Verbatim report of proceedings of 19 April 2018
Date: 2018-04-19
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202403252EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














24.5.2024







            19 April 2018
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 19 APRIL 2018
            
         
(C/2024/3252)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
4










2.

A European values instrument to support civil society organisations which promote democracy, the rule of law and fundamental values within the European Union (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
4










3.

The violation of human rights and the rule of law in the case of two Greek soldiers arrested and detained in Turkey (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
4










4.

Implementation of the European Protection Order Directive (debate)
4










5.

Implementation of the Bologna Process – state of play and follow-up (debate)
14










6.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
22










6.1.

Belarus
22










6.2.

Philippines
27










7.

Request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee (Rule 137(2) (approval): see Minutes
33










8.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (continuation of debate)
33










8.1.

Situation in Gaza Strip
33










9.

Resumption of the sitting
42










10.

Voting time
42










10.1.

Belarus (RC-B8-0197/2018, B8-0197/2018, B8-0199/2018, B8-0200/2018, B8-0201/2018, B8-0204/2018) (vote)
42










10.2.

Philippines (RC-B8-0198/2018, B8-0198/2018, B8-0202/2018, B8-0203/2018, B8-0205/2018, B8-0206/2018, B8-0208/2018) (vote)
42










10.3.

Situation in Gaza Strip (RC-B8-0191/2018, B8-0191/2018, B8-0207/2018, B8-0209/2018, B8-0210/2018, B8-0211/2018, B8-0212/2018) (vote)
42










10.4.

Common system of value added tax, with regard to the obligation to respect a minimum standard rate (A8-0124/2018 - Roberto Gualtieri) (vote)
42










10.5.

Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing (A8-0056/2017 - Krišjānis Kariņš, Judith Sargentini) (vote)
43










10.6.

Approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (A8-0048/2017 - Daniel Dalton) (vote)
43










10.7.

Organic production and labelling of organic products (A8-0311/2015 - Martin Häusling) (vote)
43










10.8.

Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (A8-0140/2018 - Miroslavs Mitrofanovs) (vote)
43










10.9.

Estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2019 — Section I – European Parliament (A8-0146/2018 - Paul Rübig) (vote)
43










10.10.

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on European business statistics, amending Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 and repealing 10 legal acts in the field of business statistics (A8-0094/2018 - Janusz Lewandowski) (vote)
43










10.11.

Common rules for the internal market in natural gas (A8-0143/2018 - Jerzy Buzek) (vote)
44










10.12.

Protection of investigative journalists in Europe: the case of Slovak journalist Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová (B8-0186/2018) (vote)
44










10.13.

A European values instrument to support civil society organisations which promote democracy, rule of law and fundamental values within the European Union (B8-0189/2018) (vote)
44










10.14.

The violation of human rights and the rule of law in the case of two Greek soldiers arrested and detained in Turkey (B8-0194/2018, B8-0196/2018) (vote)
44










10.15.

Implementation of the Treaty provisions concerning national Parliaments (A8-0127/2018 - Paulo Rangel) (vote)
44










10.16.

Annual Report on Competition Policy (A8-0049/2018 - Ramon Tremosa i Balcells) (vote)
44










10.17.

Vaccine hesitancy and drop in vaccination rates in Europe (B8-0188/2018, B8-0195/2018) (vote)
44










10.18.

Implementation of the European Protection Order Directive (A8-0065/2018 - Soraya Post, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio) (vote)
44










10.19.

Implementation of the Bologna Process – state of play and follow-up (B8-0190/2018) (vote)
44










11.

Explanations of vote
44










11.1.

Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing (A8-0056/2017 - Krišjānis Kariņš, Judith Sargentini)
45










11.2.

Approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (A8-0048/2017 - Daniel Dalton)
46










11.3.

Organic production and labelling of organic products (A8-0311/2015 - Martin Häusling)
46










11.4.

Protection of investigative journalists in Europe: the case of Slovak journalist Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová (B8-0186/2018)
47










11.5.

A European values instrument to support civil society organisations which promote democracy, the rule of law and fundamental values within the European Union (B8-0189/2018)
49










11.6.

Implementation of the Treaty provisions concerning national Parliaments (A8-0127/2018 - Paulo Rangel)
50










11.7.

Vaccine hesitancy and drop in vaccination rates in Europe (B8-0188/2018, B8-0195/2018)
50










11.8.

Implementation of the European Protection Order Directive (A8-0065/2018 - Soraya Post, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio)
52










11.9.

Implementation of the Bologna Process – state of play and follow-up (B8-0190/2018)
52










12.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions : see Minutes
52










13.

Resumption of the sitting
52










14.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes
53










15.

Major interpellations (debate)
53










16.

Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes
59










17.

Petitions: see Minutes
59










18.

Documents received: see Minutes
59










19.

Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes
60










20.

Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting : see Minutes
60










21.

Closure of the sitting
60










22.

Adjournment of the session
60




Verbatim report of proceedings of 19 April 2018
                  


IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS


Vice-President

1.   Opening of the sitting

(The sitting opened at 9.01)

2.   A European values instrument to support civil society organisations which promote democracy, the rule of law and fundamental values within the European Union (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
3.   The violation of human rights and the rule of law in the case of two Greek soldiers arrested and detained in Turkey (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
4.   Implementation of the European Protection Order Directive (debate)

President. – The next item is the report by Soraya Post and Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on the implementation of Directive 2011/99/EU on the European Protection Order (2016/2329(INI)) (A8-0065/2018).

Soraya Post,
rapporteur. – Madam President, I had the honour of working on the implementation report on the European Protection Order Directive, which, if it works, can save the lives of victims of gender-based violence and other forms of interpersonal violence. It is one of those EU initiatives that can save tens of thousands of lives and we need to save them today, in Europe.
One in three women has experienced physical or sexual violence since the age of 15. Every second woman has been a victim of sexual harassment. Women and girls living with disabilities in Europe are two to five times more likely to be victims of violence than non-disabled women.
Around 20% of European children are victims of sexual violence, most of which is committed by someone very close to them. One in five women has experienced stalking. One in four Roma people are victims of hate-motivated harassment and crimes. Thousands of LGBTI people are attacked or threatened with violence. There are tens of thousands of people who need protection. However, there have only been seven European Protection Orders (EPOs) issued in the whole of Europe so far.
For me, as a feminist, it is very frustrating to see that there is a tool that could be used but is not. For me, it clearly shows that, so far, neither the Commission nor the Member States have taken their responsibilities very seriously. Public servants who come into contact with victims do not know about this international protection instrument. Victim protection organisations do not know about this instrument. The victims themselves have hardly ever heard of the opportunity that they have to take their already existing national protection orders with them abroad when they want to travel or move to another EU country.
This Directive came into force in 2011. Member States had four years to implement it into their national laws by 11 January 2015. How many years do we have to wait until this Directive is properly implemented and provides protection for those who need it? This shameful situation has to change. Therefore, in our draft report we formulated several pages of demands, some of which are the following:






 


We call on the Commission and the Member States to make sure that information about EPOs really reaches the victims, the NGOs and the authorities that are working with these issues;










 


We call for mandatory training of professionals likely to come in contact with victims;










 


We call on Member States to automatically inform persons who get a national protection order about the EPO and making the application process free of charge, shorter and easier for victims;










 


We call for special measures to be implemented by the Member States for victims in vulnerable situations or victims with specific needs, such as children;










 


We call for free legal aid, translation and interpretation into a language understood by the victim;










 


We call for a decision on the EPO request to be delivered within a maximum of two weeks;










 


Given the increasing exposure of children and teenagers to violence online, we call on Member States to include education on gender equality and non-violence in the school curriculum;










 


Since the EU has focused its security agenda purely on its external aspect, we call on the Commission and the Council to place the issue of interpersonal security on the EU security agenda.




I would like to ask all colleagues to help us in our fight and to help to spread the word about this protection instrument so that everybody can exercise their right to live free from violence and the fear of it in our Europe. I would like to thank my co-rapporteur, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, and all the shadows and all the colleagues who tabled amendments to this report, which make it strong. I hope for a successful voting outcome today, of course, and wish us all good luck. This is not acceptable.

Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio,
ponente. – Señora presidenta, quiero también dar las gracias a la coponente, Soraya, y a todas las personas que nos han ayudado.
               

                  Como víctima del terrorismo desde que la organización terrorista ETA asesinó a mi hermano y a su mujer, desde que entré en este Parlamento siempre me he ocupado de defender los derechos de las víctimas: de todas las víctimas –en especial del terrorismo, pero de todas–. Por tanto, acogí con mucha satisfacción cuando se presentó este informe en 2010 y me fue asignado; y recuerdo que teníamos todos muchas expectativas sobre este informe, porque iba a ser un mecanismo dinámico para evitar burocracia y mejorar la vida de las víctimas.
               

                  La OEP fue el resultado del Programa de Estocolmo, que exigía respuestas políticas coherentes en el ámbito del espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia. No hablábamos de crear una convergencia de leyes nacionales, hablábamos de un mecanismo de cooperación judicial.
               

                  Sin embargo, este instrumento, tal como se encuentra actualmente, ha fallado. Se estimó en 2010, cuando se presentó esta Directiva, que cien mil mujeres que residían en la Unión Europea tenían órdenes de protección de algún tipo por violencia de género. Bueno, pues sabemos que solo se han emitido siete órdenes: cuatro en España, dos en Reino Unido y una en Italia. Eso es algo chocantemente escaso.
               

                  Por lo tanto, la pregunta que tenemos que hacernos –Parlamento, Comisión, todos nosotros… también los Estados miembros– es qué ha fallado, e intentar con esta implementación dar recomendaciones a los Estados y ver lo que nosotros hemos visto, porque lo que tenemos que hacer es salvar vidas y mejorar la vida de las víctimas.
               

                  Desde que entró en vigor esta Directiva, no tenemos datos de la Comisión Europea; tampoco de los Estados miembros. Ni siquiera las ONG han podido recopilar datos, porque no los hay. Con tan pocos recursos, menos mal que teníamos el estudio del Servicio de Estudios del Parlamento Europeo y, desde ahí, hemos evidenciado bastantes carencias.
               

                  Por ejemplo –voy a citar algunas de ellas–, no existe un registro central de las órdenes europeas, lo que hace muy difícil evaluarlas: el propio instrumento es muy complejo –esto es importante–, porque complica la aplicación de la Directiva por parte de las autoridades nacionales y también complica la comprensión de las víctimas de esta Directiva.
               

                  No existe una disposición especial para las personas vulnerables, como niños, como personas con discapacidad.
               

                  Existe una enorme falta de formación para las autoridades nacionales: no se monitoreó la implementación de la OEP en cada país; existe un enorme déficit entre coordinación y comunicación entre los Estados miembros que tienen que aplicar la orden europea. No se ofrece a las víctimas traducción, lo que para una orden europea de protección es necesario.
               

                  Por lo que respecta a las víctimas, un aspecto importante es que hay que darle información adecuada a la persona protegida de cómo solicitar esa orden en otro Estado miembro.
               

                  Una falta general, hemos visto, de campañas de información y sensibilización: ni la policía, ni los jueces, ni las víctimas… nadie conoce esta orden. ¿Cómo van a pedir una cosa que se desconoce? Porque, verdaderamente, se ha obviado.
               

                  Yo creo que puede decirse que todas las víctimas en este proceso se enfrentarán a algún problema porque tienen que ir de un país a otro: si nadie las ayuda, pues, verdaderamente ellas prefieren no pedirla, y ni siquiera sus abogados… nadie les aconseja hacerlo. Por lo tanto, tenemos que cambiar la coordinación y la comunicación entre las autoridades.
               

                  También pedimos a la Comisión que se establezca un sistema de registro europeo para recopilar información sobre las OEP de todos los Estados miembros.
               

                  Subrayamos estas deficiencias jurídicas y prácticas.
               

                  Y, bueno, yo lo único que diría es que realmente los ciudadanos europeos nos piden una mayor cooperación judicial. No están funcionando bien ni las órdenes de protección de víctimas ni las euroórdenes de entrega de agresores.
               

                  Por tanto, Europa no es solo la PAC, no es solo el euro, aunque son muy importantes; Europa es justicia, libertad y seguridad de todos los ciudadanos europeos.
               

Elżbieta Bieńkowska,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, first, let me start by pointing out that all of the participating Member States have transposed the Directive on the European Protection Order. The Commission will issue the report on the application of the Directive on the EPO later this year. However, only today, the data already made available by the Member States also confirms that only a handful of European Protection Orders have been issued so far, as was rightly stated by the rapporteurs.
We share your view that we have to improve awareness among practitioners about this instrument. This is why we are actively promoting the EPO. In particular, for now, we have collected practical information about national authorities competent to issue and recognise a European Protection Order. This is published on the websites of the European Judicial Networks in Criminal Matters and in Civil Matters. We have prepared an electronic version of the certificate on European Protection Orders in civil matters. This is quite a useful tool for judges. It is published on the e-Justice portal.
We have also funded training materials on the EPO for judges. This information will soon be available on a dedicated training platform, also on the e-Justice portal. The Commission continues to fund activities under the Justice, Judicial Training, and Rights, Equality and Citizenship programmes which can include awareness-raising campaigns on European Protection Orders. We also continue to raise awareness with national experts from Member States; most recently, on 29 January this year, at the High Level Experts meeting on victims' rights.
Finally, the Commission is carefully monitoring how Member States have transposed the provisions of the Victims' Rights Directive requiring that victims must be informed about available protection, including in cross-border cases, from the first-contact authorities.

