo spoločnosti ako v Európe, tak všade inde na svete. Pracujme na tom spoločne. Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, when we came from Glasgow, we all said we have saved the 1.5 degrees. But did we? Because we also said after Glasgow, then this year should be a crucial year to raise our ambition. What has happened? Australia hasn't done it, but not so much have we seen of a raised ambition. But even maybe more problematic is that also the consistency in our policies is at stake. And here I really would like to call upon the European Commission, if we are going to do a boost of REPower EU, can we make sure this is not again another financing of fossils, because we see now Europe running for a lot of LNG at the cost of the LNG price for the rest of the world. So we really need to take stock and really make sure that the next REPower EU is a renewable-only REPower EU. But what we've also seen is that the climate impacts are stronger and more intense than ever before. Look only at Pakistan and this means loss and damage will be a key point on the agenda. And here too, the Council has left. Please stop on this bureaucratic language saying we support a dialogue. We need more than support on a dialogue. We need a system to really address loss and damage. We need more than a dialogue. We need action. Georg Mayer (ID). – Herr Präsident, geschätzte Kollegen! Was man hier einmal mehr sieht, ist, glaube ich, weniger eine Krise des Klimas, denn das Klima auf dieser Erde besteht seit 5 Milliarden Jahren und ändert sich auch schon so lange, sondern wir sehen hier mehr eine Krise der Vernunft. Was wir hier erleben, ist einmal mehr ein Versuch – ein natürlich fehlgeleiteter Versuch – der Europäischen Union, das Klima, das Weltklima zu retten. Dieser Versuch wird fehlgehen, denn er wird ein Alleingang bleiben, auch auf Ebene der UN, denn die wesentlichen Player werden dieses Spiel nicht mitspielen. Da können Sie mal sicher sein. Diese völlig unrealistischen und überzogenen Ziele, die wir hier sehen und die uns immer tiefer in diese Krisen reinreiten, die wir hier erleben: diese Krise der Energie, die Krise der Teuerungswelle, die Krise der Inflation. Ich weiß, das ist den Grünen völlig egal, aber die nehmen ja auch nicht besonders an ihrem Kernthema teil, an dieser Diskussion. Diese Krisen erleben die Menschen im Land. Das finde ich nicht lustig – das können Grüne lustig finden –, und das erleben die Menschen. Es ist unsere eigenste Aufgabe, unsere ureigenste Aufgabe, den Menschen zu helfen und für die Menschen etwas zu tun, dass die Menschen mit ihrem Einkommen auch ein Auskommen finden. Wir müssen Sorge dafür tragen, dass diese unverantwortliche Energiepolitik, die wir hier erleben, nicht weiter in die völlig falsche Richtung geht. Die Auswirkungen sieht man ja derzeit in Deutschland. Da ist es eine Regierung mit grüner Beteiligung, die die Verlängerung dreier Atommeiler weiter beschließt. Das wird nicht der letzte Schluss sein, sondern diese Atommeiler werden weiterlaufen, und eben nicht nur bis April nächsten Jahres, sondern auch darüber hinaus. Bravo, kann ich da nur sagen, liebe Grüne, habt ihr gut gemacht. Als Haupteffekt dieser überzogenen Energiepolitik zerstören wir noch unsere Wirtschaft in Europa und damit natürlich auch Arbeitsplätze. Das wird Ihnen allen noch auf den Kopf fallen. Izabela-Helena Kloc (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Słusznie zadajemy sobie pytanie, czy inne kraje dotrzymają kroku ambicjom klimatycznym Unii Europejskiej. Odpowiedź jest powszechnie znana. Jest to odpowiedź negatywna. Widzimy, że powiększa się przepaść między klimatycznymi bojownikami w Europie a bardziej pragmatycznymi rządami w Indiach czy Chinach. Nie widzimy jednak żadnych oznak realizmu po stronie decydentów w Europie. Unia Europejska nadal będzie głosić światu kazania i niszczyć swoją gospodarkę z takim samym zerowym skutkiem dla globalnych zmian klimatu. Mamy w Europie prawdziwą wojnę. To nie czas na zwiększanie finansowania na rzecz klimatu. Nie czas na nakręcanie spirali tak zwanych ambicji klimatycznych. A przede wszystkim nie czas na wycofywanie dotacji do paliw kopalnych. Obywatele Europy potrzebują odpowiedzi na kryzys energetyczny, a nie powielania tych samych błędów, które ten kryzys wywołały. Silvia Modig (The Left). – Arvoisa puhemies, EU tekee tällä hetkellä enemmän kuin koskaan ilmaston hyväksi, mutta se, että teemme enemmän kuin aiemmin, ei tarkoita, että tekisimme riittävästi. Ilmastopäätösten tulisi aina nojata tieteelliseen neuvoon tarvittavista toimista ja aikatauluista. Näin ei ole globaalisti eikä meillä EU:ssa. Viimeisimmän YK:n päästöraportin mukaan olemme menossa olemassa olevilla päätöksillä kohti 2,7 asteen lämpenemistä. Tämä on se todellisuus, jossa me lähdemme seuraavaan ilmastohuippukokouksen. Seuraavan ilmastokokouksen on pystyttävä päättämään kansainvälisestä ilmastorahoituksesta ja rikkaiden valtioiden on oltava valmiita lisäämään rahoitustaan, mutta vihreää siirtymää ei toteuteta ainoastaan veronmaksajien rahoilla, vaan kaikki rahavirrat on saatava tukemaan vihreää siirtymää. Ja vihdoinkin edes meillä EU:ssa pitäisi kyetä päättämään, että me lopetamme haitalliset ja tehottomat fossiilituet. Rahoituksesta on myös merkittävä riittävä osuus vahinkojen ja menetysten korvaamiseen, ne vain lisääntyvät. Tämä on surullista, mutta tämä on tosiasia. Tekemättä jättämisen hinta on paljon suurempi kuin tarvittavat panostukset ja mitä pidempään odotamme, sitä kovemmaksi lasku muodostuu. Pernille Weiss (PPE). – Hr. Formand! Der er så mange ting, der skal siges igen og igen og igen. Men vi må aldrig stoppe, vi skal levere, også en stærk beslutning som huskeseddel om alt det, vi skal opnå i Egypten i næste måned. Og i år er vi faktisk rigtig godt forberedt, fordi vi har lavet en mere konkret og handlingsanvisende beslutning end faktisk nogensinde før. Og det er vigtigt i en tid, hvor flere og flere borgere mister tillid til, at vi politikere kan finde ud af at finde sammen om løsninger i stedet for at konkurrere om, hvem der er mest grøn i vores mund. Lad mig derfor fremhæve to af de vigtige, håndfaste budskaber i dette års COP-beslutning. Den ene handler om den kendsgerning, at vand er en kritisk, udfordret og udfordrende ressource, vi simpelthen skal blive bedre til at tackle. Vi skal gøre alt, hvad vi kan, for at vores samfund på kryds og tværs bliver mere vand-smart i ordets egentlige og mangfoldige betydning. Dernæst, og ganske kort, så er det glædeligt, at der er rigtig stort fokus på og forslag vedrørende små og mellemstore virksomheder og EU's konkurrencekraft. Både som emner for grøn omstilling, men også som værktøj for den grønne omstilling og vejen til at indfri Parisaftalen. Delara Burkhardt (S&D). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Dass der Hauptsponsor der Klimakonferenz Coca-Cola heißt, scheint wie ein schlechter Witz. Es sind doch genau diese Unternehmen, deren Geschäftspraktiken wir den Riegel vorschieben müssen, anstatt ihnen den Greenwashing-Teppich auszurollen. Genau das ist unsere Hausaufgabe zwischen den Klimakonferenzen, wo wir ja als EU so dabei sind, dass wir sogar nachlegen können bei unseren Reduktionszielen. Allein mit REPowerEU und mit „Fit für 55” können wir mindestens 60 % statt der bisherigen 55-%-Reduktion erreichen. Es braucht aber vor allen Dingen mehr Solidarität, die Einsicht, dass einige Staaten es schwerer haben, sich vor den Folgen der Klimakrise zu schützen – Folgen, die die Industriestaaten mit ihrem fossilen Geschäftsmodell zu verantworten haben. Hier muss es in Scharm El-Scheich konkrete Zusagen für finanzielle Unterstützung geben, und dazu gehört auch ein dauerhafter Mechanismus zur Finanzierung von klimabedingten Schäden und Verlusten. Der russische Angriffskrieg hat uns gezeigt, wie verletzlich uns die Abhängigkeit von fossilen Energien macht. Wir stehen erst recht in der Verantwortung, auf dieser COP das globale Zeitalter der Erneuerbaren einzuleiten. Nicolae Ștefănuță (Renew). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisar, dragi colegi, de fiecare dată când pronunțăm cuvintele nimeni nu va fi lăsat în urmă, cel puțin o persoană moare de lipsă de apă sau de mâncare. Cel puțin o familie își pierde munca de o viață, fiindcă apele i-au înghițit gospodăria. Cel puțin un fermier rămâne fără recoltă după ce seceta a crăpat pământul și i-a ars culturile. Criza climatică a lovit deja, iar cei care vor suferi sunt copiii noștri. Este atât de simplu. Cum rămâne pentru ei viitorul? Ce rămâne pentru ei în viață? Haideți să nu deviem de la țintele noastre comune și cele internaționale și să nu lăsăm alte crize să pună haosul climatic pe locul doi. Spunea colegul din Germania de la partidul de extremă dreapta că factura este mare. Da, factura este mare, dar factura pentru inacțiune este pur și simplu catastrofală. Ea înseamnă existența însăși, înseamnă negarea viitorului pentru copiii noștri și factura asta nu putem noi să o lăsăm la urmă, să spunem că copiii noștri nu merită să aibă un viitor. Așa că vreau să vă încurajez, doamnă comisar, să reprezentați copiii noștri la summitul din Sharm el-Sheikh, să luptați pentru ei, să luptați pentru clima lor și pentru viitorul acestei planete. Ville Niinistö (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, every inhabited region of the planet is currently experiencing the impacts of climate change. We are already living in an era of adverse climate effects. Even if last year's Glasgow COP cut new climate pledges and increased ambition, that was clearly not enough. No matter how we play with the numbers, we are not still on the path to 1.5 degrees. We are actually using our remaining carbon budget within this decade. So we need to do more. Even if in Egypt the focus has been for many in climate financing, loss and damage adaptation – those are important targets – the EU has to, in addition to delivering the goals, also take on board also the message from Glasgow that member countries will increase their ambition. And the EU has to do its own role here. We are currently having the negotiations in trilogues using a number of files of Fit of 55 and from the Parliament side, like myself as rapporteur on LULUCF, we are increasing, hastening the process to get a deal also before Sharm el Sheikh to show that the EU can increase its ambition. We hope to get support in this from the Commission and from the Council who is absent today. I really hope that they are not absent in those negotiations and not absent in Egypt, because EU has to put more on the table to demand more from the others. Sylvia Limmer (ID). – Herr Präsident! Lassen Sie mich heute verschiedene Begriffe zueinander in Relation setzen. Auf die selbst ausgerufene Klimakrise – Begriff Nummer eins – wird per politischen Beschlüssen mit einem Ausstieg aus einem funktionierenden, günstigen Energiesystem reagiert, ohne sich um eine vernünftige Folgenabschätzung für die europäische Wirtschaft zu kümmern. Eine Wirtschaft, die im Übrigen Umweltschutz – Begriff Nummer zwei – nicht nur finanziert, sondern durch technische Innovationen erst möglich macht. Umweltschutz, der für den Erhalt unserer Welt – unseres Planeten, für den Sie doch alle so vehement eintreten – und für nachfolgende Generationen essenziell ist, hat nichts zu tun mit Klimaschutz – Begriff Nummer drei. Das Abholzen von Wäldern für den Bau von Windrädern oder der Offshore-Bau in Brutgebieten von Wasservögeln ist nämlich das genaue Gegenteil von Umweltschutz. Das Funktionieren unserer Wirtschaft ist abhängig von der Bereitstellung von Energie – jederzeit. Volatile erneuerbare Energien tun dies nicht und haben zudem als sogenannte Übergangsenergien eine fatale geostrategische Gasabhängigkeit beschert. Sie sind Ursache unserer Energiekrise – Begriff Nummer vier. Die aus der Energiekrise resultierende Energieknappheit, die gigantischen Kosten für den Um- und für den Aufbau eines nicht grundlastfähigen Energiesystems und eine aus dem Ruder laufende CO2-Bepreisung sind es, die zu Energiearmut führen – Begriff Nummer fünf. Gassanktionen, die Russlands Kriegskasse über steigende Gaspreise füllen, während sie uns selbst massiv schaden, tun ein Übriges. Sie sind aber nicht der ursächliche Grund für die wissentlich politisch-ideologisch herbeigeführte Energiekrise, die unsere Wirtschaft lähmt und unsere Bürger verarmen lässt. Green Deal, Klimagesetz, Fit-für-55-Paket, Lastenfahrrad, grüner Wasserstoff sind alle Ausdruck einer völlig irren grünen Wohlstandsvernichtung. Nicht die Klimakrise richtet Chaos in der Welt an, Frau Johansson in Vertretung von Herrn Timmermans, sondern Klimademagogen, die mit schrillen Untergangsszenarien durch die Welt jetten und Politik gegen die eigenen Bürger betreiben. Und das ist menschengemacht. Marina Mesure (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, avez-vous remarqué l'ironie de notre calendrier? La COP, cette conférence des Nations unies qui réunit les dirigeants du monde entier pour parler de la crise écologique et de la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique, va se tenir au même moment que la Coupe du monde de football au Qatar, organisée en plein désert, dans des stades climatisés. Puis, dans la foulée, nous n'avons rien trouvé de mieux que d'attribuer les prochains Jeux asiatiques d'hiver à l'Arabie saoudite pour organiser des compétitions de patins à glace à 50 degrés à l'ombre. Tout cela n'est pas sérieux et particulièrement cynique, alors que ces derniers mois, nous avons été marqués par des catastrophes climatiques d'une ampleur sans précédent, avec un nouveau record d'incendies en Europe et partout dans le monde, des inondations qui ont rayé de la carte des territoires entiers, comme au Pakistan. Oui, la crise écologique est là et ce sont les plus vulnérables, toujours les mêmes, qui sont les premières victimes. Alors, à l'aube d'une vingt-septième COP, une de plus, des millions de personnes qui subissent de plein fouet le changement climatique ont les yeux rivés sur nous et nous devons leur apporter des réponses concrètes, des mesures politiques de justice sociale et climatique, pas seulement des résolutions et des déclarations de bonnes intentions. Ne ratons pas cette occasion. Niels Fuglsang (S&D). – Hr. formand! I årtier har vi vidst, at vi bevæger os mod en klimakatastrofe. Vi kender konsekvenserne, men vi har nægtet at se dem i øjnene. Vi kan konstatere, at klimaforandringerne ikke kun vedrører fremtiden, klimaforandringerne er nu. Det er en realitet. Skovbrande, oversvømmelser og tørke viser med al tydelighed en jordklode, der er begyndt at sige fra. Men, hvad vi oplever i disse år, er kun en forsmag på den altomfattende katastrofe, som vi har kurs mod, hvis vi ikke ændrer retning, og hvis vi ikke gør det nu. Når verdens lande om lidt mødes til COP27 i Egypten, er det netop det, det skal handle om. Hvordan holder vi klimaforandringerne på et niveau, der ikke medfører en klimakatastrofe? I Parisaftalen er der fastsat et mål om maks. halvanden graders global opvarmning. Vi ved, at alt over det niveau vil have fatale konsekvenser. Derfor er vores opgave i Egypten at sørge for, at klimaforandringerne ikke stiger mere end det. „Keep 1,5 alive” for klodens skyld og for vores børn og børnebørns skyld. Jan-Christoph Oetjen (Renew). – Herr Präsident! Die Welt schaut nach Scharm El-Scheich, die Welt schaut nach Ägypten. Und ich möchte mit Ihnen nicht über Klima sprechen, sondern über Menschenrechte. Denn Ägypten ist ein Land, in dem Menschen, die das System kritisieren, die kritisch zur Regierung stehen, von der Straße einfach verschwinden, in Gefängnisse gesteckt werden und dann nicht wieder rauskommen, die gefoltert werden und manchmal nie wieder das Tageslicht erblicken. Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, die COP27 wird in einem Land stattfinden, in dem Menschenrechte mit Füßen getreten werden. Und ich finde, dass wir als Europäische Union davor nicht die Augen verschließen dürfen, sondern dass wir das adressieren müssen – adressieren bei denen, die in Ägypten Verantwortung tragen. Und deswegen bin ich der Meinung, dass wir in der Entschließung, die wir hier in diesem Parlament verabschieden, auch starke Worte zur Menschenrechtssituation in Ägypten finden müssen, zu politischen Gefangenen. Und einen davon möchte ich persönlich benennen: Das ist Alaa Abd El-Fattah. Er ist seit vielen Wochen in einem Hungerstreik. Er droht zu sterben in der Unterdrückung dieses ägyptischen Regimes. Und ich finde, wir als Europäisches Parlament müssen unsere Stimme erheben für diese politischen Gefangenen, die von diesem Regime unterdrückt werden. Michael Bloss (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Es sind nur noch drei Wochen bis zur Klimakonferenz, und bisher sieht es so aus, als ob sie im Desaster enden würde. Die Länder des Globalen Südens verlangen Gerechtigkeit. Der CO2-Ausstoß Europas führt in Ländern wie Pakistan zu den verheerenden Überschwemmungen, den Klimakatastrophen. Das müssen wir endlich anerkennen. Loss and Damage is real! Gleichzeitig haben wir vor einem Jahr in Glasgow das Versprechen gegeben: Wir müssen den Bruch des Pariser Klimaabkommens stoppen und bis Scharm El-Scheich endlich auf das 2-Grad-Ziel kommen. Meine Damen und Herren, nichts davon ist bisher passiert! Es ist nichts passiert, weil es kein Leadership vonseiten der EU gibt. Wo sind die gemeinsamen Pressekonferenzen mit John Kerry? Wo sind die globalen Allianzen? Herr Klimakommissar Timmermans, wo sind Sie? Wir sehen Sie nicht. Sie sind noch nicht einmal hier zu dieser zentralen Debatte ins Plenum gekommen. Wenn diese Klimakonferenz scheitert, dann sind Sie auch dafür verantwortlich. Tauchen Sie auf. Kümmern Sie sich endlich und sorgen Sie dafür, dass die Klimakonferenz ein Erfolg wird. Tiemo Wölken (S&D). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Faktenlage ist glasklar: Die globalen Ziele reichen nicht, sie reichen bei Weitem nicht, um die Klimakrise aufzuhalten. Auch das EU-Ziel von mindestens 55 % Reduktion bis 2030 ist ebenfalls kein gerechter Beitrag, wie es das Pariser Abkommen von uns verlangen würde. Wir als Parlament haben deswegen von Anfang an bei der Klimagesetz-Diskussion verlangt: mindestens 60 % Reduktion bis 2030. Es ist jetzt nicht die Zeit dafür, darüber zu diskutieren, wer am Ende recht hatte. Es ist die Zeit, darüber nachzudenken, zu handeln und das auch jetzt zu tun. Eine Erhöhung der Klimaziele durch das Paket „Fit für 55” ist möglich. Mehr erneuerbare Energien, strafferer Emissionshandel, mehr abgedeckte Emissionen, stärkere Senken – all das sind wichtige Ziele, die wir als Europäische Union jetzt voranbringen müssen. Sehr geehrte Vertreterin von der Europäischen Kommission, wir müssen uns gemeinsam dafür einsetzen, damit wir nicht mit leeren Händen zur Konferenz fahren. Ich würde jetzt auch noch den Rat auffordern, etwas zu sagen. Aber der Rat zeigt, wie wichtig ihm diese Debatte ist. Ich finde das ehrlicherweise beschämend. Es ist Zeit, dass wir die Ziele gemeinsam erhöhen, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Karin Karlsbro (Renew). – Herr talman! Fru kommissionär, kollegor, åhörare! Klimatkrisen är akut. I november hålls det stora klimatmötet COP27 i Egypten. Det sker i skuggan av Rysslands krig mot Ukraina, skenande energipriser och inflation. I ett läge måste vi hantera många stora, svåra frågor på samma gång. Trots det måste vi hålla fast vid våra klimatlöften och göra allt vi kan, för utsläppen måste ner. EU är världens viktigaste miljöorganisation, som på många sätt går före och visar vägen. Men vi måste vässa våra verktyg och jobba globalt för minskade utsläpp. Låt oss få en gränsjusteringsmekanism för klimatet, en klimattull, på plats. Se till att få till stånd globala överenskommelser för att stoppa subventioner till fossila bränslen. Använd handelsavtal för att kroka arm för klimatansvar, tillväxt och teknikutveckling. Vi befinner oss i en dyster tid, men låt klimattoppmötet bli en ljuspunkt och ett tillfälle att glädjas över konkreta resultat. Världen och klimatet behöver goda nyheter. Mounir Satouri (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, une conférence climat est un événement international d'une grande importance: pour les États, qui doivent porter haut et fort leurs ambitions, et pour les populations, qui sont les premières impactées par le climat et qui poussent les responsables politiques à faire plus et mieux. En Égypte, les droits humains ne sont pas respectés, tout le monde le sait. Nous avons porté ici même, au Parlement européen, plusieurs demandes, plusieurs résolutions pour réclamer la libération de 60 000 prisonniers politiques. En Égypte, on refuse l'enregistrement des associations, on refuse le droit de manifester librement, on enferme ceux qui parlent haut et fort. En Égypte, on a déjà peur des représailles après la COP. En plein débat sur les violations des droits de l'homme au Qatar pour l'organisation de la Coupe du monde, il est essentiel que nous nous posions un cadre pour la préparation des COP. L'Égypte cette année, les Émirats arabes l'année prochaine. On ne doit pas permettre que les COP soient l'occasion d'une opération de communication pour les régimes autoritaires. Alors je demande une chose simple: l'élaboration de critères par les Nations unies en lien avec le respect des droits humains pour la tenue des prochaines COP. C'est une question de cohérence. Il ne sert à rien de vouloir sauver le climat si c'est pour laisser émerger les régimes autoritaires. Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Herr talman! Vår kommissionär! Redan vid dagens 1,2 graders globala upphettning ser vi kraftiga översvämningar, värmeböljor och torka. Vi är på väg mot 2,7 graders uppvärmning, och det är förödande både för vår natur, för utsatta grupper och för en fredlig och säker värld. Det är bråttom nu. Vi måste höja våra mål i COP27. EU måste visa vägen, visa hur sol, vind, vatten och biogas minskar både utsläpp, kostnader och det ryska beroendet. För att lyckas med detta, för att vi ska få till ambitiösa och hållbara överenskommelser, måste också kvinnor ta plats vid förhandlingsbordet. Det är kvinnor och barn som drabbas hårdast av klimatkrisens konsekvenser. Det är också kvinnor och barn som i dag är mest klimatsmarta i vardagen. Låt COP27 bli vändpunkten där unga kvinnors röster och ledarskap för klimatet tas på allvar. Jutta Paulus (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Glasgow ist jetzt ein Jahr her, und von den Versprechen, die dort gemacht wurden, wurde kein einziges eingehalten. Gerade mal 19 Länder haben neue Klimaziele eingereicht, obwohl doch alle versprochen hatten, endlich auf den Unter-2-Grad-Pfad zu kommen. Es wurde mit großer Geste ein Global Methane Pledge unterzeichnet, mit dem die Methanemissionen reduziert werden sollen. Aber bislang hat kein einziges Land eine funktionierende Gesetzgebung, wie das denn erfolgen soll. Auch hier in der EU tun wir uns schwer bei den Verhandlungen, denn bislang ist es hauptsächlich die Öl- und Gasindustrie, die Vorgaben macht, wie denn eine solche Begrenzung im Energiesektor aussehen soll. Wir haben schon viel über loss and damage gehört. Ich will das hier nicht wiederholen. Wir sollten uns klarmachen: Jede Tonne CO2 verursacht Folgekosten von 180 Euro an Schäden. Das hat das Umweltbundesamt berechnet. Jede Subvention für Fossile, die wir in der aktuellen Krise ausgeben, hat diese 180 Euro noch obendrauf, und wir sollten so ehrlich sein, das unseren Bürgerinnen und Bürgern, die nach Subventionen rufen, auch zu sagen. Eric Andrieu (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, la COP pour le climat en Afrique, c'est l'occasion de rappeler un constat aussi cruel qu'injuste: l'Afrique est la plus faible émettrice de gaz à effet de serre au monde, mais fait pourtant partie des plus grandes victimes du dérèglement climatique, qu'il s'agisse des sécheresses, des inondations, des incendies ou de la dégradation des terres agricoles. Tous les signaux d'alarme sont allumés et je ne cite pas l'augmentation des cyclones ou le recul de la glace de la mer Arctique. Alors oui, il faut que les États mettent les bouchées doubles pour atteindre leurs objectifs climatiques à l'horizon 2030. Et ici, au Parlement européen, nous avons une immense responsabilité et nous ne pouvons plus dire des choses et faire le contraire. La droite et les libéraux, qui ont voté avec nous en 2019 l'état d'urgence climatique et qui font tout aujourd'hui pour vider de leur substance les textes environnementaux du paquet „Fit for 55”, avec comme alibi la guerre en Ukraine ou la COVID, doivent changer d'attitude. Mesdames, Messieurs, vous vous trompez et vous nous mettez tous gravement en danger. Résoudre le problème majeur que représente le réchauffement climatique est une question de vie ou de mort et cela requiert de dépasser les petites stratégies politiciennes pour enfin lutter dans l'intérêt de tous, et en particulier du continent africain qui accueille cette COP 27 au mois de novembre. Robert Hajšel (S&D). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, aj v kontexte aktuálnej dramatickej situácie musíme ďalej podporovať naše ambiciózne klimatické ciele. To povedie aj k znižovaniu závislosti na tretích krajinách a k posilňovaniu našej autonómie. Európska únia musí zostať svetovým lídrom v znižovaní emisií. Ale nezáleží iba od nás, či udržíme otepľovanie iba na úrovni jeden a pol stupňa, a preto aj v Sharm el Sheikh musíme presadzovať, aby si aj zvyšok sveta plnil svoje záväzky. Lenže realita je iná. Medzi našimi ambíciami vyspelého sveta a tým, čomu sme sa zaviazali a čo robíme, je veľká priepasť. Dosť bolo sľubov, dosť bolo ďalšieho zvyšovania cieľov. My nemôžeme tlačiť na pílu. Potrebujeme konkrétne kroky smerujúce k riešeniu klimatickej núdze a k zabráneniu zbytočným státisícom úmrtí v dôsledku klimatických zmien, a to od urgentného znižovania emisií skleníkových plynov, zvyšovania odolnosti a adaptácie obyvateľov na drastické zmeny klímy až po záväzky k udržateľnému financovaniu boja proti klimatickej zmene v rozvojových krajinách. Musíme tiež mobilizovať súkromné investície a zapojiť sektory, ktoré desaťročia zodpovedajú za najväčšie znečisťovanie. Ak to s klímou myslíme vážne, musíme tiež zabrániť exportu emisií a obchodovaniu s krajinami, ktoré nespĺňajú prísne kritériá, ktoré sme si my stanovili v našej Únii. Διαδικασία „catch the eye” Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Mr President, at the world's climate summit taking place next week or next month, it's important that progress is made there to tackle climate change. And an international challenge such as this can only be tackled with international cooperation and collaboration. We need governments, business, the public and private sectors to be involved if we are to deliver on our targets of 1.5 degrees. It's very important the COP27 is taking place in Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt, a country on a continent that is experiencing the severe impacts of climate change. Countries such as Somalia and Ethiopia have severe drought at the moment, which has led to crop failure, shortages of food and of course hunger. And the UN has predicted that more than 300 000 people in Somalia will be in famine by December of this year. So now is the time for action. I know that we will have a strong message delivered by countries such as Somalia and Ethiopia and many more nations experiencing the realities and the crisis that is climate change. Our Fit for 55 package, outlining how Europe will move to our 2020 targets, is an important message to bring. But we need more and we need leadership from Europe. We also need decisions, strong decisions taken from all players. Sara Cerdas (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, obrigada por dar o tempo devido ao „catch-the-eye” neste que é um tão importante debate. A crise climática está bem presente no nosso dia a dia e por mais que existam sinais a exigir mais ação, temos vindo a adiar os esforços do que podemos fazer hoje para mais tarde. Anualmente, temos oportunidades para inspirar a mais ação, para nos tornarmos bons exemplos de boas práticas, para produzirmos legislação eficaz e inovadora, mas não tem sido suficiente. A ciência vem reiteradamente demonstrar que não conseguiremos limitar o aumento da temperatura deste planeta. As gerações acima da minha estão preocupadas. A minha geração está assustada. As gerações mais novas estão aterrorizadas. E será nestas gerações que as decisões que foram tomadas pelos nossos pais, pelos nossos avós e as que tomamos aqui hoje, neste preciso momento, se vão fazer sentir mais intensamente. Apelo, então, a que tomemos assim boas decisões, arrojadas, a pensar no futuro e que não deixemos ninguém para trás, porque afinal não temos planeta B. Irena Joveva (Renew). – Gospod predsedujoči! Tek, kolesarjenje, jadranje. 7767 kilometrov, 38 dni in eno sporočilo: zmanjkuje nam časa. Po tem geslom danes že 19. dan teče klimatska štafeta. Pričela se je v Glasgowu, končala se bo v Šarm el Šejku, vmes pa bo prečkala tudi mojo državo – Slovenijo. Pri soočanju s podnebnimi spremembami potrebujemo vse nosilce štafetne palice. Svetovne, evropske, državne, lokalne, posamezne. Vse, od prvega do zadnjega. S Pariškim sporazumom smo se zavezali k stopinji in pol globalnega segrevanja do leta 2100. Veste, kje smo zdaj? Nismo blizu. Okrepiti moramo cilje, sprejeti nove zaveze, predvsem pa se držati že obstoječih in potem vseh naslednjih. Ker... priča smo kataklizmam – vedno večim in vedno večjim. Se bomo ob kakšni naravni katastrofi zares zbudili? Ker ... sama bi si mislila, da smo jih doživeli že zdavnaj preveč. In sama bi si mislila, da se zdaj pa res že zavedamo. Zmanjkuje nam časa. Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, for the first time the European Parliament is calling for UN financing mechanism for climate reparations. And I have to say I really welcome that, because the sick truth about the climate crisis, as so many colleagues have pointed out, is that it's the poorest in society, those least responsible, who are always the hardest hit. And, therefore, it is only right that those actually responsible for climate destruction are the ones who end up paying up. And that's not about me and you digging deeper into our pockets and being charitable. No, we need to deal with the extreme polluters in society, not your neighbour driving to work or your granny going on overseas holidays. It's the super-wealthy who are taking up an outrageous amount of our carbon space and getting away with it. This is where we need to start and, therefore, I'd encourage support for our amendments 13 and 16 on carbon inequality and curtailing private jet use. The richest 10% are responsible for over half of all carbon emissions. Private jet use is up to 30% higher than pandemic. This is madness. We need to get rid of our climate guilt and replace it with outrage. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, is there something special about the military sector that makes its emissions not matter? Since the reporting of military emissions is voluntary, it doesn't happen. It only begs the question: why are we hiding the climate impact of the military industrial complex from public knowledge? Estimates put the military sector at around 6% of all global CO2 emissions – 6%. Just remember that the global aviation is responsible for 2.5%, and the whole of Africa with 1.2 billion is responsible for 4%. And yet, we never talk about what damage the military is doing. We tell ordinary people to turn their lights off and say nothing to the military industrial complex. What about demilitarisation? What about peace? Did anyone spare a thought about the climate impact of shovelling over 3 billion into Ukraine's war resistance? What country did a climate impact assessment when increasing their military budget? Without peace we will not have a stable climate. War is a climate change steroid and many people in here seem to be hooked on it. (Λήξη της διαδικασίας „catch the eye”) Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank Members for raising important issues tonight, providing additional political momentum ahead of the COP. I appreciate your commitment to maintain the European Union's role as a leader in the field of international climate action. A strong and united European Union messaging will be instrumental to deliver. After Sharm, our work must continue both domestically and internationally, and to help our partners to advance the transition to a low-carbon, climate resilient economy. Thank you again for the opportunity of having this debate. The Commission looks forward to continuing the important dialogue with this House, working together for a successful outcome of Sharm. Πρόεδρος. – Έχω λάβει, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 136 παράγραφος 5 του Κανονισμού, μία πρόταση ψηφίσματος. Η συζήτηση έληξε. Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί την Πέμπτη. 16.   Gevolgen van de Russische invasie van Oekraïne op de migratiestroom naar de EU (debat) Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η συζήτηση επί της δήλωσης της Επιτροπής σχετικά με τον αντίκτυπο της ρωσικής εισβολής στην Ουκρανία στις μεταναστευτικές ροές προς την ΕΕ (2022/2870(RSP)). Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I spoke to this House on the impact of war on 8 March, 12 days after the start of Putin's invasion. And that was five days after the Member States swiftly and unanimously agreed to my proposal to activate the Temporary Protection Directive, giving Ukrainian refugees immediate protection in the European Union. I said that day on 8 March, more is to come. Worse is to come. Millions more will flee. And more did come. Worse did come. Bucha, Izyum, mass graves, torture, murder, rape. And more than 4.3 million Ukrainians have now registered for temporary protection in the European Union. But what I could not predict is the extraordinary response by Member States and European citizens, rising to the challenge, housing refugees, providing access to healthcare and jobs and places in school for nearly 650 000 Ukrainian children today. In those early days, I could also not predict many would soon return to Ukraine to fight, to support their country and their families. Two weeks ago, I met with the mayor of Bucha. He told me 70% of his citizens had already come back. But as Putin loses the battlefield, losses on the battlefield increase, so do his attacks on civilians. Missile attacks, killing innocent people, daily strikes against the water supply and electricity supply. People could soon feel forced to flee Ukraine again. They must be sure they can do so safe in the knowledge that our doors remain open. That's what I told ministers at last Friday's Justice and Home Affairs Council, and they agreed. When people return to the EU, protection status will be swiftly reactivated. Ministers also agreed with the need to continue applying the Temporary Protection Directive for another year until March 2024. I also discussed with ministers what winter may bring. And we are ready. We have been working closely with Member States on a common view, on a contingency plan and are ready for new arrivals. And we have allocated the full EUR 400 million in emergency assistance promised to support Member States reception systems and border management. And we made sure 30% of those funds will go to NGOs and local authorities. And for all those still in the European Union receiving protection, we are helping them to find their way into the labour market. Last week I launched a talent pool pilot together with Commissioner Schmidt, an online search tool under the EURES portal. Together with Anna, a student from Donbas, and Vera, an engineer from Kiev. The first two to register. They now can apply for more than 3 million vacancies across the EU and 4000 verified employers can find their CVs. After mobilization, we have not seen large number of Russians arriving in the EU, but we must be vigilant. Putin's illegal annexation, mobilisation, the nuclear threat, danger is rising, and so must our level of protection. That's why the Commission put forward guidelines to make it much more difficult for Russians to enter the European Union on tourist visas and with coordinated and thorough controls of Russian citizens at EU's external borders. But Europe remains open for those in need of protection, for dissidents, for journalists. We do not yet see the war affecting migration from other parts of the world to the EU. We will continue to monitor developments closely and act accordingly. To end this crisis, first, Putin must lose. Seeking to divide us, Putin has only united us. And second, we need a pact on migration and asylum. I'm very glad that we already had the Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint Network in place, providing information critical for swift and decisive action. And I'm very glad that the EU asylum agency is in place with its reinforced mandate giving stronger support to Member States. Now, we must put the rest of the package in place, and I'm confident the cooperation between the presidencies and the Parliament is unprecedented. The road map is very important, showing a clear way forward and an ambition that has proven evasive for so many years. So let's build on that to reach an agreement. Jeroen Lenaers,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, the Russian invasion of Ukraine had, of course, a huge and a direct impact on migratory migration flows to the EU. More than 11 million Ukrainians crossed the border of the European Union. A significant number have returned, indeed, but over 4 million of them have registered for temporary protection in the EU. And the EU delivered on this TPD. And we can be proud about how millions of refugees received a warm welcome all over Europe, particularly in countries bordering Ukraine – Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova. It has been really impressive to see all the efforts by citizens and communities to take care of vulnerable people. But the migration challenge is not restricted to migration flows directly from Ukraine. In the first nine months of this year, more than 228 000 migrants irregularly crossed the external borders of the EU, the highest number since 2016. For three consecutive months, there were more than 70 000 asylum applications per month in the EU. Again, the last time this happened was in 2016 — crisis time. On the Western Balkan routes, we see an increase of almost 200% compared to last year, mainly due also to the scandalous visa policy of Serbia, which I hope the Commission will address without delay. We are sleepwalking towards another migration crisis and we already see Member States reaching the limits of reception capacity. So we need to act. We can point fingers to Member States and agencies as much as we want, but we need to do our job as a parliament by making real progress on the pact on migration to make sure it is adopted as soon as possible. We cannot allow any further delays. Let's get to work. Juan Fernando López Aguilar,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, comisaria Johansson, los hechos son elocuentes, los datos lo son, pero los hechos no lo son menos. Desde que tuvo lugar la guerra de agresión de Putin contra Ucrania, se ha producido el desplazamiento forzoso de al menos un tercio de la población ucraniana. Más de once millones de personas procedentes de Ucrania han entrado en el territorio de la Unión Europea. Como usted ha puesto de manifiesto, cerca de siete millones han vuelto a Ucrania, lógicamente, por sus contactos familiares o por sus pertenencias. Son libres de hacerlo. Pero al menos cuatro millones —la mayor parte de ellos, el 90 %, mujeres y niños vulnerables e indefensos— están disfrutando en la Unión Europea del estatuto de la Directiva de protección temporal que les da, sin necesidad de visado, acceso al territorio de libre circulación de Schengen, libre residencia y acceso al empleo y a todos los derechos sociales y las prestaciones que están asociados al acceso al mercado de trabajo. Por supuesto, nos alegramos. Pero esto requiere un enorme esfuerzo por parte de este Parlamento para proveer la financiación y el apoyo necesario a los Estados miembros. Y lo hemos hecho. No hemos dudado un segundo en aprobar las ayudas financieras: el programa CARE (Acción de Cohesión para los Refugiados), el programa REACT-EU, todos los remanentes y, sobre todo, el incremento del Fondo de Asilo, Migración e Integración, el Fondo de Seguridad Interior... hasta 400 millones de euros para apoyar el esfuerzo ingente que están desplegando en frontera, precisamente, los países que los reciben, sin ignorar que, disfrutando de la libre circulación en la Unión Europea, en estos momentos se encuentran en todos los Estados de la Unión Europea. En mi país, en España, hay 140 000. Ahora la lección es clara y la subrayo, y es que: „When there is a way, there is a will; when there is a will, there is a way”. Esto podríamos haberlo hecho antes. Por fin hemos activado la Directiva de protección temporal. Es la primera vez, pero lo cierto es que, habiendo recibido cuatro millones de personas en el marco de la Directiva de protección temporal, no han crujido las cuadernas del estado social ni del modelo social europeo. Por tanto, estamos en disposición de hacerlo también con las personas procedentes de otras zonas de conflicto y la oportunidad es la hoja de ruta que hemos acordado con usted, comisaria Johansson, para sacar adelante el nuevo pacto, los cinco reglamentos de... (el presidente retira la palabra al orador). VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND Vizepräsident Fabienne Keller,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chère Ylva Johansson, la guerre de Poutine en Ukraine a des répercussions majeures bien au-delà du continent européen. Selon l'Organisation des Nations unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture, le nombre de personnes sous-alimentées dans le monde pourrait passer de 8 à 19 millions de personnes entre 2022 et 2023 en conséquence de la guerre. L'insécurité alimentaire au niveau mondial est un facteur de migration important. On en observe déjà quelques signaux concrets. Entre janvier et juin de cette année, l'Union a reçu 410 000 demandes d'asile, contre 206 000 – la moitié – durant la même période en 2021, avec notamment une hausse des demandes d'asile pour les Tunisiens et les Égyptiens. Cette situation pourrait s'aggraver sensiblement dans les mois à venir. Madame la Commissaire, la Commission analyse-t-elle les tendances migratoires dans les pays tiers afin d'anticiper ces flux de migrants? Et deuxième question: quel soutien apportons-nous dès aujourd'hui aux pays tiers concernés? Je voudrais regretter l'absence du Conseil et appeler, comme mes collègues, à... (Le Président retire la parole à l'oratrice) Tineke Strik,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, (start of speech off mic) numerous victims. Refugees from Ukraine deserve our unconditional support, no matter how long, no matter how many. So we warmly welcome the extended application of the Temporary Protection Directive. But the Russian aggression also affects citizens of Russia and Belarus, who don't choose the side of Putin. Human rights defenders, journalists who speak out are persecuted. Deserters and draft evaders who do not want to fight this cruel war are under a risk as well, as Putin perceives them as traitors. The EU must keep its channels open to protect those who are under threat. The right to asylum is neutral and universal and cannot be ignored just for political reasons. So people who arrive at our borders must be able to apply for asylum and I call upon the Commission to monitor compliance by the Member States. Unlike the authoritarian Kremlin regime, we respect the rule of law, and only by upholding our values, we can win this war. Nicolaus Fest,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Irgendwie ist das immer wieder das gleiche Spiel. Wir kriegen immer mehr Flüchtlinge, und Sie treten hier auf und erzählen immer den gleichen Unfug von vor allem border management. Die Wahrheit ist: Sie haben wirklich überhaupt gar nichts mehr im Griff. Schengen und das Versprechen, dass die äußeren Grenzen geschützt werden, sind klar gescheitert. Massenhaft wandern derzeit Menschen ein, und eben nicht nur aus der Ukraine, sondern auch aus Indien, aus Burundi, aus Tunesien. Wir haben inzwischen eine Flüchtlingskatastrophe oder die Flüchtlingszahlen von 2015, und da gab es viele Versprechen, dass dies nie wieder der Fall sein werde. Aber Frau Johansson, gucken Sie lieber in Ihr Handy, das ist richtig, denn die Wahrheit würden Sie hier hören. Also vielleicht gucken Sie mal auf, dann würden Sie etwas lernen. Sie reden von Arbeitsmarktintegration. Auch das ist eine Lüge. Wir sehen überall in allen europäischen Ländern, dass die Leute sich eben nicht integrieren lassen und von den Arbeitsmarkt-Integrationsmaßnahmen nur das mitnehmen, was ihnen Geld bringt. Also insofern: Denken Sie darüber nach, Sie sind vollständig gescheitert, und ziehen Sie daraus die Schlüsse. Patryk Jaki,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Otóż, Szanowni Państwo, powiedzmy sobie wprost: jest jedno państwo w Unii Europejskiej, które, od początku do końca, mocno stoi po stronie Ukrainy i bierze na siebie największy ciężar pomocy. I tym państwem jest Polska. Od 24 lutego, czyli dnia początku agresji Rosji, granicę polsko-ukraińską przekroczyło 7 milionów uchodźców z Ukrainy – informuje Straż Graniczna. Jak podaje straż, to głównie kobiety i dzieci. Według OECD koszty podstawowego utrzymania w Polsce uchodźców z Ukrainy tylko w 2022 roku przekroczą 40 miliardów. To rekord w Europie. Jednak to nie wszystko. Ten koszt trzeba będzie pomnożyć wielokrotnie. Na edukację Ukraińców Polska wyda prawie 1 miliard złotych, a koszt opieki medycznej dla uchodźców z Ukrainy w Polsce to 200 milionów złotych miesięcznie – miesięcznie! Nie mówiąc już o kosztach indywidualnych, które ponoszą Polacy, którzy udostępnili im swoje domy. Polska jest najważniejszym zapleczem Ukrainy: logistycznym, militarnym, żywnościowym, gospodarczym. Bez Polski Ukraina nie dałaby rady. A Wy co robicie? Gadacie, że jesteście za Ukrainą, przykleiliście sobie wstążeczki tutaj i okładacie Polskę sankcjami. Nie dość, że nie daliście prawie nic dla Polski na pomoc Ukraińcom, to jeszcze zabraliście Polsce prawie 160 mld z KPO, a teraz blokujecie środki z Funduszu Spójności. To w sumie większe sankcje niż nałożyliście na Rosję. Dlatego przestańcie już wchodzić na mównicę i mówić, że biedne kobiety, biedne dzieci z Ukrainy, tylko dajcie środki – to, czego naprawdę potrzebują. Inaczej pomagacie Putinowi. On też woli nieskończony słowotok niż realne środki dla Polski i Ukraińców. Cornelia Ernst,
im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Herr Präsident! Jedem einzelnen Flüchtling aus der Ukraine gilt unser Schutz. Ich meine wirklich alle Menschen aus der Ukraine, die dann zu uns kommen. Da meine ich auch Roma, die zu uns kommen und an den Grenzen große Probleme haben. Da meine ich Drittstaatler, die dort arbeiten oder in irgendeiner Weise dort vorhanden sind. Studenten meine ich und Menschen, die nicht bereit sind, eine Waffe in die Hand zu nehmen. Wir fordern deshalb auch konsequenten Schutz für russische Oppositionelle, aber auch für Kriegsdienstverweigerer und Deserteure, und zwar sämtliche, nicht nur russische. Dazu muss es Regelungen geben, offene Kanäle. Durch all das, was Sie hier dargestellt haben, gibt es die halt nicht. Wir brauchen politisches Asyl für diese Menschen, wir brauchen humanitäre Visa, die in den EU-Botschaften – und zwar aller Länder, nicht nur einzelner – verteilt werden können. Ein Abschiebestopp ist für diese Menschen notwendig. Eines will ich am Ende auch sagen: Das ist auch eine moralische Frage, ob auch diese Menschen Unterstützung gewährt bekommen. Denn der beste Weg, Kriege zu beenden, ist der: Keiner geht hin. Kinga Gál (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Magyarország történetének legnagyobb humanitárius akciója keretében rendkívüli erőfeszítéseket tesz az ukrán menekültek fogadása érdekében. Az egyik legtöbb ukrán menekültet befogadó uniós tagállam vagyunk lakosságarányosan. A menekültek ellátása folyamatos... (az elnök megszakítja a felszólalót) President. – Do we have interpreting? Yes, start again please. Kinga Gál (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Magyarország történetének legnagyobb humanitárius akciója keretében rendkívüli erőfeszítéseket tesz az ukrán menekültek fogadása érdekében. Az egyik legtöbb ukrán menekültet befogadó uniós tagállam vagyunk lakosságarányosan. A menekültek ellátása folyamatos és mindenre kiterjed. Ukrán gyermekek ezrei kapnak helyet köznevelési intézményeinkben. Ezer feletti beteg ellátására alkalmas kórházi ágyat biztosítunk, továbbá egészségügyi felszerelésekre költünk, és segítjük ukrán katonák rehabilitációját is. Miközben a háború következtében keleti irányból másfélmillió háborús menekült érkezett, többnyire asszonyok, gyermekek, idősek, eközben déli irányból a nyugat balkáni útvonalon érkező illegális bevándorlók száma – többnyire fiatal férfiak – rohamosan nő. Felfegyverzett csoportok szervezetten támadnak határőrökre. Ez is mutatja, hogy meg kell erősíteni az Unió külső határait. Az elhibázott brüsszeli migrációs stratégia helyett, támogatni kellene az Unió külső határvédelmét biztosító tagállamokat, így Magyarországot is. Paulo Rangel (PPE). –
(O orador começa o discurso em inglês) a guerra de agressão russa contra a Ucrânia tem várias facetas que estão a aumentar a pressão migratória e a pressão de ajuda humanitária no espaço da União Europeia. Por um lado, os cidadãos ucranianos, onde a resposta europeia foi excelente, tem sido muito, muito, muito forte, tem ajudado muito estas famílias que, esperemos, estejam em condições de regressar. Não podemos, no entanto, excluir, com o aumento da violência dos ataques russos, uma nova vaga de refugiados ucranianos, dado que a guerra escalou e está agora num patamar muito mais duro do que estava há algumas semanas atrás. Mas um segundo ponto temos também que chamar a atenção, é para que neste momento há um Estado, a Sérvia, que tem acordos de vistos livres com uma série de países e está a aumentar imenso o fluxo de migrantes para a Europa, designadamente vindos de Cuba, da Índia, da Tunísia e do Burundi. Nas várias fronteiras europeias, seja na Hungria, seja na Croácia, seja na Grécia, seja até em parte na Roménia e na Bulgária, nós vemos a chegada deste novo fluxo de migrantes e que é essencialmente feito, como fez Lukashenko na Bielorrússia. A ideia é trazer o máximo número de cidadãos para o espaço europeu, de forma a criar um stresse nas fronteiras europeias. Esta atuação da Sérvia não pode ser aceite e tem de ser profundamente condenada. Pietro Bartolo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, gli orrori di questa guerra continuano sotto gli occhi assuefatti di molti di noi e con il beneplacito di gran parte della comunità internazionale. I bombardamenti si moltiplicano, le vittime civili aumentano, chi può lascia tutto e fugge, alimentando i flussi verso l'Europa, che questa volta accoglie, che attiva una direttiva e che si mostra solidale, ma che purtroppo fallisce nell'opportunità di creare una riforma sistemica delle politiche di immigrazione e asilo. E allora chiedo alla Commissione: saremo in grado, in un futuro che ritengo molto prossimo, di far valere anche i diritti di quei cittadini di tante parti dell'Asia e dell'Africa che dipendono dalla Russia e dall'Ucraina per il loro fabbisogno alimentare? Consentiremo loro di bussare alle nostre porte, così come abbiamo fatto con i cittadini ucraini oppure li considereremo vittime della strumentalizzazione o, peggio ancora, li respingeremo come nemici, magari anche con la complicità di qualche agenzia europea? Katalin Cseh (Renew). – Mr President, a few days after the war broke out, I went to the Hungarian-Ukrainian border. It was absolutely heart-breaking to see the families – the small children and the women – who needed to pack up their lives and leave their homes because of Putin's criminal war. However, as we know, the darkest times often inspire a kind of fact. People showed up to cook warm food. Local governments set up hotlines and temporary shelters. They housed the refugees in schools and public buildings. Small town mayors suddenly became international humanitarians. We saw the same things at the Polish border and all across the EU. We rely on these communities, on our local governments and on civil society organisations. They are the face Europe shows in this crisis, and it is a beautiful face. However, right now they also need Europe's help, because in some Member States, the government sadly does not look at them as partners. On the contrary, many are on the brink of bankruptcy because of the rising energy costs, so it's time to give them more direct support. I was happy to hear about the increasing rate of direct funds, but we need to do more. We need to be there for them. They are there for us and they need our help. They are on the front lines. We need them more than ever. Damien Carême (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, l'Union européenne et les États membres ont fait preuve d'une exceptionnelle solidarité depuis le début de l'invasion russe de l'Ukraine en accueillant plus de 7 millions de réfugiés. Cet accueil, on le doit surtout aux citoyens européens, vous l'avez souligné. Cet été, 49 % des personnes ayant fui l'Ukraine ont trouvé refuge chez leur famille ou des bénévoles. Mais alors que la guerre s'installe dans la durée, il faut offrir des solutions pérennes. Alors que les États membres accueillent certains réfugiés fuyant l'Ukraine, ils en discriminent d'autres sur des bases ethniques; ils en refoulent d'autres encore, avec le soutien de Frontex. Alors que la guerre se prolonge, que la déstabilisation des marchés fait craindre le retour des émeutes de la faim, certains collègues dans cet hémicycle s'inquiètent plus des flux migratoires – quelle horrible expression – qui pourraient submerger l'Europe que du sort des pays les plus durement touchés. Alors que plus que jamais, la situation exigerait une solidarité intra et extra-européenne, ces mêmes groupes politiques qui refusent d'agir sur ces causes bien identifiées voudraient que l'Union européenne réagisse préventivement et violemment sur leurs conséquences pour ne pas avoir à repenser un modèle mortifère et à bout de souffle. Madame la Commissaire, nous sommes là bien au-delà d'un révoltant deux poids, deux mesures. Il nous faut proposer un modèle de société désirable, écologiquement et socialement juste. André Rougé (ID). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, 700 000 victimes à Verdun, 1 200 000 morts à la bataille de la Somme, 20 millions à l'issue du premier conflit planétaire, 60 millions, dont une majorité de civils, en funèbre bilan de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Il y a 2 500 ans, Thucydide expliquait que l'Histoire est un éternel recommencement. Alors, n'avons-nous rien appris, rien retenu de ces guerres, de cette barbarie, et ici, à Strasbourg, de l'occupation? Sommes-nous prêts, un siècle plus tard, à basculer dans une nouvelle tragédie européenne avec cette agression de l'Ukraine par la Russie? En 2012, l'Union européenne se voyait décerner le prix Nobel de la paix. Qu'en reste-t-il aujourd'hui, si ce n'est un esprit va-t-en guerre? Il est certes plus facile de sombrer dans l'anathème et l'imprécation belliqueuse en prenant le sentier de la guerre que de trouver le chemin de la paix. Et s'il devait se confirmer que l'Union européenne manque à sa mission et à ses responsabilités de faiseur de paix, c'est à la France, dont chaque village honore un monument aux morts tombés au combat, de faire s'asseoir toutes les parties de l'Ukraine, de la Russie et de l'OTAN à la table des négociations. C'est à la France qu'il appartient de faire la paix pour en finir avec l'escalade de ce conflit. Et lorsque les éléments d'une paix durable seront trouvés, soyez assurés, quelles que soient votre nationalité et votre appartenance dans cet hémicycle, que nos enfants, nos petits-enfants nous... (Le Président retire la parole à l'orateur) Vincenzo Sofo (ECR). – Signor Presidente, Commissaria Johansson, onorevoli colleghi, gli ultimi dati Eurostat ci dicono che 100 milioni di europei vivono oggi in situazione di povertà, parliamo di un cittadino su cinque, con l'Italia ai primi posti di questa classifica del disagio economico. E in questo contesto sociale drammatico, il conflitto ucraino ha portato di colpo in Europa 11 milioni di rifugiati, da sommare ai 2 milioni già presenti nel nostro continente. Persone che fuggono da un conflitto nel quale siamo direttamente coinvolti e che dunque abbiamo il dovere morale di aiutare, senza avere però le risorse sufficienti per farlo, perché impegnati in un'altra emergenza provocata dalle politiche suicide dell'Unione europea. Oltre ai 13 milioni di rifugiati, si stima infatti che nel nostro continente risiedano oggi circa 5 milioni di immigrati clandestini, numero in continuo aumento a causa di sbarchi che, nel 2022, hanno portato alla cifra record di 230 000 arrivi. Un flusso migratorio illegale che ingrassa le tasche di molte ONG, ma che svuota quelle dei nostri sistemi di protezione sociale, oggi a rischio implosione anche a causa dell'ideologia „no border”. In un mondo fatto di risorse scarse, oggi più che mai urge dunque che l'Unione europea ponga fine alla logica dell'„accogliamoli tutti”, chiudendo le porte all'immigrazione illegale, procedendo con più coraggio ai rimpatri, concentrando così gli strumenti umanitari su chi, come i rifugiati ucraini, ha realmente diritto al nostro aiuto. Questa è l'unica strada possibile per evitare che tra europei e migranti l'Europa diventi un gigantesco „Squid game” dove, sotto lo sguardo sadico delle élite progressiste, 120 milioni di poveri saranno costretti a scannarsi tra di loro per accaparrarsi le poche risorse messe loro a disposizione. Laura Ferrara (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'escalation militare in Ucraina continua a causare vittime e distruzioni, costringendo le persone a fuggire in cerca di sicurezza e protezione. Secondo l'UNHCR sono più di 4 350 000 i rifugiati ucraini registrati nell'Unione europea per la protezione temporanea o altre misure analoghe. La risposta europea è senza precedenti nel fornire sostegno finanziario e garantire alloggi, cibo, lavoro, istruzione e assistenza sanitaria, soprattutto nei confronti di donne e minori, che sono i più esposti al rischio di violenza e abusi. Ma c'è anche l'insicurezza alimentare, l'aumento dei prezzi energetici, che stanno provocando instabilità tali da innescare ulteriori flussi migratori da paesi terzi verso l'Europa. E allora una riforma del sistema europeo comune di asilo non è più rinviabile per dare risposte rapide alle sfide migratorie, sia in termini di solidarietà che in termini di equa ripartizione delle responsabilità. Per evitare devastanti effetti a catena è nell'interesse di tutti impegnarsi per fare cessare la voce delle armi ed è per questo che il Movimento aderirà alla manifestazione di Roma, senza bandiere di partito, per la pace. Lena Düpont (PPE). – Herr Präsident, werte Kommissarin! Die Temporärer-Schutz- Richtlinie hatte drei Ziele: unmittelbaren Schutz gewährleisten, ein geopolitisches Signal senden, nationale Asylsysteme nicht überlasten. Alle drei Ziele sind erfüllt. Wir gewähren mehr als 4 Millionen Ukrainern Schutz in der Europäischen Union. Wir stehen geschlossen an der Seite der Ukraine. Asylsysteme werden wenig in Anspruch genommen. Aber, liebe Kollegen, eines kann das Instrument nicht und konnte es auch niemals lösen: die praktische Umsetzung und Organisation vor Ort. Es war von vornherein klar, dass Unterbringung, Versorgung, Zugang zum Arbeitsmarkt und Bildung eine kluge Planung und Organisation brauchen, eine Bündelung von Kräften auf nationaler Ebene. Die Kommission begleitet das, so gut sie kann, so viel wie sie darf, mit finanziellen Mitteln, mit technischen Lösungen, mit der Solidaritätsplattform. Aber es sind die Mitgliedstaaten, die liefern müssen, im Übrigen auch und insbesondere ihren Kommunen, ihren Städten und Regionen gegenüber – Stichwort Unterbringung, Stichwort Energiepreise. Denn die Herausforderungen werden mit dem nahenden Winter nicht kleiner werden, weder in der Ukraine – wenn wir die Angriffe auf Zivilisten, die wiederholten Angriffe der letzten Tage auf lebenswichtige Infrastruktur sehen – noch für unsere Verantwortlichen in den Mitgliedstaaten, die unter schwierigen Bedingungen ihr Bestes geben. Ist die Temporärer-Schutz-Richtlinie damit eine One-size-fits-all-Lösung für den Pakt? Meiner Meinung nach: nein. Sie kann eine sinnvolle Ergänzung des Krisenmechanismus sein, aber niemals ein Ersatz für den Pakt. Ebenbürtig dazu gehört im Übrigen dann auch der Vorschlag gegen instrumentalisierte Migration. Und lassen Sie mich mit dem Blick in unsere Nachbarschaft einen letzten Kommentar machen: Die Kette Krieg, Hunger, Bewegung ist keine neue. Wir als Europäische Union haben auch eine Verantwortung im Bereich Ernährungssicherheit – innerhalb der EU, außerhalb der EU. Deswegen müssen wir alle Möglichkeiten nutzen, Lebensmittel zu produzieren, und müssen alles unterlassen, das Produktion drosselt, einschränkt oder unmöglich macht. Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, parmi les enseignements à tirer de l'invasion russe de l'Ukraine, il restera que les pays de l'Union sont en mesure d'accueillir vite et bien des millions de personnes. Cela va à l'encontre de beaucoup de discours entendus ces dernières années et, surtout, cela prouve que la directive sur la protection temporaire pouvait et devait être mise en œuvre et qu'elle fonctionne. Cette directive n'avait jamais été utilisée alors qu'elle date de 2001. Pourtant, les guerres et les mouvements de population qui en résultent n'ont pas manqué depuis cette date. Et il aura fallu attendre que le conflit se déroule à la porte de l'Europe, sans pays pour faire l'interface, pour que les États membres et la Commission agissent et pour que les collectivités et les ONG soient massivement soutenues et rapidement soutenues dans l'accès au logement, à la santé, au travail et à l'éducation. J'espère que cela servira de précédent pour de futures crises, qui arriveront forcément, mais aussi que les négociateurs en tiendront compte dans le cadre des discussions actuellement en cours sur le pacte sur l'immigration et l'asile. C'est le fameux effet cliquet tant attendu. Nous avons ici la preuve formelle qu'accueillir dignement des personnes en recherche de protection internationale est positif. Petras Auštrevičius (Renew). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, Putin's Russian aggression against peaceful Ukraine is destroying homes and lives. It is causing terror, uncertainty and pain for the people of Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has turned more than 7 million innocent Ukrainians into refugees, more than the entire population of Bulgaria, or two of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The brutal actions amount to a crime against humanity. Once again, I would like to thank all those who have taken Ukrainian refugees into their homes, cared for them and provided them with a safe haven. It is a true demonstration of European humanism and solidarity. Only together can we overcome all the difficulties and defeat the enemy that threatens our lives and well-being. Slava Ukraini! Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the future of Russia is no longer at home. The future of Russia is sitting in the cold corridors of our migration agencies, in our towns and villages where Russian dissidents try to escape. The future has different faces, different genders, different origins and professions, but they are all united by their unwillingness to live in a murderous state. I know prominent journalists and renowned writers, many of whom were trying to help. I know politicians who grabbed their children, small kids, and drove away before the police raided their homes, searching for them in order to imprison them for criticism of the war. Two women raising a child went crazy, fearing that this child will be taken away from them just because they are anti-Putin. We tried to help, but we have to do more in order to help those who always opposed this war and opposed Putin. This Parliament has already called for introduction of a European-wide humanitarian visa programme. This is what we have to do. It is not only our moral duty; it is in our interest to save Russia, with which we will have to deal in the future. Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! Siedem milionów Ukraińców przekroczyło polską granicę. Kobiety, dzieci zatrzymały się w Polsce. Są ich obecnie prawie 2 miliony. Polska ponosi największe koszty pomocy migrantom z Ukrainy, ludziom, którzy uciekli przed agresją rosyjską. Oprócz tego, co wszyscy tutaj państwo mówicie, jak bardzo się wzruszacie, jak bardzo trzeba pomagać Ukraińcom, należy postawić sobie pytanie: Jak Unia Europejska pomaga krajowi, który w największym stopniu ponosi obciążenia związane z tą wielką falą migracyjną z Ukrainy? Ta pomoc jest iluzoryczna, Pani Komisarz. Pani była na granicy. Pani wie, jak wygląda polska pomoc dla uchodźców ukraińskich. Otworzyliśmy dla nich serca. Otworzyliśmy dla nich domy. Państwo polskie finansuje edukację ukraińskich dzieci. Obywatele polscy dają schronienie. Czas zacząć działać. Potrzebujemy konkretnej, wymiernej, finansowej pomocy. Andrius Kubilius (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, Russia as a terrorist country was and is weaponising immigration. Since last year, Russia started to weaponise on illegal immigration through Belarus of people from Africa and Middle East into Lithuania, Poland, Latvia. With the beginning of the brutal and criminal war against Ukraine, Russia was hoping that millions of war refugees from Ukraine will not be accepted in EU countries and chaos will prevail. Putin failed. Europeans showed their solidarity. With the recent mass bombings of civilian infrastructure in Ukraine before the winter, Putin expects that new millions of Ukrainians will be forced to leave their country. With the recent mass military mobilisation in Russia, the Kremlin created a new mass flow of migrants from Russia itself. In hundreds of thousands, they are going to Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia. Russians do not want to live in their terrorist country. That is an essence of today's Russia, and that is the tragedy of Russia. What should be our policy response? We need to keep our eastern borders under strict control vis-à-vis Putin's or Lukashenko's manipulated migrants from Africa and the Middle East. Second, we need to declare that we shall accept all the Ukrainians who will be forced to leave the country because of the Putin's war. Third, we need to financially help Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia, which accept massive flows of Russian refugees. With proper security precautions and according to our legislation on asylum, we need to be ready to accept those Russians who will become deserters from the real Russian armed forces. Terrorist states will fail, whatever weapons, including weaponisation of migration, they will try to use against us. Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Voorzitter, collega's, commissaris, veel dank voor uw persoonlijke inzet. Als ik terugdenk aan het begin van de Russische invasie van Oekraïne, denk ik aan de aanval op de vrijheid, het menselijk leed veroorzaakt door Poetins oorlog, maar ook aan die overweldigende en ontroerende solidariteit met Oekraïense vluchtelingen, de EU-lidstaten die razendsnel opvang en bescherming optuigden en duizenden Europeanen die hun huizen openstelden in veel lidstaten – ook in Nederland –, dat maakt mij trots. Maar het moet mij toch van het hart. Het contrast met de situatie in Ter Apel – ook in Nederland, ook in Europa – is groot. Kinderen slapen op de grond, vluchtelingen staan uren in de regen. Dan schaam ik me als Nederlander, als Europeaan. We moeten ons voorbereiden op nieuwe vluchtelingen uit Oekraïne. Samen, in solidariteit, kunnen we dat aan. We zijn voorbereid, maar laten we menselijkheid opbrengen voor álle vluchtelingen die geweld en onderdrukking ontvluchten. Bommen maken geen onderscheid. Dat mogen wij ook niet doen. Jan-Christoph Oetjen (Renew). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, verehrte Damen und Herren! Die Ukraine ist am 24. Februar angegriffen worden, und die Reaktion der Europäischen Union war sehr still danach. Mit der TPD, der Richtlinie für temporären Schutz, haben wir ein gutes Instrument genutzt, Frau Kommissarin, um den Ukrainerinnen und Ukrainern zu helfen. Das war ein Erfolg. Die Europäer haben ihr Herz und ihre Häuser geöffnet. Nun kommen Russen, mehr Russen, die sich Putin verweigern. Und meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, wir haben als Europäer eine Verantwortung auch gegenüber diesen Russen, die sich gegen das System stellen, und müssen diesen Russen einen sicheren Hafen bieten, eine sichere Zuflucht bieten. Und diese Menschen müssen auch in Europa Schutz finden können, genauso wie die Menschen, die aus der Ukraine geflohen sind. Ich möchte abschließend aber auch einen Satz sagen zum Migrationspakt. Denn natürlich ist die TPD keine Antwort auf den Migrationspakt, und ich möchte insbesondere denjenigen Mitgliedstaaten, die jetzt danach rufen, dass die Europäische Union helfen muss, sagen: Ja, die Europäische Union muss helfen, aber diese Mitgliedstaaten müssen auch ihre Blockade gegenüber dem Migrationspakt aufgeben. Beata Kempa (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Ile zostało z Europy Schumana, z Europy solidarności, z Europy szacunku? Odpowiedź trzeba postawić sobie na to pytanie w dobie toczącej się bardzo brutalnej wojny w Ukrainie. 9 miliardów złotych to prawie 2,3 miliarda euro, które wydał rząd polski na wsparcie i akomodację dla ukraińskich uchodźców przebywających w Polsce. To jest taka sama kwota, którą Komisja Europejska przeznaczyła na wsparcie dla wszystkich 27 krajów Unii Europejskiej. Gdy Polacy robią wszystko, aby wspomóc walczącego sąsiada, ponosząc gigantyczne koszty niestabilności oraz rosnących cen energii, tutaj w Unii toczy się gra. Komisja blokuje należne środki na KPO, toczy spór o wydumaną samorządność. Kreml może się tylko cieszyć z takiej postawy. To gorzkie i smutne, ale chcę to przekazać od wielu, wielu polskich obywateli. A przecież 6 miliardów euro wypłacono Turcji za przyjęcie ponad 3 milionów uchodźców. To 1 miliard euro rocznie. Dlatego tu nie chodzi o finanse, my jesteśmy dumnym narodem, ale chcemy zwrócić uwagę na to, że pod ... (Przewodniczący odebrał mówczyni głos) Javier Zarzalejos (PPE). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, de la misma manera que no ahorramos críticas cuando las cosas no se hacen bien, tenemos que poner de manifiesto lo que funciona: la Directiva de protección temporal está funcionando, el esfuerzo financiero en apoyo de los refugiados y de los países de acogida es un esfuerzo sostenido y sustancial, y la solidaridad es real. Sabemos que este frente, el de la solidaridad concreta con los ucranianos, es también decisivo para que la agresión rusa fracase y para que la Unión Europea haga visible su unidad contra el agresor. Sin embargo, tenemos que ser conscientes de que, en medio de esta crisis humanitaria, los flujos migratorios convencionales siguen aumentando. Las cifras de 2022 recuerdan a las de 2016, cuando la Unión Europea vivía la mayor crisis migratoria de su historia, detonada por el conflicto en Siria. Desde enero hasta agosto se ha producido un aumento del 75 % de las entradas irregulares en comparación con el año pasado. Nos adentramos en una situación que en poco tiempo puede llegar a ser crítica. Tenemos que ofrecer una solución europea para restablecer la confianza entre los Estados miembros y recuperar la confianza de los ciudadanos en nuestra capacidad para gestionar la migración en cuanto que Unión. No podemos permitirnos más prórrogas. La próxima crisis puede estar a la vuelta de la esquina, si es que no está llamando ya a la puerta. Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pół roku temu, gdy setki tysięcy Ukraińców i Ukrainek uciekało przed rosyjskimi kulami, to mieszkańcy Polski otworzyli przed nimi swoje serca. Otworzyli jednocześnie swoje domy, otworzyli lodówki i otworzyli swoje szafy. Długimi tygodniami, nie bacząc na koszty. To społeczeństwo, a nie pisowski rząd, poradziło sobie z tym ogromnym wyzwaniem. To ludzie w Mysłowicach, Rybniku, w Sosnowcu i w Częstochowie wzięli na swoje barki odpowiedzialność za uchodźców. Jednakże dziś ci sami ludzie, którzy wtedy pomagali, potrzebują wsparcia. Potrzebują unijnej pomocy, bo rządzą nimi nieudacznicy, którzy nie tylko nie przygotowali państwa na trudne czasy, ale też którzy niszczą ich przyszłość i przyszłość ich dzieci. 75 mld euro z funduszy spójności może przepaść przez pisowców. Pani Komisarz, stwórzcie mechanizm przekazywania pieniędzy unijnych bezpośrednio do samorządów, do organizacji pozarządowych. Już jutro skierujemy z innymi polskimi posłami pismo w tej sprawie do Komisji Europejskiej. Bardzo proszę, zajmijcie się tą sprawą priorytetowo. Fundusze europejskie dla obywateli, a nie dla nieudolnej władzy. Ilhan Kyuchyuk (Renew). – Mr President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, I think Europe's answer to this devastating humanitarian crisis was quick and decisive. This was unprecedented and the overwhelming support coming mainly from the citizens of the European Union and I would like to thank them once more. It seems that we have learned our lessons. At least I hope that we have learned our lessons from previous crises. And we must continue to take bold actions and to confront the challenges during the next phase of this humanitarian crisis. We open our doors to Ukrainians, to our friends from Ukraine, but also it is time to show solidarity with those coming from Russia, fleeing from Russia and seeking refuge. As the winter approaches, the number of arrivals could increase again. Therefore, I think unanimity in full support to those escaping from the war is needed more than ever. We must guarantee that the EU will proceed with long-term objectives and will implement the necessary reforms when it comes to migration. Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Gerb. Pirmininke, Komisijos nary, kolegos, Rusijos pradėtas agresyvus karas Ukrainoje greta kitų fatališkų pasekmių nuo pirmų dienų sukėlė seniai Europoje nematytus migracijos srautus. Šiuo metu prieglobsčio prašytojų yra keturi milijonai. Dėka operatyvios nevyriausybinių organizacijų, valstybių narių vyriausybių reakcijos, Komisijai aktyvavus Laikinosios apsaugos direktyvą, Komisijai ir Tarybai priėmus sprendimą dėl finansavimo, situacija stabilizuota, bet prieglobsčio našta išsidėsto netolygiai, skaičiuojant nuo bendrojo vidaus produkto, džiausias krūvis tenka Baltijos valstybėms ir Lenkijai, o dar ir ne Europos Sąjungos narei - Moldovai. Visu tuo ir ilgalaikėmis pastangomis, pabėgėlių integracija į sveikatos, socialines, švietimo sistemas, integracija į darbo rinką prisidedama sprendžiant migracijos iš vienų regionų į kitus pačioje Ukrainoje problemas. Didžiuojuosi, kad tai daro ir Lietuva, bet karo veiksmai nesibaigia. Rusija pasirinko nusikalstamą taktiką, savo netektis frontuose bando kompensuoti sėdama žūtis ir neviltį civilių tarpe, vėl ir vėl bombarduodama Ukrainos teritoriją, ardydama civilinę infrastruktūrą, dabar jau pasitelkdama vis modernesnę ginkluotę, kurią yra kas jai parduoda. Artėja sunki žiema, tad norėtųsi išgirsti, kaip esame pasirengę naujai eventualiai išeivių iš Ukrainos bangai. Marina Kaljurand (S&D). – Venemaa agressioon Ukraina vastu on oluliselt mõjutanud migratsiooni Euroopa Liidus. Esiteks, põgenikud Ukrainast. Mul on hea meel, et eelkõige Euroopa Liidu piiririigid, sealhulgas Eesti, on võtnud põgenikud vastu ning taganud neile kaitse ja abi. See on suuresti õnnestunud tänu vabatahtlike tegevusele ja inimeste lahkusele, kuid see ei ole jätkusuutlik, kui kõik Euroopa Liidu liikmesriigid ei panusta. On viimane aeg tegutseda üheskoos ja solidaarselt. Teiseks, migratsioonilaine Venemaalt. On väga õige, et Euroopa Liit lõpetas lihtsustatud korras viisade väljastamise Vene kodanikele ning mitmed liikmesriigid on piiranud turismi Venemaalt. Kutsun kõiki liikmesriike seda tegema, praegu ei ole aeg Vene kodanike turismiks Euroopa Liidus. Ja kolmandaks, inimeste kasutamine hübriidrelvana. Oleme seda näinud Soome-Vene piiril Karjalas ja Valgevene-Leedu piiril. Peal peame olema valmis, et taolised rünnakud Euroopa Liidu piirile korduvad. Euroopa Liidu piir peab olema kaitstud. Vladimír Bilčík (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, as Russia wages its brutal aggression against Ukraine, one of the starkest images of the war is the plight of Ukrainian citizens running with few belongings either across their country to safety or to neighbouring countries. As Russia's destruction of civilian objects and infrastructure continues indiscriminately, these chilling images are among the most profound. Ukrainians today are the faces of refugees in Europe. I would like to thank all the European citizens that have shown solidarity with Ukraine and refugees. European countries are sharing a disproportionate burden. Some are transition countries; some are becoming new homes to thousands of Ukrainians. To all those who actively volunteered to open the doors of their homes, share their meals, a big thank you. Europeans have welcomed Ukrainians with open arms. Long before Russia's war on Ukraine, Russia and Belarus used migration as a political tool to rattle European solidarity. Putin's regime's cold calculation is that Europe will not be able to manage Ukraine's refugees and will give in to fierce migration bickering between Member States. Well, let's be clear. We must prove Putin wrong. To Putin, we say, get out of Ukraine. Stop terrorising its population. Stop making people leave their homes, their jobs, their friends and families. We will never succumb to your methods. Europe will remain in solidarity with Ukrainian refugees, and Europe will find a way to manage migration in a unified way. I'm convinced. Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, vihor rata u Ukrajini pokrenuo je najveće kretanje raseljenih osoba u Europi još od Drugoga svjetskoga rata. U vremenu duboke neizvjesnosti za cijeli kontinent svjedočimo i dramatičnom povećanju nezakonitih prelazaka na takozvanoj balkanskoj ruti s preko 100 000 ilegalnih migranata samo u ovoj godini. Stanje je loše, a prijeti postati krajnje malignim, velikim dijelom zbog djelovanja Srbije. Beskrupuloznom zloupotrebom viznog režima Srbija nagrađuje zemlje koje ne priznaju Kosovo i tako omogućuje da se sada na europskim granicama pod okriljem noći pojavljuju migranti iz zemalja iz kojih ih ranije nije bilo, kao što su Burundi, Indija ili Kuba. Stvaranje migracijskog pritiska na državnu i europsku granicu još jednom otvara temeljno pitanje, pitanje civilizacijske orijentacije Srbije. U ovoj krizi koja razotkriva ona se čini ponajmanje europskom. Ako se tako nastavi, najveću cijenu ovakve neiskrene i protueuropske politike vlasti platit će, nažalost, upravo građani Srbije. U Europi ne može biti gledanja kroz prste za bilo koji oblik državne uloge u umjetnom stvaranju migracijskog pritiska, a osobito kada je riječ o režimu koji svoj uzor i danas pronalazi u Rusiji i povlaštenim političkim i energetskim odnosima s Moskvom. Geoffroy Didier (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, l'Union européenne et notamment la France ont été au rendez-vous de l'accueil des citoyens ukrainiens qui souhaitaient quitter leur pays pour échapper à la guerre. Grâce au statut de protection temporaire, l'intégralité des femmes, des enfants et des personnes âgées qui ont voulu quitter l'Ukraine ont pu le faire et ils ont été accueillis dignement sur les différents territoires d'Europe. Ils sont aujourd'hui près de 4 millions. Un tel accueil n'est cependant possible que si nos pays ne conservent pas sur leur territoire les immigrés clandestins qui, eux, n'ont rien à y faire. Sur dix clandestins qui se sont vus déboutés de leur demande d'asile, neuf, soit 90 % d'entre eux, restent en France en violation de nos lois. Une seule solution pour mettre fin à cette faiblesse de nos gouvernants: obliger les demandeurs d'asile à effectuer leurs demandes à l'étranger et interdire toute étude de dossier de celui qui n'aurait pas respecté cette règle. Ceux qui détournent le droit d'asile de son objet ne font pas qu'insulter la tradition d'accueil des réfugiés qui fait l'honneur de la France et de l'Europe. Ils insultent aussi les peuples comme celui d'Ukraine qui mérite un accueil digne et humaniste de notre part. Spontane Wortmeldungen Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající. Jaký je dopad ruské invaze? Ukazuje se, že zásadní dopad to má především na utrpení ukrajinského lidu, ale ukazuje se také jeho statečnost. A já věřím, že zítra Evropský parlament tuto statečnost ocení udělením Sacharovovy ceny právě ukrajinskému lidu. Dopad má migrace na členské státy a já chci připomenout, že je to také Česká republika, která hostí více než 450 000 uprchlíků. Děláme to rádi, jsou to naši přátelé, ale má to své milionové náklady. A my očekáváme také, že Evropská unie bude solidární a pomůže nejen morálně, ale také finančně nést tyto náklady pro zajištění životních potřeb. Dočasná ochrana funguje, bylo to zde řečeno, ale funguje také proto, že je správně zacílena. Není to řešení pro všechny, zejména ne pro ruské uprchlíky, i když i jim, pokud mají nárok, patří udělení azylu. Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiama Komisijos nare. Pirmiausia noriu padėkoti Jums už Jūsų dėmesį ir rūpestį karo pabėgėliais iš Ukrainos nuo pat karo pradžios, už aktyvuotą Laikinąją apsaugos direktyvą, už suteikiamą materialinę pagalbą ir už dabartinę iniciatyvą dėl dalies lėšų skyrimo nevyriausybinėms organizacijoms bei vietinei valdžiai. Taip pat noriu padėkoti visiems europiečiams, kurie priėmė ukrainiečius, tame tarpe ir mano, Lietuvos žmonėms, kurie parodė didelį dėmesį skirdami savo būstus, maitindami, aprengdami, priimdami į darbą. Gerbiama Komisijos nare, noriu atkreipti Jūsų dėmesį, kad Putino agresiją Ukrainoje sukėlė ir kitą srautą iš Baltarusijos, kurios žmonės neremia savo autoritarinio režimo, vadovaujamo Lukašenkos, kurie susiduria su tokiomis pačiomis problemomis čia, Europos Sąjungos šalyse narėse. Todėl kviečiu Jus atkreipti dėmesį ir suteikti pagalbą ir pabėgėliams iš Baltarusijos. Georgios Kyrtsos (Renew). – Mr President, Putin tries to destroy and depopulate Ukraine. His objective is to create millions of refugees and destabilise the European Union. He already tried it in 2021 through Lukashenko. Since the Russian invasion in Ukraine, he developed this kind of hybrid war at an unprecedented scale. Nevertheless, his effort to destabilise EU Member States had exactly the opposite effect. European citizens, governments, regional and local authorities warmly welcomed millions of Ukrainian refugees. A new dynamic was created in favour of European unification and Ukraine's EU membership. European solidarity proved an effective answer to Putin's hybrid war. Let us build on our big European success by increasing funding. Pierrette Herzberger-Fofana (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, la guerre nous appelle à ne pas oublier nos valeurs d'humanisme, qui s'expriment par la solidarité envers tous ceux qui fuient l'Ukraine. Tous les réfugiés méritent le même respect, sans exception. Et pourtant il existe le racisme caché qui apparaît dans les différences de traitement des réfugiés. De nombreux Africains qui se trouvaient en Ukraine ont été arrêtés aux frontières de l'Union. Tout le monde a le droit de fuir un pays en guerre, quelle que soit la couleur de sa peau. Les États membres devraient permettre aux étudiants étrangers qui ont fui l'Ukraine de poursuivre leurs études sans obstacles bureaucratiques. En effet, les étudiants africains qui étaient dans les universités ukrainiennes ou qui faisaient une formation sont confrontés à de nombreux problèmes dans nos États. Ils ne peuvent s'inscrire dans nos universités que s'ils ne peuvent pas retourner dans leur pays d'origine. Certains États exigent même qu'ils retournent chez eux et, de là, demandent un visa pour poursuivre leurs études dans une université de l'Union européenne. Nous demandons aux États membres de l'Union européenne d'accueillir avec la même compassion les personnes issues de minorités. Notre solidarité doit être totale, vu l'importance que nous accordons à l'éducation. Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, human suffering across the world is at unprecedented levels and the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance at an all-time high. Even before the war in Ukraine, 82 million people were facing food insecurity and 86 million people were displaced and undoubtedly those figures are far higher now. But here in Europe, we've built a fortress to keep them out and the walls are just getting higher. Visas for Afghans have dried up and as the UN humanitarian coordinator for Somalia put it, funds for emergencies are drying up too because Ukraine seems to suck all the oxygen that is in the room. In Brussels, Afghan men are put on the streets and the Red Cross closes its operation to everybody except Ukrainians. I am glad and proud of our prompt and broad welcome for all Ukrainian refugees. But, Afghans didn't start the war and Somali children aren't trying to keep it going. So why should they suffer from our two-tier racist migration policy? It's not good enough. We need to work on this and work to end the war. Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, am fost în Ucraina din primele zile ale războiului declanșat de Putin. Am fost de multe ori în multe regiuni în aceste ultimele luni, tocmai pentru a fi alături de oamenii care sunt în pericol. Am adus în casa mea șase copii și trei mame care au fugit din calea războiului. Cunosc foarte bine ce se întâmplă acolo, însă mi se pare că punem greșit problema, pentru că tiranul Putin a declanșat acest război încercând să-i sancționeze pe ucraineni tocmai pentru că își doresc să devină membri ai Uniunii Europene. Doresc să scape de această presiune pe care o pune constant Moscova și cred că este esențial să înțelegem că cei șapte milioane de cetățeni ucraineni nu au plecat de bine din țara lor, iar astăzi zeci de mii de oameni sunt pur și simplu omorâți doar pentru că au avut acest vis european. Cred că ar trebui să înțelegem esența acestui război și să nu mai fim atât de rezervați în a-i susține. Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, a União Europeia recebeu milhões de refugiados que fogem da guerra provocada pela invasão da Ucrânia pela Rússia. Uma enorme onda de solidariedade que nos tocou a todos e a todas. Tudo correu bem? Não. Os estudantes, designadamente africanos, que frequentavam universidades na Ucrânia, tiveram mais dificuldades. Sei que a comissária está empenhada em acelerar estes processos, mas a solidariedade europeia funcionou e está a funcionar. Os refugiados que enchem este fluxo têm direito, e bem, a escola, emprego, cuidados de saúde, estatuto de proteção temporária célere. Acionámos, e bem, uma diretiva aprovada em 2001 que não tínhamos acionado noutros momentos. Comissária, que lições aprendemos com este fluxo migratório que possam influenciar a política e, sobretudo, o comportamento da União Europeia e dos Estados-Membros no futuro? (Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen) Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you all for this very important debate and for your strong commitment. Putin is responsible for this terrible war. He wants to destroy Ukraine. He wants to destroy the Ukrainians as a people. But we should not be naïve, he also would like to destroy the European Union. Putin is a threat also towards us, and the security threat in the European Union is rising and we need to act to protect ourselves. The right to apply for asylum, also for Russian citizens, remains untouched, but the possibility to get a tourist visa in the European Union is not a fundamental right and should be restricted for Russian citizens. Putin must lose, it's the only way to end this crisis and we must continue to support Ukrainians in Ukraine. We have mobilised so far EUR 10 billion in humanitarian emergency and military aid. Another 5 billion is in the pipeline. We are preparing for winter. And many of you have recognised –and thank you very much for that – the unprecedented decision when Member States agreed to my proposal to activate the Temporary Protection Directive. So far, 4.3 million Ukrainians have registered for a temporary protection. But since May, every week we have seen more people leaving the European Union back to Ukraine and coming in the other direction. So quite a high number of Ukrainians are now back in Ukraine. I met some of them when I was in Kyiv in August. And it is clear that those that have registered for a temporary protection, when they go back to Ukraine, they are no longer refugees. They should de-register for temporary protection. But they are afraid to do so because they say, well, if bombs start falling again, as they are right now, they need to quickly come back to European Union and they are welcome back to the European Union when things get worse. That's why we have been working together with the Member States, together with Ukrainian Government, to make sure, we say, you could always go back to Ukraine and you do not need to de-register, but you need to notify the Member State where you have registered that they are going back to Ukraine, but you can keep your registration so it's easy to come back to the EU if things get worse. Many of you – some of you – have raised the money. So, as I said in the beginning, we have allocated all the EUR 4 million in emergency assistance that we promised for protection of borders and for dealing with refugees. We have supported the Member States most affected, and the biggest share has gone to Poland. We have also made sure that 30% of these funds will go to NGOs and local authorities. Concerning food insecurity, we must get the grain out of Ukraine and we are taking action. Between May and August, EU solidarity lanes carried more than 11 million tonnes of grains, oilseeds and other products out of Ukraine, and we provide a total of 7.7 billion in support for food insecurity as part of global gateway investments in partner countries. Food insecurity could bring conflict, increased criminal and terrorist threat and provoke social unrest. These could provoke people to flee. So far, we are not seeing this happen, but we remain vigilant. We are closely following the developments. And to conclude, honourable Members, since February, we as a European Union have shown what we can achieve when we work close together, united here, to deal with the migration crisis. We should use these lessons learned of what we can achieve when we actually cooperate in a positive way, to use that on the pact on migration and asylum to make sure that this pact will be adopted during this mandate. Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA varapuhemies Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt. Kirjalliset lausumat (171 artikla) Janina Ochojska (PPE),
na piśmie. – W tej debacie jest nadal więcej pytań niż odpowiedzi. Faktem jest, że nadal trwająca inwazja Rosji na Ukrainę zwiększy napływ uchodźców, który jeszcze powiększy się na wskutek nadchodzącej zimy. Ale czy Europa jest przygotowana do przyjęcia takiego napływu ludności, która będzie potrzebowała schronienia w ogrzewanych pomieszczeniach? Czy Unia Europejska oraz każdy kraj mają wypracowaną strategię? Czy rządy i samorządy wiedzą już, jaką ilością miejsc dysponują, i czy mają przygotowane inne zasoby? Musimy przygotowywać się ze świadomością, że będziemy działać w o wiele trudniejszym środowisku niż pół roku temu. Obywatele UE zaczynają się niecierpliwić dodatkowymi kosztami życia, ograniczonym dostępem do środków grzewczych, zwiększoną ceną żywności i innych produktów. Sporo mówimy o solidarności. Ale ona wymaga również rezygnacji z części dobrobytu, w jakim żyjemy. Czy pogodzimy się z tym, że w naszych domach będzie ciaśniej, zimniej, jedzenie nie dostępne w takich ilościach, miasta staną się ciemne etc. Ale czy możemy odmówić pomocy Ukraińcom? Obywatele nie chcą już wyręczać państwa, ale są w stanie współpracować z rządzącymi, jeśli warunki wspólnego działania zostaną zaproponowane. Musimy wygrać razem, więc musimy walczyć razem i zgodzić się na wszelkie konsekwencje tej solidarności. To ważny przekaz, którego, mam wrażenie, często brakuje w Państwa wypowiedziach. 17.   Opzetten van een alomvattend kader voor vermiste kinderen en vermiste personen die gevaar lopen (debat) Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana komission julkilausuma kattavan kehyksen perustamisesta kadonneita lapsia ja riskeille alttiita kadonneita henkilöitä varten (2022/2884(RSP)). Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I know my colleague Vice-President Dubravka Šuica would very much have liked to be here. We work very closely together to protect children. Each year, thousands of children are reported missing in the European Union, run away from home, are abducted by a parent or a stranger, or fall victim to violence, abuse and exploitation. Also, unaccompanied migrant children are trafficked, lost or injured or even worse. Next month, Missing Children Europe will turn 20. Twenty years of protection in action. Its European hotline for missing children, 116 000, operates in 32 countries. It is a free and 24/7 service. Any child, friend, family member or teacher can call for immediate help. The EU supports it with funding. We must all work together in the European Union – police and helplines, child protection services, judges, civil society organisations – our whole society. Today, Member States' authorities are finding missing people using the Schengen Information System for law enforcement information exchange. Last year, the Schengen Information System contained more than 150 000 alerts on missing persons, and 7 500 Schengen information hits helped to find missing persons and bring them to safety. That's much more than the year before. From next month on, the Schengen Information System will do an even better job, when its revised system will be fully operational. Better use of biometrics will make it easier to identify missing persons, and alerts will clarify whether the missing person needs protection, whether they are victims of trafficking, domestic or gender-based violence, or have run away from home. It will also be possible to enter alerts on children at risk of abduction. What will also improve the search for missing children is the update I have proposed to the Prüm framework for police information exchange, allowing the use of Prüm exchange to search for missing persons using biometric samples, DNA, fingerprints and facial images to check for hits in other Member States' databases. We are looking forward to the negotiations between the co-legislators. We are also cooperating with law enforcement authorities in third countries to find missing persons. Close and fast cooperation is now possible with authorities from key partner countries, to follow the digital trail left by an abductor, thanks to the agreement of the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention. The second additional protocol is now with you for endorsement, and I call on you to enable its swift ratification so the authorities can protect children from further harm. To help missing children and adults, we need to work across borders and across sectors. Anti-trafficking, child sexual abuse, or the protection of children in migration: effective law enforcement cooperation can only be as effective as the legislation it is built on. We put forward our proposal to prevent and combat child sexual abuse online. Detection of online child sexual abuse helped rescue victims in all EU Member States. The EU already has a solid framework to protect trafficked children, but in December, I will propose a revision of the Anti-Trafficking Directive which will further strengthen our fight against child trafficking. Vulnerable migrants and especially migrant children are at risk of going missing. More than 18 000 refugee children have disappeared from asylum seeker centres in Europe between 2018 and 2020. One of the reasons is slow family reunification procedures. Children waiting for years for family reunification often decide to stop waiting and take the dangerous route to their family. As part of the new pact on migration and asylum, we proposed to shorten and improve Dublin family reunification processes. Unaccompanied minors from Ukraine also need our specific attention and protection. Around 30 000 unaccompanied minors arrived from Ukraine to the EU. Unaccompanied and separate children need to be registered as soon as possible and referred to the child protection authorities to avoid disappearance or trafficking. Our EU child rights strategy says missing children are a child protection issue. Cooperation and coordination among authorities is key. It's also a child rights issue. Every single child has the right to be helped. The right to be rescued. The right to be found. Every child must be traced as early as possible. Every missing child deserves an individual approach. The best interest of the child must be the primary consideration. We must protect and empower children to keep them from harm when they go missing and leave no stone unturned to find them. Let's work together on this important mission. Ewa Kopacz,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Każdego roku w Unii Europejskiej zgłaszanych jest kilkaset tysięcy zaginięć dzieci. Większość z nich odnajduje się w ciągu doby od zniknięcia, ale część niestety przepada na lata. To ogromny cios dla bliskich, którzy pomimo upływu czasu mają nadzieję, że jeszcze kiedyś zobaczą własną córkę czy syna. Dzieci w całej Europie giną w różnych okolicznościach i z różnych przyczyn. Najczęściej są to ucieczki z domu, w którym dzieje się coś złego, niekiedy dominuje przemoc. Ale dzieci znikają również w wyniku porwań. Znikają w sytuacjach kryzysowych, takich jak wojna czy migracja. Dane pod tym względem są bezlitosne. Przypomnę tylko, że po fali migracyjnej w 2015 roku na terenie Unii Europejskiej zaginęło 10 tysięcy dzieci. Niestety historia może się powtórzyć także w przypadku dzieci bez opieki, które uciekają z Ukrainy. W maju obchodzimy Międzynarodowy Dzień Dziecka Zaginionego. Jego symbolem jest kwiat niezapominajki. Nazywa tak się dzieci, które zaginęły kilka, kilkanaście, a nawet kilkadziesiąt lat temu, i do dziś nie wiadomo, co się z nimi stało. W związku z tym pojawiają się zasadnicze pytania: czy powinniśmy rozwijać system ochrony, wsparcia i poszukiwania nieletnich, który już istnieje? Czy może próbować zbudować jeden unijny system ze wspólnymi procedurami i ściślejszą współpracą odpowiednich służb? Uważam, że te rozwiązania się nie wykluczają, a wręcz powinny się uzupełniać. Intensywne działania potrzebne są zarówno na szczeblu krajowym, jak i unijnym. I na koniec powiem to, co oczywiste. Pamiętajmy, że na te dzieci wciąż czekają bliscy. Juan Fernando López Aguilar,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria Johansson, en un Pleno tan cargado de asuntos extremadamente sensibles, este Parlamento Europeo vuelve a ocuparse de los derechos de los menores y particularmente de la problemática de los menores desaparecidos. Espeluznante. Las cifras son realmente abrumadoras. El único registro conocido —un informe de 2013— señala que al menos 250 000 menores reportados se encuentran desaparecidos en la Unión Europea y reclaman efectivamente una acción coordinada, puntos de encuentro y cooperación policial y judicial. Todas las propuestas que usted pueda poner sobre la mesa serán apoyadas por este Parlamento Europeo, que muestra su mayor solidaridad cuando se trata de menores vulnerables no acompañados. Usted ha demostrado en esas cifras, también ciertamente impactantes, que las desapariciones se registran en conflictos que están teniendo lugar en nuestras mismas fronteras y, por tanto, que nos impactan a todos los Estados miembros. Cerca de 30 000 menores no acompañados han entrado desde Ucrania reclamando, por tanto, que se preste atención a su vulnerabilidad como víctimas de violencia, abusos y explotación laboral o sexual o de redes de tráfico de personas. Por tanto, no hay ni un segundo que perder. Comisaria Johansson, tiene todo nuestro apoyo para todas las medidas que pueda adoptar para ese registro europeo de personas desaparecidas y, particularmente, de niños desaparecidos. Izaskun Bilbao Barandica,