Jaromír Štětina,
za skupinu PPE. – Paní předsedající, dnes budeme hlasovat o tom, jak v měřítku celé EU lépe chránit oběti trestných činů, což se v praxi týká především obětí domácího násilí. Dosud tento typ ochrany funguje slabě. Žena vystavená domácímu násilí může požádat o vnitrostátní ochranný příkaz, který násilnickému manželovi zabrání například ke vstupu do společného bytu. V okamžiku, kdy žena opustí (kvůli dovolené či práci) svoji zemi do jiné země, už je před násilníkem chráněna nedostatečně. Proč? Podle statistik z roku 2010 bylo už před osmi lety v EU asi 120 000 žen vystavených násilí, které obdržely vnitrostátní ochranný příkaz. Naprostá většina z nich neví, že mohou být chráněny i v dalších členských státech. Do dnešního dne bylo vystaveno pouhých 7 (slovy sedm) evropských ochranných příkazů. Důvodem je neschopnost členských států široce sdělit obětem možnost mezinárodní ochrany a trestuhodná neinformovanost o tomto nástroji. Naše zpráva apeluje na justiční orgány a profesionály bránící oběti, aby to změnili. Oběti násilí musejí být informovány o svých právech.
               

Anna Hedh,
för S&D-gruppen. – Fru talman! Först vill jag tacka alla inblandade för ett bra samarbete i den här mycket viktiga frågan.
               

                  Vi måste tala klarspråk. Skyddsordnar används i praktiken för att skydda kvinnor som är brottsoffer för våld i nära relationer, våld i hemmet, där trakasserier, stalking eller sexuella övergrepp ofta förekommer. Våld mot kvinnor är en brutal form av diskriminering och en kränkning av mänskliga rättigheter.
               

                  I EU är könsrelaterat våld ett växande problem. Var tredje kvinna i EU har utsatts för fysiskt eller sexuellt våld. Det är inte bara skadligt för kvinnorna som utsätts för våld, utan för hela samhället i stort. Därför är det viktigt att den europeiska skyddsordern fungerar, att brottsoffer som fått skyddad identitet, besöksförbud eller annat får information om att den finns och att de får reda på sina rättigheter och möjligheter. Lika viktigt är det att medlemsstaternas utsedda myndigheter får kunskap i hur ett genomförande går till.
               

                  Jag är mycket positiv till att även brottsoffer som är utsatta för människohandel lyfts särskilt, då det är en mycket utsatt grupp som behöver ett ökat skydd. I Istanbulkonventionen anges särskilda åtgärder för att skydda brottsoffers rättigheter. Att fullständigt genomföra Istanbulkonventionen kommer att stärka skyddet för dem som är utsatta.
               

                  Det är därför mycket viktigt att alla medlemsländer i EU omedelbart ställer sig bakom Istanbulkonventionen. Det vore särskilt önskvärt att ordförandelandet Bulgarien tar täten och visar övriga länder som ännu inte ratificerat den hur viktig Istanbulkonventionen är.
               

Branislav Škripek,
za skupinu ECR. – Vážená pani predsedajúca, vážení kolegovia, kolegyne. Len si predstavme, že by sme naozaj mohli vydať zákon, ktorý účinne začne brániť násiliu. To znamená, že ľudia prestanú páchať násilie. Tak toto by bol naozaj úžasný zákon, ktorý by sme jednoducho vydali, a násilie by prestalo. No predstavte si, že my tu v tejto sále by sme jednoducho dokázali zastaviť násilie, mali by sme takú zvláštnu moc, vydali by sme príkaz a ten by zabránil, aby ľudia v intímnych vzťahoch jednoducho prestali navzájom si uštedrovať fyzické, emocionálne rany, zraňovať svoje okolie, jednoducho, prestali by si navzájom škodiť a robiť si zle. Nakoniec, to je náš zámer. Radi by sme to tak videli. Ak by som ja takýto vedel presadiť, tak celý môj mandát by za to naozaj stál. Ale treba povedať, že relevantné štatistiky preukazujú, že skutočnými príčinami domáceho násilia sú drogy, alkohol, gamblerstvo, teda hranie hazardných hier, a zlý spôsob riešenia partnerských vzťahov. Toto sú najväčšie príčiny násilia, ktoré sa deje. A na toto sa musíme zamerať. V skutočnosti je to medzi tretinou až polovicou prípadov, že všetky partnerské páry nahlasujú nejaký typ násilia vo svojich vzťahoch. Je smutné, že niekoho chrániť príkazom v inom štáte jednoducho nebude fungovať, a my sa musíme zamerať na to, aby sme vysvetľovali ľuďom, čo je násilie. A nielen vydali príkaz, ktorý nefunguje. Zvlášť, keď sa odvoláva na pochybný Istanbulský dohovor.
               

Nathalie Griesbeck,
au nom du groupe ALDE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, mes chers collègues, nous discutons ce matin d'un sujet très important dans notre Assemblée. Le sujet est important non seulement pour le fonctionnement des institutions européennes, mais, tout simplement, pour les citoyens et, notamment, les citoyennes européennes qui sont victimes de violence et subissent ce type d'attaque contre leur intégrité.
               

                  Je me souviens qu'en 2010, dans le paquet ‘victimes’, nous avions été très nombreux dans cette Assemblée à travailler durement pour concrétiser un outil important, utile et qui protège les victimes en Europe. Il s'agissait en même temps pour nous, Européens, d'une expression juridique, et logique également, de l'intégration européenne. Parallèlement à la mobilité des Européens, nous proposions, avec cet outil, une protection des Européennes, plus particulièrement lorsqu'elles sont victimes de violences.
               

                  Quel triste constat, comme l'ont rappelé les rapporteurs, d'observer – et il est bon de faire le bilan de l'usage des outils – qu'il y a eu sept décisions de protection! Ce chiffre n'a aucun rapport avec le nombre de victimes en Europe.
               

                  Aujourd'hui, l'on constate bien sûr la multitude de raisons: l'information, la diversité des législations nationales, la coopération qui n'est pas assez poussée. Évidemment, il faut insister et obtenir vraiment des résultats sur l'information, la formation et la mobilisation des États. Nous comptons sur la Commission pour le faire ainsi que sur les États membres.
               

Ernest Urtasun,
en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, la orden europea de protección es un gran instrumento, que permite proteger a mujeres en toda la Unión Europea que son víctimas de la violencia de género, pero es un gran instrumento, como han dicho los ponentes, con un gravísimo problema de aplicación. Solo siete órdenes emitidas desde que se puso en marcha este instrumento es un resultado muy pobre.
               

                  Y quiero hacer algunas reflexiones. Una que ya hace el informe de los ponentes: ustedes, señores de la Comisión, han ido muy tarde con el informe de implementación, que aún no tenemos. Y tomarse en serio este instrumento es también hacer este tipo de informes de implementación y saber exactamente si los Estados miembros lo están aplicando bien o no.
               

                  Tenemos un problema de armonización, también, de los tipos, porque es verdad que determinadas cuestiones, como el acoso, que están contempladas en un ordenamiento jurídico en otro no lo están, y por lo tanto eso hace que el instrumento pierda fuerza. Y algunos de los elementos que la comisaria sí ha mencionado y que son importantes: información para las víctimas y formación para aquellas personas que están en el primer punto de encuentro con una víctima (policías, funcionarios), que deben saber que este instrumento existe. Por lo tanto, la violencia de género sigue siendo un problema gravísimo a escala de la Unión Europea. Tenemos un buen instrumento. Hagamos todos un esfuerzo para que funcione.
               

João Pimenta Lopes,
em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Senhora Presidente, a resposta dos Estados tem ficado muito aquém da necessária na aplicação das medidas justas que a diretiva consagra. Aliás, não é, por isso, de estranhar que apenas sete decisões europeias de proteção tenham sido identificadas no contexto das cerca de cem mil mulheres residentes na UE que se estima poderiam estar ao abrigo desta diretiva.
               

                  Num momento em que a violência sobre a mulher aumenta e quase se banaliza, quantas vezes com total impunidade, quantas vezes com consequências letais, seja por via da violência doméstica, do assédio e das agressões sexuais, do tráfico de seres humanos, da exploração sexual e prostituição, exigem-se dos Estados medidas inequívocas direcionadas à proteção das vítimas, medidas quantas vezes incompatíveis com as orientações macroeconómicas que a UE impõe.
               

                  Elas passam pelo reforço das funções sociais do Estado, investindo na qualificação humana e técnica das forças de segurança e judiciais, segurança social, de saúde, seja na criação de redes públicas de apoio às vítimas, sempre garantindo os mecanismos de comunicação e interpretação, um obstáculo à efetiva assistência à vítima.
               

Gerard Batten,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, this report concerns the failure of the implementation of the European Protection Order (EPO). The EPO is just one of a raft of EU legal instruments intended to bring about an EU system of criminal law. This one concerns the mutual recognition of protection orders.
The whole doctrine of mutual recognition is based on the fiction that every Member State's legal system, police system and penal system is of equal standing, which is not true. The EPO doesn't work, as only seven have ever been issued. But they are just part of a whole range of legal institutions and legal instruments that Ms May intends to incorporate into English law when Britain leaves the European Union by means of her proposed new EU security treaty.
The most infamous of these is the evil European arrest warrant whereby any British citizen can be carted off to a foreign jail purely on the strength of allegations on a sheet of paper. Instead of retaining these legal instruments and institutions, the UK should repeal them all when we leave the European Union.

Mylène Troszczynski,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, ce rapport fait état de la mise en œuvre par les États membres du système de décision de protection européenne. Il consiste à appliquer dans l'ensemble de l'Union, pour un agresseur pénalement condamné, une mesure d'éloignement, une interdiction de se rendre dans certains lieux ou encore une interdiction d'approcher sa victime à moins d'une certaine distance.
               

                  Sur le papier, cela pourrait être une très bonne chose puisque ce système devrait permettre de protéger efficacement une victime d'une nouvelle agression. Cependant, la mise en œuvre devient compliquée, voire impossible à cause de la réalité d'une Union européenne à 28.
               

                  La mise en œuvre est compliquée, car il faut nécessairement modifier le droit de plusieurs États membres, sans porter atteinte au principe de subsidiarité et sans le faire à coup de sanctions qui sont et seraient contre-productives pour les femmes qu'il nous faut protéger.
               

                  La mise en œuvre est impossible, car le contrôle des allées et venues d'un agresseur dans un espace sans frontières aussi vaste que Schengen demanderait des moyens considérables et une coopération parfaite des services de police et des services juridiques des États membres.
               

                  Comment prétendre pouvoir protéger les femmes, les enfants, les plus faibles, quand un terroriste est capable de traverser trois États après avoir commis un attentat meurtrier? Comment voulez-vous protéger une femme victime de violences quand des quartiers entiers de nos villes deviennent des zones de non-droit pour les femmes?
               

                  Ce système de protection qui existe déjà dans les États membres est une bonne chose mais les limites auxquelles vous l'avez vous-même contraint dans une Europe sans frontières le rendent inopérant.
               

                  Retrouvons pragmatisme et bon sens, et la cause des femmes et leur protection pourraient alors devenir l'une des priorités d'une coopération des nations européennes.
               

Agnieszka Kozłowska-Rajewicz (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Przede wszystkim gratuluję sprawozdawczyniom – pani Teresie Jiménez i pani Sorayi Post – teraz tego bardzo dobrego sprawozdania, które przedstawia konkretne rekomendacje dotyczące europejskiego nakazu ochrony. To jest instrument, który wpisuje się w międzynarodowe wysiłki na rzecz przeciwdziałania przemocy i ochrony ofiar.
               

                  Wiemy, że przemoc to jest światowa plaga, która dotyka praktycznie każde państwo i że ofiarami są przede wszystkim kobiety. Wiemy też, że ten instrument, mimo że pokładaliśmy w nim wielkie nadzieje, pozostaje fasadowy, bo tylko siedem razy został zastosowany, mimo że tysiące kobiet w Europie są co roku poszkodowane w wyniku przemocy, tracą zdrowie albo życie. Wady tego instrumentu zostały wskazane przez autorki i apeluję do Pani Komisarz, żeby je wdrożyć w życie. Przede wszystkim ten europejski rejestr, spowodowanie, żeby ten nakaz faktycznie był europejski i spełniał funkcje, które zostały mu przeznaczone.
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, comisaria, la orden europea de protección fue una iniciativa de la Presidencia española, en 2010, lo que merece reconocimiento, como merece reconocimiento el trabajo de nuestras dos colegas del Parlamento Europeo que traen este debate sobre su implementación y sobre su eficacia, que es de lo que se trata.
               

                  La orden europea de protección tiene un objetivo: proteger a las víctimas y que esa protección las pueda acompañar en sus movimientos dentro del espacio de libre circulación de personas. Va dirigida especialmente a las víctimas especialmente vulnerables como son las mujeres víctimas de violencia de género y las víctimas del terrorismo, aunque no solamente.
               

                  Pero es fundamental la base sobre la confianza mutua y el reconocimiento mutuo de resoluciones judiciales, que es el rasgo que comparte con la euroorden, y que no está diseñada para que los jueces examinen la calidad del requerimiento, sino para que, basándose en la confianza, la ejecuten. Es el modo en que el mensaje puede llegar a sus destinatarios, que son las víctimas especialmente vulnerables.
               

                  Por eso, es preciso que la Unión Europea ratifique el Convenio de Estambul pero, al mismo tiempo, supere este déficit de aplicación que pone de manifiesto el que solo haya habido siete órdenes europeas de protección hasta el momento –cuatro de ellas en España–.
               

                  Tenemos que redoblar los esfuerzos para perseguir el efecto útil y la eficacia de la orden europea de protección.
               