en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, cada año se denuncian 300 000 desapariciones en la Unión Europea. Nuestro objetivo, sumándonos a organizaciones como Missing Children o AMBER Alert, es mejorar la respuesta de las autoridades frente a este fenómeno, particularmente peligroso para los niños. El riesgo de que se produzcan graves violaciones de derechos o se ponga en peligro la integridad de las personas desaparecidas crece cuanto más tardamos en esclarecer lo ocurrido. Por eso la investigación inmediata es clave. Ahora, las autoridades policiales intervienen en fase temprana cuando una desaparición se vincula con un delito. Pero si eso no ocurre persiste el riesgo. La fundación AMBER Alert Europe aborda esta laguna en su propuesta de Enfoque Común Europeo para mejorar la prevención e investigación de desapariciones. Aprovechando ese conocimiento proponemos enriquecer el análisis de riesgos, considerar más datos y coordinar mejor los servicios que puedan proporcionarlos. Así, evaluaremos más y nuevos factores y priorizaremos mejor. Esta cooperación debe ser más intensa en desapariciones de menores y en casos que se produzcan en zonas transfronterizas. Κωνσταντίνος Αρβανίτης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κυρία Επίτροπε, δεν θα μπορούσαμε να μην σας στηρίξουμε σε αυτή την προσπάθεια. Ο τίτλος είναι „Αγνοούμενοι: αναζητούμενοι ή αζήτητοι;”. Μόνον όσον αφορά το προσφυγικό —συμπληρώνω τους συναδέλφους, από το 2014 μέχρι σήμερα ο αριθμός των αγνοουμένων στη Μεσόγειο ανέρχεται στους 25.000 και πρόκειται ως επί το πλείστον για παιδιά. Στην Ελλάδα, πριν από λίγες ημέρες είχαμε πάλι ένα ναυάγιο, στα Κύθηρα· θα προσθέσουμε άλλους 15 ανθρώπους. Και εδώ πρέπει να ρωτήσω: γιατί σταμάτησαν οι έρευνες για αυτούς τους ανθρώπους; Δεν τους ψάχνει κανείς; Όταν θίξαμε για πρώτη φορά το θέμα των αγνοουμένων, ήδη πριν από την πανδημία, οι οικογένειες των αγνοουμένων μας είπαν πως έψαχναν τους ανθρώπους τους απεγνωσμένα από αστυνομικό τμήμα σε αστυνομικό τμήμα και από νεκροταφείο σε νεκροταφείο, χωρίς κοινή βάση δεδομένων και χωρίς δυνατότητα επικοινωνίας των πληροφοριών. Να λοιπόν, γιατί θα στηρίξουμε αυτή την πρωτοβουλία της Επιτρόπου και της Επιτροπής. Συνέντευξη νούμερο 32 —ένας αδελφός μιλά για την αδερφή του από τη Συρία: „Ναι, έχω ανάγκη να μάθω που βρίσκεται το σώμα της αδερφής μου. Τώρα μπορώ να τη βρω στο Google Maps και να την επισκέπτομαι περιστασιακά”. Αυτή, ομολογώ, ήταν μια διάσταση που δεν την είχα φανταστεί. Ζητάμε λοιπόν τη συγκρότηση ενός ευρωπαϊκού μηχανισμού πάνω σε μια κοινή βάση δεδομένων, προσβάσιμη από τις αρχές όλων των χωρών, που θα μπορεί να παρέχει την αναγκαία πληροφόρηση στους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες ή στους πρόσφυγες και τους μετανάστες —σε όσους αναζητούν τους ανθρώπους τους. Για να φωτίσουμε αυτό που λέμε „έσχατο δικαίωμα”. Javier Zarzalejos (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, este debate pone de manifiesto una realidad que con frecuencia se encuentra silenciada. Los datos, las cifras, ya se han dado aquí. Y, aunque probablemente no tengamos unos datos completamente exactos, en todo caso, esta realidad es una realidad abrumadora. Es cierto que detrás de estas desapariciones puede haber causas distintas: problemas de salud mental, desapariciones voluntarias, accidentes... Pero no suele ser ese el caso de adolescentes y de niños. En una Unión sin fronteras se necesita una cooperación policial muy estrecha, la ayuda de los ciudadanos y también la incorporación a la labor policial de las tecnologías de identificación y de intercambio de información, que son herramientas eficaces y absolutamente imprescindibles. En este sentido, no es aceptable, por ejemplo, que no se haya completado un sistema interoperable de alerta sobre desaparición de menores. Pero más que señalar o dejar en evidencia a nadie, es esencial que ese enfoque a escala europea, ante este reto para nuestra seguridad y los derechos de los menores, priorice la creación de capacidades en aquellos Estados miembros que pueden tener más dificultades, mayor carga de trabajo o que se encuentran más retrasados en los procedimientos de cooperación. Las agencias europeas, tanto Europol como CEPOL, deberían tener una misión muy especial en esta estrategia de capacitar a las fuerzas y cuerpos de seguridad de todos los Estados miembros. La dimensión del problema demuestra que no es solo un problema nacional, menos aún cuando el incremento de los flujos migratorios y de refugiados hacia la Unión agravan las vulnerabilidades y los riesgos de personas, ya sean adultos o niños, que pueden terminar desaparecidos y explotados. Caterina Chinnici (S&D). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, in Europa ogni due minuti un bambino viene dichiarato scomparso, circa 300 000 in un anno secondo Amber Alert, e nel mio paese, l'Italia, solo nel primo quadrimestre del 2022 i minori scomparsi sono stati 3 589. Fughe, casi di sottrazione da parte di un genitore, scomparsa di minori migranti, bambini smarriti, rapimenti di tipo criminale, e per contrastare tale drammatico fenomeno gli strumenti europei vigenti, come il regolamento Bruxelles II bis e il numero unico europeo, non sono ancora sufficienti. Come copresidente dell'intergruppo per i diritti dei minori, sostengo quindi convintamente l'istituzione di un quadro globale a livello europeo per i bambini scomparsi, volto a rafforzare la normativa di riferimento, magari anche ampliando il mandato del Centro europeo per combattere gli abusi sessuali online, al fine di garantire il coordinamento delle hotline a livello dell'Unione, rafforzare la cooperazione tra le autorità competenti e il sostegno alle ONG che operano nei diversi paesi dell'Unione. Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, u Europi svake godine nestane nekoliko stotina tisuća ljudi, a u čak polovici od svih slučajeva radi se o djeci. Jasno je, na sreću, dobar dio njih vrlo se u kratkom roku nađe, ali također je, nažalost, jasno da dobar dio njih i nestane na duži vremenski period. Kao roditelj, kao suprug, teško mogu i zamisliti svu tu agoniju koju možemo i moramo suosjećati kroz koju prolaze nestale osobe, kroz koju prolaze nestala djeca, ali jednako tako i njihove obitelji. Nažalost, premda se suočavamo s velikim brojem nestalih, još uvijek na europskoj razini nedostaje zajednički europski okvir. Okolnosti takvih nestanaka su naročito mučne kada se radi o nestanku kao posljedici kaznenog djela, kao posljedici organiziranog kriminala, poput trgovanja ljudima, kao njihovim najcrnjim oblikom. Iskorištavanje žrtava, bez obzira radi li se o seksualnoj ili radnoj eksploataciji, nažalost se događa i dok ovdje raspravljamo. Ovaj oblik stravičnog kršenja ljudskih prava nije samo obilježje nekakvih drugih dalekih zemalja, nego je nažalost prisutno i ovdje u Europi. Zato pozdravljam dosadašnje inicijative. Potrebna nam je žurna uspostava zajedničkog okvira za nestalu djecu i sve osobe i očekujem produbljivanje suradnje između država članica, ali isto tako i još snažniji angažman Europske unije. Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Fru talman! Kommissionär Johansson! De har fortfarande mardrömmar, och just nu säger de att de aldrig mer vill återvända till Ukraina. Orden kommer från en mamma från Ukraina som flytt med sina barn till Sverige. Ända sedan kriget bröt ut har Ukrainas barn utstått sådant som inget barn ska behöva uppleva. Redan i mars gick vi socialdemokrater ut med tydliga krav om att skydda barnen som drabbas i kriget. Det är oerhört positivt att kommissionär Johansson tar den här frågan på så stort allvar. Att förhindra att barn förs bort eller utsätts för våld eller människohandel är grundläggande för Europeiska unionen. Det handlar om barnens mänskliga rättigheter, och att vi som vuxna lever upp till våra skyldigheter. Det handlar om alla barn – alla barn har rätt till en trygg och kärleksfull uppväxt. Tack, Ylva. Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, mă bucur că există această dezbatere, pentru că cred că avem obligația să gândim mult mai proactiv, mult mai matur și mult mai implicați, pentru că este o problematică deja care merită un răspuns european. Avansul tehnologic ne permite astăzi să creăm instrumente prin care să îi putem proteja mult mai bine pe copii. Și cred că în Europa, astăzi, atunci când auzim de copii dispăruți, de copii care sunt victime ale traficului de ființe, de copii abuzați sexual, suntem cutremurați. Tocmai de aceea avem nevoie de acest răspuns european, de instrumente prin care să-i putem proteja, să-i putem identifica mult mai rapid și evident, să destructurăm toate aceste rețele care, din păcate, creează drame, pentru că aceste ființe nevinovate sunt victime ale acestor grupări pe care trebuie să le anihilăm și, evident, să-i protejăm pe copii. Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, paní komisařko, děkuji i Vám za Vaši angažovanost. Nepochybně musíme podporovat nástroje a organizace, které máme, ať už je to Schengenský informační systém, ať už je to organizace Missing Children. Vystupuji v tuto chvíli proto, abych připomenula náš závazek pomoci ukrajinským odvlečeným dětem. Tyto děti nezmizely, ony žijí, ale nevíme kde. Tyto děti byly vytrženy ze svých domovů. Není jich málo. Víme, že těchto odvlečených dětí podle oficiálních zdrojů je minimálně sedm a půl tisíce. Připomínám to proto, že patnáctého září Evropský parlament vyzval mezinárodní organizace i Evropskou komisi, členské státy, aby spolupracovaly, aby se dostaly do ruských táborů, kam tyto děti byly odvlečeny, tzv. filtračních táborů, aby tyto děti byly nalezeny, identifikovány a především aby byly navráceny svým rodičům a na Ukrajinu. Myslím, že toto je náš závazek, kterému musíme dostát. Juozas Olekas (S&D). – gerbiama Komisare, ačiū Jums už dėmesį vaikams, ypatingai dingus vaikams. Labai gražiai nušvietėte mus skaičiais. Kiek yra tų dingusių vaikų, ir kad dažniausiai tie vaikai dingsta iš migrantų arba karo pabėgėlių šeimų. Kolegė mano paminėjo naują jų srautą, tai yra ukrainiečių pabėgėlių vaikus, bet taip pat ukrainiečių pagrobtus vaikus iš okupuotų teritorijų ir nugabentus į Rusiją. Galbūt, kaip jūs siūlote peržiūrėti kovos su prekyba vaikais direktyvą galėtume leisti pasinaudoti šalims kandidatėms narėms į Europos Sąjungą, kad mūsų sistemos, kuriose yra fiksuojami šie dingę vaikai, jose galėtų atsidurti ir ukrainiečių pagrobtieji ir išvežti į Rusiją įvairias stovyklas ar kaip dabar pono Putino pasiūlyta lengviau įvaikinami ukrainiečių vaikai Rusijoje, nes galbūt tokiu būdu mes galėtume padėti sugrįžti į savo šeimas ir ukrainiečių dingiem vaikams. (Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät) Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I've been listening carefully to your intervention, and I think that today's discussion illustrates the importance of providing an immediate and comprehensive response to missing children and missing persons. Cross-border, regional and international cooperation and exchange of knowledge and information are key. Many of you raised the issue of a database. We have a database in the Schengen Information System. It's important, I said it in the beginning. We have 115 000 active alerts right now in the Schengen Information System. We have more than 7 000 hits every year when they got the connection. Just to give you one example. In 2018, a 14-year-old girl from Connaught in Ireland was reported missing from a care home. When Ireland joined the Schengen Information System, just a few months later in 2021 — three years later – when they connected to the system, they got a hit and found this girl at a railway station in Switzerland unaccompanied. And that could connect the police and the social workers in Ireland and Switzerland, and the girl could be rescued and protected. So this database is really important and in November, we will have the next generation, so to say, of the Schengen Information System with even better possibilities. I am committed to continue work on this very, very important subject to further improve cooperation, making the most of all our tools and system, and continue doing that for the protection and promotion of the rights of missing children and missing persons at risk. Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt. 18.   De erkenning van de Russische Federatie als staatssponsor van terrorisme (debat) Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana neuvoston ja komission julkilausumat Venäjän federaation nimeämisestä terrorismia tukevaksi valtioksi (2022/2896(RSP)). Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I speak this evening on behalf of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission Josep Borrell. The European Parliament has played an important role in demonstrating strong support to Ukraine and supporting the robust actions of the European Union. We are at a turning point in this war. On the one hand, Ukraine has been defending itself successfully for nearly eight months, recently pushing back the Russian army and liberating territories from the Russian occupation. On the other hand, President Putin is continuing along the dangerous path of escalation. Russia has declared an annexation of four Ukrainian regions following sham referenda, conducted military mobilisation and again threatened the use of weapons of mass destruction. What is more, the Russian military has intensified its brutal strikes on Ukrainian cities, civilian targets, including energy facilities. This is yet another lie that we have been hearing constantly from the Russian side, that the Russian military is conducting an operation targeting military objects only. In reality, the more the Russian army is being pushed back and defeated on the battlefield, the more it is targeting civilian objects with an attempt to frighten the Ukrainian society and weaken its resolve. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine grossly violates international law and international humanitarian law, and it is causing massive loss of life and injury to civilians. Russia is directing attacks against the civilian population and is targeting civilian objects, including hospitals, medical facilities, schools and shelters. These horrifying atrocities and war crimes must stop immediately. Those responsible for these war crimes and their accomplished accomplices will be held to account. While the EU does not have a legal framework in place to designate a third country as a state sponsor of terrorism, we take note of such decisions at a national level or through resolutions of parliamentary assemblies, like the one of the Council of Europe a few days ago. As you know, the EU can impose restrictive measures on Daesh and al-Qaeda, and persons and entities associated with or supporting them. In addition, the so-called EU terrorist list was established in response to the attack on 11 September 2001. The EU has imposed unprecedented sanctions against the Russian leadership, including measures against individuals and entities, as well as sectoral measures under several geographic sanctions regimes. The eighth sanction package was adopted on the 6 October 2022, and it includes sectoral measures, notably the extension of import-export bans, crypto restrictions, the extension of the full transaction ban on several additional Russian banks, and the introduction of the legal basis for the price cap on Russian oil. Second, the listing of 30 individuals and seven entities, including those who organised and facilitated the illegal referenda, individuals and entities in the defence sector, as well as actors who spread disinformation about the war. Fourth, introduction of a new listing criterion to target individuals and entities facilitating the infringement of the prohibition of the circumvention of sanctions, and extension of the restrictive measures applying to the occupied territories of Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Russian threats do not shake our determination, resolve and unity to stand by Ukraine as long as it takes. At this turning point, we must remain strong and united, morally and politically. Russia has already lost the war, and increasingly is losing on the battlefield as well. Ukraine will prevail. Thank you for your support. Thank you for your attention. Andrzej Halicki,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Przewodnicząca! My, obywatele wolnej, demokratycznej Europy, wzywamy parlamenty narodowe, wzywamy rządy państw członkowskich do uznania Rosji za państwo organizujące i prowadzące terroryzm! Mam nadzieję, że ta Izba, Parlament Europejski, pokaże jedność w tej sprawie. I również wymusi na Komisji Europejskiej, na Radzie Europejskiej stanowcze działanie. Jesteśmy w przededniu szczytu, który powinien zakończyć się nie tylko ważnymi deklaracjami, ale także ważnymi działaniami w tej kwestii. Dzisiejsze obrazy tysięcy zabitych osób, ataki na cywilne obiekty, na domy mieszkalne w Ukrainie to przecież nie są jedyne obrazy, które mamy w pamięci. Wywózki w głąb Rosji tysięcy osób, tylko z powodów etnicznych, w tym dzieci - to przecież kidnaping. A pamiętacie samolot zestrzelony? Holenderski samolot MH17. Trzysta niewinnych osób. Szpitale i szkoły w Syrii spalone przez wyszkolone grupy rosyjskich zbrodniarzy. Oficjalne wspieranie grupy Wagnera przez Putina i nagradzanie tych zbrodniarzy różnymi odznaczeniami. Jeżeli, jako Europejska Partia Ludowa, wzywamy do tego, by nazwać Putina zbrodniarzem wojennym, to nie są tylko słowa. Jego miejsce jest przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem w Hadze. Musimy do tego doprowadzić. Jako polski eurodeputowany, bo ta inicjatywa wychodzi ponad podziałami z naszego polskiego środowiska, chciałbym powiedzieć, że musimy stanąć ponad podziałami narodowymi, ponad podziałami politycznymi, pokazać jedność w tej Izbie, tak jak Zgromadzenie Parlamentarne Rady Europy uczyniło to w zeszłym tygodniu. Bo czyż trzeba więcej ofiar i przykładów, żeby nazwać Rosję państwem wspomagającym, organizującym i realizującym terroryzm ? Dziękuję i apeluję o jedność. Juan Fernando López Aguilar,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, comisaria Johansson, desde que en febrero de este mismo año comenzase la brutal guerra de agresión de Putin contra Ucrania, este Parlamento Europeo ha hecho de todo para apoyar todas las acciones emprendidas por la Unión Europea para responder. Tomando nota, en primer lugar, de que se trata de un vecino gigantesco, directo de la Unión Europea —la Federación de Rusia—, frontera directa de la Unión Europea en las tres Repúblicas bálticas, en Finlandia y en Polonia, en el enclave de Kaliningrado. En segundo lugar, en el frente humanitario, con la Directiva de protección temporal, pero también adoptando sanciones contra los activos de los oligarcas rusos y confiscando sus bienes y, por supuesto, adoptando medidas legislativas como la reforma del Reglamento de Eurojust, precisamente para apoyar los equipos conjuntos de investigación y la investigación emprendida por la Fiscalía de la Corte Penal Internacional de los crímenes de guerra, aun sabiendo que Rusia no es signataria de la Corte Penal Internacional. Pero la consideración de Rusia como un Estado que financia o apoya directamente actividades terroristas en suelo europeo requiere que la Unión Europea la encuadre dentro de una expresión de voluntad de madurar deprisa en su política exterior y de seguridad común y en su política de defensa común y, en definitiva, de afirmarse de una vez, como quiere este Parlamento Europeo, como una potencia globalmente relevante. Petras Auštrevičius,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, do we have enough evidence that Russia is committing state terrorism during the war of aggression against Ukraine? Yes indeed. At this very moment, Russia is carrying out massive missile strikes against Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure. It is enough to remember the strikes on the Kramatorsk railway station and the Mariupol theatre, with clear indication that it sheltered children. Cities such as Mariupol, Volnovakha, Rubizhne, Popasna, Lyman and Severodonetsk were completely destroyed. In some of them, massive graves as in Bucha, Irpin and Izyum were discovered. More than 400 Ukrainian children have been killed and more than 700 wounded since the beginning of the Russian invasion. More than 2 600 educational institutions have been destroyed or damaged as a result of Russian terrorist attacks. We must recognise and include Russia among the state sponsors of terrorism. Putin and his government must be held accountable before an international tribunal. Only then will justice be served. Viola von Cramon-Taubadel,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Terrorismus ist, ich zitiere: die rechtswidrige Anwendung von Gewalt gegen Zivilisten zur Verfolgung politischer Ziele. Nichts beschreibt das russische Vorgehen in der Ukraine besser als das Wort Terrorismus. Terrorismus ist es, wenn Hunderte ukrainische Zivilistinnen und Zivilisten in Irpin, Butscha und Isjum gefoltert, vergewaltigt, ermordet und in Massengräber geworfen werden. Wie anders wollen wir es nennen, wenn Russland Millionen Tonnen ukrainisches Getreide in den Häfen beschlagnahmt und dann die internationale Gemeinschaft mit Hungersnöten erpresst? Was sonst bedeutet es, wenn Putin ukrainische Familien willkürlich mit Raketen und Drohnen bombardiert, nur weil seine Armee militärisch versagt? Und es ist natürlich auch Terrorismus, wenn Russland der Ukraine und dem Rest der Welt mit der nuklearen Vernichtung droht. Wir sollten nicht länger um den heißen Brei herumreden. Putins Russland finanziert als Staat Terror weltweit, und wir müssen damit umgehen, wie wir auch so mit anderen Terroristen umgehen. Charlie Weimers,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, Commissioner Johansson, colleagues, in the past decades, the Russian Federation has attempted to re-establish regional hegemony. Russia inspires terror by murdering countless civilian victims, by indiscriminate targeting in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria and Ukraine. Russia relishes instability by supporting and financing terrorist regimes and organisations in the Middle East and Latin America. Russia's closest allies Syria, Cuba, North Korea and Iran, are also sponsors of terrorism. Colleagues, we cannot, on the one hand, condemn and sanction Russia, while on the other continuing to entertain any delusion that the regime in Moscow can be a reliable partner, whether on climate, trade or regional stability. That world is dead and gone. Will it ever come back during our lifetime? I don't think so. Colleagues, the Ukrainian parliament has appealed to countries to declare the Russian regime a terrorist state. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have shown leadership by heeding this call, and the EU Parliament should call for other EU Member States to follow their example. It is time to recognise the Russian Federation for what it is: a pariah, a menace, a rogue state and a state sponsor of terrorism. And that recognition must come with consequences. Clare Daly,
on behalf of The Left Group. – Mr President, „state sponsor of terrorism” is a term of US law; it doesn't exist in EU law. But a Zelenskyy adviser called for it in The Parliament Magazine, and here we are again reporting for duty. And all it will do is make peace harder to achieve – exactly, of course, what the extremists want: no peace, no off-ramps, all bridges burning and Ukraine a permanent abattoir in a suicidal holy crusade against Russia. So if you want to start naming state sponsors of terrorism, let's do it: European sponsorship of Israeli terrorism in Palestine; Western sponsorship of Saudi terror in Yemen; ISIS, the product of French, American, British, Turkish and Gulf sponsorship in Syria and Iraq; decades of right-wing, US-backed terrorism against the Cuban Revolution; the Contras in Nicaragua; death squads in Guatemala, in El Salvador. Remember Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia: horror after horror, terror after terror. There's nothing constructive about the pot calling the kettle black. Would you ever cop on, start championing peace, an end to the war, which is patently in the interests of EU, Ukrainian and Russian citizens. Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, we just heard Putin's words. Now we have to be back to the topic. We have never had a situation like this before. It is clear that a major nuclear power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, with all its military and administrative power, is committing acts of terror – killing civilians, destroying infrastructure, using systemic violence and intimidation. We must name Russia a terrorist state for several reasons. First, it must be isolated, just like cancer cells are isolated by medical doctors. Second, to guarantee accountability and to prevent impunity. A list of concrete actions have to follow. Russia is not a terror-sponsoring country. Russia is a terrorist state. The EU needs to build its own legal framework to define what a terrorist state is and how to contain it. We have to start to do this now, not tomorrow. Marek Paweł Balt (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Od 22 lutego codziennie jesteśmy świadkami ataków i zbrodni dokonywanych na ludności ukraińskiej, np. w Buczy, i na infrastrukturze cywilnej. Zniszczono już ponad 30% elektrowni w Ukrainie. Zrobiła to armia rosyjska na wyraźny rozkaz prezydenta Rosji Putina. Tego typu ataki w prawie międzynarodowym nazywane są terroryzmem. Putin wielokrotnie groził atakiem bronią atomową oraz odpowiada za ataki na elektrownie atomowe, np. w Czarnobylu i w Zaporożu. I to już jest terroryzm nuklearny. To musi być ukarane. Rosja już dawno przekroczyła granicę między krajem wspierającym terroryzm, jak w przypadku zestrzelenia holenderskiego samolotu MH17, i stała się już wyraźnym krajem terrorystycznym, który musi być wpisany na listę organizacji terrorystycznych, a Putin musi być uznany za terrorystę i ścigany międzynarodowym listem gończym. Do tego kraje, które dostarczają Rosji broń wykorzystywaną do ataków na cele cywilne i infrastrukturę krytyczną (na przykład drony kamikadze), muszą zostać uznane za sponsorów terroryzmu. Nathalie Loiseau (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, qui d'autre qu'un terroriste aurait l'idée d'attaquer une centrale nucléaire civile, de la mettre en danger et d'y stocker des armes? Qui d'autre qu'un terroriste bombarderait une maternité, un théâtre, un jardin d'enfants, ou assassinerait un chef d'orchestre? Qui d'autre qu'un terroriste plongerait dans le noir un pays sans objectif militaire clair, dans le seul but d'imposer des souffrances, d'intimider, et donc de terroriser? Personne ne peut en douter. Non seulement la Russie agit, depuis le 24 février, comme un État agresseur, mais elle utilise aussi des méthodes terroristes. Avant de nous interroger sur les conséquences juridiques d'une telle qualification, j'engage nos médias à se poser les bonnes questions. Jamais ils n'ont imaginé inviter un porte-parole d'Al-Qaïda après le 11 septembre. Alors je ne vois pas ce que font les porte-paroles des ambassades russes, chaque jour ou presque, sur nos chaînes de télévision. Par respect pour les victimes de la terreur russe, par pitié, ne les invitez plus. Anna Fotyga (ECR). – Madam President, Beslan, Dubrovka, Grozny, Anna Politkovskaya, Nemtsov, Litvinenko, the Skripals, Georgia, most probably Smolensk, then Crimea, Donbas, Luhansk and now the whole territory of Ukraine, including nuclear power plants. Do we need further evidence? I wholeheartedly support denomination of Russian Federation as a terrorist state, despite difficulties that we have to work on. Radosław Sikorski (PPE). – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, there are two definitions of terrorism. One is that it is the deliberate use of extreme violence to achieve political aims, and the other is attacking combatants during an armed conflict. Russian death squads have killed President Yandarbiyev of Chechnya in 2004 in Doha. Litvinenko, killed with polonium in London, has already been mentioned. Major Skripal in Salisbury with novichok and one could go on. And we all know what Putin is doing to Ukrainian cities right now. So Russia fulfils both definitions, but it is not a sponsor of terrorism. These are not done by some other organisation that Russia pays. These assassinations and these bombing campaigns are done by the employees of Russian security services and of the Russian Federation. Therefore, Russia is not a sponsor of terrorism, but a terrorist state. The challenge for us is to pass legislation, like in the United States, that will enable the victims of this terrorism to claim compensation from Russian state assets. And this should be the purpose of our activity and of the pronouncements we are going to make in the next few days. Evin Incir (S&D). – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, the Devil can only play God if we do not dare to call him the Devil. Well, we have a duty towards all people that have got their homes destroyed and all people that have been killed at the hands of Putin to call him out. Yes, through actions, but also through words, because words pave the way for actions. The Putin Russian regime is a terrorist state and is a state sponsor of terrorism. If the aggression on Ukraine, violation of other states' territorial integrity and sovereignty and the cold blooded killing of dissenters are not grounds enough to be called out for state sponsored terrorism and being a terrorist state, I do not know what would be. Putin and his allies as Khomeini in Iran have oppressed and killed for decades. And maybe have they never, ever thought that they will meet counter forces. But the people of Ukraine and people of whole Iran have shown that they are stronger than the oppressors. People power is stronger than devil power. Let's call Putin's regime for what it is – a state terror and state sponsor of terrorism. Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! Ja się bardzo cieszę, że dzisiaj w tej debacie dyskutujemy, czy Rosja jest państwem sponsorującym terroryzm, czy – jak przed chwilą usłyszeliśmy – państwem terrorystycznym. Bo to jest przykład, jak daleką drogę przeszedł nasz Parlament. Bo przecież w tej Izbie kadencję temu, dwie kadencje temu było znacznie więcej przyjaciół Rosji albo ludzi bardzo naiwnych, którzy uważali, że Rosja jest takim krajem jak każdy inny. To się zmieniło. Dobrze. Choć oczywiście jest straszliwa cena, którą płacimy my wszyscy, wolna Europa, za to, żeby klasa polityczna w Europie dojrzała do tego, aby Rosję uznać, za amerykańskim prezydentem Ronaldem Reaganem (wiem, że nie wszyscy go lubią) za imperium zła. Właśnie tak jest. Dobrze, że w tej sprawie mówimy prawie wszyscy jednym głosem. Im bardziej solidarny będzie nasz głos, tym większe straty Rosji – a o to chodzi. Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, doamnă comisară, Putin are mâinile pătate de sânge, este principalul vinovat pentru masacrul din Ucraina, pentru invazia declanșată împotriva unui popor care nu l-a provocat cu nimic. Este responsabil pentru crizele multiple cu care se confruntă continentul european, începând de la criza de securitate, criza umanitară și, evident, criza energetică. Acest om s-a inspirat din tezele lui Stalin pentru a pune astăzi Europa într-o situație imposibilă, însă este esențial să rămânem uniți, să acționăm împotriva acestui tiran prin toate mijloacele pe care le avem la dispoziție. Rusia trebuie să înțeleagă că nu mai poate singură să amenințe și să țină sub formă de șantaj și presiune continuă națiunile libere, și este esențial să-i susținem pe ucraineni în acest război nedrept pe care l-a declanșat criminalul Putin. Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiama pirmininke, gerbiama Komisijos nare, iš tikrųjų mes kurį laiką dar ginčijomės, kaip pavadinti Putino Rusiją, kada ji rėmė terorizmą įvairiuose pasaulio regionuose, bet ateina metas, kai kažkurie veiksmai perpildo taurę. Ir čia visi tie, kurie buvome Bučoje, tie, kurie buvo kitose Ukrainos vietose, tie, kurie matėme reportažus iš Ukrainos, atkasamų daugybės masinių kapaviečių ir tie, kurie šiandien matome krentančias raketas, paleistas iš Rusijos į vaikų darželius, mokyklas, į civilinius pastatus. Argi tai nėra terorizmas? Man atrodo, kad tai yra mūsų visų iš įvairių politinių platformų vieningas vertinimas. Ir žuvę vaikai, žuvę civiliai gyventojai, tai yra tai, ką šiandien Putinas daro gąsdindamas ir įgyvendindamas savo didžiosios carinės Rusijos ideologiją. Susivienykim, turėkime vieningą įvardinimą ir vieningą atsaką į šiuos Putino teroristinius veiksmus. Vlad-Marius Botoș (Renew). – Doamnă vicepreședintă, doamnă comisară Johansson, stimați colegi, mă bucur că avem această dezbatere importantă astăzi în plenul Parlamentului European. Ce se întâmplă în Ucraina este teroare. Ce se întâmplă în Ucraina de peste opt luni, să vezi milioane de oameni care-și părăsesc casele, să vezi zeci de mii de morți, să vezi sute de copii omorâți, să vezi zilele acestea un sistem energetic, a unei țări pașnice, care este distrus, este teroare și acesta este terorism. Și mă bucur să văd că Uniunea Europeană spune lucrurilor pe nume și noi din această instituție o facem. Pentru că de prea mulți ani Rusia a speculat slăbiciunile noastre. Trebuie să fim alături de Ucraina și trebuie să condamnăm Rusia ferm. Rusia, la momentul actual, este un stat terorist. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, when Russia drops bombs on built-up areas in Ukraine, I have no doubt that the people in Ukraine underneath the bombs are terrorised. It's a form of terrorism. When the US and NATO bombed Afghanistan for 20 years and killed several hundred thousand and displaced millions, they were terrorizing the people. A UN survey showed that of US-NATO bombardments of civilians in Afghanistan, 45% of the people killed were children. When the US killed over a million civilians in Iraq, was that terrorism? When Israel terrorises the Palestinian people every day, is that terrorism? When France and the UK and others armed the Saudis and the UAE to commit genocide in Yemen, where the UN said that over 400 000 are dead and 16 million are starving because of a genocide being carried out with the support of the US, the UK, France and several European states, is that terrorism? When are ye going to wake up and start living in the real world? Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Rosja jest państwem terrorystycznym. Putin jest zbrodniarzem wojennym. Niby oczywiste, ale trzeba o tym mówić głośno i wprost, bo historia lubi zapominać. W 1945 roku na ziemiach śląskich Armia Czerwona nie wyzwalała. Robiła to samo, co dziś w Ukrainie. Niszczyła, paliła, zabijała i gwałciła. Pół miliona Ślązaczek, Niemek i Polek zostało zgwałconych. I nikt do tej pory nie rozliczył tej tragedii. Nikt nie wypłacił odszkodowań czy reparacji. Najwyższy czas wysłać noty do Moskwy. Nie mieli racji ci, którzy myśleli, że z Rosją można się dogadać. Sowieta to nie demokrata, sowieta to kłamca i wichrzyciel. Jednym z nich jest Siergiej Andriejew, ambasador Putina w Warszawie. Dzisiaj Ukraińcy i Ukrainki giną za wartości europejskie. I my tutaj w Parlamencie Europejskim musimy stanąć za nimi murem. Czas wyrzucić rosyjskich dyplomatów z Unii Europejskiej, tak z Berlina, jak i z Warszawy. Puhemies. – Pyydän anteeksi, että sotkin tämän viimeisen puheenvuoron. Olette puhuneet niin paljon, vielä yksi loppupuheenvuoro komissaari Johansson. Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, good evening, bear witness on your continued support for Ukraine and for the steps undertaken in reaction to the Russian war on Ukraine. We need to maintain attention to the terrible casualties and the destruction caused by Russia in Ukraine. Thousands of civilians have been murdered, many more tortured, harassed, raped, kidnapped or forcibly displaced. Russia must be held accountable for the crime it has committed. Ukraine has managed to withstand Russia's aggression. It has been possible thanks to the bravery of the Ukrainian people and its leaders. It has also been possible thanks to our support, and we will continue with our support as long as it takes. Puhemies. – Pyydän anteeksi, että sotkin tämän viimeisen puheenvuoron. Keskustelu on päättynyt. Äänestys toimitetaan marraskuun II istuntojaksolla. Kirjalliset lausumat (171 artikla) Sandra Kalniete (PPE),
in writing. – We can no longer delay the recognition of the Russian Federation (RF) as a terrorist state and state sponsor of terrorism. The RF's deliberate and systematic attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine are by their very nature terroristic – the Kremlin seeks to instrumentalise the fear and suffering of the Ukrainian people and to paralyse the Ukrainian state's decision-making capabilities and occupy more Ukrainian territory. These acts of terrorism are being conducted with the approval of the highest levels of the Kremlin and Russian military command. Therefore, Russia's political and military leadership must be prosecuted under the auspices of a special international tribunal. Furthermore, Russia's designation as terrorist state must facilitate the confiscation of its foreign frozen assets and reserves, as well as their utilization for the rebuilding of Ukraine. Russia's ongoing campaign of terrorism is consistent with Moscow's long track record in Ukraine since 2014, in Syria, Libya, Sudan, Georgia, and Chechnya. The Latvian and Estonian Parliaments have already declared Russia a „state sponsor of terrorism”. It is time that similar decisions are taken at the European level and around the world. Ivan Štefanec (PPE),
písomne. – Bezprecedentná ruská vojenská agresia narúšajúca územnú celistvosť, zvrchovanosť a nezávislosť Ukrajiny predstavuje závažné porušenie medzinárodného práva. Okrem ruských vojsk je však do boja na ruskej strane nasadená aj súkromná armáda, tzv. Wagnerova skupina a vojská Ramzana Kadyrova, vyznačujúce sa extrémnou brutalitou a páchaním zločinov na civilnom obyvateľstve. Obrovským pokrytectvom zo strany Vladimíra Putina bolo označenie útoku na Krymský most za teroristický útok, na ktorý reagoval raketovými útokmi na civilné ciele, a preto pre nás musí byť dôležité tieto, ale aj ostatné rozsiahle a závažné porušovania ľudských práv, vojenské zločiny a zločiny proti ľudskosti jednoznačne pomenovať ako podporovanie terorizmu a trvať na tom, aby boli páchatelia spravodlivo potrestaní. Uznesenie vyzývajúce na označenie Ruska za sponzora terorizmu prijal už aj americký Senát kvôli ruskému počínaniu v Čečensku, Gruzínsku, Sýrii a na Ukrajine, ktoré spôsobilo smrť žien a detí. Taktiež je samozrejmosťou aj jednoznačné odsúdenie tzv. pseudoreferend, ktorými sa Vladimír Putin snaží anektovať ukrajinské východné regióny v rozpore so zásadami Charty OSN a zásad medzinárodného práva. EÚ a jej členské štáty musia ešte viac jednotne a jednoznačne podporovať Ukrajinu nielen politicky, ale aj finančne, humanitárne a vojensky. 19.   Stemverklaringen Puhemies. – Siirrymme nyt äänestysselityksiin. 19.1.   Richtsnoeren voor het werkgelegenheidsbeleid in de lidstaten (A9-0243/2022 - Alicia Homs Ginel) Suulliset äänestysselitykset Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, the guidelines for employment policies of Member States are very important, which is why I voted for this report. But it is not just in Europe, but in every part of the globe where EU companies operate that these policies are needed. I had the honour last week of meeting two indigenous leaders from Colombia, the victims of an Irish and EU company, Smurfit Kappa, who have operated in the area of Cauca for over 50 years. And this company stands accused of a complete failure of due diligence in terms of how it acquired the land, environmental damage from pine and eucalyptus monoculture on land, which was agreed as part of the peace process to be handed over to indigenous people. Human rights violations, complete violation of workers' rights, less than the minimum wage, use of subcontractors, who have to buy their own tools, no insurance when they lose a limb or an arm in this very dangerous job. It's an absolute embarrassment to Ireland and the EU that this company continues to operate in this way with impunity in Colombia, and it makes a mockery of the standards that we're imposing. If we want to level the playing field, we have to ensure that employment policies of Member States operate everywhere. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, precarious forms of employment dominate Europe's labour markets, with the rise of the gig economy and zero-hour contracts. The construction sector is rampant with forms of precarious work and irregular contracts. In Ireland, there is widespread misuse of the questionable self-employment classification of workers. It helps the better-off to avoid tax, but very often leaves the less well-paid workers vulnerable and largely unprotected by the state. The abuse of irregular contracts leaves workers with income insecurity unprotected by Social Security without proper pensions, and contributes to the exploitation of migrant workers. Within Member States, we've seen a race to the bottom in terms of the quality of working conditions, despite labour shortages and despite all the talk from the European Union. We need stronger rules and regulations to stop these exploitative practices that are driving many European workers into poverty. Only today, we were talking about mental health challenges. If you are going to make the people poor, you're going to make them seriously mentally ill as well. 19.2.   De toetreding van Roemenië en Bulgarije tot het Schengengebied (B9-0462/2022, B9-0463/2022) Suulliset äänestysselitykset Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Fru talman! Stöldligorna är tillbaka, larmar organisationen Företagarna. Maskinparker länsas, båtägare blir av med sina motorer, äldre rånas. Vad gör kommissionen och Europaparlamentet då? Jo, de kräver Rumäniens och Bulgariens anslutning till Schengen. Hittills har liberaler i Nederländerna, finländska kristdemokrater och till och med Merkel blockerat. Att svenska socialdemokrater i stället vill öppna motorvägen för stöldligorna förvånar väl ingen. Men att Moderaterna, som gick till val på devisen „Hej då, stöldligor”, i dag röstade för att kräva slopade gränskontroller för bulgariska och rumänska medborgare, är minst sagt förvånande och oroande. I stället borde vanliga svenskars intressen sättas främst. Det är bara att följa liberala Göteborgspostens uppmaning: „Öppna inte den sista dörren för de rumänska stöldligorna.” Därför röstade vi sverigedemokrater nej. Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, sunt de-a dreptul revoltat de etichetele pe care le pun unii politicieni, extrem de limitați în a vedea ce se întâmplă în jurul nostru, pentru că este inacceptabil să sancționeze o întreagă națiune, o națiune de 22 de milioane de cetățeni, doar pentru o agendă măruntă, o agendă îngustă internă, și din acest punct de vedere cred că este esențial mesajul pe care l-a transmis Parlamentul European astăzi, prin care cerem un lucru extrem de clar. S-a vorbit deseori despre solidaritate europeană, însă ea nu poate funcționa unidirecțional, pentru că este fundamental să respectăm Tratatul Uniunii Europene, iar România, ca țară care poate gestiona, și a demonstrat acest lucru, frontiera Uniunii Europene într-o criză fără precedent la frontiera de est, trebuie și merită să intre în acest an în spațiul Schengen. Vlad-Marius Botoș (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, astăzi am votat cu toată încrederea pentru susținerea acestei rezoluții, pentru ca România și Bulgaria să adere la spațiul Schengen. Am votat pentru că noi, cetățenii români, suntem cetățeni europeni. Pentru că avem dreptul să circulăm liber și nestingherit în întreaga Uniune Europeană. Am votat pentru dreptul de a nu aștepta la cozi lungi în aeroporturi sau la granițele rutiere pentru a trece prin controale suplimentare. Am votat pentru că mărfurile care vin din țările noastre au dreptul să circule și să nu stea ore în șir sau chiar zile la ușa spațiului Schengen. Nu cerem un cadou, nu cerem o favoare, ne cerem un drept care este al nostru, fiindcă suntem o țară europeană de 15 ani, și de 11 ani România și Bulgaria îndeplinesc toate condițiile Schengen și sper ca măcar acum, după atâta vreme, la Consiliul JAI din 8 decembrie, România și Bulgaria să fie acceptate în spațiul Schengen. Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, dragi colegi, am aprobat în Parlamentul European rezoluția privind aderarea României la spațiul Schengen, demers pe care l-am inițiat cu sprijinul colegilor din legislativul european și al Grupului Social Democrat. Votul favorabil a 547 de europarlamentari din cei 639 prezenți, demonstrează sprijinul real de care beneficiază România. Din păcate, au existat și voci împotriva țării noastre, mai ales din partea grupurilor extremiste, dar și din partea unor eurodeputați din partidele pro-europene, PPE, Renew sau Verts. 49 de voturi împotrivă și 43 de abțineri. Singurul grup politic care a votat în unanimitate pentru aderarea României la spațiul Schengen este Grupul Social Democrat. În acest context, am contactat deja fiecare eurodeputat pro-european care a exprimat reticențe, pentru a le explica de ce România merită în spațiul Schengen, ca să înțeleg motivația din spatele deciziei lor și să-i conving să-și schimbe inclusiv votul dat în plenul legislativului european. Vom lupta alături de colegii mei până la capăt pentru acordarea unui vot pozitiv pentru România în Consiliu, pe 8 decembrie, așa că invit eurodeputații din toate partidele politice să procedeze similar și să insiste pentru aderarea țării noastre la spațiul Schengen. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, we supported the resolution for Romania and Bulgaria to join Schengen. We see absolutely no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to join, and we feel that, for many years, they were discriminated against. Western Europe were very keen to get a whole number of countries into the EU in 2004. There was two main reasons for it. One of them was to get them into NATO and the other one was to access a cheap labour pool that would suit Western Europe. It just so happened that there was obviously a limit on what they wanted, but it was completely discriminatory not to include Romania and Bulgaria. Since the EU was formed, we have talked so much about the freedom of movement of people and goods, but we are really only good at allowing the free movement of goods, and we were always prepared to discriminate against ordinary people when it suited us. Puhemies. – Äänestysselitykset tältä illalta on annettu. 20.   Agenda voor de volgende vergadering Puhemies. – Seuraava istunto pidetään huomenna keskiviikkona 19. lokakuuta 2022 klo 9.00. Esityslista on julkaistu, ja se on saatavilla Euroopan parlamentin verkkosivustolla. 21.   Goedkeuring van de notulen van deze vergadering Puhemies. – Tämän istunnon pöytäkirja toimitetaan parlamentille hyväksyttäväksi huomenna äänestysten jälkeen. 22.   Sluiting van de vergadering (Istunto päättyi klo 22.20.)

2.6.2023
NL
Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
C 196/225 19 oktober 2022VOLLEDIG VERSLAG VAN DE VERGADERINGEN VAN 19 OKTOBER 2022 (2023/C 196/03) Inhoud 1.
Opening van de vergadering
227 2.
Onderhandelingen voorafgaand aan de eerste lezing van het Parlement (artikel 71 van het Reglement) (volgende stappen)
227 3.
Voorbereiding van de vergadering van de Europese Raad van 20-21 oktober 2022 (debat)
227 4.
Hervatting van de vergadering
255 5.
Plechtige vergadering - Toespraak door Zuzana Čaputová, president van de Slowaakse Republiek
255 6.
Hervatting van de vergadering
258 7.
Stemmingen
259 7.1.
Ontwerp van gewijzigde begroting nr. 4/2022: actualisering van de ontvangsten (eigen middelen) en andere technische aanpassingen (A9-0240/2022 - Karlo Ressler) (stemming)
259 7.2.
Ontwerp van algemene begroting van de Europese Unie voor het begrotingsjaar 2023 — alle afdelingen (stemming)
259 7.3.
Algemene begroting van de Europese Unie voor het begrotingsjaar 2023 — alle afdelingen (A9-0241/2022 - Nicolae Ștefănuță, Niclas Herbst) (stemming)
259 7.4.
Duurzame brandstoffen voor de zeevaart (initiatief FuelEU Zeevaart) (A9-0233/2022 - Jörgen Warborn) (stemming)
259 7.5.
De uitrol van infrastructuur voor alternatieve brandstoffen (A9-0234/2022 - Ismail Ertug) (stemming)
260 8.
Hervatting van de vergadering
260 9.
Goedkeuring van de notulen van de vorige vergadering
260 10.
Vergoelijken van anti-Europees extreem rechts in de EU (actualiteitendebat)
260 11.
Presentatie van het jaarverslag 2021 van de Rekenkamer (debat)
279 12.
De betrekkingen tussen de EU en de Westelijke Balkan in het licht van het nieuwe uitbreidingspakket (debat)
292 13.
Sacharovprijs 2022 (bekendmaking van de winnaar)
299 14.
De betrekkingen tussen de EU en de Westelijke Balkan in het licht van het nieuwe uitbreidingspakket (voortzetting van het debat)
299 15.
De bestrijding van seksueel geweld - Het belang van het Verdrag van Istanbul en een alomvattend voorstel voor een richtlijn tegen gendergerelateerd geweld (debat)
309 16.
Politieke situatie in Tunesië (debat)
321 17.
De actieve rol van het regime van Loekasjenko in de oorlog tegen Oekraïne (debat)
327 18.
Resultaat van de eerste bijeenkomst van de Europese Politieke Gemeenschap (debat)
335 19.
Mondiale voedselzekerheid in het verlengde van de bijeenkomst van de ministers van Landbouw van de G20 (debat)
345 20.
Stemverklaringen
359 20.1.
Algemene begroting van de Europese Unie voor het begrotingsjaar 2023 — alle afdelingen (A9-0241/2022 - Nicolae Ștefănuță, Niclas Herbst)
359 20.2.
Duurzame brandstoffen voor de zeevaart (initiatief FuelEU Zeevaart) (A9-0233/2022 - Jörgen Warborn)
359 20.3.
De uitrol van infrastructuur voor alternatieve brandstoffen (A9-0234/2022 - Ismail Ertug)
360 21.
Agenda voor de volgende vergadering
360 22.
Goedkeuring van de notulen van deze vergadering
361 23.
Sluiting van de vergadering
361 Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen van 19 oktober 2022 PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA President 1.   Opening van de vergadering (The sitting opened at 9.01) 2.   Onderhandelingen voorafgaand aan de eerste lezing van het Parlement (artikel 71 van het Reglement) (volgende stappen) President. – In relation to the decisions by several committees to enter into interinstitutional negotiations, pursuant to Rule 71, paragraph 1, announced at the opening of the session on Monday 17 October, I have received no request for a vote in Parliament by Members or political groups reaching at least the medium threshold. The committees may therefore start the negotiations. 3.   Voorbereiding van de vergadering van de Europese Raad van 20-21 oktober 2022 (debat) President. – The next item on the agenda is: Council and Commission statements – Preparation of the European Council meeting of 20-21 October 2022. Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, President von der Leyen, honourable Members, tomorrow and Friday, leaders will meet in Brussels for the October European Council, starting with the usual exchange with European Parliament President Metsola. Leaders will discuss Russia's escalatory war of aggression against Ukraine and its consequences, including the situation in global food security or the impact on energy prices and on our economy. They will also address relations with China and with ASEAN. Less than two weeks ago, leaders met in Prague for an informal European Council meeting to discuss these topics and prepare the ground for the debates that will take place in Brussels this week. The steep increase in energy prices touches all European citizens and businesses and is, therefore, high on the agenda of the European Council. As we know, Russia is weaponising energy in an attempt to weaken the resolve and economic power of the European Union. We will not let this happen. Building on the discussions in Prague, as well as yesterday's Commission proposal, leaders will speak a strong common European response to the high gas and electricity prices. There is a broad agreement on key areas of action to lower prices, but there are still some divergences on the „how”, that will be for leaders to discuss. I can nonetheless already share some key messages. First, we will not allow Russia's weaponising of energy to weaken the resolve and economic power of the EU. Second, key areas for action will include efforts to reduce demand, to ensure security of supply and to lower energy prices. Leaders will also address the latest developments in Russia's escalating war of aggression against Ukraine, which is putting European and global peace and security at risk. This includes Russia's missile attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure in Kyiv and across Ukraine, its actions at Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear facility and the illegal annexation by Russia of Ukraine's Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions. Leaders will reiterate their unwavering support for Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ukraine has the right to liberate and regain full control of all occupied territories within its internationally recognised borders. As already stated by leaders on 30 September, the European Council unequivocally condemns and rejects Russia's illegal annexation of Ukraine's Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions. The European Council will call for Russia to immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its troops and military equipment from the entire territory of Ukraine and refrain from hybrid attacks on Ukraine. There is growing evidence of war crimes committed in Ukraine. We have also seen the continuous destruction of civilian infrastructure in the country. These are gross violations of international law. Leaders are expected to call for holding Russia to account. As you know, the European Union will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. It will continue to provide political, military, financial and humanitarian support to Ukraine. Leaders are expected to call for the speedy adoption of the remaining EUR 3 billion in micro-financial assistance for Ukraine. Ahead of the conference in Berlin on 25 October 2022, the European Council will discuss the governance and financing of reconstruction efforts. Russia's war of aggression has sparked a global food crisis, driving up world food and fertilisers prices. The EU will continue to facilitate the export of Ukrainian agricultural products via the EU solidarity alliance and global access to agricultural products and fertilizers for the countries most in need. The European Council will also discuss recent acts of sabotage against critical infrastructure, such as those against the Nord Stream pipelines. We will meet any deliberate disruption of critical infrastructure or other hybrid actions with a united and determined response and continue to strengthen our preparedness. Rising energy prices have a big economic impact on the EU. We are committed to coordinating closely our policy responses. Our priority is to protect the most vulnerable in our societies, while preserving Europe's global competitiveness and maintaining the level playing field and the integrity of the single market. Another pressing crisis is climate change. The European Council will discuss preparations for the upcoming COP 27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, and leaders are expected to stress the extreme urgency of strengthening the global response to address the climate emergency in the face of increasingly intense and frequent extreme weather events. Ahead of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal, the European Council will also call for the adoption of an ambitious, comprehensive and transformative post-2020 global biodiversity framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. In the field of external relations, leaders are expected to have a strategic discussion on China. They will also look ahead to the upcoming EU-ASEAN commemorative summit on 14 December, which will be an opportunity to further deepen the EU's strategic partnership with ASEAN. Ursula von der Leyen,
President of the Commission. – Madam President, dear Roberta, dear Minister Bek, honourable Members, yesterday we saw again Russia's targeted attacks against civilian infrastructure, and this is marking a new chapter in an already very cruel war. The international order is very clear. These are war crimes, targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure, with a clear aim to cut off men, women, children from water, electricity and heating with the winter coming – these are acts of pure terror, and we have to call it as such. This is a moment to stay the course, and we will back Ukraine for as long as it takes. And we will protect Europeans from the other war that Putin is waging – this is his war on our energy. I know that Europeans are concerned: concerned about inflation, concerned about their energy bills, concerned about the winter. The best response to Putin's gas blackmail is European solidarity and European unity. And in this spirit, the Commission agreed yesterday on a strong legislative framework to address the energy crisis. So let me outline the main points to you. The first one is as logical as important. Instead of outbidding each other, Europeans should buy gas together, very simple. So for this, we will purchase together gas at EU level. Aggregation of demand will be mandatory for at least 15% of the volumes needed to fill gas storages. And the companies involved may form a „gas purchasing consortium”. We do this because we've learned the lesson. We literally saw in August of this year, at the height of the filling season, how Member States were outbidding each other and thus driving really up the prices. So we definitely can be smarter on that one. Pooling our demand is a must. My next point is about sharing gas in Europe. We know that some Member States are more directly exposed than others to Russian gas. The situation is especially challenging for landlocked countries in central Europe. But in the end, if you look at our single market with highly integrated supply chains, a disruption in one Member State has a massive impact on all Member States. So sharing gas is absolutely critical. Member States have already, since five years, an obligation under EU law to conclude solidarity agreements with their neighbours in the region where they are located. However, if you look at what has been concluded so far, of 40 possible solidarity agreements, only six have been concluded. So this is simply not enough in times of a crisis like this one. And this is why we will put in place default rules for Member States. These rules will be binding as long as Member States do not conclude individual solidarity agreements. Energy solidarity is a fundamental principle of our Treaties, so let's bring that to life. it is very simple. Honourable Members, these three measures – pooling, saving, sharing – will have a positive impact on the prices. But of course more needs to be done. More needs to be done to address the price spikes and to address the Russian manipulation of the energy market. Just to give you two figures: compared to September 2021, if we look now at September 2022, Russia has cut 80% of its pipeline gas supplies since then. But Europe has been able to compensate all that. We have diversified towards our trusted partners, like, for example, Norway and the United States. We have increased the savings, and it is good — we have in September a saving of -15%. We have filled our storages up to 92%. So we did not give in to this blackmail. We made it. And I think we can be proud of that. We resisted – that's important. But we also see that resisting the Russian energy coercion comes at a price. European families have seen their gas bills skyrocketing. And our companies are struggling to keep up competitiveness. it is not about the competitive in the single market only – that's also important – but it is also about the competitiveness globally that our companies are fighting for. You might recall that in March we proposed to the Council the option to cap gas prices. At that time, this did not gain any traction. But today we're coming back to this. So what is the model? The current benchmark determining gas prices is TTF. TTF is only focused on pipeline gas. What we see now is that the market has really changed from a pipeline gas market to an LNG market, so we need a new a specific price benchmark for LNG. The Commission will now develop this complementary benchmark together with the European regulator, but this takes time. So in the meantime, as a stopgap measure, we will limit prices at TTF. We call this the market correction mechanism. Yesterday, we proposed guiding principles as a first step, and on this basis, we will prepare the operational mechanism in a second step. This is concerning the price cap at wholesale level. But gas also drives electricity prices up, and here the Iberian model comes into play. It really merits to be considered at EU level. There are still questions to be answered, but I want to leave no stone unturned. So let's face that, let's look at that and let's work at that. Honourable Members, we live in times of high economic uncertainty. And I am, as I said, concerned about the competitiveness of our economy, not only where the single market is concerned, but also where the global competitiveness of our economy is concerned. So all our actions have to take this into account. All our actions have to take the competitiveness of our SMEs and our industry into account. And this includes that we will introduce a standard competitiveness-check in our regulation. I think it is time to do that. In addition, we have to speed up investments all over Europe. And if I speak about investment, it is infrastructure, it is energy efficiency and it is renewables. And this brings me to REPowerEU. When we proposed REPowerEU in March, keep in mind the situation was as such: there was a huge dependency on Russian gas. At that time, we anticipated that it would take several years to replace the Russian gas. Fact is, today it took us eight months only to replace two thirds. In other words, we have massively accelerated the diversification to other suppliers of gas from abroad. But this comes at a high price. So the actual solution to maintain our competitiveness is to invest into home-grown sources of energy, especially renewables. And that has to happen in all of Europe. However, only Member States with sufficient fiscal space can undertake these critical investments. So this will inevitably unlevel the playing field of our single market. Therefore, we do not only need REPowerEU now, so we have to accelerate it, but we have to boost it. We have to increase its firepower and we will come with a proposal on that because it will give every Member State the same opportunity to prepare for the future. This is not only about energy. This is about our global competitiveness and it is about our sovereignty. Long live Europe. Manfred Weber,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, President von der Leyen, Mr Bek, on Monday morning, Russia attacked Kyiv again with nearly 30 drones, killing innocents, including a pregnant woman. This happened only days after Putin said there would be no more massive strikes on Ukraine. Not a day goes by without terrible news and lies from Putin and his regime. Having all victims in mind, we are not getting tired in saying Putin is a war criminal, Putin must lose, and Europe will never stop supporting Ukraine. Never. This message unites us. We know how to answer the military war against Ukraine and the Ukraine soldiers are the real heroes of today. We have an answer to the military challenge, but let's be honest, we don't have currently a common understanding how to answer the energy war against the European Union. This week's European Council cannot anymore escape. We had a lost summer, a Prague summit without conclusions, a lot of talks. Now we need solutions and the list of challenges is obviously long. Our Commission President presented them. We have wasted already enough time. And after a summer of missed opportunities, we need now a winter of solutions, a winter of actions, and we need, first of all, a winter of solidarity. And we, the EPP, we are asking for an ambitious approach. Energy was one of the founding elements of the European Union. Just think about the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. For our founding fathers, De Gasperi, Schuman and Adenauer, it was crystal clear: Europe needs energy and only together we can make it. Is it easy? Was it easy for Adenauer and De Gasperi to combine the coal industry? Not at all. It was historic what they did. And today we are occupied by the details of the electricity market architecture. The French President tells us a gas connection to Spain is not necessary. And the German Chancellor today is totally happy that he prolonged the work of one nuclear power plant for another three months. Wow. Great result of the energy planning there. We risk to fail in the eyes of history, dear friends. Europe has much energy, if we create a real energy union, and that's why my group is supporting the proposals from the European Commission. And I want to ask the European socialists and greens to help us, especially in Berlin. Remember the last big crisis? It was about COVID. Chancellor Merkel, EPP, made the proposal of a recovery plan together with other friends. She made the proposal together with the Commission to make a European procurement on vaccines. She did it the European way. And now, today, Chancellor Scholz and the German Government are spending EUR 200 billion without even asking and consulting the European Commission and the neighbours about the impact of this. Is this the European way? I would call it a national ego trip, if I see the results of this. Where is the European spirit of the Social Democrats and the Greens in Germany? We need a European answer. That is what we need. Europe needs more the Merkel approach and less the Scholz approach, if I may say it as an EPP speaker, more EPP and less socialists. And, dear colleagues, let me also mention another undiscussed crisis in front of us. Europe again is challenged by migration. The Balkan route is open again. Until September 2022, Frontex averted more than 200 000 illegal entries in the territory of the European Union, half of them on the Western Balkan route. This is the highest figure since 2016 and we all know what happened in 2015 and 16. We must strengthen Frontex. Their officers on the ground must know that we count on them, we support them. And we have to deliver on the legislative files. The Czech Presidency – imagine for a second – the Czech Presidency, after years of waiting for the Council, is now ready to start the trilogue. Council is ready for the trilogue on Eurodac, on other files on the legislative train, and we as Parliament are not capable to deliver for the moment, due to, I must say, the ideological behaviour of some parts of this House, that we are not ready to even agree on very technical files like Eurodac. So, dear friends, if you want to stop populism, then we have to give a legislative answer on migration and it is now the time to do so. And finally, a third point. Sometimes the European level is, I have to say this, too far away from our citizens. When we speak with SMEs currently, when we speak with our farmers, they have really a lot of pressure. Our farmers should produce food, should deliver food even on a global level. Next year we will have even more problems. After the energy crisis, we will arrive at a food crisis and the Commission, under the lead of Frans Timmermans, is now presenting new legislation, for example, on pesticides. And the impact assessment tells us that this will lead to 20% less food production in Europe. That is what the impact assessment tells us, which means that we have to import more food from Africa, from South America, at the cost of the most vulnerable. Shall we remind everyone that we are in wartime? Since 24 February, something happens. Some Commissioners behaving as nothing has happened. The machinery is simply continuing their work. And as EPP, we are asking really urgently for a legislative emergency brake for additional burdens for our farmers and for our SMEs. Madam President, it is good that you postponed, for example, in the Commission work programme, the idea of a REACH revision. That is a good thing. We asked for this and now it is part of the Commission work programme. But we as EPP, we think that is not enough. The Commission must understand that we are risking to lose our industry. We are in front of a recession and that's why it's great that you expressed today that we have to care about competitiveness, we have to create jobs again in the European Union. Commission must act now. We must together act now. So let's go to Brussels today and tomorrow and let's deliver binding energy solidarity, real energy market in Europe, and a moratorium for additional burden. Iratxe García Pérez,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, esta semana nos hemos vuelto a despertar horrorizados tras la incesante tormenta de misiles rusos que golpearon varias ciudades en Ucrania: civiles inocentes asesinados en el centro de Kiev, misiles impactando en zonas infantiles, terror y sufrimiento. Ese es el verdadero rostro de la crueldad y el ensañamiento de Putin. Esta es su nueva estrategia de terror a la que no debemos acostumbrarnos. Estimados colegas, esta semana el Consejo Europeo deberá abordar muchas de las consecuencias y retos de esta guerra, que es también una ofensiva contra Europa. Una ofensiva chantajista que busca dividir a la ciudadanía, que quiere exasperarnos, amenazar a nuestra industria y sembrar el descontento social. La Unión Europea necesita una respuesta contundente, con medidas sociales reforzadas y un nuevo instrumento que proteja a los sectores más vulnerables, que les ayude a afrontar la alta inflación y el aumento del coste de la vida. Por eso es necesario, además, que la Unión implemente un mecanismo de solidaridad para redistribuir los exorbitantes e injustos beneficios de las compañías energéticas y atajar esa inaceptable situación de especulación. Pero esto no será suficiente si no abordamos los precios energéticos o el aprovisionamiento de energía, porque para ganar esta guerra tenemos que progresar en la autonomía energética. Las medidas que ayer presentó la Comisión son positivas, pero poco ambiciosas. En primer lugar, hay que actuar rápidamente para desacoplar el precio del gas de la electricidad. La propia presidenta von der Leyen ha hablado de la excepción ibérica, que puede ser extendida al conjunto de la Unión, pero debemos hacerlo de forma inmediata. En segundo lugar, hay que avanzar con determinación en topar los precios del gas importado. La propuesta presentada es insuficiente en el tiempo, tres meses, e imprecisa en sus criterios. En tercer lugar, hay que establecer un mecanismo conjunto para la compra de energía más económica y el Parlamento Europeo ha de estar en esa negociación. No cabe la interpretación restrictiva del artículo 122, colegas. Es inaceptable. El Parlamento tiene que estar en las negociaciones y pedimos a la Comisión que rectifique. Si lo hicimos con las vacunas de la COVID-19, ¿por qué no vamos a hacerlo ahora? Claro que podemos. Miren, esta semana los líderes de Europa no van a tener otra opción que acordar cómo salir adelante. No podemos hacer un copia y pega de los consejos de marzo y de junio. Necesitamos poner en marcha medidas contundentes y con un calendario inmediato. Por último, esta será la última reunión en la que Italia estará representada por Mario Draghi. Las razones las conocemos, sobre todo las conoce el Partido Popular Europeo. El señor Weber y el señor Berlusconi repiten que Forza Italia será la garantía de un gobierno proeuropeo, atlantista y que defienda los valores de la Unión. Déjenme que lo cuestione. Forza Italia ha pasado de ser el pilar de la centroderecha en Italia a la muleta del posfascismo. Y déjenme que lo cuestione a tenor de las nuevas mayorías. Señor Weber, la presidencia del Senado la ostenta Ignazio Benito La Russa, un nostálgico del „ventennio fascista”. Él es ahora la segunda autoridad del Estado. La presidencia de la Cámara de Diputados la ostenta el antiabortista pro Putin, Lorenzo Fontana, euroescéptico, homófobo y bien conocido en esta Cámara. Él es ahora la tercera autoridad del Estado. Habla de la nostalgia de los tiempos de Merkel, Señor Weber. En los tiempos de Merkel no había alianzas con la extrema derecha. Déjenme que cuestione lo que el Partido Popular dice que va a garantizar. El gran desafío de este momento es la unidad en Europa. Señor Weber, vuelvo a tenderle la mano. Vuelva al camino que construimos las fuerzas políticas proeuropeas. Stéphane Séjourné,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Présidente de la Commission, Monsieur le Ministre, nous serons forts à l'extérieur de nos frontières si nous sommes solides à l'intérieur de nos frontières. Le Conseil doit montrer la même détermination sur les sujets intérieurs qu'il met dans la mue géopolitique de l'Union européenne. Notre énergie doit être totale pour mettre en place des politiques pour assurer la prospérité, pour que les factures baissent, pour que nos petites entreprises survivent. Solidarité et unité doivent être, pour mon groupe, le maître-mot et la base de ce sommet européen. Serons-nous à la hauteur de ces deux dernières années ou allons-nous reproduire les hésitations et les querelles des années 2010 face à la crise des dettes souveraines et à la crise migratoire? Je ne veux pas polémiquer non plus avec M. Weber, mais dans ces années 2010, c'est le PPE qui était aux commandes, et l'Union européenne n'a pas brillé par la réponse qu'elle a pu apporter, elle n'a pas agi vite et fort dans les dernières crises. Donc plus de PPE, Monsieur Weber, je ne pense pas que ce soit souhaitable aujourd'hui, au vu des dernières crises que nous avons connues dans les années 2010. Alors agirons-nous vite et fort, justement, ou trop peu et trop tard? Si nous agissons vite et fort, nous répondrons à l'angoisse d'un déclassement généralisé par l'emploi et la hausse du pouvoir d'achat. Si nous agissons vite et fort, nous répondrons par la hausse du pouvoir d'achat, et je pense que nos populations soutiendront de plus en plus nos efforts pour l'Ukraine. Malgré les différends, voire les divisions que nous avons quelquefois au Conseil sur certains sujets, nous savons aussi que les Vingt-sept peuvent être efficaces. Ce qui a été possible sur la taxe sur les superprofits, par exemple, doit être possible sur la crise énergétique et les réponses qui y sont apportées. Ce Parlement, Madame la Présidente, vous le savez, comme à son habitude, a été assez clair sur les points qui pouvaient faire l'objet d'un consensus européen lors de ses dernières résolutions. Il y a une majorité pour un bouclier tarifaire européen, tel que Renew l'a proposé il y a maintenant quelques mois. Nous avons d'ailleurs identifié un certain nombre de solutions à la fois structurelles et conjoncturelles. Les solutions conjoncturelles, nous les connaissons: le plafonnement du prix du gaz; un nouveau fonds de solidarité jusqu'à la fin de l'hiver 2024. Ce nouveau fonds de solidarité doit permettre d'aider les États qui sont incapables aujourd'hui de faire baisser les factures; des achats conjoints d'énergie – merci d'ailleurs pour vos propos à cette tribune. On l'a vu, cela a marché avec les vaccins, cela doit marcher avec le fonds, qui doit nous permettre, justement, l'achat de gaz en commun. Et j'espère, Madame la Présidente, que dans les prochaines semaines, vous serez en route pour Oslo pour négocier, au nom des Vingt-sept, avec nos amis Norvégiens. Voilà, d'un point de vue conjoncturel, comment nous devons faire baisser les prix, comment nous devons aider nos concitoyens et nos entreprises à payer leurs factures. D'autre part, nous avons également des solutions structurelles: le découplage des prix de l'électricité et du gaz. C'est une aberration aujourd'hui que les prix de l'électricité décarbonée qu'on produit en Europe dépendent du prix du gaz fossile, qu'on importe via des pays extérieurs. S'il y a une majorité dans cet hémicycle, en tout cas, il y a probablement un chemin au Conseil. Nos demandes sont celles de nos entreprises, des économistes, de la société civile. Mon groupe défend également un véritable plan européen d'investissement, en particulier dans les infrastructures électriques. Nous avons proposé un fonds de souveraineté. Il doit nous permettre de gagner notre indépendance, que ce soit sur le plan alimentaire, industriel ou énergétique. Je mets en garde toutefois: vingt-sept politiques nationales d'investissement, c'est bien, mais une politique européenne d'investissement ambitieuse, c'est mieux. Et ceux qui investissent massivement au niveau national et qui, en même temps, s'opposent à l'investissement européen mettent en danger la réponse européenne que nous devons mener. Cela demandera naturellement – et vous le savez – que le cadre financier pluriannuel, notre budget européen, soit adapté et réadapté aux objectifs partagés de souveraineté et d'autonomie stratégique. En tout cas, Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Ministre, répondre aux aspirations populaires, voire les dépasser en période de crise, nous savons que l'Europe sait faire, nous savons que l'Europe peut faire. Alors le maître-mot pour mon groupe est très clair: maintenant, c'est aux Vingt-sept de faire. Terry Reintke,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Madam Commission President, Mr Minister, dear colleagues, I was born in 1987, two years before the fall of the Berlin Wall. My childhood and my youth were marked by an expansion of freedoms. Walls and borders fell, in 2004 we celebrated the eastern enlargement of the European Union. And over the last three decades, we strengthened the rights and freedoms of hundreds of millions of citizens through EU law. I grew up with a sense of self-evidence that everybody can clearly see that democracy obviously is the best form of government, that through education, public discourse and finding compromise, we will build stronger, more resilient and more equal democratic societies, and that this would work almost automatically. And I must admit, this sense of self-evidence is gone. Latest, on 24 February this year: everyone could clearly see there is a brutal, a violent and a powerful authoritarian backlash ongoing, a backlash against democracy, against freedom and against equality. Now you could argue we have to stand with Ukraine in this brutal aggression for the sake of the brave Ukrainian people, and we certainly do. But it goes far beyond this. We have to stand with Ukraine also for our own sake, for our own freedom and our own democracy, because we have seen in the past weeks and months, light as day, that our democracies are not untouchable. And Vladimir Putin very well knows this, this is why he's funding the far-right. This is why he is using energy as a weapon against us. And this is why he's using every single opportunity to try to divide us. And it is true that his initial strategy of dividing Europe, the West and all democratic countries who believe in a rules-based world order did not succeed. We reacted unitedly. We provided military aid to Ukraine. We adopted sanctions. We, finally, took very much needed measures to end our toxic dependence on Russian energy imports. But, colleagues, politics is not a sprint; politics is a marathon. And we all know Putin's game plan right now: doing whatever it takes to spread fear to destabilise our democracies in Ukraine with state terrorism, drone and missile strikes on cities and in the rest of Europe by trying to fuel the fear of energy shortages and an explosion of prices. And as it looks also for this, he is using whatever means necessary, whatever means necessary to create social hardships and divisions in our societies. And, Madam Commission President, a dynamic price cap on gas will not be enough to counter these injustices. We will need a bold and determined Commission also on tax and social issues, not to let the most vulnerable in our societies pay the price for this. But he will also use whatever means necessary, threatening a global famine which will have to be prevented. But if you believe that food sovereignty can be achieved by agro-industries dependent on energy-intensive fertilisers or a global food system where massive amounts of crops are simply wasted in intensive livestock farming, you are wrong. We have to build a truly ecological, sustainable agricultural system that is also part of our commitment to the Paris goals. And for all of this, and I'm very happy that we seem to have large unity, we will need a new common effort as Europeans. Just as with Next Generation EU, we will need to invest together a European solidarity fund with common balance to invest in through the renovation wave and the expansion of renewables, to counter Putin's escalation strategy, to become less dependent on autocratic regimes for our energy supply. And I'm not only talking about Russia here, because also Azerbaijan is not a democracy, to fund the necessary measures to tackle climate change and to protect our citizens from economic and social hits because social equality is essential for democracy. Colleagues, my nephew was born in 2021, I want us to fight for a Europe in which his childhood and his youth will again be marked by an expansion of freedom, by more rights and a strengthening of democracy. I'm standing in front of you today as the newly elected Co-Chair of the Greens/EFA Group here in the Parliament but I want to appeal to all democrats in this House. The next months are not going to be easy, we will all have to make difficult choices. But let us work together as pro-European democrats and not be taken hostage or collaborate with the far-right. And especially to you, Mr Weber, because at the end of the day, what this is going to mean is that Vladimir Putin will win. He will win the division and weakness of a far-right in Europe instead of the stability and the strength of pro-European democracy. So let us work together, stand up to Vladimir Putin and draw a strong European Union for strong democracy. Marco Zanni,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, signora Presidente von der Leyen, signor rappresentante del Consiglio, onorevoli colleghi, lasciatemi prima fare una riflessione. Sentendo parlare alcuni dei colleghi prima, mi stavo domandando cosa possa pensare sull'unità europea chi oggi ha visto l'inizio di questo dibattito. Ne parliamo tanto, ma poi siamo i primi che, per motivi futili e ingiustificati, danno un'immagine di un'Europa divisa. Pensateci quando fate certi attacchi e abbiate più rispetto, voi che vi erigete a paladini della democrazia, per chi ha un'idea diversa, per chi democraticamente ha scelto un governo. Gli italiani sono benissimo in grado di scegliere per se stessi, smettetela. Se fossi nella leadership socialista, piuttosto, mi preoccuperei del fatto che il primo leader che andrà a rendere omaggio al dittatore cinese sarà proprio un leader socialista, il cancelliere tedesco Scholz. Quindi, riflettete su questo prima di dare lezioni di democraticità agli altri. Per quanto riguarda il prossimo Consiglio e il pacchetto che la Commissione europea ha annunciato, prima di analizzare questo, lasciatemi però un momento per ricordare, per fare una preghiera per i cittadini ucraini che, di nuovo, di fronte a un attacco criminale, a un attacco ingiustificato, sono periti. Dobbiamo continuare a garantire il nostro sostegno per far sì che questa guerra finisca il prima possibile e finisca con un'Ucraina vincente. Sul pacchetto, è ancora un pacchetto ovviamente in fieri, aspettiamo poi che gli Stati membri diano il loro semaforo verde, però mi permetta, Presidente von der Leyen, che questo pacchetto non è neanche lontanamente sufficiente e cerco di spiegarle i motivi per cui non lo consideriamo sufficiente. Il primo motivo è che ci pare addirittura di aver fatto qualche passo indietro rispetto a quello che Lei due settimane fa era venuta qui in Aula ad annunciarci. È un pacchetto che, è vero, contiene una proposta sul price cap – l'ha ricordato Lei, ne parliamo da marzo e oggi finalmente c'è qualcosa sul tavolo – ma è un price cap che, per come è stato strutturato, difficilmente verrà messo in atto, ammesso che ci sia poi consenso nel Consiglio e tra gli Stati membri per portarlo avanti. La solidarietà, che è un elemento molto importante, sarà un elemento molto importante non solo per affrontare l'inverno, ma per affrontare il prossimo anno che sarà forse ancora più difficile. È una solidarietà anche negli acquisti, che è importante, ma va giustamente a tutelare i piccoli Stati che, da soli, in un mercato competitivo, non ce la potrebbero fare, ma poco potrà fare per mettere in sicurezza gli acquisti, in un mercato che nel 2023 sarà ancora più competitivo e la competizione non sarà solo al nostro interno, ma sarà soprattutto con i buyer asiatici. E poi, la tutela della competitività delle nostre imprese, questo è un tema enorme, un tema che riguarda anche la politica industriale. E poi, chiudo con due punti. Il primo: la parte rilevante di questo pacchetto sono il riutilizzo dei fondi di coesione 2014-2020. Sono 40 miliardi, quindi poco rispetto alla dimensione del problema, però sono la parte più rilevante. Credo che un ragionamento anche sul bilancio 2021-2027 la Commissione lo debba fare. Oggi c'è un'emergenza. È vero che il bilancio europeo è strutturato in maniera diversa, ma di fronte all'emergenza anche con il bilancio 2021-2027 dobbiamo dare una risposta. E poi, chiudo con un punto: quello che davvero possiamo fare e l'Unione europea può fare è sedersi con i partner, con gli alleati della NATO, che oggi stanno guadagnando sulla pelle degli europei, e parlare chiaramente. Stati Uniti, Canada, Norvegia oggi stanno guadagnando sei/sette volte tanto i prezzi normali sul gas che ci mandano. Credo che se l'Unione europea vuole fare qualcosa di concreto, si debba sedere e parlare chiaro con tutti i partner, dobbiamo fare un accordo per bloccare il prezzo del gas che ci mandate, altrimenti l'Unione europea non sarà più in grado di garantire lo stesso sostegno all'Ucraina che abbiamo garantito fino adesso. Beata Szydło,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowna Pani Komisarz! Pani Przewodnicząca Komisji! Szanowni Państwo! Pani przewodnicząca von der Leyen mówiła przed momentem o solidarności i o jedności, której potrzebujemy w tej chwili, aby przezwyciężyć ten wielki kryzys, przed którym stoimy wszyscy i o którym rozmawiamy już tak bardzo długo. Tygodnie, miesiące mijają, a my ciągle jesteśmy w tym samym miejscu. Ciągle są plany i ciągle słyszymy słowa właśnie o solidarności i jedności. Potrzebujemy solidarności i jedności, ale, Szanowni Państwo, pytanie jest takie: na czym ona ma polegać? Czy będzie solidarność i jedność w Europie, w Unii Europejskiej, jeżeli będą podważane demokratyczne wybory i decyzje, które obywatele podejmują w swoich państwach europejskich? Zarówno decyzje wyborcze, jak i potem decyzje demokratycznie wybranych rządów? Podważane tylko dlatego, że nie podobają się większości, która tutaj siedzi dzisiaj, mówi o potrzebie zmiany polityk, energetycznej polityki między innymi, uchronieniu obywateli Europy przed kryzysem. I bardzo często i lewa, i środkowa strona tej sali zapomina, że ta polityka i to życie w tej chwili w Europie wygląda między innymi dlatego tak, że takie, a nie inne decyzje zapadały tutaj, na tej sali. Po raz kolejny trzeba przypomnieć Nord Stream 2, chociażby ten projekt. Trzeba często podejmować ważne, odważne decyzje i umieć sprzeciwić się większości, kiedy to jest potrzebne i kiedy to ma służyć obywatelom Europy. Trzeba czasami umieć powiedzieć weto po to, żeby wzbudzić refleksję wśród większości. Ja mam nadzieję, że Rada Europejska wreszcie podejmie odważne decyzje na tym najbliższym szczycie, bo tego potrzebują Europejczycy. Tego potrzebujemy my wszyscy, żeby przetrwać, żeby pokonać Putina i rozwiązać wreszcie ten kryzys. Europejczycy potrzebują dzisiaj wsparcia. Nie można prowadzić polityki klimatycznej kosztem jakiejkolwiek grupy społecznej. Musimy wreszcie racjonalnie zacząć podchodzić do spraw klimatycznych i energetycznych. Jest jedna rzecz, którą możemy zrobić bardzo szybko, i to pomoże całej Europie. Trzeba wreszcie zawiesić patologiczny system ETS. O tym mówi między innymi polski rząd i myślę, że na tyle odwagi wreszcie wystarczy przywódcom europejskim na najbliższym szczycie. Martin Schirdewan,
im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin! Die Probleme, über die wir hier reden, sind ja seit vielen Monaten die gleichen. Die Menschen ächzen unter den explodierenden Energie- und Nahrungsmittelpreisen. Doch anstatt schnelle Abhilfe zu schaffen, streiten sich fatalerweise die Regierungschefs im Rat seit Monaten, und auch die Kommission glänzte bislang eher durch zögerliches Handeln und unzureichende Vorschläge. Das ist vor allem fatal für diejenigen Menschen, die nicht wissen, wie sie ihre Rechnungen bezahlen sollen. Das ist fatal für kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen, die unter den hohen Kosten leiden und nicht wissen, wie sie ihre Produktion aufrechterhalten sollen, und denen die Insolvenz droht. Das ist auch fatal für das Handwerk, für die Bäckerei, für die Tischlerin im Kiez, weil die Preise für Getreide und Holz sich in den letzten Monaten vervielfacht haben, und die Leute wissen einfach nicht mehr, wie sie ihre Betriebe durch die Krise bringen sollen. Die Regierungschefs müssen jetzt endlich in die Pötte kommen und den Mut finden, das Energiemarktversagen mit beherzter Politik in den Griff zu kriegen. Ja, Frau von der Leyen, 15 Prozent gemeinsamer Gaseinkauf, das – finde ich – ist ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung. Aber die Frage ist dann doch ernsthaft: Warum denn nicht 100 Prozent? Warum denn nicht einen gemeinsamen Einkauf, der die Speicher wirklich füllt? Warum kein europäischer Gaspreisdeckel, der private Haushalte, das Handwerk und die kleinen und mittelständischen Unternehmen mit einem günstigen Grundkontingent versorgt und schützt? Für eine gerechte Verteilung der Krisenlasten müssen endlich die Übergewinne der Konzerne und die Vermögen der Superreichen herangezogen werden. Geschätzter Herr Kollege Weber, die fünf reichsten Familien in Deutschland verfügen über das gleiche Vermögen wie die untere Hälfte der Bevölkerung. Es herrscht eine Ungleichheit wie zu Kaiser Wilhelms Zeiten. Das sind doch eindeutig Symptome einer an dieser Stelle kranken Gesellschaft. Nein, wir brauchen nicht weniger, wir brauchen mehr Sozialismus, und wir brauchen definitiv weniger Marktideologie. Um die Gesellschaft wieder zu heilen, müssen wir jetzt umsteuern in Richtung soziale Gerechtigkeit und Klimaschutz. Tun wir das nicht, werden am Ende autoritäre Kräfte Europa in einen neuen Faschismus stürzen. Europäische Solidarität ist dagegen der Schlüssel. Wir brauchen jetzt einen europäischen Kraftakt, der alle angeschlagenen Staaten durch die Krise bringt. Wir brauchen die gezielte Unterstützung von Industrie, von kleinen und mittelständischen Unternehmen und von Handwerksbetrieben. Wir brauchen auch die Neuauflage des Kurzarbeitsprogramms SURE, um Arbeitsplätze in der Energiekrise dauerhaft zu sichern. Wir brauchen jetzt Investitionen in die Zukunft, um das Klima zu schützen und unsere Gesellschaft schnellstens aus der Abhängigkeit von fossilen Energieträgern zu befreien. Das ist auch eine der Maßnahmen im Übrigen, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, um Putins fürchterlichem Angriffskrieg die Luft ausgehen zu lassen und ihn an den Verhandlungstisch zu zwingen, nämlich um ihm klar zu machen, dass es auf die Erpressung am Gashahn eine klare, eine starke politische Antwort gibt, die heißt: Wir brauchen dein Gas nicht, weil wir in die Zukunft und in das Klima investieren. Wir fordern ein unverzügliches Ende des russischen Angriffskriegs und den Abzug der russischen Truppen aus der Ukraine. Wir müssen raus aus der Eskalationsspirale. Die Vereinten Nationen müssen in die Lage versetzt werden, einen dauerhaften Frieden zu vermitteln. Die europäische Außenpolitik scheidet in dieser Frage leider als Vermittler aus, weil in Brüssel immer nur an neuen Sanktionspaketen und Waffenlieferungen gearbeitet wird, aber nie an einem Friedensplan. Frau von der Leyen, Sie sind aber nicht mehr die deutsche Verteidigungsministerin, Sie sind die Präsidentin der Europäischen Kommission. Bitte konzentrieren Sie sich wieder auf Diplomatie, um diesen Kontinent in eine sichere Zukunft zu führen. Viktor Uspaskich (NI). – Gerbiama pirmininke, Komisijos pirmininke, kolegos, Europa išgyvena precedento neturinčią energetikos krizę. Dvidešimt pirmajame amžiuje energetikos svarbą galima prilyginti orui, nes visi žmogaus gyvenimo aspektai yra kontroliuojami energetikos. Todėl nereikia dejuoti, o imtis kuo skubiau reikia priemonių. Todėl iš karto einu prie pasiūlymų. Gerbiamieji, energetikos tiekimas yra lengvai monopolizuojamas. Kai kurių energetikos kompanijų pelnai išauga ne procentais, o kartais. Absurdiškai atrodo ir socialiai neteisinga, kai energetikos kainos, lyginant su dabartiniu laiku, buvo ganėtinai žemos, žalioji energetika buvo subsidijuojama mokesčių mokėtojų pinigais, o dabar tie patys mokesčių mokėtojai turi jiems krauti pelnus, mokant dvigubai ar net trigubai daugiau už savikainą. Taip pat, mes turime kalbėti apie realų solidarumą tarp Europos Sąjungos šalių ir net Amerikos. Tai yra energijos šaltinių, tokių kaip anglies, dujų, naftos ir jos produktų išgavimo savikaina nepabrango. Saulės spinduliai ar vėjas nepabrango, todėl neturi būti pardavinėjami kelis kartus brangiau. Raginu Europos Komisiją ir Tarybą sukurti reglamentą, pagal kurį su energetika susijusių kompanijų veikla būtų griežtai reglamentuojama ir jų pelnai nebūtų viršyti 15 ar 20 procentų. Taip pat turi būti peržiūrėtos liberalizavimo sąlygos, nes akivaizdu kuriose afiliuotose kompanijose vykdomi fiučeriniai užpirkimai ir po to nepagrįstai keliamos kainos. Esther de Lange (PPE). – Voorzitter, Poetins oorlog speelt zich af op verschillende fronten. De meest onmenselijke natuurlijk in Oekraïne zelf, maar ook in onze nationale parlementen, waar zijn useful idiots – die paar, dat handjevol parlementariërs – het gif van Poetin spuiten. Daarnaast op onze energiemarkt, waar gas wordt ingezet als een wapen. Op het moment dat de markt niet meer functioneert, moet de overheid ingrijpen. De EU – met name de Commissie – heeft hiertoe al meerdere instrumenten op tafel gelegd, zoals het afromen van de overwinsten van energiebedrijven. Daaruit wordt in Nederland de steun aan het energie-intensieve mkb, zoals de bakkers, betaald. Nu ligt er een nieuw pakket voor, gericht op het gezamenlijk inkopen van gas, het aanpakken van prijspieken en het organiseren van onderlinge solidariteit in noodgevallen. Bij dat laatste mis ik nog één element. Bij solidariteit hoort ook verantwoordelijkheid. Verantwoordelijkheid om al het mogelijke te doen om je eigen energieproductie op peil te houden. In dat kader is het Duitse besluit om de drie kerncentrales iets langer open te houden natuurlijk te verwelkomen. Maar dit zal te kort zijn, want in april 2023 zitten wij net in de misschien nog wel moeilijkere fase waarin de gasvoorraden voor 2023/2024 moeten worden gevuld. We weten dat dat misschien nog wel moeilijker zal zijn dan de huidige opdracht. Daarom zeg ik dus: hou die eigen energieopwekking nog maar wat langer open en zorg ervoor dat je je verantwoordelijkheid neemt voordat je solidariteit van anderen eist. Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Fru talman! Kommissionen, rådet! Demokrati, fred och frihet – det är tre självklara värden för vårt EU. Sedan Ryssland inledde sitt brutala krig mot Ukraina, har vår uppgift att försvara dessa värden blivit viktigare än någonsin. Vi befinner oss i det allvarligaste säkerhetsläget på mycket, mycket lång tid, och det krävs att vi fortsätter med kraftfulla sanktioner mot Rysslands oacceptabla agerande och att vi fullt ut stöder Ukraina i både ord och handling. Samtidigt som vi också måste hantera den pågående energikrisen, måste vi klara av att tänka långsiktigt. Demokrati, fred och säkerhet, liksom jämlikhet, jämställdhet och en hållbar utveckling för kommande generationer – det är mål och värden som håller oss samman och som EU aldrig, aldrig någonsin får tumma på, varken i akuta kriser eller i vårt långsiktiga arbete för framtiden. Nicola Beer (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kollegen! Putin eskaliert die Gewalt. Wir sind täglich Zeugen eines perfiden Drohnenkriegs, gegen Frauen, Kinder, Alte – kurz: gegen das Leben. Das macht uns noch entschlossener in der Unterstützung der Ukraine. Genauso entschlossen müssen wir sein bei unserer eigenen Widerstandsfähigkeit und beim Schutz unserer Bevölkerung. Der gemeinsame Einkauf von Gas – naheliegend, um Preise zu drücken, zu lange diskutiert – muss endlich umgesetzt werden. Er ist ein wichtiger Baustein europäischer Stärke. Nur: 15 % sind viel zu wenig, das wäre allenfalls eine energiepolitische Gymnastikübung, dafür ist keine Zeit. Wir brauchen sofort einen schlagkräftigen Einkauf, weit über 50 %. Damit wir Putin an die Wand spielen, heißt es: nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen. Klotzen heißt aber nicht, Preise künstlich selbst zu setzen. Dann wird das Gas schlicht woanders als in Europa verkauft. Diesen Vorschlag dürfen die Staats- und Regierungschefs morgen getrost ignorieren – er schadet, statt zu helfen. Echte Entlastung schaffen wir, wenn wir den Markt erhalten, ohne den Druck an Menschen und Unternehmen weiterzugeben. Also, Nein zu einem Brüsseler Gaspreisdeckel und Ja zu einer befristeten Gaspreisbremse. Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, for a growing number of Europeans, making ends meet is becoming a real headache. It is no longer simply paying skyrocketing energy bills, it is also dealing with a shopping cart, with climbing food prices and facing mortgage repayments as rates soar. Putin now has to use energy as a weapon against our economy, and we should have been prepared for that. But we weren't, we chose to be shackled to Putin's gas and at the next European Council you will again have to discuss how to deal with the ongoing energy crisis. But beyond discussions, it's time to take decisions. Time passes, social concern grows and winter is approaching. Yes, we will need to reduce demand while ensuring security of supply, but we will also have to take courageous decisions to contain energy prices. Joint purchases won't be enough. We need to both cap gas prices for a longer time and decouple them from electricity prices. We need to impose windfall taxes on the energy companies, and all this without reneging on our climate goals, whether for 2030 or 2050. We have to stay true to our commitments: phasing out fossil fuels – not just Russian ones – and speeding up renewables. And finally, if each Member State does its own thing, if only the states with the greatest fiscal margin can afford to implement powerful social shields, then we will deepen again territorial inequalities. We need coherent and coordinated action at EU level. We need solidarity and we need the European Commission to take the lead. Yesterday's proposals are welcome, but we will need to show much more determination. VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY Vizepräsidentin Jaak Madison (ID). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, first of all, I agree, of course, most of you were saying that we have to help Ukraine, Russia has to lose, there's no clue. You're absolutely right. Also to comment, some socialist friends who are blaming about the elections in Italy, I have to say that they are a free democracy also in Italy and the people can choose whoever they want to, like it or not. And democracy can be like all different ways. They can choose from the right wing, from the left wing, and it can't be controlled, that it is a right democracy only if the socialists are winning. And also for the good colleague from Germany, I have to remind that, unfortunately, Greens were together in the government in Germany with socialists, and that was your political choice to depend more and more on Russian gas. And that's the result now why we are in the problem. That's your choice. You were together on the 20s, together with the socialists, also with Gerhard Schröder in the government, and now we know that he was a Russian puppet. So don't blame our far right here, because, you know, I am also for you far right, but I'm the most anti-Russian guy also, here in this House. I'm conservative, I'm normal conservative, but you're also like the left wing. I don't like the left wing. I like normal conservative values, and I'm very different from you, but about the Russia policy, I am the most anti-Russian guy here, just to answer for you. But about now the crisis, what we will see in this winter, the problem is that we can't win two wars at the same time – the war against Russia and a war against so-called climate change. Because the plans now from the Commission, what it is like, just to hope for the renewable energy, it means that for the sun and wind, the problem is that it will not work in the short term, probably also not in the long term. So the problem is that we really need to support the nuclear energy. We really need to support like the normal energy technologies that we have, that we have used, to secure our own companies, our own people in Europe for this winter or for the next winters. That's the only solution for how to save our economy in Europe and how to win Russia. Roberts Zīle (ECR). – Priekšsēdētājas kundze! Ministra kungs! Komisāra kungs! Šis ir laiks, kad Eiropadomei jāpieņem īstermiņa risinājumi ļoti strauji, ar lēmumiem. Un, ja nebūs šie īstermiņa risinājumi, tad nav ļoti liela jēga sagaidīt ilgtermiņa sasniedzamos mērķus un tāpēc tikai kā piemērus divus papildu uzdevumus Eiropadomes dienas kārtībā. Ja ir doma paredzēt stingru atbildi Krievijai, ja viņi lietos ķīmiskos ieročus vai atomieročus Ukrainā, tikpat stingrai atbildei jābūt jau tagad, jo tas, ko Krievija dara, iznīcinot Ukrainas infrastruktūru, faktiski ir iespējams, ar traģiskākām sekām, nekā pat, ja tā lietotu šos nekonvenciālos ieročus. Tāpēc atbildei jābūt ārkārtīgi stingrai jau tagad Padomes līmenī. Un otrs piemērs par speciālo tribunālu Krievijas noziegumiem Ukrainā. Ja tāds nebūs, tad arī pat tad, ja Ukraina atspiedīs Krieviju atpakaļ savās teritorijās, kas ir okupētas, tad tas būs nevis miers, bet iesaldēts karš. Bez šī speciālā tribunāla. Un par energopolitiku Komisija daudz ko ir izstrādājusi, un Padomei ir jāpieņem arī šie lēmumi. Lai varbūt viņi nav pilnīgi, bet, ja tie netiek pieņemti, tad nav jēgas runāt par Eiropas nākotnes konventu vai tamlīdzīgām tēmām, jo tam nav nozīmes, ja nevar pieņemt energopolitikas īstermiņa lēmumus. Idoia Villanueva Ruiz (The Left). – Señora presidenta, tras ocho meses de guerra, los efectos del conflicto se dejan sentir en todo el mundo: subidas desbocadas de los precios de la energía y de los alimentos. Hoy repetimos que la mejor solución para poner freno a la inflación es la apuesta decidida por la paz y por nuestra soberanía energética y alimentaria. El Consejo debe impulsar lo que es ya consenso: poner un tope a todo el gas, también al importado de Arabia Saudí o Estados Unidos, acabar con los beneficios caídos del cielo, reformar el mercado energético y acelerar el abandono de los combustibles fósiles. „Esta guerra se ganará en el campo de batalla. Les aniquilaremos”. Ayer me preguntaron si las declaraciones de Borrell son a título personal o son en nombre de la Comisión, y no supe qué responder. Díganmelo ustedes. Si son solo en boca del jefe de la diplomacia europea, debería de irse inmediatamente. Y, si son en nombre de toda la Comisión, ¿qué están haciendo? ¿A dónde nos lleva esto? Dejen de jugar a los señores de la guerra. Sean firmes, pero intensifiquen la labor diplomática. Llamen al alto el fuego, impulsen una mesa de negociación que ponga fin a un conflicto que está causando miles de muertes, millones de personas desplazadas y que está agravando el sufrimiento de tantas personas que no van a poder pagar la factura de la luz. De un lado al otro de Europa, el sufrimiento puede volverse insoportable. ¿A qué están esperando? Márton Gyöngyösi (NI). – Madam President, colleagues, Ms von der Leyen was right to stress the importance of unity and solidarity. But, as she probably realises, there are some saboteurs amongst our ranks that support sanctions in Brussels, but rail against them in their home country, undermining the credibility of our alliance. While sanctions work and we are right to adopt each package so far, until this war ends EU leaders should explore new ways to limit Russia's ability to wage war, build its weapons arsenal, especially its high-tech military capabilities. This is the only way this war will end. Those proposals that target ordinary Russian citizens like a visa ban, are misguided and counterproductive. But sanctions that limit Russia's access to military technology will bring us closer to ending this war. In this respect, the EU should consider sanctioning each and every country that acquires Russian military technology or cooperates on military technology with Russian companies. It's time to make it clear for Iran, China and India that their involvement in helping Russia circumvent Western sanctions is a red line. Siegfried Mureșan (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, dear colleagues, it is clear that the people of Europe are expecting from us solutions to the problems that they are facing – energy insecurity, inflation, high prices. And the first thing that I would like to say is: timing is of the essence. Our solutions are only good if we manage to implement them fast. This is why, Commissioner, we are welcoming the proposals put forward by President von der Leyen in the area of energy. But their fast implementation is of the essence, particularly when it comes to the common purchase and storage of gas. We have been asking for this as a Parliament since September 2021. Please work with the Council to push the Council Minister you as well to implement this fast. This will only help the people if implemented fast. My first point. My second point. We have to support Ukraine in the short and medium-term, including financially. Europe has to be at the lead of the financial support to Ukraine. It would be a geopolitical damage to the European Union in the long-term if other corners of the world support Ukraine financially more than we do. We as European Parliament have to be aware of the limited possibilities of the European budget. This is why, Commissioner, please work with the Member States that they also chip in and we should do from the EU budget as much as we can without damaging the other financial priorities of the Union. Tonino Picula (S&D). – Madam President, Mr Commissioner, Russian aggression against Ukraine and its multiple consequences remains our focal point, as it should. The most urgent remains energy prices. Taxation of excessive profits, joint purchase, and reallocation of unused EU funding are valid proposals. We need fast, innovative, and common solutions. But we should apply the same strategy and decisiveness to our foreign policy. Increased political, economic and military assistance is essential to help Ukraine and to tackle all other crises caused by Russian aggression too. Illegal referenda, annexation, and the latest attacks on civilians require a severe economic and political response with further sanctions. The last point on the agenda is relations with China following the Communist Party Congress. The framework and definition of our relations with China will directly affect our future as it's the best test of our geopolitical ambitions for a strategically autonomous EU. A strong, resilient, and united Union is always the proper answer. Dita Charanzová (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, my plea today on the energy crisis is very simple. One: speed up, move from words to action. This cannot be yet another summit to agree that we will agree in the future. Countering the volatility of gas prices, joint procurement are good proposals, but we have been debating these measures already for months. But these are still just proposals. We are still stuck in the technicalities. Two: please ensure a fair level playing field for all European companies in the internal market. The German gas industry is affected by this crisis in the same way as the Czech gas industry is. However, we should not have a German or Czech plan on how to keep these sectors running. What we need is a European plan and we need it now. Ville Niinistö (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, it is now time for self defence of democracy. We as a European Union cannot be side-tracked into inner division. But we must stand and face in solidarity aggression of Russia, both in supporting Ukraine, but also in the effect it has on our economies and our energy security. The Greens welcome the possibilities for joint gas purchases proposed by the Commission, but this is only a first necessary step needed to bring the energy prices down. Now it's up to the EU Member States also to unite Europe and jointly work on hastening the exit from dependency on imported fossil fuels and especially gas. We can still do more to reduce gas demand and increase energy savings this winter. This is the most meaningful action we can do to avoid the energy crisis. Has the Commission counted how much fossil gas contracts and investments are still done in the EU, especially from Russia? We can do more to reduce this demand, and we also need to invest massively in renewables and energy efficiency. Therefore, we really need a large investment programme in delivering the REPowerEU, but, dear Commission, this time it solely needs to be on renewables and not on fossil investments. We cannot derail the green deal by continuing dependence on fossil gas. Russian aggression and sabotage is not causing disruption only on the energy markets and economy, but also tries to create disorder and instability in our democracies. We have seen within Europe politics of threatening human rights, women's rights and environmental and climate action that would actually weaken our resolve in solving the energy crisis. These are politics of division, and it's exactly what Putin wants. So progress does not happen automatically. We all must stay alert to protect our democracies. A lot is at stake. Harald Vilimsky (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Lassen Sie mich zunächst die Freude darüber zum Ausdruck bringen, dass in Italien ein Mitte-Rechts-Bündnis jetzt in die Zielgerade einer Regierung geht und damit auch unser politischer Freund Matteo Salvini, der als einer der Schutzherren in Europa für die europäische Identität gilt, hier mit an Bord ist. Genauso freue ich mich, dass im Norden Europas, in Schweden, hier ein Mitte-Rechts-Bündnis nun eine Regierung formiert mit Unterstützung der Schwedendemokraten und auch im Norden Europas Normalität Einzug halten kann, genauso etwa wie in Ungarn jetzt Viktor Orbán. Ich weiß, Sie hören das alles nicht gerne, aber es ist Realität, bedingt durch Demokratie in Europa. Wie in Ungarn mit einem Viktor Orbán in einer absoluten Mehrheit dort Politik betrieben werden kann, die gerichtet ist gegen viele Fehler, wie sie hier entstehen, und mit einem Erstarken der AfD in Deutschland oder der VOX-Partei in Spanien: Hier geht Europa immer mehr in eine Wenderichtung, und das ist gut so. Ich frage mich, wieso bei den Sitzungen des Rates, wo hier Ukraine und Russland immer Thema ist, eine andere Thematik hier so unter den Tisch gekehrt wird, und das ist die illegale Migration. Wir haben dieses Jahr über 400 000 Asylanträge hier auf dem Boden der Europäischen Union, 68 % mehr, als es im Vorjahr der Fall war. Seit 2015 über 6 Millionen Menschen, die Asyl beantragt haben, was mehr als die Bevölkerung Irlands darstellt, obwohl wir wissen, dass zwei Drittel davon nicht den Status als Flüchtlinge erhalten werden, auch nicht humanitär oder subsidiär schutzberechtigt sind und trotzdem zu zwei Dritteln hier einfach auf europäischem Boden bleiben. Ich halte das für eine Gefahr. Mit dem Entstehen des europäischen Rechtsbündnisses besteht hier die Chance, die Tore Europas zu schließen und den Menschen vor Ort zu helfen, anstatt Europa immer mehr in Richtung Kollaps zu führen. Carlo Fidanza (ECR). – Signora Presidente, Signor Commissario, signor Ministro, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei innanzitutto rispondere alle dure parole della presidente García Pérez sull'Italia, rassicurando Lei e quest'Aula perché, vedete, il nuovo Presidente del Senato italiano, Ignazio La Russa, ai tempi della Merkel, di cui si è molto parlato, era ministro della Difesa di un partito che esprimeva in quest'Aula 29 deputati di un gruppo che è il gruppo del Partito popolare europeo, e questo non ha causato nessun dubbio e nessuna minaccia per la democrazia europea. Quindi, quando parliamo dell'Italia, cerchiamo di conoscere i fatti, la verità, di rispettare il popolo italiano, la democrazia italiana e adesso anche le istituzioni italiane. Ma torniamo a noi. Servono risposte efficaci e non più rinviabili, dobbiamo andare più in fretta per avere meccanismi più efficaci, perché, vedete, non è più tempo di indugiare. Serve un meccanismo concreto di solidarietà, non possiamo accontentarci del fatto che si concedono maggiori margini sugli aiuti di Stato, perché questi non garantiranno il level playing field del mercato interno. Non possiamo accontentarci di meccanismi indefiniti e troppo in ritardo perché abbiamo già perso molto tempo. Oggi, in queste ore, i prezzi del gas sono bassi, ma presto torneranno a rialzarsi se noi non attueremo correttivi stabili che possano consentire ai governi nazionali di dare risposte concrete ai cittadini e alle imprese in difficoltà. Non è più tempo di rinvii, è tempo di azione e di ambizione, visto che spesso si usa in maniera impropria questa parola in quest'Aula. Marc Botenga (The Left). – Voorzitter, in Antwerpen stierven een moeder en dochter door CO-vergiftiging omdat ze met een barbecue in huis verwarmden. Ook in Brussel, hoofdstad van de Europese Unie, werden een moeder en twee kinderen met CO-vergiftiging naar het ziekenhuis afgevoerd omdat ze uit angst voor de hoge prijzen binnenshuis een barbecue gebruikten voor verwarming. Wat hoor ik dan van de Europese instellingen, van vertegenwoordigers van de Raad, van de Commissie? Dat we de prijzen niet te veel moeten laten dalen, omdat dat mensen anders zou kunnen aanzetten om te veel, om meer te gaan consumeren. Nee maar! In welke wereld leven jullie? Even serieus, wat is dat? Zijn dat die salarissen van 32 000 EUR waardoor jullie niet meer beseffen wat er in de wereld omgaat? Bakkerijen sluiten, slagerijen sluiten... De mensen zijn wanhopig! We moeten nu de prijzen naar beneden brengen en de multinationals – die voor jullie heilige multinationals– doen betalen. Dat is nu de kwestie! Francesca Donato (NI). – Madam President, (start of speech off microphone) meeting the Council will reaffirm the EU military, humanitarian and financial assistance to Ukraine. The Commission could propose a more structural solution by granting Ukraine EUR 1.5 billion per month in 2023. As for military aid, the EU has so far provided EUR 2.5 billion to Ukraine and the Foreign Affairs Council a few days ago agreed an additional EUR 500 million and a new EU military assistance mission for Ukraine with an envelope of EUR 106 million. How will this new expenditure be justified in front of the European Court of Auditors, which in its last audit report has issued an adverse opinion on EU budget expenditure, and on this precise chapter explicitly recommends the Commission to take appropriate action to reduce outstanding commitments in the long term? Moreover, after adopting eight packages of sanctions on Russia, the European Council wishes to introduce additional sanctions that, as previous ones did, will just heavily harm EU citizens and assets. At the same time, the only concrete measures so far introduced to contain high energy prices is just rationing to curb demand, which will lead to further downturn in economic dynamics. We are on the edge of an abyss. Shall we dive into it to understand that it will kill us? Frances Fitzgerald (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, I welcome the moves towards a real energy union. The cost of living crisis is more than statistics. You are right, tackling the cost of living and the pressures all too real on businesses and families. Start with tackling the cost of energy. I welcome yesterday's Commission proposal to further manage the cost of gas and to increase EU joint procurement of energy. We must, however, be ever alert to threats to competitiveness during this period and respond quickly. However, Europe can and must do more to alleviate the suffering of our most vulnerable citizens, right now. We need to urgently consider further integrating our energy grids to maximise energy sovereignty and protect EU citizens. However, it is vital that any price cap does not lead to reducing energy supplies in Europe or deterring investment. The EU Council must make significant and careful progress in developing a full and effective response when it meets. We must ensure that EU citizens are protected from the worst consequences of Putin's war and Putin's winter. He is a war criminal. Agnes Jongerius (S&D). – Voorzitter, het was niets onverwachts, maar teleurgesteld was ik wel in het nieuwe werkprogramma van de Commissie. Sociale wetgeving heeft duidelijk geen prioriteit, terwijl we in de grootste sociaal-economische crisis sinds tijden zitten. Nu kan ik de Commissie daar wel de schuld van geven, maar u en ik weten natuurlijk allebei dat de Raad de grootste dwarsligger is als het gaat om sociale wetgeving. Zo is er een tijdelijke deeltijd-WW mogelijk geweest, maar de beloofde permanente regeling blijft uit. Er komt een voorstel voor meer sociale vangnetten, maar verder dan een aanbeveling gaat het niet. Mijn oproep aan de Raad, morgen en overmorgen, is dan ook de volgende: verhoog de lonen, investeer meer in een sociaal klimaatfonds en hervorm de energiemarkt. Laat eindelijk nou eens een keer de mensen centraal staan en niet de markt. Frédérique Ries (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, c'est un Conseil européen crucial qui débute demain à Bruxelles. Il y a bien évidemment cette escalade de la guerre de terreur de Vladimir Poutine en Ukraine. Mais je veux parler ici de cette guerre sur l'énergie qu'il mène chez nous, des prix du gaz et de l'électricité qui s'envolent, de ces familles en Europe, de ces artisans, de ces bouchers, de ces PME, de ces collectivités qui n'y arrivent plus, qui en meurent. Cette fois, les propositions sont sur la table et je pense en premier aux achats groupés – l'évidence absolue. Deux remarques toutefois, Monsieur le Commissaire: 15 %, vraiment 15 %? Alors que nous avons réussi cette solidarité d'achat massive avec les vaccins? Je ne compare pas l'un et l'autre, mais ça paraît dérisoire. Et surtout, surtout, pourquoi reporter cette mesure au printemps 2023? Elle a été mise sur la table il y a un an presque jour pour jour, par le premier ministre espagnol Pedro Sanchez – 18 mois, c'est une éternité; en temps de crise, c'est une faute. Idem pour le nouvel indice adapté à la réalité de notre approvisionnement, c'est-à-dire 30 % de gaz naturel liquéfié. Pourquoi, là aussi, attendre encore six mois? Alors, on veut bien se rassurer: pour cet hiver, nos réservoirs sont pleins – 92 %, a dit Mme la présidente. Mais à quel prix? Nous n'avons pas, nous n'avons plus le luxe du temps, Monsieur le Commissaire. Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, c'est notre dépendance aux énergies fossiles qui nous a placés entre les mains de Poutine, qui a fait exploser les factures et qui détruit la seule planète que nous ayons. Alors ne répétons pas les erreurs du passé. Sous couvert de nous libérer du gaz russe, vous préparez aujourd'hui notre dépendance au gaz de schiste américain, au Qatar ou encore à l'Azerbaïdjan, au mépris de l'Arménie. Le tout en accélérant le dérèglement climatique, en fermant les yeux sur le fait que le coût de la vie augmentera inexorablement avec le déplacement des limites planétaires. La solution réside dans la capacité des États membres à dégager ensemble les milliards nécessaires à la transition écologique. Ce dont nous avons besoin, c'est d'objectifs contraignants de notre réduction de consommation d'énergie et de la date butoir de 2035 pour nous libérer enfin du gaz tout court. Et de garantir aussi que ce seront les plus gros consommateurs et non pas les ménages qui fourniront les efforts nécessaires. Industrie, agro-industrie, jets privés ou encore tourisme spatial: certains ne consomment pas l'énergie, ils la consument. Or, l'énergie la moins chère est celle que l'on ne consomme pas. Ce sont leurs efforts qui garantiront le droit à l'énergie des citoyennes et des citoyens. L'enjeu n'est pas de savoir qui mettra un pull cet hiver, mais comment nous pouvons aller vers une sobriété juste qui permettra à chacun de vivre dignement. Robert Roos (ECR). – Voorzitter, het leven wordt voor veel mensen in Europa onbetaalbaar. De EU wijt het allemaal aan Poetin. Zijn oorlog is schandalig, maar de inflatiecrisis is het directe gevolg van de ondoordachte energietransitie. We hebben niet geïnvesteerd in schone kernenergie, wel in onbetrouwbare zon en wind. Dat maakt ons afhankelijk van Poetin. De rest is geschiedenis. Nu komt de Commissie met een prijsplafond. Lagere lasten zijn nodig, maar een prijsplafond is geen langetermijnoplossing. Het echte probleem is een gebrek aan aanbod van energie. Dát moeten we vergroten. Een voorbeeld van hoe het niet moet: naïef Duitsland besluit alle kerncentrales in april te sluiten. Dan een voorbeeld van hoe het wél moet: de nieuwe realistische Zweedse coalitie zet volop in op de bouw van nieuwe kerncentrales; het verbod op de herstart van gesloten kerncentrales wordt afgeschaft. Als JA21-fractievoorzitter wil ik ook onze vrienden van Fratelli d'Italia feliciteren. Ik heb goede hoop dat ook Italië kernenergie gaat omarmen. Het toont aan dat conservatieve samenwerking loont. Daar blijf ik mij namens mijn partij voor inzetten. Milan Uhrík (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, vážený pán eurokomisár Šefčovič, pán minister – ten tu teraz nie je. 21. júla zaradila Rada na európsky protiruský sankčný zoznam občana Slovenskej republiky pána Jozefa Hambálka. Pán Hambálek sa tak stal jediným Európanom, ktorý je zaradený na proti ruskom zozname, keďže všetci ostatní občania na tom zozname sú, prirodzene, občania Ruskej federácie. Na základe tohto rozhodnutia boli pánovi Hambálkovi zablokované bankové účty, boli mu zhabané autá, bol odpojený od plynu, od elektriny, skrátka bol existenčne zlikvidovaný a navyše dostal zákaz pohybu a pobytu na území Európskej únie, čo je totálne právny nonsens, keďže je občanom Slovenskej republiky a toto sa ani nedá naplniť. Doteraz nikto nevysvetlil, na základe akej požiadavky a akých argumentov bol pán Hambálek na protiruský sankčný zoznam zaradený. Slovenské orgány sa od toho dištancujú, Rada mi už dva mesiace na otázky neodpovedá. Chcem Vás preto poprosiť, pán Šefčovič, aby ste sa na tento prípad pozreli, pretože v dvadsiatom prvom storočí považujem za neakceptovateľné, aby boli občania Európskej únie zaraďovaní na nejaké politické sankčné zoznamy a následne existenčne likvidovaní bez možnosti verejného procesu, bez možnosti obhajoby a bez riadneho súdneho rozhodnutia. Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, as vítimas da guerra de agressão da Rússia e dos ataques brutais dos últimos dias são, naturalmente, as cidadãs e os cidadãos ucranianos, mas em toda a Europa nós sofremos as consequências desta guerra e Putin vai explorar essas consequências. Nós vemos como as classes mais vulneráveis, mas também as classes médias nos nossos países, estão a sofrer com a subida do preço da energia, dos combustíveis, com o aumento dos juros que, no meu país, em Portugal, é um problema gravíssimo, com o aumento da pobreza, que também tem vindo a ser um facto em Portugal. E a pergunta que se faz é: o que fazem os grandes países europeus? O governo socialista, verde, liberal, alemão, estes três partidos, que se dizem solidários europeus, fazem um pacote de 200 mil milhões de EUR só para a Alemanha, distorcendo a concorrência e a competição no mercado interno. E, ao mesmo tempo, a França, em que o Sr. Presidente Macron diz que é o maior amigo da Europa, continua a boicotar a construção das interconexões energéticas entre a Península Ibérica e o continente europeu. E isto não é solidariedade europeia, isto é o contrário do espírito europeu e, aqui, o Renew tem que dizer se está ao lado do Sr. Macron ou se está contra o Sr. Macron nesta atitude antieuropeia. Dan Nica (S&D). – Doamna președintă, domnule vicepreședinte Šefčovič, aș vrea să salut (pentru că s-au anunțat câteva lucruri care sunt importante pentru toată lumea de către Comisia Europeană, cel puțin pe surse) și anume faptul că vom avea un mecanism comun de achiziție a gazelor, că vom avea un fel de mecanism care să prevină speculațiile și volatilitatea excesivă a prețurilor la electricitate și la gaze, că vom avea ceva și despre taxarea profiturilor excepționale, dar vreau să îi transmiteți un mesaj doamnei președinte Ursula von der Leyen: nu vorbește nimic de inflație, nu vorbește nimic de creșterea prețurilor. Și, ultima dată când am verificat, 80 % din inflație vine de la creșterea prețurilor din energie, iar măsura care trebuia luată era să nu existe aceste profituri excepționale. Și această măsură trebuie luată și acum, pentru că degeaba sau e bine că taxăm veniturile excepționale, profiturile excepționale, dar dacă ele se întâmplă în fiecare lună, de un an de zile, cum le mai putem numi excepționale ? Nu cumva asta a devenit regula și faptul că cineva plătește acest tip de profituri excepționale ? Fie că o brutărie care își închide porțile, fie o oțelărie, căci s-au închis vreo 40 de milioane de tone de capacitate de oțel din Uniunea Europeană, acest lucru nu cumva distruge și economia, și inflația pe cealaltă parte? Trebuie luată ideea acestei măsuri acum, când nu este prea târziu. Nicola Danti (Renew). – Signora Presidente, signor Vicepresidente della Commissione, signor Ministro, onorevoli colleghi, le soluzioni per affrontare con efficacia le sfide urgenti del presente sono sul tavolo da diversi mesi. Da tempo infatti parliamo del tetto al prezzo del gas, di disaccoppiare i prezzi, di una riforma del mercato dell'energia elettrica, ma con difficoltà la Commissione e il Consiglio stanno riuscendo a farle proprie. Abbiamo le ricette, abbiamo gli strumenti, manca lo spirito, quello spirito che ha animato la lotta al Covid, quella volontà politica che, solo due anni fa, ha spinto l'Europa a imboccare la strada della solidarietà. Non sono le risorse a mancare, ma una politica che sappia guardare al domani e dare risposte concrete. Davanti alle famiglie in difficoltà nel pagare le bollette energetiche, davanti alle imprese, costrette a fermare la produzione, davanti ai sindaci, che devono far fronte alla nuova povertà, non bastano buone intenzioni, serve l'unità che ci ha fatto vincere la pandemia e che domani ci permetterà di vincere gli egoismi che, nostro malgrado, rischiano di essere più pericolosi della guerra. Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Madam President, the Recovery Fund, aka „Death Generation EU”, almost doubled the EU's expenses. That fund cures economic hangovers like vodka helps an alcoholic start his day. It sets a dangerous precedent – just impose the costs of the next crisis to the EU level. You claim recovery, but all you did was pile more debt on already over-indebted economies and misallocated funds to Brussels pet projects. The Italian and French Commissioners are having a field day. They're already clamouring for the next round of handouts, or, to quote Ursula von der Leyen herself, „more European funding”. You love to hear those words, don't you? And who will pay for those new EU taxes to fund this debt-addicted party? Sven Svensson. Before you come back for another handout, you should cut inefficient subsidy programmes and redistributed funds, because if you don't, Sven Svensson won't only refuse to pay the next tab, he'll walk out the bar. And don't be shocked if Mette Nielsen and Juha Mäkinen walk out with him too. Jörg Meuthen (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kollegen! Krieg in der Ukraine, Energiekrise und die höchste Preissteigerungsrate seit Jahrzehnten. Wir alle erleben Phänomene in Europa, die längst überwunden schienen, wo viele gehofft und geglaubt hatten, das kommt nie wieder – Krieg, Versorgungsengpässe, heftige Inflation. Die Politik muss in dieser Lage handeln, und es kommt mehr denn je darauf an, dass sie in dieser komplexen Lage richtig handelt. Die Entscheidungsträger in der EU folgen allesamt meist dem Impuls, den Problemen mit Unmengen an Geld auf Pump zu begegnen. Diesem Impuls sollte man in der aktuellen Lage jedoch zwingend widerstehen. Es wäre ein schwerer Fehler, in Zeiten einer völlig aus dem Ruder laufenden Inflation um jeden Preis Wachstum generieren zu wollen. Ich warne mit Nachdruck davor, seitens der EU weitere milliardenschwere schuldenfinanzierte Programme aufzulegen, um noch mehr Geld, mit noch mehr Schulden, in den Markt zu pumpen. Das ist jetzt der völlig falsche Weg. So wird die Inflation nur noch weiter steigen. Wir brauchen nun schnell hohe Leitzinsen. Die USA haben das übrigens richtig erkannt. Die beste Medizin ist oft auch die bitterste. Wir müssen jetzt eine gewisse Rezession in Kauf nehmen, um die Inflation schnellstmöglich zu senken – im Interesse von Millionen Verbrauchern in Europa. Erst dann, danach, kann es wieder aufwärtsgehen. Željana Zovko (PPE). – Madam President, Vice-President Šefčovič, Minister Bek, ahead of the Council summit. I would like to praise the mediation efforts of President Michel between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is a good example where the European Council plays a role in providing a platform for warring parties and supports the dialogue towards sustainable peace. Unfortunately, similar European efforts of preventive diplomacy are lacking in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Actions such as high-level mediation are needed to stabilise the situation and conclude the final agreement on the necessary electoral reform. The recent Commission recommendation labelled it as the „utmost priority”, and so it is for EU Member State Croatia and for European peace and security in general. We need to find to find this just solution for the electoral law that will take into account all three communities and other citizens of a country that went through a terrible war and is still the living consequences of this tragedy. We should not let our transatlantic partners do our job. Let us take our responsibilities and not leave this country up to an experiment and too cold winter for all of those who are left beyond the borders of European Union. Jens Geier (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident, Herr Minister! Let's bring the bills down. Lasst uns die Rechnungen runterbringen. Das sollte die Überschrift über der kommenden Ratstagung sein. Was hilft dabei? Maßnahmen zur Preissenkung und zur Eindämmung der Spekulation. Ja, alternative Benchmarks sind ein Anfang, aber allein wohl kaum geeignet, nachhaltige Preissenkungen zu erreichen. Wir brauchen die Entkopplung der Preise von Gas und Strom, mindestens solange die Versorgungskrise anhält. Wir brauchen Preisgrenzen – ja natürlich – für Mindestkontingente von Energie. Das verbindet Verlässlichkeit für Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher, Betriebe und energieintensive Industrien mit Sparanreizen. Wir brauchen die Finanzierung durch abgeschöpfte Zufallsgewinne. Damit kann der Schutz der Verwundbarsten erreicht werden. Diese Gruppen brauchen die Sicherheit, dass sie im Verlauf der Energieversorgungskrise nicht von Gas und Strom abgetrennt werden. Es ist ein Baustein europäischer Solidarität, das SURE-Instrument über den Dezember 2022 fortzusetzen und die Resilienz der europäischen Arbeitslosenversicherung zu verlängern. Gemeinsame Beschaffung und der Ausbau der Infrastruktur, die Lückenschlüsse, die H2-ready sein sollten – das sollen die Antworten sein. Adrián Vázquez Lázara (Renew). – Señora presidenta, mañana hará justo un año que se reunió el Consejo en octubre de 2021. Las prioridades de aquella reunión fueron el despliegue de las vacunas, la recuperación de los viajes y el reconocimiento de certificados para futuras emergencias sanitarias. Ha pasado solo un año, pero parece que haya un mundo de diferencia: la guerra de Ucrania, la situación económica y social... La realidad ha cambiado mucho y ha cambiado muy rápido. Solo se repite en esa lista de prioridades la subida de los precios de la energía, que hace un año era una amenaza incipiente y hoy es una realidad que preocupa a millones de ciudadanos europeos a las puertas del invierno. Vicepresidente, ha llegado la hora del pragmatismo y eso significa dar respuestas ya, no solo prometerlas; significa anteponer los resultados a la ideología y, sobre todo, anteponer el bienestar de los ciudadanos europeos a grandes ideas o ambiciones. Llevamos casi un año de crisis energética y se han propuesto muchas cosas, pero la factura no ha dejado de subir. Hemos gastado mucho dinero en subsidios a energías que han ido a cualquier sitio menos a los hogares de los ciudadanos europeos. Es hora de que se tomen decisiones y de que realmente mostremos resultados. Geert Bourgeois (ECR). – Voorzitter, onzekere economische tijden vergen ook oplossingen op lange termijn en de EU koppelde terecht structurele hervormingen aan het herstelfonds. Maar waar blijven de EU-hervormingen? Voor wanneer de voltooiing van de interne markt, die tot 9 % groei van het bbp zou kunnen opleveren? Voor wanneer de broodnodige nieuwe handelsverdragen die nieuwe markten toegankelijker kunnen maken en ons minder afhankelijk kunnen maken? Voor wanneer het actieplan voor onze kmo's en groei? Zet dus volop in op onderzoek en ontwikkeling, innovatie en duurzame groei. Graaf daarbij geen nieuwe schuldenput die onze kinderen en kleinkinderen zullen betalen. Voer integendeel grondige hervormingen door die niets kosten maar duurzame groei verzekeren. Wij rekenen op het Tsjechische voorzitterschap om de impasse te doorbreken. Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident der Kommission, Herr Minister, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Seit Beginn des brutalen russischen Angriffskrieges gegen die Ukraine begleitet uns die Frage: Welche Maßnahmen können wir ergreifen, damit Energie in Europa bezahlbar bleibt und die Häuser im anstehenden Winter nicht kalt werden? Ich denke, unsere Menschen und Betriebe erwarten konkrete Antworten von uns. Ich freue mich, dass endlich Vorschläge der Kommission hierzu auf dem Tisch liegen, um Verbraucher und Haushalte zu entlasten. Einige von diesen Maßnahmen aber sind längst überfällig, beispielsweise der Vorschlag zum gemeinsamen Einkauf von Gas. Endlich ist er da – letztlich acht Monate zu spät. Aber wenn wir einen Überbietungswettbewerb beim Einkauf von Gas unter den Mitgliedstaaten verhindern wollen, dann brauchen wir da eine gemeinsame Aktion auf europäischer Ebene. Das Gleiche gilt für die Deckelung des Gaspreises. Was aber jetzt auch noch ganz, ganz dringend kommen muss, ist, unsere Betriebe zu entlasten. Wettbewerbsfähigkeit soll gestärkt werden. Die Kommissionspräsidentin hat heute hierzu ja den einen oder anderen Vorschlag gemacht. Ich glaube, es ist wichtig, alles auf den Prüfstand zu stellen. Wir sind jetzt in einer Situation, in der wir in einer Art Kriegswirtschaft leben, und deshalb ist es wichtig, die wichtigen Dinge zuerst zu machen und das eine oder andere Dossier und Thema vielleicht auch erst nächstes Jahr anzugehen. Priorisieren ist das, was notwendig ist. Wir haben schon genug Zeit verloren, und ich denke nochmals: Unsere Menschen haben Antworten von uns verdient. Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, quase todas as crises que conhecemos na história agravaram desigualdades e remeteram à pobreza até os que já se tinham livrado dela. Foi assim na crise financeira de 2008, à qual a União Europeia respondeu com austeridade e lembramo-nos todos dos efeitos dos efeitos nefastos que isso teve nos Estados-Membros e, sobretudo, na imagem da Europa. Na crise pandémica recente, a União respondeu com solidariedade e isso reforçou a sua relevância perante todos os cidadãos. Nesta crise a resposta tem de ser a mesma, concreta, célere, solidária e criativa. É esta a orientação política que esperamos do Conselho Europeu e das restantes instituições, com olhos postos nos cidadãos. Precisamos de controlar os preços da energia e de a comprar de forma conjunta, como fizemos com as vacinas, de flexibilizar o uso dos fundos europeus, de serviços públicos reforçados, de transportes públicos baratos, em suma, de respostas sociais melhores, como estamos a fazer em Portugal. O que não podemos permitir é que neste inverno haja famílias que sejam confrontadas com a escolha entre comprar comida ou manter a luz acesa. Dacian Cioloș (Renew). – Doamna președintă, am văzut propunerile Comisiei privind limitarea prețului la gaze și achizițiile grupate de gaz și, dacă aceste măsuri vor fi puse în aplicare, cred că sunt un pas important înainte pentru a răspunde crizei provocate de Putin. Vedem încă o dată că statele membre încep să înțeleagă încet-încet că individualismul nu funcționează în situații de criză și că e important să fim solidari. Solidaritatea aceasta nu poate fi decretată doar prin regulamente. Trebuie să o simțim, să o învățăm și să o aplicăm de acum înainte, de fiecare dată când astfel de situații sunt în fața noastră și cred că nu trebuie să ne limităm doar la noi, Uniunea Europeană. Trebuie să ne gândim și la vecinii noștri. Solidaritatea noastră trebuie să fie demonstrată nu doar cu Ucraina, ci și cu Republica Moldova, și cu zona Balcanilor. Nu doar din sentimentul de legătură cu aceste țări, dar și pentru că e interesul nostru să nu avem crize și acolo. Și mai trebuie să ne gândim și la gazul care este folosit de anumite sectoare industriale. Mă gândesc în primul rând la producția de îngrășăminte pentru agricultură. Pe termen scurt, cel puțin, trebuie să nu lăsăm ca această criză a gazului să creeze o nouă criză alimentară. Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Paní předsedající, pane místopředsedo, pane ministře, tady je to jak v malém Československu. Ale já myslím, že české předsednictví jede dobře, že si tady děláme dobrou reklamu. Samozřejmě agendě dominuje Ukrajina a energetická krize. Já mám k té nadcházející Radě dva body: jednak Írán – myslím, že se musíme bavit o Íránu, ať už jako formální bod na agendě, nebo neformálně. Nejenom proto, že touto zemí otřásají největší veřejné protesty za několik posledních let, ve kterých jde o ženskou rovnoprávnost a lidskou rovnoprávnost, ale také proto, že Írán začal dodávat zbraně Rusku proti Ukrajině. A to je věc, ke které nemůžeme mlčet, na kterou musíme reagovat. Jestliže jsme dokázali být tvrdí a principiální v případě Ruska, musíme být stejně tvrdí a principiální i v případě Íránu. Druhá věc, za kterou bych se přimlouval – odložme, prosím, stranou záležitosti týkající se závěrů Konference o budoucnosti Evropy. Myslím, že není čas na to se teď hrabat v pravidlech a měnit je. Máme dost jiné práce, máme dost jiných problémů. Odsuňme to někam do budoucnosti. Dolors Montserrat (PPE). – Señora presidenta, hay que aumentar la autonomía energética, plantar cara a Putin y ayudar a Ucrania. Así debe seguir siendo, con firmeza, pero hoy quiero hacerles una pregunta: ¿estamos haciendo todo lo posible desde Europa para frenar la crisis económica y energética? Los ciudadanos no lo ven así, no pueden más, están utilizando todos sus ahorros para ayudar a sus familias. Las empresas y sus trabajadores viven con el agua al cuello por unos precios desorbitados que los arruinan. Piensen en sus ciudadanos. Piensen en los fondos europeos, exijan transparencia, controlen que lleguen a la economía real, algo que hoy no ocurre. Piensen en países como España: mientras los españoles buscan en sus bolsillos cómo pagar su cesta de la compra, la hipoteca de su casa, la factura de la luz, su Gobierno recauda más impuestos que nunca y mantiene la estructura gubernamental más cara de la democracia. Les pido urgencia y unidad en las medidas, una Europa fuerte energéticamente, conectada e integrada, y exigir a los Gobiernos que estén a la altura y devuelvan a sus ciudadanos el dinero que recaudan de más por la inflación. Pina Picierno (S&D). – Signora Presidente, signor Vicepresidente, signor Ministro, onorevoli colleghe e colleghi, la resistenza coraggiosa del popolo ucraino, del suo legittimo governo, i nostri aiuti a Kiev, combinati alla pressione delle sanzioni stanno piegando il Cremlino, la sua economia, la sua forza militare violenta. E la realtà, in maniera più chiara della propaganda di Putin, mostra ancora una volta che questa è la strada che dobbiamo percorrere e i leader europei devono agire con maggiore decisione in nome della nostra sicurezza collettiva, dei nostri valori, della nostra unità. Saluto naturalmente con favore la proposta per il price cap e per l'acquisto congiunto di gas, obiettivi chiave per alleviare il peso della crisi energetica sulle famiglie e sulle imprese. Potevamo ambire sicuramente a misure più coraggiose, ma alcuni egoismi nazionali ci hanno costretto ad accettare il minimo piuttosto che pretendere il massimo. Allora, da qui mi rivolgo ai governi europei affinché definiscano quanto prima criteri per il funzionamento del price cap in nome di una piena solidarietà europea. Da ultimo, Vicepresidente, voglio ringraziare da qui Mario Draghi e il suo governo perché senza la sua esperienza l'Europa in questi mesi sarebbe stata molto, molto più fragile. Βαγγέλης Μεϊμαράκης (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η επικείμενη σύνοδος των Ευρωπαίων ηγετών οφείλει επιτέλους να δώσει γενναίες λύσεις· το χρωστάει στον Ευρωπαίο πολίτη, ο οποίος βλέπει την έκρηξη τιμών, την επισιτιστική κρίση, τον πληθωρισμό και αδυνατεί να καλύψει πλέον τις βασικές του ανάγκες. Προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση χαιρετίζουμε τη χθεσινή έκθεση της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής. Όμως, έχουμε καθυστερήσει πάρα πολύ. Ακόμη πριν από το καλοκαίρι είχαμε επισημάνει το πρόβλημα και είχαν κατατεθεί στοχευμένες προτάσεις, ιδιαίτερα από την ελληνική κυβέρνηση, για τη μείωση των τιμών ενέργειας. Αφήσαμε, ωστόσο, ένα πολύ μεγάλο διάστημα να περάσει και φτάσαμε ήδη στον χειμώνα χωρίς να έχουμε λάβει κανένα μέτρο. Φανταστείτε πώς θα ήμασταν και πόσους νεκρούς θα μετρούσαμε αν είχαμε καθυστερήσει τόσο πολύ και με τα εμβόλια στο θέμα της πανδημίας. Πρέπει λοιπόν να κινηθούμε πολύ γρήγορα και στη σύνοδο κορυφής πρέπει να γίνει αντιληπτό ότι δεν υπάρχει άλλο περιθώριο. Πρέπει να βρούμε λύσεις „χθες” για να ανακουφίσουμε τον Ευρωπαίο πολίτη αυτόν τον χειμώνα. Η Ένωση πρέπει να επιβεβαιώσει τον ρόλο της κόντρα σε εθνικά και εγωιστικά συμφέροντα και να κάνει πράξη την ευρωπαϊκή αλληλεγγύη που περιμένει ο Ευρωπαίος πολίτης. Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, un leader se bat pour le diamant, l'autre se bat pour le luxe, le troisième se bat pour l'uranium. Il y en a marre de ces négociations de marchands de tapis, de chefs de gouvernement qui agissent en VRP de secteurs privés. Cela affaiblit nos démocraties, cela affaiblit nos sanctions. Lorsque la guerre fait rage, il est vital pour la cité que l'intérêt général prime à nouveau sur les intérêts particuliers. Alors, comment accepter que de grands groupes européens continuent à faire de l'argent avec le régime russe? Comment tolérer, par exemple, que Total tire des bénéfices astronomiques de ses parts dans Novatek, fournisseur de kérosène aux avions de l'armée terroriste de Vladimir Poutine? L'hiver arrive et les sacrifices nécessaires ne seront consentis que s'ils sont justes. Alors, le message aux dirigeants européens réunis en Conseil est clair: plafonnez les prix du gaz. Taxez les super-profits. Attaquez-vous aux profiteurs de guerre. Comblez les trous dans les sanctions. Montrez que la politique a repris la main. Et alors, alors seulement, l'Union européenne aura honoré son rendez-vous avec l'histoire. Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Madam President, let me start on Ukraine. I fully share the statements of the Commission President: acts of Russia are acts of terror. Our reaction must be to show more commitment to all fronts to the fight of Ukrainians. At the same time, I believe it's time to formalise more our plans on how to support Ukraine reconstruction. We can go farther. We can appoint people, set up the structure and start work and do it now. On energy, I believe we need more cooperation among the Member States. Energy plans that are based on subsidising the cost of energy to a mere fraction of the market price can undermine energy security, can create big political tensions, and at the same time can undermine the functionality of the market. These plans are not the way forward. We need more cooperation on this and sustainable economic support for our households and businesses. Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Gospa predsednica, spoštovani visoki zbor. Svet je na razpotju in v krizi, politika pa zadnje mesece v rokah drži kompas, katerega magnetna igla kaže v smeri socialdemokratskih, ljudem naravnanih politik. Če je politika iskrena v svoji nameri prebroditi energetsko krizo in draginjo, se bo ravnala po tem nezmotljivem kompasu. Evropski socialisti in demokrati v tej smeri sledimo odločno in iskreno, z jasnim načrtom spopadanja z izzivi, ki tarejo ljudi in gospodarstvo. Imamo načrt za nižje in pravične cene energentov. Zahtevamo cenovno kapico na zemeljski plin in oblikovanje cene elektrike neodvisno od cene plina. Od predloga Komisije sem pričakoval korak v to smer, a se to žal ni zgodilo. Prav tako pa jasno pozivam evropske voditelje, da čim prej, še pred koncem leta, Bosni in Hercegovini podelijo status kandidatke za članstvo v Evropski uniji. Čaka nas še veliko delo in ob odločni politiki za dobro ljudi nas čakajo tudi uspehi. Ivan Štefanec (PPE). – Madam President, due to the Russian invasion and therefore emergency situation on the energy market, we are in an extraordinary situation and therefore we need extraordinary measures to deal with it. New measures can be a useful step for market stability leading to the necessary price drop. We can overcome the current situation only by common European solutions. Common purchases, combined with solidarity mechanism, can be really crucial steps for having enough gas for reasonable prices. New market rules are welcome, but we need also to split gas price from the electricity price. It is particularly great news for my country Slovakia – as it was our proposal – that we can use unused funds from the period until 2020. I appreciate the opportunity to use this European money for those who are the most affected. I do believe that these proposals, together with supporting supply and reducing demand on the energy market, will be leading to the stability and much-needed price reduction on the market. Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – Gerbiama, Pirmininke, Europos Sąjungos politinėje darbotvarkėje svarbiausiais klausimais išlieka ir dar ilgai išliks karas Ukrainoje ir šio karo ekonominės ir socialinės pasekmės Europai ir mūsų žmonėms. Mes privalome remti Ukrainą ir suteikti jai visokeriopą pagalbą ginantis nuo Rusijos agresijos. Lygiai taip pat solidariai privalome neatidėliotinai priimti sprendimus, kurie sustabdytų socialinės nelygybės didėjimą Europoje. Negalime leisti, kad mūsų žmonės turi rinktis tarp šildymo ir maisto. Kolegos, išskirtinė situacija reikalauja išskirtinių ir skubių sprendimų. Privalo būti rastas susitarimas dėl dujų kainų lubų nustatymo, nepateisinamai didelių energijos įmonių viršpelnių apmokestinimo ir perskirstymo, bendro dujų pirkimo ES, kad padėtume ir apsaugotume pažeidžiamiausius žmones ir verslus. Privalome pagaliau apsaugoti savo maisto gamybos įmones ir užtikrinti apsirūpinimą maistu. Mūsų pareiga yra padėti žmonėms, smulkiam ir vidutiniam verslui išgyventi šį sudėtingą laikotarpį, ir labai tikiuosi, kad bus rastas bendras susitarimas dėl ES solidarumo paketo. Andrius Kubilius (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, I hope that the Council and Commission will find proper solutions for this energy crisis and also will understand what kind of our mistakes and dependencies in the past led to it. I will speak about geopolitical crisis of war, which Europe is also facing. Two weeks ago Josep Borrell in our plenary openly and bravely admitted, that till now the EU had No Russia strategy, because EU was too dependent on Russian gas. And it had no foreign policy towards Ukraine, because it was a subsidiary to our policy on Russia. Because of that, there was No EU enlargement policy towards Ukraine, and that was the EU's strategic mistake which led to a geopolitical crisis. Now we are less dependent on Russian gas, and Ukraine and Moldova got candidate status. But do we have an ambitious enlargement strategy? I have doubts. Because I do not see, that the EU would be ready to start membership negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova in 2023, which again means that our strategy towards Ukraine can be captured by prevailing bureaucratic attitude towards enlargement. There is still time for the Council and Commission to stop continuation of such a strategic mistake. François-Xavier Bellamy (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, il ne fait pas encore froid, mais l'hiver commence pour l'Europe et le signe le plus inquiétant, c'est la diminution drastique de la consommation de nos industries en gaz, qui montre à quel point nous sommes à la veille d'un potentiel effondrement économique. Il est urgent, encore une fois, d'agir – et nous le redisons ici –, urgent de découpler enfin de manière effective les prix du gaz et les prix de l'électricité; urgent que la Commission mette fin à l'arrêt des productions pilotables dans nos pays. Comment se fait-il que l'Allemagne vienne tout juste de décider de prolonger ses centrales nucléaires? Que la Belgique ait fermé, en septembre dernier, le 23 septembre, une centrale pilotable, celle de Doel 3? Cela représente à soi seul 200 millions de mètres cubes de gaz que nous devrons importer en plus chaque mois. C'est évidemment quelque chose qui concerne la totalité de nos pays et la solidarité commence par là. Je suis très heureux que nous ayons pu inclure tout récemment, par un amendement, le nucléaire dans les financements de RePowerEU. Nous avons besoin de toutes les capacités de production pilotables pour relancer l'Europe. Enfin, il faut garantir, Monsieur le Commissaire, que les sanctions ne soient pas contournées. Nous devons, évidemment, à la vérité et à la justice de tenir cet engagement. Comment expliquer, par exemple, qu'aujourd'hui la production de gaz d'Azerbaïdjan ait diminué alors que ses exportations augmentent? Est-ce que la Commission peut expliquer cela? Si nous laissons les sanctions être contournées, nous aurons perdu sur tous les tableaux. Spontane Wortmeldungen Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, stojíme pred skúškou, ktorá určí našu budúcnosť. Rast cien energií vzbudzuje veľké obavy u 47 % obyvateľov Slovenska. Energetická chudoba na Slovensku hrozí približne každej šiestej domácnosti. Ako som už viackrát zdôraznila, dohoda Rady dostatočne nerieši problémy všetkých členských štátov. Preto musíme robiť konkrétne kroky k smerom k solidarite, aby domácnosti a podniky v celej EÚ pocítili potrebnú podporu na prekonanie tejto krízy. Je tiež kľúčové urýchlene rokovať o cenách LNG a ďalšieho plynu s USA a ďalšími spoľahlivými partnermi. Vítam, že Komisia podporuje možnosť použiť nevyčerpané eurofondy v boji proti energetickej kríze. Ale dúfam, že v EP dokážeme zvýšiť alokáciu zo súčasných navrhovaných 10 %. Uprostred veľkých skúšok Európska únia a členské štáty musia nastaviť politiky na pomoc domácnostiam, podnikom i verejnému sektoru preklenúť toto zložité obdobie. Rozhodujúce je konať rýchlo v jednote a solidarite. Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, a estas alturas el debate arroja algunas conclusiones claras. La primera es que desacoplar el gas del precio final de la electricidad implica, reconozcámoslo, que lo que un día se llamó excepción ibérica pase a ser la norma general de la Unión Europea. La segunda, que topar el gas para proteger a los consumidores europeos frente a la inflación implica intervenir un mercado que no funciona. La tercera, que, cuando hablamos de incrementar la autonomía energética y estratégica de la Unión Europea, ello implica una compra conjunta, una estrategia de compra conjunta de gas y de suministros de alcance, también europeo. Pero hay una cuarta, y es que, cuando hablamos de Putin como una amenaza —que lo es para el conjunto de la Unión Europea—, tenemos que hacer la autocrítica retrospectiva, porque algunos Estados miembros han alimentado, efectivamente, esa amenaza durante demasiado tiempo, que en estos momentos actúa en el plano de la desinformación, en el ataque a las infraestructuras críticas, pero, sobre todo, es aliado de la extrema derecha, del nacionalismo... (la presidenta retira la palabra al orador). Georgios Kyrtsos (Renew). – Madam President, we pay a high price in economic and energy terms for Putin's aggression against Ukraine. But make no mistake: energy prices and inflation had risen even before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There are also structural deficiencies in the European Union that are bringing about the present crisis. Extreme conditions hinder the functioning of the supposedly free market. It is obvious that we have to change the rules in order to deal with exceptional circumstances that will probably last. Changing the rules means that we have to liberate ourselves from the pressure exerted by big interests and powerful lobbies and implement solutions like the Iberian model at the European level. We have to move fast because we are losing our political credibility. Μαρία Σπυράκη (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, καλοδεχούμενες —αντιπρόεδρε Šefčovič— οι συμπληρωματικές πρωτοβουλίες της Επιτροπής, και για τον συμπληρωματικό ενδεικτικό δείκτη για το υγροποιημένο φυσικό αέριο και για την προσωρινή τιμή-πλαφόν στην ενιαία αγορά. Όμως, ξέρετε, έχετε αργήσει. Έχετε αργήσει γιατί αυτές οι προτάσεις ήταν στο τραπέζι από τον περασμένο Μάρτιο, με πρωτοβουλία του πρωθυπουργού της Ελλάδας, Κυριάκου Μητσοτάκη. Έχετε αργήσει γιατί ο χαμένος χρόνος κοστίζει. Έχετε αργήσει γιατί ακόμη και η κοινή πλατφόρμα για την οποία έχουν αποφασίσει οι ηγέτες από τον περασμένο Ιούνιο δεν έχει τεθεί σε λειτουργία και είμαστε στα τέλη Οκτωβρίου. Ο χαμένος χρόνος κοστίζει· κοστίζει ακριβά στα νοικοκυριά, κοστίζει ακριβά στις επιχειρήσεις και δημιουργεί τεράστιες αμφιβολίες αναφορικά με τη λειτουργία της ενιαίας αγοράς —ειδικά μετά την πρωτοβουλία του καγκελάριου Scholz να θέσει πρώτα τη Γερμανία και μετά την Ευρώπη. Χρειαζόμαστε ηγεσία και το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο πρέπει να έχει ηγετικό ρόλο τις επόμενες ημέρες. Χρειαζόμαστε να γίνει για την Ευρώπη ό, τι χρειάζεται για να υποστηρίξει τους πολίτες της, για να υποστηρίξει τα νοικοκυριά, για να υποστηρίξει τις επιχειρήσεις ώστε να επιβιώσουν. Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Comissão, Conselho, foi com satisfação que ouvimos a Presidente von der Leyen enumerar medidas que conduzam, agora, a aligeirar a fatura energética dos europeus e à construção progressiva da autonomia energética da União Europeia. Medidas necessárias, mas tardias e ainda pouco ambiciosas. Deixou subentendido que a Comissão poderia aprofundar o RepowerEU. Caminhamos para a necessária união para a energia? Aliás, um conceito que o Vice-Presidente Šefčovič conhece bem. Para quando um mecanismo tipo SURE? Vice-Presidente, o apoio dos europeus aos valores europeus que os têm mobilizado é essencial nesta guerra, mas isso não nos pode trazer custos brutais. A extrema-direita espreita! Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η νέα δέσμη μέτρων της Επιτροπής προϋποθέτει ο λαός να παγώσει στο όνομα της μείωσης της μη βασικής κατανάλωσης, για εξασφάλιση επάρκειας για τους μεγαλοβιομηχάνους. Θωρακίζονται περαιτέρω οι μηχανισμοί της πράσινης μετάβασης και απελευθέρωσης, που είναι οι αιτίες της εκτίναξης των τιμών της ενέργειας και των καυσίμων. Παρέχονται νέα κίνητρα στους ομίλους για να „τζογάρουν” εκ του ασφαλούς στο χρηματιστήριο της ενέργειας και κοινές παραγγελίες φυσικού αερίου με τιμές ανταγωνισμού με την Κίνα και την Ινδία, κατά „τα καλά και συμφέροντα” των ευρωπαϊκών μονοπωλίων και όχι του λαού. Γι' αυτό, θα συνεχιστούν οι απρόσιτες τιμές για τον λαό και θα πληρώνει από την τσέπη του τις κρατικές επιδοτήσεις για να μη διαταραχθεί η εισπραξιμότητα των επιχειρηματικών ομίλων της ενέργειας. Αλληλεγγύη με αποζημιώσεις και με το αζημίωτο μόνον η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, οι κυβερνήσεις και τα αρπακτικά μονοπώλια της ενέργειας μπορούσαν να εξαγγείλουν. Ο εργαζόμενος λαός πρέπει να δυναμώσει την πάλη του για απεμπλοκή από τον ιμπεριαλιστικό πόλεμο, ενάντια στην ευρωενωσιακή στρατηγική ακρίβειας, για αυξήσεις στους μισθούς και φτηνή ενέργεια, ώστε να μην παγώσει καμιά λαϊκή οικογένεια. Κώστας Μαυρίδης (S&D). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, από την αρχή της ρωσικής εισβολής και με τα απανωτά πακέτα κυρώσεων, επιμέναμε ότι υπάρχει μεγάλη ανάγκη για παράλληλη ευρωπαϊκή απάντηση στις επερχόμενες επιπτώσεις, με κεντρικό στοιχείο την αλληλεγγύη. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή τότε —δυστυχώς— κοίταζε αλλού. Δυστυχώς, δεν είχαμε την ίδια κοινή αντίληψη όπως είχαμε με την πανδημία. Έρχομαι τώρα, όμως, και στο Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο, όπου βλέπω ότι στην ατζέντα περιλαμβάνεται η καθ' αυτή εισβολή της Ρωσίας στην Ουκρανία. Καλώς. Περιλαμβάνεται, επίσης, συζήτηση για τη σχέση μας με την Κίνα. Απευθύνομαι προς το Συμβούλιο και διερωτώμαι: πότε θα συζητήσουμε για τον Δούρειο Ίππο του Ερντογάν εντός Ευρώπης; Και, φυσικά, αναφέρομαι στην Τουρκία και στον Ερντογάν, και ιδιαίτερα μετά την έκθεση της Επιτροπής, η οποία καταγράφει αντικειμενικά τις παρανομίες του Ερντογάν και το πόσο αδίστακτος είναι. Διερωτώμαι: δεν έφτασε ακόμη η ώρα για επιβολή κυρώσεων ... (η Πρόεδρος αφαιρεί τον λόγο από τον ομιλητή) Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, și astăzi dezbatem un lucru pe care îl cerem de luni de zile. Ce ne-a prezentat doamna președintă a Comisiei cetățenii au mai auzit. Și noi am mai auzit de foarte multe ori: propuneri, propuneri, propuneri. Consiliul nu ia nicio decizie. Acum, când noi vorbim, cetățenilor din țara mea și din alte state li se regularizează facturile, vin prețuri de 4 până la 10 ori mai mult și nu e nicio decizie. Despre ce vorbim aici ? Punem sau nu punem oamenii în centru ? Și ne-a spus doamna președintă că va crea o platformă de achiziții comună. Va fi la fel de netransparentă ca la vaccinuri? Nu vom ști ce prețuri sunt, nu vom ști cum se împarte? Totul a fost total netransparent în pandemie și nu vrem să mai fie acest lucru, să fie acoperite profiturile unor companii, așa cum au fost profiturile companiilor din sănătate. Deci, domnule comisar, mă întreabă cetățenii. Eu vorbesc, dar ce răspunsuri primesc? Și eu le spun că nu primesc. Poate că astăzi, totuși, dați un răspuns: când se iau măsuri concrete pentru a pune capăt acestei crize energetice? (Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen) Maroš Šefčovič,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, Mr President of the Council of the General Affairs, honourable Members, first and foremost, I really would like to thank you for this truly political debate this morning, because we have been indeed discussing the most pressing issues Europe and the Europeans are facing today: aggression of Russia against Ukraine, war on our continent, and the economic and social consequences of high energy prices, high inflation and the rising cost of living, being mentioned by almost all who intervene and present it in a very eloquent manner by the leaders of the political groups represented now Ms Reintke. And I appreciate what I felt was truly general support for the package the European Commission has proposed yesterday. But what was very clear in your statements, be it from Mr Mureșan or Ms Charanzová, but I would say all the honourable Members who took the floor, is that you would like us to be more ambitious. You would like us to be faster and you want to see more details on how these proposed measures would be translated into the real life. But I think that you will all agree with me that if it comes to what is on the table for our leaders at the European Council, that there are all elements for the solutions to tackle this energy crisis we are facing right now. We are proposing to buy the gas together, as Ms Grapini was referring to, or Mr Schirdewan, in his remarks, something like one and a half hours ago. To be more precise, what we are proposing is to purchase together at least 15% so we can do more. But we need to start somewhere and we are going to address through this at least 50% purchase exactly that amount of gas, which was most difficult to get to complete a filling-up of our storages and which was also the most expensive. And of course, this is not an easy exercise because we need to set up this new system and at the same time we have to also respect the long-term contracts which are in place and which been valid. But I think that now we have the solution how to push forward and we are going to discuss how to combine this measure with all other measures which we propose to make sure that we will have security of supplies and adequate flows of energies into the European Union. Next, a very important point which was mentioned by many of you was the solidarity, especially with those countries which are landlocked and which would have problems if the situation would really become very precarious. And the European way of sharing and protecting a level playing field in our single market, as it was proposed by Mr Cioloș. All of you have been highlighting the burden our citizens and businesses are carrying because of the high energy prices. And I would like to reassure you, because it was mentioned many times by Ms Iratxe García Pérez, Mr Bellamy, Mr Séjourné, that we are going to present to you in the first quarter of the next year new electricity market design, where we are going to decouple gas from electricity pricing because we know that the market design which served us well until prewar times, is not functioning anymore. And therefore we need to have a new electricity market design to be more appropriate for our European economy. On top of it, we are going to propose new complementary benchmark to TTF. And to be sure that we act with adequate agility, we are also proposing this market correction mechanism to react to the concrete situation of today. The same comes for the Iberian model, because we see that there are strong merits in this model on how to limit electricity prices in Europe. But we know that there is a lot of questions we have to answer in a way that it would not lead to an inadequate increase of the consumption of gas, because then we would again be faced with a lack of energy supplies to the European Union. And of course, what is important for big businesses, we also presented a new temporary framework for state aid to help energy-intensive industries across Europe. So the proposals are on the table and of course we need the green light and support of the European Council. So we can sit with the energy ministers, we can sit with you, Members of the European Parliament, to hammer out the details. This is a very clear and present urgency and we should act in this manner. Therefore, if you if you allow me to conclude with a strong, I would underscore strong, plea to the European Parliament. The REPowerEU is discussed in your committees in this House, and you would, I hope, agree with me that we need to the REPowerEU now. We need to use it, if necessary we need to boost it, and we need the REPowerEU so we can transfer this EUR 40 billion from the cohesion policy to REPowerEU so we can support the households, we can support the SMEs in Europe. So my strong plea would be please make sure that you would respect your calendar and it would have a vote on the REPowerEU in November. The citizens of Europe, businesses in Europe, are waiting for this decision and we are ready to work with you to explore all other possibilities on how to use recovery and resilience facility loans, to use all financial firepower we have at our disposal so we can help the economy and citizens of the European Union. So I think that if you would demonstrate this can-do attitude and this proactive approach in this very difficult situation, that our debate in November would not be focused on what needs to be done, but how we are going to use the funds, how we are going to use these new tools, which we will be developing in the course of the next weeks. And I think that it would be the best answer to the concerns of the European citizens, European businesses and peoples of the European Union. Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, Vice-President of the European Commission, honourable Members, thank you for your remarks and comments. Views expressed here have been diverse, which is part of the beauty of this House. Despite divergences, we could hear several strong messages. We heard calls for European unity. Here, I cannot agree more with Mr Séjourné that we can be strong outside only if we are strong inside. We took note of and fully agree with the repeated reference to European solidarity, especially with those Member States that are hit more than the others are. There was a clear message from this Parliament for more ambitious and more coordinated EU responses to the energy crisis that we face. Delivering concrete measures for our citizens and our companies will be at the heart of leaders' discussion on the basis of the new proposals put forward by the Commission. Several interventions today also highlighted the need for stronger social and economic measures, including fiscal and other redistributive measures, to protect citizens, especially those most vulnerable, from the effects of Putin's war of aggression. Member States are doing their part at national level and taking bold measures. The European leaders will look into ways to strengthen our combined efforts. I also took note of your strong condemnation of the latest strategic developments in Russia's war of aggression, targeting civilians and cutting off Ukrainian energy supplies. Leaders will confirm their strong support for Ukraine. The EU should continue to lead on the investigation of war crimes to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. Furthermore, leaders have repeatedly stated that the European Council stands ready to revise the existing sanction regime and consider further sanctions. These will be messages that I take back from this session and convey to the President of the European Council. As regards a concrete question, the issue of de-escalation in Eastern Mediterranean will also be on the leaders' agenda. Honourable Members, this European Council meeting has a substantial agenda in which leaders deal with the complex and interlinked crises we face today: our safety and security, our continued access to affordable energy supply, climate and biodiversity and the strength and resilience of our economy. Thank you once again for your attention. Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen. Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171) Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR),
na piśmie. – Pani przewodnicząca von der Leyen mówiła, otwierając tę debatę, o tym, jak bardzo potrzebujemy solidarności i jedności. To prawda, najwyższy czas, by te pojęcia urzeczywistnić, by ta jedność i solidarność była widoczna nie tylko w słowach, ale i w działaniach instytucji europejskich. Przecież te wzniosłe pojęcia pozostają jedynie w sferze idei nawet w obliczu realnej wojny, rosyjskiej agresji i mordów jej armii na cywilach. Nawet teraz, po tylu miesiącach otwartej agresji łamiącej wszelkie konwencje i prawa, tu, na tej Sali deliberuje się, kto – i na jakich warunkach – ma prawo do wsparcia, do solidarnej pomocy, do odczuwania jedności w gronie cywilizowanych, europejskich narodów. Regularnie partyjne i frakcyjne większości na tej sali spierają się, kto jest praworządny i może liczyć na europejską solidarność, a kto nie jest i trzeba go wszelkimi sposobami zmusić, by się do tej lewicowej większości upodobnił. Kiedy ostrzegaliśmy tutaj przed zgubnymi skutkami wdrażania patologicznego systemu ETS, nikt nie wierzył że ten system spowoduje kryzys, wzrost cen energii. Rzeczywistość potwierdziła nasze obawy, ale Komisja nadal brnie, nadal nie słucha kontrargumentów, niczego nie zmienia. Oby Rada Europejska miała odwagę do podejmowania trudnych, ale bardzo potrzebnych i odważnych decyzji, służącym wszystkim państwom członkowskim, a nie tylko – jak by chciała Pani von der Leyen – Berlinowi. (Die Sitzung wird um 11.22 Uhr unterbrochen.) PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA President 4.   Hervatting van de vergadering (The sitting resumed at 11.42) 5.   Plechtige vergadering - Toespraak door Zuzana Čaputová, president van de Slowaakse Republiek President. – Dear colleagues, it is an honour for the European Parliament to have the President of Slovakia, Zuzana Čaputová, with us here today. Madam President, Dear Zuzana, welcome. Thank you for your vocal promotion of the values of equality and diversity – that this House and our Europe holds so dear. Last week's double murder at the heart of Bratislava is a reminder to us of the constant need to fight back against hate and defend our LGBTIQ community. President Čaputová, we know you also as a firm defender of freedom of speech. Soon we will mark five years since the murder of Slovak journalist Jan Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová, that shocked us to our core. This House, Madam President, will always remember Jan and Martina and you will always find us as an ally in the defence of values. Dear Zuzana, let me quote your words in a speech you gave at the United Nations General Assembly, you said that: „solidarity should be our binding principle, not an option.” And your country, Slovakia, has demonstrated what solidarity means by welcoming more than half a million Ukrainian refugees since the onset of war, by being at the forefront of political and military aid to Ukraine. Slovakia has shown time and again that it can lead. Thank you for your country's leadership at this critical moment for Europe. President Čaputová, the floor is yours. Zuzana Čaputová,
(President of the Slovak Republic). – Madam President, honourable Members, dear representatives of the Czech Presidency of the Council, my fellow Europeans, it is an honour and privilege to be here and to address the beating heart of the European Union's democracy here in Strasbourg. This is a city where the modern concept of defending universal human rights was translated into concrete institutions. While serving a broader purpose, I see the European Parliament as one of them. My message today is simple: if we do not start defending democracy, it will cease to exist. The date of my speech here was planned long ago. I couldn't have expected that the recent homophobic murder of Juraj Vankulič and Matúš Horváth on the streets of Bratislava would remind us of the simple truth so painfully. it is hard to put in words the grief felt in Slovakia's cities in the past few days because hate decided to kill love, just because the killer could not accept that love can come in different forms. This was an assault not just on young people from the LGBTIQ community. It was an attack on everyone in Slovakia because hate crimes always target the very essence of what our society stands for. I would like to assure you that hatred doesn't dominate our society. I welcome that Slovakia's civil society immediately and resolutely condemned this attack. Just yesterday, the Slovak Parliament adopted a resolution strongly condemning these terrorist acts and assuring all minorities that they are valuable members of our society. In its essence, democracy is the rule by the majority in the interest of all, with a key emphasis on the protection of minorities. If we are failing in their protection, we are undermining democracy itself. In my view, the defence and protection of democracy is the core mission of our generation of political leaders. The task ahead of us is to bring Europe back into balance, which is shaken by crises from within and without. We need a balance between our rights and our commitments; between our security and our prosperity, which we have partly built through dependence on those who wish to destroy our democracy; a balance in which we can have different opinions, but where we are bound by the values of freedom, solidarity and liberal democracy. And now please allow me to switch into Slovak so even here in the European Parliament's Chamber, one can hear the beautiful Slovak language. Vážená pani prezidentka, vážené poslankyne, vážení poslanci, rovnováha, o ktorej som hovorila, je za posledné dva roky ohrozovaná dvoma veľkými krízami – pandemickou a bezpečnostnou, ktorú vyvolalo Rusko svojou inváziou Ukrajiny. Na obe sme ako Európska únia zareagovali správne. Pri pandémii sme národné uzatváranie hraníc a preteky o to, kto obstará viac rúšok, rýchlo nahradili spoločným prístupom a solidaritou. Začali sme so spoločnou postpandemickou obnovou nášho hospodárstva cez Fond obnovy a odolnosti. A solidaritu sme zdieľali aj mimo našich hraníc. Dnes patríme medzi najväčších globálnych darcov vakcín proti covidu-19. Podobne rozhodne sme zareagovali na vojnu, ktorú Vladimír Putin 24. februára naplno rozpútal proti nášmu východnému susedovi. Pripomeňme si, že táto vojna sa v to pochmúrne februárové ráno iba zintenzívnila, že Rusko ju viedlo už dávno predtým – najskôr dezinformáciami a propagandou a od roku 2014 aj vojensky s jasným cieľom Ukrajinu podmaniť alebo ju zničiť. Ako Európska únia sme na Rusko uvalili najrozsiahlejšie sankcie, akým kedy akákoľvek rozvinutá ekonomika čelila. Ukrajine poskytujeme politickú, humanitárnu, finančnú pomoc, a väčšina krajín vrátane Slovenska aj vojenskú pomoc. Veľmi dôležitá je aj európska perspektíva, ktorú sme Ukrajine poskytli, a verím, že raz bude realizovaná plnohodnotným členstvom. Našou pomocou sa spoločne usilujeme o jediné, dosiahnuť mier. Ten však musí byť spravodlivý, inak by išlo iba o dočasné prímerie. Tým, ktorí pred vojnou museli utiecť zo svojich domovov, sme otvorili nielen svoje domovy, ale aj svoje srdcia. Len slovenské hranice s Ukrajinou prekročilo viac ako 800 000 ľudí z Ukrajiny a mnohí z nich u nás ostali. Ja som veľmi hrdá na solidaritu a pomoc, ktorú im naši občania poskytli. Z oboch kríz si Európania okrem strachu a obáv odniesli aj veľmi silný zážitok celoeurópskej empatie a jednoty. Práve táto skúsenosť nám ukazuje, že najlepšou cestou na prekonávanie akýchkoľvek výziev, ktorým ako Únia čelíme, je naša jednota, spolupráca a solidarita. Dámy a páni, naša snaha o rovnováhu v Európe sa týmto nekončí. Paradoxom totiž je, že v situácii, kedy sme bezprecedentne zjednotení voči externým výzvam, čelíme dnes aj veľmi silným vnútorným tlakom. Tie sú vyvolané súbehom niekoľkých kríz, ale aj dlhodobým ignorovaním našich zraniteľností. Ak nezvládneme tieto európske krízy, hrozí nám, že prerastú do krízy Európy. Milióny európskych domácností a podnikov je dnes ohrozovaných skokovým rastom cien energií. Tieto začali rásť ešte pred vojnou, keďže Rusko už minulé leto začalo znižovať dodávky zemného plynu do Európy. Tým začalo deformovať európsky energetický trh a ohrozovať našich občanov. Slovensko, ktoré donedávna získavalo 85 % plynu z Ruska, vďaka diverzifikácii znížilo svoju závislosť na 33 %. Nikdy ale nevieme, kedy dodávky plynu Vladimír Putin stopne úplne. Ako Únia dnes potrebujeme riešiť príčiny aj dopady tejto krízy. Správne riešenia preto majú byť európske, spoločné a solidárne. Také, ktoré urýchlene pomôžu v ťažkej situácii všetkým členským krajinám a okrem kompenzácií umožnia aj dohodu na spoločnom zastropovaní cien plynu. Potrebujeme tiež oddeliť previazanosť cien elektriny a cien plynu, pretože dnes krajiny ako Slovensko, ktoré vyrábajú väčšinu elektriny z nízkouhlíkových zdrojov, za ňu platia neadekvátne vysoké ceny. Dovoľujem si vás preto požiadať o podporu týchto riešení. Okrem následkov však musíme riešiť aj príčiny, ktoré nás sem dostali. Už nikdy nemôžeme ako Únia ostať tak závislí na jednom dodávateľovi. A už nikdy nemôže byť náš hospodársky model a prosperita tak závislé na fosílnych palivách. Záväzok stať sa klimaticky neutrálnym kontinentom do roku 2050 už nemôžeme odkladať či spochybňovať. Musíme predovšetkým pomôcť tým, na ktorých dnes energetická kríza najviac dopadá. Ale cieľ je jasný: inovovať náš model rozvoja tak, aby sme viac využívali obnoviteľné zdroje energie a menej ničili našu vlastnú planétu. Globálnymi lídrami sa musíme stať nielen v našich klimatických záväzkoch či ambíciách, ale aj v ich napĺňaní. Prežijeme iba vtedy, ak obnovíme rovnováhu medzi naším spôsobom života a planétou, na ktorej žijeme. Vážené poslankyne, vážení poslanci, dnes čelíme aj kríze demokratických pravidiel a ich dodržiavania. Každá jedna krajina, ktorá do Európskej únie vstúpila, a každá jedna krajina, ktorá sa o to usiluje, musí byť a zostať liberálnou demokraciou. Byť členom tohto klubu nie je nárok. Je to privilégium. Členstvo v tomto klube nestačí iba dosiahnuť, členstvo v ňom treba neustále aktualizovať jasným pochopením a rešpektom k spoločným hodnotám: hodnotám ako právny štát, deľba moci, nezávislosť súdnictva, sloboda médií či ochrana menšín. Ak tieto základné kamene, na ktorých je naše spoločenstvo postavené, čelia útoku, musíme konať na ich obranu. Chcem zdôrazniť, že pravidlá nám chýbajú menej ako dôslednosť a konzekventnosť pri ich vynucovaní. Ak naše opatrenia nebudú rozhodné, problémy budú narastať, a tí, ktorí hodnoty Európskej únie porušujú, budú povzbudzovať a inšpirovať ďalších. Samotný pojem liberálnej demokracie je dnes v mnohých našich krajinách dezinterpretovaný, nepochopený, spochybňovaný a atakovaný extrémom. Hoci neexistuje jeden model liberálnej demokracie, som si istá, že „neliberálna demokracia” sú dva nezlučiteľné pojmy. Vážení prítomní, naše demokratické pravidlá sú dnes zneužívané na ničenie samotnej demokracie. Sloboda slova je jedno z najdôležitejších demokratických práv. Musíme ho chrániť, ale nie je bezbrehé. Ako sa nám stalo, že sme slobodu prejavu vpustili až do priestoru verbálnych trestných činov? Ako sme ju mohli častokrát povýšiť až na právo absolútne? To nie je demokratické, to je hlúpe. Sloboda slova nemôže byť zásterkou pre šírenie neznášanlivosti, klamstiev a dezinformácií. Nikde tento problém nie je vypuklejší ako na sociálnych sieťach. Radikalizovaný tínedžer, ktorý pred týždňom zabil dvoch mladých ľudí a zranil tretiu v uliciach Bratislavy, sa do veľkej miery inšpiroval na sociálnych sieťach a pred vraždou na sociálnej sieti publikoval dlhý pamflet plný nenávisti voči rôznym menšinám. Táto vražda sa síce stala na Slovensku, ale riziko takýchto činov sa týka nás všetkých. V rôznych častiach Európy sledujeme stupňovanie agresivity voči menšinám a rast pravicového extrémizmu. Zhoršovanie sociálno-ekonomickej situácie sebavedomiu radikálov iba pridáva. Musíme si byť vedomí, že akýkoľvek útok z nenávisti je útokom na hodnotovú podstatu Európskej únie, ktorej súčasťou je rovnoprávnosť, tolerancia a rešpekt k ľudským právam. Zdá sa mi, že k sociálnym sieťam dnes pristupujeme podobne naivne ako k iným technologickým novinkám. Teda bez uplatňovania predbežnej opatrnosti. Benefity využívame bez znalosti a ostražitosti k ich možným a zjavným negatívnym dôsledkom. Sociálne siete využívame bez toho, aby sme si ako spoločnosť naplno uvedomovali, ako nám ich algoritmy môžu škodiť, ako prehlbujú polarizáciu a posilňujú názorové bubliny. „Pravde veriť, pravdu žiť a pravdu brániť” je motto jedného zo zakladateľov moderného slovenského národa, generála Milana Rastislava Štefánika. Vo verejnom priestore musí platiť aj vtedy, ak sa zdá, že by bolo efektívnejšie nahlas kričať, bez ohľadu na kvalitu či pravdivosť výrokov, a nie sa vzájomne počúvať, viesť dialóg a dbať na fakty. Nedovoľme, aby demokracia zahynula na naivitu demokratov. Na naivnú vieru v to, že demokratické práva a slobody budú iba využívané, a nie zneužívané. Nezabúdajme, že každé právo je zároveň vyjadrením zodpovednosti, a naopak. Ak demokraciu nebudeme chrániť, môže sa nám stať, že budeme poslednou generáciou, ktorá ju zažije. Práve jej ochrana je hlavnou úlohou našej generácie politických lídrov. Musíme preto aj v tejto oblasti urobiť primerané kroky na národnej úrovni. Je dobré, že Európsky parlament prijal nariadenie o digitálnych službách, a vítam aj Európsky akčný plán pre demokraciu. To, čo je nelegálne offline, musí byť nelegálne aj online. Viac však potrebujeme urobiť aj na globálnej úrovni. Biznis model sociálnych platforiem stojí na využívaní tých najnižších ľudských emócií a pudov. Sociálne platformy nie sú len prevádzkovateľmi povestných informačných potrubí – ich zisk je totiž priamo úmerný tomu, koľko nenávisti, agresie, klamstiev a dezinformácií cez tieto potrubia pretečie. Musia preto niesť primeranú zodpovednosť za obsah, ktorý je na nich publikovaný. Vážená pani prezidentka, vážené poslankyne, vážení poslanci, výzvy, o ktorých dnes hovorím, robia Európsku úniu krehkejšou, ako si možno uvedomujeme a pripúšťame. Ekonomická, bezpečnostná, energetická kríza, pokračujúca fragmentácia našich spoločností či tlak nelegálnej migrácie sú živnou pôdou pre extrémizmus. V mnohých členských krajinách Únie dnes stačí jeden volebný cyklus a v poslaneckých laviciach, aj tu, vo vašich miestach, môže sedieť väčšina, ktorá nebude chcieť Európu budovať, ale rozložiť. Preto nesmie byť laxní a defenzívni, ale naopak vytrvalí, odvážni a sebavedomí v obrane našich spoločných hodnôt. Napriek nevyhnutnosti riešenia mnohých kríz, a možno práve preto, nesmieme zabúdať na to, na čom by mal byť postavený výkon politiky ako takej. Preto nepoľavme v nárokoch na seba samých, aby sme reprezentovali slušnosť a etiku a demokratické hodnoty. Vernosť týmto princípom nie je slabosťou, ale esenciou demokratickej politiky. Prvý prezident Československa, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, už pred sto rokmi povedal, že demokracia nie je len systém politický, ale predovšetkým je to systém morálny. Myslime na to všetci pri výkone nášho mandátu, je to zodpovednosť a povinnosť voči našim občanom. Ak budeme demokraciu vnímať v tomto zmysle, som si istá, že zvládneme krízy, ktorým dnes čelíme, a naplníme tak naše poslanie byť strážcami a ochrancami demokracie, európskych hodnôt a rovnováhy. Ďakujem za vašu pozornosť. President. – That concludes the formal sitting. (The sitting was suspended for a few minutes) 6.   Hervatting van de vergadering (The sitting resumed at 12.03) Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητές και αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, για εμένα σήμερα είναι μια έντονα συναισθηματική ημέρα, γιατί είμαι υποχρεωμένος μετά από οκτώ χρόνια δράσης, κοινών αγώνων και προσφοράς μαζί με όλους εσάς, τους εξαίρετους, αγαπημένους και αγαπημένες μου συναδέλφους και συναδέλφισσες, να πραγματοποιήσω την τελευταία μου ομιλία ενώπιόν σας. Γιατί θεωρώ ότι τα ωραιότερα χρόνια της πολιτικής μου πορείας ήταν εδώ στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Γιατί πιστεύω ακράδαντα ότι είναι ο πιο ισχυρός θεσμός, το πιο ισχυρό δημοκρατικό, πλουραλιστικό όργανο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης —το δημοκρατικά εκλεγμένο που συνεχίζει να προασπίζεται τις αρχές και τις αξίες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Σήμερα πήρα τον λόγο για να πω σε όλους εσάς μέσα από την καρδιά μου ένα τεράστιο ευχαριστώ για την αγάπη με την οποία με περιβάλατε —ιδιαίτερα στις δύο σημαντικές επιτροπές στις οποίες υπήρξα μέλος για αυτά τα οκτώ χρόνια, την Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού και την Επιτροπή Προϋπολογισμών. Κυρίως, όμως, για τη στήριξη που μου παρείχατε απλόχερα και που σχεδόν παμψηφεί, με μόνο 11 αρνητικές ψήφους, εγκρίνατε την υποψηφιότητά μου για να μεταβώ στο Ευρωπαϊκό Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο. Αν με ρωτούσατε αυτή τη στιγμή, θα σας έλεγα ότι είναι πολύ δύσκολο για εμένα να αποχωριστώ αυτήν την αίθουσα όπου πραγματικά ένιωσα ότι ενωμένοι μπορούμε να προασπίσουμε όλες τις αρχές και τις αξίες μας. Όμως, επιτρέψτε μου να απευθύνω ιδιαιτέρως ένα μεγάλο ευχαριστώ στην πολιτική μου ομάδα, στο Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα. Το κόμμα που από την πρώτη στιγμή με αντιμετώπισε σαν ίσο μεταξύ ίσων, παρότι προέρχομαι από μια μικρή χώρα. Το κόμμα που συνέχισε να με διδάσκει πανανθρώπινες αρχές και αξίες. Το κόμμα του οποίου ηγείται ένας άνθρωπος με „Α” κεφαλαίο. Σας το μεταφέρω μετά λόγου γνώσεως και χωρίς καμία σκοπιμότητα: ο άνθρωπος που ηγείται του Ευρωπαϊκού Λαϊκού Κόμματος, ο αγαπητός μου φίλος Manfred Weber, είναι ο άνθρωπος που διακατέχεται από όλες εκείνες τις αρχές και αξίες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και μου έδωσε, πραγματικά, όλη εκείνη την ώθηση για να αγαπήσω το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση —η οποία, να ξέρετε, έχει μέλλον και προοπτική όταν έχει τέτοιους ανθρώπους, όπως τον Manfred Weber. Αγαπητοί μου φίλοι, ολοκληρώνοντας, θα ήθελα να πω —και αυτό το μήνυμα απευθύνεται στους νέους ανθρώπους— ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι αυτή που έδωσε σε εμένα, έναν πολιτικό που ξεκίνησε ως πρόσφυγας από τον προσφυγικό συνοικισμό, κυνηγημένος από τα τουρκικά στρατεύματα, τη δυνατότητα να βρίσκομαι ανάμεσά σας μεταφέροντας ένα ισχυρό μήνυμα. Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, (ακατάληπτες λέξεις) αλλά μη λησμονήσετε τη μικρή μου πατρίδα· μη λησμονήσετε τους 200.000 Ελληνοκύπριους πρόσφυγες· μη λησμονήσετε ότι έχουμε και εμείς κατοχή, όπως δεν λησμονούμε την Ουκρανία και τον ουκρανικό λαό. Κρατήστε αυτές τις αρχές και τις αξίες. Σας ευχαριστώ μέσα από την καρδιά μου για ό, τι μου προσφέρατε όλα αυτά τα χρόνια. Είμαι ευγνώμων για την αγάπη σας, για τη συμπαράστασή σας, για την καθοδήγησή σας. Σας ευχαριστώ πραγματικά γιατί μου δώσατε αυτήν τη δύναμη και αυτήν τη δυνατότητα. President. – Good luck, Mr Christoforou! 7.   Stemmingen President. – We move to the votes. (For the results and other details of the vote: see Minutes) 7.1.   Ontwerp van gewijzigde begroting nr. 4/2022: actualisering van de ontvangsten (eigen middelen) en andere technische aanpassingen (A9-0240/2022 - Karlo Ressler) (stemming) 7.2.   Ontwerp van algemene begroting van de Europese Unie voor het begrotingsjaar 2023 — alle afdelingen (stemming) — after the vote: Mikuláš Bek,
Council. – Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament has just adopted amendments to the Council's position on the draft budget for the financial year 2023. I take note of the differences in the positions of our two institutions concerning the draft budget for 2023 presented by the Commission. Consequently, in my capacity as President of the Council, I agree that the President of the European Parliament convenes the Conciliation Committee as required in Article 314(4)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Thank you very much for your attention. President. – I shall convene the Conciliation Committee, in accordance with Article 314(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 7.3.   Algemene begroting van de Europese Unie voor het begrotingsjaar 2023 — alle afdelingen (A9-0241/2022 - Nicolae Ștefănuță, Niclas Herbst) (stemming) –
after the vote on paragraph 54: Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR). – Madam President, dear colleagues, I think we all agree that the fight against anti-Semitism must remain a top priority in the EU, but also in our external policy. And I think it's important to underline today the crucial role of education in this respect. Therefore, I would like to propose as an oral amendment to add the following text to paragraph 54: „Calls on the Commission to ensure that the resources for the Southern Neighbourhood are not being used for schoolbooks that do not adhere to the UNESCO standards of peace, co-existence, tolerance and mutual respect”. (Parliament declined to put the oral amendment to the vote). 7.4.   Duurzame brandstoffen voor de zeevaart (initiatief FuelEU Zeevaart) (A9-0233/2022 - Jörgen Warborn) (stemming) — after the vote on the Commission proposal: Jörgen Warborn (PPE). – Fru talman! Jag vill ta tillfället i akt och tacka alla ledamöter och personal som har bidragit i förhandlingarna. Vi kan vara stolta över den här gemensamma framgången, där Europa nu tar täten i omställningen av sjöfarten. Det här är utan motstycke världens mest ambitiösa lagstiftning för att dramatiskt minska sjöfartens klimatavtryck. Vi gör det på ett balanserat och genomförbart sätt, där vi ser till att klara både klimatet och konkurrenskraften. Med detta yrkar jag, i enlighet med artikel 59.4 i arbetsordningen, på att ärendet återförvisas till det ansvariga utskottet för interinstitutionella förhandlingar. (Parliament approves the request for referral back to committee.) 7.5.   De uitrol van infrastructuur voor alternatieve brandstoffen (A9-0234/2022 - Ismail Ertug) (stemming) –
after the vote on the Commission proposal: Ismail Ertug (S&D). – Madam President, dear colleagues, in accordance with Rule 59(4)(4), I ask you as the rapporteur responsible to refer back the dossier to the TRAN Committee for the institutional negotiations. (Parliament approves the request for referral back to committee.) President. – That concludes the vote. The sitting was suspended at 13.02. VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS Vizepräsident 8.   Hervatting van de vergadering (Die Sitzung wird um 13.05 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.) 9.   Goedkeuring van de notulen van de vorige vergadering Der Präsident. – Das Protokoll der gestrigen Sitzung und die angenommenen Texte sind verfügbar. Gibt es dazu Einwände? Das ist nicht der Fall. Das Protokoll der gestrigen Sitzung ist genehmigt. 10.   Vergoelijken van anti-Europees extreem rechts in de EU (actualiteitendebat) Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über ein aktuelles Thema (Artikel 162 der Geschäftsordnung) über Schönfärberei des europafeindlichen Rechtsextremismus in der EU (2022/2887(RSP)). Ich weise die Mitglieder darauf hin, dass es bei dieser Aussprache keine spontanen Wortmeldungen gibt und dass keine blauen Karten akzeptiert werden. Ich würde nur darum ersuchen, dass alle, die an dieser Debatte nicht teilnehmen, rasch den Saal verlassen und vor allem ihre privaten Gespräche auf dem Weg hinaus beenden. Iratxe García Pérez,
Autora. – Señor presidente, señorías, me da mucha tristeza tener que mantener este debate, pero creo que es imprescindible y por eso nuestro grupo político lo ha propuesto. Nadie en nuestros países aceptaría un golpe de Estado, pero algunos en la Unión Europea están normalizando el deterioro diario de nuestros sistemas democráticos, la separación de poderes y la libertad de prensa. Estas alianzas de gobierno que estamos viendo entre partidos conservadores, y ahora también liberales, con partidos de extrema derecha blanquean unas actitudes que traspasan cualquier línea roja. El problema no es que sean partidos ultraconservadores; eso entra dentro del pluralismo político. Tampoco es un problema que no crean en una Europa unida, porque también los euroescépticos tienen derecho a estar representados en este hemiciclo, faltaría más. El problema es que los populismos de extrema derecha socavan las instituciones, utilizan la democracia para debilitar las libertades y los derechos. Cuando entran en las instituciones, las utilizan para sus intereses. Una mayoría parlamentaria no justifica leyes que persigan a las minorías, que violen sus derechos y socaven el marco jurídico y de convivencia vigente desde hace setenta años. La democracia liberal supone una aceptación del pluralismo político, de la diversidad cultural, del respeto de las minorías y del Estado de Derecho. Se puede ser muy conservador respetando estos principios. Esta debería ser nuestra línea roja. Lo era hasta que el PPE y Renew decidieron separarse y abrir las puertas a partidos como Vox, los Demócratas Suecos, Alternativa para Alemania, la Liga y los Hermanos de Italia. Podemos llamarlos como queramos, neofascistas, posfascistas, populistas de extrema derecha... El nombre es lo de menos. Todos sabemos a lo que nos referimos, aunque algunos no lo quieran ver. Nos referimos a quienes piden credenciales de abolengo para gozar de derechos de ciudadanía, porque distinguen entre los „verdaderos suecos” o los „verdaderos franceses”, como hace Le Pen, y los que quizá hayan nacido en otro país, o sean hijos de inmigrantes, o quizá profesen el islam, o no tengan la piel blanca. Nos referimos a quienes vinculan la inmigración con delincuencia y querrían volver a una Europa nacional de etnias puras, como dijo Viktor Orbán. Estos son quienes quieren volver al pasado, a una Europa de fronteras, y no solo físicas, porque las peores fronteras son las que tenemos en la mente. Son quienes niegan que hay mujeres asesinadas por el mero hecho de ser mujeres y recortan los presupuestos contra la violencia machista. Sus amigos en los Estados Unidos son los trumpistas como Steve Bannon. Son los amigos de Bolsonaro. Son los amigos de Putin. No nos equivoquemos: la democracia liberal puede no ser el sistema perfecto y tenemos que trabajar siempre para mejorarlo, pero destruir lo que hemos construido juntos solo nos lleva a la polarización y a la incapacidad para llegar a acuerdos. La democracia formal no es suficiente. Un espíritu democrático y un profundo respeto por el pluralismo son fundamentales para la convivencia. El consenso de la posguerra para construir las primeras comunidades se basó en la firme convicción de que no había lugar en Europa para líderes autocráticos o ideologías racistas. Democratacristianos, socialdemócratas y liberales hemos trabajado históricamente sobre este consenso. Acabamos de clausurar la Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa para reflexionar sobre cómo seguimos avanzando. Esa sigue siendo la única base firme sobre la que construir esta casa común, que no es un equilibrio de poder entre naciones. Esa Europa de naciones anclada en el pasado nunca existió para los de la extrema derecha. Señores conservadores, señores liberales, vuelvan a la casa común para seguir construyendo un futuro de paz y de democracia. Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Vice-President of the Commission. Fundamental rights and freedoms, political and media pluralism, the rule of law and free, fair and transparent elections are key elements of our democracies. While participation in politics can take many shapes, political parties remain at the core of political life and play an essential role in engaging citizens and in promoting a healthy confrontation between different – sometimes opposing – views of society and the economy. Protecting an open and transparent political system, free from hostile interferences, is a challenge that should compel all of us to take action. This is also a task for the EU as a whole, and has led the Czech Presidency to make the resilience of democratic institutions one of its key priorities. To begin with, I can reaffirm that the Czech Presidency is fully committed to working with this House to reach a political agreement on the revision of the Regulation on the statute and financing of European political parties and foundations by the end of this year. This proposal is one of the two main elements of the Reinforcing democracy and integrity of elections package, presented by the Commission, which aims to strengthen European democracy. The revised Regulation will increase the visibility of European political parties and strengthen their transparency requirements. In particular, the Council believes that the crucial element to limiting the risks of foreign interference in our electoral processes is to restrict the possibility of contributions to European political parties only to Member States, to member parties from the European Union. We are also fully committed to making progress on another key proposal on the transparency and targeting of political advertising. This proposal aims to increase transparency and accountability on political advertising and to reveal the mechanisms behind the targeting and amplification techniques used in political advertising. It also covers campaigning activities at all levels, including cross-border campaigning activities, which are clearly of particular interest to this House. The Czech Presidency is working with a view to finding an agreement within the Council by the end of this year to allow for negotiations with the Parliament to start as soon as possible. Any interference in our political processes is unacceptable, particularly in the current geopolitical climate, and in the run up to the 2024 European Parliament election. Any false narratives, including anti-European ones, information manipulation and interference in our democracies cannot, and should not, be tolerated. Let me be clear on this point: our fight against disinformation does not aim at suppressing diverging views, for instance, on the goals and directions of European integration. But our societies deserve to be able to make their own properly informed decisions, whether it is on health matters, on the political parties they choose to vote for, or on global events that directly or indirectly impact their lives. The Council closely follows new initiatives by the Commission in this area and is actively involved in the implementation of existing ones, such as the strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation. We look forward to even more ambitious actions based on the whole of society approach, as we must all be together in this fight against propaganda and information manipulation. Before concluding, let me stress once again our determination to protect scrupulously our core democratic values from any hostile interference, foreign or otherwise. Thank you very much once again for your attention. Věra Jourová,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, honourable Minister, thank you for organising this debate. Democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights are the foundations on which the European Union is built. And we know that democracy needs to be nurtured, needs to be protected, besides others, against the powers that seek to destroy it. This is why we adopted the European Democracy Action Plan to protect free and fair elections, to fight disinformation and to protect media freedom. And we move further. President von der Leyen announced in this year's State of the Union Address a Defence of Democracy Package. This will include a legislative initiative to protect our democracies from entities funded by or linked to third countries that may impact public opinion and the democratic sphere. The Defence of Democracy Package will also be the occasion to review our actions under the European Democracy Action Plan, and this will come just in time, a year ahead of the elections to the European Parliament, an important moment in our democracy. In order to preserve free and fair elections, the Commission presented in November 2021 legislative proposals on the transparency and targeting of political advertising and non-legislative measures to strengthen cooperation on electoral resilience. I am glad that these proposals are currently being discussed in the European Parliament and the Council and I hope trilogues can soon start so we can have them in place well ahead of the next European Parliament elections. They will strengthen the integrity of our political processes and their resilience to interference and contribute to combating disinformation and extremism through high transparency standards. We are convinced that people must know why they are seeing a political ad, who paid for it, how much, what micro-targeting criteria were used. New technologies should be tools for emancipation, not for hidden manipulation. Let me also add a few words on the political extremism, which affects heavily our societies and which can lead to violence and murder, as we shockingly witnessed last week in Slovakia. The Russian military aggression against Ukraine offered violent extremist movements an opportunity to create divisive narratives and to exploit them with the aim of boosting anti-European sentiments. We know that Russia supports white supremacists and other extremist right-wing groups on a global scale, encouraging them with propaganda, instrumentalising their discourses and thus sowing polarisation, also in the European societies. The war has also had an impact on the extreme left and anarchist-wing infosphere. Its narratives attract the attention of non-violent militants and focus on crucial issues related to the nature and logic of the war. The Commission is working with Member States to tackle the threat of violent right-wing extremism in the EU, including via Europol, which is in close contact with the Member States' authorities and partner agencies to continuously engage and exchange information and gather intelligence to draw up assessments of the terrorist and right-wing extremist threats. Tomas Tobé,
för PPE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Kommissionär, minister! Oberoende domstolar, pressfrihet, kvinnors rättigheter – allt detta är en del av de centrala värderingar som ska försvaras över hela Europa. Vi har problem. Vi ser att vi har stora utmaningar i Ungern, vi ser det i Polen, vi ser det i Malta. Vi har problem som vi behöver hantera. Nu försöker Europas socialdemokrater göra gällande att Sverige är ett stort problem. Man går till attack mot Sverige och den nya regeringen. Men, kollegor, det finns noll substans i detta. I den regeringsförklaring som har presenterats i Sverige ska oberoende domstolar stärkas. Kvinnors rättigheter ska stärkas. Oberoende medier ska stärkas. Självklarheter! Självklarheter i Sverige. Men vi ska också få en regering som ska ta tag i de samhällsproblem vi har kring kriminalitet, som ska se till att vi ska få en energipolitik och som ska se till att vi minskar utanförskap. Jag vill särskilt vända mig till mina svenska kollegor här i kammaren. Sverige har ett ordförandeskap som snart påbörjas, den 1 januari. Nu är det väldigt viktigt att vi samlar oss, för Europa står inför stora utmaningar. Det är dags för er att acceptera den här valförlusten. Demokrati är inte lika med en röst på Socialdemokraterna, vänstern eller de gröna. Det är dags att visa lite ansvar. Vi ska kritisera där vi ser problem och där regeringar agerar fel. Men att nu försöka sätta etiketter som saknar all substans på denna regering, det är faktiskt inte hedervärt. Gabriele Bischoff,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Man kann ja so den Eindruck bekommen, als ob Verharmlosung und Normalisierung von Rechtsextremen oder Postfaschisten immer was ist, was die anderen machen, was nicht da passiert, wo wir sind. Aber das ist nicht der Fall, und deshalb haben wir es auch auf die Agenda gesetzt. Wir sehen einfach, dass in vielen Mitgliedstaaten Rechtsextreme, Populisten, Postfaschisten, Parteien mit Nazivergangenheit gewinnen und die Ängste und Sorgen der Menschen ausnutzen. Wir haben es in Italien und Schweden gesehen, wo sie es bis an die Regierungsbeteiligung schaffen – und in beiden Fällen nur, weil sie auf die Unterstützung von Parteien der sogenannten politischen Mitte zählen können. Gleichzeitig haben Teile dieser Parteien die Diskurse dieser Parteien übernommen, und sie normalisieren sie auch damit. Wir gucken uns Italien an, und da können wir sehen, dass Silvio Berlusconi, der ja der enge Parteifreund von Manfred Weber ist, eine Koalition mit den postfaschistischen Brüdern Italiens eingegangen ist. Und wie reagiert der Chef der größten Fraktion hier im Hause? Er verharmlost es einfach. Er beteuert, dass Forza Italia und Berlusconi ja nur in dieser Koalition sind, damit sie proeuropäisch bleibt. Das ist doch nicht Ihr Ernst, Herr Weber. Würden Sie in Deutschland in eine Regierung mit der AfD eintreten, um zu sagen, wir wollen so sicherstellen, dass sie auf dem proeuropäischen Kurs bleibt? Ich meine, wir haben gerade die Tage durch neue Tweets von Berlusconi gesehen, auf wessen Seite er steht: auf Putins Seite, wo er noch einmal bekräftigt hat, dass der ihm einen tollen Brief geschrieben hat und 20 Flaschen Wodka geschickt und er ebenso nett reagiert hat. Kolleginnen und Kollegen, diese Muster der Verharmlosung sind wirklich gefährlich. Sie sind politisch gefährlich, und wir haben es gesehen, wie lange Orbán und sein illiberales Demokratiegehabe auch hier in diesem Haus in der größten Fraktion verharmlost wurden. Lassen Sie uns umkehren, denn das ist ein gefährlicher Weg. Zurück zu einem Bollwerk der Demokratie gegen Rechtsextreme und Postfaschisten! Valérie Hayer,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, Monsieur le Ministre, chers collègues, nous sommes désormais chaque jour confrontés aux propos et aux idées de l'extrême droite, sur les réseaux sociaux, notamment, sous forme d'insultes ou de fake news. Mme García Pérez n'est plus là, présente dans cet hémicycle, mais j'aurais voulu lui répondre. J'aurais voulu lui répondre que sur les réseaux sociaux, ces insultes sont du même calibre que les insultes honteuses de l'ancien premier ministre slovaque Robert Fico envers la présidente Čaputová, jamais condamné par la vice-présidente des socialistes Monika Beňová qui lui tenait compagnie. J'aurais voulu lui dire, à Mme García, lui répondre que nous n'avons pas attendu pour nous désolidariser des libéraux suédois. Alors que certains de vos partis sont protégés malgré leurs affaires, comme le Parti socialiste maltais ou les socialistes bulgares proches du Kremlin, eh bien, les propos de votre présidente étaient indignes. J'en reviens à mon propos initial, chers collègues. Malheureusement, il est devenu banal de lire ou d'entendre des thèses homophobes. Des thèses qui mènent au pire, comme le meurtre de deux hommes à Bratislava il y a une semaine. Les contre-vérités pullulent, du prétendu effet mortel des vaccins au caractère inoffensif de la COVID, en passant par la soi-disant Ukraine nazie. Et je ne pense pas être la seule ici, malheureusement, à faire ce constat. Ces idées et mensonges viennent toujours des mêmes réseaux au service des extrêmes et en particulier de l'extrême droite. Alors j'en appelle à tous les pro-européens et à vous aussi, socialistes. Réveillons-nous, réveillons-nous ensemble! Il est plus que temps de combattre ces mensonges éhontés, de rétablir la vérité. Défendons nos valeurs, défendons nos journalistes, défendons le droit d'aimer qui on veut, défendons le droit de disposer de son corps, défendons le droit à la protection des personnes qui fuient la guerre ou l'oppression. N'en ayons pas honte! Défendons la planète, ne cédons rien au scepticisme climatique. Défendons l'indépendance de la justice, la liberté de nos médias. Défendons notre Union et tout ce qu'elle représente. Soyons fiers, soyons confiants, soyons courageux et renvoyons pour de bon ces idées au passé, au passé auquel elles appartiennent. Alice Kuhnke,
för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Idéer är som energi. De försvinner inte, utan de omvandlas. Vårt ansvar är att förstå vilka idéer som ger förutsättningar till liv och gemenskap, och vilka idéer som skapar splittring, som bygger misstankar mellan människor, som blir till hat, som sakta men säkert förgör. De nationalistiska idéer som gavs utrymme och växte fram i början av 1900-talet, och som slutade i Förintelsen, finns fortfarande kvar. I dagens EU bärs de av de högerextrema. Men precis som då får de i dag hjälp av framför allt konservativa och liberala politiker, som förblindade av sin egen vinning tror att de kan tämja monster. Högerpopulismen förför lättfotade politiker. Det ser vi i Italien, det ser vi i Ungern, i Kroatien och sorgligt nog även i Sverige – landet som snart tar över EU:s ordförandeklubba. För att inte tvingas upprepa vår historia måste vi kunna den. Vi måste förstå hur det ena leder till det andra, och vi som vill stå på rätt sida av historien måste våga ta obekväma beslut. Vi måste våga försvara det som vi vet ger våra barn en framtid att se fram emot, och vi måste sätta hårt mot hårt mot alla steg i motsatt riktning. Och det måste göras nu. Det borde ha gjorts nyss. Vi har inte en sekund att förlora. Laura Huhtasaari,
on behalf of the ID Group. – Mr President, if you ask the left-leaning parties, they think that all the other parties are some kind of extreme, which should be excluded and stigmatised. This is how the European Parliament works. It discriminates against my ID Group. Dear friends, referendums and respecting the result is democracy. In Italy, God, family and the nation state won. This may come as a surprise to you, but it is part of democracy that power changes from time to time. The biggest advantage of Brexit is that even if the election result does not please von der Leyen, she cannot threaten Britain any more, as she threatened Italy. In Sweden, common sense finally won. Immigration policy will change and the Ministry of the Environment will be abolished. I wonder why the European Parliament is never worried about communism, even though there are parties in the governments of the Member States whose name is „the Communist Party”. Patryk Jaki,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Otóż najpierw ustalmy fakty. Szanowni Państwo, jaka ideologia pochłonęła najwięcej ofiar w historii świata? Otóż tą ideologią był komunizm. Komunizm, który jak rozumiem, wam nie przeszkadza, bo pełno tutaj ludzi, którzy odwołują się do tej ideologii, w tym, jak rozumiem, również w rządzie koalicyjnym w Hiszpanii. I to wam w ogóle nie przeszkadza. Przypomnijmy, czym był i na jakich wartościach opierał się komunizm: na walce z Bogiem i chrześcijaństwem, na walce z rodziną, na walce z wolnością i na walce z prawdziwymi fundamentami europejskości, które są trzy od ponad dwóch tysięcy lat: filozofia grecka, rzymskie prawo, chrześcijaństwo. Na tym zbudowano pokój w Europie, największe dzieła sztuki, architektury, filozofii, powszechny system edukacji, pierwszą konstytucję w Europie, która powstała w katolickiej Polsce. Schuman wyznawał te wartości, do których się tak często odwołujecie. A dzisiaj, gdyby przyszedł tutaj do tego parlamentu, pewnie nie mógłby pełnić żadnej funkcji. Bo taka jest w was demokracja, że jak w Szwecji wygra ktoś, kto wam się nie podoba, to nie ma demokracji. Bo co? Tak samo w Hiszpanii, jeżeliby wygrałby ktoś, kto wam się nie podoba, czy we Włoszech wygrywa ktoś, kto się wam nie podoba, to wtedy nie ma demokracji. Bo prawdziwa demokracja dla was to jest tylko wtedy, kiedy wygrywa lewica. Tylko że to nie jest, szanowni Państwo, demokracja, tylko to jest dyktatura. Dokładnie tak samo jest z tym kryterium praworządności. W Polsce są takie same rozwiązania jak w innych państwach. Tylko wam to przeszkadza, bo mówicie „może i są, ale oni mają gorszą kulturę i tradycję”. To są poglądy właśnie rasistowskie, które doprowadziły do wszystkich wojen w Europie. Nie idźcie tą drogą. Prawdziwa demokracja polega na tym, że słuchacie ludzi, a nie wyobrażacie sobie, że tylko wy będziecie decydowali o tym, kto naprawdę będzie rządził w poszczególnych krajach. Niyazi Kizilyürek,
on behalf of The Left Group. – Mr President, Theodor Adorno, already in 1967, pointed out that one of the causes of the rise of the extreme right is the failure of liberal democracies to fulfil their promises and satisfy the needs of the citizens. It is true that, with no liberal policies in recent years, the gap between the privileged and the vast majority of the population has increased. The far right exploits the dissatisfaction of the angry masses and mobilises ressentiment against the political class. What the extreme right provides are nationalism, anti-enlightenment, xenophobia and political authoritarianism. It talks about exclusive and pure national identity, it turns against immigration, especially against Muslim immigrants, and presents the EU as a threat. For the far right, the multicultural EU is denationalising European people. We should be aware that the rise of the right goes hand in hand with the rise of nationalism. Indeed, in the historical context, all 21st century nationalism means far right. Unfortunately, when it comes to issues such as national identity and multiculturalism, the mainstream right is often using similar discourses to the extreme right and is normalising the narrative of far right thinking. Miroslav Radačovský (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, predpokladám, že keby tu bolo všetkých 705 europoslancov a každého z nich by som sa spýtal, kto je pravicový extrémista, tak nezdvihol by ruku nikto. Keby som sa opýtal vo Švédsku, v Taliansku, v Maďarsku, v Poľsku, v Španielsku, v Chorvátsku, kto je pravicový extrémista a kto volil pravicových extrémistov, tak nezdvihne ruku nikto. Jednoducho, každý by mi odpovedal, že je patriotom, že je patriotom svojej vlasti, že je švédskym patriotom, talianskym patriotom, maďarským patriotom, chorvátskym patriotom. Vám, liberálnej demokracii prekáža, že tu nie stúpa pravicový extrémizmus, ale že tu stúpa patriotizmus a patriotizmus nie je ani pravicový, ani ľavicový. Patriotizmus je jednoducho patriotizmus, vzťah k vlasti. A pokiaľ budú silné patriotické štáty národné, tak bude aj silná Európa. A pokiaľ nebude patriotizmus v každom štáte, pocit občana, lásky k svojej vlasti, k spolupatričnosti k Európe, tak to tu môže skončiť. Ja som tiež na Slovensku predsedom strany Slovenský patriot, a keďže tento pán búcha, tak končím. Fulvio Martusciello (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, che cos'è la democrazia? La democrazia è il voto del popolo. In Svezia a settembre ha votato l'82 % dei cittadini svedesi; hanno scelto liberamente, senza costrizioni, senza violenze, si sono recati in cabina elettorale e hanno espresso un voto. La stessa cosa è accaduta in Italia il 25 settembre. Il 64 % degli italiani è andato nella cabina elettorale e ha fatto la propria scelta, ragionevolmente, consapevolmente. Questa è la democrazia: è il diritto dei cittadini di poter scegliere liberamente da chi essere governati e questo Parlamento non può sindacare cosa sia giusto o sbagliato, non possiamo ritenere che un governo sia non in linea soltanto perché non ha le stesse idee che magari abbiamo noi nel cuore. Dobbiamo essere razionali nel giudicare i governi e dobbiamo giudicare i governi dagli atti, da quello che faranno. Ho sentito, devo dire la verità, tante sciocchezze sul mio paese, sull'Italia. Noi siamo chiari, chiarissimi, sulla nostra linea politica estera. Siamo stati i primi a condannare l'invasione in Ucraina e la nostra linea non cambierà assolutamente con il nuovo governo, così come non era cambiata con i governi precedenti. Ecco, dobbiamo essere consapevoli che gli atti che feriscono sono quelli che magari sono accaduti qui oggi in questo Parlamento, quando un emendamento corretto, che voleva tentare di ripristinare la corretta educazione dei ragazzi palestinesi sia stato bocciato e non sia stato messo in votazione. Questi sono gli atti che feriscono: l'antisemitismo dilagante che purtroppo è presente anche in questo Parlamento e sta trovando grande spazio in Europa. Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Herr talman! Kommissionen och rådet! „Sverigedemokraterna har en nationalistisk bakgrund och ett förflutet som är bedrövligt. De står för saker jag inte står för. De har en annan syn på kultur och jämställdhet. Deras historia är ju verkligen sjuklig.” Orden kommer från svenska Liberalernas partiledare Johan Pehrson i en tv-intervju. Samma parti, Liberalerna, har nu ingått avtal med detta högerextrema parti, Sverigedemokraterna. Ett avtal som innebär att Sverigedemokraterna med sin högerextrema agenda nu dikterar villkoren för den nya svenska regeringen där Liberalerna ingår. Det som för några år sedan var otänkbart för högerpartierna och Liberalerna, att samarbeta med extremhögern, har blivit accepterat och normalt, så till den milda grad att man väljer bort sin egen politik. För Liberalerna hade ett val, ett avgörande val, och de valde att ge makt åt extremhögern. Jag trodde aldrig, aldrig att detta skulle kunna hända i mitt land, Sverige. Liberalerna i Sverige ska skämmas. Genom de svenska Liberalerna har Renew nu öppnat dörren för samarbete med ECR. Kommer vi att gå samma väg i detta hus? Renew, det är er tur. Ni måste vara tydliga. Ni måste göra ert val. Vi har utmaningar i EU, där vi måste hålla samman. Och för oss socialdemokrater är det en självklarhet att värna våra grundläggande värden och inte ge extremhögern mer inflytande än man redan har genom att man är invald i parlamentet. Jag hoppas att både EPP och Renew förstår allvaret i den här frågan. Ett exempel i Sverige är att den nya regeringen redan har skrotat den välkända feministiska utrikespolitiken. Det är bara början. Katalin Cseh (Renew). – Mr President, let me give you an example that clearly shows not only how anti-EU disinformation is being spread by far right forces in the EU, but also how passivity from the European institutions is playing a part in the problem. As with many of you right now, there are mass protests in Hungary because people have had enough of the government defunding public education to the brink of collapse. The answer to this from government propaganda is very clear: Brussels is to blame for all this. Viktor Orban said with his own words that it's because of the European Union that there are no wage increases for teachers. The reason why a Hungarian teacher earns EUR 700 is you, colleagues, not the Prime Minister who has been governing for 12 years with a super-majority. Well, no surprises here, right? My question to you, colleagues, why wasn't there a single Commission official who bothered to refute these blatant lies. These are the same lies as are spread about the Ukraine war and just about every major policy field in the EU. Did they not learn the lesson from Brexit, another far right anti-EU campaign that was sold on lies? It could work because these lies were met with deafening silence from the EU side. Anti-EU disinformation is corroding our Union from within, so it's time for the Commission to do something about it. Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, far right is seeking normalisation and we are giving it to them. First, they had to disguise their fascist legacy, their most frightening symbols and their worst racist, violent rhetoric. Second, they asked right-wing and liberal centrists to open the door, to let them in a bit, accessing little places of power in Parliament, even in government, and spreading this false narrative that sometimes the left would be more extremist than far-right. It happened in Austria, now Italy, Sweden, France. And now third, we should be all reassured because they are not claiming they want to leave the European Union anymore. But why should they? They can do scary far-right politics, take the money, use the single market and influence the decisions. Viktor Orbán paved the way. Eating up the EU from the inside is the new respectable path of power for the far right. Isabella Tovaglieri (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mi rivolgo innanzitutto a chi oggi ha voluto fortemente questo dibattito, cioè le sinistre europee. Ancora una volta volete convincerci che i governi sono democratici solo quando a vincere le elezioni siete voi, oppure, meglio ancora, quando al governo andate voi, magari senza un mandato elettorale, esattamente come è accaduto per molti anni in Italia. Ossessionate da chi la pensa diversamente da voi, state tenendo in ostaggio questo Parlamento impedendoci di affrontare i veri problemi dell'Europa. Il pericolo delle destre non esiste, non ci sono prove, ma solo tanti pregiudizi e propaganda a buon mercato. Parliamo invece del pericolo delle sinistre antidemocratiche: da quando avete perso il contatto con i reali problemi non rispettate il voto popolare e mettete alla gogna governi democraticamente eletti. Parliamo invece del pericolo delle sinistre europee che non si vergognano di fare accordi con i dittatori di mezzo mondo e che premono per far entrare in Europa la Turchia, un'assurdità a cui solo le destre europee si sono opposte. E allora basta con questo teatrino. L'unico pericolo che corre oggi quest'Aula è di perdere tempo prezioso per discutere di caro energia, di caro bollette e di inflazione che erode i salari. Allora, se non per rispetto a noi, almeno per rispetto di chi ci ha eletti, lasciate questo Parlamento libero di lavorare seriamente, di dare risposte concrete che i cittadini si attendono. Perché, care sinistre, i cittadini non si convincono con le accuse, ma con programmi seri, concreti e credibili e le elezioni in Italia ve lo hanno dimostrato. Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR). – Señor presidente, ustedes se comportan como un matón en el patio del colegio. Durante años, han estado amedrentando a los niños, pero hoy hay una generación que ha decidido plantarles cara. Después de oír el debate, se demuestra de nuevo que nadie en Europa recibe más insultos, odio y violencia que eso que ustedes llaman la extrema derecha. Pero ya no dan miedo, dan vergüenza ajena. Si quieres un empleo estable: extrema derecha. Si respetas a tus padres y exiges el derecho a educar a tus hijos: extrema derecha. Si no quieres vivir compartiendo un apartamento de treinta metros cuadrados: extrema derecha. Si amas a tu nación: extrema derecha. Si intentas vivir tu fe cristiana de forma coherente: extrema derecha. Si te parece ridículo el feminismo woke que atenta contra las leyes biológicas: extrema derecha. Si quieres pasear seguro por las calles de tu ciudad: extrema derecha. Si sabes que solo con molinos y placas solares no vamos a mantener la dignidad de Europa: extrema derecha. Si no quieres que las élites millonarias decidan por ti y quieres que decida el pueblo: extrema derecha. Todo el que se enfrenta a ustedes debe ser expulsado del espacio público, pero esto se ha acabado. Ya no va a ser así, porque vamos a ganar en toda Europa. Eugenia Rodríguez Palop (The Left). – Señor presidente, señor Buxadé, me ha facilitado la intervención porque yo justo iba a empezar con esta campaña de la extrema derecha en España. Si te sales del caminito marcado del pensamiento único, serás cualquier cosa, pero también facha. Y sigue. Si decides hablar bien de nuestra historia: facha. Si crees que España es más fuerte unida: muy facha. Si crees que las víctimas del terrorismo merecen respeto: muy facha. Si piensas algo tan lógico como que el hombre es hombre y la mujer es mujer: facha. Que defiendes la vida y la familia: facha. Esta es una de las campañas, de las simpáticas campañas, de la extrema derecha en España. Una campaña que se apropia de tu familia, de tus abuelos, de tus hijos, de tu identidad sexual y hasta de tu madre. La extrema derecha juega a distorsionar ironizando para homologarse, pero se opone a las leyes LGTBIQ, a la educación sexual, a las leyes de la infancia, a la memoria democrática o a los servicios públicos que necesitan los más vulnerables. Digámoslo claro: el racismo no es normal, no es normal el clasismo, ni la xenofobia, ni el machismo y, sí, en efecto, es fascismo y no se puede normalizar porque ha generado y genera víctimas. Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (NI). – Monsieur le Président, le blanchiment est quotidien et structurel, mais nous ne le vaincrons pas avec des slogans ou avec une supériorité morale face à leurs discours de plus en plus sophistiqués. Il faut commencer à démanteler leurs arguments un par un pour démontrer, au moyen de données, qu'ils n'ont pas raison dans les débats où ils se sentent à l'aise – immigration, religion, sécurité, fiscalité, etc. Nous devons renouveler notre argumentaire parce qu'ils l'ont fait. Mais tandis que nous dénonçons les discours de haine, il y a des États qui contribuent au blanchiment quotidien et structurel de ces discours. L'Espagne est pleine de rues et de places nommées d'après Franco ou les franquistes. À Madrid, ils ont décidé de dédier une rue à la division Azul, l'armée espagnole de volontaires qui est allée combattre aux côtés de Hitler. Le fondateur du parti fasciste est toujours enterré dans un mausolée de l'État. La Fondation Francisco Franco, illégale, et ses héritiers politiques ont des accords de gouvernance avec les partis populaires. Le problème n'est pas seulement l'extrême droite. Le problème est que ce qui la favorise, y compris la tolérance ou même les métaphores sur le paradis européen et la jungle du reste du monde. Loránt Vincze (PPE). – Mr President, strangely enough, we never have a debate in this House about the dangers of the extreme left for our societies. I could tell you a lot about how extreme left communism devastated my country, Romania. In Sweden, the government was formed yesterday, while in Italy it has not even been formed yet. Nonetheless, the left in this house wants to put a quarantine stamp on a majority that emerged in free and democratic elections. Colleagues, we can certainly have ideological debates, but we cannot alter the vote of citizens. This would not be democracy anymore, but an ideological dictatorship. Perform better in the elections, not in making outcasts of the winners. The centre right was always careful in choosing its partners and, more importantly, in keeping its coalitions on a firmly European track. I am certain this will be the case in Italy and in Sweden this time around too. Today's debate is not timely at all, but it gives us the opportunity to stay where we stay. We need the centre right and Christian Democrats. We state clearly that the left has no monopoly on what Europe is, on what Europeans can think about it, and on how Europe should look. Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, al igual que hay gente que opina que el populismo es una fórmula demasiado genérica que requiere conclusiones nacionales, hay quienes dicen que la extrema derecha también exige un examen detallado, que no es la misma la que llega al Gobierno en Italia que la que lo hace en Suecia. Y, sin embargo, exhiben rasgos comunes: el primero, es un nacionalismo reaccionario, propenso a embarcarse en guerras culturales e identitarias y, por tanto, directamente contrario a la diversidad, que es el valor constitutivo de la Unión Europea; el segundo, su carácter rabiosamente antigualitario, lo que la enfrenta tanto con el feminismo como con los movimientos que considera progresistas, porque se fundan precisamente en la exaltación del valor de la igualdad; pero, sobre todo, el rasgo más preocupante, porque conduce a la conclusión de que es rectamente antieuropea, es que practica un lenguaje que entronca con el discurso del odio, que la historia demuestra que propende al delito de odio. Hemos debatido, en esta sesión, el asesinato infame en Bratislava, por un pistolero de extrema derecha, de dos personas discriminadas por su orientación sexual. De modo que hay que decir que, cuando se comete un delito contra inmigrantes, no es ninguna otra ideología, es siempre la extrema derecha, y eso es directamente antieuropeo. Y, por tanto, la conclusión es clara: cualquier forma de colaboración política con la extrema derecha no puede ser blanqueada, porque acaba siendo una forma de complicidad con delitos de odio. Delitos de odio que no pueden ser en ningún caso subestimados ni banalizados. Ramona Strugariu (Renew). – Domnule președinte, rapoarte ale serviciilor de informații americane și europene publicate de presă ne spun că Rusia a investit în ultimii ani cel puțin 300 de milioane de dolari în țări de pe trei continente, pentru a influența politica și politicile noastre publice. Sunt cifre infime, doar vârful aisbergului. Există agenții Rusiei și există așa-numiții idioți utili ai Kremlinului, care fac agenda propagandei ruse gratuit și devastator pentru democrație. Orice demers de legitimare a unui partid sau politician extremist de către oricare dintre familiile politice europene are costuri greu de imaginat. Avem deja facțiuni extremiste și ultraconservatoare în Europa la guvernare. Uitați-vă în jur. Vorbim despre acei pentru care drepturile sociale nu există, pentru care superioritatea rasei este o credință, pentru care diversitatea se plătește cu moartea. Bătălia următoarei decade este pentru valori, drepturi și libertăți. Fie o câștigăm, fie nu vom mai exista ca democrații. Auriștii, meloniștii și democrații suedezi și alții asemenea nu trebuie vreodată să facă agenda politică a Europei și a țărilor noastre. Atunci când se va întâmpla asta am pierdut pacea, libertatea, democrația, echilibrul. Adică tot. Diana Riba i Giner (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, en Italia contemplamos cómo la extrema derecha gobernará con el apoyo impagable del partido de Berlusconi, miembro del PPE. En España, el Partido Popular —otra vez, PPE— abre las puertas de gobiernos regionales a Vox, un partido que no condena el franquismo, que es antieuropeísta y aliado de Putin y que predica una ideología xenófoba y misógina. Y ante este blanqueo del fascismo, no escuchamos nada más que el silencio del PPE, pero cuando realmente gana la extrema derecha es cuando aquellos que se denominan demócratas adoptan su lenguaje y sus marcos mentales. Y esto ocurre incluso dentro de la misma Comisión. Es inaceptable que el vicepresidente Borrell hable de Occidente como de un jardín y del resto del mundo como de una jungla a la que parece que haya que civilizar. Una metáfora que desprende su supremacismo intolerable. Combatir este fenómeno es una causa colectiva que nos interpela a todas las demócratas y que nos obliga a responder con una propuesta valiente basada en la inclusión, la igualdad y el bien común. Nicolaus Fest (ID). – Herr Präsident, verehrte Kollegen! Als ich das Thema sah – Weißwaschung der extremen und antieuropäischen Parteien –, dachte ich mir: Wer außer den Linken kann solch einen Quatsch auf die Agenda setzen? Aber tatsächlich freue ich mich über die Debatte, denn sie zeigt, dass auch die Linken sehen, was wir inzwischen alle sehen. Die linke Weltsicht, die linke Kulturhegemonie zerbricht: in Schweden, in Italien, in Ungarn, natürlich in Polen – aber auch in Frankreich ist sie kurz davor. Die Wahlergebnisse zeigen es überdeutlich. Genau diese Wahlergebnisse sind auch der Grund, warum wir diese Debatte hier heute führen – wenn es denn überhaupt eine Debatte ist. Es geht nur darum, rechte Parteien, konservative Parteien zu diffamieren, ohne dass man dafür irgendwelche Argumente hat. Aber Sie sollten zur Kenntnis nehmen: Die Leute, die Menschen wollen keine linke Hegemonie mehr. Sie haben genug von offenen Grenzen und importierter Kriminalität, sie haben genug von Gender und Wokeness, sie haben genug von exzessiven Minderheitenrechten und sie wollen bezahlbare Energie und keine Deindustrialisierung per Green Deal. Die dänischen Sozialdemokraten übrigens haben das schon vor einiger Zeit begriffen, als sie die Einwanderung deutlich beschränkten. Auch die schwedischen Sozialdemokraten haben das getan, wenn auch zu spät. Sind das Ihrer Ansicht nach nun alles Faschisten? Vielleicht sollte die Linke vor der nächsten Europawahl mal darüber nachdenken, wie sie sich der Wirklichkeit und den Bedürfnissen der Menschen wieder ein wenig annähert. Sonst – das wäre allerdings auch zu begrüßen – haben wir bald nach der nächsten Wahl deutlich weniger Linke hier im Parlament. Raffaele Stancanelli (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, purtroppo anche oggi ci troviamo a partecipare a un dibattito che speravamo non fosse di pura propaganda o che sfociasse nella faziosità se si chiama in causa la destra italiana. È evidente infatti il tentativo di qualificare come estrema una precisa parte politica, con l'intento di criminalizzare i risultati elettorali che, anche in una nazione fondativa dell'Europa come l'Italia, ci sono stati. Raccontare una destra antieuropeista evidenzia la volontà precisa di narrare una realtà che non esiste, dal momento che quella italiana è stata sempre, nei decenni, europeista e radicata nell'Occidente. Negli ultimi trent'anni la destra italiana ha partecipato a governi nazionali, ha eletto decine di migliaia di amministratori, centinaia di sindaci e presidenti di regione, io stesso sono stato sindaco di una grande città, abbiamo svolto la nostra azione politica e amministrativa nel rispetto della Costituzione italiana e delle leggi e ci siamo sottoposti, al termine del mandato, al giudizio degli elettori. Ora gli italiani hanno dato una larga maggioranza al centrodestra e Giorgia Meloni, leader di Fratelli d'Italia, si appresta a presiedere il governo italiano. Non abbiamo bisogno di alcuna riabilitazione e continueremo a combattere ogni forma di estremismo e di violenza. Κωνσταντίνος Αρβανίτης (The Left). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, άκουγα τους εκπροσώπους του Ευρωπαϊκού Λαϊκού Κόμματος και μου ήρθε ο τίτλος „Ωραίο μου πλυντήριο”. Δηλαδή, σαν να μην καταλαβαίνετε τι έγινε στην Σουηδία, σαν να μην καταλαβαίνετε τι γίνεται στην Ιταλία. Οι φίλοι του Μουσολίνι έχουν έρθει στα πράγματα και συναινείτε σε αυτό. Η ακραία δεξιά αντιμετωπίζεται με τρόπο —επιεικώς θα πω— „απολιτίκ” και ως αφήγημα και ως πρακτική, με την ανιστόρητη προσέγγιση που έχετε και, βεβαίως, με αυτήν τη λογική της αναθεώρησης και του αναθεωρητισμού της ιστορίας. Η χώρα μου είχε 600.000 νεκρούς από τους ναζί και τους φασίστες. Ποιους ξεπλένετε εδώ; Θέλω να σας πω ότι η δεξιά πάντα επένδυε και εξακολουθεί να επενδύει στη δημιουργία εσωτερικών εχθρών. Ποινικοποιεί τη φτώχεια, ποινικοποιεί το διαφορετικό, ποινικοποιούσαν τότε τους Εβραίους οι ακροδεξιοί και οι φασίστες και σήμερα ποινικοποιούν ό,τι δημιουργεί πρόβλημα στο αφήγημά τους. Οι εμπειρίες του 1935 δεν πρέπει να μας αφήσουν να μην καταλαβαίνουμε τι ακριβώς συμβαίνει. Δεν μπορούμε να κάνουμε τα ίδια λάθη. Δεν πρέπει να δείξουμε καμία ανοχή στον φασισμό, στην ακραία δεξιά ... (Ο Πρόεδρος αφαιρεί τον λόγο από τον ομιλητή) Balázs Hidvéghi (NI). – Mr President, dear colleagues, what is this debate really about? It's not about the whitewashing of anybody; it's really about the intellectual terror waged by the European left against everybody who dares to disagree with them. They would label as an extremist anybody who is against Islamist migration, who defends the traditional family or defends children from LGBTI propaganda. It shows how hysterical and intolerant the Socialists, the Liberals and the Greens have become. They now openly disrespect the democratic decision of the people. The Swedes or Italians elect a Conservative government, and here they are unleashing a vicious attack against them, just like hunting dogs. Let me be clear: being pro-European does not mean being left wing, and it is certainly not the prerogative of the left to define what constitutes pro-European or who is a good Conservative or Christian Democrat. This debate, by the way, is also an illustration of the failed political strategy of the EPP. Mr Weber, who is curiously absent from the Chamber now, has manoeuvred his party into a spectacular dead end. This is what happens when you give up your principles in the hope from the left of, I don't know, positions or soft treatment by the press. They will never be satisfied with you. You should not follow this route. Ioan-Rareș Bogdan (PPE). – Excelențele voastre, discursul rasist, anti-minorități, anti-european și pro-putinist nu a apărut în urma pandemiei și inflației. Pandemia și factura la energie au fost doar picătura care a umplut paharul în acest război anti-european. Dacă știm să vorbim cu cetățenii, extrema dreaptă va crește doar pe termen scurt. Mă îngrijorează altceva. Extrema dreaptă este acceptată uneori la dialogul politic, după ce actorii ei pretind că renunță la discursul pro-rus și elementele radicale. Acest zbor sub radar este extrem de periculos. Și mai periculos este însă atunci când partidele tradiționale preiau discursul radical, sperând să adune voturi. Soluția nu este aici. Soluția este ca oamenii să fie ajutați să treacă peste această perioadă dificilă. Totodată, trebuie să le arătăm sursele de finanțare ale extremei drepte și vor constata că politicienii care profită de criză sunt doar actori într-un teatru de păpuși. Europenii trebuie să știe asta. Verificarea transferurilor bancare nu trebuie să se limiteze la suspiciuni de terorism sau spălare de bani. În numele delegației PPE pe România, cer verificarea surselor de finanțare ale extremei drepte europene. Bugetul Uniunii Europene nu mai poate contribui la salariile marionetelor lui Putin. Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in Germania si potrebbe mai immaginare di esporre un ritratto di Adolf Hitler nella sede della Cancelleria? In Italia invece la seconda carica dello Stato, Ignazio La Russa, asserisce che togliere un ritratto di Mussolini da un ministero è una vergognosa cancel culture, ma si deve vergognare il presidente del Senato La Russa, perché l'antifascismo è il fondamento della nostra Repubblica nata dalla Resistenza. Ma l'Italia rischia oggi di perdere la bussola ancora per altri motivi. Come non ricordare oggi Berlusconi che, dopo aver inizialmente condannato a singhiozzi la guerra di Mosca, continua ora a rinnovare la storica fedeltà al padrone del Cremlino, arrivando ad affermare senza pudore di essersi recentemente scambiato doni e lettere con Putin, nonostante le sanzioni, e di essere il primo dei suoi cinque veri amici. Questa grave deriva del Partito popolare europeo interessa non solo l'Italia, ma tanti altri paesi. È il momento che i veri moderati e liberali prendano un'altra strada, così come è necessario che la sinistra sappia fare la sua parte senza tentennamenti. In Italia non staremo a guardare questa deriva pericolosa e porteremo avanti un'opposizione dura, nell'interesse degli italiani e degli europei. L'Europa e l'Italia meritano un'alternativa vera, fuori da vecchi compromessi del passato, che sappia dare speranza a chi oggi l'ha persa. Ce la metteremo tutta. Irena Joveva (Renew). – Gospod predsednik. Omejevanje človekovih pravic, napadi na novinarje, brutalni napadi na LGBTQI+, nespoštovanje vladavine prava, korupcija. To je samo nekaj grozljivih dejanj iz Unije, na katera nekateri glasno opozarjamo že leta. Prikazujejo pojemanje demokratičnih vrednot, za kar je v naši družbi odgovorna radikalno skrajno desna populistična opcija, ampak naša opozorila vedno znova naletijo na gluha ušesa, o čemer priča porast neliberalnih teženj. Skrajna desnica za mobilizacijo ljudstva in svojih privržencev uporablja zgodovinsko zapuščino s pogosto sprevrženo interpretacijo. V Sloveniji na primer skrajna desnica to počne prek navideznega boja proti že dolgo neobstoječemu komunizmu, Unija pa namesto ukrepanja izraža zaskrbljenost. Pomanjkanje ukrepov in rešitev pa medtem skrajni desnici omogoča možnost nadaljnjega širjenja in, kot vemo, njihovo širjenje pomeni konstantno rušenje temeljev Unije. Evropo moramo razbremeniti kleptokratskih, avtokratskih teženj in zavarovati naše vrednote. Dovolj je zatiskanja oči. Rosa D'Amato (Verts/ALE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, per raggiungere il potere l'estrema destra ha imparato che bisogna indossare la maschera della moderazione o normalizzazione, ma le bugie hanno le gambe corte. I cittadini europei si renderanno conto molto presto delle vostre intenzioni: facilitare l'evasione fiscale e prendersela invece con i più vulnerabili, importare gas dalle dittature e poi incolpare il Green Deal di tutti i mali del mondo, difendere le multinazionali quando scappano nei paradisi fiscali devastando interi popoli ed ecosistemi, mentre a casa vostra avete solo un'ossessione: tagliare i servizi pubblici, dalla sanità all'educazione. Da italiana, da europea, dico con forza che non potrà mai essere normale l'omofobia, la xenofobia, la negazione dei principi elementari delle civiltà moderne. Non sarà mai normale puntare il dito contro le differenze, contro gli immigrati che fuggono da guerre e dalla povertà. I diritti umani non sono negoziabili. Non abbasseremo la guardia, ci troverete qui in piazza a denunciare le vostre ipocrisie e a ricordarvi che siete il passato. Filip De Man (ID). – Voorzitter, collega's, vandaag voert men nog maar eens het proces van onze rechtse fractie. Termen als „racist” en „fascist” moeten daarbij natuurlijk dienen als afschrikking voor de kiezers. Het is een oude truc die onze politieke tegenstanders gebruiken om ons monddood te maken, want wij zijn verdoken aanhangers van Hitler. Nu, volgens mij had die man beter niet bestaan, maar het belangrijkst van al is natuurlijk dat niemand in onze fractie zich beroept op het nazisme. Pas op, er is hier een fractie die zich wél beroept op een moorddadige ideologie, en die zit daar: The Left. Die noemen zich schaamteloos „communist”, terwijl iedereen sedert het boek van Franse academici Le livre noir du communisme weet dat dit het meest moorddadige systeem ooit was, met 100 miljoen doden onder Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot enzovoort. Daar piept hier echter niemand over. Het cordon sanitaire geldt niet voor de communisten. Integendeel! Socialisten, christendemocraten, liberalen werken in dit Parlement regelmatig samen met die communisten. Allen samen, dus, om rechts te diaboliseren, en gedreven ook door de angst om hun macht en hun postjes te verliezen, zoals nu in Italië. Branco di ipocriti! Clara Ponsatí Obiols (NI). – Mr President, big words, grave concerns, and self-righteous indignation from the Spanish Social Democrats and other colleagues here, but colleagues, this is not a new threat. Spain has Vox now, yes, but Vox had Spain long before it even existed. Vox had judges also in the Constitutional Court long before it had any elected representative. Vox controls the police, the military and the judiciary – and no wonder, honestly. The King of Spain was appointed by his corrupt fugitive father, who in turn got the crown from Franco. Spain's chain of legitimacy dates back to the 1939 fascist victory, the only extreme right victory in Europe that never got overturned. Yet authorities in the EU speak of Spain, more of transition to democracy, and shallow abuses of human rights, with a straight face. When it comes to Catalonia, all Spanish authorities subscribe to the agenda of the extreme right, and as long as Brussels protects them, you are complicit in advancing the political testament dictated by Franco on his deathbed. Robert Biedroń (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Chcecie Państwo zobaczyć, jak wyglądają rządy skrajnej prawicy? Przyjedźcie do mojej ojczyzny, do Polski. Strefy wolne od LGBT, kobiety sprowadzone do roli inkubatorów, sojusz tronu i ołtarza, zamach na media i sądownictwo – takie rzeczy zdarzają się, kiedy my, zwykli ludzie, odwracamy wzrok, udajemy, że nie widzimy. Kiedy skrajna prawica jest wybielana, normalizowana, nasza Wspólnota, europejska Wspólnota przegrywa. Bo Unia Europejska – i to musimy powiedzieć sobie jasno – jest oparta na kompletnie innych wartościach i zasadach niż te głoszone przez skrajną prawicę. Unia Europejska powstała między innymi z wielkiego marzenia, żeby nigdy więcej nie doszło do rządów właśnie skrajnej prawicy. Z doświadczenia, że Auschwitz, że ten największy obóz koncentracyjny nie spadł nam z nieba. To zwykli ludzie przez swoją obojętność do tego doprowadzili, wybielając właśnie tego typu poglądy, jakich dzisiaj także tutaj doświadczyliśmy. Mamy kolejny kryzys. Skrajna prawica będzie szukała swoich kozłów ofiarnych. Już dzisiaj szuka, już dzisiaj są ofiary między innymi w Bratysławie. Ale jeśli my, zwykli ludzie, będziemy odwracali wzrok, takich ofiar będzie więcej. Ostatni więzień obozu Auschwitz-Birkenau, prof. Marian Turski, powiedział: istnieje jeszcze 11. przykazanie: nie bądź obojętny. Nie bądźmy obojętni. Samira Rafaela (Renew). – Voorzitter, ik hoor sommige collega's zeggen: „Het is een kwestie van ondermijnen, het is een kwestie van ongefundeerde kritiek.” Nee, dat is het niet! Waar het om gaat, is dat extreemrechts het politieke debat vervuilt met antifeministische, antimigratie- en anti-lhbti-retoriek. Walgelijke retoriek waarmee mensen in de samenleving worden weggezet. Dat wil extreemrechts niet erkennen. Maar soms denk ik: ze weten dondersgoed waar ze mee bezig zijn. Ik kan u vertellen dat ik als vrouw van kleur al lang te maken heb met extreemrechtse terreur, als politica binnen het onlinedomein. Het is niet veilig voor heel veel mensen online. Je opent je sociale media en daar komt het weer: racisme en seksisme uit extreemrechtse hoek. Het debat vervuilen, dat is wat extreemrechts doet. We moeten zorgen dat we benoemen wat extreemrechts doet: het wegzetten van mensen en het benutten en toepassen van walgelijke retoriek. Laten we ons daartegen blijven uitspreken en zorgen dat dat niet wint en de boventoon krijgt in onze samenleving. Alexandra Geese (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! In Italien wurde letzte Woche ein Sammler von Faschismus-Devotionalien zum Senatspräsidenten gewählt. Und diese Sitzung musste die 92-jährige Auschwitz-Überlebende Liliana Segre leiten. Welch eine Demütigung für diese außergewöhnliche Frau! Wie konnte das geschehen? Möglich gemacht hat das Berlusconis Forza Italia, und zwar mit großer Unterstützung der europäischen Christdemokraten, auch aus diesem Hause. Ist es das denn, was Sie wollen: rechtsextreme Regierungen, die keine Gelegenheit auslassen, die Demokratie stetig auszuhöhlen? Reicht es Ihnen nicht, was Orbán in Ungarn angerichtet hat? In Schweden regiert jetzt ein Bündnis aus Christdemokraten, Moderaten und Liberalen, das sich von den rechtsextremen Schwedendemokraten abhängig gemacht hat. Deswegen stelle ich auch den Liberalen die Frage: Ist es das, was Sie wollen? Es gibt eine klare Grenze zwischen Parteien, die sich zur liberalen Demokratie bekennen, und denen, die das nicht tun und die als trojanisches Pferd genau diese Demokratie abschaffen wollen. Demokratie stirbt nicht, weil sie angegriffen wird. Demokratie stirbt, wenn die Menschen, die sich als Demokratinnen und Demokraten bezeichnen, sie nicht verteidigen. Gunnar Beck (ID). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! In jeder Plenarsitzung beklagt dieses Parlament die Existenz der sogenannten extremen Rechten. Als antieuropäisch und extrem rechts gilt – paradoxerweise – jede Partei, die die Interessen der Europäer oder die Meinungsfreiheit achtet, Masseneinwanderung ins europäische Sozialsystem beklagt oder Verarmung und zivilisatorische Rückentwicklung in Europa durch grüne Phantasmata nicht gutheißt. Und weil sie die Sorge und Not der Bürger ernst nehmen, werden rechtskonservative Regierungskoalitionen immer beliebter. Meine Partei, die AfD, ist laut Umfragen inzwischen die stärkste Partei in Ostdeutschland. Doch alle anderen Parteien lehnen Zusammenarbeit mit uns ab, weil wir zwar gewählt, aber nicht demokratisch seien. So soll es laut Brüssel überall in der EU sein. Denn, so Brüssel, in Demokratien sei nur erlaubt, was gefällt – nicht den Bürgern, sondern Frau von der Leyen. Enikő Győri (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Ennek a háznak a baloldala nem nyugszik. Minden hónapban generál egy, a jobboldalt gyalázó vitát. Ezt legtöbbször Magyarország vagy Lengyelország vitának hívják, de mivel most két további tagállamban is merészeltek a polgárok tömegesen jobboldali pártokra szavazni, ideje volt egy szélesebb értelemben vett sárdobálást napirendre tűzni. Teszik önök mindezt akkor, amikor minden korábbinál szükségesebb volna összekapaszkodni és arra koncentrálni, miként lehet a háború és a szankciók okozta súlyos helyzetet közösen orvosolni. Önök kígyót békát kiabáltak a jobboldalra Olaszországban és Svédországban is a kampányban. Aztán mivel ez nem használt, mert a polgárok nem voltak vevők az önök becsmérlő szavaira, most utánlövéssel próbálkoznak. A baloldal nagy része sokáig Európa-ellenes volt. Hogy jönnek ahhoz, hogy alakulófélben levő kormányokat mindenféle címkékkel illessenek? Önök szerint a baloldalnak csak közepe, a jobboldalnak pedig csak széle van. Miért nem kiáltottak farkast, amikor Spanyolországban a Maduro-rendszer kegyeltjét, a szélsőbaloldali Podemost a szocialista Sánchez kormányra emelte? Vagy mikor Magyarországon az antiszemita, cigányellenes Jobbik összeállt a szocialistákkal és a liberálisokkal? Önök most posztfasisztáznak, a kommunizmus és nácizmus bűnei pedig bocsánatosak? Elég a kettős mércéből! Több tiszteletet kérek az emberek szabad és demokratikus választásán! Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, a extrema-direita, hoje presente em muitos países europeus, é iliberal e, por isso, é adversária dos valores democráticos europeus, da separação de poderes e do Estado de direito. É nacionalista e xenófoba, e, por isso, adversária dos direitos humanos, dos direitos dos migrantes e das minorias. E é ainda populista e eurocética, e, por isso, adversária do projeto europeu. E isto não são insultos, isto é a descrição exata da realidade política que é hoje a extrema-direita na Europa. E é por isso que é preciso dizer que as alianças governativas e parlamentares, que o centro-direita e os liberais estão hoje a fazer com a extrema-direita em vários países europeus, não são apenas um jogo perigoso que normaliza e dá mais força à extrema-direita, são também uma traição aos nossos valores europeus. E, por isso, este debate não é só sobre a extrema-direita, este debate é sobre o seu branqueamento, é sobre o senhor Berlusconi, sobre o senhor Tajani, sobre o PPE, sobre os liberais do Renew. O cordão sanitário não é uma discriminação, o cordão sanitário é uma resposta em legítima defesa da democracia e um respeito que devemos ao mandato que recebemos dos nossos próprios eleitores. Está na altura de centro-direita e liberais pensarem duas vezes antes de prosseguir este jogo perigoso e antes que seja tarde demais. Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, la extrema derecha europea vive de la ponzoña que difunde en las redes sociales y de la falsificación de la historia y gracias a la impunidad que en algunos Estados impide investigar crímenes de lesa humanidad cometidos por dictaduras como la de Franco. Amnesia interesada como la que practican, para que quede claro, organizaciones políticas que, en mi pequeño país, alentaron hace unos pocos años asesinatos, atentados y extorsiones terroristas, y se resisten hoy a asumir que lo hicieron, pedir perdón y reconocer el daño causado. Evitar que regrese el pasado más oscuro requiere verdad, justicia y reparación. Estas amnesias interesadas se retroalimentan. Convertirlas en espectáculo en la tribuna mediática las blanquea. Y distinguir entre amnesias buenas y malas califica a quien practica ese juego. Por eso, el informe anual sobre el Estado de Derecho de la Unión debe prestar más atención a este tema. Las políticas de memoria son cosa de los Estados miembros, pero los principios que las inspiran son una cuestión europea. Cuando se vulneran, hay que denunciarlo y hay que actuar. Mario Furore (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, tutti ricordiamo purtroppo in quest'Aula l'ex eurodeputato Lorenzo Fontana che indossava una maglietta pro Putin. Oggi Fontana, che ha definito peraltro „schifezze” le coppie gay, è la terza carica dello Stato italiano. Non andiamo meglio al Senato, perché la seconda carica dello Stato, La Russa, mostra in televisione la propria collezione di busti di Mussolini, che tiene in casa. La responsabilità di tutto questo ha un nome e un cognome ed è quello del Partito popolare europeo. Per qualche poltrona in più, il partito che fu di De Gasperi, Adenauer e Schuman, i padri fondatori di questa Europa, oggi rinnega la propria identità e si allinea con chi esprime politiche euroscettiche, nazionaliste e xenofobe. Questo virus arriverà anche purtroppo qui dentro alle istituzioni europee. Domani gli esponenti di estrema destra siederanno in Consiglio, probabilmente diventeranno anche commissari europei. Quanti danni faranno al progetto europeo, mi chiedo. E allora, Presidente, questo Parlamento, unito, isoli l'estrema destra e difenda i valori europei, come farà il Movimento 5 Stelle in Europa e in Italia. Elisabetta Gualmini (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io non casco certo nella trappola. Ci vengono a fare la lezioncina, ci spiegano che l'estrema destra in Italia ha vinto le elezioni e quindi può fare tutto quello che vuole e noi dobbiamo solo stare zitti. E invece no. Noi siamo determinati a parlare, a opporci, a raccontare che cos'è l'estrema destra. Perché questa è l'estrema destra che ha addirittura radicalizzato quel poco che rimaneva del partito liberale di Berlusconi, è l'estrema destra che ha eletto come cariche più importanti un nostalgico del fascismo e un ipertradizionalista per cui l'omofobia è la norma. Questa è l'estrema destra che fa l'europeista in Italia e poi viene qui a smantellare, pezzo dopo pezzo, l'Unione, l'estrema destra dei porti chiusi, dei blocchi navali, per cui tutti i migranti sono clandestini, meglio il nativismo, dove siamo tutti uguali, tutti identici perché abitiamo tutti nello stesso quartierino e non abbiamo paura. Allora noi di fronte a questo non staremo zitti, a noi nessuno chiude la bocca, noi racconteremo, noi manifesteremo, perché a noi piacciono le differenze, ci piace la democrazia, ci piace il pluralismo e tutto l'odio lo lasciamo a voi. Abir Al-Sahlani (Renew). – Herr talman! När jag satt i Sveriges riksdag hölls en debatt om demokrati i det svenska parlamentet, och då sprang Johan Pehrson, Liberalernas partiordförande, in i plenisalen när Sverigedemokraternas riksdagsledamot sa att vita människor har lättare för demokrati än människor som jag, som kommer från Mellanöstern. Då kom Johan Pehrson rusande in och tog ställning mot detta rasistiska påstående. Från den ilska som Johan Pehrson kände då, till att i dag sitta i en regering med Sverigedemokraterna i förarsätet, där de bestämmer. Ett antidemokratiskt parti bestämmer, och Johan Pehrson är så glad för detta samarbete. Jag undrar vad det var som hände? Vi har inte förändrats. Vi står fortfarande upp för den liberala demokratin, för mänskliga rättigheter, för samarbete, för internationell solidaritet. Vad har hänt? Jo, de etablerade partierna, det är de som har förändrats genom att först säga „men de har ju rätt i vissa saker”, sedan anammar de viss policy för att vinna politiska poäng, och så småningom sitter de i samma regering. Det är vår likgiltighet, det då dessa krafter släpps in. Nä, nu får det vara nog! Pierfrancesco Majorino (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, riferendosi alla Resistenza e al nazifascismo, David Sassoli diceva: „l'Europa ha trovato la forza di unirsi per diventare il luogo della pace e della solidarietà tra i popoli” e ancora oggi è questa la forza dell'Europa. Vengono quindi i brividi pensando che proprio in Italia – e lo dico da italiano – assumano cariche istituzionali di rilievo personaggi come Ignazio Benito La Russa o Lorenzo Fontana, terrificante sul terreno dei legami con Putin, dei valori e dei principi riguardanti i diritti civili e umani. Di fronte a ciò non possiamo certo rassegnarci. Dobbiamo resistere, come hanno detto tante colleghe e colleghi, e questo vuol dire certamente non mostrarsi complici, cari amici del PPE, eppure domandarci però anche come mai una certa destra che spesso vuole proprio far saltare l'Europa, avanzi. Io credo che una parte delle risposte risieda nel fatto che vi è una rabbia sociale cavalcata dai nazionalismi, che nasce pure dagli errori che queste nostre istituzioni hanno fatto sul piano proprio della politica economica e sociale, errori da correggere con decisione e coraggio. Un'Europa più giusta saprà giustamente difendersi molto meglio. Evin Incir (S&D). – Mr President, colleagues, anti-democratic and anti-European extreme-right forces are being normalised by conservatives and liberals. The latest examples are in Sweden and Italy. We live in an era of access to information, but some seem to have forgotten their history. The history that we were supposed to prevent from repeating itself; the same history that led to the creation of the European Union. Our Union is supposed to be a counterforce against all those forces trying to play Machiavelli through dividing and conquering. Something rotten has happened in the EU and the Member States the last years. The keys to the governments are by conservatives and liberals being handed out to those shouting „Jews are not a problem as long as they are few. Muslims are our biggest foreign threat and those seeing the rainbow flag as a threat”. Yes, this is a reality in my country, Sweden. In a time of increased hatred, we should roll up our sleeves and raise our voices against it, not normalise it. As the children's book author Astrid Lindgren wrote in her book The Brothers Lionheart, there were things that had to be done, even if it was dangerous. Otherwise, you are not a human being. You are just a piece of dirt. Colleagues, let's raise our voice against fascism and Nazism, not normalise it. Isabel Santos (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, o combate à extrema-direita não admite ingenuidades, alheamentos ou adiamentos e tem de ser feito no mais estrito respeito pelas regras do estado de Direito democrático. Impõe-se uma especial atenção ao financiamento dos movimentos radicais, feito através de esquemas de corrupção, de branqueamento de capitais e de criptomoeda, mas também o claro combate ao racismo, à xenofobia, à homofobia, ao discurso de ódio e ao apelo aos valores fascistas. A progressiva normalização da extrema-direita pelo centro-direita e pelos liberais, a que temos vindo a assistir na União Europeia, deixou de ser uma mera ameaça. Vemos os seus efeitos na Hungria e na Polónia, vamos vê-los em Itália e na Suécia e começamos também a vê-los em Portugal, onde, nos Açores, o PSD, cujos deputados se sentam aqui na bancada do PPE, passou a andar de braço dado com a extrema-direita para ascender ao poder no Governo Regional. Não basta bater com a mão no peito e falar de democracia. É tempo de separar as águas. Andreas Schieder (S&D). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Schweizer Dramatiker Max Frisch hat ein berühmtes Drama geschrieben, nämlich Biedermann und die Brandstifter. Da geht es darum, dass der Bürger Biedermann zwei Brandstifter in sein Haus lässt und glaubt, indem er ihnen schöntut, könnte er verhindern, dass sie das Haus in Brand setzen. Und wie endet das Stück? Das Haus brennt, und der Herr Biedermann riskiert sein Leben. Und genau das Gleiche passiert jetzt mit dem gemeinsamen Haus Europa: dass es ein Stück weit auch in Flammen und in Brand gesetzt wird. So wie in Schweden, wo sich die Moderaten nur wegen des Machterhalts oder wegen der Machtgier von den Schwedendemokraten unterstützen lassen. Oder so wie bald in Spanien, wo die Volkspartei sich immer mehr an die VOX annähert. Oder wie in Italien, wo Berlusconi und andere eh schon längst ins rechtsextreme Lager gewechselt sind. Oder auch, wie es in Österreich passiert ist unter Schwarz-Blau und Sebastian Kurz. Und am Ende, am Ende all dieser Dinge, steht einerseits der Richter, der viele dieser Politiker dann zu verurteilen hat. Aber am Ende leiden auch unsere Demokratie und das gemeinsame Projekt Europa. Klára Dobrev (S&D). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Amikor a szélsőjobbról beszélünk, többnyire egyébként nagyon fontos ideológiai vitákat folytatunk demokráciáról, idegengyűlöletről, rasszizmusról, tekintélyelvűségről. Hadd világítsam meg a szélsőjobbot, az illiberalizmust egy másik oldalról, hiszen 12 éve Magyarországon a szélsőjobb, illiberális Orbán kormányoz. És nézzék meg, mit tett 12 év alatt. Romokban az egészségügy, tanárok, diákok, szülők tízezrei tüntetnek az utcán, mert összeomlott az oktatás. A szociális helyzetünk sosem volt még ilyen rossz. Egekben az infláció, és a forint sem volt még soha ilyen gyenge, történelmi gyengeséget ért el. Amikor a szélsőjobb, az illiberalizmus kormányra kerül, akkor nem tudja megvédeni az embereket, nem tud teljesíteni. Éppen ezért egyetlenegy dolgot csinál, mert egyetlenegy dologhoz ért: a gyűlöletkeltéshez. Ez az ő politikájuk, ezért feladatunk legyőzni a szélsőjobbot, hogy az emberek számára egy tisztességes és szabad életet tudjunk biztosítani. Én ezért küzdök. Cyrus Engerer (S&D). – Mr President, like a virus, right-wing extremism is mutating in unpredictable ways. Exasperated by a pandemic which has left many scared and alone, extremist organizations have found a playground for recruitment on online comment boards and social media platforms. Yes, a playground, with media reports indicating that children as young as 13 are actually leading neo-Nazi divisions across the Union. It is clear that we need to take action and we need to do so very fast, especially in the face of upcoming crises. Sixty acts of right-wing extremism terror happen every year, often by young men who end up as lone wolves, but they are not. They are almost always part of radical, violent online groups who post memes glorifying misogyny, homophobia and white supremacy, making jokes out of violence while their hateful words turn into deadly actions with the blessing of the EPP, as we have seen in Italy and Sweden. And by the way, where is the EPP in this debate? They have fled with the far right. We warned about this yesterday, Commissioners. We warned you last week, last month. And we warn you again today. More minorities will die if you not take action against Europe's biggest and most legitimate terrorist organisation: the far right. Javi López (S&D). – Señor presidente, muchos conservadores y algunos liberales han decidido que para alcanzar el poder todo vale, tapando sus malos resultados en las elecciones; todo vale, incluso pactar con la extrema derecha. Lo hemos visto ahora en Suecia, donde la derecha tradicional ha alcanzado el Gobierno gracias a un partido con raíces neonazis. Lo estamos viendo también en Italia, donde la derecha tradicional de Berlusconi ha decidido que va a colocar como primera ministra a una posfascista. Y lo vemos también de forma sistemática en España, donde populares y la extrema derecha de Vox llegan a acuerdos en innumerables regiones, como Madrid o Andalucía. Y en democracia no todo vale. No todo vale porque nuestras acciones comportan consecuencias y normalizar el racismo y la homofobia genera, obviamente, violencia e intolerancia. Normalizar el machismo acaba generando violencia de género y normalizar las recetas simplistas y fantasiosas de la extrema derecha solo generará resentimiento y frustración. Hoy la extrema derecha en las instituciones es un disolvente para la democracia y liberales y conservadores no deberían ser cómplices de ello. Andrea Cozzolino (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questo nostro confronto non è un capriccio per alimentare una sciocca polemica in sede europea, qui stiamo discutendo, credo, di un punto cruciale che viene prima di ogni altra cosa: la solidità del patto politico e democratico che ci unisce da oltre settant'anni, a fondamento della costruzione di questa casa comune, che è l'Europa e le sue diverse istituzioni, a cominciare dal Parlamento. Se non lo vediamo siamo ciechi e pagheremo un duro prezzo nei prossimi mesi e nei prossimi anni. Lo dico soprattutto agli amici del Partito popolare, che non vedo presenti in massa a questa nostra discussione, anzi, ma anche al centro moderato, alla sinistra diffusa, sempre attenta a questi temi. Noi siamo di fronte a un nuovo pensiero che viene avanti: non si evoca più il fascismo, non si chiede più di abbattere l'Europa, ma di minarla al proprio interno, nei principi costitutivi e fondamentali che ne hanno ispirato l'azione per oltre settant'anni. È necessario reagire, è forse venuto il tempo di un nuovo patto costituente tra le forze democratiche europee. Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Panie przewodniczący! Pani komisarz! Tak, mamy problem z brunatną falą prawie w całej Europie. W Polsce od kilku lat zamiast Święta Niepodległości 11 listopada i normalnego patriotycznego wydarzenia mamy święto chorego nacjonalizmu – Marsz Niepodległości. To wielki skandal, że przy aprobacie władzy właśnie tak świętuje się polską niepodległość – z kawałkiem płyty chodnikowej w jednej ręce, a w drugiej z biało-czerwoną flagą utopioną w dymie z rac. Ale pisowskiej władzy taki układ jest na rękę, bo przekazuje Bąkiewiczowi kolejne pieniądze (prawie 4 miliony złotych w zeszłym roku). I tak rośnie ta brunatna fala, bo rząd dobrze wie, że może przyjść taki dzień, że będzie potrzebował pomocy skrajnych sił na ulicach. Dokładnie tak jak Trump po utracie władzy. Zresztą w czasie strajku kobiet właśnie narodowców napuszczano na polskie kobiety. Nigdy wam tego nie zapomnimy. Po pierwsze więc, zdelegalizować Straż Narodową. Po drugie, ani jednego euro dla Bąkiewicza. Po trzecie, PiS zostanie rozliczony z każdych 10 groszy przekazanych narodowcom. Věra Jourová,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, it's not the first debate we have had. I remember eight years of sitting in this Parliament and debating these very serious issues, and I always listened very carefully. Again, after this debate, I came to a conclusion that, indeed, in Europe we have a serious problem. At the same time, I am always thinking about the role of the Commission, which I represent here. So let me clarify what we can and cannot do, and what we are doing. I am sure that the Commission should not engage in domestic political fights, and we try hard not to get into that and to support fair competition. This is it. The role of the Commission is to protect universal values, which are above ideologies. I have in mind the rule of law, democratic governance and freedoms, and human rights. This is what we must do, and this is our job. Indeed, regarding what Mr Biedroń said here, quoting Professor Turski: it's alarming in my ears almost every day what I heard from him when we were in Auschwitz three years ago. He said, do not be indifferent. He didn't speak about his experience from the Holocaust when he was in Auschwitz as a young boy. He spoke about the present. That's why I am glad. I always quote him. We must not be indifferent, because we have the historical lesson. What happens if nobody is opposing evil? We spoke a lot about that today. There are two concrete areas where the Commission is acting and should act. One, coming back to the universal values and rules. Political competition must be free and fair. It means that the Commission proposed a Media Freedom Act; we proposed the legislation against manipulation in political advertising. I ask the Parliament and the Member States to please give it a green light, because this is exactly what we need to do to be efficiently doing something against political extremism. The second thing is hate speech and disinformation, which has the potential to cause security harm. Violent extremism and radicalisation, which are fuelled today to a large extent through the digital space. We had here President Čaputová today. She spoke about the horrible tragedy that happened in Slovakia – a teenager killing two other young people. He was radicalised not only online, but also in the family. I will come back to the Slovak case later. I also wanted to say that the Commission is protecting freedom of speech, but, as President Čaputová said, it must not be absolute. If we protect absolute freedom of speech, we disregard the truth. This is what we see, I'm afraid, in the Hungarian campaign now. I want to react to Katalin Cseh, who spoke about the ongoing consultation. We reacted to it today through our spokesperson, but it's not enough to say there is a lot of lying behind the consultation. By the way, Viktor Orban voted for all the sanctions and he is now asking about the citizens. Nothing against the consultations with the citizens, but for us, it means that we have to react to the facts. We are now working on a renewed impact assessment of the sanctions on Russia and of sanctions on European Member States. We have to come with the facts. So I take what you said that we should do more. Coming back to President Čaputová and her speech today. She spoke about the influence of radicalisation on society and the increase in extremism, which is fuelled by some political parties. It is a very serious problem that it is now, for some political powers, useful to fly on the waves of hatred. This is the reality. That's why, again, the Commission proposed the „eurocrime”, which also should get into the legislative process soon. We proposed the Digital Services Act, which asks strongly, under the threat of sanction, the providers of digital services not to be the co-perpetrators of crime, which also covers hate speech. Speaking aboutfreedom of speech. I sharply dislike what I usually hear from that site and that site. My job is to protect the freedom of all the participants of the political competition to say these things. This is just the universal value. Mr President, can I still say something? I know I am four minutes beyond the time. I would like to switch into my language now, if you don't mind, and react to Mr Radačovský, who spoke here, but who is not here with us anymore. Pan Radačovský tady hovořil o tom, že my tady, kteří se snažíme o fungování a prosperitu Evropské unie, jsme proti patriotismu. I o tom jsme dnes ráno mluvily s prezidentkou Čaputovou, když jsme měly mítink ještě před jejím vystoupením tady. Hovořily jsme o tom, jak obě milujeme svou zem a svůj národ. Že jsme patriotky a že to není v rozporu s tím, že chceme být užitečné při přijetí zodpovědnosti za rozvoj Evropské unie. Pro mě to nikdy nebyl rozpor. Já jsem hrdá Češka a miluji kulturu, jazyk, historii svého národa. Teď jsem pyšná na to, jak se vede českému předsednictví, ale nikdy mi to nebránilo v tom, abych podporovala Evropskou unii jako celek, který nám pomáhá – i nám Čechům –, abychom se rozvíjeli. Unii, která pro nás byla několik dekád zárukou prosperity a demokratického vývoje a v nynější době je zárukou ochrany proti velmi nebezpečnému nepříteli. Mám velmi dobrá data, která hovoří o tom, že současná dezinformační scéna zneužívá tak čistého citu, jako je láska k vlasti, pro zájmy Kremlu. A to si myslím, že je něco, s čím musíme bojovat. To je teď v poslední době novinka a je to něco, co je potřeba zastavit. Ale možná ne tak ze strany evropských institucí. Tady je potřeba, aby se zvedl velice silný odpor v rámci členských států a národních politických sil a občanů, neziskové společnosti a občanské společnosti jako takové, protože to je přesně to, co měl na mysli Marian Turski. Nebýt lhostejný a nemlčet, když se děje zlo. Pro mě mávání státními vlajkami v zájmu Kremlu je čisté zlo. Der Präsident. – Frau Vizepräsidentin, ich danke Ihnen für diese grundsätzliche Klarstellung und Begriffsdefinition. Die Aussprache ist geschlossen. Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171) Guido Reil (ID),
schriftlich. – Sie sprechen von Postfaschismus. Eine ganz neue Wortschöpfung, die mich fassungslos macht. Wie um alles in der Welt kann die Presse Sie mit so einem Unsinn durchkommen lassen? Warum hinterfragt die Sie nicht und zerreißt Ihre alberne Wortbildung in der Luft? Postfaschistisch ist alles, was zeitlich nach dem Faschismus kommt. Sie sind postfaschistisch. Ich bin postfaschistisch. Wir alle sind postfaschistisch. Qua definitionem. Weil der Faschismus vor uns stattgefunden hat und wir jetzt sind. Ihre Wortbildung ist nichts als eine leere Worthülse. Ein Null-Wort. Aber das ist Ihnen egal. Logik ist nichts, Kontaktschuld ist alles – und wenn es auch nur der Kontakt zweier Wörter ist, die Sie in einem Satz unüberlegt dahin gesprochen haben: AfD und Ihr brandneu erfundenes Postfaschismus. Und abrakadabra, damit ist in Ihrer Welt bewiesen, dass Sie zu den Guten gehören und die AfD nicht. Mittlerweile fürchte ich, dass Sie Ihrer eigenen Logik, oder besser Post-Logik, glauben und sich sehr wohl fühlen in Ihrem post-argumentativen Paralleluniversum, in dem nur noch post-diskursive Selbstbeweihräucherung und die post-moralische Aufspaltung in Gut und Böse stattfindet. Oder, anders gesagt, irgendwann in den letzten Jahren haben Sie den Kontakt zur Realität und zur Ratio verloren oder gleich freiwillig aufgegeben und wir alle zahlen jetzt den Preis dafür. 11.   Presentatie van het jaarverslag 2021 van de Rekenkamer (debat) Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erläuterung des Jahresberichts 2021 des Rechnungshofs (2022/2843(RSP)). Tony Murphy,
President of the Court of Auditors. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, it's an honour for me to be here today for the first time as the newly elected President of the European Court of Auditors. My focus as president will be on continuing our work to support this House with the information that you need to fulfil your role and to improve accountability and transparency across all types of EU action in the interests of our citizens. However, today I am also here before you in my previous function as the member for our annual report for the year 2021. My colleague Jan Gregor, who has taken over this function following my election, is here with me today. Our annual report is our core product. It contains detailed information on the results of our financial and compliance audit work that support our key messages, on which I will focus today. As in previous years, for the EU accounts, we adopted a clean opinion. In other words, they were not affected by material misstatements. On revenue, we found that the overall error rate was not material. On expenditure, for the first time this year, we provided two separate opinions, reflecting that there are fundamental differences between budget spending under the multiannual financial framework and that of RRF spending. Firstly, on EU budget spending, based on a representative sample of 740 transactions, we found that the overall level of irregularities increased significantly from last year, reaching 3% in 2021, from 2.7% the previous year. We estimated that it is 4.7% for the high-risk spending, which makes up a clear majority of our audit population, being 63% of the population. Given the widespread nature of the problems that we have found, that is the pervasiveness of the error, we gave an adverse opinion for the third year in a row. If we look closer for a moment under different policy headings, we estimate that the level of error is material for single market, innovation and digital, at 4.4%, compared to 3.9% the previous year, and in the cohesion policy area, at 3.6%, compared to 3.5%. For natural resources, when taken as a whole, we find the error to be close to materiality, although our results indicate that direct payments are below materiality, whereas rural development, market measures and other areas outside the CAP are above materiality. Finally, for administrative expenditure, we estimate the level of error to be not material. So far, I have mainly focused on the compliance aspect of EU spending. However, making use of available EU funds is another area that we look at and which has regularly been an area where we raised concern. This has not changed in 2021. Outstanding commitments at the end of 2021 totalled EUR 341.6 billion. This compares to 303.2 the previous year. However, this amount includes, for the first time, a standing commitment in relation to the RRF of almost EUR 90 billion. Excluding this amount, outstanding commitments actually decreased compared to last year, mainly due, however, to delays in the implementation of shared management funds under the 2021-2027 MFF. Through our work in 2021, we also found suspected cases of fraud, and we have reported 15 such cases to OLAF, compared to 6 in 2020. And from the information that we have been given, OLAF has so far opened five investigations. So beyond these individual cases that we transmit to OLAF and now also to EPPO, the ECA tackles this very important topic through specific, dedicated reports. Ladies and gentlemen, I now turn to our audit of the expenditure under the RRF. This is a novelty in our annual report this year. And as I noted when presenting our annual report to the CONT last week, it's an area of particular importance. For that matter, I expect that it will continue to be in the coming years, and that's why I would like to express the Court's gratitude for Parliament's support in obtaining additional temporary auditor posts in this year's and next year's annual budgets. The RRF Regulation provides for a different delivery model than that for EU budget spending under the MFF. The RRF delivery model focuses on the achievement of milestones and targets, rather than the reimbursement of costs incurred, which has implications on what makes a payment legal and regular. In this statement of assurance, on the RRF, we therefore have to focus on whether the Commission has got sufficient and appropriate evidence to support its assessment that the milestones or targets were satisfactorily fulfilled. Compliance with other EU and national rules does not form part of this Commission's assessment on the legality and the regularity of payments and is, therefore, not covered through this opinion. This aspect will be looked at through future audits when the Commission work in this regard has been completed and can be assessed. Furthermore, we do not assess the effectiveness of the different reforms contained in the milestones. Again, this would rather be a topic for future dedicated special reports. For 2021, the RRF audit population included a single payment of EUR 11.5 billion made to Spain, following the reported fulfilment of 52 milestones, all of which related to reforms. Given that there was only a single payment, we had the opportunity to examine this in detail. We found that one of the milestones, in our view, was not satisfactorily fulfilled. This view, based on all available information and using our professional judgment, is that the impact, however, was not deemed to be material. While a number of payments to different Member States have been made in the meantime, we are still awaiting a Commission proposal in relation to quantifying the impact of when a milestone or target is not satisfactorily fulfilled. Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to conclude and take this opportunity to thank the Commissioner for his institution's cooperation over the past year. We may sometimes differ on specific points, but together, we both strive, within our respective responsibilities, to ensure that the EU's budget is put to good use. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to a good debate this afternoon. Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, dear honourable Members of the European Parliament, in particular, dear President Tony Murphy, Jan Gregor and incoming Court Member Lefteris Christoforou. First, I would really like to thank you and I can only reply to you, Tony Murphy and your team, for the excellent cooperation also in preparing this annual report and the very good cooperation not only on this subject, also on others. And I agree, sometimes we might have different views and analyses, but it's always in a spirit of mutual respect, and this is something, which I consider crucial and important. 2021 was again an exceptional year for our budget. The European funds continued to play a critical role to help citizens, companies, regions, municipalities and Member States to overcome the coronavirus pandemic and its consequences. In June 2021, Next Generation EU started its borrowing with record demand. The Recovery and Resilience Facility, a brand new instrument, was also set up in record time in a couple of months. In 2021, the Commission assessed and endorsed 22 recovery and resilience plans following a very thorough assessment process. In 2021, the Commission disbursed already EUR 54 billion in pre-financing payments to 20 Member States, which helped kick start the implementation of the investment and reform measures. The Commission disbursed a first payment for milestones and targets of EUR 10 billion to Spain before the end of last year. In this exceptional context, I am pleased that the EU accounts have received again a clean opinion. Likewise, I am happy that the Court concludes, like last year, that the revenue side of the EU budget is free from material error. The Court audited for the first time this year the Recovery and Resilience Facility and concluded it was not affected by material error. Spending areas such as natural resources, which means primarily agriculture, and administrative expenditure continue to obtain excellent results. However, as you have heard, the Court has maintained its adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of expenditure. Some areas, essentially the ones with complex eligibility rules, remain more prone to errors. The share of expenditure considered by the Court as higher risk has increased in 2021 compared to 2020. This is normal at this stage of the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework and that delayed implementation of a lot of programmes and projects. As a result, the overall level of error reported by the Court slightly increased compared to last year. Another way, I have to say, to look at the findings is that 97% of the Union budget is well-managed. I would also like to underline that the implementation of the EU budget is not homogenous across countries, regions, programmes or even types of measures. We are able to precisely identify and report transparently where the issues are and we take remedial measures or ask Member States and other partners to take actions. The Commission's conclusion as manager of the Union budget is that the control systems are working effectively and the EU budget is effectively protected as a whole and over time. The multiannual nature of our approach with controls even after payments, allows the recoveries until the end of the programmes. As regards the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the Commission performs controls and audits throughout the spending cycle. When assessing the national recovery and resilience plan, by checking that Member States have put in place sound internal control systems, by assessing whether milestones and targets are fulfilled before payment and by performing risk-based ex-post controls after disbursements. Finally, the Commission reports annually on the way European funds are managed in its integrated financial and accountability reporting. Through this comprehensive reporting, the Commission assumes accountability and transparency on the management of the Union budget. At the same time, we are aware that areas of improvements remain and we are taking action. Firstly, simplifying rules remains the best way to prevent errors. This concerns especially the research programme and cohesion policy. In cohesion, 75% of the errors are related to different interpretations or lack of knowledge concerning what is eligible and what not. Secondly, by strengthening our control systems to make them more effective, the Commission continues to extensively cooperate with the national audit authorities to improve the quality of their work. Thirdly, by supporting beneficiaries, national authorities and other partners in the day-to-day management of Union funds. For example, the Commission is providing support to Horizon Europe applicants, through communication campaigns and workshops. All these efforts will continue as the current MFF programmes are now kicking off. Thank you for your interest. Monika Hohlmeier,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Präsident des Rechnungshofs, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Bevor ich offiziell zu sprechen beginne, möchte ich im Namen des Haushaltskontrollausschusses ganz, ganz herzlich Tony Murphy dazu gratulieren, dass er zum Präsidenten gewählt worden ist, und ihm viel Glück und Erfolg wünschen für die schwierigen Aufgaben, die vor ihm und seinem ganzen Team des Rechnungshofes stehen. Wir freuen uns auf die weitere Zusammenarbeit, denn auch dieser Jahresbericht ist wieder eine wichtige Grundlage für die Entlastung. Ich freue mich, dass Jan Gregor mitgekommen ist als derjenige, der hauptverantwortlich mitschreibt an diesem Bericht, und darf mich jetzt heute auf den Schwerpunkt, den ich als Berichterstatterin habe, beschränken, weil dann den zweiten Teil zum Kommissionshaushalt der Kollege Jeroen Lenaers als Berichterstatter und natürlich dann die entsprechenden Schattenberichterstatterinnen und -berichterstatter übernehmen werden. Zum Thema ARF: Der Kommissar kennt meine mittlerweile doch sehr deutlich für den Haushaltskontrollausschuss erhobenen Fragen, und ich bedanke mich dafür, dass zumindest DG BUDG da doch Bewegung zeigt in Bezug auf das, was die Sorge des Haushaltskontrollausschusses ist. Erste Sorge ist: Wir haben sogenannte Milestones und Targets. Die sind aber so allgemein formuliert, dass du bei deren zufriedenstellender Erfüllung einen weitreichenden Spielraum hast. Was zufriedenstellend ist oder auch nicht zufriedenstellend ist, ist für uns de facto gar nicht überprüfbar. Was ist eigentlich der Standard für zufriedenstellend? Es gibt auch keine Methodologie, wenn jetzt irgendjemand – irgendein Staat – fünf Milestones nicht erfüllt. Wie wichtig oder nicht wichtig sind die? Wie viel Prozent werden dann abgezogen bei der Auszahlung? Bis jetzt wird nichts abgezogen, sondern es wird alles ausbezahlt, und die Methodologie existiert noch nicht. Die möchten wir sehr deutlich einfordern als Haushaltskontrollausschuss. Als Zweites: Es gibt das Problem, dass es keinen klaren Zusammenhang gibt zwischen der Höhe der Zahlungstranchen und den zu erfüllenden Milestones und Targets. Dann gibt es auch das große Problem, dass die Mitgliedstaaten eigentlich Listen für Projekte und Maßnahmen vorlegen sollen, diese Listen für Projekte und Maßnahmen aber wiederum dem Parlament nicht vorliegen und auch dem Rechnungshof nicht in dieser Form vorliegen, der zwar einzeln vielleicht Einblick nehmen kann, aber die Listen liegen nicht vor. Das heißt, die Möglichkeit für das Parlament – für Fachausschüsse als auch für den Haushaltskontrollausschuss –, zu überprüfen, inwiefern die Projekte erfolgreich sind, ob sie richtig sind, wo das Geld hingegangen ist, besteht nicht. Es kann aber nicht sein, dass wir uns damit zufriedengeben, zu sagen, wir geben das Geld aus, aber wohin es geht, wissen wir eigentlich nicht. Der Präsident. – Ich habe die Frau Kollegin Hohlmeier deshalb so dramatisch überziehen lassen, weil ich ihr die Gratulation an den neuen Präsidenten des Rechnungshofs de facto angerechnet habe. Isabel García Muñoz,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, gracias, presidente Murphy, por la presentación del informe anual de 2021. Sin duda nos preocupa que el nivel de error estimado por el Tribunal de Cuentas sea un 3 %, aunque la Comisión lo sitúe en un 1,9 %. Pero, más allá del porcentaje, lo que sí creo que es importante y necesario es identificar errores concretos para poder solucionar los problemas que los originan. Por otro lado, esta es la primera vez que se incluye la auditoría del Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia, un instrumento novedoso con un modelo de ejecución basado en el cumplimiento de objetivos e hitos. España fue el primer y único país que recibió un pago en 2021 tras la evaluación favorable de la Comisión, porque se habían cumplido satisfactoriamente todos los hitos, y así lo ha confirmado la Comisión. Ser el primero de la clase a veces significa asumir un mayor escrutinio y control, pero también sirve para que podamos adelantarnos a los retos que puedan presentarse en el futuro. Aunque España haya cumplido, puede ocurrir que otros países no cumplan todos los hitos comprometidos y habrá que ver cómo se actúa en esos casos. La buena colaboración de todos, sin duda, hará que mejore la gestión del presupuesto europeo. Olivier Chastel,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président de la Cour des comptes, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, je veux évidemment tout d'abord remercier la Cour des comptes pour la qualité de son rapport annuel. Mais, comme j'ai déjà eu l'occasion de le dire en commission la semaine dernière, ce rapport n'a évidemment pas balayé mes nombreuses préoccupations. D'abord, un taux d'erreur toujours significatif dans les domaines de la cohésion, du marché unique, des Fonds européens de développement, mais surtout dans le domaine des dépenses à haut risque, dont le taux d'erreur culmine cette année à 4,7 %. Ensuite, un reste à liquider, qui lui aussi culmine. On a beau dire qu'il diminue si on enlève NextGenerationEU, il culmine à 341 milliards et la capacité d'absorption des États membres reste problématique, tant dans le cadre pluriannuel que pour NextGenerationEU. Enfin, la Cour souligne également le manque de clarté sur les recouvrements et leurs délais. À la lumière de ces éléments, je suis inquiet pour les années à venir. Mme Hohlmeier vient de le dire: les montants qui seront dépensés dans le cadre de NextGenerationEU ainsi, d'ailleurs, que dans le cadre pluriannuel sont conséquents. Et on a des craintes par rapport à l'avenir et à la manière dont les États, notamment, peuvent absorber ces montants-là et par rapport à la manière de contrôler la façon dont ils le font. Par ailleurs, le premier examen par la Cour des comptes de la facilité pour la reprise et la résilience d'un de nos États membres, le premier qui a reçu des moyens, laisse peser des doutes sur les contrôles ex ante et les objectifs à atteindre. Cette crainte est évidemment d'autant plus importante quand on pense à des pays comme la Hongrie pour leurs manquements systémiques dans la lutte contre la corruption, les conflits d'intérêts, les procédures de marchés publics déficientes. Enfin, je ne peux que rappeler l'importance, l'urgence de la mise en place généralisée des outils d'exploration de données et la nécessité de systématiser le recours aux nouvelles technologies et au numérique pour optimiser les contrôles. La situation actuelle est tout bonnement préoccupante et nous devons être à la hauteur des attentes de nos concitoyens. Nous ne pourrons le faire pleinement qu'avec des comptes en ordre et une gestion optimale des flux. VORSITZ: EVELYN REGNER Vizepräsidentin Viola von Cramon-Taubadel,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zunächst einmal herzlichen Glückwunsch an den neuen Präsidenten des Europäischen Rechnungshofs auch von unserer Fraktion. Wir freuen uns sehr über Ihre Wahl. Mit dem Aufbauplan NextGenerationEU verfügen wir praktisch über den doppelten Haushalt. Diese beiden Teile der EU-Ausgaben – der MFR auf der einen Seite und der Wiederaufbauplan auf der anderen – folgen jedoch völlig unterschiedlichen Regeln. Im Gegensatz zum mehrjährigen EU-Haushalt, der auf der Erstattung von Kosten und der Einhaltung von Bedingungen beruht, werden die Mitgliedstaaten beim Wiederaufbauplan für das Erreichen vorher festgelegter, sehr allgemeiner Ziele bezahlt. Wir verstehen die Dringlichkeit zusätzlicher Investitionen. Aber wenn wir mit zwei Haushalten arbeiten und dabei ganz unterschiedliche Regeln anwenden, werden die Gelder eben nicht standardisierten, strengen Kontrollen unterzogen. Spielen wir damit, mit dieser vereinfachten Regel, nicht eventuell rent-seekers wie zum Beispiel Viktor Orbán in die Hände? Darüber hinaus brauchen wir auch absolute Transparenz bei der Verwendung von EU-Mitteln, auch bei der Liste derjenigen, die eben die Kohäsions- und Agrarmittel erhalten. Zum Beispiel hat Ex-Minister Babiš mit seiner Firma Agrofert Millionen Agrargelder für seine nicht landwirtschaftlichen Geschäfte zweckentfremdet. Wie viele dieser Agroferts gibt es quer durch die EU? Wir brauchen Transparenz, Rechenschaftspflicht und vor allem standardisierten Umgang mit EU-Mitteln. Das Ziel muss sein, dass jede Bürgerin und jeder Bürger jederzeit sehen kann, wie viel Geld von den Steuern ausgegeben wurde und für welchen Zweck. Joachim Kuhs,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, lieber Tony Murphy! Herzlichen Glückwunsch zu Ihrem neuen Amt! Leider konnte ich mich noch nicht mit Ihnen unterhalten, aber das können wir vielleicht noch nachholen. Heute möchte ich Ihnen einfach nur Danke sagen. Danke zuerst, dass Sie die – meines Erachtens – völlig unberechtigten Angriffe einer französischen Zeitung, die leider von Teilen dieses Hauses auch aufgegriffen wurden, souverän gemeistert haben und heute stärker sind als je zuvor. Dann danke ich Ihnen natürlich heute für den Jahresbericht, über den wir debattieren. Zum dritten Mal in Folge muss der Rechnungshof über Teile des Haushalts der Union ein negatives Prüfungsurteil fällen. Das ist nicht trivial, und werter Kommissar Hahn, das sollten Sie wirklich ernst nehmen und nicht versuchen, es wegzuerklären. Ich bitte Sie dringend, die vorgeschlagenen Empfehlungen umzusetzen und die Systemfehler auch wirklich zu beseitigen. Schließlich danke ich Ihnen noch einmal, Herr Präsident, für den Sonderbericht zu COVID, insbesondere zu den dubiosen offenen Fragen der gigantischen Impfstoffbeschaffung durch Präsidentin von der Leyen. Dieser Bericht stieß doch richtig in ein Wespennest. Viele Abgeordnete haben sich schon zu Wort gemeldet. Inzwischen nimmt sogar die Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft sich der Sache an. Herr Präsident, ich wünsche Ihnen viel Erfolg und gutes Gelingen in Ihrem Amt. Bleiben Sie weiter so bissig und so eifrig im Aufdecken von Unregelmäßigkeiten. Die Bürger werden es Ihnen danken. Werte Kollegen, lassen Sie uns den Rechnungshof doch einfach seine Arbeit machen. Wir machen unsere. Das ist gut so. Ryszard Czarnecki,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Prezesie! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! Gratulacje przede wszystkim dla nowego prezesa Trybunału. Obejmuje Pan tę funkcję w bardzo trudnym czasie, w czasie, kiedy podatnicy europejscy będą szczególnie patrzyli na to, jak są wydawane pieniądze Unii Europejskiej, instytucji unijnych. Więc tym bardziej trzymamy, ja i moja grupa polityczna, kciuki za Pana i za cały Trybunał. Cieszę się też z obecności pana komisarza Hahna, najbardziej doświadczonego komisarza w Komisji Europejskiej, jednego z najbardziej merytorycznych, który będzie wsparciem na pewno dla Pańskiej instytucji. To był ciężki rok dla Unii i dla krajów członkowskich. Chciałbym podziękować wszystkim pracownikom instytucji kontrolnych, że pomimo Covidu pilnowali wydatków instytucji Unii Europejskiej i monitorowali je. Zwracam uwagę, że mimo tego trudnego czasu ogólny poziom błędu był taki sam jak w latach poprzednich, niecałe 2%. Chciałbym też pochwalić się wynikami kontroli mojego kraju. Mianowicie jest to wynik dorównujący Włochom, trochę lepszy niż w przypadku Niemiec. A gdy chodzi o niezamknięte zgłoszenia – jesteśmy na tym samym poziomie co Francja i Włochy. Dziękuję bardzo, życzę powodzenia panu prezesowi i Trybunałowi. Luke Ming Flanagan,
on behalf of The Left Group. – Madam President, the first thing I want to do is to congratulate Tony on his appointment to this very, very important role. And I think it is brilliant that we have an actual auditor at the head of this organisation. I think it is also very important that we have someone who comes from a working class background as our head auditor and the head of this organisation. Because when you come from a working class background, you don't say, „Ha, well I spent 97% of it well, and sure, 3% is only gone,” because if you do, you might not be able to turn on the light. Every last penny matters. That's why I think it is important that we have someone like him in the position, and I really, really welcome it. On the RRF, we have a problem; the Court of Auditors has a problem. We are dealing with ordinary people's money. However, exactly how this money is being spent is without any real auditable trail. The idea that national authorities can, in effect, audit themselves is a bad joke. As for milestones and targets, to me it is like having a unit of speed to find a stone's throw – however long you can throw a stone; it is different for everyone – every so often, depending on how you decide every so often is. We need a massive improvement. But I think we've made a good start by appointing this guy. I think he'll make big changes. Nicolas Bay (NI). – Madame la Présidente, sur le budget annuel, il est temps d'avoir une discussion que la Commission essaye systématiquement d'éviter. Le budget de l'Union européenne, l'argent des Européens, c'est-à-dire notre argent, est aujourd'hui utilisé pour financer l'islamisme. Au moins 36 millions d'euros versés entre 2014 et 2019 à des réseaux liés aux Frères musulmans ou au Hamas ou soutenant des groupes djihadistes. Plus d'un million d'euros pour des programmes de prétendue lutte contre le terrorisme, auxquels sont pourtant associées des ONG fondées par l'islamiste Abou Bakr Rieger, qui affirme vouloir établir un califat au niveau mondial. Combien pour les campagnes affichant même des petites filles voilées? C'est le même islamisme, la même idéologie mortifère, qui gangrène petit à petit nos rues, nos administrations et nos écoles. Le même islamisme qui tue, qui ensanglante et qui endeuille régulièrement l'Europe. Chaque euro versé par la Commission à des associations liées à la mouvance islamiste est une honte, une véritable infamie. Il est urgent de réaliser un audit complet des subventions versées au nom d'une prétendue lutte contre le racisme ou l'islamophobie. Et lorsque la lumière sera faite sur l'ampleur du scandale, vous devrez en répondre devant nos peuples. Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Madam President, let me first thank President Murphy for the presentation today, but mainly for the work that the Court of Auditors does in general. It's crucial work, also in the context of our work here in this House on the discharge procedures. Now, on the annual report, I want to make three brief points. Firstly, it is concerning that the Court reports an error rate of 3% for expenditure, which is well above the 2% materiality threshold, particularly because this error rate has been increasing for the last couple of years, leading to an adverse opinion again. It is also significantly higher than the Commission's own calculated risk at payment, which now even falls below the range of error calculated by the Court. Secondly, and this is connected to this, we should really work towards solving the confusion with different error frameworks used by both institutions. We need to know beyond reasonable doubt what the error rate is, and there needs to be an agreement on that figure. The same also goes for the assessments of the levels of risk of expenditure. Uniform methods for sampling risk assessment and corrections of error and recovery would be very helpful for us to do our work. Thirdly, the type of errors identified over time remain relatively similar: ineligible costs of beneficiaries, lack of supporting documents, infringement of rules and breach of public procurement rules. Simplification of these rules would really help here to make sure money gets to the beneficiaries without mistakes. We need to work on that without delay. Public support for EU expenditures relies on our joint ability to spend European taxpayers' money in accordance with rules and regulations. This report once again underlines that we still have some work to do. Lara Wolters (S&D). – Voorzitter, in de komende drie jaar komt via het Europees herstelfonds een grote hoeveelheid geld beschikbaar voor de lidstaten. Dat is mooi, want op die manier kan Europa helpen om bijvoorbeeld de zorgen van mensen over energiekosten structureel tegemoet te komen in de toekomst. Maar daarvoor is het noodzakelijk dat de toewijzing en de controle van het herstelgeld zorgvuldig gebeurt. Zeker als straks – tegen de zin van het Europees Parlement in – herstelgelden aan rechtsstaatschenders Hongarije en Polen zouden worden uitgekeerd. Het is dus belangrijk dat de zorgen van de Europese Rekenkamer over die controle serieus worden genomen. Dat betekent: duidelijke criteria bij het vrijgeven van herstelgelden, meer transparantie over wie de eindontvangers van dat geld zijn en duidelijke rapportage over die ontvangers in een toegankelijke Europese databank. Dat soort controle op het gebruik van Europees geld is essentieel voor het vertrouwen van iedereen in onze Europese Unie. David Cormand (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, félicitations, Monsieur le Président, pour vos nouvelles responsabilités. Vous avez une mission fondamentale, celle de faire en sorte que, dans notre démocratie européenne, l'argent que nous décidons de dépenser le soit véritablement dans la bonne direction, la direction dans laquelle nous avons décidé de le dépenser. C'est fondamental pour les citoyennes et les citoyens qui sont attachés à la façon dont nous dépensons cet argent. La Cour des comptes européenne a conclu que sur la période du CFP 2014-2020, les 20 % promis de dépenses pour le climat n'ont pas été respectés. Seuls 13 % ont été dépensés, d'après vos études, à ces fins. C'est inadmissible quand on connaît les priorités en matière de transition écologique. Et pour le prochain CFP, c'est 30 % de dépenses climat, plus 10 % pour la biodiversité. Je sais que le commissaire Hahn a répondu à mon interpellation que, pour la Commission, il n'y avait pas de problème. Eh bien, moi je pense qu'il y en a un. J'aimerais donc qu'on puisse savoir au fil du temps, année après année, si on respecte bien ces objectifs, notamment climatiques, et qu'on n'attende pas le terme du CFP pour le savoir. Encore merci pour vos travaux et nous serons vigilants sur ce point comme sur les autres. Gilles Lebreton (ID). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Président de la Cour des comptes européenne, chers collègues, le rapport de la Cour des comptes européenne révèle une augmentation des soupçons de fraude dans les dépenses de l'Union européenne: quinze cas en 2021 contre seulement six en 2020. C'est un constat préoccupant. De façon plus globale, le rapport relève aussi un pourcentage d'erreur en hausse significative: 3 % contre 2,7. Or, cette augmentation me paraît encore plus préoccupante que celle relative aux fraudes, car elle révèle des errances collectives et non pas seulement des dérives individuelles. Je veux citer l'exemple des contrats d'achat de vaccins anti-COVID. La Cour accuse ouvertement la Commission, je cite, de n'avoir pas vérifié de façon appropriée si les conditions financières de ces contrats avaient été respectées. On découvre avec stupeur que la Commission a accordé une confiance aveugle aux fabricants de vaccins. Elle n'a vérifié ni l'exactitude de leurs coûts de production, ni l'utilisation des acomptes qu'ils ont reçus, ni l'opportunité de les faire bénéficier de clauses secrètes d'irresponsabilité généralisée. On comprend mieux, à la lecture de ces pages accablantes, pourquoi le Parlement européen a créé, le 10 mars dernier, une commission d'enquête sur la pandémie de COVID-19. J'attends de celle-ci qu'elle détermine si ces erreurs surprenantes relèvent uniquement de négligences graves ou si elles révèlent des conflits d'intérêts pénalement répréhensibles. Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR). – Voorzitter, president, commissaris, we staan voor belangrijke begrotingsbesprekingen. De opmaak van de begroting mag zich echter niet beperken tot het toewijzen van uitgaven, maar moet ook waken over de kwaliteit van die uitgaven. Zowel door de pandemie als door de waanzinnige oorlog van mijnheer Poetin worden we geconfronteerd met begrotingsinstrumenten die zich buiten de reguliere EU-begroting bevinden. Ik onderschrijf de noodzaak om budgetten vrij te maken in tijden van crisis, maar de manier van werken die we nu hanteren draagt toch wel grote risico's in zich. Het Parlement kan bijvoorbeeld zijn controlerende rol niet naar behoren vervullen. Dit geldt zowel voor het coronafonds – de herstel- en veerkrachtfaciliteit – als voor middelen die naar Oekraïne gaan. Het lijdt geen twijfel dat financiële steun aan Oekraïne absoluut noodzakelijk is, maar het geld moet worden besteed om de beoogde doelen te bereiken en het moet uiteraard de grote meerderheid van de Oekraïense bevolking bereiken. De realiteit is dat dit Parlement daar vandaag onvoldoende zicht op heeft. Ik pleit ervoor dat de controlerende rol van het Parlement versterkt wordt in het belang van fraudebestrijding en met het oog op het tegengaan van oneigenlijk gebruik van middelen. Sabrina Pignedoli (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, prima di tutto, complimenti per la sua nomina, Presidente. Lo studio della Corte relativo alla situazione finanziaria dell'UE ci mostra quanta strada abbiamo da fare per un bilancio veramente efficace ed efficiente. La Corte sottolinea come siano ancora troppi gli errori nel bilancio e, in più, ora c'è da gestire tutta la spesa relativa all'RRF. Queste conclusioni dipingono una situazione di urgenza, esprimono con forza la necessità di una gestione efficiente della spesa, soprattutto alla luce dell'attuale situazione di regressione. Prima il Covid, ora la guerra della Russia contro l'Ucraina e la preoccupante crisi energetica con il concomitante aumento dei prezzi. Il bilancio è giustamente aumentato perché l'UE sta mobilitando le proprie disponibilità e sta prevedendo una maggiore flessibilità per reagire alla crisi. In un contesto in cui le risorse sono necessarie per aiutare concretamente i nostri cittadini e le nostre imprese, gli errori nel bilancio europeo devono essere ridotti il più possibile e serve un contrasto maggiore contro le frodi, migliorando anche il recupero del denaro che è stato versato in maniera scorretta. Angelika Winzig (PPE). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, geschätzter Herr Rechnungshofpräsident! Jedes Jahr bei der Debatte über den Bericht des Rechnungshofs stellen wir uns die gleiche Frage: Wie hoch ist die Fehlerquote, und wie viel davon ist betrügerischer Absicht bzw. mangelndem Wissen über die Abwicklung von EU-Förderungen zuzuordnen? Großbetriebe verfügen über Abteilungen, die ausschließlich mit der Beantragung und der Abwicklung von EU-Förderungen beschäftigt sind. Aber was machen mittelständische Betriebe, die diese Expertise nicht haben? Viele versuchen gar nicht, etwas einzureichen, weil sie sich diesen Aufwand nicht antun. Aber dadurch geht uns auch ein großes Potenzial verloren. Daher kann ich der Aussage der österreichischen Vertretung beim Europäischen Rechnungshof, Frau Berger, nur zustimmen, dass wir die Fördermodelle für den Mittelstand simplifizieren müssen, sodass alle die gleichen Chancen haben. Ich bin überzeugt, dass dies sicherlich nicht zu mehr Betrug bei den Förderungen führt. Caterina Chinnici (S&D). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, io rivolgo al Presidente dottor Murphy i miei auguri per il suo nuovo incarico e lo ringrazio per la relazione annuale, dalla quale emergono giudizi positivi sull'affidabilità dei conti dell'UE e sulla legittimità e regolarità delle entrate. Preoccupa invece l'incremento del livello di errore stimato nelle spese di bilancio UE e il conseguente parere negativo espresso per il terzo anno consecutivo. In un momento così difficile, in cui la guerra aumenta i rischi per il bilancio dell'UE, è quanto mai necessario assicurare che i fondi europei siano impiegati correttamente. Occorre quindi che le istituzioni, tutte le istituzioni, si adoperino per dare alle raccomandazioni della Corte il giusto seguito, promuovere la condivisione delle migliori pratiche nei controlli da parte degli Stati membri, condurre verifiche ex-ante più mirate e rafforzare il monitoraggio sull'applicazione delle norme sugli appalti. Esprimo infine apprezzamento per l'attenzione specifica dedicata alla spesa del dispositivo per la ripresa e la resilienza, misura fondamentale per sostenere finanziariamente gli Stati membri. Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, just yesterday, something surprising happened: 75 billion of Polish cohesion money are frozen. And how did this happen? Not because of the Article 7 procedure that is blocked for seven years, not because of the Conditionality Regulation that the Commission refuses to apply to Poland for two years now and not because of the ECJ rulings that the Polish government keeps ignoring to the tune of more than EUR 1 million a day. No, it seems that a brave Commission official applies properly the Common Provisions Regulation, which clearly says if you do not respect the fundamental rights and the fundamental rights charter, you cannot have money. Also, when your control mechanisms break down, there should be no transfers. Mr Hahn, of course, this should have happened much, much earlier. It is good that it is happening now, and of course, this should not only happen when the Member State in question fills out the questionnaire, admitting itself that it is breaking the rule of law. Mr. Murphy, you should keep a close look at the Commission for properly applying those standards in all Member States and protecting the EU budget. We have the rules, we have the instruments and we should make sure that this is not just up to the brave civil servants, but that they get the full political support for upholding the rule of law. Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR). – Voorzitter, collega's, de recente bevindingen van de Rekenkamer over de EU-uitgaven geven geen rooskleurig beeld. Een foutenpercentage van 3 % is natuurlijk veel te hoog. Het meest maak ik me echter zorgen over het coronahulpfonds, een fonds waarbij geen enkele verantwoording behoeft te worden afgelegd over de daadwerkelijk gemaakte kosten. Er wordt alleen gestuurd op soms wel hele vage doelstellingen. En zelfs als deze niet behaald zijn, wordt toch tot betaling overgegaan, constateert de Rekenkamer. Bovendien ontbreekt een duidelijke methodologie om prestaties te meten. En waar komt het geld eigenlijk terecht? Dat mag de samenleving blijkbaar niet weten, want de eindbegunstigden worden niet openbaar gemaakt. Dit moet echt anders! Laten we zorgen voor meer transparantie! Bij de landbouwfondsen wordt iedere eindbegunstigde gepubliceerd. Waarom doen we dat niet bij het coronahulpfonds? Ook het monitoren van de prestaties moet wat mij betreft écht beter. Het gaat tenslotte om geld van de belastingbetaler en daar moeten we zuinig op zijn. Francesca Donato (NI). – Signora Presidente, Presidente Murphy, complimenti, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, l'ECA ha emesso nuovamente un giudizio negativo sulla gestione del bilancio da parte della Commissione europea nel 2021, ravvisando un'alta percentuale di errore in diversi capitoli di spesa specificamente individuati. Fra questi, le operazioni condotte in regime di gestione diretta tramite l'ESI, in cui la Commissione ha accordato i pagamenti ai produttori dei vaccini anti Covid, pur nel mancato rispetto delle condizioni finanziarie dell'accordo preliminare, ivi rilevando altresì debolezze nell'appalto di servizi e forniture. L'ECA ha raccomandato quindi alla Commissione di garantire il rispetto, da parte dei produttori di vaccini, dei termini degli accordi preliminari di acquisto. La Corte ha poi rimarcato il rischio per il bilancio europeo derivante dai finanziamenti e prestiti all'Ucraina ad alto rischio di trasformarsi in passività, raccomandando l'adozione di provvedimenti tesi a ridurre gli impegni finanziari in atto e mitigare il rischio di insolvenza dell'Ucraina, ma finora la Commissione ha totalmente disatteso queste raccomandazioni, esponendo il bilancio UE a sicure future perdite. Pertanto, risulta sfrontato chiedere agli Stati membri maggiori risorse per affrontare le difficoltà derivanti dalla decisione di una Commissione che non intende correggere la rotta per riportare il bilancio UE su un terreno sostenibile. I soldi dei contribuenti europei vanno amministrati con diligenza e assennatezza e se la Commissione non intende farlo, ne trarremo le dovute conclusioni. Ivan Štefanec (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, the findings of the Court of Auditors are very important. As a matter of fact, the results have shown that the usage of European funds has not been improving. In 2021, 15 cases of suspected fraud have been identified and reported to the European Anti-Fraud Office. Consequently, five investigations have already been opened. The suggestion coming from the comparison with the results of 2020 annual report, where only six cases were reported to OLAF, it really worries me. On the other hand, this report also shows positive outcomes. It shows that the Court of Auditors has been doing its work very efficiently and therefore I would like to use this opportunity to express my gratitude for the hard and honest work. Moreover, the report also emphasises the high importance of the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office. Nevertheless, when it comes to EU financing, we need to increase the powers of controlling mechanism. EU funds are, after all, assigned to European citizens for improving their quality of life and simplifying their lives, not for enriching individuals. Peter van Dalen (PPE). – Voorzitter, de Europese Unie roept bedrijven, lidstaten en burgers ertoe op dat het geld dat vanuit Europa is verkregen, verantwoord en rechtmatig moet worden besteed. Dat is volkomen terecht. Maar wat zien we vandaag? De Rekenkamer keurt voor het derde achtereenvolgende jaar de betalingen van de Europese Unie af en de foutenmarge van die bestedingen is opnieuw gestegen, naar 3 %, ruim boven de grens van 2 %. De foutenmarge voor het Cohesiefonds ligt bijna dubbel zo hoog, en vooral Spanje en Griekenland springen eruit als het gaat om de vastgestelde fouten. En dan moet de eindverantwoording over het coronaherstelfonds nog komen! Kortom, er ligt een onthutsend verslag voor! Drie keer is scheepsrecht. Dit Parlement moet een halt toeroepen aan deze ontwikkeling en de kwijting van diverse instellingen dan maar een keer weigeren en op de rem trappen. Doen we dat niet, dan neemt onze geloofwaardigheid af en zal de belastingbetaler zeggen: „Wat doen die gasten daar eigenlijk? Dat kan zo niet langer!” Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητέ κύριε Επίτροπε Hahn, αγαπητέ Πρόεδρε του Ευρωπαϊκού Ελεγκτικού Συνεδρίου Tony Murphy, θα ήθελα πρωτίστως να σας συγχαρώ για την ανάληψη των καθηκόντων σας σε έναν ισχυρό θεσμό της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Είμαι πεπεισμένος ότι θα ενισχύσετε ακόμα περισσότερο αυτόν τον θεσμό, θα τον ισχυροποιήσετε και θα τον καταστήσετε πραγματικά θεσμό που θα τον εμπιστεύονται απεριόριστα και απόλυτα οι Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες, διότι θα αισθάνονται ότι με τη συνεργασία όλων μπορούμε να έχουμε αυτόν τον θεσμό, ο οποίος θα είναι θεματοφύλακας των συμφερόντων των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Όμως, οφείλω να τονίσω, μέσα από τη δική μου εμπειρία όλα αυτά τα χρόνια στην Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού, ότι η Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού τα τελευταία χρόνια, με τη συμβολή όλων των αγαπητών συναδέλφων από αριστερά μέχρι δεξιά και υπό την ηγεσία της αγαπημένης μας προέδρου, Monika Hohlmeier, κατόρθωσε πραγματικά να δώσει το στίγμα της στενής συνεργασίας και της συστράτευσης όλων μας προς έναν και μοναδικό στόχο: να διαφυλάξουμε τα συμφέροντα των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Και θεωρώ ευτυχή συγκυρία ότι σήμερα το Ευρωπαϊκό Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο με την Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού, με την αγαστή και απόλυτη συνεργασία και με τον αγαπητό Επίτροπο Hahn, έχει την ευκαιρία πραγματικά να ενισχύσει ακόμα περισσότερο την εμπιστοσύνη των πολιτών προς τους θεσμούς και ιδιαίτερα προς την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση για τη διαφύλαξη των χρημάτων τους. Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, ar dtús fáilte ó chroí roimh mo chara Tony Murphy, who took up his duties as the new Court of Auditors President earlier this month. I warmly welcome you today, Tony. I look forward to your presidency. The 2021 annual report covers an immense amount of work and topics. This year, for the first time, the ECA covered the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the main component of the EU's 800 billion Next Generation EU package. The auditors have also outlined the key findings regarding revenue and the many areas of spending under the EU budget and the European Development Fund. One of the main purposes of the ECA is to highlight shortcomings in the management of EU funds. Last year was an extraordinary case, where the EU took bold action in relation to common financing mechanisms. The work of the ECA ensures that risks and challenges for the EU's finances are managed effectively. It is vital for the functioning of the EU to have a full view of risks in relation to EU funds. Ádh mór ort, a Tony, agus ar do chomhghleacaithe. Spontane Wortmeldungen Clare Daly (The Left). – A Uachtaráin, bualadh bos agus comhghairdeachas, a Uachtaráin Murphy, agus go n-éirí an bóthar leat. We have a saying in Ireland about „wearing the green jersey”, which basically means going out and batting for Ireland no matter what. It's not a game that we ever choose to play, because Ireland has plenty of shortcomings and we recognise them. But, equally, we will call out our successes when they occur and I'd like to put on record that it is a tremendous honour for Ireland that Tony Murphy has got this position and, actually, it is a tremendous honour for the ECA to have him at the helm of this key institution which doesn't get the focus that it deserves. I'd like to salute the work of the ACA in scrutinising how the EU spends its money in terms of whether our citizens get value for money. I often see its reports which points to our failings, but yet we carry on regardless with much of those policies. I note the concerns in the report about the increase in errors. I note the President's concerns about the risk of the war in Ukraine on the EU budget and the massive transfer of resources that we have around this issue. So I'd just like to salute him and the organisation and hope that we work in this way with this organisation, which is evidence-based and so important at the present juncture. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, I too would like to congratulate Tony Murphy on his appointment as President of the European Court of Auditors. Tony was appointed by his peers, he didn't get elected by the usual in-house trading. But then I find it interesting as well that none of the Fianna Fáil has turned up here today. Tony comes from Ireland and he didn't come through the political cartel that prevails in Ireland. He's from a working class background, from Cabra, and for someone of his ability to reach such a high level in the European Union, it makes it a good day for the European Union. Now, the European Court of Auditors for me is one of the most reputable entities in this institution, and God knows we don't find too many of them. Just a couple of points, they did a wonderful report on Ukraine last year where they were investigating the value for money on 15 billion spent in Ukraine by the European taxpayers and found that Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. Sadly that's been ignored by the warmongers of late. And, the last point, we spent 8 billion in the Sahel since 2015, a total waste of money. I'd love to see the European Court of Auditors investigate value for money there. And lastly, on Mozambique, where I was two weeks ago ... (The President cut off the speaker) (Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen) Johannes Hahn,
Mitglied der Kommission. – Frau Präsidentin! Einige Bemerkungen zu den Bemerkungen: Es ist richtig, dass dieses Jahr über 97 % oder 97 % des Budgets für clean befunden wurden. Auch wenn manchen diese Darstellung nicht passt, kann ich das insofern noch toppen, Herr Flanagan, dass am Ende nach einer mehrjährigen Kontrollperiode, wo zigtausende von Checks durchgeführt wurden, die Fehlerquote bei unter einem Prozent ist, das heißt, über 99 % sind dann in Ordnung. Und vor allen Dingen – in Richtung des Publikums – ist es auch wichtig, in Erinnerung zu rufen, dass man sehr wohl zwischen error – Irrtum – und fraud – Betrug – unterscheiden muss. Und hier ist es klar, dass wir, wenn wir von der error rate reden, in einem hohen Maße von Irrtümern, von falschen Annahmen, was förderfähig ist, reden und nur zu einem sehr kleinen Teil von Betrug. Aber ich sage auch: Es gibt hier null Toleranz. Wenn irgendetwas entdeckt wird, sowohl, was den Fehler an sich anbelangt, dann gehört es korrigiert, und wenn es sich um einen offensichtlichen Betrug handelt, dann muss dem ohne Wenn und Aber nachgegangen werden. Aber weil wir über Fehlerquoten reden, kann ich der Frau Abgeordneten Winzig und auch anderen nur zustimmen, die gemeint haben: Gerade für Klein- und Mittelbetriebe ist es nicht einfach, die Förderungen in Anspruch zu nehmen, wegen der – das müssen wir uns eingestehen – vielfachen Komplexität der Förderstrukturen. Und daher glaube ich, unser gemeinsamer Appell an uns selbst, den wir aber auch umsetzen müssen, ist, dort, wo es in der Tat geht, Komplizierungen zu vermeiden und Vereinfachungen sicherzustellen. An die Adresse von Herrn Freund: Niemand verweigert irgendetwas. Aber Ihr Beispiel mit Polen beweist ja nur, wie wichtig es ist, eine Reihe von Maßnahmen in den verschiedensten Bereichen der Verfolgung von Rechtsstaatlichkeit zu haben. Und wo welche Maßnahme einzusetzen ist, hängt letztlich von den Ursachen, von den Gegebenheiten ab. Und deswegen war es nur offensichtlich, dass eben hier im Bereich der Kohäsion diese Maßnahme ergriffen wurde. Letzter Punkt, nochmals, wenn wir uns mit der Analyse beschäftigen: Ich sage Ihnen ganz ehrlich, die error rate ist für mich ein wichtiger Indikator. Aber noch wichtiger sind die Analysen des Rechnungshofes. Wenn Sie auf regionaler oder nationaler Ebene im Bereich des Audits Schwachstellen identifizieren, ist es wichtig, dass wir die gemeinsam angehen und hier wirklich sozusagen spezifisch – tailor-made — Verbesserungen zu erzielen versuchen, denn dann ergibt sich die Reduzierung der Fehlerquote ohnedies von selbst. Das heißt, der Fokus muss darauf liegen, systemische Defizite zu identifizieren und dann gegebenenfalls zu versuchen, Verbesserungen vorzunehmen. Nochmals vielen Dank für die Debatte, aber vor allen Dingen auch für die gute Zusammenarbeit zwischen Hof, Parlament und auch der Kommission. Die Präsidentin. – Dankeschön, Herr Kommissar. Nun erhält Tony Murphy das Schlusswort. Ich möchte mich den Gratulationen anschließen und Ihnen wünschen, dass die Begeisterung, die Ihnen fraktionsübergreifend entgegengebracht wurde in diesem Haus, auch im nächsten Jahr dann anhält. Tony Murphy,
President of the Court of Auditors. – Madam President. Firstly, I would like to thank everybody for your best wishes in my new role, and for the future success of our institution. I very much appreciate it. From the contributions, it's obvious that the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) is an item of concern for many of you. As I said in my introductory speech, it's a particular challenge and one which is highly topical at the moment and will continue to be a challenge for us all going forward. I would like to just reemphasise that what we say in our opinion is that the assessment of the Commission, namely that the reforms in Spain have been met and the payment can be made legally and regularly on that basis, is the limit of the opinion. We are not saying that EU national financial rules are respected. In this case, however, because there's no investment – it's reforms in any case – so it's very difficult for us to audit anything in that regard, because there are no associated costs. I would look at the RRF in terms of being a work in progress, particularly in terms of how the protection of the financial interests of the EU will be protected. I also see some need for a clarification in the responsibility and roles of the different players, due to the novelty of this delivery mechanism. There's also a need for us all – both us and the Commission – to ascertain, on that basis, if there are any accountability gaps. The second issue that was mentioned most frequently was the error rate. The Commissioner has said that the error rate is just a snapshot, in a way. It's just at a particular point in time. Nonetheless, it's consistently around 2.5—3%. These are errors that are repeatedly happening. The Commissioner mentioned the control systems in the Member States. If we look at the cohesion chapter, we see that, in the work of the other authorities there, we find a lot of errors that have not been detected by the authorities. Therefore, we can't rely on the work that the other authorities complete in terms of relying on the error rate. The problem for us is that this error rate, which is reported by the other authorities, is subsequently used by the Commission for their error rates. This might explain to Mr Lenaers from earlier why there is a difference between the Commission's error rate and our rate. It is because we still maintain that those reported from national authorities are underestimated and are then subsequently incorporated into the Commission's error rate. However, it's also important to note that the 3% increase is probably in line with the trends normally towards the end of a programming period. Also, the fact that we have a higher proportion of high-risk expenditure – as someone mentioned that the error rate for high risk expenses is 4.7% – obviously has an impact on the overall error rate going up from 2.7 to 3%. Someone, Madam Winzig, also mentioned in that context simplification. As a Court, we have consistently promoting the use of simplified cost options. Some Member States have used them more than others, but we are constantly behind that, because we see that as a way of avoiding complex cost reimbursements, which –we acknowledge all the time – contribute to errors systematically. Mr Kuhs also referred to the adverse opinion. The adverse opinion is because of the pervasive nature of these errors. There are over 63% of our other population has an error rate of 4.7%, and that is why we are well above the 2% materiality threshold. I think Mr Van Overtveldt also mentioned something about these new instruments, and it's very important that we do look at flexibility of new instruments, but in a way that mitigates risk to an acceptable level and ensures accountability. Mr Chastel also mentioned data mining, which obviously from our perspective will be very beneficial and lead to efficiency gains. However, it obviously depends on the availability of data in the auditees, including the Commission. In terms of climate objectives, it was mentioned that maybe we should report more often than at the end of the seven-year period. We have a number of audits in the climate sphere, which are carried out by mainly by our chamber one. One is actually due to be published next year on climate targets specifically, and obviously part of our effort is also green tagging. A specific percentage of expenditure is supposed to be green, which obviously will be subject to audit. Finally, I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the European Court of Auditors for still, despite the difficult working conditions pre— and post-pandemic, delivering more or less the full work programme at a very high quality, despite all the challenges that we have encountered. Lastly, I would just like to welcome Mr Christoforou to the Court. He starts with us on the 1 November 2022, and we look forward to engagement in a different capacity. Thank you very much. Die Präsidentin. – Herzlichen Dank, viel Erfolg bei Ihrer Arbeit im Rechnungshof! Dankeschön an alle, die sich an dieser Debatte beteiligt haben. Die Aussprache ist geschlossen. 12.   De betrekkingen tussen de EU en de Westelijke Balkan in het licht van het nieuwe uitbreidingspakket (debat) Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zu den Beziehungen zwischen der EU und den Ländern im Westbalkan vor dem Hintergrund des neuen Erweiterungspakets (2022/2881(RSP)). Bevor ich Herrn Kommissar Olivér Várhelyi im Namen der Kommission das Wort erteile, ersuche ich schon jetzt vorweg alle Abgeordneten, die sich zu Wort melden werden, dass sie sich an die Redezeit halten. Olivér Várhelyi,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members of this House, the last year has been challenging but the EU has always stood with its Western Balkan partners. Since the start of the pandemic, the EU has supported the Western Balkans in the COVID-19 fight. We provided immediate emergency support, including equipment, and redirected funds to mitigate the socioeconomic impact of the COVID-19 crisis. The EU delivered the first vaccines to the region. Second, our economic and investment plan for the Western Balkans is our response to supporting the long-term socioeconomic recovery of the region. The plan comes with EUR 9 billion funding from the EPA, and a possibility to leverage EUR 20 billion in investments. And this is for the next six years. Part of this funding is already well underway. In the last two years, we have adopted EUR 1.2 billion in investment grants under the Western Balkans Investment Framework, with a view to financing 24 flagship projects with a total investment value of EUR 3.4 billion. Third, the current energy crisis is a challenge for the Western Balkans as well as for the EU. Therefore, the EU involves the region in its policies and in its actions. The EU has invited the Western Balkans to join the common EU energy purchases for joint purchasing of gas, LNG and hydrogen. Serbia and North Macedonia have joined the first regional group meeting of the South East Europe Regional Task Force. The REPowerEU plan will help to reduce the EU's and the Western Balkans' dependence on Russian gas. However, we need to reduce further the EU's and the Western Balkans' dependence on Russian gas as a matter of urgency. That's why we're working on an energy rescue scheme for the entire Western Balkans. The funds we propose will address immediate, short-term and mid-term needs faced by the region. The immediate measures will include budget support to cushion energy price increases and their impact in particular on businesses, households and SMEs. These measures aim to tackle the energy crisis still this winter. Short-term measures will support diversification of energy supplies, will boost gas and electricity interconnectors, new storage facilities and LNG terminals. We'll also deploy smaller renewable energy projects and energy efficiency measures. Mid-term assistance will include other investments contributing to the energy transition and security. These measures will cover large-scale renewable energy generation projects, upgrade of electricity transmission systems, district heating and schemes for energy efficiency for the old blocks of flats. Further, migration remains an area where we need to work even more closely with our Western Balkan partners. This is even more urgent given the increased migratory pressure experienced in the region over the past year. It must be clear that the EU only welcomes people through safe and legal routes while the door is not open for irregular entry. It must be clear that those who are not eligible and who do not qualify to stay will be returned without delay. It must be clear that we would protect the integrity of our asylum system. We will crack down on smuggler activities and criminal undertakings associated with it. This narrative requires a shift in our policy and the rebalancing of our assistance, including to respond to the emerging needs and challenges in the region. We will not leave the Western Balkans alone. We will deliver on our part both politically and financially. We intend to significantly, by 60%, increase our funding to address migration challenges in the Western Balkans during the period of 2021-2024, meaning more than EUR 350 million. Now, let me give you a short overview about this year's developments in the region, as there was new dynamism in our relationship with the Western Balkans. The EU held the first intergovernmental conferences with Albania and North Macedonia in July. This was a major breakthrough, opening a new chapter in the EU enlargement policy. The Commission started immediately the screening as the first step of the negotiation process. Both Albania and North Macedonia need to keep up the speed and make use of the screening process to explore the full potential to accelerate the implementation of EU reforms. Last week, the Commission recommended the candidate status be granted to Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Council on the understanding that a number of steps are taken. Granting candidate status is an offer; we're doing this for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But it also comes with high expectations. It is for the elite to turn this into reality. Following general elections on 2 October, we expect the legislators and the governments at state, entity and cantonal levels to be swiftly set up in order to focus on EU reforms. It will be for the European Council to take the final decisions, possibly in December. The Commission stands ready to step up its support and to be a reliable partner along this road. The Commission also continues to monitor and report on the implementation of the 14 key priorities based on progress on the ground. For Montenegro, the priority for further overall progress in the accession negotiations remains the fulfilment of the rule of law interim benchmarks set out on the Chapter 23 and 24. In order to reach this milestone, Montenegro needs to intensify its efforts in tackling outstanding issues, including the critical areas of freedom of expression and media freedom, and fight against corruption and organised crime. Serbia has made progress in the rule of law, in particular in the reform of the judiciary and in fighting corruption. Therefore, the overall balance in the accession negotiations is ensured. The EU is Serbia's most important political and economic partner, and we want to help Serbia address its challenges, including in the area of energy security. At the same time, we need to count on Serbia as a sincere European partner, standing with us for our common values, security and prosperity. In the current geopolitical context, it is also clear that Serbia needs to step up its efforts in aligning with the EU positions on foreign policy, including declarations and sanctions against Russia. Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, alignment of CFSP is more important than ever. We need our Western Balkan partners, who are otherwise our strategic allies, to come along with us on this. Kosovo enjoyed political stability throughout the year, and the authorities continue to demonstrate their commitment to the EU path. On visa liberalisation, the Commission stands by its assessment of 2018 that Kosovo has fulfilled all the benchmarks. The proposal is still pending in the Council and we support the renewed discussions by a technical update of our assessment. Both Belgrade and Pristina need to engage constructively in the dialogue process. With this, I thank you for your attention. David McAllister,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner Várhelyi, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has forced us to rethink our commitments and policies, including on enlargement. With Ukraine and Moldova having been granted candidate status and Georgia having been granted a European perspective, there are now ten countries in total that have embarked upon a path towards the European Union. Last Wednesday, we debated the 2022 enlargement package immediately after its adoption in an extraordinary meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee, together with our Commissioner, Olivér Várhelyi. If I remember correctly, we more or less conveyed three messages. First, we highlighted the need to advance the EU enlargement policy as the single most effective instrument for securing peace, prosperity and fundamental values on the European continent. Second, we reiterated our strong support for the European perspective of the countries of the Western Balkans and underlined that the European Union needs to deliver on the obligations towards these countries. And, third, we emphasised that each enlargement country should be judged by its own and on its own merits. The enlargement process needs to remain firmly based on the fulfilment of all relevant criteria, with a strong focus on strengthening democracy, the rule of law, as well as on close cooperation on foreign policy matters. Commissioner Várhelyi, the Foreign Affairs Committee will continue to scrutinise the enlargement policy closely and we will now stock our work on the individual country reports. Tonino Picula,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, Mr Commissioner, enlargement policy is not only about political and economic unity – it is founded in our values too. Following the common foreign policy might not be defined as key criteria, but it becomes today as one of the critical indicators of the commitment of the candidate countries. It cannot be dismissed or treated as a side issue that will gradually be aligned. Our position is clear. Serbian negotiations can only advance when the sanctions are fully adopted. In Montenegro, persistent political instability affects their front-runner status. On BiH, the new recommendations with the same complex conditions will hopefully bring the country closer to the candidacy status, but we remain cautious. Albania and Macedonia deserve a fast track to compensate for the time lost, and any delay in visa liberalisation for Kosovo is detrimental to our role and perception. We need to build back our credibility by acknowledging the progress and by not ignoring the backsliding when it is obvious. Katalin Cseh,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, allow me to jump right into the middle. So the key word is „credibility”. What the Commission needs to show in the Western Balkans is the credibility of the accession process. And why is it so important? Because we know that we are talking about a geopolitical buffer zone. And Russia and China understand the strategic importance of the Western Balkans just as well as we do, only that it is right on our doorstep. And the palpable influence of Russia and China is felt throughout the whole region. But Beijing and Moscow's geopolitical opportunity is our geopolitical risk. In 2022, when Russia is invading Ukraine, when China is eyeing Taiwan, it is really that simple. But neither Putin nor Xi are credible partners. Their alliances are driven by corruption, opportunism and dominance. We have seen this in Montenegro, Bosnia and in other countries across the region. So if you are serious about enlargement, which we should be, we need to highlight the contrast that makes us the only viable ally in the Western Balkans region. We need to show our best face, a Europe that delivers peace, prosperity, robust rule of law an anti-corruption framework and also a strong alliance that is able to protect its members from existential external threats. And also, we have to stick to a clear enlargement agenda without delays, without empty promises, without doublespeak that alienates our partners. Because, colleagues, this is a question of strategic interests, and we only have one shot to get it right. So let's not waste it. Thomas Waitz,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, Western Balkans is geographically clearly Europe. It is also culturally clearly Europe. Some of us have been working a lot in the past years to get this region closer to the European Union but, meanwhile, through the geostrategic events that we see, I think a majority of the House has understood the urgency of bringing this region into the European Union. But what we see is that through our actions, through our promises that we do not fulfilled, through keeping the region pending year by year by year, we're losing more and more public support. Let us look at Montenegro. Well, the fight against organised crime, the fight against smugglers, the actual prosecution of high-ranking politicians and corrupt judges – it is really remarkable. Do we really think this government was ousted because of that, that they did the deal with Orthodox Church? Well, if you talk to people in the country, people do not think so. They say it is because of the fight against organised crime that Đukanović's DPS withdrew their support. I think we should acknowledge that. Let us look at Kosovo. For Kosovo, again, visa liberalisation was blocked by France and some other States. Again, new conditions for the country. Like this we will lose the public support of Kosovans and we are losing it on. Let us see look at Bosnia and Herzegovina. Well, it is a very good step to grant candidate status or at least to propose it. But let us hope the Council follows that path, because if the Council once again does not follow that path, we will lose the trust of the population again, same as we see in North Macedonia because of these bilateral issues with Bulgaria. We are losing the trust of local population. We need to speed up the process. Otherwise, we leave the region to Russia, to China, to Arabic states, and I am sure that is not what we all together want to see. Anna Bonfrisco,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario Várhelyi, onorevoli colleghi, sin dalla firma del trattato di Roma, l'Unione europea si è dimostrata una comunità di intenti e di valori condivisi, un faro di democrazia e di Stato di diritto. Promuovendo la pace, i nostri Stati sono diventati più forti insieme. L'allargamento è oggi un obiettivo essenziale per rafforzare l'Unione e promuovere più pace e più stabilità, prosperità e sicurezza. Sebbene allinearsi alla politica estera e di sicurezza comune non sia un criterio formale per i negoziati di allargamento, oggi però ne comprendiamo la vitale importanza e l'impatto nel presente contesto geopolitico in ordine alle relazioni internazionali, a partire dal grande valore aggiunto costituito dalla nostra partecipazione alla NATO. Coscienti dei continui tentativi della Russia di attirare nella sua zona di influenza i paesi dell'area, ribadiamo come i Balcani occidentali rimangano la priorità strategica dell'Unione europea e dei suoi Stati membri. Intensifichiamo i nostri sforzi per offrire ai Balcani occidentali la piena partecipazione ai nostri piani economici, energetici e di salute e cerchiamo anche di migliorare da un punto di vista infrastrutturale le connessioni possibili. L'attuale situazione globale è riflessa nel pacchetto allargamento di quest'anno, che vede sostanzialmente ampliata l'analisi sul posizionamento internazionale dei diversi paesi coinvolti. Grazie a Lei, Commissario Várhelyi, per il lavoro che sta svolgendo insieme alla Commissione, all'Alto rappresentante, al rappresentante speciale per il dialogo facilitato Belgrado-Pristina, continui con la determinazione che La caratterizza, con il Suo lavoro rafforzi l'Europa e la prospettiva di libertà e democrazia per quei paesi che devono poter diventare sempre più affini. Anna Fotyga,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, the enlargement package 2022 for Western Balkans certainly brings new dynamics to the region and to us. Big news is, of course, the Bosnia and Herzegovina in cohesion with also NATO's security recommendations. This notion should be accompanied by our additional pressure put on Serbia in order to fully align with collective West's policies vis-a—vis Russia, in particular, sanctions package. We have to ensure that Russian world is not to be replaced by Serbian world in the Western Balkans. I would suggest fast track for Albania and North Macedonia. In the case of Albania, it is important to pay attention to eventual Iranian actions because of their generous attitude to the Ashraf people transferred to Albania. And of course, we have to pay attention to the other countries of the region, supporting them as much as possible. Emmanuel Maurel,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, les négociations d'adhésion ont commencé avec l'Albanie et la Macédoine du Nord et, malgré une instabilité politique extrêmement préoccupante marquée par de profondes divisions, nous nous prononcerons bientôt sur l'octroi du statut de pays candidat à la Bosnie-Herzégovine. Convenons ensemble que cette accélération, voire cette précipitation, qui n'est pas toujours bonne conseillère, ne doit pas grand-chose à la situation objective des pays en question, mais doit tout au contexte géopolitique, c'est-à-dire à la guerre en Ukraine, et le fait qu'il fallait mettre en cohérence nos décisions – puisque nous avons pris la décision dans l'urgence en faveur de la Moldavie et de l'Ukraine. Mais je remarque qu'il y a un pays candidat qui ne bénéficie pas du même optimisme empressé dont nous faisons preuve. Ce pays, c'est la Serbie et, je le dis, c'est dommage parce que la Serbie est un pays qui compte dans les Balkans occidentaux. C'est le plus important du point de vue géographique, démographique et économique. On a ouvert 22 chapitres sur les 35 et je pense qu'on devrait se féliciter et ne pas donner l'impression qu'on traîne des pieds. Pourquoi? Parce que sinon, nous allons être accusés d'appliquer aux Balkans occidentaux deux poids, deux mesures. Je rappelle que la Serbie a voté avec nous sur l'agression russe, sur l'annexion des quatre territoires ukrainiens. Donc, vraiment, c'est un pays qui fait des efforts. Je pense qu'on doit en faire aussi pour bien montrer que nous ne faisons aucune différence entre tous les pays des Balkans occidentaux. Andor Deli (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Eddig minden egyes bővítési hullám erősítette Európát, és minden bizonnyal így lenne a nyugat-balkáni országok uniós csatlakozásával is. Azonban ahhoz, hogy felgyorsulhassanak a folyamatok, hogy valós áttörést érhessünk el minden tagjelöltnél, és ők is növeljék a teljesítményüket, konkrét céldátumra és menetrendre lesz szükség. Ez növelné az EU szavahihetőségét és megítélését is a tagjelölt országok állampolgárainak szemében. A térség lemaradt a húsz évvel ezelőtti nagy kelet-európai bővítési hullámról, és immár húsz éve az EU várószobájában van. A céldátum kitűzése óriási motivációt jelentene a régió országai számára, azt eredményezhetné, hogy a tagjelöltek mindinkább gyorsítanák a megkezdett reformokat. Ez a tagjelöltek számára és az EU-nak is hasznos lenne, különösen egy ilyen háború által sújtott geopolitikai helyzetben, mint amilyenben most vagyunk. Végül ezúttal is szeretném megköszönni Várhelyi biztos úrnak a folyamatos kiállását a bővítés ügye mellett. Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Аз съм, за съжаление, разочарован от вчерашното решение на Парламента както на управляващите, така и на опозицията в Северна Македония за създаване на нови пречки пред българските организации в тази страна, за създаване на една атмосфера на омраза и дискриминация спрямо българите в Република Северна Македония. Това трябва да престане и ние трябва да бъдем заедно. Andreas Schieder (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Für viele von uns hätte es wohl die globale Krise und den Krieg in der Ukraine nicht gebraucht, um darauf zu kommen, wie wichtig der Westbalkan für Europa ist und wie europäisch und wie sehr der Westbalkan Teil Europas ist. Aber trotzdem muss man noch einmal unterstreichen: Wir dürfen auch die Länder des Westbalkans nicht im Warteraum der Europäischen Union vergessen. Ganz im Gegenteil: Wir müssen sie ganz schnell zu uns hereinholen. Wir müssen die Reformen, wie sie zum Beispiel in Nordmazedonien immer wieder gemacht werden, auch unterstützen. Wir müssen auch Albanien mit seinen Reformen unterstützen und ihnen ermöglichen, dass sie schnell auch Teil der Europäischen Gemeinschaft werden. Wir brauchen die Visaliberalisierung für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger im Kosovo, genauso wie wir auch die Menschen in Bosnien und Herzegowina gerade jetzt nicht alleinlassen dürfen, wo sie bei den Wahlen gezeigt haben, dass sie für Reformen sind und die alten Eliten auch abwählen und abgewählt haben. Last, but not least – die Situation der Rechtsstaatlichkeit in Serbien darf uns auch nicht kalt lassen. Hier muss Europa viel stärker und effizienter und mit Nachdruck für die europäischen Werte auch gegenüber Serbien und dem serbischen Präsidenten Vučić eintreten. Klemen Grošelj (Renew). – Gospa predsednica! Politika širitve na Zahodni Balkan potrebuje korenito prenovo. Spremenjena metodologija ni prinesla praktično nobenega od pričakovanih ciljev glede kvalitete procesa. Temeljni cilj ne more in ne sme biti samo tehnično in pravno izpolnjevanje kriterijev, ampak mora slediti konkretnim vsebinskim ciljem. Zagotoviti mora transformacijo gospodarstva držav kandidatk kot tudi transformacijo družbe skozi udejanjanje načel in vrednot, na katerih temelji Evropska unija. To je izziv že za mnoge države članice, kaj šele države kandidatke. Zato je čas, da EU oblikuje pristop, ki bo države kandidatke na področju vladavine prava, demokracije in temeljnih vrednot Evropske unije obravnaval individualno in ukrepe ter politike prilagajal realnemu stanju v posamezni državi kandidatki. Pogojevanje ne prinaša pričakovanih rezultatov, zato je nujno vključiti dodatne mehanizme, vezane na evropska sredstva in delovanje pravosodja, kjer lahko pomembno vlogo odigra Urad evropskega javnega tožilstva. Ljudje Zahodnega Balkana si zaslužijo enak obseg pravnega varstva, kot ga uživamo v Evropski uniji, tudi pred formalnim polnopravnim članstvom. Viola von Cramon-Taubadel (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Das Jahr 2022 hat das Thema Erweiterung wieder zurück auf die Agenda gebracht. Das sind erst mal gute Nachrichten. Wir haben sogar weiteren Ländern im Osten die EU-Mitgliedschaft in Aussicht gestellt. Doch wie realistisch ist diese Perspektive? Letztendlich muss man sagen, die Erweiterung ist zu einer reinen Farce geworden, und daran tragen sehr viele die Schuld. Wir haben all diejenigen auf dem Westbalkan, denen wir vor mehr als zwei Jahrzehnten den EU-Beitritt im Grunde versprochen haben, getäuscht, wir haben sie hintergangen. Wir sind noch nicht mal in der Lage, die Beitrittsgespräche mit Nordmazedonien wirklich aufzunehmen, obwohl das Land schmerzhafte Kompromisse akzeptiert hat. Wir schaffen es nicht einmal, den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern des Kosovos die Reisefreiheit zu gewähren, obwohl ihr Land längst alle Kriterien für die Gewährung der Visafreiheit erfüllt hat. Wer von denen wird noch glauben, dass wir es ernst meinen, wenn wir von EU-Erweiterung reden? Ja, das Thema ist zurück, aber es mangelt uns an Glaubwürdigkeit. Wir müssen den Ländern des Westbalkans deshalb beweisen, dass wir sie in der EU haben wollen. Ansonsten ist es für alle ein leeres Versprechen. Gleichzeitig müssen wir denen, die unsere gemeinsamen Werte nicht respektieren und die auch unsere Außenpolitik nicht respektieren, die Mittel streichen. Und zwar sofort! Jean-Lin Lacapelle (ID). – Madame le Président, chers collègues, à marche forcée, vous voulez à tout prix intégrer les pays des Balkans occidentaux dans une Union européenne qui suscite une défiance grandissante de la part des peuples qui en sont membres. Ces mêmes peuples qui, massivement, à l'instar du peuple français, rejettent tout nouvel élargissement. Cependant, dans vos rapports successifs, on ne peut que déplorer une différence de ton flagrante selon les États concernés. La Macédoine du Nord, pays instable en raison de l'activisme de sa minorité albanaise, ne suscite aucune inquiétude de votre part. Le Kosovo, territoire aussi criminogène que corrompu, et non reconnu par cinq États membres de l'Union européenne, a pour sa part toutes vos faveurs. Et je m'amuse quand j'entends d'ailleurs qu'il répond ou répondrait à tous les critères. La Bosnie-Herzégovine, premier pays européen pourvoyeur de djihadistes, minée par l'islamisme politique de sa composante musulmane, qui travaille à marginaliser, avec votre complicité, sa composante serbe, fait l'objet de toutes vos sollicitudes. Mais quand il s'agit de la Serbie, c'est feu à volonté. Vous voulez forcer la Serbie, après l'avoir illégalement amputée de son berceau historique, à reconnaître ce pseudo-État qu'est le Kosovo. Même le secrétaire d'État américain, la semaine dernière, téléphonait au président Vučić en lui disant: „vous ne rentrerez pas dans l'Union européenne tant que vous n'aurez pas reconnu le Kosovo”. Incroyable! Vous voulez lui dicter sa politique étrangère alors qu'il s'agit du premier nœud de la souveraineté d'un État. Vous voulez lui interdire d'avoir des relations avec la Russie alors qu'au plan historique, c'est à elle, notamment depuis 1878, que le peuple serbe doit sa souveraineté et son indépendance. Vous voulez lui interdire d'importer son gaz d'où elle le souhaite, alors que votre politique énergétique stupide menace de faire grelotter les peuples européens cet hiver. Vous lui adressez des rapports humiliants, oubliant que vous avez fait subir au peuple serbe des sanctions inhumaines et même des bombardements à l'uranium appauvri. Alors, une fois pour toutes, renoncez à votre projet démentiel, stoppez vos ingérences et respectez le droit des peuples. Cessez vos leçons de démocratie alors que vous-mêmes exercez perpétuellement des chantages et formulez des menaces envers des États s'ils n'adhèrent pas à votre pensée unique. Avec l'Union européenne, l'idéologie prime toujours sur le pragmatisme. Quand vous développez une Europe carcérale oppressante, nous, nous défendrons toujours une Europe des nations libres, des identités et des peuples. (Die Aussprache wird unterbrochen.) IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA METSOLA President 13.   Sacharovprijs 2022 (bekendmaking van de winnaar) President. – Dear colleagues, it is my privilege to announce that the 2022 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought has been awarded to the brave people of Ukraine, represented by their President, elected leaders and civil society. It is also important for me to tell you that there was consensus in the Conference of Presidents on this choice. For the past nine months, the European Parliament and the world has seen Ukrainians heroically defending their country, their liberty, their homes, their families. But the Ukrainian people are also risking their lives for Europe, to safeguard the values we all believe in: freedom, democracy, the rule of law. There is no one more deserving of this prize. This award is for those Ukrainians fighting on the ground. For those who have been forced to flee. For those who have lost relatives and friends. For all those who stand up and fight for what they believe in. I know that the brave people of Ukraine will not give up, and neither will we. VORSITZ: EVELYN REGNER Vizepräsidentin 14.   De betrekkingen tussen de EU en de Westelijke Balkan in het licht van het nieuwe uitbreidingspakket (voortzetting van het debat) Die Präsidentin. – Wir setzen nun unsere Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zu den Beziehungen zwischen der EU und den Ländern im Westbalkan vor dem Hintergrund des neuen Erweiterungspakets (2022/2881(RSP)) fort. Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, за какво разширяване говорим в момента, в който в Скопие се вихри поредна яростна антибългарска кампания? Комисарю, в Битоля беше запален български културен клуб, в Охрид, стара българска столица, беше разрушен български културен клуб. Онзи ден Народното събрание, Скупщината на Република Македония, Северна Македония, прие закон, с който забранява неправителствени организации с български имена. Да напомням ли кой и в кои години палеше клубове културни? Да напомням ли кой в кои години забраняваше имена? Да напомням ли, Комисарю, правото на самоопределение, правото на сдружаване, правото на организиране? Забравихте ли всички тези неща, Комисарю? Питал съм Ви много пъти и въобще не ми отговорихте. Защото това са, така наречените и защитавани от всички вас, европейски ценности. Ако не защитавате тях, не знам какво защитавате. И държа на отговора, защото съм ви питал много пъти, искам истински отговор. Кой запали клуба в Битоля? Кой разруши клуба в Охрид? Кой забрани на НПО-тата? Кой завихря антибългарската истерия в Скопие? Това е важно и очаквам от вас истински отговор, а не обичайните алабализми. Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, moving further in the enlargement process is not only something we owe to our friends and partners in the Western Balkans, but it is also a strategic priority that has grown in relevance after the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. It is now clearer than ever that we need to reform the enlargement process further by moving beyond unanimity. I welcome the recommendation to grant Bosnia and Herzegovina the official status of candidate country, and I hope this could be that spark that the Sarajevo needs to double down on its commitments. Now we need to keep on moving on the right path, and the next step must be the visa liberalisation for Kosovo. We do not advocate for shortcuts or cutting corners, but we must realise that we cannot afford never-ending negotiations and uncertainty at every step. With the first IGC, with Albania and North Macedonia in July, we have partially remedied some silly mistakes from the past and we must learn the lessons. We need a realistic timeline, otherwise the partial void in the region would be filled even more by Russia, China, Turkey and the Gulf, because the European project will never be completed until all the Western Balkan countries will be part of our family. Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Madam President, Vice-President Regner, Commissioner Várhelyi, colleagues, it's good that there is an enlargement package from the European Commission, and there are some positive aspects about it. We don't call it enlargement but we should also better deal with the UK, Norway and Switzerland. We made some progress with the Eastern Partnership and other parts. When it comes to UK, I want to appreciate today also in the Plenary that it was decided that the UK will participate in the PESCO project on military mobility, which is positive. When it comes to the Western Balkans, it's very positive that Bosnia and Herzegovina will most probably be granted the candidate status. That's a progress in that case. But overall, I would wish for more clarity, especially regarding Serbia. I'm happy, Commissioner that after our exchange in the Foreign Affairs Committee of this very Parliament, where you stated that only one side would have to contribute more to the dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia which would have been Kosovo, today you have said both sides should contribute. I call it progress from the side of the Commissioner. I would say Kosovo has already contributed a lot during history and also the recent months and years, and it is on Serbia not only to contribute to that, but even more to join the sanctions, to join the first unbloody defence against a bloody war attack in history – that's the state of our civilisation. If this will not happen, we have to consider sanctioning Serbian companies and entities who do business with Russian companies and entities because it's still Putin's Russia. And if we have heard the President announcing Sakharov Prize for Ukraine just a few moments ago, it's clear that we are still in this moment of attack and we defend ourselves via these sanctions. Isabel Santos (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, o retorno da guerra à Europa e as decisões tomadas este verão em matéria de alargamento fazem com que este seja um relatório estratégico, talvez o mais estratégico dos últimos anos. Por isso, não pode ser apenas um mero instrumento de acompanhamento, tem de assumir um claro papel de definição política e o posicionamento da Sérvia tem que ser definitivamente clarificado. Não somos uma comunidade apenas de interesses económicos, somos também uma comunidade de valores. O que aconteceu com a Albânia, com a Macedónia do Norte, cujos processos acabaram reféns de diferendos internos da União Europeia, não pode repetir-se. Temos que retirar lições. Os processos de adesão não podem cair no facilitismo, mas também não podem arrastar-se indefinidamente. As reformas feitas pelos países têm que ter uma clara resposta e uma expedita resposta por parte da União. Senhor Comissário, não basta continuarmos a dizer que os Balcãs Ocidentais fazem parte da Europa e que não os deixamos sós, os cidadãos dos Balcãs Ocidentais querem ser cidadãos de pleno direito da União Europeia. Ivars Ijabs (Renew). – Madam President, Mr Commissioner, for over a decade, the once-praised EU enlargement process stalls. And, unfortunately, an end to this stagnation is not coming any time soon. In practice, it means that we have willingly turned a blind eye to the creation of a more safe and stable EU regional neighbourhood and given our adversaries an advantage for their geopolitical aspirations. Now more than ever, we have to curb our decade-long diplomatic failures that have led to our partners questioning our credibility. It is time to show a real commitment by reopening the EU doors to anyone who shares our values and wants to become a member. However, this European openness must go hand in hand with alignment with EU foreign and security policy. There is a war in Europe and a common approach to the wartime geopolitical realities is a sine qua non for European enlargement. Russia uses this European weakness effectively and wants to reshape the European political landscape, which we cannot allow to happen. Putin is trying to divide the continent and cause uncertainty in our regional partners. Therefore, I welcome the Commission's latest enlargement package with the hope that we can agree upon bold decisions and return to a decade-long process of negotiations more fruitfully. Tineke Strik (Verts/ALE). – Madam Chair, Commissioner, after the Russian aggression in Ukraine, the EU has finally woken up. Now everyone sees why swift EU integration of the Western Balkans is key for our stability. I warmly welcome the recommendation of the European Commission to grant Bosnia a candidate status. We must actively support the country to work on the necessary reforms, but also to ensure the right Council decision in due time. And, of course, it was high time for a breakthrough in the process with North Macedonia and Albania. Bulgaria must now stick to its promise not to use its veto any longer in this process, and other Member States have the responsibility to keep Bulgaria to its promise. Reliability and credibility should be EU trademarks. Madam President, now it's high time to translate our nice words into true commitment, not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because the citizens of the Western Balkans deserve this perspective. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue-card speech) IN THE CHAIR: DITA CHARANZOVÁ Vice-President Angel Dzhambazki (ECR),
blue-card speech. – So, dear colleague, do you know where is the town of Bitola? The town of Bitola is one of the major cities in so-called North Macedonia. There are Bulgarians there – good guys. They created a cultural club. Well, this club was attacked and set on fire. What is your comment? By government-led arsonists. What is your comment? I want to know. Tineke Strik (Verts/ALE),
blue-card reply. – Sir, I cannot comment on this specific incident. What I want to say is that Bulgaria should also respect the Copenhagen criteria. Of course, there is a lot of work on better neighbourly relations. What I said is that you are an EU Member State. You have gone through the accession process yourself. You know how important it is that the merits are being assessed, and the merits only. This is important for Schengen accession, but it's also important for the accession of North Macedonia tow the EU. You have a responsibility yourself to make sure that the EU is reliable and credible, and that is what you should show to the citizens of the West. Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Frau Präsidentin! Wir reden ständig von der geplanten Aufnahme der Balkanstaaten in die EU. Und jedes Mal muss ich konstatieren, dass kein einziger dieser Staaten auch nur ansatzweise die notwendigen Kriterien für eine Aufnahme erfüllt. Immer noch ist der Balkan die Hauptroute für illegale Migration. Immer noch kommen die meisten illegalen Waffen über diese Länder in die EU. Immer noch sind sie hoch korrupt. Sogar die EU-Kommission selbst bestätigt das – ich zitiere: „Es ist nach wie vor schwierig, demokratische Standards in den westlichen Balkanländern zu erfüllen und aufrechtzuerhalten”. Und das, obwohl die EU seit dem Jahre 2000 über 21 Milliarden Euro zur Unterstützung dieser Länder investiert hat. Jetzt sollen noch mal weitere 14 Milliarden hinzukommen. Es ist an der Zeit, das Scheitern endlich einzugestehen, den Aufnahmeprozess ein für alle Mal zu beenden und die Steuergelder in dieser größten Wirtschaftskrise für die einzusetzen, die sie erwirtschaften: für den europäischen Bürger. Андрей Слабаков (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, аз ще бъда изключително прям. Намирам подхода на Европейския съюз към Западните Балкани за абсолютно нелогичен, объркан и направо зловреден за Европейския съюз. Противно на прокламираните намерения, в момента на Западните Балкани цари абсолютен хаос, защото няма последователно прилагане на наложените изисквания. Сякаш това се прави нарочно, сякаш някой иска война. Не искам да ви напомням, че обикновено войните винаги започват от Балканите. Това ли искате да предизвикате? Не може да се допуска до фазата на преговорите държава, която упорито преследва българите в Северна Македония и как точно ще оправдаете този терор, който е наложен там? Обръщам се към зелените специално, които много харесват Северна Македония, неизвестно защо? Унищожават се имена, променя се историята и се краде от моята държава. Македония няма история до 46-а година, до 46-а и никога не е имала. Ако искате да създадете проблеми .... Kinga Gál (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Az Európai Unió történelmi felelőssége, hogy a bővítés lendületet kapjon a Nyugat-Balkán irányába. Immár nemcsak gazdasági és stratégiai, hanem védelmi és biztonsági szempontból is kulcsfontosságú a nyugat-balkáni országok felvétele ebben a háborús időszakban, különösen szükségünk van arra, hogy ez a térség stabil maradjon. Magyarország ezért elkötelezetten támogatja a csatlakozást, a konkrét menetrend meghatározását. Üdvözöljük, hogy a Bizottság hivatalosan is javaslatot tett Bosznia-Hercegovina uniós tagjelöltségére. A bővítés további késleltetésével Európa, így Magyarország biztonsági érdekei is súlyosan sérülnének. Meg kell állítani a kockázatot jelentő nyugat-balkáni útvonalon érkező illegális migrációs nyomást, amely egyre erősödik. A térség, így kiemelten Szerbia, kulcsszereplő lehet az Unió külső határainak védelmében. Az európai energiaválság következményeit a Nyugat-Balkánon is csökkenteni kell, ezért szükséges közös energetikai együttműködési projektek mielőbbi megvalósítása. Vladimír Bilčík (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, Russia's illegal, brutal aggression against Ukraine is profoundly reshaping the EU's enlargement policy because Russia's war is also a war against EU enlargement. Let's be clear about this. Russia is waging war directly against Ukraine, an EU candidate state, and Russia is at war with European democracy, values and freedoms and consequently fights on one of our most successful policies – enlargement – via continuous disruption and malign interference for a number of years, including in the Western Balkans. Our partners in the region have lived through the tragedy and destruction of the 1990s. No one in Europe knows better what war on our continent means. I greatly appreciate all those voices in the Western Balkans which have shown that there is no room for relativising the return of war to our continent. Clear alignment on common foreign and security policy is clear alignment to our values. It is the essence of showing commitment to moving forward on the EU accession path. Coupled with progress on the rule of law and fundamentals and resolution of past conflicts through dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, foreign policy alignment demonstrates that the Western Balkans want to be a part of our community of values. Let me say a couple of remarks on two countries I deal with. Montenegro remains qualitatively the frontrunner in the accession process, but it is going through a big crisis. It has to resolve the institutional crisis and it needs a fresh political start. Serbia is the one exception in the region, and as a friend of Europe and Serbia, I want Serbia to work with us, to stand with us. And I really hope that Serbia will do so and work with us on turning the Western Balkans into European Western Balkans. Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Gospa predsednica. Vsako leto beležimo napredek držav Zahodnega Balkana na njihovi poti v Evropsko unijo, ki sicer ni tako dinamičen, kot bi si sami lahko želeli in vsako leto znova dajemo nove obljube ljudem v regiji. Letošnje leto mi daje upanje, da Unija končno izpolnjuje svoje zaveze. Odprtje pogajanj s Severno Makedonijo in Albanijo ter predlog za podelitev statusa kandidatke Bosni in Hercegovini Uniji vračajo izgubljeno kredibilnost v regiji, zato ne smemo dopustiti, da bi se konec leta ljudem v regiji ponovno izneverili. Zato mora Svet nujno podpreti takojšnjo odpravo vizumov za Kosovo. Kot eden vodilnih poslancev v procesu mediacije v Srbiji tako kot kolega Bilčík pred menoj, pozivam vse politične akterje k bolj konstruktivnemu izvajanju reform in sodelovanju z institucijami Evropske unije. Medstrankarski dialog je pozitiven zgled, da obojestranski interes za sodelovanje obstaja. Voditeljem držav Balkana sporočam, da v današnji situaciji ni čas za sedenje na dveh stolih hkrati. Potrebno je izbrati in sesti za skupno mizo. Ljudem v regiji pa želim vnovič sporočiti, da je prihodnost celotne regije v Evropski uniji. Skupaj in zdaj. Valter Flego (Renew). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, poštovani povjereniče, proces proširenja Europske unije na zapadni Balkan predugo traje i jako je spor. Oko toga se svi, naravno, slažemo, ali sada je jasno da zemlje zapadnog Balkana više ne čekaju Europu, nego je upravo obrnuto. Naime, Europa čeka zemlje zapadnog Balkana. Europa, koja je ujedno i najveći financijski donator tim državama i najveći, naravno, trgovinski partner. Europa čeka da te zemlje jasno kažu što žele - da se jasno i nedvosmisleno odrede i odrade sve potrebne radnje i procese na tom zahtjevnom putu. Bez figa u džepu: iskreno, odlučno i hrabro; i prije toga riješe svoje bilateralne probleme jer Europa ne želi više uvoziti bilateralne probleme par zemalja. Naime, nažalost, ima dovoljno i svojih vlastitih problema. Zato iz ovog mjesta mogu samo zaželjeti svim državama zapadnog Balkana da približavanje i ulazak u Europsku uniju bude na vrhu prioriteta njihovih vlada te da onda zajedno učinimo sve kako bismo taj put prema Europskoj uniji skratili i ubrzali. Silvia Sardone (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la Presidente von der Leyen ha affermato che i Balcani occidentali appartengono alla famiglia europea, ma questa dichiarazione sembra dettata più da ragioni geopolitiche che da reali convinzioni. L'Europa deve lavorare affinché queste aree non finiscano nell'orbita russa. Nel caso della Bosnia, bisogna spingere i leader bosniaci a realizzare riforme che non sono riusciti a fare in dieci anni. In Bosnia c'è poi un forte pericolo: l'integralismo islamico. È un paese a maggioranza musulmana, con influenze di Turchia, Arabia Saudita e Qatar, che finanziano moschee spesso non moderate. Infine, non possiamo sottovalutare che ci sia un enorme problema di immigrazione legato alla rotta balcanica, che la Commissione europea non affronta e che non può più essere trascurato. Carlo Fidanza (ECR). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, dobbiamo ammetterlo, se non fosse stato per l'Ucraina, probabilmente sui Balcani occidentali avremmo continuato ad accumulare ritardi, nonostante il grande lavoro del Commissario Várhelyi, a cui voglio rivolgere pubblicamente un plauso. Perché, vedete, soprattutto nelle politiche di vicinato, non c'è soltanto il tema di soddisfare formalmente i parametri comunitari, ma sempre di più quello dell'investimento politico sulle nazioni candidate. Lo dico da italiano, perché il mio paese ha sempre avuto verso i Balcani occidentali una vocazione naturale, lo dico da europeo, perché la nostra inerzia ha consentito a Russia, Cina, Turchia e altri paesi di conquistare terreno in quella zona. La stabilizzazione della regione passa dal rispetto delle minoranze, passa dal contrasto alla corruzione, al jihadismo, alla criminalità organizzata e ai traffici illegali di droga, armi e esseri umani. Nel caso della Bosnia-Erzegovina, a queste priorità si somma l'urgenza di una riforma elettorale che porti a una pacificazione e a una piena e legittima rappresentanza dei diversi gruppi etnici. Vedete, la comunità politica europea, fortemente voluta dal presidente Macron, potrà magari essere un utile luogo di confronto con questi paesi, ma soltanto quel forte investimento politico europeo sull'intera regione farà davvero la differenza. Mislav Kolakušić (NI). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, poštovani kolege, dragi građani, mislim da svi kolege nisu baš svjesni zemljopisnog položaja Bosne i Hercegovine i ostalih država zapadnog Balkana. Naime, sve te države nalaze se u srcu Europe. Sve te države okružene su drugim članicama Europske unije. Europska unija, da bi bila teritorijalno cjelovita, a ne kao što je sada: poput američke krafne, s velikom rupom u sredini. Nalazimo se u novom razdoblju, u razdoblju napetosti između Istoka i Zapada. Nalazimo se u ratnom dobu. Ako mi ne popunimo cjelinu svog teritorija i prestanemo biti poput američke krafne, mogao bi je popuniti netko drugi, a što bi znatno ugrozilo sigurnost svih ostalih država članica jer bismo u srcu Europe imali neke druge identitete koji ne pripadaju Evropskoj uniji. Željana Zovko (PPE). – Madam President, I would like to congratulate the Commissioner on the enlargement package. The biggest news of this year's enlargement package is the welcoming recommendation to grant Bosnia and Herzegovina candidate status. I appreciate the call in the report that it is an utmost priority to conclude the electoral reform according to the Constitutional and International Court's decision, and to accommodate all three constituent people, namely Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs and other minorities in its joint European future. Since the terrible war of aggression against Ukraine started, the EU showed that it will not leave its eastern borders unprotected and it granted candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova. Candidate status for Bosnia and Herzegovina means that we also care for the security on our southern border. Enlargement was, is and will be more than anything else a peace and security project. Therefore, I call on all the countries in the Western Balkans to carefully read these reports as constructive criticism from a friend, from family, and to do the necessary homework to catch up on this momentum. At this moment, all European capitals are focusing on enlargement. Hesitation would be detrimental for the future of Western Balkan countries. Our doors are open and it is cold out there for those who are not part of the family. Delara Burkhardt (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Endlich wurde verstanden, dass Erweiterungspolitik mehr ist als nur jährlich wiederkehrende Länderberichte. Sie ist Hoffnung auf Demokratie, auf Sicherheit und auf eine glückliche Zukunft. Die Empfehlung der Kommission, Bosnien und Herzegowina zu einem Beitrittskandidaten der EU zu machen, ist ein großartiges Signal. Bis sich aber konkret was ändert – so ehrlich müssen wir sein –, wird es noch dauern. Weiterhin werden viele junge Menschen das Land verlassen, weil sie keine Zukunft sehen. Es gibt kaum bis wenig Fortschritt bei der grünen Agenda. Und statt demokratische Reformen im Land zu unterstützen, die gewählte Parlamentarier beschließen, entscheidet der Vertreter der internationalen Gemeinschaft eine umfassende Wahlrechts- und Verfassungsreform, die die ethnische Spaltung verhärtet. Diese Reform bricht nicht nur mit europäischen Standards, sondern auch mit der ersten Schlüsselkategorie, deren Erfüllung wir selber von dem Land fordern. Und die Kommission sagt dazu bisher gar nichts. Vielleicht nutzen Sie ja gleich die Gelegenheit, Herr Várhelyi. Hören wir also auf, uns gegenseitig auf die Schulter zu klopfen. Entwickeln wir eine Partnerschaft auf Augenhöhe mit konkreten Erfolgen in der ökologischen Transformation, in der Schaffung einer europäischen Sicherheitsarchitektur und einer echten Perspektive für die jungen Menschen in der Region. Γεώργιος Κύρτσος (Renew). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, για να επιτύχει η διαδικασία διεύρυνσης στα Δυτικά Βαλκάνια πρέπει να υπάρξει και βελτίωση σε θέματα ελευθερίας των μέσων ενημέρωσης. Σύμφωνα με την έκθεση των Ρεπόρτερ Χωρίς Σύνορα, η κατάσταση στην Αλβανία επιδεινώθηκε και η χώρα πήγε από τη θέση 83 στη θέση 103 επί συνόλου 180 χωρών. Επίσης, η Βοσνία και Ερζεγοβίνη υποχώρησε από τη θέση 58 στη θέση 67, ενώ η Σερβία βρίσκεται στη θέση 79. Δυστυχώς, η Ελλάδα και η Βουλγαρία δίνουν το κακό παράδειγμα σε ό, τι αφορά την ελευθερία των μέσων ενημέρωσης. Η Ελλάδα, με την πολιτική Μητσοτάκη, έπεσε από τη θέση 70 στη θέση 108 και έγινε η χειρότερη στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Η Βουλγαρία ανέβηκε από τη θέση 112 στη θέση 91, αλλά έχει ακόμα δρόμο. Επιβάλλεται, λοιπόν, βελτίωση στην Ελλάδα, που είναι χειρότερη και από τα Δυτικά Βαλκάνια σε θέματα ελευθερίας των μέσων ενημέρωσης, για να επιχειρηματολογούμε με μεγαλύτερη αξιοπιστία υπέρ των ευρωπαϊκών αξιών και κριτηρίων στις υποψήφιες προς ένταξη χώρες. Maximilian Krah (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren Kollegen! Ich verstehe ja die Begeisterung, die EU um weitere Länder erweitern zu können. Aber zur Wahrheit gehört, dass keines dieser Länder, auch nicht Bosnien und Herzegowina, nach den bisherigen Kriterien reif für den EU-Beitritt ist. Und in Bosnien und Herzegowina ergibt sich ja das Demokratiedefizit schon durch diese eigenartige Rolle des Hohen Beauftragten, der ja nicht gewählt ist, aber eine unglaubliche legislative und exekutive Macht hat. Wenn wir also diese Länder für uns gewinnen wollen und auch die Mehrheit der Menschen für uns gewinnen wollen, dann wird dies wohl vorher nur über eine neue Integrationsstufe gehen. Aber eine Vollmitgliedschaft würde diesen Ländern nicht gerecht werden. Aber sie würde eine unglaubliche Zahl von Problemen, die diese Länder haben, und auch von Unzulänglichkeiten in die EU importieren. Und zwar solche, die wir nicht lösen können. Und wir haben schon genug davon. Dorien Rookmaker (ECR). – Voorzitter, commissaris, sommige problemen lossen zich vanzelf op, en sommige zaken behoeven aandacht en actie. Goed bestuur staat of valt met het kunnen maken van onderscheid tussen deze twee. De politieke bezwaren tegen toetreding van Albanië, Montenegro, Noord-Macedonië en Servië tot de Unie verdwijnen onder druk van de misdragingen van Poetin. Aanvullende eisen die de heer Borrell voorstelt, zijn onverstandig. Het leidt tot onnodige vertraging en dat kunnen we ons niet permitteren. Hoe kan Servië zich conformeren aan het buitenlands beleid en het veiligheidsbeleid van de EU, als dat helemaal niet bestaat? Over welk buitenlands beleid heeft mijnheer Borrell het? Over dat van de Commissie, dat van Duitsland, dat van Hongarije of misschien zelfs dat van Polen? Terwijl de politieke hindernissen worden genomen, verschijnen er juridische en administratieve hindernissen aan de horizon. De Commissie maakt in hoog tempo nieuwe wetgeving voor de Green Deal en de crisisbestrijding en dat maakt het voor kandidaat-lidstaten lastig om alle wet- en regelgeving in te voeren vóór de toetreding een feit wordt. Het is dus belangrijk dat we vaart maken. Er zullen dan veel transitieafspraken moeten worden gemaakt en dat leidt tot complexiteit en gedoe. Daarom verzoek ik de leden ... (de voorzitter onderbreekt de spreker) ... met de nodige aandacht en haast te benaderen ... (de voorzitter ontneemt de spreker het woord) Gheorghe Falcă (PPE). – Doamnă președinte, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, agresiunea rusă împotriva Ucrainei a reprezentat un nefericit, dar bun prilej pentru guvernările din Balcani să reconsidere și să reevalueze influența Moscovei în regiunea lor. Este, în același timp, un bun prilej ca la nivel european să reconsiderăm dinamica relațiilor noastre cu țările respective, mai ales în ceea ce privește sprijinul clar de care acestea au nevoie pe drumul aderării lor la comunitatea noastră politică și de valori. Și vreau să salut cu acest prilej recomandarea Comisiei de către Consiliu pentru acordarea statutului de țară candidată pentru Bosnia-Herțegovina. Este un semnal extrem de puternic pentru întreaga zonă, iar atașamentul nostru față de procesul de integrare europeană și euroatlantică, susținut democratic de oameni și cerut de aceștia, trebuie să fie baza pentru a avea cât mai multe lucruri concrete. Alessandra Moretti (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non possiamo più rimandare la sveglia che detta il ritmo della politica di allargamento, suonata da tempo e l'ingiustificata guerra di Putin in Ucraina non ha fatto che trasformare questo suono in allarme. È arrivato il momento, già da tempo in realtà, di affrontare con impegno e credibilità la questione dell'allargamento dell'Unione ai Balcani occidentali. Stiamo parlando di una parte della famiglia europea che rischiamo di perdere perché delusa e scoraggiata dal nostro procedere a rilento. In Serbia i sondaggi dicono che solo il 46 % della popolazione è favorevole all'adesione all'Europa, una percentuale che cala di mese in mese. Anni di temporeggiamento europeo hanno lasciato campo libero alla feroce propaganda russa che, a colpi di disinformazione e fake news, ha attirato nella propria orbita l'opinione pubblica. La politica di allargamento oggi più che mai è un investimento strategico per la pace, la sicurezza, la stabilità di tutto il continente. Ovviamente la sveglia europea non basta. È essenziale che i paesi in questione percorrano con determinazione la strada delle riforme necessarie. Solo attraverso garanzie concrete sullo Stato di diritto, la normalizzazione dei rapporti con il vicinato e l'allineamento a una politica di sicurezza e di difesa comune, potremmo arrivare davvero ad unirci sotto la stessa bandiera europea. Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, kolegice i kolege. Paket šalje ohrabrujuću poruku državama zapadnog Balkana da i dalje ostaju prioritet Europske unije. Osim pregledâ situacije po državama koje smo čuli, najznačajnija poruka bila je davanje uvjetnog statusa zemlje kandidatkinje za Bosnu i Hercegovinu. Na ovaj način potiče se političke elite u zemlji na suradnju, ali moraju se poduzeti i neophodni iskoraci u smjeru ustavne reforme i izmjene izbornog zakona. Važnost reformi iznova je potvrđena i početkom listopada, kada su Hrvati po četvrti puta preglasani u izboru za hrvatskog člana zajedničkog predsjedništva. Krajnje je vrijeme da se okonča ova nepravedna praksa. Uz to, Europska komisija i zastupnici u Odboru za vanjske poslove Europskog parlamenta poslali su jasnu poruku Republici Srbiji. Međutim, srpske vlasti moraju prestati biti dvolične. Europska unija je glavni politički trgovinski partner Srbije, s otvorenim pristupnim pregovorima. Unatoč tome, Srbija odbija usklađivanje s vanjskopolitičkom i sigurnosnom politikom Europske unije. Posebno je problematičan izostanak po pitanju osude ruske agresije na Ukrajinu. Srbija treba odlučiti gdje je njezina budućnost i to treba učiniti bez odgode. Izražavam duboku zabrinutost zbog slobode medija u Republici Srbiji i vladavine prava, koje su na vrlo niskim razinama. Politički momentum postoji. Sada je odgovornost na njima da se dokažu. Sven Simon (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich glaube, wir haben gesehen im Haus, dass es einen sehr breiten Konsens dafür gibt, dass die Völker des Westbalkans unsere Ehrlichkeit verdienen. Sie verdienen, dass wir Wort halten. Im Juni 2003 hat der Rat bei seinem Gipfel in Thessaloniki den Menschen in den sechs Balkanstaaten eine Beitrittsperspektive gegeben. In den vergangenen zwei Jahrzehnten ging es dann aber nur sehr mühsam voran – eine lange Zeit. Eine so lange Zeit, dass ein Vakuum entstanden ist, das Moskau, Peking und Ankara nur allzu gern für ihre Zwecke nutzen. Das ist die geostrategische Größenordnung, über die wir sprechen. Deshalb müssen wir Europäer Glaubwürdigkeit wiederherstellen. Deshalb ist auch das Erweiterungspaket, Herr Kommissar, ein richtiger Schritt. Dabei dürfen wir es aber nicht belassen. Es braucht Visafreiheit für den Kosovo, zügige Verhandlungen mit Nordmazedonien, Albanien und Montenegro. Die Europäische Union muss auf dem Westbalkan wieder agieren, statt nur auf globale Geopolitik und regionale Krisen zu reagieren. Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já navážu na pana kolegu Simona. Já naprosto souhlasím s tím, co říkal ve své řeči. Bylo obrovskou chybou přibouchnout dveře do Evropské unie balkánským zemím a já chci úvodem svého projevu jasně podpořit členství těchto zemí v Evropské unii. Myslím si, že politika rozšiřování Evropské unie by se měla dostat do priorit Evropské unie a do středobodu našeho zájmu. My, když jsme toto pole vyklidili, tak jej obsazuje Rusko, případně Čína. Vidíme zde i zájmy Ankary. Jednoznačně podporuji vstup těchto zemí do Evropské unie a myslím si, že je také dobré zhodnotit jejich pokrok, který učinily. Ať je to v řadě kapitol, které již mají naplněné. Myslím si, že udělení statutu kandidátské země Bosně a Hercegovině vlastně vůbec nic nebrání. Je to jenom otázka politické vůle. Samozřejmě stále zbývá zlepšit postup v řadě kapitol, ať je to svoboda projevu nebo ochrana menšin, svoboda tisku, ale mírové uspořádání na Balkáně podle mého názoru bez trvalého členství těchto zemí v Evropské unii prostě není možné. Proto – opakuji naposled – pokud si to tyto země budou přát, prosím, dejme jim evropskou budoucnost. Catch-the-eye procedure. Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, snažna prisutnost Europske unije ključna je za stabilnost jugoistoka Europe. Stoga ohrabruje da je Europska komisija uvjetno preporučila status kandidata za Bosnu i Hercegovinu. S tim u vezi pozdravljam odluke visokog predstavnika Schmidta, kojima su nametnute izmjene izbornog zakonodavstva i Ustava Federacije BiH. Međutim, sustavna reforma izbornog zakonodavstva, koja će do kraja osigurati ravnopravnost hrvatskog naroda, tek treba uslijediti i o njoj će ovisiti dinamika europskih integracija BiH. Nedopustivo je da Bošnjaci i dalje biraju lažnog hrvatskog predstavnika u Predsjedništvo BiH. Željko Komšić politička je i moralna sramota za Europu, a vjerujem da na kraju ovog mandata zasluženo odlazi u ropotarnicu povijesti. S druge strane, u Srbiji je vidljivo nazadovanje u europskom procesu, a ono se najbolje očituje u hegemonističkom konceptu Srpskog sveta, posebice u odnosu na Crnu Goru, kao i prevrtljivoj politici prema Rusiji. Sve dok se Srbija jasno ne odredi pripada li politički, kulturno i civilizacijski Zapadu, za nju nema mjesta u Europskoj uniji. Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señorías, desde luego, quiero aprovechar la ocasión para reiterar mi apoyo al proceso de ampliación de la Unión Europea a los Balcanes Occidentales sin reservas. Celebro realmente el estatuto de candidato que se ha otorgado a Bosnia y Herzegovina. Pero sí quería hacer una precisión que no se ha hecho —diría— en el marco de este debate hasta ahora, y es importante: no podemos desvincular el proceso de ampliación del proceso de profundización de la Unión Europea. No podemos ir a una Unión de treinta, treinta y dos, treinta y cinco Estados y seguir decidiendo las sanciones, la política exterior, por unanimidad. Por tanto, tengamos bien presente que son dos procesos que tienen que ir de la mano: ampliación —ampliar el espacio de la democracia europea—, pero también, al mismo tiempo, profundizar la democracia europea en cuanto a su funcionamiento, su legitimidad y su eficacia. Irena Joveva (Renew). – Gospa predsednica. Predstavljajte si naslednje: nekaj vam obljubijo, ampak se zlažejo. Ponovno vam obljubijo, vi čakate, spet se vam zlažejo. Počutite se izdano, zmedeno. Čakate. Postanete sumničavi. Čakate na še več obljub, ampak tokrat ne pričakujete več veliko, ker vas je že izučilo. Znana glasbena skupina zapoje takole – bom kar v originalu: „Prazna objećanja su najbolja reklama (Prazne obljube so najboljša reklama. op.prev.)” In tako, drage kolegice in dragi kolegi, se počutijo naši sosedje z Zahodnega Balkana – nič manj Evropejci kot jaz, ti ali kdor koli drug, navzoč v tej sobi. Obljube delajo dolg in moramo jih spoštovati. In znotraj Unije moramo glede vladavine prava, svobode medijev, človekovih pravic in vseh ostalih kriterijev biti enako strogi, kot to upravičeno zahtevamo od naših sosedov. A tudi v Uniji imamo nekaj držav, ki so vse prej kot dober zgled. Prijatelji na Balkanu, vi pripadate ovdje jednako kao i svi mi (Prijatelji na Balkanu, sem spadate enako kot mi vsi. op. prev.). Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Była mowa tutaj już wielokrotnie o tym, że albo Unia Europejska otworzy drzwi dla obywateli państw Bałkanów Zachodnich, albo w tych państwach coraz większe wpływy będą miały takie państwa jak Rosja, Chiny, a nawet Arabia Saudyjska czy Iran. Dlatego w interesie całej Unii Europejskiej jest utrzymanie wysokiej dynamiki procesu rozszerzania. Ta polityka unijna odgrywa jeszcze większą rolę w obliczu rosyjskiej agresji na Ukrainę i destabilizujących działań podmiotów trzecich, zwłaszcza Rosji, w państwach nią objętych. Pełne dostosowanie do wspólnej polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa Unii Europejskiej powinno mieć priorytetowe znaczenie i musi być dostosowane do poszczególnych kandydatów na równych zasadach, bez stosowania podwójnych standardów. Należy zabiegać o inkluzywność wszystkich dokumentów rozszerzeniowych, w tym konkluzji Rady Unii Europejskiej, które w jak najszerszym stopniu powinny odzwierciedlać ostatnie pozytywne decyzje, takie jak przyjęcie ram negocjacyjnych dla Albanii i Macedonii Północnej czy, nawet przede wszystkim, przyznanie Ukrainie i Mołdawii statusu kandydata do członkostwa w Unii i perspektywy europejskiej dla Gruzji. Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, htio bih danas govoriti ovdje, prije svega, o Bosni i Hercegovini. Pozdraviti prijedlog Europske komisije za davanje statusa kandidata državi koja je prošla možda najkrvaviji i najteži put do svoje samostalnosti, do očuvanja svoje opstojnosti i sada se nalazi u jednoj posebnoj, specifičnoj, situaciji: na putu prema stabilnosti, na putu prema demokratizaciji zemlje, ali isto tako i na putu prema Europskoj uniji. Kolegama bih htio poručiti da svatko kome je stalo, istinski stalo do Bosne i Hercegovine, mora razumjeti da se pokušaji podčinjavanja Hrvata u građane drugog reda jednostavno ne mogu isplatiti, da ne mogu uspjeti, a ne samo da su oni, što također jesu, duboko i moralno pogrešni. Svaki konstitutivni narod treba imati pravo na legitimno zastupanje i, jedino uz uvažavanje sva tri konstitutivna naroda s punom ravnopravnošću, možemo misliti i tvrditi da Bosna i Hercegovina ima europsku budućnost i zbog toga mi je drago da je to prepoznala i Europska komisija preporučujući također rad na izmjenama Izbornog zakona kao preduvjet bilo kakvog daljnjeg napretka. Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Ta bardzo interesująca debata dobiega końca. Chciałbym poruszyć jeszcze jeden aspekt i zadać pytanie panu komisarzowi, dlatego że mało w zasadzie mówiliśmy o tym przy całym entuzjazmie dla rozszerzenia Unii Europejskiej (za tym też jestem) o Bałkany Zachodnie. Chciałbym zapytać o ekonomiczny aspekt tego rozszerzenia, dlatego że co jakiś czas pokazują się szacunki, jak to będzie wyglądało, jeśli chodzi o przyłączenie na przykład tych kilku krajów do Unii Europejskiej. Jak wtedy będzie musiała zmienić się wspólna polityka rolna, fundusze spójności itd. Czy są w tej materii jakieś w tej chwili dane, o których może nam Pan tu powiedzieć? Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, every country should be free to choose the path it wishes to take in order to ensure its prosperity as far as I'm concerned. So if countries in the Western Balkans want to join the EU, that's absolutely fine, as long as that's truly what the citizens desire. But it is very clear from the Commission statement, and indeed from many comments of colleagues, that this strategy isn't motivated by concern for Western Balkan citizens, but rather it is rooted in a geopolitical power-grab to enlarge our gang so we can keep fighting the Russians. They have to choose between Russia or us. Why, we all live on the same continent? Look where that strategy has landed Ukraine, when Zelenskyy was elected on a platform of making peace with Russia. and I find it absolutely ironic that to read the Commission statement talking about the necessity of these countries to reinforce democracy and rule of law when we have flagrant breaches in France, Spain, Bulgaria and so on. Traditionally, these countries have been brought into Europe to boost NATO and to be a pool of cheap labour. It's about time we started respecting them for their own national rights and develop a cooperation of equals. (End of catch-the-eye procedure) Olivér Várhelyi,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, as you know, since the very first day of this Commission, we have taken enlargement to be our political priority. The report on it demonstrates that this is not just empty words, as it was said here by some, but this is delivering results now, because it is the EU's strategic interest to get the Western Balkans fully integrated within the European Union. Only this can give us long-term stability, peace and prosperity, not only in the Western Balkans but also in the European Union. Now, I noted three questions. First of all, I want to thank this House for the support for the candidate status of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is a very important political decision, an offer, if you will, to the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And I do hope that I can continue to count on the support of this House. Of course, much needs to be done still and in that, of course, the electoral reform is an urgent priority as it is very clearly established in our report. My answer to Mr Dzhambazki is that we are following closely what has happened, and I understand that there are police proceedings ongoing. And, of course, we are not in a position to comment on these proceedings. However, I want to underline that, of course, Article 2 of the Treaty continues to apply as a criteria for becoming a Member. And, finally, an answer to Mr Rzońca. This is not the time to discuss the possible impact but let me give you the perspective. The entire region is 18 million people. And we are a region of 450. The entire region will not be integrated on the same day. So, I think that the impact on, for example, the CAP should not be something we shouldn't be able to address. President. – That concludes the debate. The next point on our agenda is the Commission statement on: Fighting sexualised violence – The importance of the Istanbul Convention and a comprehensive proposal for a directive against gender-based violence. 15.   De bestrijding van seksueel geweld - Het belang van het Verdrag van Istanbul en een alomvattend voorstel voor een richtlijn tegen gendergerelateerd geweld (debat) President. – I am glad to see Commissioner Dalli with us, I will give her immediately the floor. Commissioner, the floor is yours. Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable members, fighting sexualised violence and the importance of the Istanbul Convention and the comprehensive proposal for a directive against gender-based violence is what we are discussing today. The scale of sexualised violence and violence against women in Europe is very high. One in three women in the European Union has experienced physical and or sexual violence, and one in twenty women has been raped. Reports and personal accounts indicate that rape and sexualised violence are being used as weapons of war in Ukraine. About one in five Europeans hold victim-blaming views, claiming that women make up or exaggerate claims and that violence against women is often provoked by the victim. We cannot, of course, tolerate this and must take a stance and end victim-blaming and rape culture. Excusing aggressive behaviour and shaming those who speak out about their experience has desensitised society to the horrors of rape and sexual assault. In the EU, 27% of people think that sexual intercourse without consent could be justified under certain circumstances, such as when the victim is drunk or when the victim does not clearly say no, or when the victim does not physically fight back. But these can never be considered as consent. This is why the Commission put forward a legislative proposal on combating violence against women and domestic violence. The proposal contains a host of measures to ensure that we protect victims from sexualised violence and prevent it from happening in the first place. It also proposes the introduction of a harmonised definition of rape based on the lack of consent. Only a yes is yes. Immediate specialised support is particularly important in cases of sexualised violence. The proposal would ensure that victims have immediate access to rape, crisis or sexual violence centres. Victims of sexualised violence are often confronted with insensitive or gender-stereotypical treatment during law enforcement proceedings. This can have serious consequences in terms of secondary victimisation and ultimately denies these victims the right to justice. Training sessions for law enforcement officials and judges are therefore of the utmost importance. The Commission's proposal further seeks to prohibit judges from asking unnecessary and possibly traumatising questions about the victim's sexual history. The proposal further seeks to prevent gender-based violence, including sexualised violence, by ensuring that awareness-raising campaigns aim to dispel harmful gender stereotypes. The measures I just mentioned are only a selection of those included in this comprehensive proposal, which covers the criminalisation of certain offences amounting to violence against women, the protection, support and access to justice for victims of violence against women and domestic violence, and the prevention of such forms of violence. Parliament's full support is needed as a co-legislator to make sure we now introduce harmonised and comprehensive provisions and take a united stand against gender-based violence. The proposal is modelled on the Council of Europe's Istanbul Convention, which has proven to be a comprehensive legal instrument to prevent and combat gender-based and domestic violence and protect the victims. So I stress here again, as already stated in the Commission's gender equality strategy, that we remain committed to the EU's accession to the Istanbul Convention. The Istanbul Convention is our international standard and engagement to which the EU wants to live up, just as we do to other international texts, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. We are counting on the Council to make sure that the EU now finalises accession to the convention, following the EU's signature in 2017. Frances Fitzgerald,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, as co-rapporteur on the proposal for a directive on violence against women and domestic violence, I am working just extensively to ensure women across the Union are protected alongside my co-rapporteur, Evin Incir. With this new directive, we must ensure that standards across Europe are raised and that it actually builds on the ground-breaking Istanbul Convention. However, be prepared for the legal basis of sexual exploitation to be challenged. Let us in this Chamber make sure that the legal definition of sexual exploitation includes rape and female genital mutilation. If this was to be questioned as we progress with this directive, what an insult that would be to the women of Europe and beyond. Right now, the European Parliament has a chance to create meaningful change. What we actually need is a fully ratified Istanbul Convention and a strong European directive on this topic. Why? Because everyone has the right to a life free from violence. However, the pervasiveness of violence against women in our society means that this is not yet a reality for women and girls. One in three women globally will experience sexual or domestic violence within their lifetime. And the statistics are horrifying. Overall, every ten years, a city the size of Marseilles, Amsterdam or Zagreb disappears, as 850 000 women are murdered every ten years. Even more so in times of war, as we see in Ukraine. Ukrainian women are experiencing this first-hand, as rape becomes a weapon of war used by Russian soldiers For too long, and I think most people in this House agree, there has not been enough action on the issue of violence against women. This is seen most notably in the failure of a number of Member States to ratify the Istanbul Convention. This new directive should provide significant protection to those victims and introduce preventative measures to help address the pervasive nature of this phenomenon. We must ensure that the fundamental rights of women and girls are secured. President. – Owing to technical problems concerning interpreting, the speaker is invited to repeat the final part of her speech. Frances Fitzgerald,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – (start of speech off-microphone) ... I won't repeat it all. Basically, what I was saying is that the statistics are really horrifying. I don't need to go into them again here. But let me just give one statistic: overall every ten years, a city the size of Marseille, Amsterdam or Zagreb disappears as 850 000 women are murdered every ten years. I mentioned as well, of course, the Ukrainian war and how Ukrainian women are experiencing first-hand the fact that rape becomes a weapon of war used by Russian soldiers. We need more action, we need it quickly. Violence is so pervasive. I hope the new directive will give significant protection to those victims and introduce preventative measures to help address the pervasive nature of this phenomenon, because we have to ensure that the fundamental rights of women and girls are secured. The Istanbul Convention being fully implemented and a strong directive really gives us that opportunity. Evin Incir,
för S&D-gruppen. – Fru talman! Hot, skräck, slag, mord. Det tar aldrig slut. År efter år, decennium efter decennium, århundrade efter århundrade, i alla samhällen, i alla samhällsklasser. Det könsbaserade våldet borde ha förpassats till historien i en modern tid som vår, men patriarkatet är här och nu och det vill något annat. I hemmet, till och med i politiken, i skolan, på gator och torg, i krig men också i fred utsätts kvinnor och flickor för våld: sexuellt, fysiskt, psykiskt, ekonomiskt och digitalt. Var tredje kvinna i EU beräknas ha drabbats av våld, mer än var femte kvinna har drabbats av våld i nära relationer. Många av oss kvinnor, även här i vårt parlament, har levt eller lever i denna verklighet. Det sker både offline och online. Det avskyvärda våldet är inte ett naturfenomen. Flickor föds inte under rosa täcken och pojkar föds inte under blå täcken. Det är något vi tvingas på. Ojämställdheten som bottnar i patriarkatet kan förpassas till historien, men för det krävs både mod och vilja av var och en av oss här inne: modet att våga stå upp emot orättvisor och viljan att uppnå ett jämställt samhälle. Vi kvinnor, flickor, hbtqi-personer och alla andra som dagligen lever med hat, hot och våld har fått nog. Förändring är inte längre ett kanske – det är ett måste. Det är smärtsamt att EU fortfarande har sex länder, Bulgarien, Tjeckien, Ungern, Litauen, Lettland och Slovakien, som ännu inte har ratificerat Istanbulkonventionen, som är det första juridiskt bindande regionala instrumentet om våld mot kvinnor i Europa. Nu har vi i EU för första gången tagit ett helhetsgrepp genom konkreta åtgärder för att komma till rätta med ett av vår tids största problem. Att EU går fram med ett så skarpt och omfattande lagförslag, som direktivet för att bekämpa mäns våld mot kvinnor och våld i nära relationer, är historiskt. Jag kommer i egenskap av medföredragande, tillsammans med min kollega Fitzgerald, göra det jag kan för att stärka det ytterligare. Det är vår skyldighet gentemot kvinnor och flickor att få slut på våldet, få slut på morden. Vi måste arbeta förebyggande genom att börja i tidig ålder. Vi måste stödja offren och vi måste få slut på straffriheten som råder. María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos,
en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, se calcula que cincuenta mujeres son asesinadas víctimas de la violencia de género cada semana en la Unión Europea. Una cada seis horas. En España, en mi país, han sido asesinadas hasta este momento treinta y cuatro mujeres víctimas de la violencia de género. Esta es la máxima expresión de la violencia contra las mujeres, la punta de un iceberg que esconde malos tratos, agresiones sexuales, acoso, ciberviolencia, trata, vulneración de derechos sexuales y reproductivos y violencia sexual. Una violencia que no hace más que aumentar año tras año en nuestros países. Estamos viendo cómo en Ucrania convierten el cuerpo de las mujeres en un campo de batalla. Y, sin embargo, frente a este drama, estamos viendo cómo crecen los movimientos antigénero, aquellos movimientos que niegan la violencia de género, que banalizan la violencia sexual. Frente a esto, no podemos ser complacientes ni inactivos. Tenemos que combatirlos. Y, por eso, en esta legislatura tenemos que conseguir dos grandes hitos históricos, si me permiten. Que el Consejo ratifique el Convenio de Estambul. El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea ha dejado claro que no hay excusas jurídicas para no hacerlo, solo excusas políticas. El Consejo debe ratificar el Convenio de Estambul. Y debemos aprobar una directiva sobre la lucha contra la violencia de género que proteja por igual a todas las mujeres en la Unión Europea y que no deje un lugar de impunidad para los asesinos y autores de crímenes contra las mujeres. Diana Riba i Giner,
en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, es crucial que la Unión Europea cuente con una legislación europea ambiciosa a la hora de atacar la violencia machista, una de las principales violaciones de derechos humanos que existe en el planeta y que afecta a, ni más ni menos, una de cada tres mujeres. Europa debe ser un referente mundial en la lucha contra esta lacra. Por eso, por un lado, quiero dar la bienvenida a la propuesta que ha hecho la Comisión para dotar a la Unión de una directiva sobre la violencia contra la mujer que establezca unos mínimos comunes en todos los Estados miembros. Pero, por otro lado, les tengo que decir que no es suficiente. La Comisión sabe que aquí, en esta Cámara, se aprobó un informe que reclamaba la inclusión de la violencia machista en el artículo 83 de los Tratados, un hecho que nos permitiría construir una propuesta legislativa mucho más ambiciosa que la que han presentado. Sabemos que hay reticencias. Sabemos que el contexto no es fácil. Pero mucho me temo que, cuando hablamos de los derechos de las mujeres, estas reticencias siempre existirán y el contexto nunca será el idóneo. Por eso, es el momento de unir fuerzas, de ser valientes políticamente. Trabajemos juntas por una nueva directiva que haga historia, pero, sobre todo, que salve vidas. Annika Bruna,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, le débat que nous avons aujourd'hui est malheureusement plus que jamais d'actualité, au moment où nous apprenons avec effroi le supplice qu'a subi la petite Lola il y a quelques jours à peine en France. Alors oui, il est plus que temps de lutter efficacement contre les violences à caractère sexuel, à commencer par celles exercées sur nos enfants. La semaine dernière encore, j'ai rencontré des femmes déterminées qui ont eu le courage de témoigner sur les abus sexuels commis par des hommes puissants qui agissent impunément depuis des décennies. Des prédateurs sexuels protégés par l'omerta peuvent commettre leurs méfaits sans être inquiétés, notamment dans les sphères de pouvoir. Et j'en veux pour exemple les récentes affaires des institutions européennes ou encore des agences de mannequinat. La culture du silence est coupable de l'impunité des agresseurs. Il est temps d'y mettre fin. C'est un enjeu moral et de société. Margarita de la Pisa Carrión,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, señorías, que alguien se autoproclame defensor de las mujeres no quiere decir que lo sea. Miren los resultados. Ante el drama de la violencia, analicemos las causas: alcoholismo, adicciones, desórdenes afectivos, hedonismo... Ideas culturales radicales que denigran a la mujer. Para fomentar el respeto hemos de educar en virtudes, construir vínculos sanos y ordenados, no hipersexualizar la sociedad o cosificar a las personas. La ideología de género estigmatiza y criminaliza al varón de forma generalizada. Es un tópico injusto que destruye la igualdad real entre hombres y mujeres, y provoca miedo y desconfianza. Y, además, impide reconocer a los verdaderos agresores. Quien cometa estos actos debe ser perseguido, no quedar impune, para que no pueda volver a ser una amenaza para sus víctimas. Las mujeres en esta situación necesitan unos servicios sociales que se impliquen, que les den soluciones de verdad: acompañamiento profundo, psicológico, afectivo, espiritual, según sus necesidades concretas. Los recursos hoy se pierden por el camino financiando asociaciones y ONG activistas que no ayudan y, en cambio, sí que generan enfrentamiento social. Muchas veces la atención a la mujer se limita a ofrecerle el inhumano recurso del aborto. Las leyes ideológicas, como la llamada „sí es sí” en España, lejos de proteger a la mujer, están desvirtuando los tipos delictivos y devalúan las penas. Esto a quien ampara no es a la mujer, sino a los verdaderos agresores. Έλενα Κουντουρά,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριοι συνάδελφοι, στην Ευρώπη, μία στις τρεις γυναίκες έχει υποστεί σωματική σεξουαλική βία και μία στις είκοσι γυναίκες έχει πέσει θύμα βιασμού. Μόνο στην Ελλάδα, τους τελευταίους οκτώ μήνες έχουν κακοποιηθεί σεξουαλικά 300 παιδιά και έχουν γίνει 19 γυναικοκτονίες. Τα στοιχεία αυτά σοκάρουν, ενώ τα πραγματικά περιστατικά είναι πολύ περισσότερα, καθώς οι γυναίκες είτε από φόβο, είτε από ντροπή, είτε από έλλειψη εμπιστοσύνης στις αρχές, δεν καταγγέλλουν όσα εφιαλτικά βιώνουν. Οι κακοποιητές, οι βιαστές και οι παιδόφιλοι βρίσκουν έδαφος στα κενά της γονεϊκής και της κοινωνικής μέριμνας, στη φτώχεια, τις ανισότητες και τις πατριαρχικές αντιλήψεις που κυριαρχούν ακόμη και σήμερα στην Ευρώπη. Είναι ανάγκη, λοιπόν, να διασφαλίσουμε ότι η οδηγία για την έμφυλη βία θα είναι φιλόδοξη και θα υιοθετεί τις συστάσεις του ψηφίσματος για τον αντίκτυπο της ενδοοικογενειακής βίας και των δικαιωμάτων επιμέλειας στις γυναίκες και στα παιδιά. Κυρία Επίτροπε, το Δικαστήριο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης τον Οκτώβριο του 2021 γνωμοδότησε ότι ακόμα και αν δεν έχουν κυρώσει όλα τα κράτη μέλη τη Σύμβαση της Κωνσταντινούπολης, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση μπορεί να την κυρώσει και οφείλει να το κάνει άμεσα. Arba Kokalari (PPE). – Fru talman! I Europa pågår just nu fruktansvärda övergrepp på ukrainska kvinnor och barn, där ryska soldater använder våldtäkter och mord som vapen i sin krigföring. I Iran kämpar kvinnor för sin rätt till ett liv i frihet, i ett land där våld mot kvinnor i hemmet och våldtäkt inom äktenskapet är tillåtet. I en värld som denna måste EU leda vägen och visa att kampen mot förtrycket, mot våldet mot kvinnor, är en kamp för frihet, för mänskliga rättigheter, för jämställdhet. Om EU ska vara en trovärdig aktör när det gäller kvinnors rättigheter måste vi också agera här på hemmaplan, för alldeles för länge har våldet mot kvinnor försummats i medlemsländerna. Fysiskt och sexuellt våld drabbar var tredje kvinna inom EU. Det är stopp på det nu. Vi har nu en chans att förändra på riktigt i vår tids frihetsfråga. Genom att våld mot kvinnor kriminaliseras, att Istanbulkonventionen genomförs i hela EU, kan vi med kraftfulla medel trycka tillbaka våldet på riktigt. Fru kommissionär, det är dags att gå från ord till handling om att vi menar allvar, om att kvinnors rättigheter är mänskliga rättigheter. Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Całują w ręce, bredzą o moralności, a później zwalczają prawo chroniące kobiety przed przemocą. Prawicowi populiści atakują prawo, które wspiera ofiary. Atakują prawo, które chroni rodziny. Atakują konwencję stambulską, nawet tutaj, w Strasburgu, gdy pojawia się tak fundamentalna kwestia jak przemoc ze względu na płeć, to PiS głosuje przeciwko. Głosuje przeciwko dyskusji. Głosuje przeciwko kobietom. Tam, gdzie dochodzi do przemocy, nie ma miejsca na brednie o ideologii. Tam, gdzie jest przemoc, jest miejsce do dyskusji o tym, jak chronić ofiary i jak karać sprawców. Ale widzimy wyraźnie, że tym nie jesteście zainteresowani. My, w przeciwieństwie do was, nie zaglądamy ludziom do łóżka. Wy macie jakąś chorą obsesję, obsesję na punkcie seksu i płci, obsesję, którą co tydzień pokazuje prezes całej Polsce. Obsesję, którą gracie politycznie. Mieszkańcy Polski oczekują normalności, która nie jest definiowana na partyjnych zjazdach przez bezdusznego starszego pana. Oczekują normalności, w której Fundusz Sprawiedliwości służy wsparciu ofiar, a nie inwigilacji opozycji. Oczekują normalności, w której kobiety nie są zmuszane przez państwo do heroizmu. Oczekują normalności, w której minister sprawiedliwości nie atakuje dokumentu zwalczającego przemoc w rodzinie. Przywrócimy normalność, państwo prawa i wartości europejskie już wkrótce. Samira Rafaela (Renew). – Madam President, finally, we have a very important proposal on fighting gender-based violence. But it is very important that this proposal works for all, and that all women are included. This is about intersectionality. So I really much wish that we pay attention to the victims of marital captivity. A lot of women were manipulated into a bad situation, and at the end they end up in their marriage, and they are captured and they cannot go anywhere. They cannot escape the situation, they are vulnerable for domestic violence, all kinds of violence they are vulnerable to. And also when it comes to honour-related violence, and this is something that we need to emphasise in the debate. This is something that we need to pay attention for, because this issue is in the dark. It is basically a shadow in this proposal, and it's a dark reality for these women. It's a difficult issue to detect, it's a difficult issue to monitor. But this is exactly why we need to find solutions to detect this issue, and to protect women that are victims of marital captivity. Karima Delli (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, mes chers collègues, il y a cinq ans, ici, dans cet hémicycle, je criais: „la peur et la honte doivent changer de camp!”. On est cinq ans plus tard, rien n'a changé. On le sait, une femme sur trois en Europe a subi des violences physiques ou sexuelles, plus de la moitié des femmes ont été victimes de harcèlement, une femme sur dix a été violée, sept meurent chaque jour sous les coups de leur conjoint ou ex-conjoint. Et rappelez-vous que le COVID a créé une pandémie fantôme, celle des violences domestiques. Ces données sont glaçantes, mais nous, les femmes, nous continuerons à être debout! Nous sommes présentes en force dans cet hémicycle: aujourd'hui, sur 25 orateurs, seulement deux sont des hommes! Nous sommes debout pour rappeler que l'Union européenne a signé en 2017 la convention d'Istanbul. Nous sommes debout pour dire que six pays sur 27 agissent au mépris des droits des femmes. Madame la Commissaire, nous sommes là pour légiférer. Vous devez garantir la protection des femmes et des filles par tous les moyens, même au-delà des traités. Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, Комисар, насилието над жени и деца е и трябва да бъде престъпление, и всяко престъпление трябва да бъде преследвано, обвинявано, осъждано и наказвано. И така е редно и така трябва да бъде, защото това престъпление е отвратително. Обаче тук дебата е малко по-различен, защото Истанбулската конвенция не е този документ, който да запази жените и децата от домашно насилие или от всякакво насилие, основано на пола. Истанбулската конвенция има далеч по-големи, по-широки и по-различни цели и вие отлично знаете това. В Истанбулската конвенция има идеология, която за част от нас е неприемлива и затова ние се противопоставяме на този документ, и същевременно ви казваме не взимайте справедливата кауза за защита на правата на жените като заложник за идеологически промени, насочени към семейната традиция, към семейството и т. н. И ви дам два примера. Как твърдите, че защитавате правата на жените, а насърчавате спортист, който е роден мъж, да отиде да се състезава в женска лига, в плуване, в бокс, в борба или в каквото и да било. И още нещо, как твърдите, че насърчавате и защитавате правата на жените, а наричате традиция практиката в някои общности, мюсюлмански или в махалите в България да се женят насила 12 годишни деца. Това не е защита на правата на децата и на жените, тъкмо напротив. Завършвам с призива Истанбулската конвенция не е подписана от нас, няма да бъде подписана ...... Eugenia Rodríguez Palop (The Left). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, esta mañana hemos hablado aquí sobre el blanqueamiento de la extrema derecha antieuropea y me parece oportuno comenzar mencionando que el origen de este debate es una propuesta del Grupo ID para hablar sobre violencia contra las mujeres, sin mencionar que es violencia de género, o sea, sin dejar claro que son las mujeres quienes la sufren y los hombres quienes la ejercen, sin referirse al Convenio de Estambul ni a la propuesta de Directiva de la Comisión. Afortunadamente, otros grupos hemos reaccionado para evitar que las antifeministas usen a las mujeres víctimas de violencia para colar sus excentricidades. Dicen que se preocupan por las mujeres, pero, ¿a quién quieren engañar? ¿Acaso creen que somos tontas? Nos matan por ser mujeres, pero la extrema derecha dice que la violencia no tiene género, que es la ideología de género la que origina la violencia y que los hombres sufren persecución a manos de las feministas. Se les llena la boca pidiendo sanciones para los agresores, pero solo si son extranjeros, porque, en su ficción particular, esos agresores no pueden ser esposos, padres, hombres blancos, ricos y nacionales, españoles muy españoles. Esos, si matan, es solo por amor o en legítima defensa. Dicen estar con las mujeres, pero solo si son reinas del hogar y se acomodan a sus estereotipos. No pelean por las mujeres, sino solo por sus mujeres. Se sientan en esta Cámara para oponerse al Convenio de Estambul o a la violencia de género como eurodelito y van a intentar minar la Directiva de la Comisión. Y, si algo prospera, utilizan al Consejo para bloquearlo. Señores y señoras de la extrema derecha, ya está bien. A otro perro con ese hueso, que, aunque la mona se vista de seda, mona se queda. Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – Señora presidenta, sin igualdad Europa no existe. Europa es el futuro de la igualdad entre todos. La violencia de género es una de las violaciones más graves de los derechos humanos. Un tercio de las mujeres de la Unión Europea —se ha dicho aquí— ha sufrido violencia física o sexual a lo largo de su vida y los datos indican que ha aumentado después de la pandemia. Ha habido simultáneamente una pandemia oculta. Se produce en todas partes: en el hogar, en la escuela, en el trabajo, en la calle, en internet. Tenemos ahora una guerra, la guerra de Ucrania, en la que la violación es utilizada como un arma masiva por parte de los soldados rusos. Siguen violándose en todo el mundo los derechos fundamentales de las mujeres y, por eso, es muy importante este debate. En primer lugar, hay que hacer una solicitud a todos los Estados miembros para que ratifiquen el Convenio de Estambul, el tratado internacional de mayor alcance para poder luchar contra esta lacra; también la propuesta de Directiva que presentó en el mes de marzo la Comisión, una directiva para atacar con todos los instrumentos que poseemos la violencia contra las mujeres. Necesitábamos y necesitamos una respuesta global, unida y coordinada. Establecer un marco jurídico europeo coherente, donde quede claro que no es un tema coyuntural, sino que tiene carácter estructural y debe combatirse siguiendo criterios comunes. Por eso, con ese debate y con todas y todos juntos, apostamos por un sólido mensaje de compromiso para combatir esta lacra. Toda la humanidad saldrá beneficiada. No es invencible y debemos ejercer, sin duda, un liderazgo decisivo en esta lucha. (La oradora acepta responder a una intervención realizada con arreglo al procedimiento de la „tarjeta azul”). Younous Omarjee (The Left),
intervention „carton bleu”. – Madame la Présidente, ma chère collègue, merci pour votre intervention. Dans ce débat, comme l'a souligné Karima Delli, seuls deux hommes sont intervenus à la tribune et nous ne sommes ici que deux ou trois hommes. La question que je vous pose est la suivante: cela vous inquiète-t-il ? Quels enseignements en tirez-vous pour notre assemblée? Car à l'évidence, ce débat extrêmement important sur la convention d'Istanbul contre les violences sexuelles à l'encontre des femmes est un combat qui doit concerner d'abord et avant tout les hommes. Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE),
respuesta de „tarjeta azul”. – Efectivamente, la lucha contra la violencia de género no es un tema solo de las mujeres, es un tema de la humanidad, de hombres y mujeres. No me cabe ninguna duda de que los hombres que representan al pueblo europeo, usted, pero también los que no están aquí, nos siguen desde sus despachos, están implicados en esta lucha. Es verdad que sería deseable que tomaran la palabra, pero no me cabe ninguna duda de que, en todos los partidos, como en mi Partido Popular, hay hombres absolutamente implicados en esa lucha. En el mío, en el socialista, en Renew. Todos los partidos de aquí —estoy segura— están implicados. La comisaria ha venido acompañada de un grupo de hombres de la Comisión. Estamos implicados porque, si no, no sería una lucha razonable. Estamos todos implicados en esta lucha y así debe ser. Evelyn Regner (S&D). – Madam President, dear Commissioner Dali, we have adopted three resolutions underlining the same thing: violence, and especially sexual violence, is not acceptable in the European Union, not in any of our Member States and not in our own House. We need mediators and we need trainings for everyone. I'm disgusted to see that someone convicted for rape did not only get away unpunished within the European institutions, but even got rewarded by getting more than a million of taxpayers money, a salary while being out of service. No wonder that victims do not dare to speak up. Our institutions need to stop this culture of tolerating sexual violence immediately. In December, 76% of Members of this House approved stronger measures, and I want to see them implemented by our own administration now. Make zero tolerance for any kind of harassment a reality – now. Karen Melchior (Renew). – Fru formand! På en politistation forsøger en kvinde at få hjælp. Hendes ekskæreste havde nu opsøgt hende. Hun var ellers flygtet til en anden by, for at komme væk fra ham. Hun havde videomateriale med, og igennem to år havde hun anmeldt ham og spurgte nu frustreret: „Kan I ikke gøre noget her og nu?” Politiet svarede, at det kunne de ikke, før manden havde gjort hende fysisk fortræd eller overtrådt en lov eller et tilhold. Partnerdrab er den største enkeltstående drabstype i Danmark, og ofrene er oftest kvinder. Men vi har endnu ingen handlingsplan for at forebygge disse drab. Og det er på trods af, at forskning viser, at det er den mest forudsigelige forbrydelse, hvis man ser faresignalerne og reagerer i tide. Derfor, når en kvinde i et voldeligt forhold henvender sig til vores myndigheder, bør hun modtages af folk, der kan tage de rette skridt for at beskytte hende med det samme. På baggrund af forskning og viden kan vi sikre, at partnerdrab forebygges. Det kræver handling for at udbrede viden og redskaber. Medlemslandene skal lægge planer for, hvordan de vil handle. Vi skal sikre, at medlemslandene lytter til forskning, taler med hinanden og lærer af hinanden. Partnerdrab kan forebygges, men vi gør det ikke endnu. Mange af de dræbte kvinder havde søgt om hjælp. Forgæves. Det her kan og skal vi gøre bedre. Pierrette Herzberger-Fofana (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, la convention d'Istanbul inclut, dans son article 38, les mutilations génitales féminines, qui constituent une violence sexuelle et une violation des droits des femmes à la santé sexuelle et reproductive ainsi que de leur intégrité physique. Dans cette optique, une association de la société civile en Allemagne a élaboré, en collaboration avec le gouvernement, une lettre de protection qui a pour but de briser le tabou par la sensibilisation et de préserver ainsi l'intégrité physique des jeunes filles de la diaspora et de les protéger. La lettre de protection met l'accent sur les conséquences juridiques pour toute personne qui aurait l'intention de pratiquer une excision. Elle sert aussi de bouclier aux familles d'émigrés qui ne peuvent se soustraire à l'emprise de la famille lorsqu'elles retournent dans leur patrie ou lorsqu'elles envoient leurs filles en vacances dans leur pays d'origine. C'est un signal fort qui informe les communautés sur l'illégalité de la pratique des mutilations et ses effets néfastes pour la santé des femmes et des filles qui en sont victimes. Il est nécessaire de sensibiliser les communautés qui pratiquent les mutilations sans les discriminer, sans les stigmatiser. La lettre de protection peut être un instrument efficace pour éradiquer les mutilations en Europe. Elle viendra renforcer la directive, et je souhaite que cette lettre de protection fasse des émules et qu'elle soit introduite dans tous les États membres de l'Union européenne. Anne-Sophie Pelletier (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire: humiliées, insultées, harcelées, tabassées, violées, tuées; le continuum des violences sexistes et sexuelles faites aux femmes perdure depuis trop longtemps. Même si la Convention d'Istanbul est le texte le plus protecteur des droits des femmes, encore trop peu d'États l'ont ratifiée et beaucoup trop peinent à la mettre en pratique. Devant la parole et le courage des femmes, nous ne pouvons que nous incliner, les écouter et les respecter. Alors exigeons une directive forte contre les violences sexistes et sexuelles faites aux femmes, afin de défendre leurs droits fondamentaux. Nous sommes toutes des martyres de la cause. Assez! Défendons la relève féministe empreinte de sororité et de solidarité. Femmes du monde entier, nous vous croyons! PRZEWODNICTWO: EWA KOPACZ Wiceprzewodnicząca Nathalie Colin-Oesterlé (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, votre proposition de directive pour lutter contre les violences faites aux femmes et les violences domestiques va tout à fait dans le bon sens. En tant que rapporteure pour mon groupe, le PPE, en commission des libertés civiles, je crois qu'il est urgent de nous inspirer fortement du modèle espagnol pour lutter efficacement contre ce fléau. N'attendons pas de ratifier la convention d'Istanbul pour lutter dès maintenant contre ces violences. Les coups, eux, n'attendent pas et la violence se répand partout dans notre société. Chaque jour, ce sont des dizaines de femmes et de jeunes filles qui sont victimes d'un viol, de tortures ou de mutilations génitales. Chaque jour sur le sol européen, sept femmes meurent sous les coups de leur conjoint. Trop de femmes acceptent inconsciemment la violence conjugale, qu'elle soit psychologique, verbale, physique, entraînant jusqu'à la mort de la victime. Toutes ces femmes doivent être protégées. À nous de prévenir ces violences et d'apporter aux victimes des réponses concrètes. Développons le 112 européen des violences conjugales, un numéro disponible 24 h sur 24, 7 jours sur 7, pour que n'importe quelle femme dans la détresse puisse obtenir une solution, peu importe son lieu d'habitation, son âge et son origine. Incitons les États membres à aider, notamment financièrement, ces femmes, pour qu'elles puissent quitter le domicile conjugal. Octroyons bien plus facilement des ordonnances, des téléphones „grave danger”, la délivrance d'ordonnances de protection et de bracelet électronique. Créons un véritable réseau européen de points d'information sur les violences, mais également un réseau d'échange d'informations et de coordination pour apporter un soutien individualisé à chaque victime. Construisons un cadre clair et précis au niveau européen avec, dans chaque État membre, chaque région, chaque collectivité, des guichets uniques permettant d'orienter, de conseiller et de protéger les victimes. Magistrats, policiers, services sociaux, élus et collectivités, nous devons tous être formés pour être acteurs de cette lutte contre les violences. Sylvie Brunet (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, merci pour cette directive ambitieuse visant à lutter contre les violences sexistes, même si elle doit être améliorée, notamment sur les questions de harcèlement sexuel au travail, de formation des professionnels en contact avec les victimes et de la situation des personnes handicapées. Ce sont des combats prioritaires que je vais essayer de mener en tant que rapporteure fictive pour mon groupe au sein de la commission de l'emploi. Au-delà des avancées nécessaires que va apporter cette directive, je me demande comment et pourquoi, en 2022, la convention d'Istanbul n'est toujours pas ratifiée par six États membres et donc par l'Union européenne, alors que sept femmes par jour meurent sous les coups de leur partenaire en Europe et que les violences continuent. Nous attendons donc beaucoup de la présidence tchèque, qui n'est hélas pas présente, du Conseil et de la Commission pour, enfin, lutter efficacement contre les violences faites aux femmes. Alexandra Geese (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Weltweit und in Europa erlebt jede dritte Frau physische oder sexuelle Gewalt, meistens übrigens von ihrem eigenen Partner. Und heute kommt digitale Gewalt dazu. Frauen werden gezielt mit digitalen Medien angegriffen, beleidigt, bloßgestellt, isoliert, beschimpft, erpresst und bedroht, um sie zum Schweigen zu bringen. Und wir haben weltweit ein starkes Instrument, um Gewalt gegen Frauen ein Ende zu setzen: die Istanbul-Konvention. Und wir arbeiten hier in der EU an einer Richtlinie zur Bekämpfung von geschlechtsspezifischer Gewalt. Aber leider ist die Istanbul-Konvention heute die Zielscheibe einer globalen Kampagne von rechtsextremen und rechtsgerichteten Organisationen, Parteien und Regierungen, die Menschen gegen die Ratifizierung dieser Konvention aufhetzen. Und ich habe die Befürchtung, dass genau das auch in diesem Haus gegen die Richtlinie zur Bekämpfung geschlechtsspezifischer Gewalt geschehen wird. Und deswegen möchte ich alle demokratischen Kolleginnen und Kollegen hier bitten und auch alle demokratischen Regierungen, ganz besonders im Rat, sich ganz besonders stark für den Schutz von Frauen gegen Gewalt und für eine starke Richtlinie einzusetzen. Denn Frauenrechte sind Menschenrechte. Und die lassen wir uns nicht nehmen. Sandra Pereira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, é fundamental que a sociedade esteja desperta e focada no combate à violência contra as mulheres, seja de que natureza for, violência doméstica, tráfico de mulheres, violência no namoro, prostituição ou, ainda, o assédio laboral e sexual. Sobretudo, há que encarar que as raízes destas formas de violência residem nas crescentes desigualdades sociais, situação que atinge particularmente as mulheres. Vivemos tempos em que regressam velhas formas de exploração, com o agravamento da pobreza e da exclusão social, da vulnerabilidade dos mais pobres. A prostituição é disso exemplo, constituindo uma dilacerante forma de violência exercida essencialmente sobre as mulheres. É também expressão de desigualdades sociais e uma forma de escravatura que atenta contra o corpo e a dignidade das mulheres. A erradicação da violência exige necessariamente uma mudança dos modelos políticos, económicos, sociais e culturais que visem a eliminação de qualquer tipo de violência contra as mulheres, mas que ambicionem também a erradicação da pobreza e a eliminação das desigualdades, o reforço da proteção social e laboral, com o fim da precariedade e o aumento dos salários. E as mulheres agradecem. Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! W XXI wieku nie może być przyzwolenia na przemoc i gwałt. W XXI wieku powinny być chronione ofiary, a nie sprawcy. I to nie ofiary gwałtów i przemocy powinny bać się zgłaszać przestępstwo. To przestępcy powinni bać się wysokiej kary. W XXI wieku powinna być jasna definicja wykorzystania seksualnego i gwałtu obowiązująca we wszystkich krajach Unii Europejskiej. To nie ofiary powinny być zmuszane do odpowiedzi na pytania, czy swoim ubiorem, makijażem czy wyglądem nie prowokowały sprawców. W XXI wieku nie może być tak, że to ofiary wolą milczeć, niż zgłaszać przestępstwo. 90% przestępstw o charakterze seksualnym nie jest zgłaszanych, a w pozostałych dziesięciu tylko jeden na cztery przypadki kończy się wyrokiem dla sprawców, zazwyczaj w zawieszeniu. Silne instrumenty prawne i polityka „zero tolerancji” to wsparcie i ochrona kobiet. Ratyfikacja konwencji stambulskiej i uznanie przemocy ze względu na płeć za przestępstwo w Unii Europejskiej to kroki, które musimy niezwłocznie poczynić. Niestety mam też świadomość, że zmiany mogą nastąpić tylko przy wsparciu mężczyzn, a dzisiaj ich jak na lekarstwo na tej sali. Mam nadzieję, że będziemy czuli to wsparcie. Na koniec chciałabym powiedzieć brawo dla tych krajów, które ratyfikowały konwencję stambulską i brawo dla obecnej tu pani przewodniczącej Ewy Kopacz, która miała odwagę i ratyfikowała konwencję stambulską w Polsce, gdy stała na czele rządu. Pina Picierno (S&D). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, le donne continuano a morire, continuano a essere oggetto di violenza, succede nel mondo, succede in Europa, nella nostra Europa, e io continuo a dire che questo, se ci pensate bene, è l'unico fatto drammatico che ci accomuna davvero. Non ci accomunano i diritti, esistono diritti diversi a seconda del paese nel quale si nasce, non ci accomunano le libertà, esistono libertà diverse a seconda del paese nel quale si nasce, l'unica cosa che ci accomuna per il fatto di essere donne, mi verrebbe da dire per la colpa di essere nate donne, è il fatto di essere continuamente oggetto di violenza. E questo riguarda tutte le donne, in qualsiasi condizione sociale, in qualsiasi condizione economica, in qualsiasi religione credano. E questo fatto terribile costituisce un limite insopportabile alla nostra dignità, alla nostra libertà e, in definitiva, care colleghe e cari colleghi, alla nostra vita. E allora certo, è necessario intervenire sul piano normativo, è necessario continuare sulla strada segnata dalla Convenzione di Istanbul, ma ricordo ancora una volta a quest'Aula e anche ai colleghi che fanno interventi piuttosto originali, che la Convenzione non è un punto di arrivo, ma è soltanto un punto di partenza. Sono le norme minime che poi andrebbero approfondite e rafforzate negli Stati membri. Penso allora alla direttiva contro la violenza sulla quale stiamo lavorando, su cui stiamo intervenendo a livello parlamentare per offrire una protezione minima uniforme per tutte le donne presenti sul territorio dell'Unione, ma fatemi dire, colleghi e colleghe, che oltre a un livello normativo, prima ancora vorrei dire del livello normativo, sul livello culturale, sociale, istituzionale su cui continuiamo a registrare un'insopportabile carenza. Allora, solo quando avremo creato una cultura piena della parità di genere, le norme potranno avere piena applicazione. Insomma, cara Commissaria, care colleghe, cari colleghi, c'è ancora tanto lavoro da fare, troppo, quest'Aula continuerà a farlo, per le donne di oggi e per le donne che verranno. Zgłoszenia z sali Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, kolegice i kolege, samo četrnaest posto žena prijavljuje nasilje. Svaka šesta žena u Europi žrtva je obiteljskog nasilja, a svakih sedam žena svaki dan umire od posljedica takvog nasilja. Nasilje nad ženama uzrok je i posljedica i siromaštva i socijalne isključenosti žena, čime se posebno povećava rizik od nemogućnosti izlaska iz te situacije. Ali žene su jake. Dozvolite mi da vam kažem jedno zanimljivo istraživanje tvrtke McKinsey: tvrtke s najvećom spolnom raznolikošću u svojim izvršnim timovima imaju 26% veću vjerojatnost za iznadprosječnu profitabilnost. Kada bi se ženama pružile jednake prilike do 2050. BDP po stanovniku u Europskoj uniji mogao bi se povećati za 3,15 bilijuna eura. Zato vas pitam: zašto tek tako isključiti polovicu talenata, znanja, iskustava, sposobnosti - jer žene čine 51% europske populacije, 226 milijuna ženskih glasova. Zamislite kako bi odjeknule kada bi progovorile jednim glasom protiv svih onih slabića koji dižu ruku samo zato jer su one žene. Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissária, pertenço a um partido feminista e, por conseguinte, queremos que se trilhe o caminho para ratificar a Convenção de Istambul e damos as boas-vindas à proposta de diretiva. No meu país, uma em cada quatro mulheres que sofrem violência machista é menor. Precisamos de julgados de violência, ajuda económica, social e laboral para as vítimas. Estou orgulhosa porque o meu partido promoveu no parlamento galego a lei da violência vicária ou entre os casais em que os homens acusam as mulheres através dos seus filhos. Estou muito orgulhosa. A extrema direita nega a violência de género. Não têm vergonha, senhores e senhoras da extrema direita? Já o dissemos neste Parlamento, em 2018, na resolução sobre o avanço do neofascismo na Europa. O neofascismo está cheio de negacionistas da violência de género. Silvia Sardone (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la Convenzione di Istanbul è un trattato internazionale per affrontare la violenza contro le donne. Bene, oggi abbiamo votato il progetto di bilancio generale dell'Unione europea per l'esercizio 2023 e c'era un emendamento che chiedeva che il bilancio dell'UE non finanziasse alcuna campagna futura che possa promuovere l'hijab. Bene, quest'Aula ha votato contro. Allora, da un lato siete solidali con le donne iraniane che stanno lottando per le loro libertà, tra cui quella di non portare il velo islamico e, dall'altro, avete deciso che il Parlamento e l'Unione europea possano finanziare campagne che promuovono proprio quel velo contro il quale le stesse donne in Iran stanno manifestando. Allora, io la trovo un'ipocrisia vomitevole e vi chiederei almeno un po' di coerenza per rispetto di quelle tante donne che stanno rischiando anche la loro vita per difendere la libertà di non portare il velo islamico. (Koniec zgłoszeń z sali) Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, (start of speech off mic) ... I promised you during the hearing in the year 2019 that I would work for the EU's accession to the Istanbul Convention, and in the meantime, I will also present our own proposal for legislation, and that is what I am doing. I am glad that many of you are in agreement with this legislative proposal. Data from the United Nations shows that around 47 000 women and girls were killed by their intimate partners or family members, mainly men, in 2020, so, on average, one woman or girl every 11 minutes. So indeed, this is a topic that should concern men, and I say this every time that there is this kind of debate in this Parliament or anywhere else. I always feel in these circumstances that we are preaching to the converted. So, of course, more men are welcome and actually expected to speak in these kinds of debates. In this debate, we had 29 women who spoke. Only two men put their name on the list to speak, and one came here to tell us no to the Istanbul Convention. That's the situation which we have to fight against every single day. It seems that men don't want to hear us speak on this topic when we know that, every 11 minutes, a woman and a girl are killed by their intimate partner or a member of their family every day. I said we must continue to pursue accession to the Istanbul Convention. As we promised, we prepared, as I said, the directive to have a European instrument to fight violence against women. I urge the co-legislators to adopt this as soon as possible please. We must work also on prevention. Of course, this goes without saying, and we must work more for women's financial independence, which is directly linked to the situation of violence in families of domestic violence, because it is very difficult for a woman to leave an abusive relationship if she is financially dependent on her abuser, especially so if she has children. So in all our other work that we are doing with regard to more women in the labour market, we know that there are 7.7 million women who are not in the labour market because of care responsibilities and, therefore, that is why we have our care package. It is all linked – because if these 7.7 million women are in the labour market, are working, are earning their livelihood, then it will be less likely for them to accept living in situations of domestic violence. Our goal is clear: to eliminate violence against women and girls and support the survivors wherever this happens, whether in private and public spaces or at work. A zero-tolerance policy on sexualized violence and rape should become the norm everywhere. The EU will stay at the forefront of this international mobilisation to defend the rights of every woman and every girl to live freely and safely no matter where they live in Europe. We stand with all women and we will defend the support and protection of all women and girls because women's rights are the pillar of just, open, developed and democratic societies. No one and nothing should be allowed to deprive women of our freedom. Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę. Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 171) Sylwia Spurek (Verts/ALE),
na piśmie. – 16 lipca 2019 r. Ursula von der Leyen, wówczas kandydatka na Przewodniczącą Komisji Europejskiej, powiedziała: Unia powinna przystąpić do konwencji stambulskiej. I zadeklarowała: przystąpienie do konwencji to jeden z kluczowych priorytetów Komisji. Od powołania Komisji, od objęcia przez Ursulę von der Leyen funkcji szefowej Komisji minęło już 1190 dni. To pokazuje, jak Pani von der Leyen traktuje swoje obietnice i kluczowe sprawy dla obywatelek UE. Przypomnę, bo być może Komisja o tym zapomniała, że równość jest jedną z wartości Wspólnoty. Przypomnę, bo być może Komisja tego nie wie, że przemoc wobec kobiet to jedna z najbardziej drastycznych form dyskryminacji. To, że kobiety nie mogą czuć się bezpiecznie we własnym domu, to jedna z największych patologii XXI wieku! I nie wystarczy dyrektywa antyprzemocowa. Potrzebujemy całościowego systemu przeciwdziałania przemocy wobec kobiet, którego fundamentem jest konwencja stambulska. Potrzebujemy jasnego sygnału dla milionów Europejek, że Komisja na serio traktuje ich problemy, że zajmie się kwestiami działań prewencyjnych, edukacji, podnoszenia świadomości, ochrony kobiet i ścigania sprawców! Cieszyłam się, że kobieta staje na czele Komisji. Miałam nadzieję, że zdrowie i bezpieczeństwo kobiet staną się w końcu ważne. Dziś mija 1191 dzień kadencji Ursuli von der Leyen, a konwencja stambulska nadal nie jest przez Unię ratyfikowana. 16.   Politieke situatie in Tunesië (debat) Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest oświadczenie Komisji w sprawie sytuacji politycznej w Tunezji (2022/2869(RSP)). Olivér Várhelyi,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members of this House, thank you for this exchange on the political developments on this important partner and close neighbour for the EU. It falls at a very timely moment in the run up to the 17 December legislative elections, a key appointment for Tunisia in this delicate transitional period. We know that political transitions are challenging. The one that the Tunisian people started in 2011 is no exception. This is why the EU considers it crucial to continue to side with the Tunisian people, as we have been doing during the past decades, not only economically, but also politically. At the same time, our support has been based on shared principles and values that the Jasmine Revolution brought along. We firmly believe that the Tunisians want to preserve these values. For this reason, the EU has not hidden its apprehensions regarding some of the measures taken in the past few months in Tunisia. Our message has been very clear since the beginning, privately and publicly when needed. As High Representative Vice-President Borrell stated in the declarations on behalf of the EU in the past months, respect for democratic acquis, the rule of law, the separation of powers, and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms are paramount. We remain convinced that these are essential for the success of any political processes and the long-term prosperity of Tunisia. We are also very sensitive and attentive to the hard times that Tunisia is experiencing economically. The Russian aggression against Ukraine is having a heavy impact on all, but there is no doubt that the Tunisian economy is among those paying the highest toll in terms of food and energy security. This adds to the damages resulting from the COVID 19 pandemic. This is why the EU is determined to continue to support the Tunisian people in this challenging economic context, and we remain ready to accompany them in the substantial and difficult, yet needed, structural reforms they will have to undertake. We welcome the staff level agreement between the Tunisian authorities and the IMF to support Tunisia's economic growth, job creation and macroeconomic stability. The EU stands ready to contribute to this programme and the overall stability of Tunisia, including through a rapid disbursement of the next tranche of our budget support of EUR 40 million and consideration of new macro-financial assistance. We are hopeful that the Tunisian people and authorities will make the wisest choices for the future of Tunisia, which can only happen as a result of inclusive dialogue and continuing on a large consensus. On our side, the EU institutions, together with our Member States, remain committed to finding the most appropriate means to continue supporting Tunisia in this difficult, but crucial time. This includes ways to express our concerns as necessary, always with constructive criticism, which we consider to be the most effective form of dialogue with partner countries. Gheorghe-Vlad Nistor,
în numele grupului PPE. – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, există o alegație medievală care, în mod fals, cred eu, este atribuită lui Dante Alighieri, care spune că drumul spre iad este pavat de bune intenții. Eu cred că așa trebuie să ne gândim la acțiunile, deciziile și mișcările președintelui Sayed din ultimii ani. Gândiți-vă, Tunisia este locul în care a început totul, locul în care Primăvara arabă a început. Dar Tunisia este, pe de altă parte, țara care a stat multă vreme sub un regim autoritar, cel al lui Ben Ali. Și atunci întrebarea pentru mine este: ce alegem ? E clar, președintele Sayed nu este un democrat convins. Tehnicile pe care le folosește pentru a-și impune autoritatea nu sunt deloc democratice, chiar dacă sunt uneori sofisticat justificate constituțional. Dar există ceva ce trebuie luat în continuare în considerare: Tunisia, Algeria, Marocul și, din nefericire, Libia sunt vecinele Europei. Sunt dincolo de Marea Mediterană. Și orice se întâmplă acolo poate afecta geostabilitatea politică a zonei. Eu cred că a venit momentul ca acest Parlament, ca și toate celelalte instituții europene (Comisia e mult mai aproape de acest tip de abordare), să aibă în vedere și situația, și consecințele geopolitice ale unei atitudini față de un stat sau altul. Andrea Cozzolino,
a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, proprio ieri, Commissario, una bambina è giunta sull'isola di Lampedusa. Ha solo quattro anni, è senza genitori ed è tunisina. È solo l'ultimo episodio che dimostra quanto grande sia il malessere che attraversa la società tunisina e, ancora di più, quanto grande e aperta sia la duplice sfida che sta davanti alla Tunisia in questo momento della sua storia. Innanzitutto, quella drammatica sul piano sociale ed economico e quella cruciale sul piano politico e democratico. Gli esiti sono ancora molto incerti, i segnali sono contraddittori. Grazie all'UGTT si è siglato un importante accordo sui dipendenti pubblici, aprendo la strada per la concessione di un prestito di 1 miliardo e 900 milioni, che eviterà il default dello Stato da parte del Fondo monetario internazionale, fatti che salutiamo, credo, tutti positivamente e incoraggiamo. Assai più incerta e carica di rischi è la sfida sul terreno politico e democratico. Saïed ha scelto la strada di concentrare su di sé i principali poteri ed è andato avanti sulla riforma costituzionale e la nuova legge elettorale, con la quale, il 17 dicembre, si eleggerà il prossimo nuovo Parlamento. Seguiamo con crescente preoccupazione questa fase, più di una delegazione del Parlamento europeo si è recata a Tunisi e ha incontrato i diversi protagonisti, abbiamo fatto appello sulla necessità di un dialogo inclusivo e costruttivo tra tutte le forze politiche. Non siamo indulgenti con un sistema politico corrotto, che ha provocato danni alla Tunisia o una politica spesso divisa, come ancora adesso, però sentiamo la necessità di ritornare a essere vigili e attenti, come Commissione e come Parlamento, nell'interesse del popolo tunisino e della nostra solida amicizia con esso. Jan-Christoph Oetjen,