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señora presidenta, comisaria. Quiero agradecer el trabajo realizado por mis compañeras Teresa y Soraya y las aportaciones de todas y todos los que hemos participado en la redacción de este informe. Nos une un objetivo común: proponer medidas eficaces para propiciar que una iniciativa europea básica para combatir la violencia de género sea más conocida, se utilice más, no genere costes administrativos ni económicos a sus beneficiarias, proteja adecuadamente a los menores victimizados por esta lacra y promueva una armonización del tratamiento jurídico que se da en la Unión a la violencia de género.
               

                  La escasa difusión de las posibilidades que otorga este instrumento jurídico está en el origen de su escasísima utilización, pese al brutal impacto de la violencia de género entre las mujeres de la Unión. Por eso, urge poner en marcha campañas de información y también de formación dirigidas especialmente a los operadores jurídicos y servicios públicos que entran en contacto con esta problemática.
               

                  También hemos propuesto que los Estados que acogen informen a las personas protegidas de los servicios sociales y sanitarios que completan las prestaciones de la OEP. Unificar formularios, digitalizar procesos, establecer plazos concretos de tramitación y mejorar las estadísticas son otras propuestas para mejorar la efectividad y las posibilidades de utilización de la orden.
               

Lara Comi (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio anch'io fortemente sia Soraya sia Teresa, le nostre relatrici. Penso che questo sia per me oggi un discorso complicato e difficile, perché non parlo da parlamentare ma parlo da donna, donna che ha subito una violenza psicologica, perché parliamo di violenza non solo fisica, ma anche psicologica. E io stessa parlo a nome di tante donne che hanno beneficiato di un provvedimento di non avvicinamento della persona, la cui validità è però circoscritta al solo paese di residenza.
               

                  Allora l'ordine di protezione europeo dovrebbe essere automatico: perché bisogna fare una richiesta aggiuntiva? Nel momento in cui uno Stato – Italiano, Francia, Germania – effettua un provvedimento di non avvicinamento, questo deve valere in tutta Europa automaticamente; perché si devono fare ulteriori richieste?
               

                  In secondo luogo, le donne devono continuare a denunciare. Perché questo è il problema: le donne non denunciano e non riconoscono quella che è effettivamente una violenza, perché lasciano passare. Quindi io sono convinta che sia necessario un approccio di comunicazione e di conoscenza ancora più forte.
               

                  Qui a livello europeo lo possiamo fare, come dobbiamo farlo in ogni Stato membro e concludo dicendo che sì, esiste il mercato interno, esiste la libera circolazione delle persone ma dobbiamo anche attivarci sull'ordine di protezione europeo.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, zaštita žena od nasilja naša je ne samo zakonska, nego i moralna obveza. Europski nalog za zaštitu važan je mehanizam u ispunjavanju te obveze jer živimo u vremenu pojačane mobilnosti.
               

                  Postoji niz mjera kojima se provedba može poboljšati. Neke preporučuje i ovo Izvješće: pojednostavljenje postupaka, smanjenje birokracije, jedinstvene obrasce, bolje informiranje službenika i žrtava te korištenje novih tehnologija.
               

                  Nažalost, Izvješće se ne bavi samo tehničkim rješenjima, već debelo zalazi u vrijednosnu sferu pa nailazimo na tvrdnje poput one o duboko ukorijenjenoj mizoginiji i seksizmu u našim društvima, s kojima se mnogo građana, stručnjaka i nas ovdje prisutnih neće složiti. Preporučuje se i intervencija u školske kurikulume, što je u potpunosti izvan nadležnosti ovoga doma.
               

                  Svi mi želimo zaštitu žena od nasilja i baš zato iz ovakvih Izvješća, koja traže široki konsenzus, treba izbaciti svaku ideologiju.
               

Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, τα πρωτογενή δεδομένα της έκθεσης είναι ελάχιστα και πλημμελή. Είναι αδύνατο να εξαχθούν ποιοτικά συμπεράσματα από τις 7 καταγεγραμμένες ευρωπαϊκές εντολές προστασίας. Δίχως δεδομένα δεν διαμορφώνονται ασφαλή ερωτήματα, συστάσεις ή αξιολογήσεις. Επιπλέον η έκθεση μεροληπτεί στο βαθμό που υπονοεί πως οι εθνικές εντολές προστασίας είναι εγγενώς κατώτερες, ενώ αποσιωπά ότι οι εντολές προστασίας δεν αφορούν μόνο γυναίκες αλλά οποιονδήποτε χρήζει προστασίας. Η διασυνοριακή συνεργασία σε αστικές και ποινικές υποθέσεις πρέπει να χαράσσεται με γνώμονα την προστασία των θυμάτων, την τιμωρία των δραστών και την αποτροπή τέλεσης επιπλέον αδικημάτων. Όμως θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα και βασικοί κανόνες ηθικής τάξης λειτουργούν προσχηματικά για έλεγχο των κρατών μελών μέσω υπέρμετρων απαιτήσεων συστηματοποίησης και αμοιβαιότητας μηχανισμών, ακόμη και σε τομείς που τελούν υπό την αρμοδιότητα των κρατών μελών. Η αναγνώριση δικαστικής πράξης που εκδίδεται σε ένα κράτος μέλος και θα εκτελείται σε άλλο πρέπει να υπερβαίνει τα σύνορα και τα συμφέροντα των μεμονωμένων κρατών και είναι από τις ελάχιστες περιπτώσεις αποδεκτής Ευρωπαϊκής ολοκλήρωσης.
               

Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Madam President, freedom of movement in the EU involves that people frequently move around from one country to another. This leads to many situations in which people in need of protection require EU-wide support. This is why it is essential to respect the right of victims and potential victims to enjoy freedom of movement on the same footing as everyone else and to ensure their continued protection when moving. Sadly, until now the use of the EPO has been underwhelming in this sense.
However, this report usefully identifies the main factors hampering its use, from lack of awareness among victims of the possibility of requesting it, to more general motives such as the reluctance of victims to take part in criminal proceedings. All these reasons must be dealt with to make this instrument an effective one in a modern world of high mobility without internal borders.

Maria Gabriela Zoană (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, astăzi vom vota împreună un raport care, de fapt, reprezintă evaluarea implementării directivei privind ordinul european de protecție. Desigur, apreciez munca colegilor mei raportori și, de asemenea, munca tuturor colegilor, pentru că împreună am lucrat în comisie ca acest raport să fie cât mai bun în forma finală. Însă realitatea este că Europa nu este capabilă în momentul acesta să furnizeze, să cunoască numărul exact de ordine europene de protecție care au fost solicitate, pentru că nu există un registru central european al acestora, iar majoritatea statelor membre nu furnizează aceste date. Părerea mea este că nu vom avea eficacitate în acest domeniu decât dacă vom avea un raport, vom iniția un raport care să modifice directiva, pentru că directiva, în realitate, nu conține o definiție clară a ordinului european de protecție. Legea penală este imperativă, nu interpretativă. Atâta timp cât nu vom avea norme clare și obligatorii pentru statele membre, ordinul european de protecție va fi ineficace.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η έμφυλη βία προκαλεί αυξημένη ανησυχία στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αφού υπάρχουν καταγεγραμμένα στοιχεία σύμφωνα με τα οποία, μία στις τρεις γυναίκες άνω των 15 ετών στην Ένωση έχει υποστεί σωματική ή και σεξουαλική βία. Ταυτόχρονα μία στις πέντε γυναίκες έχει πέσει θύμα επίμονης παρακολούθησης, δηλαδή παρενοχλητικής διαδικασίας. Ταυτόχρονα, άλλα στοιχεία δείχνουν ότι πάνω από 100.000 γυναίκες έχουν ενταχθεί σε προγράμματα προστασίας από την έμφυλη βία. Και όμως αυτό που βλέπουμε σε επίπεδο Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης είναι ότι η ευρωπαϊκή εντολή προστασίας έχει εφαρμοστεί μόνο 7 φορές, γεγονός που σημαίνει ότι κατ' αρχάς το μέτρο αυτό δεν είναι γνωστό σε επίπεδο Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Άρα λοιπόν χρειάζεται η Επιτροπή να σηκώσει τα μανίκια, να βοηθήσει στις εκστρατείες ευαισθητοποίησης, για να υπάρξει ενημέρωση ούτως ώστε να αξιοποιηθεί αυτό το σημαντικό μέτρο υπέρ της προστασίας των θυμάτων έμφυλης βίας.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Elżbieta Bieńkowska,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, first I want to thank the House for this exchange of views. It is an extremely important issue and I thank the Members for all of their comments.
My first point is that the victims of violence and harassment are particularly exposed to secondary victimisation. I agree that more needs to be done to ensure that victims, victims' organisations and police are fully aware of the European Protection Order (EPO). Because there is a very strong link between the correct application of the Victims' Rights Directive and the correct functioning of the EPO.
We have to stay on course and we must use all means available to ensure the proper implementation of the EU legislation in this field.
I particularly want to thank this Parliament for its steady support in the process of the EU's accession to the Istanbul Convention. I can assure you that we will continue our efforts on a few things: first, awareness-raising among practitioners and then the proper information to victims. I agree with you that the number of EPOs issued – seven – is really very few.

Soraya Post,
rapporteur. – Madam President, I just wanted to add that I think the EU and the Member States have trivialised the fact of violation of women across Europe, and this is why I strongly advance and push for the fact that in the former EU security agenda there was a sentence on violence against women – for this mandate there was not. And I strongly recommend that it should be put in again. Because if we want to eradicate violence against women using the tool proposed – and of course the Istanbul Convention is one tool, the EPO is another tool – but I also strongly believe that to have it in our security agenda shows that we really take it seriously, and so much has to be done.
The #MeToo movement also showed us the trivialisation of sexual harassment and violence towards women. And so many women on a daily basis feel fear and threatened.

Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio,
ponente. – Señora presidenta, contrariamente a lo que algunos de mis colegas –afortunadamente pocos– aquí han dicho, yo sí creo en la cooperación judicial, yo sí creo en un espacio de protección europeo, donde las personas se puedan sentir libres y seguras, señor Synadinos.
               

                  Sí se habla de todas las víctimas. En este informe se habla de víctimas del terrorismo; pero, desgraciadamente, la mayoría de las órdenes de protección las tienen mujeres, porque son de violencia de género. Pero se habla de todas las víctimas, porque todas las víctimas son iguales y merecen la misma protección.
               

                  Y yo creo que si esta ley se explica bien, se difunde bien, se aplica bien, puede funcionar, pero no es una cuestión de claridad, que otro de nuestros colegas –una colega– ha dicho que es poco clara y que no se define. No, no es una cuestión de claridad: es una cuestión de voluntad política; y no solo de voluntad política de este Parlamento, ni de la Comisión, sino de voluntad política de los parlamentarios que se sientan aquí y no creen en Europa y no creen en un espacio de libertad, de seguridad y de justicia, en el que yo y, gracias a Dios la mayoría de mis colegas, sí creemos.
               

President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.


Written statements (Rule 162)



Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D),
por escrito. – La orden europea de protección (OEP) se impulsó bajo la Presidencia española de la UE en 2010. La OEP es un instrumento jurídico europeo en favor de las víctimas de delitos y aunque no está limitada a las víctimas de la violencia de género, es importante destacar que ellas están en el centro de su preocupación. En este debate cabe recalcar la importancia de una actuación a escala de la Unión para reforzar los derechos y la protección de las víctimas de delitos. Se trata de otorgar a la víctima de un delito en un Estado miembro que se trasladaba a uno distinto, el mismo o equivalente nivel de protección del que disfrutara en el primero. Esta Directiva fue el primer instrumento de reconocimiento mutuo en el seno de la UE dirigido a las víctimas y con naturaleza penal. Toda orden de protección emitida en un Estado miembro debe ser reconocida y ejecutada en otro Estado miembro. La OPE tiene el potencial de ser un instrumento eficaz para proteger a las víctimas en un mundo caracterizado por una gran movilidad, pero hace falta más información porque es un recurso actualmente infrautilizado.
               

Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE),
por escrito. – Desde la entrada en vigor de esta Directiva, cualquier víctima europea tiene derecho a pedir protección en otro país de la Unión Europea, tanto si se muda allí de manera permanente como si se trata de un viaje temporal. La libre circulación de personas de la UE implica que las personas se deben poder mover libremente de un país a otro. La OEP debe garantizar que toda víctima pueda moverse libremente, y que al mismo tiempo se salvaguarden sus derechos y libertades. Debemos trabajar con el objetivo de garantizar que la protección de las víctimas no se vea obstaculizada por la diversidad de las medidas nacionales En este sentido, en el informe que hoy pretendemos aprobar analizamos estos problemas para encontrar posibles soluciones. Aspiramos a que el espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia de la UE sea una realidad. Si continuamos avanzando en el proceso de integración, y si estamos plenamente comprometidos con la libre circulación de personas, resulta fundamental que alentemos este tipo de instrumentos basados en el reconocimiento mutuo. Un reconocimiento basado en la confianza mutua, y en el respeto al Estado de Derecho de los distintos Estados miembros.
               

Valdemar Tomaševski (ECR),
raštu. – Šiandien svarstome svarbų pranešimą. Daugelyje Europos Sąjungos valstybių narių nėra registravimo sistemų, kurios rinktų duomenis apie Europos apsaugos orderius. Europoje taip pat nėra centrinės svarbių duomenų registravimo sistemos. Nepakankami duomenys trukdo įvertinti Europos apsaugos orderio įgyvendinimą ir sunku įveikti teisės aktų trūkumus. Šis klausimas labai svarbus, nes Europos apsaugos orderis gali apimti įvairių rūšių nusikaltimų aukas, įskaitant terorizmą, prekybą žmonėmis, seksualinį smurtą ir organizuotą nusikalstamumą. Kalbant apie paraiškas išduoti Europos apsaugos orderį, ypatingas dėmesys turėtų būti skiriamas nusikaltimų sunkiosiose situacijose aukoms. Europos apsaugos orderis gali būti veiksminga priemonė aukų apsaugai šiuolaikiniame pasaulyje, kuriam būdingas didelis judrumas ir vidaus sienų trūkumas. Europos Sąjungos valstybės narės turėtų būti skatinamos skleisti informaciją žmonėms, turintiems apsaugą, apie papildomas paramos priemones priimančiojoje valstybėje, pvz., šeimos ar apgyvendinimo išmokas, nes šios priemonės nepatenka į Europos apsaugos orderio taikymo sritį. Todėl didelė atsakomybė šiuo klausimu tenka valstybei, kurioje yra asmuo, turintis specialią apsaugą. Taip pat turėtume prisiminti, kad ypatingą dėmesį reikia skirti vaikams, kurie tampa nusikaltimų aukomis.
               

Ángela Vallina (GUE/NGL),
por escrito. – Como se ha reiterado a lo largo de los trabajos previos, existen serias lagunas en la actual Directiva, que se pueden resumir en la escasa coordinación y comunicación entre los Estados Miembros, la existencia de situaciones de falta de acceso a la justicia y asistencia letrada a las víctimas y la escasez de recursos para la sensibilización y protección de las víctimas (en especial en el medio rural). Por lo tanto, estamos ante una potente herramienta judicial pero que a día de hoy ha resultado ineficaz. Así, en este informe se pide a la Comisión que se ponga manos a la obra cuanto antes; por ello, mi Grupo va a apoyar este informe. Finalmente, quisiera recordar que la orden europea de protección debe servir para proteger a todas las víctimas, en particular a las mujeres víctimas de violencia de género, que son las mayores demandantes de esta medida y que necesitan que sea eficaz ya mismo. No podemos esperar más tiempo y la Comisión debe redoblar sus esfuerzos en la nueva propuesta. Asimismo, seguiremos insistiendo en que revise también su programa de mínimos y realice una verdadera estrategia integral de género, con mayor apoyo de recursos y coordinación con los Estados.
               
5.   Implementation of the Bologna Process – state of play and follow-up (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the implementation of the Bologna Process – state of play and follow-up by Petra Kammerevert (O-000020/2018 - B8-0014/2018).

Krystyna Łybacka,
autorka. – Pani Przewodnicząca! W tej Izbie ostatnio często dyskutujemy na temat przyszłości naszego europejskiego projektu. Kluczem do jego rozwoju jest wzmocnienie intelektualne, kulturalne, społeczne i innowacyjne – czyli, mówiąc krótko, budowa Europy wiedzy.
               

                  Centralną rolę w budowie Europy wiedzy stanowi edukacja, a w szczególności szkolnictwo wyższe. Proces boloński jest filarem powołanej już w Deklaracji Sorbońskiej Europejskiej Przestrzeni Szkolnictwa Wyższego. Od czasu Deklaracji Bolońskiej, czyli od roku 1999, dokonano wiele, zarówno w aspekcie jakości kształcenia, w aspekcie mobilności, jak i w aspekcie uznawalności dyplomów i kwalifikacji.
               

                  Niestety poziom implementacji celów procesu bolońskiego jest w poszczególnych krajach bardzo zróżnicowany. Istotna jest także jakość tej implementacji, bowiem wpływa ona zarówno na wiarygodność procesu, jak i na rzeczywiste wykonywanie jego założeń. W bardzo wielu krajach błędnie zinterpretowano proces boloński, w jeszcze innych wprowadzono mechaniczny podział na studia pierwszego i drugiego stopnia, nie dbając o zawartość programową, w jeszcze innych uznano, że to jest narzucona inicjatywa rządowa, a nie nasz wspólny europejski projekt.
               

                  Dlatego kierujemy do Komisji następujące pytania – po pierwsze, czy Komisja monitoruje poziom implementacji celów bolońskich w poszczególnych krajach? Te najważniejsze cele to przede wszystkim jakość kształcenia, rzetelna akredytacja jakości, uznawalność kwalifikacji i dyplomów, prawidłowość przyznawania słynnych punktów ECTS, czyli punktów rejestrujących osiągnięcia studentów, promocję ułatwienie mobilności zarówno studentów, jak i pracowników, ale także promocję kształcenia ustawicznego na poziomie akademickim. Pytamy również, jak Komisja ocenia obecny stan i poziom procesu bolońskiego? Nasze pytanie dotyczy także tego, czy Komisja zidentyfikowała te czynniki, które utrudniają skuteczną i poprawną implementację procesu? I wreszcie – jak Komisja wspiera państwa członkowskie we właściwej implementacji procesu bolońskiego?
               

                  Sygnatariusze Deklaracji Bolońskiej i ministrowie krajów będących sygnatariuszami spotykają się cyklicznie, aby z jednej strony dokonać podsumowania osiągnięć procesu, a z drugiej wytyczyć nowe cele i nowe założenia. Ostatnia taka konferencja miała miejsce w roku 2015 w Erywaniu. Wydano wtedy komunikat z bardzo istotnym przesłaniem – wzmocnienie wymiaru społecznego procesu bolońskiego, włączenie studentów niepełnosprawnych, włączenie osób ze środowisk defaworyzowanych, program mobilności, który jest istotą tego procesu. Mamy pytanie do Komisji, jak ocenia kroki podjęte w wyniku komunikatu z Erywania? Ile dokonano w aspekcie włączenia społecznego procesu bolońskiego? W Erywaniu również przyjęto do Europejskiego Obszaru Szkolnictwa Wyższego Białoruś, ale niestety władze Białorusi nie wypełniły wielu zobowiązań, niemniej oczekujemy, że Białoruś pozostanie w agendzie europejskiego obszaru szkolnictwa wyższego i ewentualnie zostanie rozpatrzona możliwość wydłużenia mapy drogowej dla Białorusi.
               

                  Przed nami kolejna konferencja w Paryżu. Komisja Europejska jest jednym z sygnatariuszy Deklaracji Bolońskiej. Pytamy zatem, jakie cele strategiczne ma Komisja? Jakie inicjatywy zamierza podjąć, aby wzmocnić proces boloński? Co z obszarem szkolnictwa wyższego po roku 2020? Jakie cele strategiczne wyznacza Komisja? Pytamy również – i to nas bardzo interesuje – jakie jest powiązanie i relacja pomiędzy Europejskim Obszarem Szkolnictwa Wyższego, Europejskim Obszarem Badań i zapowiadaną przez Komisję Europejską Przestrzenią Edukacyjną? Jesteśmy zdania, jako Komisja Kultury i Edukacji, że tylko komplementarne inicjatywy mogą zbudować atrakcyjną innowacyjną Europę wiedzy.
               

Elżbieta Bieńkowska,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you very much for this discussion, I'm very glad to be here to discuss the Bologna Process. This is the right moment, in light of the upcoming Bologna ministerial conference in in Paris on the 24th and 25th May. I hope to be able to address most of your questions in the limited time available; I will do my best.
On the current state and the evolution of the Bologna process, much has been achieved in the last 20 years in its three 3 major commitments. First, the three-cycle Bachelor-Master-Doctorate system has been introduced. A common degree structure is one of the most significant achievement of the process. Second, there is a common standard for independent quality assurance in higher education, yet high education institutions should benefit even more from approaches offered by quality assurance agencies placed in other European countries, not only their own. And third, the European credit system is in use in most of the countries and has helped greatly for the contribution of diplomas and study periods abroad.
These three commitments are key to build the trust which is necessary for learning mobility, cross-border academic cooperation and comparability of higher education systems.
Based on these achievements, it is clear that the Bologna Process remains highly relevant, although we know that the implementation of some of the commitments is still uneven across its 48 member countries. And this is the main challenge for now.
While the structures are to a large extent in place, though unevenly, we now need genuine implementation at the level of higher education institutions, which governance structures of the Bologna Process find difficult to reach. This is the main factor hindering affected implementation of the Bologna reforms. The Yerevan communiqué in 2015 therefore called on the Bologna countries to propose a method to improve the implementation of key Bologna reforms.
The years since then have not been a period of radical change, but more of consolidation. We must use next month's ministerial conference in Paris as an opportunity to stress the need for more even implementation of the Bologna commitments and to mobilise member countries and organisations to work together more closely
In other words, the Commission wishes to provide support to those Bologna countries which lag behind in the implementation of the key commitments. In this context, the Commission supports the adoption of a new structured peer support process to ensure better implementation and monitoring of the reforms. Hopefully, the Bologna ministers will also commit to removing the remaining obstacles in their national legislation to cross-border quality assurance.
Your question also addresses the issue of social inclusion, which is also extremely important in respect of refugees. Not enough Bologna countries have so far introduced measures to improve the conditions for under-represented and disadvantaged groups to access and to complete higher education.
The first step to foster inclusion and improve equity is to collect information on the participation of under-represented groups in higher education. Only systemic monitoring can provide evidence on the effectiveness of those measures.
For refugees, some countries have specific recognition procedures in place. Activities built on Erasmus+ funded projects for national academic recognition and information centres, which will improve the consistency of decision-making. The Commission has also organised several peer learning activities for Member States to share experience and good practice.
The next question, on our assistance to countries in their progress towards the Bologna commitments: we offer support at EU level, for instance within the Erasmus+ programme where we have a targeted call for this purpose. We also assist the Bologna Process countries that are not part of the Erasmus+ programme. They benefit from capacity-building projects, which the Commission wishes to intensify in the next phase of the process. They are a key feature of the Bologna Process. And it is in the EU interest that a less developed system can evolve.
You asked how the Commission monitors the recognition of the qualification. We have to admit that this is difficult to assess, as it is usually higher education institutions which take those recognition decisions. But aside from the Bologna Process implementation report, the Commission also carries out studies to identify obstacles, areas for improvement and best practices in recognition of qualifications and study periods. For example in 2016. There was a study on obstacles to recognition of skills and qualifications.
Finally, in terms of giving strategic guidance to the future Bologna Process, the Commission's recent initiative towards the creation of the European education area is really essential. The main purpose of the European education area is to give a strong boost to learning mobility, to create a Europe in which learning, studying and doing research would not be hampered by borders so as to have a continent where spending time in another Member States to study, to learn and to work, has become the standard.
In addition to expanding learning mobility, this ambition requires a number of concrete policy initiatives. I will mention four of them. First, the proposed networks of European universities will act as role models for the implementation of the innovation in teaching and learning, and for the efficient implementation of the Bologna instruments. They will be instrumental to further develop and consolidate the European higher education area and to build synergies with the European research area.
Second, the planned Council's recommendation for automatic recognition of higher and upper-secondary educational qualifications and learning periods abroad will give new impetus to the implementation of one of the three key commitments of the Bologna Process and will further expand learning mobility.
Third, the new EU student card will facilitate both mobility and the recognition process. And fourth, an upcoming recommendation will help ensure that in addition to their mother tongue, young Europeans speak two other languages. Language knowledge is a pre-requisite for learning mobility.
Thanks to the European education area, we will be able to advance faster among the European Union Member States, then among all of the 48 Bologna countries. But at the same time, it is clear that the European education area indicates the direction to follow and will give new impetus also to the Bologna Process.
In this context, the Commission fully agrees with the European Parliament's call for synergies between those three areas: the European educational area, the European research area and European higher education area. It is expected that in Paris, Bologna ministers will build on this new momentum.

Silvia Costa,
a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio la relatrice Krystyna Łybacka. Io credo che alla Conferenza ministeriale di Parigi, il primo obiettivo, ricordiamolo, il processo di Bologna, che oggi coinvolge le università di 48 paesi, è che qualsiasi studente iscritto in un'università europea abbia il diritto di laurearsi e veder riconosciuto il proprio titolo in tutta Europa. Ma soprattutto sappiamo che il processo è alla base della costruzione di questo spazio europeo dell'istruzione superiore e della realizzazione dell'Europa della conoscenza.
               

                  Tuttavia, dopo 19 anni, dobbiamo indicare alcune priorità e mi fa piacere raccogliere alcune delle proposte che sono adesso state suggerite alla Commissaria, perché alcune vanno in questo senso. Credo che il primo punto sia quello di migliorare la cooperazione tra spazio europeo dell'istruzione superiore e della ricerca. Credo che l'inclusione dei dottorati nel processo di Bologna sia un elemento di grande avanzamento, il principale nesso che spingerà anche verso l'internazionalizzazione e il rafforzamento dei partenariati.
               

                  Serve però anche una fase di sviluppo della qualità dei processi e anche di sviluppo dello spazio europeo dell'istruzione superiore, potenziando la dimensione sociale dell'istruzione superiore. Mi fa piacere che sia stata citata finalmente la e-card come uno strumento che, spero, sarà finanziato nel prossimo programma pluriennale e, in particolare, credo che si chieda anche di arrivare a dei joint degrees, nonché a finanziare le università europee. Penso che questo sia il passo avanti da compiere.
               

Zdzisław Krasnodębski,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Otóż proces boloński ma niewątpliwie szereg pozytywnych stron, jednak ważne jest, by nie ograniczać się jedynie do celebrowania i zastanowić się również nad tym, czy pewne założenia pierwotne rzeczywiście były do końca trafne. Przecież przedstawiciele świata akademickiego i badacze analizujący przemiany w dziedzinie edukacji od dawna alarmują, że brak jest refleksji nad ubocznymi skutkami procesu bolońskiego.
               