im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Zweifelsohne ist Tunesien einer der wichtigsten Partner der Europäischen Union in der Region. Aber Tunesien hat leider den falschen Weg eingeschlagen, seitdem Präsident Saied an der Macht ist, nämlich den Weg in eine Diktatur. Die Verfassung, die gerade beschlossen wurde – mit einer Beteiligung von nicht einmal 30 %, wenn man den offiziellen Zahlen überhaupt glauben will –, ist illegitim und stattet den Präsidenten mit einer Machtfülle aus, die es nur in Diktaturen gibt. Was passiert in der Folge? In der Folge wurden gerade 57 Richter ihres Amtes enthoben, weil sie nicht bereit waren, gegen politische Oppositionelle zu ermitteln und zu urteilen. Gegen Politiker, die für Demokratie kämpfen in Tunesien. Ich bin solidarisch mit diesen Richtern, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, und es ist eine Schande, dass ein Präsident diese Richter einfach absetzen kann. Die Regeln für die Wahlen, die im Dezember abgehalten werden sollen, werden kurzerhand per Dekret vom Präsidenten geändert, sodass politische Parteien nicht mehr richtig partizipieren können, ihre Kandidaten nicht aufstellen können und die Wahlen zur Farce werden dadurch, dass im Prinzip nur Marionetten des Präsidenten gewählt werden können. Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, wir müssen Tunesien unterstützen. Ja, wir sind solidarisch mit dem tunesischen Volk. Wir dürfen aber nicht den Weg Tunesiens in eine Diktatur unterstützen. Mounir Satouri,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, parfois, c'est en se rendant sur place qu'on prend la mesure d'une réalité, qu'on arrive à sentir la température. J'ai eu l'occasion, début septembre, de me rendre en Tunisie, de rencontrer des acteurs de la société civile, des défenseurs des droits humains, des Tunisiennes, des Tunisiens. Je suis allé à Tunis et j'ai fait le trajet jusqu'à Tabarka pour rencontrer une jeune maire, élue à l'occasion d'un scrutin partiel, qui est poursuivie par les autorités nationales parce qu'elle a osé permettre à de jeunes diplômés au chômage de gagner un peu d'argent en tenant les plages et en proposant des chaises et des parasols durant l'été. La liste des reculs de la démocratie, je tiens à vous l'assurer, est très longue: état d'exception devenu pérenne, élections sans transparence, attaques judiciaires contre des responsables politiques, procès militaires contre des civils, intimidation d'élus locaux; c'est ça la réalité tunisienne aujourd'hui. Le basculement sécuritaire et antidémocratique détricote chaque acquis de la révolution tunisienne. Vous savez, ce grand mouvement de soulèvement dans le monde arabe que nous avions soutenu. Nous nous étions dit qu'enfin, il y avait peut-être là un processus démocratique et que nous devions le soutenir. Quand j'y suis allé, les ONG, les associations parlaient encore de manière ouverte. Elles acceptaient même qu'on cite le nom de leur association, leur nom personnel. Ce n'est plus le cas depuis quelques jours. J'ai eu l'occasion d'échanger avec des associations. Elles me disent: „surtout, tu ne nous cites pas. Tu ne donnes ni notre nom, ni celui de l'organisation à laquelle on appartient”. Vous voyez qu'aujourd'hui, après avoir détricoté les institutions, ce sont les associations, la société civile qui sont attaquées. Il y a 20 000 associations en Tunisie qui avaient participé aux lois contre les violences faites aux femmes, contre les discriminations, contre la corruption. C'est cela qui est menacé. Et c'est grave pour l'Union européenne, parce qu'à Tunis, il y a aussi des associations qui, à partir de la Tunisie, travaillent à travers nos programmes pour la Libye, pour la Palestine. Ce qui se passe en Tunisie n'est pas simple. L'Europe doit voir clair dans ce qui se joue en Tunisie et dans ce qu'est en train de mettre en place le président Kaïs Saïed. Oui, il faut soutenir la Tunisie! Il faut permettre aux Tunisiens de faire face à la crise de la COVID, à la crise énergétique. Il faut donner de l'argent, mais il faut aussi soutenir les citoyens, soutenir les acteurs, soutenir la démocratie, parce c'est notre responsabilité et qu'il en va de notre honneur. Thierry Mariani,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, à force d'entendre ces débats en urgence sur les droits de l'homme et le monde méditerranéen, je me pose une question: existe-t-il une option préférentielle pour les Frères musulmans ici, au Parlement européen? Nous sommes en droit de nous poser la question, vu les déclarations faites aujourd'hui par l'UE et les associations dites de défense des droits de l'homme au sujet de la Tunisie, comme ce fut d'ailleurs le cas hier avec l'Égypte. Quand ce pays était dirigé par les Frères musulmans d'Ennahdha, sous perfusion d'argent occidental, nous ne trouvions rien à redire. Heureusement, le peuple tunisien a été plus courageux et a dit stop à la régression de ses mœurs et de ses finances. Le président Saïed est arrivé. Il est arrivé avec un soutien populaire extrêmement important. Il tente de rétablir l'autorité politique et l'autorité présidentielle. Il tente de renouer le dialogue de Tunis avec les institutions financières internationales. Il tente aussi de rétablir une certaine stabilité politique. De quoi la Tunisie souffre-t-elle aujourd'hui? D'abord, d'un voisinage compliqué. Ensuite, d'une crise inflationniste où pour le peuple tunisien, la priorité est de vivre plutôt que de survivre. Alors que la Tunisie vient de parvenir à un accord – cela a été dit – avec le FMI, nous devrions plutôt réfléchir à ses côtés sur la manière de coopérer afin de renforcer la coopération régionale en Méditerranée. C'est notre intérêt sur le plan migratoire, c'est notre intérêt sur le plan sécuritaire, c'est notre intérêt sur le plan géopolitique, tant les liens culturels avec ce pays sont forts. Nous avons besoin d'un Maghreb fort, capable d'offrir des opportunités économiques à ses enfants, de lutter contre les islamistes et de participer à l'équilibre de toute cette région de l'Afrique. Depuis 2019, le président Saïed essaye de renforcer l'État, condition essentielle pour que la Tunisie retrouve son envergure régionale et internationale, et je ne pense pas que multiplier les ingérences pour le contraindre à suivre certaines recettes qui ont systématiquement échoué depuis 2011 soit une bonne chose. Chers collègues, pour vous, la Tunisie est en face de l'Europe, pour nous, elle est avec l'Europe, dans un intérêt partagé pour notre bien commun: la Méditerranée. Jan Zahradil,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, Tunisia is the country which started the Arab Spring, a very promising movement at the beginning, which later on, in most cases, ended up in vain. I still believe, however, that Tunisia is one exception, a country which started to build genuine parliamentary democracy with a full-blooded spectrum of well-defined political parties. Of course, it is a country which faces extremely difficult economic circumstances and it is surrounded by complicated neighbours like, for instance, unstable Libya and also hit by an unstable security situation and also a country literally next door to us and therefore important. In two months, Tunisia is facing parliamentary elections, hopefully stabilising the situation, and we in the EU should therefore just now carefully calibrate what we say and what we do. I believe that we should avoid any interference, reminding about some bad old habits of patronising the others, because that definitely would not be helpful for mutual trust. I visited Tunisia several times. I was networking their political parties. I have full trust in their human potential and ability. So please, let's not spoil the game. Let's be sensitive and patient and let's continue to build an equal and fair partnership with Tunisia. Emmanuel Maurel,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la présidente, depuis l'avènement de la démocratie en 2011 en Tunisie, l'optimisme et les nombreux espoirs qu'avait soulevés la révolution tunisienne ont fait place, il faut bien le dire et les collègues l'ont dit, à une forme de scepticisme, d'inquiétude, voire de déception. Aujourd'hui, chacun mesure les risques qui planent sur cette jeune démocratie avec qui nous entretenons de si étroites amitiés. Dans ce pays durement touché par la crise sanitaire et sociale, la paralysie de l'Assemblée des représentants du peuple, mais aussi l'incurie d'une classe politique issue de la révolution, avaient créé dans l'opinion tunisienne une demande d'ordre et de stabilité. C'est ce qui expliquait notre retenue au moment des événements de 2021. Mais depuis, que s'est-il passé ? Le marasme économique demeure, de même que les inégalités, l'inflation, le déficit public. Et le pouvoir présidentiel, il faut le dire, s'est considérablement raidi. Il y a eu l'épisode de la Constitution, un référendum avec un très faible taux de participation, une forme de résignation dans le peuple et une Constitution qui, il faut l'admettre, s'éloigne des standards démocratiques que les espérances de la révolution auraient pu nous faire escompter. Il y a eu aussi des mesures qui limitent la liberté d'expression et le pluralisme politique, avec une loi électorale largement contestable. Dans ce cadre-là, que peut-on faire en tant qu'Européens? Bien sûr, ne pas s'immiscer dans les élections législatives. Bien sûr, ne pas brandir de sanctions, ce serait absurde. Je pense quant à moi qu'il faut quand même rappeler la Tunisie à ses engagements internationaux et poursuivre le dialogue avec la société civile, les mouvements des droits des femmes, les associations, les syndicats, car vous savez à quel point l'UGTT a un rôle central dans ce pays. Ce qui se passe en Tunisie nous concerne parce que nous sommes persuadés, ici, que l'avenir de l'Europe se joue aussi de l'autre côté de la Méditerranée. Alors maintenons ce lien d'amitié mais soyons vigilants et exigeants, un partenaire ferme mais exigeant. Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, I am deeply saddened by the trajectory of Tunisia, a country for which I deeply care. It was once defined as the lighthouse of democracy in North Africa and in the Muslim world. This light is now dimmed, and since President Saied's decision to suspend and then to close the parliament, we have assisted to the painful process of dismantling the progresses achieved previously. Now, the people are once again in the streets protesting against the illegal suspension of democracy, the judicial persecution of political leaders and NGO activists and the catastrophic economic and social situation with a constitution that was not shared by the large part of the population. Dear colleagues, I have an appeal and a request. The appeal is for Presidency Saied: it is not too late to bring back Tunisia on the right path. Do not deprive the brave Tunisian citizens for what they fought so hard for. On our side, it is time to reflect on our relationship. We helped and we must continue to help the Tunisian people in the future, but our support to the government cannot be unconditional. We need to see democracy clearly coming back in Tunisia, and we must be clear also with President Saied. Only in this way we can be a decisive player in bringing back the enticing aroma of jasmine that ten years ago led us to believe that a different path was, and is still, possible. Gheorghe Falcă (PPE). – Doamnă președinte, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, în orice situație, dar mai ales în contextul actual, agravat de invazia rusă în Ucraina, deficitul de democrație în interiorul Uniunii Europene, dar și la granițele sale reprezintă un motiv de îngrijorare și, în același timp, un nou prilej de acțiune coordonată între instituțiile europene și statele membre. Este și cazul evenimentelor din Tunisia, pe care cred că nu trebuie să le tratăm cu ușurință la niciun nivel, dar pe care cred că trebuie să le tratăm totuși constructiv. Desigur, chiar și la nivel diplomatic, Uniunea Europeană se exprimă de multe ori cu puterea exemplului, ceea ce este esențial. Dar cred că avem obligația, în limitele tratatelor noastre, să sprijinim, mai ales să-i apărăm pe toți cei care luptă democratic pentru libertate, prosperitate și demnitate. Uniunea Europeană are obligația de a menține dialogul viu cu Tunisia și, odată cu el, speranța tunisienilor pentru stabilitate și pentru un viitor mai bun. Hannes Heide (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Die wirtschaftliche und soziale Krise in Tunesien hat in den letzten Tagen einen dramatischen Höhepunkt erreicht. Der Staatsbankrott konnte am Wochenende nur durch einen 1,9 Milliarden schweren IWF-Kredit verhindert werden. Und der IWF verlangt unpopuläre Reformen, etwa die Gehälter im aufgeblähten öffentlichen Dienst einzufrieren und Subventionen für Energie und Lebensmittel zu kürzen. Gerade diese Sparpläne werden für viele Tunesierinnen und Tunesier einmal mehr schmerzhaft sein. Schon seit Wochen gibt es Grundnahrungsmittel wie Reis und Zucker überhaupt nicht mehr zu kaufen, sogar Flaschenwasser war zeitweise rationiert, zudem ist Treibstoff knapp. Die Regierung gibt neben dem Krieg in der Ukraine Spekulanten die Schuld, die Lebensmittel horten, um sie dann teuer auf dem Schwarzmarkt zu verkaufen. Wirtschaftsexperten wiederum sehen die Schuld in der schlechten Haushaltspolitik. Kurzfristige Kredite allein sichern freilich keine nachhaltige Zukunft. Eine tunesische Studentin fasst in einem Interview zusammen: Wenn das Geld nicht für Reformen eingesetzt wird, fließt es wieder nur in die Taschen der Elite, die mit ihrer Politik die Jugend außer Landes treibt. Viele Tunesierinnen und Tunesier suchen den Weg nach Europa. Erst vor wenigen Tagen mussten 18 junge tunesische Flüchtlinge nach einem Bootsunglück ihr Leben lassen. Die Europäische Union muss alles tun, damit die Menschen im Land wieder eine Perspektive haben. Tunesien muss schnellstmöglich zurück zu Demokratie und damit zu Stabilität und auch zu Optimismus. Frédérique Ries (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, des milliers de Tunisiens étaient dans la rue, ce week-end encore, pour dénoncer la pauvreté, pour dénoncer le chômage, pour dénoncer ces pénuries incessantes qu'ils vivent au quotidien, appelés et coalisés, certes, par l'opposition, par Ennahdha, évidemment, le parti islamiste au pouvoir après le printemps de Tunis. Mais il n'empêche que les Tunisiens vivent, et ce depuis de trop longs mois, une double peine. La lutte contre la corruption, promesse cardinale du candidat Saïed, reste lettre morte – jusqu'ici, en tous les cas – et ne saurait justifier ce raidissement des pouvoirs dans les mains du seul président jusqu'à la dissolution, en mars dernier, du Parlement tunisien. Il n'y a pas de gouvernance sans Parlement et sans contre-pouvoirs, sans justice indépendante, sans une presse libre. Je veux bien croire – j'entendais le premier orateur parler de Dante –, je veux bien croire aux bonnes intentions du président, mais son chemin n'est pas le bon. L'autocratie n'est jamais le bon chemin. L'Union européenne doit bien évidemment maintenir le dialogue, essentiel, un dialogue vigilant, un dialogue exigeant, avec le partenaire tunisien. Pas de gel, mais pas de soutien tacite non plus, car il ne saurait être question ici d'alourdir encore le fardeau des Tunisiens. La démocratie tunisienne est fragile, nous devons les aider à la reconstruire. „Side with the Tunisian people”, c'étaient vos premiers mots, Monsieur le Commissaire, et ils restent plus que jamais d'actualité. Maximilian Krah (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren Kollegen! Tunesien hat 1956 seine Unabhängigkeit erlangt, und zwar von einem europäischen Land, von Frankreich. Das heißt, dass in erster Linie einmal die Tunesier dafür verantwortlich sind, was in Tunesien geschieht. Ich wundere mich doch immer bei diesen Diskussionen, dass man den Eindruck hat, das Europäische Parlament wisse besser, wie man Tunesien regiert. Das ist nicht unsere Aufgabe, sondern unsere Aufgabe kann es nur sein, in den bilateralen Beziehungen unsere Interessen zu vertreten und Rücksicht auf die Stabilität der gesamten Region zu nehmen. Rücksicht auf die Stabilität der ganzen Region nimmt man nicht, wenn man die dortige Regierung destabilisiert, wenn man sie einseitig kritisiert und wenn man übersieht, dass die Krise in Tunesien eben auch eine Folge der Sanktionspolitik ist, die wir als Reaktion auf die russische Intervention in der Ukraine eingeschlagen haben. Insofern glaube ich, dass wir lernen müssen, ein wenig weniger eurozentristisch – um nicht zu sagen neokolonial – aufzutreten und auch uns selbst zu hinterfragen. Tunesien helfen wir nicht durch eine Destabilisierung seiner Regierung, sondern durch eine Respektierung seiner Autonomie und Unabhängigkeit und durch ein Verständnis dafür, dass die Ökonomie ein Ende von Krieg und Sanktionen braucht. Gilles Lebreton (ID). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, la construction de la démocratie n'est pas un fleuve tranquille, c'est plutôt un chemin semé d'embûches. Nous, Français, nous en savons quelque chose. Il nous a fallu la révolution de 1789, le terrible épisode de la Terreur, puis une longue succession de régimes plus ou moins autoritaires, pour que nous parvenions enfin, dans les années 1870, à stabiliser notre démocratie. La Tunisie est en train de vivre cette aventure difficile mais passionnante de la construction de sa démocratie. La révolution de 2011 a prouvé la détermination du peuple tunisien à prendre son destin en main. De graves difficultés économiques ont toutefois retardé la réalisation de ces objectifs, à tel point qu'une partie de la société a pu céder à la tentation de l'islamisme. C'est dans ce contexte de crise que le président Saïed a pris les pleins pouvoirs en juillet 2021. Je veux croire en sa sincérité quand il affiche sa volonté de redresser son pays et d'instaurer une vraie démocratie. Il a tenu ses engagements. Une nouvelle Constitution a été adoptée par référendum en août dernier et des élections législatives auront lieu en décembre. Chers collègues, faisons le pari de la confiance, soutenons le président Saïed, aidons la Tunisie. Zgłoszenia z sali Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, IMF, EU and World Bank-forced austerity and neoliberal reforms are ripping apart the social safety net in Tunisia, creating a long-running food and fuel crisis that has been made worse by the war in Ukraine. The IMF is currently forcing the government to reduce food subsidies in exchange for a new loan that would go to pay off previous loans. The debt servicing impacts public spending on education and health care. Recent EU assistance is conditional on freezing public sector hiring, which means that they won't have drivers for the ambulances that we gave them, and a brain drain as well because the qualified doctors will leave and go to Europe looking for work. Tunisia needs credit to import wheat, fuel and medicine and the political West are engaging in debt-trap disaster capitalism, forcing reforms that are undoing the possibility of a dignified life for millions of people. We worry about migrant flows, but we create them with our neo-colonialism. (Koniec zgłoszeń z sali) Olivér Várhelyi,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, the debate today showed a large consensus to remain committed to a strong partnership with Tunisia. We are well aware of the challenging circumstances the country is experiencing and of the importance of choices of Tunisians in these delicate times, both politically and economically. As High Representative / Vice-President Borrell has repeatedly mentioned, we will continue to be attentive to the developments, and to pass all the important messages clearly but constructively, with the joint objective to see a sustainable future for this important partner. Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę. 17.   De actieve rol van het regime van Loekasjenko in de oorlog tegen Oekraïne (debat) Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest oświadczenie Komisji w sprawie czynnej roli reżimu Łukaszenki w wojnie przeciwko Ukrainie (2022/2882(RSP)). Olivér Várhelyi,
Member of the Commission. – Dear President, honourable Members of the Parliament, let me thank this House for again having the situation in Belarus on the agenda. In addition to the appalling human rights violations that continue and even worsen, Mr Lukashenko has become an accomplice in Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. The EU has condemned this involvement of Belarus in the aggression against Ukraine in the strongest possible terms, and calls on it to refrain from such action and to abide by its international obligations, including under the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. So far, Belarussian troops have not taken directly part in the war on the ground in Ukraine. On Saturday, 8 October 2022, the Belarusian Government accused Ukraine of planning an attack on the territory of Belarus, clearly without any foundation. Such accusations serve only the purpose of further escalation of the security situation in the region. While Belarussian troops have so far most likely not participated directly on the ground, the very recent missile strikes and drone attacks against Ukrainian civilians from the territory of Belarus are utterly unacceptable. We urge the Belarussian authorities to refrain from any further involvement of Belarus in this brutal and illegitimate undertaking. It is clear that a large majority of Belarussians are against active participation in this war. It would have disastrous consequences for the Belarussian population, for Ukraine and for the independence and sovereignty of Belarus. The decision to get further involved in the war would be met by new and strong restrictive measures. All those taking part in the illegal war of aggression and those responsible for war crimes will be held accountable. Thijs Reuten,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, (start of speech off microphone) ... the powerful defiance of the Belarusian people, whose only wish is to live in freedom and dignity, terrifies this regime. Now, Russia's losses in Ukraine threaten his dictatorship. Every single one of Lukashenko's moves today, from his absurd rhetoric and invitation for more Russian troops, to his ruthless crackdown on remaining democratic activists and unions, is a blatant sign of his weakness. We should give Lukashenko no reason to relax. We must stand ready to help Ukraine prevent another assault from Belarusian territory and, if necessary, defend itself. Inclusion of Belarus in the upcoming ninth package is crucial. We must be ready to bring the full force of our sanctions crashing down on the regime the very moment one Belarussian army boot crosses the border into Ukraine. The battle for Ukraine's freedom is also the fight for a democratic Belarus. I therefore urge you, President, but also Commissioner, to be creative in this fully unique situation and explore ways for our House and our Union to formalise relations with the Belarusian people and its democratic representatives in Tsikhanouskaya's United Transitional Cabinet. Ukraine will win. Belarus will be free. Petras Auštrevičius,
Renew frakcijos vardu. – Ponia posėdžio pirmininke, Komisijos nariai, gerbiami kolegos. Lukašenka, kuris yra neteisėtai užgrobęs valdžią Baltarusijoje, toliau remia Rusijos agresiją ir tiesiogiai dalyvauja kare prieš Ukrainą. Praėjusią vasarą pasitelkdamas migrantus, Lukašenka pradėjo hibridinę ataką prieš kaimynines Europos Sąjungos valstybes: Lietuvą, Lenkiją ir Latviją. Šiandien jis įgalina Rusijos agresiją prieš Ukrainą, leisdamas naudoti Baltarusijos teritoriją mirtinomis atakoms, griaunančioms Ukrainos miestus ir naikinančioms civilius gyventojus. Paskutiniuose pareiškimuose Lukašenka spekuliuoja nepagrįstomis grėsmėmis Baltarusijai ir neteisėtai grasina panaudoti karinę jėgą prieš taikius kaimynus, tarp jų ir Europos Sąjungos valstybes nares. Raginu Europos Sąjungos išorės veiksmų tarnybą ir valstybes nares būti ryžtingoms ir pagaliau sumažinti savo diplomatinį buvimą Minske. Bei atitinkamai siųsti Baltarusijos diplomatus – okupantus iš savo sostinių. Neatleistina, kad tie patys asmenys, kuriems siūloma taikyti sankcijas ir patraukti baudžiamojon atsakomybėn už nusikaltimus žmogiškumui, naudojasi diplomatiniu imunitetu Vakaruose. Mūsų solidarumas su Baltarusijos žmonėmis turi išlikti. Turime ir toliau tvirtai remti proeuropietišką Baltarusijos opozicijos veiklą ir suteikti būtiną paramą. Aš pabrėžiu paramą laisvės kovotojams, kurie Kalinausko ir Vyčio batalionuose kaunasi už Ukrainos laisvę. Aš raginu Europos Komisiją, kuri šiuo metu rengia devintąjį sankcijų paketą, papildomai į jį įtraukti Baltarusijos kariškius ir valdininkus, atsakingus už karinę agresiją prieš Ukrainą ir represijas prieš Baltarusijos pilietinę visuomenę. Už mūsų ir Jūsų laisvę! Žyvie Belarus! Rasa Juknevičienė,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, two war criminals – Lukashenko and Putin – are holding the Belarusian nation captive and terrorised. Lukashenko is responsible not only for stealing the elections, but also for giving Belarus sovereignty away to Russia. Lukashenko and the Iranian regime are helping Russia in its war of aggression against Ukraine. They are responsible for the war crimes. They must be sanctioned and face justice in an international tribunal. At the same time, Lukashenko feels vulnerable and scared. He would have opened a second front against Ukraine, but he knows the true will of the Belarusian people – they are against the Russian aggression, they seek to be good neighbours for Ukrainians. The Kastuś Kalinoŭski Regiment in Ukraine, formed of Belarusian volunteers, is the true expression of that will. There are nearly 1 500 political prisoners of Lukashenko's regime. The number is growing. I invite each one of you to become a godparent to one of the political prisoners. Your postcards, your telephone call to their family will be a precious signal of support. Let's make sure not one of them is forgotten. I also invite the European Parliament to formalise relations with a democratic Belarus, led by Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. Free and democratic Belarus is possible, but we have to help Ukraine to win this war. Ukraine's victory will bring victory for free Belarus and free Russia. Let's do our utmost to achieve this victory. (The speaker used slogans in non-official languages) Viola von Cramon-Taubadel,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Viktoria und Bogdan, ein junges Paar aus Kiew, erwarteten ihr erstes Kind. Beide wurden vor zwei Tagen zusammen mit ihrem ungeborenen Kind getötet. Die Drohne, die ihr Haus traf, kam vermutlich aus Belarus. Damit zum Thema: Lukaschenko und Putin stehen sich in ihren Verbrechen nichts nach. Man muss ihnen mit den gleichen Mitteln begegnen. Lukaschenko terrorisiert sein eigenes Volk. Er hat die demokratischen Proteste im Jahr 2020 brutal niedergeschlagen, Tausende inhaftiert, viele gefoltert und getötet. Auch er hat sein Land verraten und dieses für den eigenen Machterhalt Putins Regime völlig ausgeliefert. Gegen den erklärten Willen der Bevölkerung ließ er russische Truppen und Raketen in Belarus zu, nur um die ukrainische Bevölkerung zu terrorisieren und zu ermorden. Gleichzeitig ist Lukaschenko auch ein Feigling. Seine Armee beteiligt sich nicht aktiv am Krieg gegen die Ukraine. Aber nicht etwa aus moralischen Gründen, sondern weil er Angst hat, die belarussische Armee könnte im Falle eines Marschbefehls nach Kiew ihre Panzer auf Minsk selbst richten. Und Lukaschenko ist ebenso ein notorischer Lügner. Er behauptet, die Wahlen vor zwei Jahren gewonnen zu haben, sich nicht am Krieg zu beteiligen sowie nur das Beste für sein Volk zu wollen – lauter Lügen. Am Ende werden Lukaschenko und Putin hoffentlich das gleiche Schicksal teilen und sich vor dem selben Gericht verantworten müssen. Je früher, desto besser. Anna Fotyga,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, against the will of the Belarusian people, the usurper Lukashenko turns his country into a bridgehead for he Russian army, thus becoming an accomplice in the war of aggression against Ukraine. He gave his consent to launches of more than 700 rockets on Ukrainian territories and numerous drones. Together with Putin and other perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity, he has to be brought to justice. Mick Wallace,
on behalf of The Left Group. – Madam President, our problem with Lukashenko is that he took sides in the war, just like we did, and we damned everyone that stayed neutral. The Special Advisor to the Commander of Ukraine's army, Dan Rice, just told CNN that Russia is trying to get to the negotiating table to try to go back to the 2014 lines, but Ukraine won't have it. Why don't we start peace talks for a deal based on a version of the Minsk 2 Agreement, a text that was mediated by the French and the Germans? We know this war could have been avoided, and peace talks are an option. But our leaders choose war, even when we know that the majority of Europeans do not want war. We tabled an amendment in the last plenary, and we called for the EU and Member States to explore all options for a peace deal and to try to end the war. It was defeated 436 votes to 118 against peace. Whose interest are these warmongers serving? Commissioner, you say that the people of Belarus don't want war. I agree with you 100%, but I think the people all across Europe don't want war. This war – it might suit the US and NATO – it does not suit the people of Europe. We should be working for peace. Andrzej Halicki (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Drodzy Państwo! Białoruś to nie Rosja, to oczywiste. Ale z terytorium Białorusi.... (Przewodnicząca przerwała mówcy – brak tłumaczenia ustnego) Pani Przewodnicząca! Drodzy Państwo! Białoruś to nie Rosja, to oczywiste, ale z terytorium Białorusi Łukaszenka pozwala wystrzeliwać rakiety na cywilne obiekty w Ukrainie. Bez pomocy Łukaszenki niemożliwa byłaby zbrodnia w Buczy. Łukaszenka sprzedaje terytorium Białorusi za ruble i dziś rosyjskie grupy wojskowe w zasadzie okupują ten kraj, bo Łukaszenka nie ma akceptacji swojego społeczeństwa. Białorusini nie akceptują udziału w tej wojnie i wsparcia dla tych działań. Dlatego musimy bardzo mocno w 9. pakiecie objąć sankcjami Łukaszenkę i jego reżim, ale jednocześnie udzielić maksymalnego wsparcia białoruskiemu społeczeństwu i opozycji, która zjednoczona dzisiaj ma swoją reprezentację. Apeluję o to, by Tymczasowa Rada, Swietłana Cichanouska, ale Rada przede wszystkim, stała się partnerem wszystkich instytucji europejskich. I jedna rzecz, nie nazywajmy Łukaszenki prezydentem. To uzurpator, to zbrodniarz wojenny, jego miejsce jest przed Trybunałem Haskim, tak jak Putina. Obaj są zbrodniarzami wojennymi i dosięgnie ich sprawiedliwość. Na Białoruś wolną i demokratyczną nie tylko czekamy, ale musimy wspierać działania, żeby była faktem. Będzie wolna i demokratyczna Białoruś, Żywie Biełaruś! Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiama Pirmininke, gerbiamas Komisijos nary, gerbiami kolegos, Lukašenkos režimas ir toliau aktyviai palaiko Rusijos vykdomą karą prieš Ukrainą. Jis Baltarusijos teritorijoje priima Rusijos ginkluotas pajėgas, pradeda vykdyti baltarusių mobilizaciją bei iš savo saugyklų teikia ginklus Rusijai. Lukašenka dar kartą parodė, kad vienintelis jo tikslas yra režimo išsaugojimas. Dėl valdžios išsaugojimo jis pasiruošęs paaukoti savo šalies suverenitetą, eiti prieš Baltarusijos žmonių, iš kurių net 80 procentų nepalaiko Rusijos karo prieš Ukrainą, valią. Tačiau pats Baltarusijos režimas yra išlaikomas Rusijos. Todėl Rusijos pralaimėjimas Ukrainoje yra tiesiausias kelias į Baltarusijos demokratizaciją. Europos Sąjungos atsakas turi būti tolimesnis Ukrainos karinis, finansinis ir humanitarinis rėmimas. Europos Sąjungos šalys turi nepasiduoti vis dažniau pasitaikantiems Baltarusijos režimo bandymams užmegzti kontaktus su Europos Sąjungos šalių narių vyriausybėmis. Europos Sąjungos pozicija aiški: Lukašenka yra neteisėtas prezidentas, kuris 2020 metais pavogė prezidentinius rinkimus. Europos Sąjunga turi ir toliau sankcijomis aktyviai spausti visus, kurie susijęs ir palaiko Lukašenkos režimą. O pats Lukašenka turi atsidurti kartu su Putinu specialiame tribunole. Taip pat mes turime dar labiau paremti Baltarusijos opoziciją ir baltarusius, kurie dėl nuolatinių persekiojimų ir grasinimų buvo priversti išvykti iš savo šalies. Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, do you remember the rigged elections in 2020? Those massive protests in civil society and international organisations claiming Lukashenko is not a legitimately elected president. So here we are now, two years later, talking about Lukashenko's helping a regime, a war criminal, and dragging Belarusian people to the war, just to please his puppet master in the Kremlin. This is what you get if you don't stop dictators once you have a legitimate chance. Lukashenko is partially a product of our own weakness. I am thinking every other day about Kasia Budzko, whether I could walk into her cell and get her out. I can't because I don't have the power. But the Member States show on the example of Putin that they have the power to stop Lukashenko. And even though they are not here and they are not listening to either me or Kasia or... (speech off mic)... please do not make the same mistake again. Lukashenko and Putin must be stopped. We owe it to the victims of the war, and we owe it to all free people in the region. Witold Jan Waszczykowski (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Zastanawiamy się od miesięcy, czy Białoruś przystąpi do wojny, czy jej żołnierze będą walczyć na Ukrainie. Przepytujemy na ten temat panią prezydent Cichanouską i polityczną diasporę demokratyczną. Trzeba pamiętać, że Białoruś już jest zaangażowana w ten konflikt. Pierwszy etap konfliktu zaczął się latem ubiegłego roku. Wtedy zaczęła się hybrydowa akcja przeciwko Polsce i Litwie. Łukaszenka udostępnił miejsca do ataku na Ukrainę, udziela pełnego poparcia Putinowi. Białoruś powinna być objęta podobnymi sankcjami jak Rosja – polityczno-dyplomatycznymi, ekonomicznymi i cywilizacyjnymi. Łukaszenka powinien być traktowany jak wróg pokoju, jak zbrodniarz wojenny. Zasługuje na Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny. Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. In Belarus, there is something in place that's growing in Russia today, but it has been in place in Belarus for more than two years already. Since the stolen election, there has been a vibrant and active liberation movement, and we should not stop supporting this liberation movement. We should not take away our sight, our view on this liberation movement, which is active all over the world. Belarus is the only country in Europe that was not represented at the so-called European Political Community (EPoC) event. I like the idea of the EPoC event, even while there are many questions that are open, but it is good that the countries of Europe come together in this broad format. Why was Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the head of the liberation movement, not invited to this event? Why was only Belarus not present? I would really ask, from this side of the European Parliament, to invite the liberation movement of Belarus. Even the Council of Europe has established a contact group with the liberation movement of Belarus. As the title of today's parliamentary debate is about the war of Russia against Ukraine and the support for Belarus, I want again to emphasise that this is not only a war against Ukraine; this is a war against all of us. Belarus is also taking part not only militarily, conventionally in the action of war and in this aggression, but also via hybrid warfare. Just remember, not that long ago when Lukashenko tried to misuse refugees against our borders, against the European Union, and more and more. Let's stick together here and include the liberation movement in our action. Tonino Picula (S&D). – Madam President, Mr Commissioner, there are so many evidences of an active role of the Lukashenko regime in the Russian aggression on Ukraine since day one. Belarussian troops may not have been involved in the conflict; still, dozens of thousands of Russian troops were deployed to Belarus. Belarussian airspace was used for launching attacks against Ukraine. The supply of weapons for Russian armed forces in Ukraine was organised over the territory of Belarus. At the same time, Putin and Lukashenko continued holding meetings to discuss even closer cooperation. Therefore, our sanctions on Putin and his regime should be mirrored on Lukashenko and his cronies. It's evident that Lukashenko is malignant. However, his possibilities to influence geopolitics are lesser than Putin's. Belarus, the oldest dictatorship in Europe, is a true example of the limited sovereignty theory in practice. Stolen elections and mass protest brought Lukashenko's regime under pressure. Putin's aggression against Ukraine might, hopefully, end it. Ivars Ijabs (Renew). – Prezidentes kundze! Godātais komisāra kungs! Baltkrievijas pieaugošais atbalsts Krievijas agresijai ļauj mums skaidri redzēt to jauno teroristu valstu asi, kas ir Krievija, Baltkrievija, Irāna, Ziemeļkoreja. Jā, Baltkrievija ir iesaistīta Krievijas karā! Tā ir tikko kā arī atteikusies no kodolbrīvas valsts statusa, lai ļautu savā teritorijā izmantot kodolieročus un izvietot tos. Manuprāt, tas liek Eiropas Savienībai rīkoties simetriski attiecībā pret Baltkrieviju — tieši tādā pašā veidā kā pret Krieviju. Pret Lukašenko — tieši tāpat kā pret Putinu, proti, attiecināt uz Baltkrieviju tikpat stingras ekonomiskās un politiskās sankcijas. Ir jāvājina arī Baltkrievijas režīms, lai mazinātu tā spēju elementāri nodarīt ļaunumu Ukrainai un citām kaimiņvalstīm reģionā. Mēs Latvijā – tāpat kā Lietuvā un Polijā – jau bijām spiesti aizstāvēt savu teritoriju un arī Eiropas Savienības ārējo robežu pret Lukašenko hibrīdkaru jau kopš pagājušā gada vasaras. Tad Lukašenko par ieroci padarīja tūkstošiem migrantu, kurus tas noziedzīgi faktiski spieda pāri mūsu robežām. Šo uzbrukumu mēs atvairījām, un mēs atvairīsim arī nākošos, ja rīkosimies kopā un izlēmīgi, nevis ļaujot Putina — Lukašenko aliansei mūs visus sašķelt. (Posiedzenie zostało na chwilę zawieszone) Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear friends, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, we are talking about Belarus today and many things have been already said, but I wanted to emphasise one thing: this is the new three-fold structure of the Belarusian regime. The unholy trinity of Belarus as we see it now. First of all, Belarus is a dictatorship, and we know the names, some of them were mentioned here today. Second, Belarus is an aggressor power. It is a war power, and it is a responsible power in this war, the brutal war that we are experiencing. Number three, Belarus is also no more an independent subject of international law, Belarus is an occupied territory, and this we have to recognise. From that, we follow three things. We should double and quadruple our support for the Belarusian opposition, civil society and the officially recognised and elected President and her team. This was already mentioned here. Number two, we should make it very clear that a special seat will be reserved for Lukashenko in the tribunal against Russian crimes. This is something that we have to do now. We have to design the tribunals so that Belarus is also covered by them. Number three, we should cut our ties with Lukashenko, because not only he is a criminal against his own citizens, he is also not an independent state anymore. Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Unia Europejska popełniała w swojej polityce na Białorusi pewne błędy, może naiwność, może czasem brak pewnej elastyczności, ale nie jest to miejsce i czas, aby o tych błędach mówić. Dzisiaj trzeba powiedzieć wyraźnie, że Białoruś stała się częścią maszyny wojennej Rosji Putina, że udostępnia swoje garnizony, poligony, sieć kolejową, również transport kołowy, aby zwiększać siłę agresji rosyjskiej, także aby wiązać wojska ukraińskie przy granicy z Białorusią, co w sposób oczywisty osłabia kontrofensywę Kijowa na kierunku południowym i wschodnim, co ma kluczowe znaczenie dla Rosjan. Trzeba powiedzieć bardzo jednoznacznie, że Łukaszenka to nie jest to samo co Putin, ale dzisiaj trzeba bardzo twardo grozić sankcjami, a opozycję białoruską trzeba zapytać, czy aby na pewno ma tę samą wizję polityki zagranicznej, o której my myślimy, że ma. Bo mam czasem wrażenie, że niestety ma ona pewne złudzenia wobec Rosji, co szereg jej przedstawicieli niestety głosi. David Lega (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, there is no free Ukraine without a free Belarus, and vice versa. The destinies of Ukraine, Europe and Belarus are interconnected, and therefore it is equally important to enforce the support of Ukraine's defence and, at the same time, enforce the support to the democratic movement in Belarus, because Belarussians don't support the war. Yet, Belarus is participating in the war. The Russian military constantly launches missile strikes on civilian facilities in Ukraine from Belarussian territory. If the leader of Belarus were Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, if the leader were the one that the Belarussian people wanted and voted for, then Belarus would not be part of the war. This is why the EU must do everything in our power to ensure the democratic transition in Belarus. I ask the Commission to redouble its efforts to support democratic society in Belarus. To the Belarusian people: I stand in solidarity with you, who are being held hostage by the Lukashenko regime. You deserve to live in a sovereign, free and democratic country. You deserve peace and safety. Matthias Ecke (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Vergesst Belarus nicht! Diese Worte hat Swjatlana Zichanouskaja eindringlich an uns alle gerichtet vergangene Woche, als sie uns in Brüssel besuchte. Sie kämpft mit vielen anderen Mutigen für die Freiheit ihres Volkes – eines Volkes, das Diktator Lukaschenko seit Jahren in Gefangenschaft hält und entmündigt. Nun hat er sein Volk auch in einen völkerrechtswidrigen Krieg verwickelt. Er hat Belarus zum Aufmarschgebiet und zum Abschussgebiet für Russlands Angriffe auf die Ukraine gemacht. Das Regime muss seine Unterstützung für diesen Krieg unverzüglich einstellen. Lukaschenko und seine Lakaien gehören als Mitwirkende an Kriegsverbrechen auf die EU-Sanktionsliste. Eine überwältigende Mehrheit der Belarussen will nicht gegen ihr Nachbarvolk kämpfen. Wir dürfen ihnen die Tür nicht zuschlagen. Als EU sollten wir den Menschen aus Belarus Schutz gewähren, die nicht zum Kanonenfutter Lukaschenkos und Putins werden wollen. Wir stehen an der Seite der Gerechtigkeit, der Demokratie und des Völkerrechts. Wir vergessen euch nicht! IN THE CHAIR: EVA KAILI Vice-President Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Madam President, stolen elections, political prisoners incarcerated, abuse of basic human rights, the list is endless. We saw first-hand in 2020, when Lukashenko stole the election and effectively crushed the opposition. We stand with the people of Belarus in their hour. But we must do more. We must ensure that we bring forward sanctions, not against the Belarussian people but against the regime of Lukashenka and his cronies. He is but a Putin puppet at this stage. When you look at the fact that troops crossed the border from Belarus to Ukraine on 24 February this year, where war crimes were committed in Bucha and Irpin, elsewhere north of Kyiv, those troops crossed the border from Belarus. Lukashenko is as responsible as Putin for the bodies that were taken out of those graves in Bucha and Irpin. So we do need to be very, very powerful in our support of the opposition people, of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya and others who stand for democratic accountability in Belarus. We should support them as much as we can in everything we do. And we should bring forward sanctions against the corrupt regime of Lukashenko and his cronies. Piernicola Pedicini (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Russia takes Crimea, and Ukraine attacks Donbas; Russia invades Ukraine and the USA and Europe send weapons to Ukraine, so Ukraine takes back Donbas, but Russia asks Belarus for help and Belarus deploys its armies on the border, so NATO does military exercises in the war area and Russia makes possible the use of nuclear weapons. Where are we going to? This is the problem. This is the question I have. This plenary should represent European people, and the European people outside this room don't want this escalation. But I didn't listen to anyone making a proposal to stop the war, apart from someone. So my final question is, who does this plenary actually represent? Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! I hope these translation problems are not a hybrid attack by Lukashenka (Mam nadzieję, że te problemy z tłumaczeniem to nie jest atak hybrydowy Łukaszenki). A już zupełnie poważnie, chyba dla nikogo w tej Izbie nie jest tajemnicą, że Łukaszenka dzisiaj, obok takich postaci jak Kadyrow, to takie swoistego rodzaju popychle Putina, bardzo użyteczne. I byliśmy tego świadkami, kiedy rozpoczął się ten atak hybrydowy, o którym była tutaj mowa, na Polskę i na Litwę, jak w sposób niezwykle naiwny, również w tej Izbie, podchodzili Państwo do tego pomocnika Putina. Kiedy z tego miejsca atakowaliście mój kraj, Polskę, kiedy krytykowaliście rozpoczęcie budowy muru, tej zapory na granicy polsko-białoruskiej, padały tutaj niezwykle emocjonalne i niemądre – żeby nie powiedzieć ostrzej: głupie – słowa. Dzisiaj, kiedy Finlandia stawia taki mur na granicy z Rosją, na szczęście takie słowa nie padają. A wracając na Białoruś, jest oczywiste, że wolni Białorusini, dumni Białorusini tego pomocnika Putina nie popierają. Ale on nadal pozostaje groźny, nadal pozostaje niebezpieczny. Riho Terras (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, since 24 February, when Russia launched full-scale war against Ukraine, Aleksander Lukashenko, an illegitimate leader of Belarus, has been an accomplice to Putin and Russian Federation. The Belarusian military bases are being used by Russian Federation to prepare the troops for attacking Ukraine's cities, villages, Ukraine people. Today, Putin declared martial law in illegally annexed territories of Ukraine. This is yet another example that he's running out of options. He depends more and more on the handful of cronies he has left, including dictator of Belarus. Though Lukashenko has avoided direct military involvement in this war, his words and actions speak for themselves. He owes Putin his position and has become fully dependent on Russian dictate. And with that, he has basically given up the statehood of Belarus. It is essential that the EU treats Lukashenko regime as a co-conspirator to the crimes against Ukraine people and acts accordingly by introducing even stricter sanctions against the dictator and his regime. Isabel Santos (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, a usurpação do poder por Lukashenko não é uma novidade e não ocorreu só em 2020. Todos nos recordamos das eleições de 2010, em que concorreu Andrei Sannikov contra Lukashenko e como foram manipuladas essas eleições. E como muitos, muitos bielorrussos acabaram detidos, devido aos protestos que ocorreram nas ruas da Bielorrússia. Mais uma vez, o fenómeno repetiu-se em 2020. Mais uma vez, Lukashenko continuou à frente dos destinos da Bielorrússia, numa total usurpação do poder e numa absoluta manipulação, porque sim, sim, Lukashenko sempre foi o homem de mão e o fantoche de Putin. Falemos agora também de um momento em que os tambores da guerra soam e os ataques vêm de território bielorrusso. É o momento de elevar o regime de sanções. É o momento de sancionar claramente Lukashenko e os seus sequazes. Mas é também o momento de olharmos para aqueles como Paulina Panasiuk e Bialiatski e os mais de 1300 presos políticos na Bielorrússia e ajudarmos a sociedade civil bielorrussa, de uma vez por todas, a libertar-se deste regime ditatorial. Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Madam President, we are dealing with a peculiar propaganda phenomenon. Lukashenko's regime dragged Belarus into the war against Ukraine, but claims the opposite. Even in this House, we sometimes hear that Lukashenko is not at war, or at least not yet. He has been involved in the conventional full-scale war from the very beginning: granting soil, air and logistics to the Russians, allowing them to attack the northern territories of Ukraine. Now he is preparing a secret mobilisation in Belarus, motivated by military readiness checks. He has given his security forces full authority to carry out detentions, prohibit movement, listen to conversations and enter people's homes without hindrance. Thus, we can expect a new wave of repressions against the people of Belarus, or possibly even a new migration wave. The European Union's response has to be based on sanctions, and we need them fast. We don't have to wait for more Belarussian dictator's provocative actions. To justify those actions, Lukashenko makes up lies that Ukraine and NATO are planning an invasion to Belarus. He is simply lying to his own people. The speaker used a slogan in a non-official language. Stop lying, batka. Gheorghe Falcă (PPE). – Doamnă președinte, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, cred că în ceea ce privește regimul autoritar din Belarus, orice iluzie privind o anumită normalizarea situației politice la nivelul pluralismului, libertății de exprimare sau transferului democratic al puterii atunci când oamenii decid, s-a spulberat. În acest moment, singura șansă a supraviețuirii regimului autoritar de la Minsk o reprezintă asocierea cu regimul criminal de la Moscova, ceea ce pentru Uniunea Europeană este inacceptabil, cu atât mai mult cu cât efectele acestei asocieri se răsfrâng negativ, tragic și periculos asupra cetățenilor din Belarus care luptă pentru libertate. Uniunea Europeană are obligația de a lua toate măsurile legale și morale pentru a împiedica o implicare directă a regimului de la Minsk în războiul declanșat de ruși împotriva Ucrainei. Acum este momentul să acționăm ferm și cu eficacitate. Orice altceva va avea un efect negativ asupra noastră și asupra aliaților noștri. Colm Markey (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner and fellow Members, I welcome this debate this evening. There has not been enough focus on the role of Belarus in this war. By being complicit, Lukashenko is part of Putin's war machine. Mr Lukashenko, it's clear the people of Belarus do not want this war. The Belarusian people want freedom and democracy. They want rid of Putin and they want rid of you. They stood against you in 2020 and they stand against you still today. You say you can't pay your foreign debt because of sanctions. Well there's a simple solution: remove the Russian troops from your country and back the heroic Ukrainian people. If not, you will pay an even higher price. We in Europe must get tougher on those who side with Putin. If Lukashenko continues to go down this road, his regime should be hit with the same sanctions as Russia. They must be held accountable for their actions. We must support the democratic people of Belarus, the people that were elected in 2020. If Europe backs democracy, Europe will thrive. And I ask you today to support Ukraine, support the opposition in Belarus, and we must do more to support them and ensure that Putin's war comes to an end as soon as possible. Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Madam President, (start of speech off microphone) ... government. Lukashenko has sold the Belarusian people's international sovereignty to maintain the dictatorship and his power. Lukashenko is just a servant to Putin. His dependence is so deep that he is willing to deploy his people into the joint regional military group while letting thousands of Russian soldiers move to Belarus. Lukashenko is well aware that most Belarusians are against involvement in the Russian war. Hundreds of Belarusian volunteers are fighting for Ukraine. Belarusians do not want to fight Ukraine for Russian interests. We appreciate the courage and effort of the democratic opposition facing oppression in Belarus. The EU must maintain its pressure on the regime and implement appropriate sanctions. We call on the Commission to submit this proposal and the Member States to respond appropriately. We support the democratic Belarusian opposition and its leader, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, in their fight, including journalists and students, who continue their fight in exile. We will stand by you until the freedom prevails. (Exclamation in Belarusian) Janina Ochojska (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Tak samo jak Putin zmienił plany i zrezygnował z planu demokratyzacji Rosji z obawy o utrzymanie władzy, tak samo Łukaszenka zgodzi się na okupację własnego kraju, aby chronić swoją dyktaturę. Kolejnym dowodem na aktywną rolę Łukaszenki w tej wojnie są setki pocisków wystrzelonych z terytorium Białorusi w kierunku Ukrainy. Putin wciąż wywiera coraz większe naciski na Łukaszenkę, aby ten aktywnie włączył się do wojny lądowej. Apeluję, żeby nie utożsamiać reżimu białoruskiego z narodem białoruskim. Pamiętacie ich codzienne protesty przeciwko sfałszowanym wyborom? Wstyd mi, że pomiędzy moim krajem, Polską, a Białorusią stoi mur hańby. Każdy naród pragnie żyć w wolności i reżimy w Białorusi i w Rosji w końcu upadną, mur również. Catch-the-eye procedure Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, but I have to say it takes some neck for Irish MEPs, whose parties in government have allowed three million US troops to use Shannon Airport on their way to theatres of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, to come in here and give out about Belarus allowing Russian troops to do the same on the way to war in Ukraine. If Belarus has an active role in the war in Ukraine, and I believe it does, well then so does Europe. We are supplying heavy weapons, tanks and artillery, military assistance, intelligence and logistics – all of these amount to support for a conflict party in international law, violating the law of neutrality, making us all conflict parties, providing a mechanism for a runaway escalation with the profound risk of a world-ending nuclear exchange. So why are we giving out about the sovereign country of Belarus for doing exactly what we are doing, albeit on the other side? All third countries, Belarus and the EU, should be reducing their role, urging a ceasefire and facilitating a peace agreement. Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, el señalamiento de la Rusia de Putin como una amenaza a la paz y a la seguridad en Europa ha obligado a un buen número de Estados miembros a revisar su propio historial de relaciones políticas, diplomáticas, estratégicas y energéticas con la Rusia de Putin, pero no es el caso de Bielorrusia. Nadie se ha llevado a engaño. Todo el mundo sabe que es la dictadura que más perdura de Europa. Lleva treinta años en un poder crecientemente represivo, falseando elecciones, y, por tanto, constituye, para empezar, una amenaza a la propia ciudadanía de Bielorrusia, que merece toda la solidaridad de la Unión Europea. Ese es nuestro primer cometido, pero nadie puede ignorar que considerar a Bielorrusia también agresor de Ucrania y, por tanto, considerarle un actor diferenciado y complementario de Rusia en la guerra contra Ucrania, es una decisión que lleva implicaciones estratégicas que deben ser muy sopesadas, porque significa —reconozcámoslo— una internacionalización de la guerra, que llamamos „la guerra de Putin”, para implicar a un tercer actor que, formalmente, sigue siendo un Estado soberano independiente. Rusia ha sido recientemente expulsada del Consejo de Europa. Bielorrusia nunca estuvo en el Consejo de Europa. Nunca se le admitió como socio de la comunidad de Derecho y por la paz en Europa. Por tanto, señalar a Bielorrusia como un agresor de Ucrania es una decisión estratégica que tiene que ser ponderada con todas sus consecuencias. Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, thank you very much. The illegitimate regime of Aleksander Lukashenko continues to press the Belarusian people and deny their desire for a free Belarus. On top of that, Lukashenko sold Belarus sovereignty to Kremlin, and his illegitimate regime is providing daily assistance to Russian terror against the brave Ukrainians. Lukashenko, like Putin, is an aggressor and one day they must face justice. However, we must also ensure that as we continue to support the Ukrainian people against Russian aggression, we must also double our efforts to support the Belarusian people in their desire for freedom. The Belarusian democratic opposition, whom we have supported for many years, now needs us more than ever to aid their efforts at home and from exile. Because, without a free, democratic and sovereign Belarus, there cannot be a free, democratic and sovereign Ukraine. (Exclamation in Belarusian) (End of catch-the-eye procedure) Olivér Várhelyi,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members of this House, let me thank the Parliament for again having the situation in Belarus on its agenda. In addition to the appalling human rights violations that continue and even worsen, Mr Lukashenko has become an accomplice in Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. We have condemned – all of us – the acts he's undertaking. And for that reason, I think this House needs to continue to engage also with the opposition, the democratic opposition of Belorussia, and continue to reach out to them and invite them. President. – The debate is closed. 18.   Resultaat van de eerste bijeenkomst van de Europese Politieke Gemeenschap (debat) President. – I give the floor to the Minister for European Affairs, Mr Bek, for the Council. Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, on 6 October, historically, the very first meeting of the European Political Community took place in Prague. This meeting established a new political platform, a platform that is not just another format for cooperation in Europe, but a very powerful opportunity to restore peace and prosperity to Europe by bringing together leaders from European countries on an equal footing and in a spirit of unity. Challenges that we are facing today are not limited to the EU borders. That is why the meeting was attended not only by leaders of EU Member States, but also of other European countries with whom the EU has close relations and who share an interest in the peace and prosperity of the European continent. Apart from the leaders of 43 European countries, the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, also participated in the discussion. The main goal of this meeting and of establishing this format was not to replace existing organisational structures nor processes, but to foster political dialogue and cooperation. I am happy to say that this goal was definitely fulfilled, as leaders addressed issues of common interest during a plenary session, a working dinner, for thematic roundtables and dozens of bilaterals. The plenary session was opened by Prime Minister Fiala, who laid out the goals of the meeting of this unprecedented format and highlighted that it was Russia's unjustified and illegal aggression against Ukraine which led leaders from all around Europe to meet in one place. During the four parallel thematic tables, two most pressing topics were discussed: the connection between energy, the climate and the economy and peace and security on the European continent. Lastly, during the dinner, leaders had the opportunity to hear the main takeaways from the set thematic roundtables and discuss them further. No written conclusions were adopted, as the goal was not to weigh down productive discussions by difficult negotiations on an outcome text. The first meeting was a definite success and Europe made a big step towards the strengthening of the security, stability and prosperity of the continent and devising common solutions for common challenges. However, our work doesn't end there, that is why all participating leaders decided to continue cooperation within the EPC format. Future meetings are planned to take place in Moldova, Spain and the United Kingdom. Olivér Várhelyi,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members of the Parliament, on 6 October, President von der Leyen and High Representative Vice-President Borrell participated in the first summit of the European Political Community in Prague, together with President Charles Michel. It was a historic event with 44 European leaders who came to discuss how to preserve security, stability and prosperity through cooperation in Europe. The leaders shared a sense of usefulness to discuss strategic issues. In that regard, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was particularly raised by the leaders as a direct attack on European and global order. It is also a frontal assault on the basic tenets of the post-Cold War European and international security order that Russia had signed up to itself. Hence a fundamental question: on what principles can we best organise the political and security order of Europe? For the foreseeable future, it is impossible to conceive a new security order or peace architecture in Europe, of which Russia would be an integral part. Russia remains a geographical neighbour and a member of the international system, but right now we have to build a European security order without the Kremlin. In Prague, European leaders sent a strong signal directed not only to Russia but also to the rest of the world about Europe's sincerity with regard to defending a rules-based multilateral order and enshrined in the UN Charter, and against the backdrop of Russia's weaponisation of energy and food that is affecting the European and global economy. The Prague meeting demonstrated the need for a common resolve and action underpinned by a broader and longer-term strategic approach amongst Europeans. The European Political Community (EPC) represents an opportunity to put that common resolve into action. It provides for a political impulse and constitutes a vital structuring element across the continent. The EPC is also about a community in the original sense, since all participating states have a common interest in its broad objective: a community of shared principles through an alignment on principles that guarantee peace and stability on the continent. An illustration is an agreement facilitated by President Michel and President Macron to establish a civilian EU mission in Armenia alongside the border with Azerbaijan. A community of resilience to reduce the exposure and vulnerability of our countries to risks and threats of an increasingly hybrid nature. This would include, inter alia, economic security and energy resilience. The connection of Ukraine to the European electricity grid when Russia weaponised energy is an example. A community of cooperation aimed at strengthening economic cooperation, interconnectedness and cross-border sectoral cooperation. Hence the talks in Prague about energy interconnectors in the North Sea and the Balkans, and strengthening production capacity with countries such as Norway and Azerbaijan. Finally, a community that adds value to existing institutions and formats. The EPC is complementary to the EU policies and the other regional frameworks, particularly enlargement, which remains our most relevant geopolitical tool. The EPC is not about competing with other existing international structures such as the OSCE and NATO, our most vital partners in upholding the Euro Atlantic security. Honourable Members, we need to back up our words with actions to demonstrate alternatives to the Russian way of exploiting vulnerabilities by the power of the stronger. Therefore, we must seek to seize this momentum to show European unity and strength. David McAllister,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner Várhelyi, Minister Bek, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has been a wake-up call for all of us. In this context, it is crucial that we intensify our relations with our strategic partners all over the globe, and especially with our like-minded neighbours in Europe. In this regard, I very much welcome the inaugural meeting of the European Political Community. Minister Bek, let me thank the Czech Presidency for hosting, organising and making this event a success, děkuji. This new platform has potential. The gathering of the 44 leaders delivered some concrete results, as Commissioner Várhelyi just mentioned. For example, the organisation of a civilian EU mission on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, or in the case of agreeing on a future bilateral summit between the United Kingdom and France. As such, the European Political Community can foster political dialogue for the benefit of our entire continent. However, it is clear that the European Political Community cannot replace existing EU policies and instruments, notably enlargement. It has to fully respect the European Union's decision-making autonomy. The European Political Community should not create a two-speed Europe. Now, a strategic follow-up to a meeting in Prague is key to shape the future work of the EPC. This new format should be used to deliver concrete solutions to Europe's most pressing issues. Pedro Marques,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário Várhelyi, Ministro Bek, colegas, a criação da Comunidade Política Europeia como fórum de diálogo político e cooperação ao mais alto nível é um passo na direção de soluções para a paz, a segurança, a estabilidade e a prosperidade na Europa. A participação dos países europeus, naturalmente deixando a Rússia e a Bielorrússia de fora, mostrou uma frente unida a favor do multilateralismo do direito internacional, deixando o regime russo ainda mais isolado politicamente na sua guerra de agressão contra a Ucrânia. É importante prosseguir com este mecanismo de diálogo para fazer face a tantos desafios que o continente enfrenta, sem prejuízo dos níveis e estruturas institucionais existentes, cujo papel está consolidado e ao qual esta comunidade política europeia não deve, não pode sobrepor-se, como o Conselho da Europa, ou a OSCE. E sem prejuízo também de políticas da União, bem estabelecidas, nomeadamente a política de alargamento e a de vizinhança, que não podem ser enfraquecidas e, pelo contrário, precisam elas próprias de um forte impulso que deve, aliás, evoluir a par da reforma institucional e do aprofundamento da União. Este é, assim, um espaço de diálogo entre Estados europeus, importante no momento atual, que deve reforçar a relevância geopolítica da Europa sem fragilizar nenhuma das nossas instituições. Marie-Pierre Vedrenne,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le Ministre, le 6 octobre dernier, 44 pays souverains se sont retrouvés à Prague, rassemblés parce que ce qui nous unit est plus grand que ce qui nous différencie. Dialoguer ensemble, faire ensemble, c'est là le projet de la Communauté politique européenne. Le 9 mai dernier, Emmanuel Macron a initié cette architecture pour relever, à l'échelle de notre continent, les défis d'un monde de plus en plus complexe. Et la présence de ces 44 États démontre l'impérieuse nécessité de cet espace de coopération complémentaire à l'action de l'Union européenne. De ce dialogue ressort, et doit ressortir encore davantage, l'unité européenne. De la condamnation unanime de l'agression de l'Ukraine par la Russie à la volonté d'agir concrètement et efficacement pour les peuples européens, ce rendez-vous constitue un premier pas réussi – merci à la présidence tchèque. Sécurité, indépendance énergétique, cybercriminalité ou encore politique pour la jeunesse, il nous faut concrétiser encore davantage des projets politiques, économiques et culturels. Alors, plus que jamais, bâtissons ces passerelles entre nous; plus que jamais, répondons aux attentes des peuples européens; plus que jamais, soutenons la Communauté politique européenne. Jordi Solé,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, the biggest achievement of the first European Political Community Summit is probably that it happened at the moment it happened. Bringing together 44 leaders from across the continent at a time of war and overlapping crises in Europe is something positive, particularly given the need for political and security cooperation, as well as the need to send another strong message to the Kremlin as regards its isolation. A flexible format where leaders can meet and discuss issues of common interest and also hold bilateral or trilateral meetings is certainly not useless. There always has to be a space for dialogue. For instance, the fact that on the margins of the summit, the leaders of France, Azerbaijan, Romania and the President of the European Council could meet and discuss the armed conflict in the South Caucasus, apparently achieving some progress, is a positive spillover from the summit. That being said, the summit was not exactly a meeting of democratic leaders, given the presence of certain authoritarian rulers who make a mockery of democracy. Macron's original idea of gathering, and I quote, „democratic [European] nations that subscribe to our shared core values”, will have to wait for better times. Nevertheless, we must hope that the European Political Community will become an instrument for dialogue that, at least in the long run, will contribute to the goal of bringing European states closer, not only in terms of interest, but also in values. Gilles Lebreton,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, la Communauté politique européenne s'est réunie pour la première fois le 6 octobre dernier. Elle a rassemblé à Prague les présidents ou chefs de gouvernement de 44 États européens, parmi lesquels les 27 membres de l'Union européenne, mais aussi des États comme le Royaume-Uni, l'Arménie et l'Ukraine. Cette nouvelle instance aurait pu être une bonne idée si elle avait préfiguré la création d'une Europe des nations de type confédéral. À terme, elle aurait alors pu constituer une alternative respectueuse de la souveraineté des États européens au modèle trop centralisateur de l'Union européenne. Hélas, c'est de l'inverse dont il s'agit. Elle n'a en effet été créée, à l'initiative du président Macron, que pour attirer les États européens indépendants dans l'orbite de l'Union. C'est ce qui explique que le président du Conseil européen et la présidente de la Commission européenne aient été conviés à y siéger. Bien loin d'annoncer une Europe des nations, la Communauté politique européenne n'est donc que l'expression de l'impérialisme de l'Union qui tente de profiter de la fragilité du Royaume-Uni sous Liz Truss et de la détresse de l'Arménie et de l'Ukraine pour avancer ses pions. L'échec de la réunion du 6 octobre, qui n'a débouché sur rien, montre la vanité de cette entreprise. La Communauté politique européenne est morte, vive l'Europe des nations! Anna Fotyga,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, despite question marks, I welcome the EPC's additional informal format to face the enormous security challenges we face in Europe. Good that UK and Turkey were there. Good that Russia and Belarus were not there. Good that Armenia and Azerbaijan used our table instead of the Moscow-based one. I urge European leaders to invite the legitimate representative of Belarusian people to the next meeting of the EPC and discuss the security situation there. Helmut Scholz,
im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, Herr Minister! Laut Petr Fiala bietet die EPG eine besondere Gelegenheit für Staaten, die dazu bestimmt seien, zusammenzuleben, aber normalerweise kaum Gelegenheit zum Reden bekommen. Hier stimme ich zu. Wir brauchen Formate, um den politischen Dialog, die Suche nach Lösungen für die vielen komplizierten vor uns stehenden Aufgaben zu ermöglichen. Dafür brauchen wir jetzt politischen Weitblick und vielleicht noch viel mehr politischen Mut. Die EPG kann ein Schritt in diese Richtung sein. Wie können die 27 EU-Mitgliedstaaten gemeinsam mit vielen anderen politischen Kräften auf unserem Kontinent die alles entscheidende Frage nach einem radikal notwendigen sozial-ökologischen Umbau konkret angehen, um den Klimawandel zu bewältigen und wieder Frieden zu gewinnen? 1973, als die Konferenz über Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa begann, war noch nicht abzusehen, welche Bedeutung die Schlussakte von Helsinki einmal haben würde. Wir sollten uns daran erinnern. Angesichts der Herausforderungen sollten wir aus der EPG vielleicht ein handlungsfähiges Format à la KSZE 2.0 machen, das nicht nur Austausch und vertrauliche Gespräche sehr verschiedener und sicher nicht nur gleichgesinnter Partner ermöglicht, sondern in konkreten, verbindlichen Auflagen mündet. Lernen wir aus dem Scheitern von Paris 1990, schnüren wir jetzt ein Paket, um handlungsfähige Strukturen zu schaffen. Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, na sastanku lidera europskih zemalja od Islanda do Azerbajdžana u Pragu, razgovaralo se, među ostalim, i o energiji i energetskoj neovisnosti. Hrvatski premijer otišao je ondje tek nekoliko dana nakon što se pokazalo da je upravo on donio odluku o gašenju naše rafinerije u Sisku i izvozu nafte iz Hrvatske. Gurnuo je našu hrvatsku kolonijalnu poziciju, pa iako imamo svoju sirovu naftu, nju sada izvozimo, a uvozimo gotove naftne derivate. Nakon ovog skandala, svaka normalna vlast daje ostavku, ali ne i korumpirani despoti u Hrvatskoj; odgovornosti njima nepoznat pojam. Naš predsjednik Vlade, koji radi protiv vlastite zemlje i njezinih energetskih kapaciteta, ne može savjete o energetici, u Pragu, davati drugim državama. Nedavno su uhićeni ljudi naftne kompanije u Hrvatskoj, koje je postavio upravo on i njegova stranka, zbog velike pljačke plina. U režiji te vladajuće stranke, u Hrvatskoj su se razvile razne koruptivne mreže koje potkapaju energetski sustav. Jedva su dočekali priliku da, pod krinkom poskupljenja energenata na međunarodnom tržištu, dodatno zagrabe u džepove građana kako bi uzeli sebi. Takvim ljudima trebalo bi zabraniti ulazak u europske institucije, a ne ih zvati da odlučuju o našim sudbinama. Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar Várhelyi! Ich bewundere Ihr Durchhaltevermögen heute Nacht hier im Europäischen Parlament. Meine Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es ist gut, dass wir hier parlamentarisch beraten, was die Regierenden in den Mitgliedstaaten machen. Sie haben die European Political Community, die Europäische Politische Gemeinschaft, ins Leben gerufen. Und ich sehe, um es mit einem Sprichwort auszudrücken, das Glas halb voll. Es ist gut, dass ganz Europa zusammenkommt, dass die EU sich gewissermaßen um das gesamte europäische Territorium kümmert, denn das ist auch ihr Auftrag, ihre Mission: allen auf diesem Kontinent das zukommen zu lassen, was Europa bedeuten kann, auch wenn das ein weiter Weg ist. Es wäre aber schlecht, wenn diese Europäische Politische Gemeinschaft dazu führt, dass vorhandene Prozesse der EU-Integration gewissermaßen in eine Schublade kommen, in einen Topf geworfen werden, und dann Prozesse, die sehr weit fortgeschritten sind in Richtung Europäische Union, möglicherweise noch weiter ins Stocken geraten, als es ohnehin schon passiert ist, vor allem mit dem Westbalkan. In der Vergangenheit hat die Europäische Union sich sehr, sehr viele Fehler geleistet. Das darf nicht mehr passieren. Montenegro ist beitrittsreif, mit Albanien und Nordmazedonien braucht es Beitrittsverhandlungen. Kosovo und Serbien gehört gelöst. Beide gehören in die Europäische Union, Serbien dann, wenn Serbien auch die europäischen Werte mittragen wird. Bosnien und Herzegowina hat jetzt Kandidatenstatus. Die Staaten der Östlichen Partnerschaft – Republik Moldau, Georgien, Ukraine – gehören anders integriert. Und wir brauchen ein viel besseres Verhältnis zur Schweiz und zu Großbritannien und Nordirland. Auch Aserbaidschan, Armenien waren vertreten in der European Political Community. Belarus gehörte vertreten mit der Befreiungsbewegung. Also jeder Staat, der beteiligt ist, hat einen anderen Status. Das muss man weitersehen, dann kann das Zukunft haben. Und auch wenn es eine parlamentarische Dimension gibt, dann kann es Zukunft haben. Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Señora presidenta, queridos colegas, efectivamente, nos encontramos ante el proyecto de la Comunidad Política Europea que, a la vista de lo que fue la Cumbre de Praga —por cierto, muy bien organizada por la Presidencia checa—, un foro de encuentro entre Estados europeos, es decir, no solo entre aquellos que son miembros de la Unión Europea... Como digo, a la vista del resultado y de las expectativas que ha generado, es positivo que haya un foro que vendría a cubrir algún tipo de vacío, en la medida en que desarrolla una función que no es la de la OTAN, donde están los americanos, o la de la OSCE, donde también están los americanos, ni la del Consejo de Europa, que está dedicado fundamentalmente a la cuestión de los derechos humanos. En la medida en que haya un espacio de encuentro, de lanzar proyectos en común, de hacer frente común frente a la agresión rusa en Ucrania, me parece positivo. Ahora bien, debe quedar claro, como ha señalado el alto representante, Josep Borrell, en su blog, que no puede ser una alternativa a la ampliación. Tiene que añadir valor a los formatos existentes —a lo que ya me he referido—, tiene que ser una comunidad de principios compartidos y tiene que tener una estructura muy ligera. No podemos crear más secretariados, nuevas estructuras, porque la estructura institucional que realmente existe, y que tenemos que seguir ampliando y profundizando a la vez, es la Unión Europea. Klemen Grošelj (Renew). – Spoštovani! Evropska politična skupnost je pobuda, ki je prišla v za Evropo in EU pravem času. Nisem pa prepričan, ali bo prinesla tudi rezultate, ki jih zaostrene geopolitične razmere v širšem evropskem prostoru zahtevajo. Sam upam in pričakujem, da gre za idejo ključnega povezovanja najširše možne skupnosti evropskih držav, ki so v danih zaostrenih geopolitičnih razmerah, ko se soočamo z agresijo in napadi ne samo na vrednote in načela, na katerih temelji EU, ampak na katerih temelji sodobna povojna svetovna ureditev, trdno zavezane k obrambi demokracije, človekovih pravic, vladavine prava in politikam krepitve mednarodnega sodelovanja ter spoštovanja mednarodnega prava. Torej koalicija držav, ki ne samo da ne sprejema, ampak zavrača svet, temelječ na surovi moči. In tu je skupnost, ki jo danes potrebujemo. Nikakor pa ne sme postati Evropska politična skupnost nadomestilo za širitveni proces, saj ta zasleduje cilje Evropske unije, ki jih Evropska politična skupnost ne more uresničiti. Gunnar Beck (ID). – Frau Präsidentin! Anfang Oktober trafen sich die Regierungschefs aller europäischen und kaukasischen Staaten sowie der Türkei, nicht aber Russlands und von Belarus, in Prag zum ersten Treffen der Europäischen Politischen Gemeinschaft EPG, einer neuen Einrichtung – neu, aber unklar ist ihr Zweck und was genau sie vom Europarat unterscheidet. Einziges Thema: der Ukraine-Krieg. War der Zweck, illegale Angriffskriege zu verurteilen? Warum war dann der Präsident von Aserbaidschan anwesend, der einen Angriffskrieg gegen Armenien anzettelte? Ging es um Geschlossenheit gegenüber Russland, so zeigen Ungarn und Macrons Haltung: Auch die EU ist nicht einig. Und bessere französisch-britische Beziehungen bedürfen keiner 41 anderen Regierungschefs. Eigentlich ging es nur ums Händeschütteln und unverbindliches Lächeln in schweren Zeiten. Das Benzin und die Treibstoffe für die Prag-Reise hätte man sich sparen können – eingedenk der Energiekrise gewiss sinnvoller. Cristian Terheș (ECR). – Madam President, dear colleagues, dear guests, after the Second World War in Europe, a group of eight statesmen, mostly Christians, came together and found ways not only how to reconcile themselves with each other, but how to bring peace to prosperity in Europe. To do so, they came up with a European project founded on two pillars: safeguarding the respect of fundamental rights – and that's how we have the Council of Europe now. And the other one, it is economic cooperation – and we have the European Communities. The European Community later became the European Union, which from an economic cooperation between sovereign states, became a political union, which currently is undermining, unfortunately, the sovereignty of our nations. The European Political Community now proposed by Macron, seems to want to replace the other pillar of the European project, mainly safeguarding the fundamental rights of all the people. Europe is not a political community, but a mosaic of free and sovereign nations and states. If we want to defend and protect the rights of all of our citizens, we should keep it so. Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, suočeni s krizom bez presedana, svjesni smo potrebe za otvorenim dijalogom s našim europskim susjedima. Početkom listopada, dakle, svjedočili smo okupljanju lidera zemalja Europe na događanju koje će u bližoj budućnosti definirati i odnos Europske unije s ostalim državama kontinenta - osnivanju Europske političke zajednice. Dakle, kolegice i kolege, radi se o platformi, rekla bih, za poticanje političkog dijaloga koji nam je uvijek potreban i suradnju s ciljem rješavanja pitanja od zajedničkog interesa te jačanje stabilnosti, sigurnosti i blagostanja. Pri tome je potrebno još jednom naglasiti kako ona ne zamjenjuje niti jednu političku organizaciju, strukturu ili proces. Naprotiv, Europska politička zajednica dokaz je važnosti razmjene mišljenja u teškim vremenima u kojima se nalazimo. Organiziranjem ovako širokog formata za razgovor, dodatno smo pokazali i dokazali važnost multilateralizma u današnjim međunarodnim odnosima. Uz to, Europska unija potvrdila je kako i dalje ima moć okupljanja država u svom bližem susjedstvu. Ovakav iskaz meke moći nosi značajnu geopolitičku težinu na kontinentu koji se suočava s najvećim sukobom od Drugog svjetskog rata. Da, razgovaralo se o brojnim izazovima: od poštivanja međunarodnog prava, gospodarstvu, energetskoj sigurnosti... I da, tamo je bio i hrvatski premijer. Hrvatska će povećanjem kapaciteta LNG terminala na otoku Krku imati mogućnost za opskrbu i Slovenije, Slovačke, Bosne i Hercegovine i Mađarske i to upravo zahvaljujući Vladi koju šest godina, upravo danas, vodi premijer Plenković. Stoga su bizarne ocjene populističkog karaktera koje smo čuli maloprije, čiji su autori, kolege, bili gosti Rusije na različitim političkim skupovima. Tonino Picula (S&D). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, europska politička zajednica najprije mora dokazati što ona nije. Ne smije ni na koji način usporiti procese daljnjeg proširenja Europske unije, a još manje postati alternativa punopravnom članstvu u Europskoj uniji. U jeku ruske agresije na Ukrajinu i dalekosežnih geopolitičkih promjena, doista ne smijemo razvodniti nakon dugo vremena obnovljeni interes za politiku proširenja. Osim toga, bit će vrlo teško održati jednu strukturu koja bi se pozicionirala negdje između utvrđenih procedura Europske unije i labavosti neformalnog političkog foruma. Isto tako, skepsu proizvodi činjenica kako jedna tako široka mreža sudionika podrazumijeva izuzetno heterogeno društvo, po mnogim karakteristikama. S toliko različitih interesa u igri raste šansa da nijedan u konačnici ne bude zadovoljen. Konačno, smatram da takva zajednica, uvodeći divergentne političke vrijednosti, predstavlja neizvjesnu korist za sam europski projekt. Zahtjev Velike Britanije da se npr. uklone zastave Europske unije s osnivačkog skupa, možda najbolje ilustrira dubinu proturječja između ambicija i realnosti europske političke zajednice. Charles Goerens (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, la Communauté politique européenne, qui est-ce ? Pour le moment, ce sont 44 chefs d'État et de gouvernement européens qui se sont rencontrés à Prague pour échanger sur les menaces qui pèsent sur nos démocraties. Ce sont des pays qui connaissent des degrés d'intégration européenne différents; 27 sont membres de l'Union européenne, 30 sont membres de l'Espace économique européen, 28 sont membres de l'OTAN, tous sont membres du Conseil de l'Europe et de l'OSCE. Cela m'inspire deux remarques. Premièrement, si, comme décidé à Prague, cette structure est appelée à devenir pérenne, elle n'a pas vocation à se substituer au Conseil de l'Europe ni à l'OSCE. Deuxièmement, la date de la première réunion a été bien choisie pour montrer qu'au-delà de nos divergences traditionnelles, nous refusons la barbarie. Enfin, il y a lieu de saluer que la plupart des pays européens restent soudés autour d'un socle de droits et de devoirs qu'implique l'adhésion aux valeurs civilisatrices qui sont le fondement du monde libre. Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pomimo niektórych głosów sceptycznych ja uważam, że europejska wspólnota polityczna może odegrać ważną rolę w uzgadnianiu wspólnego stanowiska i konsolidacji państw europejskich w obecnej sytuacji agresji Rosji na Ukrainę. Najważniejszy jest format tego gremium. Biorą w niej udział państwa, które nie chcą przystąpić do Unii Europejskiej, jak Szwajcaria, lub do niej powrócić, jak Wielka Brytania. I przypominam, że europejska wspólnota polityczna i kulturowa jest szersza niż sama tylko Unia Europejska. Wielka Brytania udziela większej pomocy militarnej Ukrainie niż takie państwa jak Niemcy i Francja, a więc tym samym bardziej niż te państwa przyczynia się do bezpieczeństwa krajów członków Unii sąsiadujących z Rosją. Szwajcaria udziela Ukrainie pomocy humanitarnej. Dobrze więc, że pojawia się nowy format, w którym możemy współpracować z takimi i pozostałymi państwami. Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, pane komisaři, dovolte mi, abych poděkovala českému předsednictví a řekla, že jsem hrdá na to, že se Vám podařilo zorganizovat toto Evropské politické společenství, dát mu podobu i obsah. Největší význam má tento projekt z hlediska geopolitického. Nepochybně je to prostor pro dialog, pro setkávání, ale právě s ohledem na ruskou agresi na Ukrajině je jasným vyjádřením jednoty kontinentu proti této agresi. Evropské politické společenství se nesmí stát dvousečnou zbraní z pohledu rozšiřování Evropské unie. Na jedné straně může být vzpruhou pro země ve východním partnerství, které mají aspiraci na členství, a výrazem jejich angažmá na nejvyšší úrovni evropské politiky. Na druhé straně ale nemůže být pro tyto země tak trochu odkladištěm, nechtěnou alternativou členství. Francie v roce 1991 přišla s projektem Evropské konfederace, který měl v podstatě tento cíl: politicky navázat kontakt, dialog s postkomunistickými zeměmi a zároveň zabránit tomu, aby vstoupily do tehdejšího Evropského společenství. Postkomunistické země tuto vizi odmítly, protože jasně směřovaly k integraci do EU, a udělaly správně. To, že tato myšlenka není mrtvá, zde dnes připomněl pan kolega Lebreton. Smysl a budoucí podoba Evropského politického společenství jistě budou v následujících letech krystalizovat. Obsahová orientace této platformy se ale jistě bude vždy týkat bezpečnostních otázek. Proto je účast Velké Británie a Turecka klíčová. Jedno je jisté již nyní. Praha se zapíše do dějin jako místo, kde se poprvé sešlo 44 představitelů evropských zemí v novém formátu. V učebnicích dějepisu bude fotografie lídrů z Vladislavského sálu Pražského hradu, tedy z místa, kde se tvořily celoevropské dějiny již v dobách císaře Karla IV. ve čtrnáctém století. Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D). – Señora presidenta, seguimos en la bruma. No sabemos si esto es una expectativa de lo que podría llegar a ser o es siempre un talking show, pero hay que recordar que muchas cosas en Europa empezaron siendo un talking show, como la propia Unión Europea. Hacen falta tiempo y un par de crisis. Pero para ello hay que resolver algunas dudas. ¿Esto va de valores o va de realpolitik? A valores se refirió Macron, a valores se refirió la señora Truss; pero estuvieron allí Turquía, Azerbaiyán o Serbia, lo que hace pertinente una pregunta: ¿a medio plazo es compatible la foto de Praga con la foto de Samarcanda, la foto de los autócratas? A la vuelta de la cumbre, el señor Michel ya no habló de valores, solo de intereses, y eso tiene un riesgo, comisario: que por ampliar el círculo alrededor o contra Rusia nos arriesguemos a rebajar nuestras exigencias democráticas. Pero tampoco parece una organización de seguridad, a pesar de que la guerra haya sido su desencadenante, porque ahí hay amigos de Rusia y porque un sistema de seguridad en el que no estén la OTAN y los Estados Unidos, seguramente, no sea muy realista. Por tanto, sigue siendo un objeto político no identificado y voy a permitirme coincidir con usted, sin que sirva de precedente: esto es, de momento, una oportunidad. Nathalie Loiseau (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, que n'avait-on entendu? „Ça ne marchera jamais”, „encore une grande idée qui restera dans les tiroirs”, „les Britanniques ne viendront pas”, „la communauté politique européenne, on ne sait même pas ce que c'est”. Puis 44 chefs d'État et de gouvernement ont décidé de se réunir et de la faire naître, cette Communauté politique européenne. Les 27 étaient là mais aussi, à distance, Volodymyr Zelensky, et aussi, dans la salle, Liz Truss ou les dirigeants des Balkans. Il a fallu une vision, celle d'Emmanuel Macron, et il a fallu un moment, celui où notre continent comprend mieux que jamais qu'il est confronté aux mêmes défis, aux mêmes crises et à la même guerre, celle que la Russie mène contre l'Ukraine. L'heure n'est pas aux querelles stériles, elle est aux efforts pour s'unir et pour se rapprocher. Quel sera l'avenir de la Communauté politique européenne ? Celle-ci sera ce que tous en feront. Elle ne sera pas un substitut à l'adhésion des pays candidats à l'Union européenne, mais au contraire un complément. Elle n'effacera pas le Brexit, mais elle évitera que la trajectoire du Royaume-Uni et celle du reste de l'Europe ne s'éloignent. Surtout, nous avons collectivement une chance, celle de démontrer que l'Europe est beaucoup plus qu'un vieux continent, beaucoup plus qu'une petite presqu'île à l'ouest de l'Asie immense. Nous avons l'occasion de retrouver la fierté de ce que nous sommes: une civilisation, une promesse et un espoir. Elena Yoncheva (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, si nous voulons que l'Europe soit forte pour mieux protéger les droits sociaux et économiques de ses citoyens, elle doit être indépendante. L'autonomie stratégique, la construction de notre système de sécurité et de défense, sont la base de cette prospérité. Cela signifie aussi interdépendance, entre les États membres de l'Union européenne qui partagent des valeurs communes, mais aussi à travers la coopération avec d'autres pays européens. La protection des infrastructures partagées, après les attaques de Nordstream, devrait être une préoccupation et une politique communes. La Communauté politique européenne est aussi un forum où l'approche pragmatique de la Turquie et son rôle de médiateur dans la guerre en Ukraine pourraient être discutés. Mais on ne peut pas aujourd'hui remplacer la responsabilité de l'Union européenne, où les décisions difficiles sont prises à l'unanimité, en prenant en compte les intérêts de chaque État membre. Il s'agit d'une garantie que nous resterons ensemble, pour être plus forts aussi. Barry Andrews (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, I very much welcome the European Political Community (EPC), not least as a way to re-engage with the United Kingdom. The new Prime Minister has made some fairly poor decisions in the last few weeks, but this was a good one – to attend the EPC with immediate benefits for the UK, including hosting an EPC meeting next year or the year after, re-joining PESCO on military mobility and re-joining the North Sea Energy Cooperation Group. Prime Minister Truss said, „We always believed we would find new ways of working that reflected our shared values and interests.” She is partly walking back to the realisation that the pursuit of these shared values and interests require rules, they require cooperation and enforceable rules, and those enforceable rules require institutions, the very institutions that the UK walked away from just six years ago. It is slightly ironic that while the UK liked the single market and disliked the European political union, now they are outside the single market and inside the European Political Community, and I don't want to be too glib about it because it is an excellent platform, not least for the improvement of Anglo-Irish relations. Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la prima riunione della Comunità politica europea è stata un successo per il fatto di essere riuscita a creare un forum in cui tutti i paesi del nostro vicinato hanno potuto partecipare ed esprimersi, anche in quelle situazioni di tensione che osserviamo, anzi proprio il contesto di questo incontro ha portato ad alleggerirle, come nel caso dell'approccio tra Armenia e Azerbaigian nel corso di questa riunione. Ora serve continuità di azione e credibilità, per arrivare a plasmare una piattaforma che possa facilitare una risposta comune alla minaccia portata ai nostri confini da Putin e agire in maniera sempre più coordinata per affrontare le conseguenze della guerra, che colpiscono tutti. Attenzione però a considerare la Comunità politica europea come un'alternativa istituzionale all'ingresso nell'Unione, in particolare per i paesi coinvolti nel vicinato orientale. Credo che sarà nostro compito discutere nei prossimi mesi di come inserire questa Comunità politica nella cornice dei trattati e definirne meglio gli ambiti e i limiti, garantendo un ruolo centrale al Parlamento europeo, non appena la Convenzione da noi richiesta per riformare profondamente questa unione aprirà i propri lavori. Catch-the-eye procedure Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já považuji Evropské politické společenství za dobrou iniciativu a samozřejmě je to iniciativa, která vznikla na popud prezidenta Macrona. Určitě úspěchem českého předsednictví je, že se tolik států podařilo přivést na jedno místo, do Prahy, do České republiky – od Islandu přes Turecko, Velkou Británii, samozřejmě kavkazské státy. Je důležité podporovat takovýto dialog lídrů a myslím si, že je také důležité podporovat ochranu demokratických hodnot, hodnot, které jsou vlastní i Evropské unii. Já vím, že existuje samozřejmě Rada Evropy, která má chránit mír a mírové soužití mezi národy v Evropě, a také základní lidská práva a svobody. Ale bohužel tato organizace je právě ochromena útokem Ruska na Ukrajinu, a proto je dobře, že takovéto společenství vzniká. Je ovšem důležité, aby toto společenství neodsunulo otázku rozšiřování Evropské unie do pozadí, aby i tyto státy, které se rozhodnou vstoupit do Unie, měly tuto platformu otevřenou, ale cestu do Evropy rovněž volnou. Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Madam President, I welcome the meeting of the European Political Community, because in this House we have come up with numerous proposals on strengthening cooperation with our wider European partners, including creative integration of those desiring it. I therefore want to congratulate the Czech Government on the success. The summit made it clear that the Community can never be an alternative for those wishing to join the European Union. On the contrary, the success of the inaugural summit lay in the fact that it provided an inclusive format in which to discuss common challenges with our wider European partners. These challenges are multiple: from responding to Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine through working together to rebuild the European security, to addressing the threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party and other totalitarian regimes. Only by working together in the spirit of unity and solidarity can European nations address the many challenges in front of us. (End of catch-the-eye procedure) Olivér Várhelyi,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I believe there is indeed a great potential in this initiative. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has instilled further urgency and importance into our efforts to strengthen the EU's role as a security actor and provider. Our ability to respond to threats and challenges benefits from the partnerships in Europe and beyond. Together, all European countries can devise pragmatic ways to cooperate and strengthen our collective capacities and leverage. Going forward, our collective response should be articulated along the key principles. First, stay the course on a triple strategy: supporting Ukraine, pressuring Russia to stop its war of aggression, and addressing the wider fallout of the war. Second, reflect on the strategic implications for European security. Russia seeks a new continental security architecture based on transactional relations and spheres of influence between great powers. Russia has tried to divide us, but it has achieved the opposite. Our unity, strength and resolve have never been greater. The next European Political Community (EPC) meetings are planned in Moldova, Spain and UK, where we all, all Europeans, can take this initiative further. The very fact that there is already clarity on the hosting of the next summits proves the degree of political interest and commitment to maintain this process. Obviously, the practice will show how it evolves and addresses some open questions, particularly regarding the scope and nature of political cooperation, i.e. on energy, as well as the nature of the institutional setup. Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, first of all, I should specify that I am addressing the plenary of this House in my national capacity and as a host of the event, not as a President of the Council. Let me thank you for this debate and for the visibility that this Parliament has given to this momentous event that will resonate in the future. There is no doubt that the situation will continue to be very challenging in more than one way – the winter period approaching, inflation rising in many countries, and Russian aggression against Ukraine continues to escalate further. Let me assure you the European Political Community does not substitute the process of EU enlargement. Similarly, it does not replace existing platforms or organisations. I am confident that by establishing this format we also establish a platform where we can face these challenges more efficiently and in a united way and get back on the path of growth, as well as defend our values. Even though it is the current geopolitical situation that motivated us to sit at one table, I believe that once the war is won and Europeans don't have to worry about the upcoming winter, all EPC participants will continue to meet and work on joint initiatives towards a more prosperous continent for the benefit of both our Union, as well as the countries outside the EU. Thank you very much once again for your attention. President. – The debate is closed. Written statements (Rule 171) Dita Charanzová (Renew),
in writing. – Putin unified Europe. This was the message of the Prague summit. The image of unity and cooperation of 44 European countries gathering together to find a way forward is important. But it should not become just another summit of shaking hands and family pictures. It should not become a copy of the Council of Europe. It should not become a replacement of the EU accession process. It should be a new engine to revive the broader European agenda in our neighbourhood. But for that to happen we need to have a clear roadmap and set up priorities. And that is what is currently missing. 19.   Mondiale voedselzekerheid in het verlengde van de bijeenkomst van de ministers van Landbouw van de G20 (debat) President. – Next item on the agenda: the Council and Commission statements on: Global food security as follow-up to the G20 Agriculture Ministers meeting (2022/2883(RSP)). Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Vice-President of the Commission, the alarming increase in the number of people facing acute food insecurity is a matter of great concern for all of us. Russia's war against Ukraine is severely exacerbating the already dire food security situation in many vulnerable countries and pushing more people into extreme poverty. We all know the figures. Around 50 countries depend on Russia and Ukraine for at least 30% of their cereal imports and for over 20 countries, this is more than 50%. Thanks to the stable production supported by the common agricultural policy, food security in the EU is not at risk. This allows the EU, as a major global agri-food producer, to make an increased contribution to global food supplies. Nevertheless, there are major issues we must address, among them ensuring affordability of food for all EU citizens and restoring fertiliser supplies to bring down fertiliser prices and avoid future food supply disruptions. At the same time, the EU must remain fully mobilised to help Ukraine export its agri-food production. This includes continuing to support the UN-led efforts to keep the Black Sea maritime route open and working on improving alternative export routes for Ukrainian cereals via the EU-Ukraine Solidarity Alliance. Our efforts are already bearing fruit. In September, no less than 40% of Ukrainian grains were exported through the Solidarity Alliance. The exceptional circumstances in which we live have also provoked a firm and robust policy response from the EU towards third countries and regions to contribute to global food security. The Council will continue to oversee the ongoing EU action along the three well-known tracks: emergency relief and financial support to the most affected countries; helping vulnerable countries to build sustainable and resilient food systems and improve the livelihood of their farmers; and working together with our international partners to ease tensions on global agricultural markets. The capacity of the EU to reach the most vulnerable depends on the effective coordination and cooperation of the international community. This is why we support the central role of the UN Global Crisis Response Group to coordinate the global efforts. We therefore welcome the recent call by the joint G20 finance and agriculture ministers meeting to take stock of ongoing policy responses and to identify potential gaps and areas where further action is needed. G20 agriculture ministers have underscored the importance of addressing the current food crisis in a sustainable manner, and they have also highlighted the urgency of accelerating the transformation of our food systems. This is fully in line with the outcomes of the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit and the EU's own sustainability agenda, as set by the European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy. This will require enhanced responsible investments by both private and public sectors at all levels to strengthen the long-term resilience of food systems in the poorest countries and to support, in particular, smallholders and family farmers. We all support the G20 agriculture ministers' reiterated commitment to halving global food waste and losses and to improve the transparency of global commodities markets and promote an open and predictable trade environment. These are all critical and necessary actions to address the food crisis and move towards sustainable food systems. The EU will continue working with its international partners, including the Rome-based UN agencies, to mitigate the risks of disruption of supply chains and to control dangerous domino effects of surging global food prices. The EU will also continue working with its like-minded partners to keep commodities markets open and avoid export restrictions and other trade-disrupting measures. Věra Jourová,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, honourable Minister, I welcome today's debate on food security, which follows the fruitful exchanges prior to the European Parliament resolution on 6 July this year on addressing food security in developing countries, as well as the discussion on fertilisers earlier this month. Reports show an increasing number of acutely food-insecure people, now exceeding 200 million worldwide, and projections of famine in Somalia, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Yemen, Nigeria and South Sudan. The cause: Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which continues to have a dramatic impact on the Ukrainian people and on increasing food insecurity worldwide. This is the reason, honourable Members. It is not, as Russia claims, EU sanctions that deepen global food insecurity. Our sanctions were precisely designed to exempt agricultural products. Russia's actions endanger the lives of many around the globe. They also actively hamper the work of multilateral bodies to address the food crisis. This disruption is particularly visible in organisations that require unanimity to operate, such as the G20. At the G20 agriculture ministers' meeting in Bali on 28 September, for the first time in the history of the G20s, ministers were unable to agree on a communique. The Indonesian Chair of the G20 resorted to publishing merely a chair's summary of the discussions. The Chair's summary reflects that in all substantial areas, from the transition towards sustainable food systems to the importance of open, rules-based trade, G20 members have achieved consensus and even progress compared to previous years. However, Russia's insistence on denying basic facts and its attempt to instrumentalise multilateral forums to spread disinformation have led to a deadlock on a single paragraph. This illustrates why we must vigorously challenge Moscow's narrative. It is the Russian authorities that block the work of the international organisation. It is the Russian authorities that push for global food insecurity in the hope to blackmail countries to support their illegal and brutal aggression. In fact, the majority of G20 members condemned Russia's actions and Russia remained mostly isolated. The diplomatic efforts of the EU vis-à-vis the G20 continue to be largely productive. Beyond the G20, the EU is fully committed to continue working with global partners alongside Member States in relevant organisations such as the United Nations or the WTO, and engage with regional groupings such as the African Union. With our partners in Africa, we already started preparing the next ministerial conference, to be held in summer 2023 in Rome. In the UN General Assembly held in September, the EU was also vocal in the meetings, focusing on food security, with a dedicated summit on global food security, where we have again committed to strengthening international cooperation and partnership initiatives. In the World Trade Organization, the EU is actively engaged in implementing the outcomes of the 12th Ministerial Conference. This engagement in multilateral forums is part of the EU's broader commitment to enhance food security worldwide and to stand with our Ukrainian neighbours. We need a coordinated response. We cannot afford to duplicate efforts. Honourable Members, the EU has reacted quickly and resolutely to this complex crisis through a comprehensive response in the EU, through a range of measures to support farmers, the agri-food industry and consumers, and also, globally, using a Team Europe approach along four strands of action. First, a solidarity strand to step up emergency aid and macro-economic support. Second, a production strand to drive the transition towards sustainable and resilient food systems, especially by investing in local small-scale producers and food entrepreneurs. Third, a trade strand to keep markets open and facilitate food trade by getting grains out of Ukraine, including via the EU-Ukraine solidarity lanes. This has allowed over 12.5 million tonnes of grains to leave Ukraine since May 2022. It was complemented by 6 million tonnes exported through the UN-brokered Black Sea Grain Initiative. And last, the fourth one, a multilateral strand, which I have just presented. The EU backs these actions with a solid financial package and has already committed EUR 7.7 billion until 2024, with over EUR 2 billion of humanitarian food and nutrition assistance. A 32% increase as compared to 2021. Almost EUR 5 billion to support the transition to sustainable food systems in partner countries, including additional EUR 350 million in the ACP countries and EUR 225 million for the Middle East and North Africa to ensure better resilience. EU Member States and the European development banks should further increase this contribution. The extension of the Black Sea Initiative beyond 16 November is key. The sustainability of this deal should lead commercial insurers and shipping companies to make greater use of the Black Sea route. Thanks to these measures, global prices for key commodities, such as wheat and mace, have dropped around 20% by September, almost reaching pre-war levels. However, another challenge is looming for the next harvest season. There are real concerns about the situation regarding the supply and affordability of fertilisers. The market situation for fertilisers, together with a general increase of input costs, impacts farmers and their planting decisions, as they may fear a squeeze in incomes. Agricultural production relies on fertilisers to achieve good yields. We are working to reduce dependency on mineral fertilisers. However, in the short term, lower use implies lower yields, in Europe and globally. Here again, Russia pretends sanctions are responsible for hampering global fertiliser availability and affordability. We need to be clear: sanctions do not prevent Russia from exporting fertilisers to third countries. We have just recently provided additional written guidance to the Member States and industry to explain that. On the contrary, it is Russia itself who has adopted measures restricting the export of fertilisers to third countries, including the military destruction of export infrastructure through Ukraine. In this context, the Commission plans to adopt a communication on fertilisers which will address the situation on the EU market and globally. Norbert Lins,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, Herr Minister, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Oktober ist der Monat des Erntedanks. Letzten Sonntag war Welternährungstag. Es gibt einen Grund, wieso wir diese Anlässe alljährlich feiern, nämlich der, dass unser tägliches Brot und die Verfügbarkeit von frischen und gesunden Lebensmitteln nicht selbstverständlich sind. Ich weiß, ich wiederhole mich, aber an dieser Stelle will ich noch einmal unseren europäischen Bäuerinnen und Bauern danken. Sie haben zunächst während der Pandemie und dann mit der Ukrainekrise gezeigt, dass sie unsere Versorgung mit Lebensmitteln sicherstellen können, trotz aller Schwierigkeiten. In der Kommission scheint mir das Thema Ernährungssicherheit noch immer nicht die Bedeutung gewonnen zu haben, die es verdient. Man denke nur an das monatelange Ringen, die GLÖZ-7- und GLÖZ-8-Standards für die Fruchtfolge und das Stilllegen für nächstes Jahr auszusetzen, sodass unsere europäische Landwirtschaft ihren Beitrag für die Ernährungssicherung in der Welt leisten kann. Mit der SUR und dem nature restoration law warten aber schon die nächsten beiden Brocken auf die Bäuerinnen und Bauern, welche auf lange Sicht leider weniger als mehr Lebensmittel auf unseren Tischen bedeuten. Anders ausgedrückt: Egal, was dieses Jahr an Sicherung der Ernährung hätte gemacht werden können, die Kommission scheint das Thema Ernährungssicherheit immer noch nicht ganz oben auf die Agenda setzen zu wollen. Der Rest der Welt wird dies mit Erstaunen festgestellt haben. Positiv hervorzuheben sind die Solidarity Lanes. Die Kommission muss schauen, dass der Ausbau der selbigen vorangetrieben wird. Denn ob die Getreidekorridore, welche seit knapp drei Monaten die Ausfuhr von Getreide aus der Ukraine per Schiff ermöglichen, weiter einfach so funktionieren, steht aus meiner Sicht in den Sternen. Die Weltgemeinschaft sollte sicherstellen, dass dies auch weiterhin möglich ist. Verlassen würde ich mich aber nicht darauf. SĒDI VADA: ROBERTS ZĪLE Priekšsēdētājas vietnieks Udo Bullmann,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Kommissarin, Herren Präsidenten, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Leave No One Behind — das war das Motto des Welternährungstags am 16. Oktober 2022. Niemand soll zurückbleiben. Aber wie sieht die Wirklichkeit aus? Rund 830 Millionen Menschen hungern jeden Tag. Über 340 Millionen sind von einer akuten Hungersnot bedroht. Und rund 50 Millionen Menschen warten unmittelbar auf den Tod, es sei denn, es geschieht etwas Entscheidendes. Hinter diesen Zahlen, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, stehen Menschenleben. Menschen, die nicht sterben müssten, weil diese Erde genug für alle hat. Und solange Menschen diesem Schicksal entgegengehen, solange nur ein Kind an Hunger sterben muss, ist diese Welt im Krieg. Im Krieg – dort, wo Waffen töten, aber auch dort, wo lautlos gestorben wird, weil Menschen das zum Überleben Notwendige vorenthalten wird. Deswegen dürfen wir keine Ruhe geben, Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Und wir müssen handeln. Im Moment bringen wir nur rund 20 % der Mittel für humanitäre Hilfe auf, die es braucht. Die EU hat 100 Millionen zusätzlich zur Verfügung gestellt. Das ist gut. Aber wir müssen weitergehen und die Lücken schließen. Wir müssen die Extra-Gewinne abschöpfen. Es gibt unendlich viele neue Milliardäre im Big Business des Agrarsektors. Und wir müssen die Landwirtschaft nachhaltig machen, sodass sie diejenigen ernähren kann, die uns als Erzeuger ... (Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.) Ulrike Müller,