                  Liczne publikacje na ten temat zawierają takie pisma jak Teaching in Higher Education czy European Higher Education News Bulletin. Mam wrażenie, że także tu, w Parlamencie Europejskim, nie przyjmujemy ich do wiadomości. Krytycy procesu bolońskiego jak brytyjski socjolog Stephen Ball wskazują m.in., że przez narzucanie sztywnych wskaźników i standardów nauczanie akademickie oceniane jest tylko przez poziom techniczny wydajności a nie intelektualnych wartości, twórczych idei, kształtowania osobowości studentów. Odbija się to negatywnie na treści nauczanych przedmiotów, cierpi na tym autonomia zawodowa nauczycieli i wolność akademicka.
               

                  Stąd moje pytanie do Komisji: czy i w jakiej mierze jej eksperci analizują te krytyczne głosy. Czy wnioski krytyków, takich jak Stephen Ball, Stefan Kuhl, Marvin Lazerson i wielu innych brane są pod uwagę?
               

(Mówca zgodził się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki (art. 162 ust. 8 Regulaminu)


Krystyna Łybacka (S&D),
pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Panie Profesorze! Czy zgodzi się Pan z poglądem, że te krytyczne głosy które Pan przytaczał świadczą o tym, o czym mówiłam – że nie wszędzie zrozumiano ideę, ponieważ ideą Bolonii nie jest standardyzacja, lecz konwergencja przy całym poszanowaniu i autonomii i wolności programowej poszczególnych uniwersytetów?
               

Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR),
odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – No nie jest też moją intencją, nie taki był sens mojej wypowiedzi, żeby proces boloński zatrzymywać czy hamować. Ja tylko zwracałem uwagę, że rzeczywiście powinniśmy głębiej zastanowić się nad samymi założeniami, mianowicie negatywną stroną tego procesu jest standaryzacja. Być może to jest oczywiście głównie kwestia implementacji tego procesu, natomiast powinniśmy moim zdaniem jednak rozważyć pewne założenia, ponieważ szczególnie nauki społeczne i humanistyczne mają swoją specyfikę, która nie była uwzględniona w tym procesie.
               

María Teresa Giménez Barbat,
en nombre del Grupo ALDE. – Señora presidenta, estimados compañeros, hoy proponemos una pregunta oral sobre el Proceso de Bolonia, con la que solicitamos a la Comisión que actúe para reducir el desfase entre las declaraciones grandilocuentes efectuadas durante las cumbres ministeriales y las acciones concretas adoptadas a escala de los Estados miembros.
               

                  Considero muy importante que la Resolución asociada a nuestra pregunta destaque la difusión del conocimiento, la investigación y la ciencia como claves en la estrategia de la Unión y el fomento de la ciudadanía europea. Sin embargo, me pregunto en qué medida podemos decir que hemos desarrollado el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior de forma realmente integrada.
               

                  Como diputada catalana y española, quiero llamar la atención sobre la incoherencia de que mi país forme parte de un sistema académico europeo, basado en la movilidad y el diálogo entre estudiantes de distintas naciones, al mismo tiempo que el Gobierno central no puede garantizar el derecho de los ciudadanos de Cataluña a estudiar en el idioma común de los españoles.
               

                  Hace semanas, el ministro de Educación anunció cambios para permitir que los padres escogieran la enseñanza del español como lengua vehicular para sus hijos en los colegios públicos catalanes. Pero, desafortunadamente, en la Resolución que incluye las normas de matriculación del próximo curso no aparece ninguna casilla alternativa a la lengua catalana. Como poco, resulta irregular que en una región española la educación pública no permita la enseñanza en el idioma común de todos los españoles, y encima dentro de un espacio europeo que valora especialmente el intercambio de conocimientos en distintas lenguas.
               

Helga Trüpel,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, meine Damen und Herren! Ich fand die Stellungnahme des Kollegen Krasnodębski zu negativ. Mein Interesse und das des Kulturausschusses in seiner Mehrheit ist es, den europäischen Hochschulraum zu stärken. Es geht um European spirit, gerade angesichts der nationalistischen Tendenzen und der Zweifel an dem europäischen Projekt, und Bologna ist ein zutiefst positiver europäischer Prozess. Es geht um einen gemeinsamen Hochschulraum. Das ist genau das, was wir für unsere jungen Menschen erreichen wollen.
               

                  Warum diskutieren wir das heute? Die Konferenz der für den Bologna-Prozess zuständigen Minister findet im Mai in Paris statt, und wir wollen, dass dieser Prozess aufgewertet wird und dass es ein größeres politisches Engagement der teilnehmenden Länder gibt. Vor allem fordern wir sowohl im nächsten mittelfristigen Finanzrahmen wie in den Bildungsetats der Mitgliedstaaten eine deutliche Aufstockung für die Möglichkeiten der Entwicklung unserer jungen Menschen. Wir wollen vor allem eine Vereinfachung und bessere Anerkennung der Abschlüsse.
               

Curzio Maltese,
a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, bisognerebbe ricordare più spesso che l'istruzione è un diritto umano, serve a formare cittadini e non formiche da inserire in una società gerarchica.
               

                  L'impostazione di fondo del processo di Bologna, che ne annulla anche molti aspetti positivi, è proprio questa: voler piegare i sistemi scolastici europei con le loro differenze alle esigenze di un mercato del lavoro distorto invece di creare cittadinanza europea.
               

                  Sono tante quindi le cose che bisognerebbe cambiare. Ce n'è una, secondo noi, particolarmente urgente, che abbiamo proposto in un emendamento, ovvero l'esclusione delle spese per l'istruzione dal calcolo del deficit pubblico all'interno del patto di stabilità.
               

                  Le politiche di austerità hanno creato un'Europa divisa, sono impopolari e sono una delle cause principali della crisi di identità e di consenso dell'Unione. I tagli all'istruzione pubblica imposti dall'austerità sono destinati a produrre un'Unione ancora più squilibrata e intollerabile per le future generazioni. Bisogna intervenire in questo campo subito.
               

Patrick O'Flynn,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, the Bologna Process is a form of European cooperation that suits the British attitude to Europe very well. It's voluntary, inter-governmental, focusing on a single sector and has the sensible aim of making higher educational qualifications easier to compare across countries without lurching into a mania for rigid standardisation. In short, it's not run by the EU and is all the better for that.
This could be the way forward in so many areas. We could reinvigorate and modernise NATO, rather than seeking to create an EU army. We could allow countries to decide their own immigration rules without compulsory EU freedom of movement. But instead the EU always seeks to tighten its grip in pursuit of ever-closer union. It's this attitude which led to Britain's vote to leave and which will, I predict, lead longer term to a procession of departures in our slipstream.

Dominique Bilde,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, largement imité à l'étranger, le processus de Bologne a certes permis la compatibilité des diplômes, en accélérant néanmoins la fuite des cerveaux à l'intérieur même de l'Union européenne.
               

                  Le processus Bologne n'a pas été dénué d'effets pervers. L'allongement et la massification des études supérieures en ont été les pendants qui ont eu comme conséquence prévisible une dévalorisation des diplômes. Pour les cohortes de la génération sacrifiée, drossées sur les récifs de chômage de masse, les diplômes ne sont désormais plus une garantie contre le déclassement ou la pauvreté.
               

                  C'est sur cette toile de fond que l'insistance sur l'inclusion des réfugiés s'apparente à un véritable camouflet pour des millions de jeunes européens qui seront les grands perdants d'une ouverture des programmes académiques, puisque certains, comme Erasmus+, souffrent déjà de financements insuffisants.
               

                  Par cette proposition, l'Union européenne révèle sa véritable nature sous-entendue par une préférence étrangère systématique au mépris des aspirations des peuples qui la composent. Il faut effectivement des augmentations de budget, mais il est préférable qu'elles soient bien utilisées.
               

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já bych chtěla poděkovat paní kolegyni Łybacké a dalším, kteří připravili tuto zprávu, která může být důležitým východiskem také pro jednání ministrů v Paříži. Boloňský proces je jedním z mála panevropských programů a můžeme jej kritizovat za určitou těžkopádnost či za některé nežádoucí průvodní jevy. Je to vlastně spolupráce 48 rozdílných zemí na mezivládní úrovni a je také třeba vědět, že je prováděna v akademicky nezávislém prostředí za proměnlivých politických podmínek. A v této situaci samozřejmě ten proces je pomalý, ale také závisí na tom, jak je prováděný nezávislými univerzitami. A myslím si, že je to tak správně. Na úrovni EU máme Erasmus+, který vytváří společný studijní prostor, a my chceme, aby boloňský proces byl prováděn v rámci tohoto společného evropského prostoru. Takže děkuji kolegům a věřím, že pro konferenci ministrů je to dobrý podklad.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Milan Zver (PPE). – Zahvala tudi z moje strani gospe Łybacki za pripravljeno vprašanje. Dejstvo je, da se skoraj vsi strinjamo, da bolonjska reforma mora iti naprej, da se proces mora nadaljevati, saj bo le tako Evropska unija prišla na področju visokega šolstva do tako imenovane tretje generacije univerz, nove generacije univerz, ki jih nujno potrebujemo.
               

                  Čeprav vsi vemo, da je šarm stare Humboldtove univerze še vedno zelo živ, ima podporo tako med delom študentov kot tudi profesorjev, ampak vendarle nas dinamika razvoja sili k temu, da so univerze veliko bolj – danes – vitalne in bolj odlične.
               

                  Seveda ne moremo biti popolnoma zadovoljni s procesom samim. Marsikje je bil razumljen bolj kot tehnični proces, manj kot vsebinski proces. Ni se polagalo veliko pozornosti na spremembo kurikula, pristopov in tako naprej. Vendar se moramo zavedati, da je to prava pot. Le tako bodo evropske univerze prišle med najodličnejše na svetu.
               

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il processo di convergenza dei vari sistemi di istituzioni europei è fondamentale per la costruzione di un'Europa della conoscenza e per l'accrescimento della competitività internazionale dei cittadini comunitari.
               

                  L'innalzamento della qualità presuppone che si ponga al centro lo studente, dando la giusta importanza alla dimensione sociale dell'istruzione, favorendo l'inclusione delle persone con disabilità, dei rifugiati e di altri gruppi vulnerabili, nonché migliorando la parità nell'istruzione.
               

                  Va garantita la mobilità alle fasce di studenti meno abbienti e l'adozione di un sistema armonizzato con conseguente riconoscimento reciproco dei titoli per permetterne la spendibilità anche in un paese diverso da quello di origine.
               

                  Lo spazio europeo dell'istruzione deve affrontare sfide difficili: una crisi economica e sociale non ancora risolta, livelli drammatici di disoccupazione e una sempre maggiore emarginazione dei giovani. La prossima conferenza ministeriale di Parigi sullo spazio europeo dell'istruzione superiore è un'occasione da non perdere per individuare i rimanenti ostacoli e le soluzioni possibili per sostenere i paesi in ritardo.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, τα θέματα της παιδείας ανήκουν στην αποκλειστική αρμοδιότητα των κρατών μελών, είναι δεδομένο αυτό. Τι συνέβη όμως με τη διαδικασία της Μπολόνια; Από τα πάνω επιβλήθηκαν αλλαγές στα εκπαιδευτικά συστήματα ως μία υποχρεωτική δήθεν πολιτική, διότι αυτό είναι η διαδικασία της λειτουργίας της Μπολόνια, διότι το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο έχει τριετείς σπουδές τριτοβάθμιας εκπαίδευσης και διότι επί της ουσίας αυτό θέλουν να επιβάλουν και στα υπόλοιπα κράτη μέλη, να υπάρξει δηλαδή υποβάθμιση της ποιότητας των πανεπιστημιακών σπουδών, διότι υπάρχει μια αντίληψη, μέσα από το σύστημα της Μπολόνια, να βλέπει κανείς την παιδεία ως ένα εμπόρευμα και όχι ως ένα δημόσιο αγαθό. Καταλήγω ότι είναι λογικό να υπάρχει συνεργασία και συντονισμός, αλλά μόνο υπό τον όρο ότι τα κράτη μέλη θα διατηρήσουν τις αρμοδιότητές τους και θα αποφασίσουν υπό ποιους όρους θα μπουν στη διαδικασία συνεργασιών.
               

Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE). – Madam President, I would like to congratulate Ms Łybacka for putting this oral question today. In past years the Bologna Process has achieved a greater transparency. It has made information about the European higher education area easily accessible and has increased the quality of education mobility and academic recognition.
For all that, I strongly support the implementation of the Bologna Process, but we are all aware that despite all the achievements, some areas still need development. We should focus on stronger cooperation in order to achieve common goals in relation to the European higher education area, especially developing appropriate legislative frameworks for consultation on its development and creating opportunities for all mobility to ensure the largest possible numbers of students are involved.
At the same time, it is important that participating countries facilitate the recognition of academic study periods and credits gained abroad

Tania González Peñas (GUE/NGL). – Señora presidenta, diez años después, los frutos cosechados por la convergencia europea son bien desiguales.
               

                  Hace una década, el movimiento estudiantil decía que no quería que la educación se convirtiera en una escuela de élites ni en una fábrica de precarios y, a día de hoy, las matrículas son mucho más caras, la calidad de la enseñanza no ha mejorado, se ha abierto la puerta a las empresas privadas en las universidades y hay docentes cobrando salarios de cuatrocientos euros.
               

                  La convergencia europea prometía hacerse con mejores medios, pero parece ser que nunca llegaron. Es cierto que el Proceso de Bolonia nos ha acercado a Europa, pero ha sido más bien porque estudiar un máster en España es tan caro que muchos estudiantes terminan yéndose al extranjero.
               

                  Sí necesitamos una convergencia europea, pero otra: la convergencia para apostar por la enseñanza pública, los precios públicos y una universidad accesible; la convergencia para apostar por la investigación y no convertir la carrera científica en un disparadero hacia la precariedad; para construir una sociedad donde se pongan en valor las cualificaciones; y una universidad con igualdad de género.
               

Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία πρόεδρε, είκοσι χρόνια διαδικασία Μπολόνια με πάγια στρατηγική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και των 48 κυβερνήσεων του Ενιαίου Χώρου, σπουδές προσαρμοσμένες στις ανάγκες του κεφαλαίου για πάμφθηνο εργατικό δυναμικό, δια βίου κινητικότητα από χώρα σε χώρα, από ίδρυμα σε ίδρυμα, συλλέκτες ευκαιριών σκόρπιων προσόντων και δεξιοτήτων, κατηγοριοποιημένων πτυχίων και απόφοιτοι σε διαφορετικά επίπεδα και μετά εργασιακή περιπλάνηση και αβεβαιότητα στο όνομα του ανταγωνισμού. Όλα τα αλέθει ο μύλος του πανεπιστημίου της αγοράς όπως αυτό της Δυτικής Αττικής στην Ελλάδα της κυβέρνησης ΣΥΡΙΖΑ-ΑΝΕΛ. Στο όνομα της άρσης των υφιστάμενων εμποδίων μεταξύ των διαφόρων επιπέδων εκπαίδευσης, προβλέπονται διαφορετικά τμήματα και πτυχία και ενθαρρύνονται η μη τυπική και η άτυπη εκπαίδευση, προοριζόμενες για τους πολλούς, τους φοιτητές από μειονεκτικά περιβάλλοντα όπως με σαφήνεια αναφέρει το ψήφισμα. Η απάντηση είναι: όλη η γνώση στο πτυχίο κι αυτό να είναι η μοναδική προϋπόθεση για την πλήρη πρόσβαση στο επάγγελμα, σπουδές για όλους δωρεάν χωρίς εμπόδια και διακρίσεις, προγράμματα έρευνας μετά το πτυχίο που θα οδηγούν σε διδακτορικό. Ενιαία ανώτατη εκπαίδευση με τον λαό στην εξουσία!
               

(Ο Πρόεδρος διακόπτει τον ομιλητή)


Lara Comi (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io sono convinta che i nostri giovani siano le persone che più credono nell'Unione europea e proprio per questo dobbiamo agevolare sicuramente un'armonizzazione del sistema scolastico, sia per l'ambito superiore ma anche per le università.
               

                  Giusto il riconoscimento delle qualifiche professionali ma alla base deve esserci anche un'armonizzazione del programma, perché le linee guida devono essere a livello europeo; è giusta una differenziazione nazionale ma anche gli anni di studio, perché per una stessa qualifica abbiamo nei diversi Stati membri un periodo di studio totalmente diverso e questo deve essere assolutamente armonizzato.
               

                  Dall'altro, la cosiddetta generazione Erasmus punta molto su di noi, punta molto sul futuro per renderli sempre più europei e anche per le lingue è un ottimo investimento. Ad esempio, in Italia, questo dovrebbe già iniziare anche molto tempo prima delle scuole medie superiori.
               

                  Si tratta quindi di un'ottima iniziativa e dobbiamo continuare su questa linea.
               

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, doamnă comisar, stimați colegi, mă bucur că avem această dezbatere înainte de întâlnirea din mai, de la Paris. Este foarte clar că Procesul de la Bologna a adus efecte pozitive. Știm bine că educația este fundamentul, până la urmă, al democrației și cred că da, Comisia trebuie să răspundă la întrebările puse aici.
               

                  Vrem să se îmbunătățească acest proces, pentru că, dacă avem o mobilitate a forței de muncă, trebuie să avem și o mobilitate a educației, a studenților, trebuie să avem acest schimb de experiență, însă cred că poate fi eficientizat, să existe echitate, să se adreseze și persoanelor cu dizabilități, să existe posibilitatea și a persoanelor sărace să studieze și, așa cum spunea și colega mea, să putem să avem și o uniformizare a calificărilor, o situație care să permită angajarea în diverse locuri din Europa a celor care studiază și care accesează Procesul de la Bologna. Așteptăm cu interes răspunsul Comisiei.
               

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Musimy pamiętać, że system boloński to nie tylko państwa Unii Europejskiej. To są także państwa, które do tej rodziny nie przynależą, nawet tak jak Białoruś, która realizuje kryteria bolońskie wolno, trochę nieudolnie, ale pokazuje także że ma to wartość.
               

                  Chcę podkreślić, że Komisja Kultury nie tylko patrzy na te kryteria, system boloński ze swojej perspektywy, ale staramy się patrzeć na to także krytycznie, od czasu do czasu zwracając uwagę na mankamenty. Natomiast to, co jest dla mnie bardzo ważne, to także szkoły artystyczne. Trzeba pamiętać, że nawet w szkołach muzycznych potrzebne są te wspólne podstawy, wspólne kryteria, aby młodzi ludzie, którzy potem spotkają się przy grze w określonej orkiestrze, grali na identycznych zasadach, w identyczny sposób. Natomiast rzeczywiście jest pewien problem ze szkołami artystycznymi w zakresie sztuk wizualnych, ale od razu podkreślę – rektorzy tych szkół znakomicie to rozumieją.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Elżbieta Bieńkowska,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I thank the House for this very interesting and very constructive discussion. Nobody denies that the Bologna Process has played a very crucial role in the last 20 years to build trust, both between the countries and between the higher education institutions, and this is really essential to promote cooperation and to promote learning mobility.
For now, what is the most important for us and what will be our focus for the coming years? It must, and will, ensuring progress in implementing the Bologna Process. At the same time, we will continue to strengthen the capacity-building efforts for Bologna countries outside the EU, and we are trying to work with those countries that have still not fulfilled all of the obligations at this point.
Let me refer shortly to Belarus. According to the assessment of the dedicated working group, although some limited progress has been made, the country does not meet the agreed requirements. There is a consensus that Belarus should join the new peer review process, which is foreseen for all 48 member countries, which aims to support the implementation of key Bologna commitments. It is, however, clear that it will also need specific support within the Bologna context to progress faster in this country.
Last, but not least, the Commission sees the Bologna Process and the establishment of the European education area as complementary. We believe that the EU initiatives which we will take, within the context of the European education area, will provide a new, very much welcomed impetus to the Bologna Process.
I will pass on all of your detailed questions and remarks to Commissioner Navracsics, but really thank you very much for this discussion.

President. – I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 128(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.


Written statements (Rule 162)



Isabella Adinolfi (EFDD),
per iscritto. – Molti sono ancora gli aspetti del processo di Bologna che impediscono di realizzare appieno quello Spazio europeo dell'istruzione superiore che tanti benefici concreti sarebbe in grado di realizzare. Proprio per questo è indispensabile che gli Stati partecipanti al processo di Bologna e la Commissione europea, si adoperino per facilitare e rendere effettivo il mutuo riconoscimento dei periodi di studi all'estero e dei relativi crediti, nonché delle qualifiche acquisite per motivi accademici o professionali. Inoltre, è fondamentale prevedere ed implementare strumenti agevolativi per studenti svantaggiati ed al contempo sostenere ed incoraggiare la mobilità di studenti, ricercatori, insegnanti e personale accademico. L'istruzione e la formazione sono due aspetti fondamentali non solo per la formazione di cittadini dotati degli strumenti intellettivi adeguati per partecipare in modo consapevole e critico alla vita pubblica, ma anche per consentire loro di poter affrontare le sfide poste dal mondo del lavoro, in modo adeguato e senza frustrare le proprie aspirazioni. In definitiva, sono convinta che oggi come non mai sia indispensabile effettuare massicci investimenti pubblici nei sistemi di istruzione e formazione, specie in quegli Stati particolarmente martoriati dalla crisi economica (penso così ai paesi dell'Europa meridionale): solo in questo modo saremo infatti in grado di dare un futuro ai nostri giovani.
               

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE),
napisan. – Obrazovanje jedan je od glavnih stupova našeg društva! Visoko obrazovanje ima važnu ulogu u poticanju osobnog razvoja i stjecanju vještina, povećanju zapošljivosti i konkurentnosti, jačanju građanskog angažmana, aktivnog građanstva i međukulturnog razumijevanja, promicanju zajedničkih vrijednosti i suočavanju s izazovima u današnjem svijetu koji se rapidno mijenja.
               

                  Bolonjski proces i Europski prostor visokog obrazovanja obuhvaćaju 48 zemalja, među ostalim, i mnoge važne susjede i partnere EU-a. Oni promiču mobilnost i jačaju međunarodnu dimenziju visokog obrazovanja. Zemlje sudionice trebaju povećati politički angažman i ojačati uzajamnu suradnju u provedbi zajedno dogovorenih ciljeva diljem Europskog prostora visokog obrazovanja i po potrebi izraditi odgovarajuće zakonodavne okvire kako bi se konsolidirao razvoj Bolonjskog procesa, ojačala njegova vjerodostojnost te kako bi taj prostor postao primjer akademske izvrsnosti u svijetu, kao i da bi se povećale mogućnosti za mobilnost u cilju sudjelovanja najvećeg mogućeg broja studenata.
               

                  EU i države članice trebali bi napraviti strategiju povećanja svog proračuna za obrazovanje kako bi se zajamčilo besplatno javno visoko obrazovanje dostupno svima, radi poticanja cjeloživotnog učenja!
               

Romana Tomc (PPE),
pisno. – Naš skupni cilj je nekoč doseči evropski visokošolski prostor, saj je visoko kakovostno visokošolsko izobraževanje bistvenega pomena za razvoj široke, napredne, na znanju temelječe družbe. Bolonjski proces spodbuja mobilnost, spodbuja in ustvarja temelje odlični znanosti, obenem spoštuje načela akademske svobode in avtonomije institucij. Za odlične evropske univerze moramo poskrbeti z vlaganjem v vsebino. Ne smemo pa pri tem pozabiti na ljudi. Na študente in študentke, ki bodo s tem konkurenčni kolegom z drugih svetovnih univerz.
               
6.   Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
6.1.   Belarus

President. – The next item is the debate on five motions for resolutions on Belarus (2018/2661(RSP)).

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski,
autor. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Nie jest łatwo być przewodniczącym takiej delegacji, jaką jest Delegacja do spraw Stosunków z Białorusią. To jest poruszanie się pomiędzy naszymi oczekiwaniami, naszymi standardami, naszymi wartościami a realnościami, jakie funkcjonują na Białorusi.
                  

                     Dziś tą rezolucją odnosimy się wyłącznie – podkreślam wyłącznie – do ostatnich czterech miesięcy, do tego, co się działo na Białorusi, co dla nas musi budzić określony niepokój. To po pierwsze wybory samorządowe, ostatnie w cyklu, które odbywały się ponownie, podkreślam ponownie, niezgodnie z dyrektywami OBWE. Martwi nas to, niepokoi, denerwuje.
                  

                     Druga rzecz niezwykle ważna to cały czas stosunek do opozycji białoruskiej: nierejestrowanie partii opozycyjnych, liczne areszty, zatrzymania, szykanowanie, także pojedynczych działaczy. Jest tego dużo, według nas kompletnie nieuzasadnione, pokazujące, jakie standardy niestety tam powinny obowiązywać, a nie obowiązują.
                  

                     I ostatni element to jest także ten, który jest związany z takimi portalami internetowymi jak Karta, które zostały zamknięte, także bez właściwego uzasadnienia. Na to zwracamy uwagę.
                  

Clare Moody,
author. – Madam President, this report makes clear that Parliament supports critical engagement, critical engagement based on concrete steps towards implementing full democracy and human rights in Belarus.
We want to see a road map for EU-Belarus relations with clear benchmarks so progress can be measured effectively. We should continue to provide support and financing for human rights defenders and civil society organisations in the country, and we must condemn breaches of these basic principles as well as fostering people-to-people contacts.
The EU is founded on the principles of freedom and democracy. We must be proud defenders of those principles at home and abroad. The people of Belarus have the right to expect us to deliver on these values for them.

Anna Elżbieta Fotyga,
author. – Madam President, the difficult geopolitical location of Belarus does not legitimise the use of force and violent intimidation of its own society, including children. Here I would like to add one example, of the Charter 67 social network that was closed recently. It does not legitimise posing a direct military threat to its neighbours, such as the exercises in Zapad or environmental threats such as the Ostrovet nuclear power plant.

Petras Auštrevičius,
Autorius. – Baltarusija sulaukia nuolatinio Europos Parlamento dėmesio, bet situacija šalyje nesikeičia. Tos pačios esminės problemos buvo ir lieka nesprendžiamos. Pastarieji savivaldos, taip vadinami, rinkimai, eilinį kartą suklastoti. ESBO, ODIHR rekomendacijos absoliučiai ignoruojamos, toliau vykdomi mirties nuosprendžiai (6 per pastaruosius ir šiuos metus), persekiojama ir draudžiama nepriklausoma žiniasklaida. Tuo tarpu Europos Sąjunga nesustoja klydusi santykiuose su Baltarusija. Prieš dvejus metus, atšaukus dalį sankcijų, buvo nusiųstas neteisingas signalas Minskui. Derybose dėl partnerystės prioritetų svarbu nepadaryti tos pačios klaidos, bent jau nekartokime. Santykiai su Baltarusija negali remtis vien tik kai kurių suinteresuotų pusių noru suteikti mikrofinansinę pagalbą ar plėtoti prekybą. Būtina laikytis griežtos sąlygotumo politikos, aiškiai formuluoti savo reikalavimus ir svarbiausia nepamiršti žmogaus teisių ir statomos nesaugios Astravo atominės elektrinės grėsmės visai Europai ir europiečiams.
                  

Bronis Ropė,
Autorius. – Rezoliucijoje minima Astravo atominė elektrinė, kuri, kaip žinia, statoma vos 20 km nuo Europos Sąjungos išorinės sienos ir iš esmės planuojama elektros eksportui į Europos Sąjungos šalis, yra grėsmė visiems Europos piliečiams, nes statoma pažeidžiant tarptautines konvencijas ir saugumo reikalavimus. Baltarusija privalo nedelsiant sustabdyti statybas ir taip sumažinti savo ekonominius nuostolius, nes Europa jos nesaugiai gaminamos elektros nepirks. Mano klausimas Komisijai:
                  

                     Žinome, kad stress testų procesas nevertina aikštelės saugumo. Ar Komisija yra garantuota, kad pasirinkta vieta saugi veikti branduolinei jėgainei?
                  

Krzysztof Hetman,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Z przykrością muszę stwierdzić, iż dwa lata po zniesieniu sankcji wobec stu siedemdziesięciu obywateli Białorusi oraz trzech białoruskich podmiotów w wyniku uznania kroków podjętych przez Białoruś na rzecz poprawy stosunków z Unią Europejską oraz jej konstruktywnej roli w regionie, znowu wracamy do sytuacji, w której w kraju tym dochodzi do naruszeń praworządności i praw człowieka. Niestety Białoruś cały czas nie przeprowadziła oczekiwanej reformy systemu wyborczego, zaś ostatnie wybory samorządowe budzą zastrzeżenia.
                  

                     Uważam zatem, iż należy w sposób zdecydowany naciskać na władze Białorusi, by zapewniły one przestrzeganie podstaw demokratycznego państwa prawa oraz fundamentalnych praw człowieka. Równocześnie należy kontynuować aktywne wsparcie dla białoruskich organizacji pozarządowych oraz niezależnych mediów przekazujących informacje w języku białoruskim.
                  

PRZEWODNICTWO: BOGUSŁAW LIBERADZKI


Wiceprzewodniczący


Doru-Claudian Frunzulică,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, the release of political prisoners and the lifting of the majority of EU restrictive measures in 2016 were encouraging steps which paved the way towards the development of the EU-Belarus relations on a more positive agenda. However, I regret that no progress has been achieved in the field of electoral reform, in line with the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the Venice Commission recommendations. And unfortunately the local elections reconfirmed the shortcomings in law and practice.
In light of these shortcomings, I share the opinion that the Belarusian authorities have to put forward a comprehensive reform of the election law and processes and to apply it before the next presidential elections. I also support the call for closer monitoring of the situation by the European External Action Service and the Commission and strict conditionality vis-à-vis the prospect of greater involvement of Belarus in Eastern Partnership policies, financial support and visa liberalisation.
In order to ensure closer EU-Belarus relations the Belarusian Government has to bring forward clear reform commitments with regard to which setting up benchmarks and a timeline is necessary.

Zgłoszenia z sali


Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já chci podpořit návrh tohoto usnesení, protože ta hlavní myšlenka tohoto návrhu je, že bohužel demokratizační proces v Bělorusku se vůbec neposouvá. Kolegové tady velmi správně uváděli konkrétní případy toho, jak byly zmanipulovány komunální volby, jak jsou zakazovány nezávislé servery, jak je velmi komplikované, v zásadě nemožné založit nezávislou politickou stranu v Bělorusku. Je to v zásadě dnes jediná diktatura na území Evropy a my musíme reagovat, musíme jednat, protože je-li ochrana svobody a demokracie základní myšlenkou, základní evropskou hodnotou, pak nemůžeme být v tomto směru slepí a nemůžeme tyto věci v Bělorusku tolerovat. Takže já s tím souhlasím a teď je na orgánech EU a paní komisařce, jak se k tomu vyjádří na Evropské komisi, aby přizpůsobili naši politiku vůči Bělorusku, přizpůsobili ji k tomu, že Bělorusko od roku 2016 žádné změny v demokratizaci neučinilo.
                     

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisaria, no es ninguna sorpresa que cada 25 de marzo se produzcan manifestaciones con ocasión del Día de la Independencia. Ni tampoco es ninguna sorpresa que esas manifestaciones sean reprimidas con detenciones, y no solo preventivas, sino represivas, de observadores internacionales, activistas de derechos humanos, periodistas; porque esa es la práctica bajo el régimen que preside Alexander Lukashenko.
                     

                        Bielorrusia es un país europeo y, lamentablemente, es una excepción, el único país que no ha conseguido abrirse paso hacia el Consejo de Europa, y el único país que mantiene la pena de muerte.
                     

                        Por tanto, creo que el Parlamento Europeo tiene razones para preocuparse de las violaciones de derechos fundamentales, la libertad de expresión, el pluralismo informativo —de la libertad, en definitiva, en un país europeo—, y para ejercer al máximo su potencial y su capacidad diplomática para que Bielorrusia deje de ser una excepción. Y es preciso abogar, particularmente, por organizaciones no gubernamentales prestigiosas en el ámbito de los derechos humanos, como Human Rights Centre ‘Viasna’ y Belarusian Helsinki Committee. Nuestro trabajo, como continente libre de pena de muerte, no estará completo hasta que no consigamos que Bielorrusia deje de ser una excepción.
                     

Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! W tym miesiącu – bo przecież dopiero minęło trzy i pół tygodnia – Białoruś obchodziła Dzień Wolności, a więc stulecie ogłoszenia Białoruskiej Republiki Ludowej. Chyba z tej okazji powinniśmy wszystkim Białorusinom złożyć serdeczne życzenia, szkoda, że ich zabrakło, a szczególnie Białoruskiemu Frontowi Narodowemu, któremu zawdzięczamy tak szeroką skalę społecznego udziału w tych uroczystościach, a także Kościołowi katolickiemu, który je mocno wsparł.
                     

                        Jeżeli naprawdę chcemy, żeby Białoruś miała przyszłość jako niepodległe państwo, jeżeli chcemy, żeby doszła do porządku politycznego opartego na wolności, to przede wszystkim musimy wspierać język, poczucie historyczne, poczucie narodowe. I to, żeby barwy narodowe czy język były nie tylko hasłami wystąpień polityczno-demokratycznych, ale coraz głębiej wchodzącą w życie społeczne rzeczywistością, rzeczywistością życia codziennego i świadomości społecznej. I taką długofalową pracę powinni prowadzić ci, którzy naprawdę są przyjaciółmi Białorusi.
                     

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la mattina del 29 aprile 2016, durante una protesta pacifica per i diritti dei ciclisti, l'attivista bielorusso Dzmitry Paliyenka veniva arrestato dalla polizia.
                     

                        Questo ragazzo di 23 anni si trova ancora nel carcere di Babrujsk, condannato a scontare una pena ingiusta e ingiustificata. Deve trascorrere ogni mese dieci giorni in isolamento, la posta non gli viene recapitata, i contatti con l'esterno sono al minimo e i pochi incontri con padre e avvocato strettamente sorvegliati.
                     

                        Come Dzmitry, tanti altri attivisti e difensori dei diritti umani sono imprigionati e sottoposti a trattamenti disumani. La loro colpa: svolgere il loro lavoro, esprimere un'opinione. Una situazione che dura da vent'anni e, nonostante la Bielorussia abbia fatto dei timidi progressi nel partenariato orientale, i diritti umani continuano ad essere calpestati.
                     

                        Chiediamo alle autorità bielorusse di porre fine immediatamente e incondizionatamente alla censura delle testate giornalistiche indipendenti, alla persecuzione di attivisti, blogger e giornalisti e, soprattutto, di garantire la libertà e i diritti ai cittadini bielorussi e di abolire l'inaccettabile pena di morte, una vergogna per l'intera Europa.
                     

Jaromír Štětina (PPE). – Pane předsedající, podporovat spolupráci s Běloruskem je třeba, ale je třeba ji podporovat tehdy, jestliže Bělorusko bude plnit své sliby, tj. dodržovat lidská práva. To se neodehrává a já vám chci dát jeden jasný příklad. V Bělorusku dlouhá léta pracovala Charta 97. Charta 97 byl webový portál, který byl Lukašenkem zablokován a zastaven a musel se odstěhovat do zahraničí. Pro nás, pro Čechy a Slováky, je to velmi důležité, protože běloruská Charta 97 vycházela z Charty 77, kterou u nás kdysi pomáhal budovat náš bývalý prezident Václav Havel. My jsme proto, česká a slovenská delegace, oslovili pana komisaře Hahna a paní Mogheriniovou a informovali jsme je o této smutné skutečnosti. Myslím si, že by bylo dobré, kdyby se tím Komise zabývala.
                     

Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, the Freedom Day on March 25 of this year was a celebration of independence, but is actually a kind of litmus test for the state of democracy in Belarus. I'm afraid that 2018 which has been the first year that Lukashenko has permitted such formal celebrations has provided no surprises.
It was hoped that there might be a marked change in the government's approach to the repression of its people, they still have the KGB, by the way. But reports have been made of opposition leaders, supporters and bloggers detained and the independent news website Charter 97 is still blocked. It seems that any promises made by Lukashenko to work towards a thriving democracy in Belarus are paper thin.
Despite EU sanctions and multiple efforts to engage in human rights dialogue, no electoral reform has been attempted and the opposition media and NGOs continue to be oppressed by President Lukashenko's regime. The door is ajar to constructive dialogue and cooperation but sanctions should remain in place from the EU until real progress is made for the Belarusian people.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, good morning. Honourable Members, thank you for putting this on the agenda: it is indeed important to talk about Belarus. EU-Belarus relations have come a long way in the last years. They continue to be driven, as many of you referred to, a policy of critical engagement from our side. We are very attentive, as you are – and thank you for that – to the human rights situation in the country. At the same time, we believe that progress in a variety of fields can be better achieved by means of enhanced cooperation. The release of remaining prisoners in August 2015 was a long-sought step which represented important progress in our relations. Since most of the restrictive measures were lifted in February 2016, EU-Belarus relations developed further. As for the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Belarus Independence, the granting of official permissions by the authorities to hold a meeting and a concert on 25 March was recognised as a positive development. However, the preventive arrests and detentions that took place in the run-up to the commemoration were in contradiction with Belarus' stated policy of democratisation and its international commitments.
While far from being sufficient, in recent years Belarus has taken a number of encouraging steps. These include a pro-active participation in the Eastern Partnership; resumption of the EU-Belarus human rights and other sectoral dialogues; and the signature of the mobility partnership in October 2016. People-to-people contacts, including youth exchanges, will continue to be further encouraged through programmes such as EU Most, Erasmus+, Horizon 2020. Belarus has also played a constructive role in the conflict in and around Ukraine. We have recently observed an increased willingness by the Belarusian authorities to engage with the EU in the dialogue on human rights issues. That has been resumed upon Belarus' initiative, and the next meeting will take place in June this year in Minsk. This increased willingness for debate has, unfortunately, not led to any measurable legislative improvements in the human rights situation in the country, notably also on the electoral framework that you referred to. We will therefore use the opportunity of the dialogue to reiterate again that democratic principles and fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly, association, including freedom of media (also online) must be fully insured. We will highlight again the need to resume as soon as possible the work on serious, comprehensive and inclusive reform of the electoral framework in line with OSCE commitments and other international standards, and we will continue to call for the introduction without delay of a moratorium on the death penalty and the need to strengthen the independence of the judiciary.
There were a few questions by some of you on the Belarusian nuclear power plant in Ostrovets, and I will take this opportunity also to reiterate that nuclear safety issues are an overall EU concern, even more so when these facilities are being constructed on an EU border. Full transparency on the construction process and full cooperation with relevant international organisations, the EU and neighbouring countries are of utmost importance. The EU is using all four as an instrument that we have to address the construction in Ostrovets. The aim is, of course, to ensure that the highest possible safety standards are followed. The EU is, in particular, financing experts who are assisting the Belarusian national regulator during the construction of the power plant and through working with Belarus in the area of nuclear stress tests.
Finally, honourable Members, we are now close to finalising the joint EU-Belarus partnership priorities, which will be the first document of this kind between the EU and Belarus – an important building block in our relations, setting the strategic frame for our cooperation in the coming years, in which human rights issues play a very important role. Our work in the biannual format of the EU-Belarus Coordination Group will allow us to monitor progress in our political relations and cooperation, and the fifth meeting is confirmed: it will take place next week in Minsk. The participation of representatives of civil society and experts in the discussions of the Coordination Group has become a standard feature, which is a positive development, and this confirms our support to, and the involvement of, the civil society, which will remain an essential part of our policy.
The European Union is ready to assist Belarus in its reform efforts. Tangible steps taken by Belarus to respect universal fundamental freedom, rule of law and human rights will be key in shaping our future relationship with that country, and we will continue to closely observe action by Belarus with regard to freedom of expression and assembly, as well as securing a framework for a free and independent media, as we take forward a policy of critical engagement.
We will, equally, continue to call for the Belarusian authorities to engage in constructive and open dialogue with the democratic opposition and civil society organisations to remove restrictions for political activities and ease procedures for registration for political parties and independent organisations in Belarus. Thank you all for putting this question on the agenda.

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.
                     

                        Głosowanie odbędzie się po zakończeniu debat.
                     


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)



Julia Pitera (PPE),
na piśmie. – Unia Europejska oferuje swoim sąsiadom wielopłaszczyznową, daleko idącą współpracę, zbudowaną na poszanowaniu wspólnych wartości, takich jak demokracja, prawa człowieka czy praworządność. W przypadku Białorusi jednak, gdy prawa i wolności takie jak prawo do życia, wolność słowa czy prasy po prostu nie istnieją, trudno mówić o poszanowaniu wspólnych wartości. Raport Amnesty International 2017/2018 informuje, że sądy białoruskie, jako jedyne w Europie orzekające jeszcze karę śmierci, wydały kolejne wyroki śmierci w 2018 r.
                     