im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Für die allermeisten Menschen in Europa war in den letzten Jahrzehnten die gesicherte Versorgung mit extrem günstigen und hochwertigsten Lebensmitteln eine Selbstverständlichkeit. Die COVID-Pandemie hat die Lieferketten bedroht. Eine große Kraftanstrengung war nötig, um die Versorgung mit lebensnotwendigen Dingen flächendeckend sicherzustellen. Hier gilt es zunächst, ein großes Lob an alle Beteiligten der Wertschöpfungskette der Ernährung auszusprechen, vor allem an die Bauernfamilien, ohne deren zuverlässige Arbeit die Versorgung nicht möglich wäre. Herausforderungen können nur durch ein beherztes und mutiges Handeln gemeistert werden. Und dies ist auch jetzt mit dem Krieg gegen die Ukraine nötig. Im November treffen sich 50 Agrarminister auf der OECD-Tagung, um die weltweite Nahrungsmittelkrise zu lösen. Ich möchte die Kommission fragen, was die Antwort der EU darauf ist. Zusammenarbeit und Koordination zwischen den G20-Mitgliedern müssen wir verstärken – natürlich. Wir müssen aber auch alle Mittel nutzen, um die Lebensmittelproduktion in der EU zu stärken. Maßnahmen sind vor allem im Bereich der Düngemittel erforderlich. Die Richtlinie über kommunales Wasser muss Phosphor separieren und in der Landwirtschaft wiederverwerten. Wir brauchen mehr organische Dünger und mehr Produktion von Biogas. Auch in der Handelspolitik besteht Korrekturbedarf. Die Ernährungssicherheit muss bei der Flächennutzung beachtet werden. Ich möchte die Kommission fragen, wie sie die Vorschläge für die Wiederherstellung, die Entwaldung und das Bodengesundheitsgesetz miteinander in Einklang bringen will, damit die Ernährungssicherheit innerhalb der Europäischen Union nicht gefährdet wird. Benoît Biteau,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Ministre, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, je voudrais d'abord saluer un point fort des conclusions du G20 agricole: les systèmes alimentaires durables sont la clé de la sécurité alimentaire. J'espère que cette affirmation simple sera plus audible pour les tenants, dans cette assemblée, du statu quo agricole si elle vient précisément du G20. Cela dit, il y a une grande absente de ces conclusions: la spéculation financière sur l'alimentation. Évidemment, la guerre a et a toujours eu un impact majeur sur les cours agricoles. Le changement climatique, de plus en plus sévère, amplifie de façon inquiétante les menaces de crises toujours plus récurrentes. Mais comme à chaque crise alimentaire, certains profitent honteusement du chaos pour accroître leurs profits. Comment pouvons-nous accepter plus longtemps que les spéculateurs s'enrichissent alors qu'en Europe, les queues devant les banques alimentaires s'allongent et que, partout dans le monde, des centaines de millions d'hommes, de femmes et d'enfants subissent les affres de la faim? Heureusement, nous pouvons encore y mettre un terme. Ce Parlement sera bientôt amené à se prononcer sur la révision du cadre réglementaire sur les marchés financiers. Alors, chers collègues, ne ratons pas l'occasion d'exclure de ces pratiques cyniques et indécentes l'accès à la nourriture. Rosanna Conte,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, pochi mesi: è il tempo che è bastato per far precipitare la sicurezza alimentare mondiale. La guerra in Ucraina, la carenza globale, il panico generale. Con un effetto a catena, le grandi potenze hanno iniziato a vietare le esportazioni agricole. Cina, India, Malesia e Stati Uniti hanno deciso di tutelarsi a danno di chi, come l'Unione europea, contava su questi prodotti. Infatti, in pochi mesi, l'Unione europea si è trovata ad affrontare una crisi che coinvolge combustibili, fertilizzanti e alimenti, in particolare grano, mais e oli vegetali. Queste materie prime stanno registrando scorte basse, produzione ridotta e catene di approvvigionamento interrotte. Cosa fare? A livello globale, il vertice G20 a Bali ha chiesto un impegno formale alle principali economie mondiali per concentrarsi sulla sicurezza alimentare e revocare le restrizioni commerciali. A livello europeo, dobbiamo rivedere le politiche di approvvigionamento portate avanti finora, fortemente dipendenti dall'estero, bisogna ricominciare a produrre e potenziare la nostra sovranità alimentare. Da italiana, voglio lodare i progressi in campo tecnologico e digitale del nostro settore agricolo che, unendo innovazione e tradizione, continua a fornirci prodotti sicuri e di qualità. Produzioni locali che dobbiamo valorizzare, non sabotare dall'interno con follie come il Nutri-Score, che ingrassano le multinazionali a danno dei cittadini. Ora è il momento di concretezza, per assicurare il cibo sulle nostre tavole. Basta ideologia. Zbigniew Kuźmiuk,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Panie Ministrze ! Nie ulega wątpliwości, że w związku z pandemią COVID, a także agresją Rosji na Ukrainę, świat znalazł się w stanie globalnego kryzysu bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego. Jeżeli 40% importu pszenicy do Afryki pochodziło z dwóch krajów, to znaczy właśnie z Rosji i Ukrainy, jeżeli 50% zapotrzebowania na zboże Światowego Programu Żywnościowego pochodziło z Ukrainy, to agresja Rosji na Ukrainę spowodowała pełną destabilizację na rynku żywnościowym. Co więcej, Rosja zrobiła wszystko, żeby zdestabilizować rynek żywnościowy, niszcząc zasiewy na Ukrainie i niszcząc infrastrukturę, a na koniec blokując także porty czarnomorskie. Szkoda w takim razie, że na Bali podczas spotkania ministrów rolnictwa grupy G20 nie udało się wskazać Rosji jako głównego sprawcy tego, co się dzieje na rynku żywnościowym. W tej sytuacji należy rzeczywiście podkreślić ogromną rolę Unii Europejskiej w budowaniu korytarzy solidarnościowych, tych drogą lądową, a później udział także w negocjacjach powodujących odblokowanie portów czarnomorskich. Cały wysiłek Unii Europejskiej, Komisji Europejskiej powinien pójść w stronę zwiększenia możliwości produkcyjnych europejskiego rolnictwa. Dobrym krokiem jest zawieszenie odłogowania gruntów czy też zapowiadana przez komisarza Wojciechowskiego strategia nawozowa. Miejmy nadzieję, że wyjdzie ona naprzeciw oczekiwaniom rolników. W świetle tego na przykład projekt rozporządzenia redukującego zużycie pestycydów, jeszcze w tak absurdalny sposób, że o 50% we wszystkich krajach, niezależnie od tego, ile tych pestycydów zużywają, jest po prostu nie do przyjęcia. Sandra Pereira,
em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhor Presidente, as conclusões dos ministros da agricultura do G20 estão muito longe de responder à atual situação de emergência e de escassez alimentar que alguns povos sentem. Pelo contrário, as medidas apontadas procuram apenas satisfazer mais um mercado, o das inovações e da agricultura tecnológica. Mais uma vez, vemos os líderes mundiais a curvarem-se, a regozijarem-se com a perspetiva de abertura ao agronegócio, à agricultura intensiva, agora, com o pretexto do acesso às novas tecnologias. O velho problema da escassez alimentar e da falta de segurança e soberania alimentares é resultado da agenda neoliberal, que prioriza os lucros corporativos, em detrimento das necessidades dos povos e dos pequenos agricultores. É, pois, necessário mudar a lógica de produção em função do lucro para a produção em função da necessidade, alterar o modelo de produção, ou concretizar uma política que assegure aos pequenos e médios produtores a garantia de preços justos e compensadores e garantir o direito à alimentação saudável e adequada, assegurando a soberania e a segurança alimentares dos povos. E sobre isto o G20 nada disse! Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Vizepräsidentin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zugang zu gesunden Lebensmitteln ist nicht ein Luxus, das ist ein Menschenrecht. Und es bleibt unsere Verpflichtung, alles dafür zu tun, damit dieses Recht allen Menschen in der Welt zukommt und niemand Hunger leiden muss oder gar daran sterben muss. Und da waren wir eigentlich auf einem guten Weg. In den letzten Jahren war Hunger in der Welt eigentlich kaum mehr eine Frage der Verfügbarkeit von Lebensmitteln, sondern es war eine Folge von Konflikten und von Krisen, welche eine Verteilung oft unmöglich gemacht haben. Seitdem aber die Versorgung aus der Ukraine – einem der größten Lebensmittelexporteure der Welt – ausgefallen ist, sehen wir, wie schnell wir auch wieder in ein Problem der Verfügbarkeit hineinschlittern können. Weniger Angebot treibt die Preise in die Höhe. Viele Staaten können dann finanziell nicht mehr mithalten. Und deshalb brauchen wir jetzt auch kurzfristige finanzielle Maßnahmen, um diesen Staaten unter die Arme zu greifen. Und ich denke, die in Bali auf der G20-Sitzung vorgeschlagene Finanzfazilität ist dringend notwendig und sinnvoll. Aber wir müssen dann schon auch darüber nachdenken, wie wir mittel- und langfristig Menschen weltweit ernähren wollen. Und das wird nur gehen, wenn Landwirtschaft gleichzeitig nachhaltig und eben auch intensiv und produktiv ist. Jene, die glauben, wir könnten hier in Europa Landwirtschaft so weit extensivieren, bis keine Produktion mehr übrig bleibt, müssen sich einfach bewusst sein, dass sie mit einer solchen Politik den Hunger in der Welt fördern. Deshalb brauchen wir eine Landwirtschaft, die gleichzeitig fortschrittsorientiert, wissensbasiert, nachhaltig, intensiv und produktiv ist. Hannes Heide (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, Herr Minister! Auch von 2019 bis 2021 wurden genug Kalorien produziert, um die Weltbevölkerung zu ernähren. Demnach gibt es sogar einen Überschuss von 24 %. Dennoch steigt die Zahl der Menschen, die akut Hunger leiden, rasant und weiter an. Die aktuellsten Daten der Vereinten Nationen sind alarmierend. Die Ernährungsunsicherheit hat ein Zehnjahreshoch erreicht, angetrieben von steigenden Lebensmittel- und Energiekosten und auch von den Folgen des Krieges. Aber grundsätzlich haben wir genug Lebensmittel auf dieser Welt. Das Problem ist der Zugang dazu, ihre Verteilung. Und Hunger ist die direkte Folge von Armut. Drei Beispiele, wie drastisch sich Klimawandel, Kriege und Inflation in ohnehin gebeutelten AKP-Staaten auswirken: Im Sudan stiegen die Lebensmittelpreise innerhalb eines Jahres um fast 150 %, in Äthiopien um 50 %, auf den Salomonen haben sich Reis- und Milchpreise verdreifacht. Mit der Zusage eines Zuschusses von 100 Millionen Euro für den Treuhandfonds Armutsbekämpfung und Wachstum des IWF hat die Europäische Union letzte Woche rasch gehandelt. Das ist ein erster Schritt. Es braucht jedoch zusätzliche Finanzmittel, Schuldenerlassprogramme und eine effektive Bekämpfung der Korruption. Denn es sind 50 Milliarden Dollar erforderlich, um die akute Ernährungsunsicherheit in den nächsten zwölf Monaten zu beenden. Niemand soll an Hunger leiden, weder in Afrika, weder in Europa noch sonst wo auf dieser Welt. Dacian Cioloș (Renew). – Doamnă vicepreședintă, criza alimentară a început înainte de izbucnirea războiului în Ucraina. Războiul nu face decât să accentueze o criză alimentară care era deja prezentă în mai multe regiuni din lume. De altfel, în ultimii ani, din 2015 încoace, vedem că ne îndepărtăm de obiectivul de a pune capăt foametei și securității alimentare, obiectiv pe care ni l-am fixat. Și asta arată că sistemul alimentar pe care încercăm să îl construim și la nivel global este unul fragil. În politica noastră de parteneriat, faptul de a furniza doar input-uri țărilor partenere nu o să ne ajute să eradicăm foamea pe termen lung. Evident, în situații de criză, cum e cea prezentă, trebuie să intervenim cu ajutoare alimentare acolo unde este urgent nevoie. Însă, pe termen mediu, pe termen lung, trebuie să ne gândim la o politică de investiții în primul rând coerentă, să recunoaștem faptul că, așa cum noi, în Uniunea Europeană avem o diversitate de modele agricole, așa există și în țările partenere și să recunoaștem și să integrăm această diversitate în politica noastră de cooperare și de parteneriat și, în același timp, să ne asigurăm că avem coerență între politicile noastre europene, între politica agricolă, politica de mediu. Trebuie să permitem agricultorilor să producă și să ne gândim și la durabilitate, dar și politica comercială și politica de pe lanțul alimentar trebuie să fie coerente, altfel nu o să ne atingem obiectivul. Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! 828 Millionen Menschen hungern, wissen nicht, was sie morgen zu essen haben. Unsere primäre Aufgabe muss sein, das World Food Programme entsprechend auszustatten, dass wir akute Hilfe leisten. Aber wir müssen uns auch den langfristigen Ursachen zuwenden – warum hungern so viele Menschen? Ein Grund ist die Klimakatastrophe. Man schaue sich nur in Afrika um. Viele Länder haben gar keine Ernten mehr. Deshalb ist der Kampf gegen die Klimakatastrophe unsere vordringliche Aufgabe. Putin, ja, nutzt Hunger als Instrument im Krieg. Aber wir müssen auch ganz klar sehen: Armut ist die Hauptursache für Hunger. Ungerechte Verteilung von Nahrung ist ein Kernproblem. Und deshalb müssen wir uns damit beschäftigen: Wie gehen wir eigentlich mit Nahrungsmitteln in Europa um? Wir geben immer noch Getreide in den Tank. Wir geben immer noch viel Getreide in den Futtertrog – das muss sich ändern. Und wir müssen vor allem auch unsere Systeme nachhaltig machen. Das geht nur mit agrarökologischen Systemen. Wir müssen damit aufhören, dass unsere Landwirtschaft in vielen Bereichen extrem abhängig ist von fossiler Energie. Davon müssen wir wegkommen. Und dann haben wir wirklich nachhaltige Agrarsysteme, auch in Europa. Hermann Tertsch (ECR). – Señor presidente, por supuesto que la guerra es un problema más, pero nuestros problemas con la agricultura y con la alimentación nos los estamos causando fundamentalmente nosotros. Los políticos de la Unión Europea y el Pacto Verde están contribuyendo de forma sustancial a esta crisis alimentaria que se extiende por todo el mundo, una crisis que ya estaba presente antes de la invasión y que ahora ya nadie puede ocultar. Muy pronto, beber un vaso de agua será un lujo en los países de la Unión Europea como consecuencia de aplicar un modelo agrícola irracional donde se presenta al agricultor como el enemigo número uno del medio ambiente, a la productividad como un tabú y a la rentabilidad de las explotaciones como un aspecto marginal o sin importancia. En España estamos viendo que cada día se da una puñalada a nuestro sector primario, a nuestra agricultura, a nuestra pesca. Lo estamos viendo. España era realmente el granero y el productor agrícola del Imperio romano, y ahora vamos a acabar siendo Sri Lanka como sigamos así con la política de la Unión Europea. Recordemos todos Sri Lanka. Anja Hazekamp (The Left). – Voorzitter, wereldwijd wordt er voldoende voedsel geproduceerd om iedereen te voeden. Maar dan moeten we allemaal andere voedselkeuzes maken en het voedsel beter verdelen. Dat bereiken we dus niet door Oekraïense graanschepen naar Nederland te laten komen om onze plofkippen vet te mesten, terwijl overal ter wereld mensen sterven van de honger. Dat bereiken we dus niet door driekwart van onze landbouwgrond te gebruiken voor het voeren van miljarden dieren in de vee-industrie, terwijl we ook direct voedsel voor mensen kunnen verbouwen. Dat bereiken we dus niet door vier grote bedrijven de wereldwijde graanhandel te laten domineren. Dat bereiken we niet door iedere dag honderden kleinschalige boeren failliet te laten gaan, terwijl een handjevol grote voedselbedrijven miljarden winst maken. En dat bereiken we niet zolang veel politici hier braaf zeggen wat de lobbyisten van de industrie hen in de wandelgangen hebben ingefluisterd. Schaamteloos. Beste commissaris, houd uw rug recht. Maak haast met de beloofde kaderwet voor duurzaam voedsel, want alleen zo garanderen we voedselzekerheid. Anne Sander (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, depuis le début de la guerre en Ukraine, nous nous sommes rappelé que manger à sa faim doit être notre priorité. Lors de la crise de 2008 et l'éclatement des premières émeutes de la faim dans les pays arabes, l'arme alimentaire avait déjà montré son pouvoir majeur de déstabilisation politique. Cette menace qui pèse sur le monde n'est donc pas à prendre à la légère. En Europe, nous avons depuis longtemps oublié cette réalité. Or, si les Européens ont aujourd'hui de quoi se nourrir, c'est bien le fruit d'une politique agricole, cependant vivement critiquée. Et dès le début du conflit ukrainien, l'Europe a su, là encore, trouver des solutions concrètes en aidant à libérer des céréales jusque-là bloquées en Ukraine. Ce sont des mesures d'urgence qui ont été prises, mais il nous faut maintenant des solutions pérennes pour assurer la sécurité alimentaire des pays les plus pauvres. Je voudrais donc reprendre à mon compte l'une des ambitions affichées du directeur général de la FAO, qui soutient la nécessité de développer le recours aux nouvelles technologies et notamment génétiques. C'est un levier important pour assurer une meilleure résilience de nos systèmes agroalimentaires et augmenter la production dans les pays qui en ont le plus besoin. J'invite donc la Commission à faire preuve de courage sur ce sujet-là et à être à la hauteur des enjeux qui nous attendent en nous faisant des propositions rapidement. Isabel Carvalhais (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, caros colegas, sabemos hoje que há 75 a 95 milhões de pessoas, novas pessoas, a viver na condição de pobreza extrema; há mais 150 milhões de pessoas em subnutrição crónica; há cerca de 828 milhões de pessoas afetadas por diferentes níveis de fome. Ora, todos os ministros da agricultura do G20 se mostraram cientes destes dados e conhecem bem as múltiplas razões que explicam esta condição tão dramática de insegurança alimentar de milhões de pessoas. Sabem que isto está nas alterações climáticas, mas também está na pandemia, mas também está na ganância, também está na especulação e também está nas guerras. E, por isso, não posso deixar de lamentar, por exemplo, que os mesmos Estados não tenham sido capazes de concordar, de uma forma clara e inequívoca, quanto à condenação da agressão russa à Ucrânia e das suas graves repercussões sobre a produção agrícola, a segurança alimentar e a nutrição de milhões de pessoas. É esta hipocrisia que nós não podemos aceitar e seguramente estamos atentos a ela. Martin Hlaváček (Renew). – Pane předsedající. pane ministře, vy jste se tady zaklínal cenovou dostupností potravin. Tak já se ptám, proč to neděláte? Vy reprezentujete vládu, která snížila podpory zemědělcům, těm, kteří produkují potraviny, a dala je těm, kteří žádné potraviny neprodukují. Vládu, která nepomohla s cenami vstupů, vládu, která má nejvyšší DPH na potraviny v Evropě – to jsou fakta –, a vládu, která způsobila, že v průběhu několika měsíců tohoto roku potravinová inflace dokonce předstihla inflaci energetickou. To je rekord. A co je nejhorší? Necháte ještě padnout malé a střední české producenty potravin. Jste asi poslední vládou v Evropě, která také miluje obchodní řetězce víc než vlastní občany. My je tady naštěstí tolik nemilujeme. Tak já bych chtěl jenom poprosit, abyste buď začali dělat to, co tady v Evropě říkáte, anebo abyste se tady paní komisařce raději příliš nepletl pod ruce, až budeme řešit ceny potravin. Thomas Waitz (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, werte Kommission, werter Rat! Wenn ein einziger Produzent ausfällt im Welternährungssystem, so wie die Ukraine zumindest zum Teil ausgefallen ist, dann gerät das gesamte globale Ernährungssystem in Bedrängnis. Da sieht man, auf welch tönernen Beinen das steht. Der Großteil der Ausfälle global ist dem Klimawandel geschuldet, auch heuer in Europa. Wir haben einen Rückgang in der Getreideproduktion aufgrund von Dürre, die klimawandelbedingt ist. Können wir in dieser Situation, wo viele Gegenden dieser Welt von Hunger bedroht sind, nach wie vor verantworten, dass wir 20 % unserer Getreideproduktion in den Tank leeren? Können wir nach wie vor verantworten, dass wir 60 % des Getreides an Tiere verfüttern? Ich rede nicht darüber, dass wir Tiere halten, auf Grünland, auf Bergmähdern oder in nördlichen Regionen. Dort ist das richtig. Nur das Getreide sollten wir für die Ernährung von Menschen verwenden, vor allem, wenn Hunger droht. Wir müssen uns dessen bewusst sein, dass wir jedes Jahr hunderttausende Hektar an Land verlieren aufgrund einer leider zerstörerischen Monokultur, industriellen Landwirtschaft, aufgrund von Bodenerosion, Verwüstung der Regionen, Bodenversalzung. Und in einer Welt mit steigender Weltbevölkerung derartig unseren Boden zu ruinieren, halte ich für verantwortungslos. Also Agrarökologie und biologische Landwirtschaft! Krzysztof Jurgiel (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Co roku przed każdym szczytem ministrowie rolnictwa państw G20 spotykają się, aby określić główne tematy, które znajdą się w ich oświadczeniu stanowiącym wsparcie informacyjne dla przywódców G20. Pytanie – czy podsumowanie przewodniczącego jako wynik szczytu może stanowić wsparcie informacyjne w dyskusji podczas kolejnego szczytu przywódców, skoro nie udało się wydać wspólnego oświadczenia? Mam wątpliwość, czy propozycje dotyczące promocji rolnictwa, handlu czy rolnictwa cyfrowego są zgodne z polityką rolną Unii Europejskiej oraz Europejskim Zielonym Ładem i czy zapewnią równą konkurencję i bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe. W związku z powyższym wnioskuję do pani komisarz, aby w listopadowym szczycie G20 wziął udział premier Polski Mateusz Morawiecki, aby mógł zaprezentować na forum G20 spojrzenie Polski i innych krajów Trójmorza na bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe na świecie, a także przedstawić dotychczasowe działania w tym zakresie w sprawie pomocy Ukrainie. Po raz kolejny zwracam uwagę, że w Europie obowiązuje niesprawiedliwy system dopłat bezpośrednich, który narusza zasadę niedyskryminacji obywateli ze względu na przynależność państwową oraz narusza zakaz dyskryminacji między producentami wewnątrz Unii. Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left). – Mr President, good news. I come from Ireland. We are number one in the world when it comes to the global food security index. Fantastic news. Brilliant news. Especially when you come from a country where we were scattered all around the planet because of a famine. But I have to question what does food security mean? In Ireland we eat lots of potatoes, but we don't produce enough for ourselves, we import 72 000 tonnes; 47 000 tonnes of onions, 23 000 tonnes of cabbage. We like flour, we eat lots of bread, we don't produce our flour. We like sugar, we don't produce our sugar. We don't produce any of it. We do produce lots of dairy and lots of beef, but we can't actually feed our own animals. Now remember, we're number one when it comes to global food security. Thomas Waitz said something very interesting there. One country. One country, and we virtually have chaos in the world when it comes to food security. So what is food security or is it different? Are we looking for food sovereignty? Because remember, we're number one in Ireland and we can't actually feed ourselves. How the hell is that security? Colm Markey (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, fellow Members, we've all seen the dramatic increase in food prices. Unfortunately for some, increased food prices mean unaffordability and mean hunger. Two hundred million people already face food insecurity, and that's only set to get worse. There are a number of things that are critical to address in food security. The UN-brokered Black Sea grain deal has been a great success. Seven million tonnes of grain have been exported from the Ukraine, and have been vital for the vulnerable. However, this deal is set to end in November. It is vital that we ensure that this deal continues and that the true value of this deal will only be really achieved in the long term. We cannot let Putin link vital humanitarian action with economic sanctions. Equally, fertiliser must pass, it plays a very important part: 60% of food production is dependent on fertiliser. Essentially, if with no fertiliser, with no food. But it's not just about the war. We have other challenges as well in the longer term: climate, sustainability, a growing population. We must act now. In the long term, we must create a sustainable model. We must recognise the critical interplay between food, energy and sustainability. We must invest in new technologies that will help us address the challenges. And we must continue to use fertiliser, pesticides and other aid to production in a sensible, sustainable way. And critically, in the short term, we must continue to get our grain exports out of Ukraine, and we must ensure that we have fertiliser next spring. Communication, words are not enough; we need action now, not next spring, if we are to ensure our food security in the coming weeks, months and years ahead. Maria Noichl (S&D). – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, liebe Kommissarin! Mit Hunger gibt es keinen Frieden, das wissen wir alle. Und gegen Hunger zu kämpfen, ist Friedenspolitik Nummer eins. Aber im Schatten dieser Krise, die wir momentan haben, im Schatten wird auch jetzt Parteipolitik gemacht. Es wird behauptet, Hunger wird gestillt, wenn wir hier in Europa auf 4 % Brachfläche verzichten. Es wird behauptet, Hunger wird gestillt, wenn wir hier die Fruchtfolge nicht einhalten. Ich halte das für scheinheilig. Nachhaltige Lebensmittelsysteme sind viel umfassender grundgelegt. Zum Beispiel müssen wir endlich wegkommen von unserem Sojaimport. Nachhaltige Lebensmittelsysteme können sich nicht auf massiven Import stützen. Das funktioniert nicht. Wir müssen wegkommen davon, dass wir die Hände auf den Flächen anderer haben. Wir leben doch von den Flächen anderer. Warum wird das nicht thematisiert? Wir müssen Länder unterstützen, dass sie sich selbst ernähren können. Natürlich gibt es auch mal Krisen, da muss von auswärts Nahrung zugeführt werden. Aber normalerweise muss es sein, dass sich Länder selbst ernähren. Vor allen Dingen brauchen wir eine Handelspolitik, die auf Augenhöhe ist. Hunger kann nur und zwar ausschließlich vor Ort gestillt werden. Das muss man erst mal begreifen und dann danach handeln. Asger Christensen (Renew). – Hr. formand! Fru kommissær! 70% af den europæiske gødningsindustri er lukket. Det har allerede fået store konsekvenser for landmændene, og fødevarekrisen forværres. Vi har nu fået lukket op for korneksporten fra Ukraine, men det er slet ikke nok. Hvis vi ikke handler nu, så bliver situationen i 2023 meget, meget værre. Den helt almindelige europæer ser i øjeblikket, at fødevarepriserne stiger og stiger. I tredjeverdenslande vil millioner af mennesker gå sultne i seng. Vi ser ind i en tid med udbredt hungersnød. Vi ser ind i en tid, hvor vi risikerer store migrationsstrømme til Europa, hvis vi ikke handler nu. Derfor skal vi prioritere energien til gødningsindustrien. Samtidig skal vi sikre, at vores europæiske kollegaer kan købe gødning til en fornuftig pris, så vi kan afhjælpe fødevarekrisen. At fylde tallerkenen er lige så vigtig som, at der er energi nok til at varme husene op. At gamble med fødevaresikkerhed kan føre til kaos i hele Europa. Jeg vil bare lige minde om, at tre dages brødmangel i Paris skabte den franske revolution. Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, Ms Commissioner, Mr Minister, food security became a topical issue for the EU and for all world leaders. The situation that would have already been hard due to the impact of climate change and COVID-19 pandemic is now even more severe due to the Russian aggression and the disruption of crop markets. The European Union must ensure food security for European citizens and also support countries that do not have sufficient resources. According to the World Food Programme, it is estimated that by 2022, up to 345 million people will be food insecure. War is the reason why we fear that the situation will get worse. I am convinced that green agriculture policies must not go aside. The goals of the Green Deal and Farm to Fork are long term. However, since February this year, ensuring food security is again a crucial issue, and we should temporarily relax some environmental measures. I agree with postponing obligations to rotate crops to leave 4% of the arable land set aside or to reduce the amount of used pesticides. We call for using new genomic techniques in European agriculture. It is the duty for the European Commission. Of course, we all know that peace is the precondition of food security and we all should thank and support our European farmers. Karsten Lucke (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Wir haben heute viele Aspekte über den Hunger in der Welt gehört. Ich glaube aber, wir brauchen tatsächlich einen noch stärkeren Gesinnungswandel und vor allen Dingen ein echtes und wirkliches Tun, in das wir kommen müssen. Über 800 Millionen Menschen hungern weltweit, aber wir haben Rekordproduktion von Essen auf diesem Planeten, schwindelerregende Nahrungsmittelverschwendung, Kriege, Konflikte, die Armut und Instabilität schüren, den Klimawandel, ländliche Bevölkerung, die mit miesen Arbeitsbedingungen und ohne soziale Absicherung lebt, und, und, und. Die Liste rund um den Hunger in der Welt ist leider immer noch lang und umfangreich und beschämend. Also: change of mindset und proaktives Handeln. Nahrungsmittel sind für Menschen da und kein Spekulationsobjekt. Wir brauchen Anerkennung und Unterstützung von lokalen Nahrungsmittelerzeugerinnen und -erzeugern. Und weitere Stichworte: hin zu mehr Agrarökologie, Ausbau von Landrechten, Würdigung der Rolle der Frau in der lokalen Produktion und Ausbau ihrer Rechte, eine Rückbesinnung auf traditionelles Saatgut. Und abschließend: Agrarwirtschaft muss im Globalen Süden auch wieder attraktiv für junge Menschen werden. Das Problem des Hungers ist und bleibt riesig. Wir haben eine Menge an Lösungsmöglichkeiten in unserer Toolbox. Was wir brauchen, ist ein viel konsequenteres Handeln. Атидже Алиева-Вели (Renew). – Г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, срещата на Г-20 поставя акцент върху продоволствената сигурност и глобалните предизвикателства, свързани с нея. Войната в Украйна ясно ни показа, че Европейският съюз се нуждае от цялостен подход за гарантиране на продоволствената сигурност, а в дългосрочен план и осигуряване на продоволствена независимост. За да сме сигурни, че храната ще бъде достъпна и налична е необходимо ускоряване на трансформацията към устойчиви земеделие и производствени системи, които са способни да издържат на сътресения и кризи. Решаващо за европейските фермери в момента е продължаване на антикризисното подпомагане, особено на най-засегнатите – животновъдите и малките стопанства, както и определяне на нови по-високи тавани за държавни помощи. Колеги, в заключение ми позволете да завърша с една българска поговорка „Никой не е по-голям от хляба и никой не бива да бъде лишаван от него.” Marlene Mortler (PPE). – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, liebe Frau Kommissarin, Kollegen! Wir brauchen weltweit nicht weniger, sondern mehr Landwirtschaft. Ja, ich teile diese Einschätzung von Prof. Dr. Dr. Rademacher vom Club of Rome. Denn wenn wir das Megathema globale Ernährungssicherheit den Ideologen und Aktivisten überlassen, kommen wir immer weiter weg vom Menschenrecht Nahrung für alle. Die Welt wächst jeden Monat um 9 Millionen Menschen. Das geht auch nicht mit mehr Verboten und Stilllegungen wie zum Beispiel in Europa. Trauen wir unseren Bauern einfach mehr zu. Es braucht mehr Wissenschaft, mehr Innovation, mehr Investitionen für eine nachhaltige Landwirtschaft, für widerstandsfähige Agrarlebensmittelsysteme. Die Verfügbarkeit von Düngemitteln und Pflanzenschutzmitteln für gesunde Pflanzen, ihr effizienter Einsatz und auch die Reduzierung von Nahrungsmittelverlusten und weniger Verschwendung sind essenziell. Wir müssen vermeiden, dass eine Krise beim Zugang zu Nahrungsmitteln auch zu einer Krise bei der Verfügbarkeit von Nahrungsmitteln wird, so der Generaldirektor der FAO. Steigende Lebensmittelpreise für den Verbraucher und steigende Inputpreise für die Landwirte haben jetzt schon verheerende Auswirkungen auf die weltweite Ernährungssicherheit. Umso mehr ist es unsere Aufgabe, verfügbare und erschwingliche Nahrungsmittel für alle zu gewährleisten und zu fördern. Die EU-Kommission muss sich hier endlich ihrer Verantwortung bewusst werden, und zwar aus vollem Herzen und nicht nur aus halbem. Pierre Karleskind (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, il y a trois milliards d'individus dans le monde dont l'apport en protéines dépend de la pêche, dépend des océans. Et pourtant, quand on lit les conclusions de ce sommet du G20, il n'y a rien. Rien sur la pêche, rien sur l'aquaculture. (Le Président interrompt l'orateur) Et pour cause, nombre des pays autour de la table au G20 pratiquent allègrement et de façon industrielle la pêche illégale. Cette pêche illégale qui pille les ressources, qui met en péril sans arrêt la vie de ces trois milliards d'individus. Et nous alors, dans tout cela? Nous, nous courons derrière nos pêcheurs pour vérifier la taille de chaque poisson, la maille de chaque filet, mais surtout, nous importons 70 % des produits de la mer que nous consommons. Dans le meilleur des cas, nous nous berçons de l'illusion qu'ils ont été pêchés de façon légale par d'autres, sur lesquels nous n'avons aucun contrôle. Mais nous devons nous rendre à l'évidence: à chaque fois que nous consommons un poisson qui vient de l'extérieur, nous piochons dans l'assiette de ces trois milliards d'individus. Il est grand temps, chers amis, qu'ici, dans l'Union européenne, nous posions sur la table la question de la contribution de la pêche et de l'aquaculture à la sécurité alimentaire globale. Daniel Buda (PPE). – Apreciez foarte mult preocupările miniștrilor agriculturii, G20, dar acestea trebuie să fie urmate de implementarea unor politici echilibrate în sectorul agricol. Războiul din Ucraina a perturbat piețele agricole și a accentuat situația deja gravă cauzată de Covid-19, exercitând o presiune suplimentară asupra securității alimentare și cauzând creșterea prețurilor la alimente. Doamnă comisar, apreciez foarte mult observațiile dumneavoastră vizavi de problema fertilizanților și sunt perfect de acord cu ceea ce spuneți. Dar astăzi fermierii sunt supuși unor presiuni crescânde din partea Comisiei Europene, iar Regulamentul privind reducerea utilizării pesticidelor și Directiva privind reducerea emisiilor industriale, vă atrag atenția, îi pot distruge iremediabil pe fermierii noștri și, implicit, vor provoca foamete și migrație. Trebuie să înțelegem că acest război pornit de Rusia nu este doar un război purtat cu arme, ci și unul alimentar și energetic. Populația lumii este într-o continuă dinamică, ajungând la peste 10 miliarde în 2050, ceea ce presupune, potrivit studiilor, creșterea producției agricole cu peste 70 % față de perioada actuală. Uniunea Europeană și statele lumii trebuie să ia măsuri rapide și concrete pentru a asigura securitatea alimentară atât la nivel european, cât și la nivel global. Cu alte cuvinte, trebuie să transformăm provocările în oportunități. Pentru a asigura producția necesară, fermierii au nevoie însă de sprijin (și aici mă refer atât la fermierii din Uniunea Europeană, cât și la fermierii din afara Uniunii Europene). Nu vreau să ajungem în situația în care litrul de lapte și kilogramul de carne să fie privite ca o piesă de muzeu, imposibil de atins pentru consumatorul larg, mai ales în zonele sărace ale lumii. Barry Andrews (Renew). – Mr President, Commissioner, in the last global food security crisis, in 2008, 40 countries experienced civil unrest directly as a result. So when it comes to global food security, we as a Parliament have to ask ourselves one question. Should the European Union do all it can to ensure that people have physical and economic access to safe food? And yet the humanitarian financing gap, the difference between needs and resources, has never been higher. Europe is clearly not doing everything it can. And while the commitments made by the G20 agriculture ministers are very welcome, there is clearly more to do. According to the World Hunger Index, published last week by Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe, levels of world hunger are becoming catastrophic. Forty-four countries are facing serious or alarming levels of hunger. And just this evening, reports say that doctors on the ground expect a famine to be declared in Somalia next month. And how has Europe responded? Well, we have responded by cutting development and humanitarian aid in the ongoing budget negotiations. Catch-the-eye procedure Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, potravinová krize je skutečně reálnou hrozbou a Evropská unie musí učinit všechno proto, aby ji eliminovala, aby ji co nejvíce odvrátila. Je popoháněna nepochybně Putinovou válkou, a představuje ohrožení tisíců mrtvých denně, desítek milionů lidí v extrémní chudobě, na které dopadá kombinace různých krizí geopolitické, klimatické, samozřejmě energetické, co všechno vede ke zdražování potravin. Jsem přesvědčen, že Evropská unie má kapacity na to, aby dokázala – ve spolupráci samozřejmě s našimi partnery – tuto potravinovou krizi odvrátit a také aby zajistila bezpečnost zásobování potravin na evropské úrovni. To je samozřejmě jeden z dalších cílů. Soběstačnost je v řadě států iluze, ale pro EU to musí být jeden z těch základních úkolů. Irène Tolleret (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, j'aimerais que le Parlement européen lance un appel aux États du G20 pour qu'ils prennent l'engagement ferme d'aider les pays les plus pauvres à renforcer leur sécurité alimentaire. Ces pays sont les premières victimes du chantage sur l'approvisionnement en nourriture exercé par Poutine dans sa guerre contre l'Ukraine. À court terme, des mesures doivent être prises rapidement avec des initiatives telles que l'opération „sauvetage des cultures” promue par le gouvernement français. En effet, il faut suffisamment d'engrais pour que les pays plus pauvres puissent produire leur propre nourriture. À long terme, nous devons également les aider à se sevrer de leur dépendance à l'égard du reste du monde. Il est essentiel d'améliorer la durabilité et la résilience de leur production face au changement climatique. Nous devons aussi investir dans la recherche et l'innovation. Je regrette donc que la proposition de la Commission européenne sur les nouvelles techniques d'édition génétiques ne soit pas attendue avant le dernier semestre 2023. Il est urgent de trouver des solutions efficaces pour réduire la consommation d'intrants, ce qui aurait un double avantage économique et environnemental. (End of catch-the-eye procedure) Věra Jourová,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this rich debate. You have pointed to the multiple considerations that are at the heart of the food security crisis we are facing. Its complexity requires coherent and coordinated solutions. We need close collaboration between the EU institutions, Member States and also international partners. Obviously, the European Parliament will also play an important role and we will strive to provide you with regular updates about the crisis and our response. We need to continue working with Member States in a Team Europe approach across the various dimensions of food security and to coordinate our response with global partners in the context of the United Nations, the G7, G20, and other forums. Let me react to some of the comments or questions. First, on fertilisers. I want to repeat again that, for the beginning of November, the Commission is preparing a communication on fertilisers. The EU is supporting the development of organic fertilisers and plants which require less fertilisers. Also, on the need to support farmers, the Member States will have the flexibility to take account of the new situation in their common agricultural policy strategic plans, which, as you know, are connected with the use of European agricultural funding. The last reaction – on your comments on increase of production. We need to look at the current crisis and enable a production increase, but we also need to ensure long-term food security by transforming our food systems towards sustainability. Honourable Members, there is no single solution to address this crisis. However, and we all know that the most effective step would be for Russia to stop immediately its military aggression and stop using food and energy as geopolitical weapons, which undermines food security worldwide. Therefore, in close collaboration with you, we will keep the pressure on Russia and will support effective multilateral solutions to prevent a possible global food crisis. Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, honourable Members, ensuring global food security is a key priority for the EU, and I am pleased to see that Parliament shares our views on these matters. First of all, let me underline that I'm here in my capacity as Presidency of the Council, and I should not comment on the situation of individual Member States. I would expect that the distinction between the role of a representative of the Council and the role of a member of a national government is not only understood, but even respected by Members of this House. Coming back to global food security, which is the topic of this debate, our actions to address food security are part of a wider effort by the international community, which must continue to be coordinated by the United Nations. We will keep working with our international partners to prevent further escalation of the food security crisis and to alleviate the immediate humanitarian needs. We will keep supporting ongoing UN-led efforts to keep the Black Sea maritime route open for Ukrainian grain exports. This is crucial; the world needs Ukrainian cereals. In parallel, we will pursue our action to facilitate transport of Ukrainian grain overland through the solidarity lanes. Beyond this food crisis and the immediate humanitarian needs, decisive action is needed to address the root causes of hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity in the world. We will step up our efforts to help vulnerable countries in making their food systems more resilient and reducing their import dependency. President. – The debate on this item is closed. Written statements (Rule 171) György Hölvényi (PPE),
írásban. – Az unió elsődleges kötelessége saját tagállamait segíteni a kiszámítható mezőgazdasági termelést. Emellett azonban nem feledkezhetünk meg afrikai partnerországainkról sem, ahol az egyre fokozódó éhínség újabb tömeges elvándorlási hullámot indíthat el. Ukrajna és Oroszország együttesen adja a világ élelmiszerigényenek 30%-át. Döntő jelentőségű, hogy miként használják ezt a hatalmi eszközt a háborús felek, mindenekelőtt Oroszország. Látnunk kell, a globális élelmiszerválság, illetve az orosz és ukrán élelmiszerexporttól való függőség aránytalanul érinti Afrikát, hiszen itt a lakosság élelmiszerigényének mintegy 80%-át a kontinensen kívülről importálják, szinte teljes egészében Ukrajnából és Oroszországból. Visszás helyzettel állunk szemben: Afrika kétmillió négyzetkilóméter megművelhető, de nem hasznosított földterülettel rendelkezik, mégis 278 millió embert fenyeget éhínség. A drámai helyzetet tovább súlyosbítja a kontinens szerte romló biztonsági helyzet. Etiópiában, a Száhel régióban és Nigériában is a fegyveres konfliktusok valamint a vallási szélsőségesek fokozódó támadásai akadályozzák a gazdákat, hogy a földeken dolgozzanak. Az afrikai élelmezésbiztonság megteremtésére csak az afrikai válaszok jelenthetnek fenntartható megoldást! Az uniónak meg kell találnia a lehetőségeket arra, hogy az afrikai országokkal és más nemzetközi partnerekkel együttműködve segítse a kontinens mezőgazdasági termelésének megerősítését. Ehhez nélkülözhetetlen a helyi gazdák támogatása, a piaci hozzáférés javítása valamint a klímaváltozás hatásainak ellenállni képes mezőgazdasági technológiák, egyebek mellett korszerű vízgazdálkodási rendszerek alkalmazása. Valdemar Tomaševski (ECR),
raštu. – Dabartinė ekonomikos ir energetikos krizė pasaulyje ir Europoje gilina ir destabilizuoja pasaulinę maisto rinką. Šiuo atveju Europos Sąjunga ir jos valstybės narės turi pradėti geriau koordinuoti veiksmus, padedančius susidoroti su kylančiomis kainomis ir teikti paramą skurdžiausiems gyventojams ir šeimoms. Didėjančios kainos reiškia, kad žmonės negali sau leisti nusipirkti tiek maisto, kiek galėjo prieš kelis mėnesius, o mažas pajamas gaunantys namų ūkiai, taip pat ir Sąjungoje, susiduria su dar daugiau sunkumų ir išlaidų. Pirmiausia reikia pradėti nuo ES žemės ūkio maisto produktų gamybos rėmimo; tai yra remti mūsų ūkininkus, kad jie galėtų pagaminti daugiau maisto Europos rinkai. Svarbu, kad valstybės narės remtų ES ūkininkus, kenčiančius nuo didesnių gamybos sąnaudų. Tačiau tam reikia reformuoti ES žemės ūkio politiką ir padidinti finansinius išteklius žemės ūkiui. Taip pat reikia galų gale sustabdyti ūkininkų iš naujųjų valstybių narių diskriminaciją, o išmokos už hektarą visoje Sąjungoje turi būti sulygintos. Tokiu būdu skatinsime tokių šalių kaip Lietuva ūkininkus didinti pasėlius ir žemės ūkio produkciją. Taip pat reikia nukrypti nuo tam tikrų BŽŪP reikalavimų, pavyzdžiui, nuo žemės atidėjimo. Šiandieninėje situacijoje žemės pūdymas nėra reikalingas. Nepamirškime, kad krizės metu Sąjunga turi padėti labiausiai nepasiturintiems gyventojams. 20.   Stemverklaringen Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības jautājums: Balsojumu skaidrojumi 20.1.   Algemene begroting van de Europese Unie voor het begrotingsjaar 2023 — alle afdelingen (A9-0241/2022 - Nicolae Ștefănuță, Niclas Herbst) Mutiski balsojumu skaidrojumi Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, I co-sign and support the general budget amendment concerning the Commission's financing of a campaign promoting the hijab. I supported this amendment two weeks ago. I supported it today. And I should and I, should it be necessary, will support it again. I find it perplexing that the Union's budget, our taxpayers' money, is used to finance a campaign that trivialises the mandatory veiling, and especially today, at a time when the women of Iran are fighting for freedom and dignity. Let me, however, also express my disappointment at those in this House who so often speak about the right to choose and yet shamefully voted against this amendment. If we truly support women's right to choose, then we should firmly say „no” to mandatory veiling and not fund programmes that trivialise it. It is both a question of defending human dignity and the values on which our society is founded on. Manon Aubry (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, imaginez un instant que chaque Européen reçoive un chèque de 300 euros pour faire face à l'explosion des prix et sortir la tête de l'eau. 300 euros par personne, cela paraît trop beau pour être vrai et pourtant, de l'argent, il y en a, il suffit d'aller le chercher. 300 euros par Européen, c'est la somme que nous aurions pu donner en mettant uniquement à contribution ceux qui s'enrichissent le plus. Mais cet argent, le groupe Renaissance, la droite et l'extrême droite ont, ensemble, décidé de le laisser dans la main des ultrariches en refusant de voter mes amendements au budget 2022 sur la taxation des transactions financières les plus spéculatives et sur une taxation des super-profits des grandes entreprises dans tous les secteurs, ce qui aurait rapporté 130 milliards d'euros par an. En rejetant en bloc nos propositions, la droite et l'extrême droite ont donc, en réalité, volé 300 euros à chaque citoyen européen. Alors aux privilégiés qui s'assoient sur un tas d'or comme aux élus complices qui les protègent, j'ai envie de dire une chose: rendez l'argent. Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem tento návrh rozpočtu podpořil, protože samozřejmě představuje schválení tohoto rozpočtu, určitou výzvu pro Parlament, jak najít uměřený rozpočet. Myslím si, že výsledné znění a schválené znění reaguje dostatečně na krize, kterým čelíme. Je samozřejmě tento rozpočet vyrovnaný. Jistě víte, že Evropská unie nemůže takzvaně žít v tomto smyslu na dluh, něco jiného byla postcovidová obnova, kde byl přijat speciální program. Nicméně plnění našich cílů, ať jde o zaměstnanost, nebo digitalizaci, odstraňování rozdílů mezi regiony, digitalizaci jako takovou, inovace, tak to jsem přesvědčen, že tento rozpočet plní. Proto já jsem jej podpořil. Zajímá mě ovšem, jak se bude nakládat s případnými tzv. novými penězi, které budou vycházet z inflačního růstu. Myslím si, že na to bychom se měli ještě v příštím roce zaměřit. 20.2.   Duurzame brandstoffen voor de zeevaart (initiatief FuelEU Zeevaart) (A9-0233/2022 - Jörgen Warborn) Mutiski balsojumu skaidrojumi Manon Aubry (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, quel sens y a-t-il à voter ce texte sur les carburants maritimes soi-disant durables sans se poser plus largement la question des 10 milliards de tonnes de marchandises qui traversent le monde chaque année sur des porte-conteneurs ultra-polluants? Un iPhone, par exemple, parcourt 20 fois le tour de la Terre avant d'arriver dans nos mains. Une crevette pêchée en mer du Nord effectue 6 700 kilomètres pour arriver dans notre assiette, en passant par le Maroc, les Pays-Bas et l'Allemagne. C'est le résultat direct du tout libre-échange promu par l'Union européenne, qui fait venir de la viande du Brésil, des céréales du Canada et du lait de Nouvelle-Zélande. De la même manière, à quoi bon débattre de la couleur du carburant qu'on met dans les grands bateaux sans s'interroger sur l'impact, notamment, des gigantesques paquebots de croisière qui ravagent les océans et polluent tour à tour Venise, Barcelone et Marseille? Alors plutôt que de tenter de verdir un mode de transport qui restera toujours ultra-polluant, mettons fin au grand déménagement du monde et organisons la relocalisation de notre alimentation et de notre industrie, et même, dirais-je, de nos loisirs. Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem tento návrh zprávy podpořil. Domnívám se, že představuje opět vítaný posun vpřed, protože námořní doprava zůstávala tak trochu mimo naše zorné pole. Spokojili jsme se s tím, že moře je volné a že na toto moře nemáme prakticky žádný vliv. Myslím si, že je proto dobře, že i Komise navrhla návrh nařízení, který ukazuje požadavky, které se v Evropě musí v tomto ohledu i na námořní dopravu vztahovat. Občané na to poukazovali, jak výrazně neekologicky se chovají různí provozovatelé námořních lodí. Počítá se snížením emisí i v námořní dopravě. Ta trajektorie je nastavená, myslím, podle tohoto nařízení správně. Je důležité poznamenat, že samozřejmě v námořní dopravě je technologicky složitější dospět k nulovým emisím, to je nepochybné. Ale my se bavíme o tom, že se tyto emise rozhodně musí snižovat. Proto jsem tento návrh podpořil. 20.3.   De uitrol van infrastructuur voor alternatieve brandstoffen (A9-0234/2022 - Ismail Ertug) Mutiski balsojumu skaidrojumi Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, i tento návrh nařízení jsem podpořil, přestože jsem nehlasoval pro ukončení výroby spalovacích motorů od roku 2035 z řady dobrých důvodů, nicméně tento návrh podle mě jde samozřejmě správným směrem. Pokud chceme podpořit užití alternativních paliv, ať je to vodík, elektřina nebo v určitém úhlu pohledu i SNG pokud je vyráběná z biomasy, tak je důležité, aby tato podpora těmto palivům byla také doprovázena rozvojem, masivním rozvojem a investicemi do infrastruktury, která bude zajišťovat využití a dostupnost těchto paliv. Všechny návrhy, které udělaly, řekněme, tu síť dostupnosti infrastruktury nebo činí tuto síť infrastruktury dostupnou, jsem podpořil, ať je to šedesát kilometrů na dálnici pro elektro nabíječky nebo sto padesát kilometrů pro vodík. Myslím si, že tento návrh jde skutečně správným směrem. Sēdes vadītājs. – Tā kā mēs esam palikuši divi deputāti šajā jautājumā, mēs šo jautājumu beidzam. Tātad — balsojumu skaidrojumi ir beigušies. 21.   Agenda voor de volgende vergadering Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamā sēde ir rītdien, t. i., ceturtdien, 2022. gada 20. oktobrī, plkst. 9.00. Darba kārtība ir publicēta, un tā ir pieejama Eiropas Parlamenta tīmekļa vietnē. 22.   Goedkeuring van de notulen van deze vergadering Sēdes vadītājs. – Šīs sēdes protokols būs iesniegts Parlamentam apstiprināšanai rītdien, pēcpusdienas sākumā. 23.   Sluiting van de vergadering (Sēde tika slēgta plkst. 22.09.)

2.6.2023
NL
Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
C 196/362 20 oktober 2022VOLLEDIG VERSLAG VAN DE VERGADERINGEN VAN 20 OKTOBER 2022 (2023/C 196/04) Inhoud 1.
Opening van de vergadering
364 2.
Standpunt van de Raad in eerste lezing (artikel 63 van het Reglement)
364 3.
Culturele solidariteit met Oekraïne en een gemeenschappelijk noodresponsmechanisme voor cultureel herstel in Europa (debat)
364 4.
Samenstelling commissies en delegaties
379 5.
Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) 2022/1614 van de Commissie van 15 september 2022 tot bepaling van de bestaande diepzeevisserijgebieden en tot vaststelling van een lijst van gebieden waar kwetsbare mariene ecosystemen voorkomen of waarschijnlijk zullen voorkomen (debat)
379 6.
Hervatting van de vergadering
393 7.
Samenstelling commissies en delegaties
393 8.
Stemmingen
393 8.1.
Specifieke bepalingen voor de samenwerkingsprogramma's voor de periode 2014-2020 naar aanleiding van de verstoring van de programma-uitvoering (C9-0289/2022 - Michael Gahler) (stemming)
393 8.2.
De niet-erkenning van Russische reisdocumenten die zijn afgegeven in bezette buitenlandse gebieden (C9-0302/2022 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar) (stemming)
393 8.3.
De rechtsstaat in Malta, vijf jaar na de moord op Daphne Caruana Galizia (B9-0470/2022, B9-0471/2022) (stemming)
394 8.4.
Toenemende haatmisdrijven tegen lhbtiq-personen in heel Europa in het licht van de recente homofobe moord in Slowakije (B9-0476/2022, B9-0477/2022) (stemming)
394 8.5.
VN-conferentie over klimaatverandering 2022 in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypte (COP27) (B9-0461/2022) (stemming)
394 8.6.
Culturele solidariteit met Oekraïne en een gemeenschappelijk noodresponsmechanisme voor cultureel herstel in Europa (B9-0473/2022) (stemming)
394 8.7.
De situatie in Burkina Faso na de staatsgreep (RC-B9-0464/2022, B9-0464/2022, B9-0465/2022, B9-0466/2022, B9-0467/2022, B9-0468/2022, B9-0469/2022) (stemming)
394 9.
Hervatting van de vergadering
394 10.
Goedkeuring van de notulen van de vorige vergadering
394 11.
Europese steun voor de Oekraïense onderzoeksgemeenschap (debat)
394 12.
Stemverklaringen
400 12.1.
De rechtsstaat in Malta, vijf jaar na de moord op Daphne Caruana Galizia (B9-0470/2022, B9-0471/2022)
400 12.2.
Toenemende haatmisdrijven tegen lhbtiq-personen in heel Europa in het licht van de recente homofobe moord in Slowakije (B9-0476/2022, B9-0477/2022)
401 12.3.
VN-conferentie over klimaatverandering 2022 in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypte (COP27) (B9-0461/2022)
401 12.4.
Culturele solidariteit met Oekraïne en een gemeenschappelijk noodresponsmechanisme voor cultureel herstel in Europa (B9-0473/2022)
402 12.5.
De situatie in Burkina Faso na de staatsgreep (RC-B9-0464/2022, B9-0464/2022, B9-0465/2022, B9-0466/2022, B9-0467/2022, B9-0468/2022, B9-0469/2022)
403 13.
Goedkeuring van de notulen van deze vergadering en verzending van de aangenomen teksten
403 14.
Rooster van de volgende vergaderingen
403 15.
Sluiting van de vergadering
403 16.
Onderbreking van de zitting
403 Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen van 20 oktober 2022 VORSITZ: EVELYN REGNER Vizepräsidentin 1.   Opening van de vergadering (Die Sitzung wird um 9.02 Uhr eröffnet.) 2.   Standpunt van de Raad in eerste lezing (artikel 63 van het Reglement) Die Präsidentin. – Mit großer Freude kann ich nun in Gegenwart auch der zuständigen Kommissarin etwas sehr Erfreuliches berichten: Die Präsidentin hat vom Rat dessen Standpunkt in erster Lesung erhalten, einschließlich der Gründe, aus denen er diesen Standpunkt festgelegt hat. Die Standpunkte und Stellungnahmen der Kommission sind ebenfalls eingegangen. Der Titel wird im Protokoll dieser Sitzung bekanntgegeben. Die Drei-Monats-Frist, über die das Parlament verfügt, um sich zu äußern, beginnt somit morgen, am 21. Oktober 2022. Es handelt sich um ein Dossier, über das sehr viele Jahre lang verhandelt wurde und das nun vom Rat angenommen wurde, nämlich die – jetzt sage ich es im saloppen Titel – Women-on-boards-directive über eine ausgewogene Vertretung von Frauen und Männern in den Aufsichtsräten. 3.   Culturele solidariteit met Oekraïne en een gemeenschappelijk noodresponsmechanisme voor cultureel herstel in Europa (debat) Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission über Solidarität mit der Ukraine im Kulturbereich und einen gemeinsamen Soforthilfemechanismus für die Erholung der Kultur in Europa von Sabine Verheyen im Namen des Ausschusses für Kultur und Bildung (O-000030/2022 – B9-0026/2022). Sabine Verheyen,
Verfasserin. – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin! Der Krieg in der Ukraine zeigt, dass das Undenkbare möglich ist und Unvorhersehbarkeit die neue Normalität ist. Neben der militärischen Aggression führt Russland auch Krieg an der kulturellen Front. Dies äußert sich in der Zerstörung und dem Versuch der Herauslösung des ukrainischen Kulturerbes aus seiner Geschichte, Kultur und Tradition. Vor diesem Hintergrund hat der CULT-Ausschuss einen Entschließungsantrag zur Solidarität und Notfallhilfe für Kultur und kulturelles Erbe als Antwort auf den Angriff Russlands und die Zerstörung des kulturellen Erbes in der Ukraine angenommen, um neue Mechanismen der Zusammenarbeit für den Wiederaufbau der Kultur und für künftige Notfälle zu entwickeln. Diese Entschließung benennt ganz deutlich die Fakten, dass der Krieg Russlands gegen die Ukraine ein Versuch ist, die Identität und Kultur einer souveränen Nation auszulöschen, auch durch strategische und gezielte Zerstörungsakte an Kulturstätten. Wir sind der Meinung, dass die EU-Institutionen, die nationalen Regierungen, private Partner und die Zivilgesellschaft systematisch und effektiv zusammenarbeiten müssen, um die Komplexität und das Ausmaß dieser menschengemachten Katastrophe zu bewältigen. Dafür sollen strategische Multi-Stakeholder-Partnerschaften in der gesamten EU mobilisiert werden. Die Kommission soll einen geeigneten rechtlichen und steuerlichen Rahmen für solch grenzüberschreitende Maßnahmen vorschlagen. Besonders gefährdet durch den russischen Einmarsch sind Künstler und Kulturschaffende, Journalisten und Wissenschaftler. Die Freiheit der Kunst, die Qualität der Nachrichten, die Unabhängigkeit der Medien und der Zugang zu Informationen, die akademische Freiheit und die Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung werden durch Russland bedroht, beschnitten und negiert. Wir müssen gemeinsam handeln, um ukrainische Kulturakteure, Universitäten und die Zivilgesellschaft beim Schutz ihrer kulturellen Werte und ihrer Infrastruktur zu unterstützen und mit der Ukraine einen Fahrplan für den Wiederaufbau zu entwickeln. Schließlich fordern wir die Kommission und die Mitgliedstaaten auf, die Kultur in alle wichtigen politischen Prioritäten der EU mit einzubeziehen, zum Beispiel in die Klimaschutzpolitik, die digitale Transformation, den wirtschaftlichen Wiederaufbau und die internationalen Beziehungen. Deshalb unsere Fragen an die Kommission: Welche Maßnahmen wird die Kommission ergreifen, um Russlands Propaganda- und Desinformationskampagnen entgegenzuwirken? Zum Zweiten: Plant die Kommission über die bereits angekündigten politischen Maßnahmen hinaus die Mobilisierung weiterer Ressourcen und die Ergreifung zusätzlicher Maßnahmen zur Unterstützung der Kultur- und Kreativbranche und der Kulturschaffenden in der Ukraine? Plant sie, den Wiederaufbau des kulturellen und architektonischen Erbes der Ukraine adäquat zu unterstützen? Drittens: Wird die Kommission die Kultur in alle Politikbereiche einbeziehen, um einen widerstandsfähigen europäischen Kulturraum zu schaffen? Wird sie die Möglichkeit prüfen, einen EU-Notfall- und -Wiederaufbaumechanismus einzurichten, der speziell aber auch auf Kultur, kulturelles Erbe und kreative Ökosysteme ausgerichtet ist und auf einem Multi-Stakeholder-Ansatz basiert? Denn wir müssen die Ukraine beim Erhalt und der Wiederherstellung ihrer kulturellen Integrität unterstützen und ihr helfen. Auch das ist Aufgabe einer werteorientierten Europäischen Union. Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for the good news which you relayed this morning, honourable Members, we all know that the Russian aggression against Ukraine not only takes place on the ground, but also in the media and cultural fields. It is our duty to help our Ukrainian friends win the disinformation war and support the cultural and creative sectors, which had been damaged due to the widespread destruction of infrastructure in villages and cities, which includes extensive damage to tangible and intangible heritage. Culture is essential for the resilience and for the recovery of the country. In response to the question related to the implementation of further measures to counter Russia's propaganda and disinformation campaign, the Commission acted on several fronts. First, limiting broadcasting and dissemination: we adopted sanctions against the Russian state media, suspending the broadcast of their content to the EU. To ensure this, and in line with the code of practice on disinformation, we have been in regular contact with the major online platforms: Google, Meta, Microsoft, TikTok and Twitter. Second also comes fact-checking: we have built on the experience of the EU, which has been acting against Russian disinformation since 2015. The European Digital Media Observatory coordinates actions by EU fact checkers and researchers. The Commission supports the Government of Ukraine to improve its own capacities in countering disinformation, in close cooperation with civil society and using the expertise of European counterparts. Thirdly, education: on 11 October of this year, the Commission published guidelines for teachers and educators with practical guidance for promoting digital literacy and tackling disinformation through education and training. These guidelines reflect the fundamental role education has in media literacy. This is in addition to the External Action Service's East StratCom Task Force, which has been acting against Russian disinformation and information-manipulating campaigns since 2015. This involves strategic communication, raising awareness, monitoring and the analysis of foreign information manipulation. In response to the question about the possibility to mobilise further resources to assist cultural and creative sectors and professionals in Ukraine, the Commission implemented since the onset of the Russian aggression against Ukraine important initiatives which can be further enhanced, and I shall highlight some. Since the very outset of the Russian invasion, the Commission showed flexibility to cope with the immediate needs of Ukrainian cultural and creative sectors. Under Creative Europe, we extended deadlines for ongoing calls, thereby allowing projects in the making to include Ukrainian organisations and artists in their proposals. And we are proud to see that the sector has responded quickly and favourably. Then we designed special provisions to allow for swift available funding through mobility grants for artists via the new „Culture Moves Europe” scheme. Ukrainian artists are eligible under the scheme, which has a total budget of EUR 21 million and will offer good and concrete opportunity for artists over the next three years. We will also support grass-roots organisations for small-scale projects through the House of Europe programme, which fosters professional and creative exchange and comes with a budget of almost EUR 12 million. In order to allow artists and organisations to engage in and continue their operations even if they are displaced, we launched a special Creative Europe call for Ukraine with a financial envelope of EUR 5 million. The special call open until 29 November includes EUR 2 million to support Ukrainians' access to culture and use of the arts to facilitate the integration of displaced people and EUR 1 million to assess assist Ukrainian institutions with expertise and training, with a view to prepare the recovery of the cultural and creative sectors. We also plan to facilitate long-term cooperation between EU, European and Ukrainian organisations to reinforce their mutual link. Our Creative Europe upcoming cooperation call has an overall budget of EUR 60 million. In order to secure the protection of cultural heritage in the country, we will also provide expertise to build the capacity of Ukrainian cultural heritage professionals to deal with the protection of cultural heritage with a smaller, dedicated action under Creative Europe that will complement the support provided by Member States or relevant organisations. When it comes to emergency action, we are supporting the protection of Ukrainian cultural heritage through other EU funding sources, such as the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, in cooperation with the Member States, which has been activated for cultural heritage for the first time in Europe, as well as through the rapid response pillar of the Neighbourhood Development and International Cooperation Instrument, which provided EUR 2 million to the Aliph Foundation. Other ongoing EU-funded projects provide financial support to recruit Ukrainian artists and cultural professionals such as the EU for Culture, which is a regional programme for Eastern Partnership countries. On mainstreaming culture across all policy fields with a view to building a resilient European cultural space, I confirm that this is part of the European Union's priorities in the field of culture. I highlight the Commission's satisfaction with the Recovery and Resilience Facility, which is going to bring a great amount of resources and to the cultural and creative sectors. In their national plans, Member States have been showing determination to earmark significant funding to improve their creative and cultural sectors. The impact of the facility can be counted in more than EUR 10 billion-worth of measures directly supporting culture and representing approximately 2% of the 26 national recovery and resilience plans in all so far. The EU has already proven its capacity to face and react to global changes when standing united. The Commission can, for instance, apply flexibility clauses under existing programmes and financial instruments to provide emergency response. This was done directly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and again at the onset of Russia's unjustified invasion of Ukraine. No new mechanisms are needed. I trust that we can achieve a lot by maximising the impact of existing instruments. The Union's Civil Protection Mechanism was used for the first time by Ukraine to request protection of cultural heritage. Italy, Germany and Norway provided kits, equipment and sandbags to protect cultural assets. Tomasz Frankowski,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Niszczenie dziedzictwa kulturowego jest jednym z okrutniejszych instrumentów politycznych Kremla w trakcie jego zbrojnej agresji na Ukrainę, i to nie tylko od początku wojny 24 lutego. Rosja realizowała ten cel już podczas okupacji i aneksji Krymu w 2014 roku oraz częściowej okupacji Donbasu. To, co się teraz dzieje, to tylko kontynuacja tej polityki na większą skalę. Wiele ukraińskich obiektów kultury znajduje się na terenach obecnie zajmowanych przez Federację Rosyjską. W swojej rezolucji Parlament Europejski potępia umyślne niszczenie przez Rosję dziedzictwa kulturowego Ukrainy oraz grabież i przemyt dóbr kultury i określa je jako zbrodnie wojenne na mocy Konwencji Haskiej z 1954 roku. To bardzo ważny polityczny sygnał dla środowisk kultury Ukrainy. Rosja stara się zniszczyć nie tylko ukraińskie dziedzictwo kulturowe, ale także narodową wyjątkowość, tradycję i ostatecznie ukraińskie prawo do istnienia. Aby przeciwdziałać temu barbarzyńskiemu zniszczeniu, Parlament Europejski wzywa Komisję i państwa członkowskie do włączenia kultury i dziedzictwa kulturowego do pomocy humanitarnej Unii Europejskiej dla Ukrainy oraz do zapewnienia ukierunkowanego wsparcia ukraińskim podmiotom kulturalnym, lokalnej działalności kulturalnej, uniwersytetom i społeczeństwu obywatelskiemu w kształtowaniu i rozwoju odbudowy Ukrainy. W tym celu należy ustanowić specjalny europejski mechanizm szybkiego reagowania i odbudowy, szczególnie skoncentrowany na kulturze oraz sektorze kreatywnym, który będzie wspierał artystów. Jedno jest pewne – jeśli chcemy wspierać Ukrainę, musimy także chronić, zachować i wspierać kulturę ukraińską dla przyszłych pokoleń. Petra Kammerevert,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der russische Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine verschärft die Not des finanziell bereits sehr fragilen Kultursektors. Die Folgen der COVID-Krise sind längst nicht überwunden. Steigende Energiekosten und Inflation sorgen für neue Probleme. Kultur ist aber mehr als der intellektuelle Genuss von Opern, Museen, Theatern und Musiksälen. Kultur bedeutet streiten, diskutieren, alarmieren. Kultur schafft öffentlichen Diskurs. Aufgabe der Kulturpolitik ist es daher, Kultur in ihrer ganzen Vielfalt zu ermöglichen und sichtbar zu machen. Das Ausleben von Kultur im öffentlichen Raum ist die Gewährleistung des Menschenrechts auf Kultur und ermöglicht zugleich die kritische Auseinandersetzung mit politischen Entscheidungen und gesellschaftlichen Zuständen. Wird Kultur aus dem öffentlichen Raum verdrängt, wird dem Gemeinwesen insgesamt ein wichtiger Teil des öffentlichen Diskurses entzogen. Diese kritisch-konstruktive Aufgabe werden aber nur Kulturbetriebe gut erfüllen können, die sich gewiss sind, sicher durch die Krisen zu kommen. Politik muss die finanzielle wie strukturelle Sicherheit geben, dass Kunst und Kultur etwas wagen, uns manchmal auch etwas zumuten können. Denn es ist nicht nur die ästhetisch anmutende, sondern eben gerade die engagierte und wertende, manchmal auch polarisierende Kultur, die uns als Gesellschaft weiterbringt. Deshalb brauchen wir schnelle, effektive nationale wie europäische Mechanismen, um diese Sicherheit zu gewährleisten. Wir haben hierzu einige Vorschläge gemacht. Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, mit gezielten Akten der Gewalt wie direkten Angriffen auf Stätten des kulturellen Erbes verfolgt die russische Armee das Ziel einer ukrainischen Identitätsdestruktion. Kulturschaffende und Journalisten in der Ukraine leben in ständiger Angst. Ich möchte hier an den vor einigen Tagen mutmaßlich von russischen Besatzern ermordeten Dirigenten der Philharmonie von Cherson, Jurij Kerpatenko, erinnern. Er starb vermutlich, weil er sich mit der russischen Propaganda nicht gemeinmachen wollte. Unter den herrschenden Bedingungen kann Kultur nicht den Wert entfalten, der von so besonderer Bedeutung ist. Es muss gewährleistet sein, dass eine freischaffende ukrainische Kultur einen festen Platz in der ukrainischen Gesellschaft hat und nicht Putins Aggression zum Opfer fällt. Auch hierzu haben wir einige Vorschläge gemacht, wie wir helfen können. Ja, Kunst und Kultur sind in der Geschichte schon oft politisch instrumentalisiert worden. Und ja, es gibt Künstlerinnen und Künstler, die den Angriffskrieg Putins verteidigen oder gar gutheißen. Aber wir sollten auch nicht vergessen: Kunst und Kultur sind oft genug auch Ausdruck von Widerstand gegen Unterdrückung. Es häufen sich offenbar auch in der EU Fälle, in denen Werke russischer Künstler aus den Bibliotheken entfernt werden, das Engagement von Dirigenten, Sängern, Balletttänzern beendet wird oder russische Schriftsteller ausgeladen werden. Wir täten gut daran, keine Bekenntniskultur einzuführen. Solange sich Einzelne nicht aktiv für die menschenrechtsverachtende Politik Putins positionieren oder offen unsere freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung ablehnen, darf ihnen weder aus ihrem Pass noch aus mangelnder politischer Haltung ein Nachteil erwachsen. Zur Freiheit gehört eben auch, sich politisch nicht zu positionieren. So wie wir die unbedingte Solidarität mit der Ukraine zeigen, müssen wir uns zugleich gegen eine Ausgrenzung von russischen Kunst- und Kulturschaffenden wehren, die diesen Angriffskrieg nicht befürworten. Mehr noch: Dostojewskij und Tschaikowski aus dem Repertoire zu verbannen ist nicht Ausdruck politischer Korrektheit, es ist schlicht Unsinn. Und wir sollten nicht vergessen: Kultur kann Brücken bauen – vielleicht nicht jetzt, aber hoffentlich in nicht allzu ferner Zukunft. Laurence Farreng,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, Madame la Rapporteure, chers collègues, la semaine dernière, nous avons appris que Iouri Kerpatenko, chef d'orchestre ukrainien, tombait sous les tirs de mitraillettes russes, assassiné dans sa maison de Kherson. Son crime: avoir refusé de participer à un concert de propagande pour célébrer l'annexion illégale de sa région. Le pouvoir russe n'a pas de limite dans l'horreur. Cette guerre est une guerre contre nos valeurs dans laquelle les artistes sont des cibles toutes désignées. Quand on veut assujettir un peuple, on efface son histoire, son patrimoine, sa mémoire, sa culture, sa liberté d'expression. L'histoire nous le rappelle cruellement. Depuis le début du conflit, près de 200 sites culturels ont été détruits ou endommagés. On peut citer le centre historique de Kyiv, le centre commémoratif de l'Holocauste de Babi Yar, et rappelons-nous du théâtre de Marioupol, bombardé alors qu'il servait de refuge à des milliers d'Ukrainiens. Aujourd'hui, il faut empêcher les destructions, les pillages. Il faut lutter contre la désinformation. Il faut donner les moyens aux artistes ukrainiens de s'exprimer, ce qui est une façon de résister. Nous les soutenons déjà et nous devons faire plus. C'est l'appel que nous lançons, aujourd'hui, au Parlement européen. Il y a urgence. En 2020, nous votions une résolution appelant à sauver les secteurs culturels et créatifs de l'Union en période de pandémie; nous allons nous répéter. Il faut continuer à aider les artistes ukrainiens, oui, mais en augmentant significativement les moyens. Plutôt que de baisser de 90 millions d'euros le budget d'Europe créative, comme c'est prévu pour 2023, augmentons-le, sanctuarisons-le! Cette coupe budgétaire est inacceptable dans les temps que nous vivons. Et oui, Madame la Commissaire, nous avons besoin de nouveaux instruments. Ce que nous demandons, c'est un mécanisme d'urgence spécifique dédié aux industries culturelles qui sont les premières à souffrir dans tous les temps de crise que nous vivons. Investissons dans la culture, nos démocraties ne s'en porteront que mieux. Viola von Cramon-Taubadel,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! In einer Umfrage hatten 64 % der befragten Ukrainerinnen und Ukrainer Taras Schewtschenko, den Nationaldichter und Begründer der modernen ukrainischen Literatur, als die herausragendste Persönlichkeit aller Zeiten genannt. Das zeigt ziemlich eindrücklich, welchen Stellenwert die kulturelle Identität und das kulturelle Erbe für das Selbstverständnis der Ukrainerinnen und Ukrainer gerade und trotz des Kriegs haben. Doch das gesamte kulturelle Ökosystem ist massiv bedroht. Kulturstätten und kulturelle Einrichtungen werden gezielt zerstört und Kulturgüter illegal ins Ausland verbracht. Unter den Kriegstoten sind viele Künstlerinnen und Künstler. Unzählige mussten vor dem Krieg fliehen, versuchen, im Ausland zu arbeiten, oder sammeln Spenden, organisieren Hilfstransporte und sind unermüdliche Botschafterinnen und Botschafter ihres Landes. Sehr viele aber harren vor Ort aus und versuchen weiterhin, ihre wichtige gesellschaftliche und soziale Rolle wahrzunehmen und so irgendwie einen Hauch von Normalität wiederherzustellen. Der Kultursektor braucht dringend unsere kurzfristige Krisenhilfe. Kulturgüter müssen geschützt werden, Kriegsverbrechen gegen sie dokumentiert werden, und für die unabhängige Kulturszene geht es um die Existenzsicherung. Wir sollten Kunstprojekte unterstützen, die sich insbesondere dem sozialen Wiederaufbau in den Kommunen, auch durch die Bewältigung von Traumata, widmen werden. Der Kultursektor sollte für den Wiederaufbau unbedingt mitgedacht werden, insbesondere da, wo er einen wichtigen Beitrag für eine nachhaltige und transformative und inklusive Zukunft der Ukraine leisten kann. In diesem Sinne haben ukrainische Künstlerinnen und Künstler mir gegenüber die Hoffnung geäußert, dass auch sie ihren Beitrag zu diesem rebuild better leisten dürfen, und wünschen sich, dass mit Unterstützung der EU ein Reformprozess des ukrainischen Kultursektors neuen Impetus bekommt. Christine Anderson,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Ja, meine Damen und Herren, in diesem Bericht sieht man mal wieder die heuchlerischen Ansätze der EU. Wenn man sich das einfach mal durchliest, dann ist laut diesem Bericht das Ziel der russischen Invasion der Ukraine die Zerstörung, Auslöschung der ukrainischen Kultur und der europäischen Kultur und der gemeinsamen Identität. Da muss man schon mal fragen: Bitte, was ist denn unsere gemeinsame Identität? Ich denke, es geht hier um das ukrainische Volk, und das ukrainische Volk hat selbstverständlich eine eigenständige, eine ukrainische Identität. Also Putin ging es jetzt in der Tat nicht darum, und um ehrlich zu sein, auch dafür bräuchten wir Putin nicht, um europäische Kultur zu zerstören und gemeinsame Identitäten auszulöschen. Denn das schafft die EU doch durch stetige und sukzessive Kompetenzanmaßung sehr viel besser. Im Prinzip haben wir es nicht nur mit einem Gender-Mainstreaming zu tun, sondern auch mit einem kulturellen Mainstreaming. Und da haben wir es eben mit der Gleichmacherei aller Kulturen zu tun – aber mit nationaler oder kultureller Identität hat das nicht das Geringste zu tun. Die ukrainische kulturelle Identität soll in Zukunft, wenn es nach der EU geht, eben auch in der gemeinsamen Identität aufgehen. Und diese gemeinsame Identität – liebes ukrainisches Volk, hört genau zu! – ist doch in allererster Linie der Klimawahn, LGBTQI – ich kann es noch nicht mal richtig aussprechen –, Vielfalt, Toleranz und Akzeptanz – wobei sich die Toleranz und Akzeptanz aber nicht etwa auf eure, auf die ukrainischen Werte, bezieht, sondern auf die aller anderen in der Welt. Weiterhin ist davon die Rede, man wolle Kunstwerke schützen. Ja, gleichzeitig schaffen wir es ja in unserer sogenannten viel gepriesenen europäischen Kultur nicht mal, unsere eigenen Heranwachsenden zu so viel Anstand und Respekt zu erziehen, dass sie nicht in Museen stürmen und dort Kunstwerke mit allerlei Farben beschmieren, um sich hernach daran noch festzukleben. Sie seilen sich auch von Autobahnen ab, beseelt von dem Wahn, die Welt retten zu müssen, gefährden dabei Menschenleben, und zwar im Hier und Jetzt, und das wegen irgendeiner eingebildeten Super-GAU-Krise möglicherweise in Jahrzehnten – auch hier völliger Wahnsinn. Und dann natürlich, das darf nicht fehlen: Die russische Desinformation muss natürlich auch bekämpft werden. Und dann muss man schon mal sagen: Was macht die EU dann als Allererstes? Ja, sie macht genau das, was Putin gemacht hat, als er Desinformation verhindern wollte, er hat nämlich Sender gesperrt. Das ist jetzt unser Verständnis in der EU, um Desinformation zu bekämpfen. Und andererseits ist es natürlich so, meine Damen und Herren: Wir haben doch genug vor der eigenen Haustüre zu kehren. Ich meine, die EU-Kommission ist doch das Hauptquartier der Produzenten der Desinformation. Ich erinnere da nur an diese unsägliche, ja, Injektionskampagne, die da gefahren wurde. Wie gesagt, liebe Ukrainer, wenn euch an eurer kulturellen Identität wirklich etwas gelegen ist, lauft so schnell und so weit, wie ihr ... (Die Präsidentin entzieht der Rednerin das Wort.) Elżbieta Kruk,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Agresja Rosji na Ukrainę przyniosła śmierć i destrukcję. Wiemy, że niszczone jest także ukraińskie dziedzictwo narodowe i dobra kultury. Informacja o zrujnowanych obiektach posiadających wartość historyczną, kulturalną oraz sakralnych podawana jest do publicznej wiadomości przez Ministerstwo Kultury i Polityki Informacyjnej Ukrainy. Od lutego zniszczonych zostało dziesiątki zabytków, muzeów, teatrów, domów kultury, bibliotek, pomników. Co najmniej 270 obiektów sakralnych zostało całkowicie zrujnowanych lub ucierpiało w różnym stopniu. To kościoły, meczety, synagogi, budynki wspólnot wyznaniowych Ukrainy. Wiadomo też, że Rosjanie plądrują muzea oraz obiekty sakralne. Według strony ukraińskiej rosyjscy złodzieje w mundurach okradli jak dotąd prawie czterdzieści muzeów. Łupem padło tysiące różnych historycznych przedmiotów, w tym unikatowe obiekty sztuki jubilerskiej, broń, monety, zbiory zabytkowych ikon, cenne druki oraz obrazy. Jak trudno będzie odzyskać od Rosji te artefakty, pokazuje doświadczenie Polski zdobyte po II wojnie światowej. Warto zauważyć, że władze ukraińskie, nauczone własnym doświadczeniem, obecnie dbają o to, by cenne obiekty muzealne nie znalazły się w strefie walk. Prezydent Ukrainy Wołodymyr Zełenski oficjalnie wystąpił o wpisanie historycznego centrum Odessy na Listę Światowego Dziedzictwa UNESCO. Wspólnie z ukraińskimi pracownikami kultury musimy działać w celu ochrony ukraińskiego dziedzictwa kulturowego, by wspierać kulturę i dziedzinę kreatywną. Popieram więc przede wszystkim zapisy rezolucji nawołujące do poświęcenia uwagi ochronie tego dziedzictwa, wsparcia w dokumentowaniu wszystkich ataków, zwłaszcza przeciwko dziedzictwu chronionemu konwencjami międzynarodowymi. Istotne jest zastrzeżenie, że jakiekolwiek wsparcie finansowe udzielone Ukrainie w dziedzinie kultury nie powinno zagrażać środkom finansowym programu „Kreatywna Europa”. Wierzę, że troska o ukraińskie dziedzictwo narodowe odnowi świadomość, że Europa będzie rodziną narodów, jeśli połączy ideał jedności z uwzględnieniem bogactwa i różnorodności kultur i tradycji poszczególnych narodów. Europejska jedność będzie trwała tylko wtedy, gdy ją zbudujemy na duchowych wartościach, które Europę kiedyś kształtowały, a nie poprzez wypełnianie pojęcia „europejskie wartości” dziwnymi treściami niemającymi nic wspólnego z prawdziwymi tradycjami Europy. Νιαζί Κιζιλγιουρέκ,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, μια άλλη τραγική διάσταση του πολέμου στην Ουκρανία αποτελεί η καταστροφή των πολιτιστικών μνημείων. Την ίδια ώρα, οι καλλιτέχνες και οι άνθρωποι του πολιτισμού βιώνουν τον θάνατο, την προσφυγιά και την κατοχή. Εκφράζουμε, λοιπόν, την αλληλεγγύη μας στον κάθε καλλιτέχνη, κάθε συγγραφέα, κάθε εργάτη του πολιτισμού που αντιμετωπίζει τις συνέπειες του πολέμου. Στη Σύμβαση της Γενεύης του 1977, το άρθρο 53 απαγορεύει κάθε εχθρική ενέργεια που στρέφεται κατά των ιστορικών μνημείων, έργων τέχνης και χώρων λατρείας που αποτελούν πολιτιστική και πνευματική κληρονομιά των λαών. Στηρίζουμε την προστασία της πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς. Κάθε καταστροφή τέτοιου χώρου, από το Μέγα Τέμενος στο Χαλέπι και τον ναό του Μπελ στην Παλμύρα μέχρι τους χώρους πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς στην Ουκρανία, είναι πολύ μεγάλη απώλεια. Είναι απώλεια της ίδιας της ανθρωπότητας. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να δράσει αμέσως. Χρειάζεται να δώσει ουσιαστική βοήθεια στους ανθρώπους του πολιτισμού και να μην περιμένει από την καλή διάθεση διαφόρων φιλανθρωπικών οργανώσεων. Δεν αρκούν τα λόγια· θέλουμε πράξεις. Η δημιουργία ενός ευρωπαϊκού μηχανισμού αντιμετώπισης καταστάσεων έκτακτης ανάγκης και ανάκαμψης, αφιερωμένου ειδικά στην πολιτιστική κληρονομιά, κινείται στη σωστή κατεύθυνση. Καλούμε την Ευρώπη και την Επιτροπή να αναλάβουν την ετοιμασία και την προώθηση αυτού του πλαισίου. Τα ανωτέρω, βεβαίως, δεν θα έχουν και πολύ νόημα ενόσω ο πόλεμος συνεχίζεται· πρέπει ο πόλεμος να σταματήσει άμεσα. Απαιτούμε από τον πρόεδρο Πούτιν να τερματίσει αυτόν τον επιθετικό πόλεμο τώρα. Καλούμε, επίσης, τη διεθνή κοινότητα να αναλάβει τις απαιτούμενες διπλωματικές πρωτοβουλίες για να δοθεί τέλος σε αυτό το ανθρώπινο δράμα. Dace Melbārde (PPE). – Priekšsēdētājas kundze! Kolēģi! Karš Ukrainā ir arī kultūras karš. Savā 2021. gada 12. jūlija esejā par krievu un ukraiņu vēsturisko vienotību Putins apgalvo, ka krievi un ukraiņi ir viena tauta, viens veselums, vienas un tās pašas vēsturiskās un garīgās telpas daļa. Pseido vēsturnieks Putins raksta sev izdevīgu ukraiņu vēstures, kultūras un valodas stāstu, kas kalpo par ideoloģisku pamatojumu neatkarīgās Ukrainas valsts okupācijai un aneksijai. Esejā Putins arī apgalvo, ka ciena ukraiņu valodu un tradīcijas un ukraiņu vēlmi redzēt savu valsti brīvu, drošu un pārtikušu. Bet realitātē mēs redzam sabombardētas ukraiņu pilsētas, iznīcinātu un izlaupītu kultūras mantojumu un kultūrvietas. Vēl tikko mēs saņēmām ziņu, ka Krievijas varas iestādes okupētajā Mariupolē ir nogāzušas Golodomora teroram uzstādīto pieminekli, apgalvojot, ka tas bijis politiskās dezinformācijas simbols. Tādēļ, domājot par solidaritātes pasākumiem Ukrainas kultūras atbalstam, aicinu pret Kremļa manipulācijām un barbarismu atbildēt ar ieguldījumiem pētniecībā un zināšanu izplatīšanā gan par Ukrainas vēsturi, gan par tās unikālo un bagāto kultūru un valodu. Tāpat mums ir jāpiedāvā daudzveidīgs un pastāvīgs atbalsts ukraiņu māksliniekiem un kultūras darbiniekiem un jāatbalsta Ukrainas kultūras mantojuma aizsardzība un atjaunošana, izmantojot esošās Eiropas Savienības programmas un radot jaunas iniciatīvas. Piemēram, Eiropas jaunais Bauhaus varētu būt lieliska platforma Ukrainas kultūrtelpas atjaunošanai. Manā valstī Latvijā Valsts Kultūrkapitāla fonds ir izveidojis radošo stipendiju programmu ukraiņu radošajām personām, kas atradušas patvērumu Latvijā, un es ticu, ka katra Eiropas Savienības dalībvalsts var plānot īpašas mērķprogrammas izbraukušo Ukrainas kultūras cilvēku radošā darba un kopdarba atbalstam. Massimiliano Smeriglio (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'arte, la bellezza, la cultura sono l'antidoto alla violenza e all'orrore e la forma più alta di espressione umana. Oggi che le bombe e i carri armati sono tornati nel cuore dell'Europa per responsabilità di Putin, costringendo decine di migliaia di innocenti ad abbandonare le proprie case e la propria vita per affrontare la paura e l'ignoto, dobbiamo essere fermi nel rifiutare la logica della guerra e della sopraffazione e pronti a offrire la nostra solidarietà al mondo culturale ucraino e tentare di mantenere il filo del dialogo. La guerra ha colpito duramente gli artisti, gli operatori culturali e il mondo accademico, diffondendo un clima di paura, a scapito della libertà artistica, della libertà di insegnamento e di espressione. L'arte e la cultura avranno poi il difficile ruolo di guarire queste ferite, ricostruire paesi e legami, e per questo dobbiamo un grande riconoscimento a quegli artisti e creatori che non si sono fermati dinanzi alla barbarie, ma hanno reagito continuando a praticare la loro arte, l'arte come forma di resistenza e pensiero critico, così come il giornalismo libero e indipendente. Dobbiamo prestare attenzione al patrimonio culturale ucraino. Le opere culturali e storiche rappresentano una ricchezza da tutelare con tutti gli strumenti giuridici a disposizione per proteggere e prevenire il traffico illegale di opere d'arte. Questa crisi ha dimostrato la necessità di mettere in campo – mi rivolgo in particolare alla Commissione – un meccanismo europeo di risposta e recupero, dedicato al patrimonio culturale e all'ecosistema culturale. Un meccanismo in grado di mettere insieme partner pubblici e privati e che tenga conto del ruolo strategico che può svolgere la filantropia nel supporto al mondo culturale, così come è importante che noi torniamo a investire con forza in Europa creativa. L'arte e la cultura in generale parlano il linguaggio della pace. Appartengono al mondo intero. Le armi sono strumenti di distruzione. La cultura e l'educazione sono ponti, diplomazia informale, favoriscono il dialogo. Il conflitto ha generato una visione sbagliata, che colpevolizza chiunque difenda la libertà di espressione artistica. La polarizzazione ha suscitato critiche e accanimento anche contro intellettuali, artisti e scienziati russi, contribuendo così a isolare coloro che si erano espressi contro le scelte scellerate di Putin. Il razzismo verso il mondo ucraino e il tentativo di „cancellazione” della cultura ucraina sono semplicemente inaccettabili. Le responsabilità della guerra sono di Putin e del suo regime autoritario. Voglio però anche dire che queste responsabilità nulla c'entrano con la straordinaria produzione artistica, letteraria e musicale che la Russia ha regalato al mondo nel corso dei secoli. Dobbiamo colpire Putin e non la cultura. Tutelare il ruolo del dialogo culturale è il primo passo verso il cessate il fuoco e il dopoguerra. Vlad-Marius Botoș (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Kultur und Bildung sind nicht länger ein Bereich, in dem nur formale Methoden funktionieren. Das Internet, Online-Anwendungen, soziale Netzwerke haben einen großen Einfluss auf die Bildung junger Generationen, aber auch auf die Meinungsbildung aller, die sie nutzen. Wir sehen online immer mehr Fehlinformationen über den Krieg in der Ukraine oder abscheuliche Manipulationen über die Europäische Union. Wir sehen eine zunehmende Aggressivität der russischen Unterstützer in diesem Besatzungskrieg. Wir müssen zugeben, dass diese Aggressivität und diese intensive Kampagne immer mehr Menschen dazu bringen, sich selbst zu hinterfragen, nicht mehr genau zwischen Recht und Unrecht zu unterscheiden mit all diesem Krieg. Die Ukraine und die Europäische Union werden zunehmend als negative Charaktere dargestellt. Wir müssen entschlossen und schnell handeln. Niemand verurteilt Meinungsfreiheit. Aber wir müssen immer ernsthafter berücksichtigen, dass Lügen und Desinformationen viel effektiver bekämpft und gesetzlich geahndet werden müssen. Diana Riba i Giner (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, permítanme comenzar con un nombre propio: Yuri Kerpatenko. Kerpatenko era el director de la Orquesta Filarmónica de Jersón y fue asesinado hace solo unos días tras negarse a dar un concierto en un territorio ocupado por Rusia. La invasión de Ucrania está dejando una estela de heridas abiertas, tangibles e intangibles, desde los más crudos peligros a los que se enfrentan artistas, periodistas y académicos, hasta la destrucción del patrimonio cultural. Los costes de esta guerra son inasumibles para la humanidad como conjunto. Por eso, en nuestra hoja de ruta, para contribuir a la paz, la reconstrucción y la recuperación, el arte y la cultura deben ser una piedra angular y un lugar seguro. El sector cultural y creativo debe contar con mecanismos de cooperación y financiación que permitan continuar con su trabajo, porque el arte y la cultura pueden ser herramientas para la paz, porque su voz será imprescindible para transitar el posconflicto. Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Kiedyś nasz rodak papież z Polski mówił, że naród polski wyraża się przez swoją kulturę. Myślę, że można tak powiedzieć o każdym narodzie. Naród ukraiński również wyraża się poprzez swoją kulturę. Te działania, które usiłują unicestwić zabytki i dobra kultury, są działaniami tak naprawdę uderzającymi w tożsamość narodową naszego, tzn. Polski i Unii Europejskiej, sąsiada. Dobrze, że w tej sprawie mamy debatę. Dobrze, że mimo różnic, które nas dzielą, w tej sprawie mówimy jednym głosem. Czy my możemy wiele? Możemy mówić, możemy apelować, ale także możemy wpływać na to, żeby Komisja Europejska, jak się zobowiązała, to przekazywała obiecane środki Ukrainie. I trochę mi smutno, jak słyszę od naszych ukraińskich kolegów, że Amerykanie, jak obiecują, to dają. A jak Unia Europejska obiecuje, to albo pożycza, albo odwleka nawet te pożyczki. Sytuacja, w której przewodnicząca Komisji Europejskiej jest kolejny raz w Kijowie i powtarza te same obietnice co wcześniej, jeszcze ich nie zrealizowawszy, jest sytuacją trochę wstydliwą dla nas jako Unii. Cieszę się, że mówimy jednym głosem – trzeba wspierać Ukrainę. Martina Michels (The Left). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Warum verbinden wir die Unterstützung ukrainischer Kultur eigentlich mit der Unterstützung der kulturellen Landschaft in ganz Europa? Schade, dass die Kollegin von der ID mit ihrer antieuropäischen Haltung nicht mehr im Saal ist. Genau um diese Frage geht es nämlich. Die Antwort ist einfach: Es geht um Solidarität mit der Ukraine, ihrem Erbe, ihren Künstlerinnen und Künstlern im Lande und im Exil, die nicht endet in einer Zeit, in der die europäische Kultur noch schwer an den Folgen der Pandemie leidet. Und dabei stehe ich genauso wie Frau Kammerevert auch und ausdrücklich für einen Dialog mit der russischen und belarussischen Opposition, die nicht vergessen werden darf. Denn progressive Kultur hat bei aller regionalen Identitätsstiftung immer auch eine vielschichtige Dimension aus Geschichte und Dialog, über alle Grenzen hinweg. Das hätte ich der Kollegin von der AfD gerne mit auf den Weg gegeben. Und deshalb fordere ich abschließend die Kommission auf, die Einrichtung eines europäischen Notfall- und Wiederherstellungsmechanismus für Kulturproduzenten nicht nur zu prüfen, sondern diesen überfälligen Mechanismus umgehend auch auf den Weg zu bringen. Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση προβάλλει μονόπλευρα τις ευθύνες της Ρωσίας, συρρικνώνοντας τις διαστάσεις ενός τεράστιου προβλήματος καταστροφής πολιτιστικών μνημείων για το οποίο φέρει εξίσου τεράστιες ευθύνες. Χρησιμοποιείτε το ζήτημα με σκοπιμότητα για την πολεμική σας προπαγάνδα και εμφανίζετε τις καταστροφές σαν συνέπεια του ιμπεριαλιστικού πολέμου στην Ουκρανία διαστρεβλώνοντας την πραγματικότητα. Το πρόβλημα είναι πολύ μεγαλύτερο. Ξεκίνησε από τις αντεπαναστατικές ανατροπές. Τότε που εξυμνούσατε τον Πούτιν, το „δικό σας παιδί” και τους όμοιούς του. Καταστροφές αντιφασιστικών και σοβιετικών μνημείων καταγράφονται στη Ρωσία και την Ουκρανία, αλλά και σε Πολωνία, Βαλτικές χώρες, Γερμανία, Βαλκάνια, ενώ στη Φιλανδία μόλις απομακρύνθηκε το τελευταίο άγαλμα του Λένιν. Οι καταστροφές και οι βανδαλισμοί συνοδεύονται προκλητικά με αντικατάσταση από ναζιστικά κατασκευάσματα. Συναντηθήκαμε με την UNESCO στο Παρίσι, η οποία περιορίζεται στην παρακολούθηση του διαρκούς εγκλήματος. Αναδεικνύουμε την ανάγκη κατεπείγουσας λήψης μέτρων προστασίας των αντιφασιστικών και σοβιετικών μνημείων και τερματισμού των καταδικαστέων ενεργειών από κυβερνήσεις, περιφερειακές αρχές και ναζιστικές συμμορίες σε βάρος της πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς και της ιστορικής μνήμης των λαών. Να τιμωρηθούν όσοι ευθύνονται για την καταστροφή τους και να παύσει τώρα κάθε δίωξη σε βάρος όσων τα υπερασπίστηκαν. Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, tá ról speisialta ag cultúr i gcomhghreamú ár sochaí domhanda. Is ní tábhachtach é chun daoine a thabhairt le chéile. Is féidir le cultúr nasc a chruthú idir daoine éagsúla ó threibheanna éagsúla cibé difríochtaí atá eatarthu. Mar a chonaiceamar leis an Aontas Eorpach, is féidir linn difríochtaí cultúrtha a shárú agus is féidir linn ceangal le daoine ó chultúir dhifriúla i slí fhiúntach. Tá cogadh Putin tar éis go leor anachaine a chruthú don Úcráin. Mar is eol dúinn, tá go leor saolta caillte mar thoradh ar an gcogadh, ach ní leor sin do Putin gránna. Mar bharr ar an donas, tá sé mar aidhm aige féiniúlacht agus cultúr na hÚcráine a scriosadh leis. Ní stopfaidh sé go dtí go mbeidh gach atá ag an Úcráin caillte aici. Tá an Rúis ag milleadh an chultúir oidhreachta agus na maoine cultúrtha atá ag an Úcráin mar chuid den mhodh straitéiseach atá aici chun fáil réidh le neamhspléachas na hÚcráine. Cuirim fáilte roimh iarrachtaí an Choimisiún tacaíocht a thabhairt chuig ealaíontóirí agus gairmithe cultúrtha atá ag teitheadh ón gcogadh. Ina theannta sin, aithním tacaíocht chultúrtha an Choimisiún sna Ballstáit. Tá sárobair ar siúl ag cumainn chultúrtha sna Ballstáit ag deimhniú imeascadh teifeach ón Úcráin inár bpobal. Trí chultúr a roinnt, tá súil agam go mbeimid in ann fáilte a chur roimh mhuintir na hÚcráine atá ag éalú ón bhfoiréagan. Tríd an bhfís seo, tá súil agam go mbreathnóidh siad compórdach inár dteannta. Ní mór dúinn tacaíocht a thabhairt do na cumainn chultúrtha ar bhonn áitiúil agus réigiúnach. As a shiocair, ní mór dúinn infheistiú sna cumainn seo ar bhonn bunleibhéil ionas go gcífimid na buntáistí. Hannes Heide (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Sigmund Freud hat an Albert Einstein in einem Brief geschrieben: Alles, was die Kulturentwicklung fördert, arbeitet auch gegen den Krieg. Der russische Krieg hat die Kultur der Ukraine angegriffen. Die Folgen: Flucht und Vertreibung, abgesagte Konzerte und Aufführungen, zerstörte Museen, Theater, Konzertsäle, Kulturstätten und Kulturdenkmäler. Dennoch spielt Kultur eine große Rolle, erinnern wir uns an die eindrucksvollen Bilder von ukrainischen Chören und Orchestern, die im Freien musiziert haben. Sie haben eindrucksvoll vermittelt, welche unfassbare Bedeutung Kultur angesichts dieses Angriffskrieges zukommt und welche Kraft sie hat. Putins Krieg ist ein Kulturkrieg, der sich gegen alles Ukrainische richtet. Aus Melitopol haben russische Truppen 1 700 wertvolle Kunstgegenstände geraubt, darunter ein 1 500 Jahre altes, mit Edelsteinen besetztes Golddiadem, eines der weltweit wertvollsten Artefakte aus der Zeit des Hunnenkönigs Attila. Die UNESCO dokumentierte allein seit Kriegsbeginn Schäden an rund 200 Gebäuden und Monumenten in zwölf Regionen der Ukraine. Russische Besatzer haben den ukrainischen Dirigenten Jurij Kerpatenko erschossen, der nicht mit ihnen kollaborieren wollte. Und gleichzeitig schickt Russland die eigenen Kulturschaffenden in diesen Krieg. Die Aggression Putins ist ein Angriff auf unsere europäischen Werte, auf Demokratie, kulturelle Vielfalt und Freiheit, aber auch auf die Kultur Russlands und auf den russischen Humanismus. Der Krieg bringt massive Probleme auch für den Kulturbetrieb in der Europäischen Union mit sich. Zusätzlich zu den Nachwirkungen der Pandemie kämpfen die Kulturschaffenden mit der stark steigenden Inflation, der damit verbundenen Teuerung und einem Rückgang der Kaufkraft. Die Energiekrise wird die Betreiber von Kultureinrichtungen vor allem in diesem Winter vor kaum zu bewältigende Probleme stellen. Kürzungen bei der Kultur im Budget der Europäischen Union dürfen nicht stattfinden und auf keinen Fall mit dem Krieg begründet werden. Auf die Aufforderung, der Krieg solle durch Kürzungen bei Kultur finanziert werden, soll Winston Churchill gesagt haben: Wofür kämpfen wir dann? Wir kämpfen für die europäischen Werte. Salima Yenbou (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, je ne cesserai de le répéter, la culture est essentielle pour tous les peuples. Elle porte des valeurs, un héritage, un patrimoine, des richesses, des identités. Il est donc primordial que l'Union européenne préserve et soutienne la culture, en tout temps et partout, et particulièrement en temps de guerre. Le secteur culturel est toujours l'un des plus touchés par les conflits ou les régimes autoritaires. Cette résolution aborde deux points essentiels. La guerre menée par la Russie en Ukraine est aussi une guerre culturelle qui tente d'éradiquer l'identité et la culture ukrainiennes. Nous devons apporter un soutien massif à la culture et aux acteurs culturels en Ukraine et préserver le patrimoine. Mais nous devons aussi veiller à ce que ce soutien ne se fasse pas au détriment des secteurs culturels européens, dont la situation a empiré avec le COVID. Pour cela, il est essentiel que l'Union apporte une aide ciblée à tous les acteurs de la culture, mais aussi, Madame la Commissaire, un mécanisme européen d'intervention d'urgence et de relance pour soutenir les écosystèmes culturels et créatifs, pour qu'ils ne soient plus victimes de toutes les crises que nous traversons. C'est notre devoir. Piernicola Pedicini (Verts/ALE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in tempi di guerra e di crisi economica purtroppo è sempre la cultura a pagare per prima, perciò massima solidarietà agli artisti vittime della guerra. Io vengo da un territorio, il Mezzogiorno d'Italia, ricco di arte e di cultura, per cui sono infinite le possibilità di ripresa economica legate al patrimonio artistico, a quello storico, a quello monumentale. L'obiettivo incontrerebbe anche quello prioritario del dispositivo per la ripresa e la resilienza, che punta alla riduzione del divario territoriale. Dobbiamo perciò guardare al taglio della direttrice Est-Ovest dovuta alla guerra, come a una necessità di rafforzare e di potenziare invece la direttrice che va da Nord verso Sud e che guarda all'Africa, abbandonando però definitivamente l'idea di un modello coloniale. Il Mezzogiorno d'Italia, grazie alla sua centralità fra Europa, Africa e Medio Oriente, può offrire il ruolo di hub culturale e commerciale per l'intera Unione europea. Perciò, Commissaria Dalli, io spero che non si perda ancora una volta questa grande occasione per l'Unione europea. Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Bardzo ważne są słowa, bardzo ważne są deklaracje. Bardzo ważne jest takie werbalne poparcie, ale wydaje się, że najważniejsze są konkrety. Ja o takich konkretach chciałbym parę słów powiedzieć. Od pierwszych dni wojny na Ukrainie strona polska, mój kraj, jest zaangażowana w pomoc, która w obszarze kultury przyjmuje formy od bezpośredniego wsparcia indywidualnych artystów ukraińskich, poprzez wsparcie na rzecz instytucji edukacyjnych i kultury, aż po działania służące ochronie dziedzictwa kultury. Równolegle do działań na poziomie wspólnotowym Polska podjęła szereg działań, aby wspomóc ludzi kultury z Ukrainy. Uruchomione zostały rezydencje, programy stypendialne i dotacyjne, które adresowane są do ukraińskich twórców i ich rodzin. Przykładowo w odpowiedzi na rezydencje dla ludzi teatru, muzyki i tańca zgłosiło się już ponad sto instytucji gotowych gościć artystów z Ukrainy. Chęć skorzystania z rezydencji wyraziło ok. 340 artystów, a kolejne zgłoszenia wciąż napływają. Na ten cel Ministerstwo Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego przeznaczyło ponad jeden milion euro. Podobnie w obszarze produkcji filmowych powstaje program dotacyjny dedykowany polsko-ukraińskim inicjatywom filmowym tworzonym przez Polski Instytut Sztuki Filmowej. Tutaj kwota proponowana na to wsparcie to również około jednego miliona euro. W Polsce od początku wojny istnieje zespół, obecnie Centrum Pomocy na rzecz Ukraińskiego Dziedzictwa, którego głównym zadaniem jest odpowiedź na konkretne potrzeby zgłaszane przez instytucje z Ukrainy. Dotychczas Centrum nawiązało współpracę z ponad 50 instytucjami. Dostarcza specjalistyczny sprzęt i materiały do profesjonalnego zabezpieczenia budynków i zbiorów, jak również pomoc materialną pozwalającą na codzienne funkcjonowanie. W pierwszym okresie wojny na Ukrainę wysłano 19 transportów na kwotę miliona euro. Arba Kokalari (PPE). – Madam President, Russia's illegal, unprovoked and terrible war against Ukraine has seriously worsened the security landscape of Europe and threatened the rules-based order. Russia is, as we speak, bombing Ukrainian citizens and brutally killing civilians, killing children. Russia is also attacking and destroying important parts of Ukrainian cultural heritage: works of art, monuments and UNESCO World Heritage Sites that are part of Ukrainian identity and part of our common history. To destroy cultural heritage on purpose is a war crime committed by Putin and Russia. We should help to protect and restore Ukrainian cultural heritage, hold Russia accountable, and help Ukraine to fight the fight against Russia. Every Russian attack against Ukraine is an attack against Europe, an attack against European freedom, an attack against European peace and an attack against European values. We need to do everything we can to support Ukraine and to give financial and military support all the way. Responsibility for this war lies solely with Russia, and our message must be clear: Russia, it's time to get out of Ukraine. Marcos Ros Sempere (S&D). – Señora presidenta, la guerra es un horror que no deja más que destrucción a su paso. Lo más grave, sin duda, es la destrucción de vidas humanas, de sus hogares, y el hambre que deja tras de sí. Pero, además, la guerra tiene un impacto muy serio en la cultura y en el patrimonio, que es nuestra historia, nuestra memoria como especie. Tras la invasión rusa, el patrimonio de Ucrania se ha convertido en el más amenazado del continente. A fecha de hoy, la Unesco ya ha registrado más de 200 sitios culturales destruidos o dañados como resultado de los ataques. Una pérdida irreparable. Las instituciones europeas debemos tomar partido para frenar esta pérdida y emprender acciones para su conservación, recuperación y reconstrucción. Tenemos que definir el rol que debe tener la Unión Europea en la reconstrucción del patrimonio destruido en Ucrania. Debemos poner la voluntad política necesaria para evitar esta pérdida. Hace un mes aprobamos aquí el informe sobre la Nueva Bauhaus Europea, un texto que contempla que la Nueva Bauhaus debe contribuir a la reconstrucción de los monumentos y las ciudades destrozadas por la invasión. Todo ello contando con la participación de los sectores culturales y creativos ucranianos, que tan perjudicados se han visto y que necesitan nuestro apoyo. La Nueva Bauhaus puede y debe adoptar una dimensión exterior para ayudar a Ucrania en esta tarea. El patrimonio histórico es la suma de las huellas que las generaciones anteriores han dejado en el territorio, es la memoria cultural de las generaciones pasadas. Por eso, no podemos dejar que la invasión rusa lamine la historia de los ucranianos. Compartimos con Ucrania historia y experiencias pasadas y el patrimonio histórico debe usarse como un puente para estrechar los lazos del pueblo ucraniano atacado con la Unión Europea. Engin Eroglu (Renew). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Heute diskutieren wir über Kultur, Werte und Identität. Die russische Kriegsführung agiert immer hemmungsloser in der Ukraine und nimmt bewusst zivile Akteure ins Visier. Mit Bestürzung mussten wir feststellen, dass Jurij Kerpatenko, Chef des Kammerorchesters der besetzten Stadt Cherson, in seiner Wohnung ermordet worden ist. Er weigerte sich, an einem russischen Propagandakonzert teilzunehmen. Diese Standhaftigkeit hat er mit seinem Leben bezahlt. Ein erneuter Beweis dafür, dass russische Soldaten gezielt Zivilisten töten. Das Ziel hierbei ist es, das kulturelle Erbe der Ukraine zu zerstören. Nun liegt es an uns, diesem unmenschlichen Verhalten der Russen sozusagen ein Stoppschild vorzuhalten und den kulturellen Sektor zu unterstützen. Daher benötigen wir nicht nur humanitäre Unterstützung und umfassende militärische Unterstützung, sondern auch gezielt die Unterstützung des kulturellen Sektors der Ukraine. Dabei geht es darum, den Erhalt der kulturellen Identität der Ukraine zu dokumentieren, zu digitalisieren und die kulturellen Werke zu schützen. Maria Walsh (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, this week in Kyiv, rather than striking military targets, Russian missiles damaged cultural spaces, parks and monuments. One of those missiles cratered a children's playground, just a few metres from a monument dedicated to Taras Shevchenko, Ukraine's national poet. Russia's war against Ukraine is an attempt to eradicate Ukrainian identity, its heritage and its history. These acts, as said by many of my colleagues, amount to a war crime, and targeting these shared spaces where Ukrainians come together to celebrate their rich culture is an attempt by Russia to break the spirit of the Ukrainian community. Russia is not just freezing people out. Russia is trying to tear communities apart and scare people into isolation. However, Russia has and will continue to fail, but that requires our continued support here in the European Union. I have seen first-hand the resolve of the Ukrainian people when I visited the border last month and met, like many of you, Ukrainian community members in our Member States. Let's continue to strengthen our solidarity with the people of Ukraine through defending and celebrating their culture, their history and, the most important, their future. (The speaker concluded the speech in an unofficial language) Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – Ačiū, Pirmininke, Komisijos nare, kolegos. Karas Ukrainoje jau tapo skausminga realybe. Ukraina ir jos žmonės kaunasi už laisvę, už teisę turėti savo šalį, joje taikiai gyventi ir kurti savo ateitį. Ukraina kaunasi už mūsų Europos vertybes, už demokratiją, už europinį gyvenimo būdą, už žmogaus teises ir laisves, todėl tai yra ir mūsų Europos karas, ne tik žmonių gyvybės, bet ir kultūrinis paveldas. Identitetas yra karo aukos ir įkaitai. Sąmoningas kultūros naikinimas yra Rusijos karo prieš Ukrainą dalis. Europa tai suprato nuo pat pirmos karo dienos. Mes susitelkiame ir padedame Ukrainai visomis išgalėmis. Kultūrinis solidarumas su Ukraina yra būtinas. Rusija ne tik kariniais veiksmais siekia sunaikinti Ukrainą, tačiau vykdo įvairaus masto dezinformacijos kampanijas, bandydama sukurti baimės ir nepasitikėjimo jausmą Ukrainos žmonėms. Todėl šiandien kaip niekada svarbu užtikrinti stiprią paramą Ukrainos kultūros, kūrybos akademiniam sektoriui, kurie yra ta gyvybiškai svarbi grandis atremiant ir kovojant su Rusijos skleidžiama propaganda ir dezinformacija. Iš tiesų Europa nuo karo pradžios skubiai sutelkė finansines priemones, siekiant padėti kultūros ir meno srities žmonėms, bėgantiems nuo karo. Ukrainos menininkai ir kultūros darbuotojai bus gyvybiškai svarbūs atstatant Ukrainą, sutelkiant visuomenę. Šiandien Ukrainoje matome Rusijos pajėgas, naikinančios kultūrinį paveldą, kultūrinių objektų grobstymą. Turime dėti visas įmanomas pastangas, kad tai sustabdytume ir išlaikytume Ukrainos kultūros paveldą. Europos Komisija jau yra pateikusi pasiūlymą dėl Ukrainos atstatymo priemonės. Ir labai tikiuosi, jog Ukrainos kultūrinio paveldo atstatymas ir išsaugojimas bus sudėtine šio plano dalimi. Nathalie Loiseau (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, à Marioupol, l'Armée russe a détruit le mémorial dédié à l'Holodomor, l'extermination par la faim organisée par Staline entre 1932 et 1933 et qui fit des millions de morts. Ce n'est qu'un exemple parmi beaucoup d'autres des atteintes que subit le patrimoine ukrainien depuis déjà 2014 et l'annexion de la Crimée. Aux destructions s'ajoutent les pillages: dès février 2022, plus de 200 œuvres d'art ont été volées à Melitopol. Aux pillages s'ajoutent les meurtres: le chef d'orchestre Iouri Kerpatenko a été abattu dans sa propre maison à Kherson. La Russie ne respecte ni les sites classés, ni les conventions internationales, ni les vies humaines. Face à la machine à détruire russe, l'Unesco est totalement impuissante. Hélas, depuis 2020, l'Unesco n'a pas davantage réussi à intervenir pour protéger le patrimoine arménien menacé de destruction par l'Azerbaïdjan au Nagorno-Karabakh. On aimerait voir plus de détermination, plus de courage et de sens de sa mission de la part de l'organisation onusienne, mais on attend encore. Alors, si on ne peut pas sauver ce qui a été détruit, aidons les artistes ukrainiens, chez eux et en Europe. Nous le faisons et nous avons raison. Aidons aussi les artistes et les intellectuels russes qui ont fui leur pays parce qu'ils ne soutenaient pas la guerre. Ils ont besoin de nous et nous avons besoin d'eux pour qu'un jour, le plus proche possible, ils ramènent la Russie vers la lumière. Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Paní předsedající, debata o podpoře ukrajinské kultury je mimořádně důležitá. Na úvod chci říci, že platí základní teze: k tomu, aby přestalo ničení ukrajinské kultury, je co nejdříve třeba vyhnat Rusy z Ukrajiny. A k tomu je třeba naší evropské ekonomické a vojenské pomoci. Tedy obecná teze je: chceme-li něco udělat pro ukrajinskou kulturu, musíme dál vojensky a ekonomicky podporovat Ukrajinu. A bavíme-li se o konkrétní podpoře kultury, já vidím dvě hlavní témata: podpora živé kultury, paní komisařka zde zmiňovala programy, které zde jsou. Podle mého názoru by bylo možno poskytnout ještě více peněz, jedná se řádově o miliony euro – to jsou částky, které asi nejsou dostatečné. Ale asi nejen v Polsku, jak hovořil můj kolega, ale i v České republice je celá řada umělců, studentů uměleckých škol, kteří našli dočasný azyl právě třeba v Praze, a zde dále mohou provozovat své umění a mohou studovat. Pro živou kulturu nejvíce uděláme podporou právě ukrajinských umělců. Co já ale považuji za snad ještě důležitější, je to, jak po válce – která, doufám, co nejdříve skončí a bude pro demokracii a svobodu vítězná, to znamená Ukrajina zvítězí – jak přispět k tomu, aby zničené kulturní dědictví bylo obnoveno ? Je to strašně důležité pro zachování a posílení identity ukrajinského národa. A tady budeme muset sehrát klíčovou roli. Mít jakýsi Marshallův plán pro obnovu ukrajinské kultury, ukrajinských památek, ukrajinských muzeí a galerií. Sem budeme muset investovat, protože to, co nás spojuje, Ukrajinu s Evropou, je právě společné kulturní dědictví. A já doufám, že až válka skončí, tak budeme v této věci velmi aktivní a přispějeme k tomu, že některé zcela zničené památky budou obnoveny a ty poškozené opraveny. Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Señora presidenta, en primer lugar, quiero manifestar mi apoyo y el del Partido Socialista Obrero Español a esta propuesta de Resolución sobre la solidaridad cultural con Ucrania y un mecanismo conjunto de respuesta de emergencia para la recuperación cultural en Europa. Este debate tiene lugar en un momento simbólico y —diría— desgraciadamente importante. Hemos observado cómo para el régimen criminal de Putin no basta con bombardear a la población civil, las infraestructuras, los centros de electricidad, los puentes de Ucrania, sino que también ha asesinado a un director de orquesta, Yuri Kerpatenko, por negarse a dirigir un concierto ante sus fuerzas de ocupación. ¿Qué podemos decir ante esta brutalidad? ¿Cómo podemos responder? Precisamente, con más determinación, con más solidaridad, tanto en la ayuda a Ucrania desde el punto de vista financiero, humanitario, militar, como también cultural: ayudando a recuperar los sitios que han sido destruidos por los bombardeos, apoyando a los artistas amenazados, algunos de los cuales son refugiados entre nosotros, activando el Fondo Fiduciario para Ucrania en la dimensión cultural y de apoyo a la comunidad cultural de Ucrania, que debe considerarse parte integral del proceso de reconstrucción. Putin quiere destruir la identidad y el alma de Ucrania. Cada euro gastado en la reconstrucción de su cultura y patrimonio es también un euro gastado hacia la derrota de este proyecto imperialista. Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Dėkoju, Pirmininke. Kai patranka šaudo – Mūzos tyli, Inter arma silent musae, sakydavo romiečiai. Krizių akivaizdoje kultūra neretai būna apleidžiama, todėl reikia koncentruotų pastangų, siekiant kultūrinį gyvenimą atgaivinti. Paradoksalu, tačiau kaip tik karas atgręžė mus į Ukrainos kultūrą, jų unikalią savivoką – paženklintą lemtingo egzistavimo tarp brutalių Rytų ir civilizuotų Vakarų. Rusija nebėra didi, jos kultūra bankrutavo ir degradavo, ten subujojo savęs ir aplinkinio pasaulio naikinimo instinktai. Ukraina natūraliai užpildo tą nišą. Ukrainos giluminės kultūrinės patirtys įsilieja su didele jėga, kurios ilgai nenorėjome pastebėti. Ukraina nebijo savo sunkių civilizacinių patirčių, kurių mes, Europa, jau pripratome bijoti, nes atpažįstame vakarykščius save, paskendusius karuose ir konfliktuose, o tokiais būti nebenorime. Rusijos agresijai tęsiantis Ukrainos kultūra kovoja už savo išlikimą. Į ją nukreipto teroro mastas sunkiai suvokiamas, nes bandoma sunaikinti visa, kas mena Ukrainos, kaip suverenios tautos istoriją. Tai prasidėjo dar nuo 2014-ųjų Krymo totorių kultūros naikinimo. Laikinai okupuotose teritorijose niekšiškai naikinamas kultūros paveldas, plėšiami muziejai, deginamos knygos, artefaktai grobiami ir skelbiami Rusijos nuosavybe. Tokius nusikaltimus privalu dokumentuoti, veikti išvien su UNESCO. Be mūsų pagalbos, brutalaus karo niokojamai šaliai išlaikyti kultūros paveldą ir pilnavertį kultūrinį gyvenimą bus sunku. Tai daroma valstybių narių lygmeniu. Pavyzdžiui, Lietuva remia Ukrainos kūrėjus, radusius čia prieglobstį, tačiau europinio lygio pastangos turi būti svaresnės. Tenka kovoti ne tik dėl didesnio dėmesio kultūrai visos Europos mastu, bet tam tikrais atvejais ir su naudojimusi ja kaip dezinformacijos priemone. Todėl esamos iniciatyvos, skirtos kultūros atsigavimui, turėtų būti ne tik išlaikytos, bet ir papildytos naujais instrumentais. O paramos schemos turi būti aiškios ir lengvai prieinamos. Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Madam President, we are in solidarity with Ukraine not only with guns and tanks. Defence and territorial integrity is an absolute priority and we all know that. We all tasted war in our past, but Ukrainians are able to fight for their country that strong because they know who they are, what history they have, what language and culture they own. That's why Putin, Mr Butter, started the war. He treated Ukrainians as a less important kind of Russians, who are using the history of his country as their own. We all know, and not only in this Chamber, how wrong he was. Everyone and anyone has the right to state its integrity, state its own culture, state its own language, and I'm not saying any magical populism right now – I'm just recalling international acts. We have to be proud of the Ukrainian nation who is fighting against Putin, against the effort to destroy their heritage, culture and nationality. The hand of the devil has no mercy: Putin touched even the untouchable. He sent bombs on Babyn Yar, the Holocaust memorial where thousands of Jewish people were executed by Nazis. What a shame. That's why it is so important to financially support Ukrainian soil and borders, Ukrainian culture and heritage. So, Madam Commissioner, the European Parliament is asking for cultural recovery in Europe, but what about the culture that doesn't need to be recovered, but needs to be protected? We all remember what happened to the Minority SafePack in the European Commission. Everyone has written „united in diversity”. The EU diplomats keep saying that, but we don't need words; we need to act. Let's do it simultaneously. Let's support Ukraine and let's support our regions. (The speaker concluded the speech in an unofficial language) Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, the COVID-19 pandemic and now the Russian aggression against Ukraine have forced us to act quickly to respond to the unforeseen needs of the cultural and creative sectors. The joint and coherent mobilisation of our different instruments, the use of flexibility, the cooperation with Member States and, above all, an open dialogue with Ukrainian authorities have been key to adapt our mechanisms and provide concrete solutions and financial responses to the sectors. What those two crises also confirmed to us is that culture is key for the resilience and the building of our societies. That is why overall funding for culture at national and European level should be adequate. Die Präsidentin. – Gemäß Artikel 136 Absatz 5 der Geschäftsordnung wurde ein Entschließungsantrag eingereicht ( *1 ). Die Aussprache ist geschlossen. Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 20. Oktober 2022, statt. Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171) Andrea Bocskor (NI),
írásban. – Magyarország már számos esetben elítélte Oroszország ukrajnai agresszióját, megnyitotta határait az ukrajnai menekültek, beleértve az ukrajnai művészek, tanárok, diákok, egyetemi hallgatók, kulturális szektorban dolgozók előtt. Emellett, a magyar kormány az eddigi legnagyobb humanitárius akciójába kezdett, hogy az elmenekült és az országban maradt, a háború következményeitől szenvedő ukrajnai lakosok és intézmények fennmaradását segítsék. A magyar emberek megnyitották szívüket, lakásaikat a háború által közvetlenül érintett kelet-ukrajnai területekről menekülő emberek, gyerekek előtt Kárpátalján és Magyarországon is, mindenki együtt érez az ártatlan áldozatokkal és elítéli a fölösleges rombolást, a műemlékek és a kulturális örökség megsemmisítését. Nagyon fontos mindent megtenni az ukrajnai történelmi, szellemi és tárgyi kulturális örökség minél nagyobb megőrzéséért, ezért is szorgalmazni kell a békét, hisz minél tovább tart a háború, annál több az áldozat, annál több kulturális és művészeti érték semmisül meg. Az európai alapelvek és értékek része, hogy kölcsönösen tiszteletben tartjuk a történelmi emlékeket és szimbólumokat is, ezért is érthetetlen és sajnálatos, hogy ebben a mindenki számára nehéz háborús helyzetben miért döntött úgy a kárpátaljai Munkács város vezetése, hogy egyik napról a másikra eltávolítja a munkácsi várból a több évtizede ottlévő Turul szobrot. A kultúra és a múlt összeköti az embereket, nemzeteket, ezért fontos, hogy éljünk és ne visszaéljünk vele! Urmas Paet (Renew),
kirjalikult. – Venemaa püüab Ukraina identiteeti ja kultuuri hävitada. Muu hulgas ründab Venemaa sel eesmärgil sihilikult Ukraina kultuuripärandit, ehkki see on Haagi konventsiooni kohaselt sõjakuritegu. Näiteks rüüstatakse pidevalt Ukraina kunstiväärtusi, tapetakse okupantidele mittekuuletuvaid kultuuritöötajaid ning rünnatakse sihilikult mälestusmärke, monumente ja kultuurimälestisi. UNESCO andmetel on alates 24. veebruarist Ukrainas kahjustada saanud 192 arhitektuurimälestist või kultuurilise tähtsusega paika, sh 81 pühakoda, 13 muuseumi, 37 ajaloolist hoonet, 35 kultuuriürituste toimumispaika, 17 monumenti ja 10 raamatukogu. EL peab aitama Ukrainal dokumenteerida kultuuripärandi vastu toime pandud rünnakuid ning taastada kannatada saanud monumente. Samuti peaksid EL ja liikmesriigid võtma humanitaarabi andes arvesse kultuurisektori ja kultuuripärandi kaitse vajadusi. Ukraina kunstnikud ja loomeinimesed, kes võitlevad Venemaa sissetungi vastu oma loominguga, väärivad tunnustust. Lisaks peaks Euroopa Komisjon kaaluma kultuuri, kultuuripärandi ja loomeökosüsteemide erakorralise rahastamisvahendi loomist. 4.   Samenstelling commissies en delegaties Die Präsidentin. – Die EVP-Fraktion hat der Präsidentin Beschlüsse über die Änderung von Ernennungen in Delegationen übermittelt. Diese Beschlüsse werden im Protokoll der heutigen Sitzung veröffentlicht und treten am Tag dieser Ankündigung in Kraft. 5.   Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) 2022/1614 van de Commissie van 15 september 2022 tot bepaling van de bestaande diepzeevisserijgebieden en tot vaststelling van een lijst van gebieden waar kwetsbare mariene ecosystemen voorkomen of waarschijnlijk zullen voorkomen (debat) Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zur Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2022/1614 der Kommission vom 15. September 2022 zur Festlegung der bestehenden Tiefseefischereigebiete und Erstellung einer Liste der Gebiete, in denen empfindliche marine Ökosysteme bekanntermaßen oder wahrscheinlich vorkommen (2022/2879(RSP)). Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I really thank you for providing the Commission with yet another opportunity to explain the recent implementing act adopted this 15 September, which protects deep-sea vulnerable marine ecosystems in the Atlantic from being harmed in fishing operations. It is important to frame our discussion by recalling that this implementing act is based on Regulation 2016/2336 of the European Parliament and the Council regarding specific conditions for fishing for deep-sea stocks in the north-east Atlantic and its international waters. This means that the Commission has implemented what the co-legislators had already decided in 2016 in this regulation, although four years late due to a lack of necessary data from Member States. Article 9 of this regulation from 2016 clearly provides that bottom-fishing gears shall be prohibited in vulnerable marine ecosystems below 400 metres. I underline that according to the 2016 regulation, this prohibition is applicable to all bottom-fishing gears without exception, be it bottom trawlers, longliners or others, and that it only concerns areas below 400 metres. As an ecosystem-based approach was used for the delivery of the scientific advice on which this implementing regulation is based, the responsible scientific body, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, provided management options that factored in how much fishing activity takes place in the areas containing VMEs. Based on consultations with stakeholders, the Commission proposed a management option that best balances environmental protection and socio-economic implications. So where scientists identified on the basis of data provided by the Member States that vessels were fishing a lot in an area with only a few vulnerable ecosystems, the scientists did not identify them as an area subject to the closure under the 2016 regulation. The logic of this innovative approach is to find a balance to maximise conservation and minimise negative economic impact. I want to stress in this context that the scientists based themselves exclusively on the data they had received from Member States in time before providing the Commission with the advice as the basis for this implementing act. It's also important to note that the scientific advice is the result of a thorough scientific peer review process which involved leading scientists in the field from all Member States, so the scientific organisation providing the advice works based on consensus. Another important point is the stakeholder involvement. In view of the sensitivity of this advice, and in order to ensure its smooth implementation, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea invited for the first time stakeholders, including the fishing sector, to provide feedback to the scientists. The Commission extensively involved Member States as well as stakeholders, including from the fishing sector, which made this one of the most intense interactions with stakeholders we have seen since the review of the common fisheries policy in 2013. We are, of course, well aware that stakeholders had a lot of issues to deal with during Brexit and the COVID-19 crisis, and it seems that this opportunity to engage and provide feedback to the Commission was not used by all. I believe both the Commission and the stakeholders need to learn from this. But let us now look ahead. As you know, we are at the beginning of a process and, in line with the 2016 regulation, the scientific advice will be reviewed every year. We are expecting the new scientific advice by 16 December of this year and, where justified, this could lead to a revision of the areas closed to bottom gears. This is not a sort of concession by the Commission. The regulation from 2016 is clear that it is our legal obligation to annually review the list of vulnerable marine ecosystems based on updated advice, and we will do so. But I want to also reiterate that the Commission's acts are based on science, and the same goes for the Deep-Sea Regulation of 2016 and any secondary legislation based on it. So we will wait for the new scientific advice before we can say in which direction we will go. This implementing act is not only a legal obligation, but also the EU's delivery on a long-standing commitment – a commitment agreed to by the European Parliament – and it is our collective duty to our society, to the future generations, and in particular to those whose livelihood depends on marine resources and on a healthy ocean. I acknowledge that there is a socio-economic impact on the fleets and fishers concerned by these closures. In this context, we advise that Member States make good use of the possibilities offered under the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund to support the sector over the long term. VORSITZ: NICOLA BEER Vizepräsidentin Gabriel Mato,
en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, mis mejores deseos de una pronta recuperación para el comisario Sinkevičius, que hoy no puede estar aquí con nosotros, aunque me consta que en unas horas se va a reunir con el sector. Ojalá lo hubiera hecho antes y lo hiciera más a menudo, porque los pescadores no pueden ser sus enemigos. Basta ya de que absolutamente todas las medidas que ustedes adoptan con las más variadas excusas, la mayoría de ellas de tipo medioambiental, tengan como resultado un perjuicio para los pescadores. No nos ha dado respuestas. ¿Por qué han adoptado este Reglamento que prohíbe la pesca de forma injusta en ochenta y siete áreas? ¿Por qué, si se basan en un Reglamento de 2016, aprueban el acto de ejecución seis años después de la peor manera posible y en el peor momento posible? Dado que el CIEM presentará un nuevo estudio científico en breve, ¿por qué no pueden esperar unas semanas más y dictar un acto de ejecución que refleje la realidad del sector y evitar así el enorme daño que le están haciendo? ¿Van a establecer algún sistema de ayudas para paliar los perjuicios que su inoportuna decisión les está causando a los pescadores? Aunque el Reglamento no distingue, si el dictamen científico reconoce no tener datos sobre artes, como por ejemplo el palangre, ¿por qué han incluido ustedes todas las artes sin distinción alguna? ¿Por qué no han tenido en cuenta que dos de los cuatro países concernidos votaron en contra en el Consejo y nueve se abstuvieron? ¿No requiere este resultado al menos una reflexión? ¿Tampoco requiere una reflexión que el Pleno de este Parlamento haya lamentado y solicitado la retirada del acto de ejecución? ¿De verdad piensan que desplazar una gran cantidad de barcos de una zona a otra no va a suponer una mayor sobrepesca y un sobresfuerzo pesquero en esas áreas? ¿Es así como van a proteger las áreas marítimas vulnerables? ¿Por qué no suspenden ya este acto y evitan que haya que acudir a los tribunales? ¿No creen que acciones como esta hacen que los ciudadanos pierdan su confianza en las instituciones europeas? Señora comisaria, por favor, conteste a estas preocupaciones. Los pescadores merecen, al menos, respuestas. Clara Aguilera,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, le ha tocado este tema, pero yo quiero sumarme, por supuesto, a los deseos de que el comisario Sinkevičius se recupere pronto y esté con todos nosotros en estos y en otros debates futuros. Por supuesto, son mis mejores deseos para él. Quiero trasladar aquí, como el resto de mis colegas, especialmente los españoles, la voz del sector pesquero español, para el que no hay aquí una estrategia única de ningún grupo, sino que queremos que la voz se oiga aquí, en el Pleno, al igual que este debate lo hemos tenido en la Comisión de Pesca. Quiero decir alto y claro que no cuestionamos —yo no cuestiono— el Reglamento de aguas profundas. No estoy cuestionando ese reglamento en ningún momento. Pero sí es verdad que hay ciertas anomalías en todo el proceso del acto de ejecución de las zonas vulnerables costeras y la protección. El sector así lo ha sentido y así lo hemos sentido también nosotros, muchos de los diputados que estamos en esta Cámara. Por eso era importante traer el debate aquí y que el sector pesquero se sintiese identificado con los debates que hacemos en el Parlamento Europeo. ¿Qué es lo que ha pasado seis años después? Pero ¿sabe lo peor, comisaria? —ya sé que usted no es quien lleva la materia—: que se ha culpado a los Estados de que no han dado los datos a tiempo, y es falso. Lo vuelvo a decir: es falso que los Estados no hayan dado los datos a tiempo. Esa no es la justificación de por qué se ha traído esto seis años después. Y, además, lo ha dicho bien mi colega Mato: ¿por qué en este momento? Sabiendo que va a haber un estudio —creo que el 16 de diciembre, nos anuncia la Comisión—, ¿por qué no esperar, puesto que vamos a tener un estudio actualizado? Los datos que se han recogido son de 2011 y no están actualizados. Es probable que ese estudio requiera, a lo mejor, ampliar zonas —o no, o quitar zonas—. Por lo tanto, ¿qué necesidad había de forzar que entrara en vigor el 9 de octubre este Reglamento? No hay necesidad. No hay estudios de impacto socioeconómico. Y de estos reglamentos hay que hacer estudios de impacto socioeconómico. Eso es una causa grave. Por eso el sector, entre eso y otras cosas, ha recurrido. El Gobierno de España, y lo saben, va a recurrir este acto de ejecución, porque hay motivos para recurrirlo e ir contra este acto de ejecución. Y permítanme —ya suena a broma—: ha dicho la comisaria, en nombre del comisario Sinkevičius, que esto lo pueden paliar los Estados miembros con las ayudas del FEMPA. Hombre, yo hago el daño y ahora que paguen los Estados miembros y, además, los culpo a ellos si no lo hacen. Seguramente el Gobierno de España indemnizará o ayudará al sector, como siempre lo hace, pero la bromita de que „bueno, que ya le ayuden los Estados miembros con el FEMPA y ya está”, eso no. Eso en política no es lo correcto. Por lo tanto, el Gobierno de España va a estar a la altura, lo sabe el sector pesquero, pero la Comisión no lo ha estado. Izaskun Bilbao Barandica,
en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señora presidenta, yo también espero que el comisario se recupere lo antes posible. Aurelio, mi padre, tiene noventa y un años; Hilaria, mi madre, noventa. Fui a la universidad gracias a su esfuerzo, al riesgo que corrió él durante décadas embarcado en un cascarón, pescando; a la constancia de ella trabajando en el puerto. Son entusiastas de la sostenibilidad. Padecieron los efectos de la sobrepesca y aman el mar. Señor comisario, olviden los prejuicios, pateen puertos y lonjas, empresas transformadoras... Encontrarán mucha gente como Hilaria y Aurelio, palangreros que no entienden por qué atacan ustedes, con esta decisión sobre la pesca de fondo, una forma de pesca sostenible. Hablarán con profesionales angustiados porque o desguazan su barco o cambian de zona de pesca. Convertirán así en miseria las cuotas que tendrán que compartir con los que trabajan allí, eso si resuelven el reparto sin conflicto. Toparán con pescadores preocupados por la confusión que crea una norma cuyo alcance no era claro ni para ustedes; otros les dirán que no entienden por qué impiden pescar a barcos europeos, sometidos a un férreo control y normas muy estrictas, mientras se importan producciones menos sostenibles. Por eso, estas decisiones hay que tomarlas tras hacer un estudio de impacto y sobre unos datos científicos actualizados. Así que les pido que den marcha atrás. Muchos sospechamos que en sus decisiones pesan más los prejuicios que los datos: hablen, conozcan, escuchen, visiten, apliquen el método de la proximidad. Comprobarán que el sector que parecen empeñados en perseguir prefiere seguir trabajando antes que cobrar una ayuda por cese de actividad. Y eso les obliga a trabajar de manera sostenible. Son los primeros interesados. Por eso merecen más palabras de apoyo por su esfuerzo para conservar los recursos marinos que imposiciones como esta decisión que podría abocar a tantos barcos al desguace. Caroline Roose,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, les grands fonds marins sont à la fois l'un des écosystèmes les plus riches en biodiversité et l'un des plus fragiles. L'un des plus riches, car ils renferment des espèces de poissons, de mollusques ou de coraux d'une extraordinaire diversité; l'un des plus fragiles, car les espèces y arrivent à maturité très tardivement et se reproduisent très lentement et car les habitats mettent longtemps à se reconstituer lorsqu'ils sont endommagés. Le chalutage en eaux profondes est sans conteste le plus grand destructeur de cette biodiversité marine. Il est responsable d'une véritable déforestation sous-marine. C'est intolérable! Les océans sont le poumon de l'humanité. En 2016, notre Parlement a adopté un règlement qui interdit le chalutage au-delà de 800 mètres de profondeur et, dans les écosystèmes marins vulnérables, au-delà de 400 mètres de profondeur. Ce règlement confie à la Commission et aux scientifiques le soin de cartographier ces écosystèmes. C'est ce qu'a fait le CIEM, institution scientifique internationale unanimement reconnue pour sa compétence, sur la base des données fournies par les États membres. Le secteur a été impliqué. La Commission européenne s'est contentée de reprendre ces recommandations, comme l'y obligeait le règlement que nous avions voté. Certains invoquent les impacts économiques. Nous ne le nions pas, et les fonds européens sont nombreux pour aider les armateurs qui en auraient besoin. Mais les débarquements d'espèces d'eaux profondes ne représentent que 0,4 % des débarquements totaux dans l'Union. Les zones concernées par cet acte d'exécution représentent à peine 1,6 % des eaux européennes dans l'Atlantique Nord-Est. Rien d'insurmontable, donc, quand les armateurs ont eu six ans pour se préparer, depuis le vote du Parlement en 2016. Je trouve honteux qu'aujourd'hui, le PPE, l'extrême droite et une partie de Renew cherchent à instrumentaliser cette question pour des gains politiques nationaux. Vous jouez avec les faits, vous tordez la réalité. Les océans ne sont pas votre jouet, mais un patrimoine commun à préserver. Les écosystèmes vulnérables en eaux profondes méritent une véritable protection, comme demandé par les scientifiques, comme demandé par les Nations unies, même si cela dérange certains lobbies. Rosanna Conte,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, un precedente. Questo regolamento ci preoccupa, non solo per le ragioni espresse poco fa dai colleghi, ma anche perché può costituire un precedente per altri mari. Penso ad esempio al Mar Mediterraneo o al mio Mar Adriatico, dove vietare lo strascico sarebbe deleterio per le nostre aziende di pesca e la nostra economia. La gestione della pesca è in generale una materia complessa e lo strascico non fa eccezione. La flotta è specializzata, fermare questo mestiere significherebbe demolire la flotta stessa. Per lo strascico europeo molto è stato fatto e si continua a fare, fra politica comune della pesca e politiche nazionali. Bisogna progredire nella giusta direzione con aggiustamenti progressivi, valutando gli impatti delle misure, le risposte degli stock, l'andamento economico e produttivo di un comparto che vede in gioco investimenti consistenti, occupazione e mercato fiorente. In sintesi, bisogna essere sostenibili, nel totale senso del termine. Invece, da anni assistiamo a una demonizzazione della pesca, e in particolare della pesca a strascico. Il vero problema è che non si vuole distinguere lo strascico mirato, sostenibile e all'avanguardia, che usano i nostri pescatori, rispetto a quello che viene esercitato dai paesi terzi, predatori di fondali senza riserve. Questo non fa altro che preoccupare e avvilire i pescatori europei, angosciati da continue politiche di riduzione e divieti, anche laddove c'è impegno e voglia di essere sostenibili e soprattutto di sopravvivere. Allora la Commissione deve prendersi la responsabilità di dire che vuole smantellare la flotta peschereccia dell'Unione europea, che vuole importare solo pesce e prodotti ittici extra-UE, magari da quegli stessi Stati che hanno cartellini gialli e rossi per la pesca IUU. Io Le chiedo, Commissaria, volete davvero la morte della pesca europea? Se l'intenzione è quella di far morire lo strascico italiano ed europeo, dovete dirlo chiaramente. Sappiate però che da questo Parlamento troverete una dura opposizione. Jorge Buxadé Villalba,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señora presidente, la decisión irracional, arbitraria y desproporcionada de la Comisión Europea de prohibir la pesca con artes de fondo en ochenta y siete áreas es un ataque más a un sector estratégico como es el sector pesquero. Vox lleva años denunciando en soledad los ataques cometidos por esa red de burócratas que, alejados de la realidad, anteponen los prejuicios de los lobbies a la exigencia de la soberanía alimentaria de las naciones europeas. Hoy, afortunadamente, los partidos políticos españoles se unen a esta permanente reivindicación. Bienvenidos, aunque sea solo una vez, al sentido común. Aunque son ustedes responsables del fanatismo climático que reina en la Comisión Europea y que hoy se cobra una víctima más: el sector pesquero español. La actuación de la Comisión es coherente con la visión del comisario de Medio Ambiente, Océanos y Pesca y su equipo de gerifaltes, que han calificado a la actividad pesquera como una industria destructiva y al sector pesquero como un puñado de tramposos. Nunca tan pocos hicieron tanto daño. La única industria destructiva es la Comisión Europea, quien ataca a los agricultores, ganaderos y pescadores utilizando el pretexto de la protección ambiental mientras nuestros supermercados están llenos de productos obtenidos en terceros países que ni de lejos cumplen la regulación que se exige a nuestros productores. Destruir el sector primario es condenar a nuestros pueblos a la miseria y a la dependencia, pero también es un ataque contra el medio natural, porque ningún burócrata cuida y protege el medio mejor que cualquiera de nuestros hombres de campo o de mar. Ustedes tienen el poder, pero también tienen el descrédito y el deshonor. Solo tienen una salida: suspender de forma inmediata la aplicación de este Reglamento, volver a negociarlo en la comisión permanente y luego, por supuesto, irse a su casa. João Pimenta Lopes,
em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhora Presidente, a adoção de medidas específicas de proteção dos recursos pesqueiros e de ecossistemas vulneráveis dos fundos marinhos é sensata e adequada se assentes em conhecimento científico preciso, direcionado, que dê suporte a decisões políticas que aos Estados devem caber e aos processos de avaliação de impacto e que integrem simultaneamente os impactos socioeconómicos correspondentes, em particular para o setor da pesca, que deve ser envolvido nas decisões. Estamos perante uma medida que parece falhar a cumprir várias destas dimensões. São quatro os Estados-Membros afetados pela medida - Portugal, Espanha, França e Irlanda -, que não contou com o apoio de todos os países visados que veem agora adotadas medidas no seu território marinho, ao arrepio dos seus interesses, ditadas por outros, razões que evidenciam a necessidade de recuperar a soberania dos Estados-Membros sobre as suas águas territoriais e zonas económicas exclusivas. O setor reclama não ter sido envolvido, insuficiente conhecimento científico e uma decisão implementada sobre um estudo que os próprios autores reconhecem ter limitações, como aqui reconheceu a Senhora Comissária, com consequências socioeconómicas que não foram consideradas, que poderão afetar milhares de pescadores, sobretudo da pesca de pequena escala costeira e artesanal, comprometendo a sua capacidade de pesca e rendimentos. Em Portugal, a medida determina o encerramento de 15 áreas de pescas, sobretudo a sul, podendo afetar capturas de peixe-espada preto, cherne e safio, impactando inevitavelmente sobre o abastecimento público de pescado. Afinal, Senhora Comissária, que estudos foram esses e como chegaram a estas conclusões? Que impactos socioeconómicos estão previstos? Quantas embarcações? Que artes? Quantos pescadores estão afetados? Que quantidades de pescado prevê deixarem de ser capturadas? Que medidas compensatórias estão previstas para mitigar ou eliminar os impactos esperados? Admite suspender este ato? Dino Giarrusso (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, già dal 2016 questo Parlamento discute dell'importanza cruciale, per l'equilibrio ambientale ed economico dei nostri mari, delle aree marine vulnerabili e di come preservarle al meglio, ma dopo tanti anni, nonostante i passi già fatti, siamo ancora qui a discuterne anziché agire. Ed è sbagliato, anzi inconcepibile, per almeno tre ragioni. Uno: una ragione legislativa, giacché questo è un atto di implementazione che doveva entrare in vigore già dal 2018. Una ragione politica, perché già il 9 ottobre abbiamo espresso, votando l'Ocean government resolution, la nostra posizione. E poi c'è una ragione ambientale, perché per definizione queste sono le aree marine più vulnerabili, con ecosistemi che impiegano anche cento anni per rigenerarsi. Basta discutere quindi, difendiamo i nostri mari, preserviamo il futuro dei nostri pescatori, perché difendendo i mari si aiuta la pesca sana e sostenibile ed è importante difendere i nostri pescatori, i loro figli e la cultura legata alla pesca e alla cura del mare. Maria da Graça Carvalho (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, cara Comissária, caros colegas, a proteção dos ecossistemas marinhos, ricos em biodiversidade, é fundamental para o futuro do planeta e para a sustentabilidade das nossas atividades nos oceanos. O regulamento que hoje discutimos reflete essa ambição. A pesca de arrasto de profundidade é manifestamente uma atividade com efeitos significativos em diferentes habitats marinhos. Ao mesmo tempo, ao tomarmos decisões que refletem uma atividade tão importante para a Europa, como é a pesca, é essencial que o façamos da forma mais fundamentada possível. Isto é, apoiados na evidência científica, nos dados mais recentes e ouvindo os responsáveis do setor e as autoridades governamentais competentes. Na presente situação de crise em que os nossos atores económicos lutam com altos preços da energia e escassez de recursos, devemos também ser cuidadosos na concretização desta medida. A pesca de arrasto, embora incidindo apenas sobre 2 % das áreas marinhas abaixo dos 800 metros de profundidade, continua a ser uma importante fonte de rendimento para diversas indústrias e comunidades costeiras. Peço, por isso, que, sem abdicar deste objetivo a longo prazo, se ponha já fim a esta atividade, mas que sejam tidas em conta as preocupações expressas por vários Estados-Membros já enumeradas aqui. Portanto, Senhora Comissária, por favor, ouça o que tanto os deputados como os membros desta comunidade nos têm a dizer. Nicolás González Casares (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, mi país, Galicia, tiene el sector pesquero más potente de la Unión Europea. Las comunidades costeras viven del mar, de la pesca, y, por eso, también reivindicamos aquí el respeto: el respeto por la pesca, el respeto por la gente del mar que se está viendo agredida con las decisiones de la Comisión Europea sobre el Reglamento de la pesca de fondo. Vemos que se está creando incluso antieuropeísmo con estas decisiones, lo cual me duele porque allí todo el mundo cree en Europa. Y es debido al exceso de celo en la aplicación de este Reglamento, a una aplicación del Reglamento sin la debida evaluación, sin saber el daño que provoca, el daño socioeconómico que empezamos a ver en esas comunidades costeras de Galicia, pues se mete todo en un mismo saco y no hay evaluación socioeconómica. Están tomando decisiones sin verdadero peso científico y lo que exigimos, de verdad y ya de una vez, es una reevaluación, además de la suspensión del acto de ejecución. Se están preparando recursos para matar este acto y yo le pido al comisario, que hoy no está aquí presente, que de verdad reevalúe esto de una vez, ya que esta situación es insostenible para la gente de la pesca, y que, además, se indemnice. Ellos no quieren subvenciones ni indemnizaciones, lo que quieren es salir a pescar, pero lo que no se puede decir es que luego paguen los Estados miembros el daño provocado por la Comisión Europea. Estamos también abriendo la puerta a productos pesqueros menos sostenibles, a importación menos sostenible. ¿Es este el objetivo de la política pesquera común? Lo que queremos, en el Pacto Verde Europeo, es la sostenibilidad, la autonomía estratégica, no la dependencia exterior; productos sanos, saludables y pescados en los mares sostenibles europeos. Si no, pasará como decía el poeta gallego Manuel Antonio: „fomos ficando sós / o mar o barco e máis nós”. Nosotros no queremos que le pase eso a nuestros pescadores, a nuestra gente del mar. Catherine Chabaud (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, je tiens à remercier la Commission pour cet acte d'exécution, qui était attendu et demandé par le Parlement européen depuis six ans, et je voudrais dire pourquoi je soutiens ce règlement. Pour bien comprendre de quoi on parle, je pense qu'il est préférable de regarder une carte bathymétrique en trois dimensions plutôt que la carte en deux dimensions que vous avez diffusée. Entre le plateau continental, qui est à 200 mètres, et les grands fonds marins, la déclinaison ne se fait pas en pente douce. Il s'y trouve un abrupt tombant rocheux qui est le lieu d'une biodiversité très riche, car il bénéficie, vous savez, du phénomène d'„upwelling”, la remontée des nutriments qui viennent des grands fonds, et c'est là que l'on retrouve notamment les coraux des eaux froides. Il faut regarder ces 87 zones que vous allez, que vous souhaitez protéger, comme des récifs coralliens des mers chaudes. Ces écosystèmes sont des „hotspots” de biodiversité, mais ils sont aussi très fragiles. D'où l'urgence de les protéger, donc de déplacer l'action de pêche aux abords de ces zones. Et ce sont les pêcheurs qui en seront les premiers bénéficiaires. À l'heure où l'Union européenne négocie le futur traité sur la préservation de la biodiversité en haute mer, il est absolument nécessaire qu'elle montre l'exemple. Alors, j'ai conscience des sensibilités nationales. Il faut élaborer ces mesures en concertation avec les parties prenantes et notamment avec les pêcheurs. Mais il faut aussi soutenir le développement d'engins pour une pêche plus durable. Enfin, je rappelle qu'il n'y a qu'un seul océan, qu'il est le bien commun de toute l'humanité et qu'il est de notre responsabilité individuelle et collective de le préserver. Ska Keller (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, the deep sea is still a mystery to us. We know more about the surface of the moon than about the bottom of the ocean. Yet we are already wrecking this unknown and delicate place with waste and with fishing gear. Bottom trawling destroys everything on the sea floor, no matter whether it will be used later or not. And this has to stop. Already in 2016, we adopted the Deep-Sea Regulation which called for more protection, and only now the Commission is moving forward to truly preserve vulnerable marine life in the deep sea. This is a move we should welcome and not complain about. The Commission is simply doing its job to protect marine biodiversity and implementing decisions that we have voted for. It is high time we prioritised nature protection because the biodiversity crisis will not go away if we write legislation that we don't put into practice. And we also have to stop thinking about nature protection and fisheries as being on opposite sides. Nature protection benefits fishers in the long run. We need to move away from fishing methods that have been proven to harm the seabed and delicate marine ecosystems. It is time we invested our resources into more sustainable fishing methods. That is how we get a resilient fisheries sector and how we make space for the new generations that want to be part of this sector. With the implementing act, only 1.16% of EU waters in the north-east Atlantic will be newly protected. That is very little given how much the oceans do for us. We need more, not less, protected areas because our lives depend on it. France Jamet (ID). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Madame le Commissaire, au pire moment et de la pire des façons, la Commission européenne a décidé d'interdire la pêche de fond dans 87 zones sur toute la façade atlantique. Non, Madame – dites-le bien à Monsieur Sinkevičius –, cette surface n'est pas anecdotique et ne s'observe pas à la loupe, comme cela a été dit lors de la dernière commission „pêche” par son représentant. Elle représente 16 000 kilomètres carrés, soit la moitié de la superficie de la Belgique. Alors que les secousses de la crise sanitaire se font encore sentir sur tout le secteur, alors que nos pêcheurs français ne reçoivent plus d'aide au carburant, alors que nos pêcheurs bretons ont été sacrifiés dans le cadre des accords du Brexit et que ceux du golfe de Gascogne subissent une baisse brutale et soudaine de 36 % sur les quotas de la sole, quotas imposés par la Commission en début d'année, vous décidez d'en remettre une couche. D'autant que la Commission appuie cette décision arbitraire sur des avis scientifiques datés et contestés, sans se préoccuper des conséquences socio-économiques pour nos pêcheurs. Clairement, je peux vous le dire, pour les avoir rencontré et les avoir entendus, nos pêcheurs n'ont pas été écoutés, on n'a pas tenu compte de leur avis. Et je ne parle pas seulement ici en tant que députée ID, mais en tant que représentante française de nos pêcheurs, Mesdames, et à l'instar de nos collègues espagnols ou portugais qui, eux, savent largement dépasser les clivages politiciens, nous devons tous défendre notre pêche et nos pêcheurs contre la Commission européenne, qui ne distingue pas la pêche artisanale de celle des multinationales, pas plus que les méthodes de pêche durables de celles qui ne le sont pas. Total: ce poisson que Bruxelles refuse de voir pêcher, on va l'importer, on l'importe déjà, depuis des pays qui ne respectent ni nos normes ni leurs ressources. La Commission européenne s'est arrogé la compétence exclusive en matière de pêche et se pose comme la gardienne des océans du monde entier, en oubliant justement que les vrais dépositaires de ce rôle, ce sont nos pêcheurs. Ils sont garants, je vous le rappelle, de notre indépendance alimentaire, de la qualité des produits et, évidemment, soucieux de la pérennité de la ressource. Et contre quoi luttent-ils aujourd'hui? Les variations climatiques? de la ressource? Les intempéries? Non, non, non! Ils luttent contre la technocratie européenne, qui a décidé d'en finir avec eux. Alors, un: nous ne sommes pas là pour entériner les désidératas de la Commission. Deux: il faudra, à un moment ou à un autre, remettre en question cette compétence exclusive, qui n'est pas entre de bonnes mains. Trois: il faut supprimer ce règlement. (L'oratrice accepte de répondre à une intervention „carton bleu”) Caroline Roose (Verts/ALE),
intervention „carton bleu”. – Madame la Présidente, Madame, à vous entendre, seule la Commission européenne est responsable. Vous donnez l'idée que cette interdiction est illégitime, mais elle est légitime, puisque nous l'avons votée. Le Parlement et le Conseil ont voté ce règlement sur la pêche en eaux profondes en 2016. La Commission aujourd'hui ne fait que l'appliquer, comme je l'ai dit dans mon intervention. Le Parlement adopte une loi et la Commission l'applique. C'est juste une question de démocratie. France Jamet (ID),
réponse „carton bleu”. – Madame Roose, il n'y a pas de question? Il n'y a pas de question. Eh bien voilà, procédons tous par affirmation. Manu Pineda (The Left). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, la Comisión parece tener una visión solo industrial de la pesca, ignorando por completo la realidad de las diferentes flotas y la situación real en los puertos y las lonjas. O eso parece con el Reglamento para la pesca en aguas profundas, elaborado sin tener en cuenta ni el tipo de embarcación ni las características o especificidades de cada costa. Dan el mismo tratamiento a las grandes flotas industriales que a la pesca artesanal; aplican en el Golfo de Cádiz o en las costas gallegas las mismas medidas que en Francia o en Irlanda. Y todo esto sin tener en cuenta la morfología de cada zona. Esto ha llevado al sector a ponerse en pie de guerra y a que varios Estados se movilicen para pararlo. Es inaceptable que un Reglamento que puede dejar solo en España a más de 10 000 familias sin su fuente de ingreso se haya hecho ignorando sus demandas y sin la participación de los afectados. Una chapuza legislativa que han tenido que corregir parcialmente y con urgencia porque está basada en datos obsoletos y sin un mínimo análisis de impacto socioeconómico en las diferentes regiones costeras, ni tampoco del impacto diferenciado de los diferentes modelos de pesca sobre la biodiversidad de cada uno de los ecosistemas marinos. Tenemos que preservar nuestros mares, sin duda, pero con estudios serios, medidas eficaces y una implementación inteligente, no burocrática, que evite mandar a nuestros pescadores a la miseria de forma caprichosa. Dejen de legislar a ciegas, incluyan el diálogo con las cofradías de pescadores y con las organizaciones ecologistas de cada territorio. Dejen de hacer políticas pesqueras burocráticas que parecen diseñadas por quien conoce mejor la realidad de un puerto deportivo que la de un puerto pesquero. Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, las deficiencias del veto a la pesca de fondo que hoy debatimos son conocidas por todos. Me refiero al uso indiscriminado de datos científicos, la ausencia de una evaluación de impacto socioeconómico, la falta de consultas suficientes o la negativa totalmente injustificada a distinguir entre el arrastre y el palangre, en contra de lo que, por ejemplo, dice el CIEM. En el fondo, la Comisión ha trabajado con brocha gorda y no con un pincel fino. Este Parlamento, este hemiciclo, hace dos semanas censuró el comportamiento de la Comisión mediante una enmienda presentada por mi Grupo, el PPE. La Comisión también ha recibido la crítica unánime del Parlamento de Galicia, primera región pesquera de Europa, y de los cuatro Estados miembros afectados (España, Portugal, Irlanda y Francia). Las primeras noticias sobre el impacto de este veto son preocupantes: en Galicia, las capturas de las especies afectadas han caído hasta un 60 % y la facturación ha disminuido notablemente. Antes de que esta tendencia se pueda confirmar, mi Grupo y yo pedimos una vez más a la Comisión que suspenda ya la aplicación del veto a la pesca de fondo y que lo revise lo antes posible. Quiero recordar que el pasado 15 de septiembre, el mismo día en que se aprobaba el Reglamento que hoy debatimos, este Parlamento aprobaba una Resolución que reclamaba a la Comisión que se abstuviese de proponer más normas que pongan en peligro nuestra seguridad alimentaria. Señora comisaria, no podemos seguir legislando en el sector alimentario como si nada ocurriese. Ahí están la guerra de Ucrania y sus terribles consecuencias —múltiples consecuencias, además—. En un momento excepcional, con el precio de la cesta de la compra disparado, no se entiende que la Comisión esté limitando la pesca de pescado capturado por la flota europea. Hay ecosistemas vulnerables, ciertamente, pero nuestra seguridad alimentaria, nuestros pescadores y sus familias también son vulnerables. Por sus deficiencias jurídicas, científicas, procedimentales y, evidentemente, también deficiencias en materia de oportunidad —pensemos en las circunstancias trágicas que hoy vive Europa y la situación económica y social—, por todas estas razones, insisto: lo más sensato es la suspensión de la medida. (El orador acepta responder a una intervención realizada con arreglo al procedimiento de la „tarjeta azul”). Bogdan Rzońca (ECR),
wystąpienie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Dziękuję bardzo za umożliwienie zadania pytania. Chciałem zadać Panu pytanie, ponieważ wspomniał Pan o aspekcie żywnościowym tego problemu połowów ryb na wielkich głębinach. Czy zechciałby Pan rozszerzyć swoją wypowiedź? Co Pan miał na myśli? Jaki dramat żywnościowy z tego tytułu może wyniknąć? Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE),
respuesta de „tarjeta azul”. – Bueno, yo creo que en la Unión Europea estamos teniendo problemas de alimentación. Aquí lo tenemos, como usted sabe muy bien, por ejemplo, con el problema de los cereales o del girasol. La guerra de Ucrania ha desatado un incremento en los precios de la alimentación, ha contribuido a romper todavía más, o a alterar, las cadenas de suministro de la alimentación, no solo de la energía. Aquí, el problema que se va a producir, es que va a haber menos pescado pescado por las flotas europeas y, por tanto, los precios también subirán. Es un problema porque, efectivamente, esto contribuye a romper, o a hacer disminuir, el consumo de una proteína, además, muy saludable. Tendremos que importar más de otros países no europeos donde la pesca, además, no es tan sostenible ni se acerca a esos criterios de sostenibilidad, etc., de la flota europea. Por eso, sí creo que puede haber un problema, o que lo va a haber, de seguridad alimentaria en Europa, cuando tanto hablamos de seguridad estratégica, de autonomía estratégica. Creo que es, por eso, muy inoportuna la medida. Grace O'Sullivan (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, protecting vulnerable marine ecosystems is critical not only for nature but for people. The fact that we even have to debate here today is shocking. Last week, we learnt that nature is in freefall. We have seen a devastating 70% drop in wildlife populations in my lifetime. Not even the deep seas are safe from this collapse. Yet there are those speaking here in the House today who still are open to more destruction in the oceans, to drilling, to mining, to bottom trawling, even in vulnerable marine areas. We are at the beginning of a process which, if done properly, could result in the greatest decade of marine protection in history. Ireland has committed to increasing marine protected areas to 30% by 2030, and even the EU has now decided to move forward with strictly protecting over 16 000 square kilometres of fragile habitats in Irish waters from extensive trawling. This is an area the size of Cork, Kerry, Waterford and Wexford combined. It is high time now to take this measure and improve on it with national legislation in every Member State to establish effective functioning marine ecosystems. It's time to stop nature freefall on land and at sea. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue-card speech) Nicolás González Casares (S&D),
intervención de „tarjeta azul”. – Yo comparto lo que dice usted sobre la protección de los mares y que es necesario proteger nuestros mares, pero mi pregunta es: defiende usted un acto de ejecución, ¿qué pruebas tiene de que la pesca del palangre de la merluza afecte de esa manera al fondo marítimo? ¿Cuáles son las pruebas que tiene usted para decir esto? ¿Afecta esto al acto de ejecución? Es decir, veo una incongruencia terrible en lo que acaba de decir. Grace O'Sullivan (Verts/ALE),
blue-card reply. – The evidence is there, and that is why the Commission is imposing this act. And the fact that we have vulnerable areas and creating more space for fish and for other species, and to provide them with that protection, is critical. As others have said here today, the benefit of this will be sustainable, resilient fishing into the future. And that's what we're trying to do: we're trying to recognise that the marine ecosystems are in trouble and they are in trouble from destructive fishing practices, and that if we reverse this, we will actually increase the opportunities for fishers, for fisher families, for marine life and for society and people in general. Younous Omarjee (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, nous ne sommes pas dupes du jeu de la France qui, en coulisse, continue d'agir comme meilleur bras armé des lobbies de la pêche industrielle pour faire obstacle à la fermeture, dès 400 mètres de profondeur, de tous les écosystèmes vulnérables à toutes les méthodes de pêche touchant les fonds marins, ce qui est devenu absolument nécessaire. Nous ne sommes pas dupes non plus du jeu de l'Espagne, qui entend poursuivre la Commission devant la Cour de justice pour entraver ce règlement. Tout cela en dit long. Madame Dalli, je me souviens, dans une autre législature, de la commissaire Damanaki qui, déjà, avait eu affaire à l'action néfaste de la France et de l'Espagne visant à entraver le règlement sur la pêche en eaux profondes. Et heureusement qu'il y a eu le Parlement européen, heureusement qu'il y a eu la commissaire Damanaki et la Commission. Tenez bon face aux menaces, tenez bon face aux lobbies, parce que les océans et les écosystèmes marins sont en grand danger aujourd'hui. (L'orateur accepte de répondre à une intervention „carton bleu”) Clara Aguilera (S&D),
intervención de „tarjeta azul”. – Señor Omarjee, normalmente usted tiene unas intervenciones muy sensatas; no es que hoy no la haya tenido, pero me sorprende que acuse a Gobiernos como el de su país, Francia, o el de España, que lo que están haciendo es defender los intereses del sector pesquero y también están muy preocupados por el medio ambiente. Pero aquí hay cosas que no ha hecho bien la Comisión y es lo que denunciamos. Por tanto, no sé en qué se basa usted para decir que hay una presión soterrada cuando lo que se está pidiendo, en el caso del Gobierno español, es que se actualicen los datos para tomar las medidas adecuadas. ¿En qué se basa para acusar a los Gobiernos, especialmente al de mi país? Si a usted no le preocupa el francés, a mí tampoco, pero especialmente el de España se está ocupando mucho. Deme su opinión. Younous Omarjee (The Left),
réponse „carton bleu”. – Chère collègue, j'entends votre remarque, mais nous sommes ici au Parlement européen et nous avons pour habitude d'embrasser l'intérêt général européen. Et lorsqu'il s'agit de mettre en cause les attitudes et positions des États membres au Conseil européen, nous le faisons et il n'y a pas à s'en émouvoir. Je veux vous dire que vous prétendez défendre les pêcheurs, mais si nous continuons au rythme actuel de prédation, il n'y aura plus, et c'est l'ONU qui le dit, un seul poisson, ni coquillages, ni crustacés disponibles pour la pêche commerciale d'ici 2050, c'est-à-dire demain. Il y a donc urgence à agir et il y a urgence à protéger les écosystèmes dans les grands fonds marins, qui sont en très grand danger. Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, não temos qualquer dúvida da importância das áreas marinhas protegidas na conservação e na recuperação dos recursos naturais. Todos compreendemos, em determinados casos, a proibição de práticas de exploração mais intensivas e potencialmente nocivas para o meio ambiente. O que não compreendemos, nem aceitamos, é um processo de decisão pouco transparente, sem consistência científica, sem estudos de impacto económico e social e de costas voltadas para quem vive do mar e dele retira o seu rendimento. Temos afirmado várias vezes que uma área marinha protegida, apesar de muito útil, não é um fim em si mesmo, é um instrumento de conservação ambiental que, quando bem apoiado na ciência e coordenado com todas as partes interessadas, pode ser determinante, inclusive para quem faz da pesca a sua atividade. Nunca é demais relembrar que as vossas decisões, que as nossas decisões também, afetam comunidades inteiras de pessoas e famílias que vivem do setor da pesca. Um instrumento de conservação ambiental, quando mal aplicado, não serve nem o ambiente nem a economia, pelo contrário, destrói empresas, destrói comunidades, destrói famílias. A conservação dos oceanos não é eficaz se não envolver todas as partes interessadas e se não tiver como pilares fundamentais a ciência, a transparência e o princípio da proporcionalidade que, ao que parece, neste caso concreto, foram uma vez mais esquecidas. Senhora Comissária, sei que está aqui representação do Sr. Comissário Sinkevičius. Peço-lhe, por isso, que considere pelo menos a suspensão da decisão até, de facto, conseguirem obter os devidos pareceres, considerando não apenas as manifestações dos vários Estados-Membros, e termino, leve também a mensagem e os anseios dos deputados que aqui intervieram neste plenário. Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, estos días me escribieron Regino y sus socios, armadores de Burela de la flota del pincho afectados por la decisión de la Comisión, que no se explican cómo no se presentaron antes alegaciones para ser excluidos de esta decisión. La afectación de esta medida a más de mil barcos —cuatro mil tripulantes— y la repercusión en las lonjas de mi país, Galicia, con la pérdida potencial de ventas: es un desastre. Con este veto a la pesca gallega, cientos de tripulantes perderán su trabajo y parte de sus salarios, no solo en las artes de pesca de fondo, como la flota de palangre del Gran Sol o la de arrastre del Cantábrico noroeste, sino también en las artes menores de pesca artesanal, con 2 100 afectados en este segmento de flota. Son personas y comarcas marineras afectadas por una decisión desproporcionada e injusta. Este veto merece una suspensión urgente: la urgencia de presentar un recurso en Luxemburgo. Señora comisaria, transmítaselo al señor comisario, que aún no lo hemos visto y es una vergüenza que no lo hayamos visto todavía. Y hay dos problemas. El primero: a la Comisión Europea no le importa la pesca. El segundo: el problema medioambiental y económico. Desde la organización política en la que milito —el BNG—, estaremos a favor de preservar los recursos medioambientales y la biodiversidad siempre. Pero es que aquí se ha vulnerado también eso. Se han vulnerado el medio, los recursos disponibles y las capacidades de pesca, pues no se ha tenido en cuenta el impacto social, no se ha dispuesto de datos actualizados, no se hace la distinción entre las artes de arrastre, las de fondo, las de malla y las de palangre. La flota gallega ha sufrido muchos desguaces. Va a producirse sobrepesca y eso va a provocar un desequilibrio medioambiental. Y desde aquí votaremos siempre en contra del veto, como hicimos en 2016. Seán Kelly (PPE). –
A Uachtaráin, the EU has the world's largest maritime area, with a coastline approximately 68 000 kilometres long. Ireland, a small island on the edge of Europe, has one of the largest sea-to-land ratios of any EU Member State. With the ocean an ever-present feature of Irish life, we hold huge value and huge respect for the sea around our island. It is a source of beauty, activity and economy for our coastal communities. Given the importance of the sea to our livelihood, we must protect our vulnerable marine ecosystems. Deep-sea ecosystems are unique hotspots for marine biodiversity, in particular because species in deep-sea areas are uniquely vulnerable to overfishing. Their long lifespans means a significant time is needed to replenish their stock. In this regard, the sustainable conservation of vulnerable marine ecosystems is essential. However, „sustainability” is the operative word here, and for this reason, I welcome the opportunity to consider the social and economic consequences of the Commission's Implementing Regulation. While conservation efforts are essential, so too is the need to protect the fair living standards of Ireland's fishing communities. We must ensure that our conservation efforts are environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. When implementing this regulation, I call on the Commission to have due regard for the unique circumstances of coastal communities and the fishing industry. Adequate consultation with fishing communities and the use of the most recent data is essential when classifying areas as vulnerable marine ecosystems. A socio-economic assessment should be factored into any Commission decision before drastic measures are taken. As an example, I would like to highlight that Irish fishermen suffered considerably post-Brexit, losing access to UK ports and waters. As we move forward with marine conservation efforts, it is important that we are mindful of the broader economic context in which these decisions are taken. I call on the Commission to consider this in their implementation activities. Spontane Wortmeldungen Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, being from Ireland, every time we hear fishing being discussed, we are reminded of the fact that the fishing community in Ireland have been treated like second-class citizens for a long time. Successive Irish governments sold out our fishermen and women a long time ago. Ireland has a great reputation at giving away our natural resources. I want to draw the Commission's attention to a fishing issue off the south coast of Wexford at the moment. There's a massive application for wind farms in an area off the coast of Wexford that will have a big impact on the fishing communities of Kilmore Quay, Fethard-on-Sea, Dunmore East. I am 100% in favour of wind farms in the sea. It's a win-win for everybody. It's a brilliant idea. But my problem is that these wind turbines at sea are now being proposed before marine protected areas have been designated. Now, while the EU – and Ireland – might have a target of 30% by 2030, still only 2% of Irish fishing area has been designated for this. We're putting the cart before the horse. La Présidente. –
(suite à une intervention hors micro dans l'hémicycle) Madame Chabaud, pardon, mais ce n'est pas possible parce que vous avez déjà pris la parole avant. (Réaction hors micro dans l'hémicycle) Ah, c'est marqué comme une intervention à la demande, mais il s'agit en fait d'une intervention „carton bleu”. À qui s'adresse-t-elle? (Réponse hors micro dans l'hémicycle) On peut prendre l'intervention „carton bleu” si elle est acceptée, mais plus tard, après les interventions à la demande, d'accord? Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, I have to say, the idea of a regulation determining existing deep-sea fishing areas and establishing areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur sounds grand. And it is! But the devil is in the detail in terms of these directives and regulations and the manner in which they're being implemented. The failure to bring on board the fishing communities, and to distinguish between big and small operators in a community that has been absolutely shafted in terms of the impact on it because of membership in the EU is really regrettable, and it brings to the surface the contradiction. We talk about marine protection, and that is really necessary, but what do we do in action in terms of enforcing it? We have the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which Ireland has failed to implement. It has not designated marine protected areas and, therefore, now we have these giant French and Portuguese companies coming in with major applications for offshore wind farms in Killiney and Kilmore Quay, which is a threat to the area – and no marine protected areas. This isn't joined-up thinking! If we're serious about protecting the marine area, what's the Commission doing to make sure Ireland implements this Directive? (End of catch-the-eye procedure) President. – Mr Kelly, will you accept a blue-card question? (Mr Kelly agreed) Catherine Chabaud (Renew),
intervention „carton bleu” à Seán Kelly. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur Kelly, ma question s'adresse à vous, mais elle aurait pu s'adresser à tous vos collègues qui dénoncent cette mesure de la Commission européenne, parce qu'il y a une chose que je ne comprends pas: toutes vos interventions donnent l'impression que cette mesure est prise contre les pêcheurs. Or – et vous l'avez souligné –, ces écosystèmes sont sensibles. L'idée, c'est de déplacer l'action de pêche et d'éviter cette partie, ces zones qui sont très délimitées. Donc, ma question est: quelles sont vraiment les conséquences pour les pêcheurs? Parce que, finalement, vous en parlez comme si c'était dramatique, mais où est le drame? En fait, pour les pêcheurs aussi cette mesure est pertinente. Seán Kelly (PPE),
blue-card reply. – Thank you very much for the question. As we pointed out, and my colleagues as well, we want to have sustainable fishing. We want to protect the marine areas. But it must be done, first of all, on up-to-date data. That is not the position as of now. Secondly, if you ban fishing from these waters by Irish and other fishers from the European Union, there's going to be a shortage of food, as my colleague Mr Millán Mon pointed out, and therefore we are going to be importing it from other countries who do not have the same standards, who do not have the same sustainability and who are actually taking fish from our waters. So we have to protect our own group first and we must consult with those who are most involved, and that's the fishers. And if they are happy with it, then we move ahead, because if it is in their interest, as you are pointing out, then why would they be going against it? Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I thank you for your comments and for this open dialogue, and I shall try to address a couple of the points which you raised, because I realise that most of your points were also addressed in quite a bit of detail in my introductory statement. Some of you claimed that the Commission did not use the latest data. We want to be clear on this: any scientific information can only be taken into account if it was fully communicated and reviewed within the scientific bodies in response to data calls issued to all Member States as of 2017. The ICES advice is the result of a thorough scientific, peer reviewed process involving leading scientists in the field, and the latest information communicated by Spain as part of the 2022 data call can only be reviewed and considered in the next ICES advice. So you will understand that ICES cannot take this data into account retroactively and include them into the 2021 ICES advice, which was the basis for the implementing act. Also, some of you asked why we did not wait for two more months to have the new and improved scientific advice. The Commission and ICES have waited many years for the correct data submission from the Member States to prepare this much-needed scientific advice. So, once this advice was available, no day was wasted as the Commission was fully aware of its long-overdue legal obligation to finalise the implementing regulation. Waiting for updated scientific advice would have led to more significant delay and not just two months, as the whole adoption process should have been restarted, including a new two-months notification in the UK. And all in all, a further delay would be unjustifiable after such a long delay of four years and such a long consultation process, which was started in 2019 with the national administrations and stakeholders. Also, some of you said that we did not analyse the socio-economic impacts of the closures. So the basis for the adoption of the implementing act is the scientific advice proposes management options that consider the fishing intensity and, therefore, the socio-economic impacts. I witnessed with great concern, however, that it is still very difficult for the fishing sector, notably in Spain, to quantify the exact impact of its own fleet. We see various and often very different figures, both in terms of vessels and fishers impacted as well as the possible overall cost to regional economies. The Commission has repeatedly asked for detailed and precise information, but so far without success. As regards repeating claims that there was no consultation process and that the industry has not been involved, I want to be clear on this once again that over the past two years, the Commission carried out an extensive stakeholder consultation through a series of meetings with Member States, advisory councils and stakeholders. For the first time, ICES invited stakeholders to a workshop to better inform the scientific advice. And this workshop took place in 2020 and representatives from all stakeholders were invited to provide meaningful feedback. In addition, over the last years the Commission held regular meetings with the national administrations and stakeholders to inform, consult and debrief on this topic, well ahead of proposing the draft implementing act. So, to counter the alleged lack of consultation, the Commission has also disclosed to concerned Member States and stakeholders the exchanges on the matter with all stakeholders and Member States last September. With regards to the claim that the Commission had called the fisheries industry a „destructive industry”, I categorically reject this. The Commission has certainly never said such a thing, and the Commission has, of course, no intention to destroy the fishing industry. On the contrary, what we want to achieve collectively, together with the sector, is to ensure a transition towards sustainable fishing practices. And let me clarify once again that the implementing act adopted by the Commission last September did not and could not change anything that is already laid down in the regulation of 2016, neither on the gears affected by this implementing act nor on the deficit concerns. It applies to all bottom gears and it applies to all 87 listed areas, but only below 400 metres' depth. The Commission has asked the Spanish administration several times to share its assessment on the socio-economic impact, which so far we have seen only indifferent figures quoted in the press. So we now look forward to receiving their formal assessment soon. In this context, I point to the encouraging statement made by the head of the Spanish government, Mr Sánchez, that the majority of the 337 Spanish vessels affected could continue to operate as usual. And I recall that the EU's bold step forward in protecting 87 areas of vulnerable marine ecosystems will allow these areas to finally recover and replenish, and our fishers will clearly benefit from this. A healthy ocean is a promise for a better future for our coastal communities and our economies. And only healthy oceans can be climate mitigators and biodiversity hotspots. Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen. I am really sorry for our esteemed visitors but there is now going to be a break until voting time at 12.00. Perhaps you can take a coffee in the meantime ... (The sitting was suspended at 11.35). PRESIDÊNCIA: PEDRO SILVA PEREIRA Vice-Presidente 6.   Hervatting van de vergadering (The sitting resumed at 12.02.) 7.   Samenstelling commissies en delegaties Presidente. – O Grupo ID comunicou à presidente uma decisão de alteração no âmbito das nomeações numa delegação. Esta decisão constará da ata da sessão de hoje e produzirá efeitos a partir da data do presente anúncio. 8.   Stemmingen Presidente. – Passamos agora à votação. (Para os resultados e outros pormenores da votação: ver ata) 8.1.   Specifieke bepalingen voor de samenwerkingsprogramma's voor de periode 2014-2020 naar aanleiding van de verstoring van de programma-uitvoering (C9-0289/2022 - Michael Gahler) (stemming) 8.2.   De niet-erkenning van Russische reisdocumenten die zijn afgegeven in bezette buitenlandse gebieden (C9-0302/2022 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar) (stemming) Após a votação da proposta da Comissão: Juan Fernando López Aguilar,
Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. – Mr President, is there a referral? Just to call for the referral back to the relevant committee for interinstitutional negotiations. (O Parlamento aprova o pedido) 8.3.   De rechtsstaat in Malta, vijf jaar na de moord op Daphne Caruana Galizia (B9-0470/2022, B9-0471/2022) (stemming) 8.4.   Toenemende haatmisdrijven tegen lhbtiq-personen in heel Europa in het licht van de recente homofobe moord in Slowakije (B9-0476/2022, B9-0477/2022) (stemming) 8.5.   VN-conferentie over klimaatverandering 2022 in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypte (COP27) (B9-0461/2022) (stemming) 8.6.   Culturele solidariteit met Oekraïne en een gemeenschappelijk noodresponsmechanisme voor cultureel herstel in Europa (B9-0473/2022) (stemming) 8.7.   De situatie in Burkina Faso na de staatsgreep (RC-B9-0464/2022, B9-0464/2022, B9-0465/2022, B9-0466/2022, B9-0467/2022, B9-0468/2022, B9-0469/2022) (stemming) Presidente. – O período de votação está encerrado. (A sessão é suspensa às 12h33) VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND Vizepräsident 9.   Hervatting van de vergadering (Die Sitzung wird um 15.01 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.) 10.   Goedkeuring van de notulen van de vorige vergadering Der Präsident. – Das Protokoll der gestrigen Sitzung und die angenommenen Texte sind verfügbar. Ich sehe keine Einwände. Das Protokoll ist damit genehmigt. 11.   Europese steun voor de Oekraïense onderzoeksgemeenschap (debat) Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission über die Unterstützung der EU für die ukrainische Forschungsgemeinschaft von Cristian-Silviu Bușoi im Namen des Ausschusses für Industrie, Forschung und Energie (O-000044/2022 – B9-0029/2022) (2022/2691(RSP)). Maria da Graça Carvalho,
author. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, this oral question covers several key issues for the ITRE committee. It deals with protecting the rights of a community, the scientific community, which plays a pivotal role in our common well-being. We address the importance of science. We address the importance of science diplomacy, a tool that brings positive changes in international relations, reinforcing ties and easing political tensions. We talk about the need to bring stability to the researchers community in Europe and elsewhere. We also underline the importance of values such as research and academic freedom, such as ethics in new in science and new technologies. Researchers around the world should be free to think and express ideas. They should be free to focus on their activities for the good of humanity and to expand the frontiers of scientific knowledge. These are principles that in the European Union, we apply in all our policies. Europe must be a safe place to do research, a safe place for science. It must be an example for the rest of the world. The Union has the tradition of using science diplomacy tools in other parts of the world. I can mention, for example, the Balkans integration, for which scientific cooperation played a crucial role. The need to support researchers at risk is not a novelty. Recently, we have witnessed this in Afghanistan, where hundreds of researchers were put at risk by the Taliban regime. We see this, unfortunately, around the world where there are authoritarian regimes. The Union's response to the needs of Ukrainian research has been, so far, swift. The Parliament was the first, demanding a mobilisation of instruments to help them to continue their research activities. The European higher education and research institutions have shown their solidarity by organising, on a voluntary basis, support for researchers, even without funding from governments or other institutions. Commissioner Mariya Gabriel was able to mobilise quickly the funds useful to support researchers. The establishment of ERA4Ukraine, a one-stop-shop to give researchers of Ukraine a concrete point of reference was one of the first responses. Initiatives like Horizon for Ukraine, ERC for Ukraine and Marie Curie actions for Ukraine followed shortly and help the creation of fellowship schemes and targeted financial support. This has been an exceptional response to a war on European soil. In Europe, we live in freedom. Values, as researchers have said, such as academic freedom are essential. However, this also increases our responsibility to help researchers at risk, especially in the neighbourhood countries that contribute also for our development research. Most of these countries were also participants in Horizon 2020 and now are in Horizon Europe. Europe should be a safe haven for all the researchers that want to continue their research. This is why we must continue to support our Ukrainian friends. Today, we are asking the European Commission how it plans to maintain and reinforce this support, which initiatives it is planning to mobilise which specific support schemes are ready and which national schemes can be pulled together to become best practices. To do all this, the European Commission should be able to use the right instruments. So far, to support Ukrainian research, the European Commission had to rely on emergency provisions in the financial regulation. We need to make better use of the possibilities provided by the association agreement between Ukraine and the EU in science. Furthermore, we need a new and innovative approach to help the researchers in Ukraine, but also to ensure the survival and future reform of the research infrastructure in this country, so that when there is peace researchers have a place to continue their scientific work. For example, the Commission should set up an ad hoc European fellowship scheme for researchers at risk and to be prepared for the future in other situations. Parliament supports this and already has a pilot project budgeted. Věra Jourová,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I would like to update you on our support for the Ukrainian research community and its broader research and innovation ecosystem. And I would like to start by thanking Mr Cristian Bușoi for sending us very pertinent questions on behalf of the ITRE Committee. The Commission fully recognises the importance of providing meaningful support for the Ukrainian research community. We are also mindful of the long-term perspective when Ukraine's reconstruction begins. The ongoing war has inflicted massive damage on Ukraine's research infrastructures, disrupted research and innovation activities and left researchers who remain in the country with limited means to continue their work. At the same time, the Lugano Conference in July marked the beginning of political discussions on Ukraine's reconstruction. I am sure that here we all agree that knowledge, innovative solutions and advanced technology will be key in rebuilding a modern Ukraine. In terms of our concrete support, in the wake of invasion, we gave our full attention to employment opportunities for displaced researchers who fled the war, seeking refuge in the EU. We have done this strong coordination with the Member States, for example, via the ERA4Ukraine initiative. More recently, our focus shifted to supporting those who remain in the country and have limited means to continue their work. We fully recognise the importance of keeping Ukraine's research and innovation ecosystem alive and preventing excessive brain drain. In view of Ukraine's EU candidate country status, we also need to facilitate their integration into the European research area. In this context, Ukraine's association to the Horizon Europe and Euratom programmes should be seen as the key instruments of support. The Association Agreement is in force since 9 June and Ukrainian entities can participate in these programmes on equal terms with entities from the EU Member States. In addition, the Commission made an exception for Ukraine by waiving its financial contributions for years 2021 and 2022 at the very last under all Union programmes to which Ukraine is associated. On top of that, all our research and innovation goals encourage the applicants to include opportunities where possible for Ukrainians. With these provisions in place, we encourage our Member States as well as our global partners who take interest in the Horizon Europe and Euratom programmes to actively pursue cooperation opportunities with the Ukrainian partners. As a next step, we intend to support Ukraine in setting up a Horizon Europe office in Kyiv in the course of 2023. Our hope is that it can strengthen the research and innovation networks and facilitate more competitive applications from Ukraine. I still have something to say, and I will say it in my concluding remarks. Seán Kelly,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – A Uachtaráin, we have entered a new and pivotal phase of the callous and unnecessary war in Ukraine. I think everybody knows that the war could be over tomorrow if war criminal Putin wished it so. Europe's reaction to the war is, of course, multifaceted. But I am glad that MEPs Bușoi and Carvalho have raised this particular aspect. As has been pointed out, the EU higher education and research community has expressed a strong support for the Ukrainian research and innovative sector. I welcome the steps taken to ensure Ukrainian entities are eligible for a rise in Europe funding, and it is positive to see the European Innovation Council announce 20 million of support for Ukrainian start-ups. I also warmly welcome the MSCA4Ukraine initiative, which provides 25 million to support fellowships for Ukrainian PhD students and postdocs. I hope this scheme can get up and running as soon as possible. Yet, in line with MEPs Bușoi and Carvalho, I also believe that more action can be taken. Ukrainian research infrastructure is under extreme pressure with the war. The Commission should investigate how further to support these people under the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. With rockets continuing to destroy Ukrainian cities, indiscriminately targeting schools, universities, hospitals and research infrastructure, such as the National Gene Bank of Plants, and the death toll of scientists increasing, Ukraine needs a coordinated approach to save its research community. The situation in Afghanistan also comes to mind, but academics have been forced into exile or hiding by the Taliban, who require full societal obedience to their dogmatic and oppressive views. In this regard, I would like to highlight the good work done by the Scholars at Risk network, in particular Europe Director Sinead O'Connor, who is based in Maynooth University in Ireland. Maith thú a Shinéad! Go raibh maith agat. Jordi Solé,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, when Russia invaded Ukraine in February this year, many researchers across Europe quickly mobilised to host fellow Ukrainian researchers. Let me tell you about a nice example of this kind of solidarity. A few days ago, I visited the Beta Research Centre in Vic in Central Catalonia. They do an outstanding job in the fields of biodiversity, circular economy and environmental and food technology. During the course of my visit, I was told that only two days after the war started and appalled by the images of the cruel invasion, the centre decided to offer to host Ukrainian researchers. As they were spreading the call through the social networks, they quickly found out that similar initiatives were emerging all over Europe. At least 100 volunteers from all countries were organising the reception of Ukrainian researchers in EU facilities in an altruistic and self-managed manner. Then these volunteers decided to open the Science for Ukraine website to provide in a clear and open way all the useful information for Ukrainian researchers willing to flee the war but at the same time continue their careers. Globally, more than 2 000 offers were collected and in some cases they welcomed the first refugees even before the official administrations had put in place reception measures. The Beta Centre provided work, housing and salary for eight Ukrainian researchers, and now they are proud to tell about their experience, which was positive both for the Ukrainian researchers and the host centre. Support to the Ukrainian research community has to be part of the EU's comprehensive support to the people of Ukraine, to whom we've just decided to grant the Sakharov Prize. The Commission has rightly provided coordination support to concrete actions like the one I just explained. It is important that, despite the horrors of the war and the massive latest attacks on civilian infrastructure, the Ukrainian research community can keep working inside the country, preventing brain drain, and that we keep providing support for the projects under Horizon Europe and other additional instruments. And in the future reconstruction efforts education and research infrastructure will have to get special attention because, as we know, the research and innovation capacity of any country is key to a more prosperous future. Joachim Stanisław Brudziński,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Bardzo ważne są nie tylko deklaracje, nie tylko słowa, ale konkrety, konkretna pomoc. Ja tutaj chciałbym odwołać się do Polski, mojego kraju, który jest w forpoczcie jeżeli chodzi zarówno o tę pomoc w wymiarze humanitarnym, tę pomoc w wymiarze ochrony dóbr kultury, jak i o to, o czym dzisiaj dyskutujemy, czyli pomoc dla ukraińskiej nauki. My w Polsce zaproponowaliśmy specjalne rozwiązania ustawowe, w tym szereg ułatwień dla studentów i naukowców, dotyczących kontynuacji kształcenia, prowadzenia badań w Polsce. Obywatel Ukrainy, który wjechał legalnie do Polski po 24 lutego bieżącego roku z Ukrainy i oświadczył, że pracował jako nauczyciel akademicki w uczelni na terytorium Ukrainy oraz posiada wymagany tytuł zawodowy, stopień naukowy, stopień w zakresie sztuki lub tytuł profesora i odpowiednie kwalifikacje do zajmowania danego stanowiska, może zostać zatrudniony w uczelni jako nauczyciel akademicki bez przeprowadzania konkursu. Uruchomiliśmy także ogólnopolski portal informacyjny dla osób z Ukrainy. Głównym celem portalu jest usprawnienie procesu poszukiwania informacji o możliwościach studiowania i zatrudnienia w polskich uczelniach i instytucjach badawczych w Polsce dla kandydatów z Ukrainy. Portal skierowany jest do obecnych i przyszłych studentów, doktorantów oraz pracowników uczelni, instytutów badawczych Ukrainy. Portal pomaga odnaleźć między innymi ofertę studiów zarówno w trybie rekrutacji na pełny cykl studiów, jak i kontynuacji wcześniej rozpoczętych studiów na jednej z uczelni ukraińskich, szkół doktorskich. Są także propozycję innej współpracy: staże, stypendia oraz oferty pracy w instytucjach polskiego systemu szkolnictwa wyższego i nauki. Wiele tych przykładów. Ukraińskiej nauce należy się pomoc. Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Dėkoju, Pirmininke. Sveikintina, kad Europos Sąjungoje veikiantys fondai vis labiau prisideda prie Ukrainos mokslininkų finansavimo. Marijos Sklodovskos-Kiuri paramos Ukrainos mokslui fondas neseniai numatė skirti 25 mln. eurų paramą doktorantams ir jauniesiems mokslininkams. Įsigaliojus Ukrainos asociacijos susitarimui su Europos Horizonto programa ir EURATOM'u, šalies mokslininkams atsirado daugiau galimybių siekti finansavimo projektinėms veikoms. Vis dėlto, įvairiais skaičiavimais, dėl karo veiksmų nuo 26 iki 52 tūkst. mokslininkų gali palikti Ukrainą. Šalyje didelė dalis moksliniams tyrimams reikalingos infrastruktūros yra visiškai suardyta. Trūksta elementariausios įrangos, knygų, nešiojamųjų kompiuterių, reikia suteikti prieigą prie elektroninių akademinių šaltinių. Būtina skirti stipendijas Ukrainos mokslininkams atlikti eksperimentinius tyrimus užsienio universitetuose. Pats būdamas akademinio pasaulio atstovu, gerai supratu, kaip svarbu publikuoti mokslinius straipsnius žinomiausiuose pasaulio žurnaluose, tai gyvybiškai būtina norint išlaikyti pakankamą aukštojo mokslo institucijų lygį Ukrainoje. Publikavimas autoriams kainuoja, ir tas išlaidas būtina ir galima sumažinti. Džiugu, kad Lietuvos mokslo taryba dar kovo mėn. numatė iki 100 stipendijų mokslininkų iš Ukrainos darbams Lietuvoje finansuoti, bet to maža. Parama, ir didesnė, turi būti teikiama ES lygmeniu. Tai būtina, norint išsaugoti aukštąjį mokslą Ukrainoje bei išvengti protų nutekėjimo. Ir, žinoma, pamažinkim biurokratinių reikalavimų projektinėms paraiškoms. Tiesiog įsivaizduokim, kad mokslininkas daro tai, aplinkui sproginėjant bomboms. Ir tai ne vaizduotės žaismas. Tai rūsti kasdienybė. Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, уважаема колега, поздравявам Ви за въпроса, който поставихте. Той е навременен и важен. Уважаема г-жо Комисар, често, да не кажа почти винаги, Ви критикувам за неща, които вярвам са верни, но в този случай въпроса, който е поставен и Вашата реакция заслужава и поздравления, и уважение. Общността, научната, в Украйна трябва да бъде подпомогната, защото след вероломното руско нападение и ракетни удари върху висши училища, върху гимназии и върху университети, съвсем очевидно е, че тази научна мисъл и този научен потенциал трябва да бъде запазен за доброто както на украинската нация, украинския народ, така и за цялата наша европейска цивилизация. Така че позицията Ви е достойна за уважение, за което ви поздравявам. Има един факт, исторически, който очевидно или по-скоро без изненада не Ви е известен, но всички знаете, че в Украйна има много голяма българска общност, българско малцинство. Тези хора са лоялни украински граждани. В Украйна се намира най-старата българска гимназия, най-старата. В Украйна има българска гимназия, преди да има българска държава. Така че ние трябва да помагаме на тези хора, така че работете. Spontane Wortmeldungen Clare Daly (The Left). –
(start of speech off microphone) This initiative is aimed at enabling Ukrainian researchers to continue their academic work in Member States, which I think is a really good thing. And I fully support it because knowledge forges consciousness. And I find it interesting that the organisation Scholars at Risk, which is a partner of the EU for the Ukrainian scheme, also wrote to the European institutions last year about Afghanistan. But we see no such scheme or motions for Afghanistan. So I would like to ask the Commissioner: is this being considered? And if not, why not? Because the people of Afghanistan and the researchers have been similarly exposed. And I'd also like to deal with the issue of that since the war in Ukraine, several Western scientific institutions have severed cooperation with Russia. I think this is lunacy. It was through joint Western and Soviet research during the Cold War that we demonstrated in Antarctica the link between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature, causing so much concern today. Scientific interaction is a good thing. It should be encouraged as a first step towards peace. Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Ačiū, Gerbiamas pirmininke, gerbiama Komisijos nare, noriu pasveikinti Jus iš tikrųjų su ta iniciatyva ir parama Ukrainos mokslininkams. Ir manau, kad čia kolegos išdėstė faktus, dėl ko kenčia Ukrainos mokslas, dėl ko kenčia mokslininkai, kaip yra griaunama infrastruktūra ir kokios pagalbos reikia tiek dabar, tiek ateityje atstatant Ukrainą po karo. Bet aš noriu atkreipti jūsų dėmesį į vieną faktą. Dėl Putino Rusijos invazijos į Ukrainą kenčia ir Baltarusijos žmonės, ypatingai tie, kurie pasipriešino Lukašenkos režimui, remiančiam Putino agresiją. Ir štai vien šiais metais iš Baltarusijos valstybinio universiteto atleista pusantro šimto mokslininkų. Gal mes galėtume galvodami ne tik apie Ukrainos, bet apie šitos agresijos prieš Ukrainą fone esančios situacijos pasekmes, įtraukti ir bent tuos mokslininkus iš Baltarusijos, kurie pasitraukė į Europos Sąjungą. Ir kad jie taip pat galėtų įsijungti į Europos mokslą ir gauti paramą. Ačiū. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, I 100% support the idea of European support for Ukrainian research and innovation. It makes very good sense. We did oppose supporting Ukraine with arms, which has led to more violence, more bloodshed and at great cost to the ordinary people, the less well-off in Ukraine who are dying in their numbers. Research and innovation leads to knowledge and understanding. It always represents good sense and, as my colleague said, we should never politicise this and we should keep channels open. We want people to understand more and to know more about life. And politicising this is not the way forward. And I mean, I've seen situations where Russian literature, music and dance or been censored in places. Russian sports were being censored. They didn't start a war; there's no logic to that. And just on a last point, we visited Iraq last year and they were crying out for support for research in Iraq from the European Community. And it is very disappointing that the Europeans have been silent on this and won't give it. (Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen) Věra Jourová,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this discussion and comments, which we will certainly consider in our work in support of the Ukrainian research and innovation scene. I have to say I am here always on topics which have a more or less divisive nature, and I have never experienced such a unanimous support for the case. So thank you very much, from left to right, from the middle. Thank you. As we heard at the beginning, it is our obligation to help our Ukrainian friends and I'm very much grateful to Parliament for showing very clearly that this is exactly what we continue to do. I still owe you some information on top of what I described at the beginning. I wanted to add that we have appointed the Ukraine-based ambassador of the European Innovation Council to feed us this information from the Ukrainian innovation scene. We have also implemented dedicated support measures such as a EUR 25 million fellowship scheme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and EUR 20 million support by the European Innovation Council, which should reach at least 200 Ukrainian deep-tech start-ups in and out of the country. Beyond our research and innovation programmes, the Commission supports scientists' engagement and responsible research through the Science and Technology Centre of Ukraine. The key objective is to prevent the brain drain of the dual-use knowledge from Ukraine to malevolent states. Finally, anticipating Ukraine's recovery, we are already considering how we could facilitate and complement physical reconstruction efforts. Under Horizon Europe and Euratom programmes we are proposing projects to build knowledge and reinforce Ukrainian skills and capacity in the areas of research infrastructures, climate-neutral cities and nuclear safety and security. The spirit of solidarity with Ukraine and its research and innovation community continues to hold strong. So thank you very much once again for this opportunity to present to you our work in support of Ukraine. Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen. Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171) Karol Karski (ECR),
na piśmie. – Szanowni Państwo! W tym trudnym czasie naszą misją jest wspieranie ukraińskiego środowiska naukowego w przetrwaniu wojny oraz pomoc w zapewnieniu kontynuacji nauki ukraińskiej, zarówno w zakresie kształcenia, jak i wzmacniania jej obecności na międzynarodowej arenie naukowej. Za działania priorytetowe uznać trzeba wsparcie systemu szkolnictwa wyższego na Ukrainie (dostęp i rozwiązania cyfrowe), zapobieganie tzw. drenażowi mózgów i zapewnienie edukacji cyfrowej. Cieszymy się, że 30 marca bieżącego roku na posiedzeniu Committee of Senior Officials COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) odbyło się głosowanie państw członkowskich nad przyjęciem do organizacji Ukrainy jako COST Full Member. Decyzja o przyjęciu została podjęta jednomyślnie. Chciałbym podkreślić, że w oparciu o różne źródła opracowany został zestaw informacji dla ukraińskich studentów i naukowców, a Polska była pierwszym członkiem europejskiej sieci EURAXESS, który przygotował informacje dotyczące możliwości otrzymania finansowania w postaci grantu czy zatrudnienia, jak i innego wsparcia związanego z przyjazdem i pobytem na terenie RP. W ramach sieci Euraxess, KE uruchomiła portal ERA4Ukraine, który wskazuje zainteresowanym inicjatywy europejskie (takie jak np.: ERC for Ukraine, Horizon4Ukraine). Portal ten zawiera podstawowe informacje dla obywateli Ukrainy dotyczące możliwości zatrudnienia, stypendiów, uznawalności dyplomów, jak również kwestii praktycznych takich jak zakwaterowanie, nauka języka czy dane kontaktowe placówki dyplomatycznej. 12.   Stemverklaringen Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen die Erklärungen zur Abstimmung. 12.1.   De rechtsstaat in Malta, vijf jaar na de moord op Daphne Caruana Galizia (B9-0470/2022, B9-0471/2022) Mündliche Stimmerklärungen Seán Kelly (PPE). –
A Uachtaráin, journalists play a crucial and significant role in ensuring the transparency, accountability and openness of our political institutions. The murder of anti-corruption investigative journalist Daphne Galizia five years ago is a scar on the face of democracy. I therefore welcome the resolution denouncing persistent flaws with the rule of law in Malta. I would also like to commend my colleague David Casa for his continued work in championing this topic and resolution. Today's resolution reaffirms the European Parliament's calls for Malta to fight against corruption and ensure the freedom of the press is enforced and guaranteed. Malta must also ensure that the rule of law – a key European value – is upheld. The European Union is built on democratic values, the rule of law, and the freedom of the press. The heinous murder of Daphne five years ago goes against all of these values. Ensuring the true freedom of the press means ensuring the protection of our democracy. Vlad Gheorghe (Renew). – Domnule președinte, o țară liberă nu este cu adevărat liberă dacă nu are o presă liberă. Din păcate, noi, în România, știm foarte bine ce înseamnă asta. Încă din vremurile comuniste și chiar acum, presa este de prea multe ori controlată. Nu există posibilitatea ca o presă să fie liberă dacă este controlată de politicieni. Și, din păcate, din nou, în România, o mare parte din presă este controlată și de politicieni, chiar de foști securiști, dar și de penali, de oameni condamnați mai ales pentru fapte de corupție. Din păcate, astăzi și în România, din nou, ziariștii sunt persecutați. Din păcate, unul dintre cele mai cunoscute cazuri este cel al Emiliei Șercan, un jurnalist care a arătat cazurile în care politicienii fură, și pentru asta au fost făcute campanii de compromitere împotriva ei. Dacă noi, din această sală, din acest Parlament, nu luăm măsuri pentru ca aceste lucruri să nu se mai întâmple, atunci de ce ne mai aflăm aici? Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, подкрепих резолюцията относно принципите на правовата държава в Малта - пет години след убийството на журналистката Дафне Галиция, защото смятам, че с работата си тя успя да повдигне въпроса за корупцията в нейното общество, прането на пари в особено големи размери и за съжаление, заплати за това с живота си. Резолюцията е уравновесена, приветства допълнителния капацитет, който се предоставя за разследване и за наказателно преследване на такива престъпления. Това означава, че Европейският парламент изразява загриженост за това, че продължават да съществуват пречки пред свободата на словото и различните мнения в медиите. Когато говоря за различни мнения, говоря не само за тези, които са угодни на тези медии и които са в така наречения мейнстрийм обществото. Смятам, че в този си вид резолюцията покрива тези аспекти и фактът, че е подкрепена от всички групи, показва нейното добро съдържание. 12.2.   Toenemende haatmisdrijven tegen lhbtiq-personen in heel Europa in het licht van de recente homofobe moord in Slowakije (B9-0476/2022, B9-0477/2022) Mündliche Stimmerklärungen Seán Kelly (PPE). –
A Uachtaráin, today I voted to strongly condemn the growing level of hate crimes against the LGBTQI community in Europe. This comes in light of the brutal and unjustified murder of two young men in Slovakia by far-right and radicalised gunmen. No person should ever feel threatened or unsafe as a result of their sexual orientation. That is why today I stand as an ally with the LGBTQ community and I call for an end to hate-fuelled rhetoric and violence. We all have a role in ensuring respect and decency towards every person in our community. The hatred fuelled by the far right and homophobic groups has led to fear, violence and terror. We must put an end to this intolerance and intimidation. Human dignity is a fundamental human right that every person deserves. The malicious attack in Slovakia, killing two young men, as well as the growing number of hate crimes, go directly against this value. Today, we reaffirm our commitment to human dignity. We condemn all heinous murders motivated by hatred and prejudice. Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, убедено гласувах против тази резолюция по няколко причини. На първо място, престъпленията, убийствата трябва да бъдат преследвани, наказвани, без значение от личността нито на престъпника, нито на жертвата. Това е работа на наказателното правосъдие, това е работа на наказателното право, защото в противен случай в тази зала се създават идеологически обяснения, идеологически причини и идеологически оправдания за едно или друго деяние. Уважаеми г-н Председател, и в Европа, и в България има много престъпления, за съжаление, които се извършват, да речем поради религиозните подбуди на извършителя. И във Франция, и в Германия, от която сте вие, има джихадистки и мюсюлмански ислямистки групи, които извършват престъпление поради техните подбуди. В България много престъпления се вършат от обитателите на махалите. Трябва ли тези хора да бъдат наказани по строго за техния произход? И нека да повдигна и още един път въпроса за самоопределението. Трябва ли да се наказва извършителят, ако той се самоопределя по един или друг начин? Аз мисля, че не, трябва да има правосъдие. Андрей Слабаков (ECR). – Г-н Председател, аз също гласувах категорично. Колегата Джамбазки каза доста от нещата, които аз исках да кажа, и съм категорично против тази резолюция, защото това нещо е абсолютно лицемерие и някакъв вид тотална идеология на болшевизма, според моите разбирания. Хиляди хора, стотици хиляди за съжаление, биват убивани годишно по всякакви причини. Защо никога не говорите, както каза колегата Джамбазки, за циганите, които ограбват и избиват пенсионерите в България? Това не е ли продиктувано от омраза? А другото, което искам да ви кажа е, че жертвите на една определена сексуална ориентация не означават, че това е само омраза към някакви хора. Някакъв човек го е извършил, той така разсъждава. По същия начин биват убивани работници, биват убивани и космонавти. Не трябва ли и за космонавтите да направим някаква резолюция? Нали разбирате, че това неравно представяне на нещата е абсурдно? Всички хора са равни пред Бога и закона. 12.3.   VN-conferentie over klimaatverandering 2022 in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypte (COP27) (B9-0461/2022) Mündliche Stimmerklärungen Seán Kelly (PPE). –
A Uachtaráin, as I say, at the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Egypt, which I am grateful to be attending, it is paramount that an agreement of continued cooperation, and support, is reached to ensure we limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. COP 27 comes at a time of great significance with the energy crisis across Europe. The impact of climate change can also be seen following the recent flooding and extreme rain, even in my own constituency in Cork. COP 27 will need to ensure sustainable climate finance, a significant transition to renewable energies and the protection of our ecosystems, while also ensuring an affordable and secure energy source for households, farmers, commuters and industry. We must ensure investment in research, innovation and digital technology to support the energy transition. There is untapped and undeveloped potential in many facets of energy generation in Europe, most notably solar, biogas, offshore wind, as well as green hydrogen. Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, много се радвам на тези наши срещи в четвъртък вечер, следобяд. Гласувах убедено срещу тази резолюция по следната причина: Не вярвам в тази идеология - климатизма, истеризма, зеленизма, идеология, която не почива на никакви реални научни данни и на никакви реални научни факти. Резултат от тази идеология е деиндустриализацията на европейския континент. Ние убиваме собственото си производство и даваме сили в ръцете на Китай, в ръцете на Турция, в ръцете на Русия. Ние съзнателно разрушаваме своята икономика, за да може някакви други хора, които не се интересуват от тази идеология, да печелят за сметка на нас. Това не е разумно, това не е икономически и научно обосновано. По тази причина гласуваме винаги убедено против всички такива резолюции, които ни карат да ставаме по-бедни, по-безработни, по-деиндустриализирани в полза на други общества и на други държави, които имат своите икономически и политически амбиции в тази посока. 12.4.   Culturele solidariteit met Oekraïne en een gemeenschappelijk noodresponsmechanisme voor cultureel herstel in Europa (B9-0473/2022) Mündliche Stimmerklärungen Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution because I agree with the need for solidarity with the cultural sector of Ukraine, which has been direly affected by the Russian invasion. We should remember that war always means the destruction of culture and artistic heritage, and we have a duty to protect it in humanity's name. That said, we should recall that Ukraine is a multi-ethnic, multicultural and multilingual society, and threats to diversity didn't begin in February and don't end with Russian nationalism. According to earlier censuses, nearly 30% of Ukrainians declared Russian as their native language. We know that language laws have been the subject of discrimination and cultural conflict in Ukraine since 2014. We know the Venice Commission has criticised Ukraine for failing to uphold its international commitments in that regard, so it's very important that the EU operates to international standards and is not discriminatory. We know from Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement that peace in Ukraine will require a settlement that acknowledges and respects and secures the heritage of all people of Ukraine, including its minorities. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, this motion talks about supporting the resilience and post-crisis recovery of the EU's cultural ecosystem as a whole, and I was very happy to vote in favour of it. There's been a significant increase in the Creative Europe Programme budget to 2.4 billion for the 2021-2027 period, almost double the previous amount. However, despite this increase in funding, Ireland remains in the bottom rung of European investment in culture, sadly. As one of the hardest hit sectors by Covid, the arts and cultural sector in Ireland has seen far-reaching and damaging consequences in terms of jobs, tourism and regional development. There is basically an arts recession in Ireland. In the cost of living crisis in Europe, it is more timely than ever to ensure the livelihood of people working in the cultural sector. There is a desperate need across the board for robust recovery mechanisms with targeted funding if anything is going to change. We love to talk about the arts in Ireland, but we don't love to support it, and that is a real problem. 12.5.   De situatie in Burkina Faso na de staatsgreep (RC-B9-0464/2022, B9-0464/2022, B9-0465/2022, B9-0466/2022, B9-0467/2022, B9-0468/2022, B9-0469/2022) Mündliche Stimmerklärungen Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I abstained on this resolution on Burkina Faso because, while it's not terrible, it's not really great either. It doesn't suggest a way forward; it's just really a simplistic call to return to civilian governments and a warning to stay away from those Russians and the Wagner Group. I mean, come on. The civilian governance structures – so-called – in Burkina Faso are all now pretty much militarised. We've just had another coup within a coup because it wasn't delivering anything. A civilian government on its own won't be any better unless it tackles issues like the CFA franc and the massive gold theft by multinationals. It won't be any good if it doesn't deal with the violence as a direct result of the interference of NATO in the Libyan war. Amendments, which were voted down by this House, amendments which were voted down calling for transparency and the end of the French using secrecy to hide their war crimes. So now we're supposed to believe it's all Russia's fault, the poor record of Wagner has led to terrorism, not the disastrous G5 Sahel missions. It's a joke. It's time to stop the carve-up of Africa. Stop strangling them. Let Burkina Faso forge its own destiny. Der Präsident. – Damit ist dieser Tagesordnungspunkt geschlossen. 13.   Goedkeuring van de notulen van deze vergadering en verzending van de aangenomen teksten Der Präsident. – Das Protokoll dieser Sitzung wird dem Parlament zu Beginn der nächsten Sitzung zur Genehmigung vorgelegt. Wenn es keine Einwände gibt, werde ich die in der heutigen Sitzung angenommenen Entschließungen den in diesen Entschließungen genannten Personen und Gremien übermitteln. 14.   Rooster van de volgende vergaderingen Der Präsident. – Die nächste Tagung findet am 9. und 10. November 2022 in Brüssel statt. 15.   Sluiting van de vergadering (Die Sitzung wird um 15.46 Uhr geschlossen) 16.   Onderbreking van de zitting Der Präsident. – Ich erkläre die Sitzungsperiode des Europäischen Parlaments für unterbrochen. ( *1 )  Siehe Protokoll