                        Z kolei według światowego wskaźnika wolności prasy z 2018 r. opracowanego przez międzynarodową organizację pozarządową ‘Reporterzy bez granic’, Białoruś zajmuje 155 pozycję wśród 180 analizowanych krajów, ocenianych według stopnia poszanowania wolności prasy. Ponad 100 dziennikarzy zostało aresztowanych w 2017 r., a niezależne internetowe serwisy informacyjne zostały zablokowane.
                     

                        Ponadto na Białorusi od 1994 r. nie przeprowadzono żadnych wolnych i uczciwych wyborów, a rząd tego kraju regularnie odmawia przyjęcia mandatu specjalnego sprawozdawcy ONZ ds. Praw Człowieka na Białorusi.
                     

                        My, jako posłowie zasiadający w Parlamencie Europejskim, wybrani w wolnych, równych i powszechnych wyborach, mający obowiązek stania na straży demokratycznych wartości, powinniśmy stanowczo sprzeciwiać się takim działaniom rządu białoruskiego poprzez wspieranie niezależnych źródeł informacji, również tych z zagranicy, oraz stałą współpracę z organizacjami społeczeństwa obywatelskiego i obrońcami praw człowieka.
                     
6.2.   Philippines

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest debata nad sześcioma projektami rezolucji w sprawie Filipin (2018/2662(RSP)).
                  

Tomáš Zdechovský,
Autor. – Pane předsedající, já si myslím, že opakovat tady něco o situaci na Filipínách, to je jako ‘nošení sov do Athén’. Myslím si, že každý, kdo sleduje situaci na Filipínách, tak ví o rostoucím počtu vražd spojených s bojem proti nelegálním drogám. O neustálém porušování lidských práv, o tom, jak došlo k zatčení senátorky Leily de Limaové obviněné z údajného trestního činu spojeného s drogami, informovala všechna světová média. A EU dlouhodobě vyzývá k jejímu propuštění a zajištění spravedlivého procesu.
                  

                     Prokurátor mezinárodního trestního soudu nedávno zahájil předběžné zkoumání situace na Filipínách. Především nás znepokojuje situace ohledně filipínského prezidenta a jeho výroky, které jsou namířeny proti ženám. A také nás znepokojuje stále častější zabíjení, násilí, zastrašování a obtěžování lidí, kteří bojují za lidská práva, odborářů, farmářů a jejich rodinných příslušníků.
                  

                     Dámy a pánové, na Filipínách jsme svědky mnoha vražd v souvislosti s drogovou kampaní. A proto jsme dnes připravili rezoluci, která vyzývá filipínskou vládu a všechny filipínské představitele k tomu, aby se situací začali vážně zabývat a aby se snažili situaci skutečně změnit.
                  

Neena Gill,
author. – Mr President, when this House last adopted a resolution on the Philippines in March of last year 7 000 people had lost their lives in President Duterte's cold-blooded war on drugs. A year on, the number has reached 12 000. How many more?
Those who dare to criticise the Duterte regime face harassment, torture or arrest, this is the fate of activists, journalists and indigenous people. Or they're simply banned from entering the country, as happened to my colleague Giacomo Filibeck, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Party of European Socialists, who was detained and expelled from the Philippines on Sunday while on his way to a political congress, because he had been critical in the earlier visit.
This is not just an issue for my party. It means that many of our officials can be banned any time when it is vital to keep tabs on the situation, especially given President Duterte's last month to withdrawal from the International Criminal Court. A point-blank confession that his war on drugs cannot withstand scrutiny.
Business as usual, Commissioner, is longer an option. Having championed GSP+ for the Philippines, it is now time to review it.

Charles Tannock,
author. – Mr President, just over a year since our last resolution on the Philippines, the situation is, sadly, little changed. The self-styled strongman, President Duterte, continues to pursue his war on drugs – a campaign that is so far estimated to have cost the lives of over 12 000 people, many of them youngsters.
Away from his headline-grabbing story, minorities including indigenous peoples continue to be marginalised and victims of human rights abuses. The news that the Philippines gave notice last month of withdrawal from the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court is also of grave concern, and forms part of a wider pattern of authoritarian leaders across the globe quitting the International Criminal Court as an act of defiance against the international rules-based order.
President Duterte's comments urging other countries to do the same are particularly unwelcome. The intention to reintroduce the death penalty in the Philippines for drug offenses also raises grave concerns for the future direction of that country and illustrates that Duterte's claims that he will continue in the same vein until his presidential term ends in 2022 are not empty threats.
All taken together, the trajectory of human rights in the Philippines under President Duterte appears to be heading in only one direction, and that is not a very nice one.

Urmas Paet,
author. – Mr President, President Duterte's war on drugs has taken the lives of around 12 000 people, including women and children. In addition to the killings and massive violation of human rights there is harassment of human rights defenders, critics of Duterte's actions, indigenous peoples and so on, not to mention Duterte's own unacceptable behaviour, with his remarks and calls for violence that amount to violation of international humanitarian law.
The threats, intimidation and violence must stop. It is extremely disappointing that the Philippines has decided to withdraw from the International Criminal Court. The reasons for this step are obvious. It is an attempt to avoid accountability for the crimes committed. The ICC initiative to inquire into this matter of crimes against humanity in the Philippines is highly welcome and needed, and all those responsible for the heinous crimes must be brought to justice.

Barbara Lochbihler,
Verfasserin. – Herr Präsident! Die Aufforderung des philippinischen Präsidenten an die eigene Polizei, ihre Angriffe auf Menschenrechtsorganisationen zu verstärken, ist nur ein Beispiel für die sich rapide verschlechternde Menschenrechtslage. Es kursiert nur eine offizielle Liste mit etwa 600 Personen, die der Mitgliedschaft in der New Peoples Army beschuldigt und zu Terroristen erklärt werden. Ebenso auf dieser Liste stehen Menschenrechtsaktivisten. Eine davon ist Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, die UN-Sonderberichterstatterin für die Rechte Indigener. Viele der gelisteten Personen haben Angst, Opfer außergerichtlicher Tötungen zu werden.
                  

                     Wir begrüßen, dass nun die Chefanklägerin des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs eine vorläufige Prüfung eingeleitet hat, um zu klären, ob die Verbrechen im Rahmen des von Duterte ausgerufenen Kriegs gegen Drogen als Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit zu bewerten sind.
                  

                     Die EU muss alle ihre Möglichkeiten nutzen, um Druck auszuüben, dass diese verheerende Politik korrigiert wird. In diesem Kontext sind Berichte beunruhigend, dass bei zukünftigen Abkommen mit den Philippinen auf die Einfügung von Menschenrechtsklauseln verzichtet werden soll. Das wäre ein katastrophales, falsches Signal. Ich bitte Sie, Frau Kommissarin Malmström, dies zu berücksichtigen.
                  

Miguel Urbán Crespo,
autor. – Señor presidente, con la llamada ‘guerra contra las drogas’, en Filipinas han sido asesinadas más de doce mil personas. Asimismo, con la excusa de la guerra contra el terrorismo, se está atacando, asesinando y criminalizando a los que se oponen al Gobierno y a los proyectos extractivistas y agroindustriales.
                  

                     Filipinas es el país asiático donde más defensores ambientales han sido asesinados: cuarenta y uno en 2017; muchos de ellos en Mindanao, la capital minera del país.
                  

                     Mientras los habitantes de Mindanao denuncian la aplicación de la ley marcial, la persecución de líderes sociales indígenas acusados de terrorismo, las violaciones de derechos humanos y la militarización de la región, las multinacionales —¡qué casualidad!— agradecen al Gobierno su protección.
                  

                     Exigimos que se dejen de comercializar armas y equipos militares a Filipinas; que se eliminen las preferencias comerciales SPG+ y que las actuales negociaciones de libre comercio se congelen.
                  

                     Toda nuestra solidaridad y apoyo al pueblo filipino y muy especialmente a la población de Mindanao.
                  

Seán Kelly,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, the situation in the Philippines is deeply troubling. The Philippines and the EU have a long-standing relationship in terms of diplomacy, economy, culture and policy. And indeed there is a long-standing relationship between my country Ireland and Philippines, for many Irish missionaries for centuries have gone to educate young Filipinos.
So it is important that the EU provide its support to the government of the Philippines in restoring stability and respecting the rule of law. Through ratification of the partnership and cooperation agreement, the EU and the Philippines confirmed their joint commitment to the principles of good governance, democracy, the rule of law, the promotion of social and economic development and to peace and security in the region.
I am particularly concerned, therefore, about the decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute, which deals with the four core international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. This brings even more urgency to an already volatile situation, and I am hopeful that the Government of the Philippines will reconsider its actions and reverse its decisions.

Francisco Assis,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, a situação das Filipinas é intolerável e tende a agravar-se cada vez mais. O Governo filipino tem usado de várias medidas visando silenciar a sociedade civil. Um dos estratagemas mais utilizados para esse fim é o da criminalização das ONG e dos defensores dos direitos humanos através de leis que fixam um entendimento demasiado lato do terrorismo.
                  

                     Foi no contexto deste tipo de legislação que a relatora especial da ONU para os direitos dos povos indígenas, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, foi incluída, juntamente com diversos indígenas defensores de direitos humanos, numa lista de organizações e pessoas alegadamente responsáveis por atividades terroristas.
                  

                     A inclusão desta relatora especial da ONU põe em causa a sua integridade física, pode pôr mesmo em causa a sua própria vida. Em dezembro passado, esta relatora, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, tinha feito declarações públicas de repúdio pelas políticas de Rodrigo Duterte, nomeadamente os assassínios de membros de comunidades indígenas no sul do país, bem como a deslocação forçada dessas comunidades para outras regiões.
                  

                     E é bom recordar que em 2017 foram assassinados 41 defensores dos direitos ambientais nas Filipinas. Esta situação é totalmente intolerável e a União Europeia não pode deixar de ter uma palavra em relação a este assunto.
                  

Jean-Luc Schaffhauser,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, qui est responsable d'une situation? Ceux qui la créent ou ceux qui essaient d'y remédier? Il en est ainsi aussi chez nous, où l'on fait venir des immigrés par milliers, voire par millions dans des zones qui sont déjà des zones de trafic, de non-droit, où, en fin de compte, derrière la pauvreté, il y a aussi la régulation du crime.
                  

                     Après des décennies de laxisme et de corruption, les Philippines – que je connais bien – sont devenues un pays où la toxicomanie est endémique. Face à une armée structurée de près de 200 000 hommes du crime organisé, le président tente de rétablir l'état de droit et de sauver la population dont 80 % le suit dans son entreprise. Certes, ses méthodes choquent – elles me choquent aussi –, mais pas plus que celles qui consistent à bombarder en Iraq et en Libye, ou celles qui consistent à inventer l'affaire Skripal contre la Russie ou à trouver des armes chimiques pour bombarder contre le droit international.
                  

Soraya Post (S&D). – Mr President, it is interesting, but I think we that we should stay focused on the resolution on the Philippines. I know that we have another picture of the world, but the human rights situation in the Philippines is extremely alarming at the moment and has been so for quite a while. We are deeply concerned about the Deputy Secretary-General of the Party of European Socialists (PES), Giacomo Filibeck, who was arrested, along with many others, and not allowed to enter the country. So it is also shocking that human rights defenders, indigenous leaders, UN officials, and even national government officials, such as Senator de Lima, are being targeted by the Duterte Government.
I strongly condemn the violent language also used by President Duterte about women. It seems that his war on drugs has also turned into a war against women. We cannot, I think, wait any longer. It is our obligation to take stronger action than before, even if this meant that we would have to reconsider GSP+ privileges.

Zgłoszenia z sali


Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Na wstępie chciałbym zaprotestować przeciwko poglądowi, który pojawił się na tej sali, że można wprowadzać praworządność, łamiąc praworządność. To nie jest droga – to jest jedynie usprawiedliwienie ewentualnych zbrodni.
                  

                     Druga istotna dla mnie sprawa to to, że bardzo często zajmujemy się, właśnie w formie rezolucji, sprawami państw odległych, takich jak Wenezuela, Kolumbia, a dzisiaj Filipiny. Interesuje mnie, czy mamy jakiś ‘follow-up’ tych naszych aktywności. Od razu dodam, że nie jestem zwolennikiem niepodejmowania tych tematów, ale dla mnie bardzo ważne jest, aby zapobiegać inflacji w tej materii, jak również starać się doprowadzać do tego, żeby rezolucje miały swój skutek – nie tylko prewencyjny, ale faktyczny.
                  

                     To jest pytanie do Pani Komisarz – do jakiego stopnia te rezolucje pomagają naszym służbom zewnętrznym?
                  

Jean-Paul Denanot (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, effectivement, malgré de nombreux appels de la communauté, inquiète de la multiplication des meurtres liés à la lutte contre la drogue, le président philippin, Rodrigo Duterte, reste droit dans ses bottes. Pire, il s'enferme dans une attitude hostile à l'égard de la Cour pénale internationale et s'autorise toutes les régressions sur le plan démocratique: volonté de rétablir la peine de mort, provocations multiples à l'égard des minorités, vexations à l'égard de la société civile, attaques verbales contre les femmes allant même – rendez-vous compte – jusqu'à demander leur viol ou leur assassinat!
                  

                     Cela est évidemment inacceptable, c'est pourquoi nous devons exiger avec force la fin des exactions et rappeler aux autorités philippines leurs engagements internationaux. L'exclusion de cet État du Conseil des droits de l'homme des Nations unies avant la fin de son mandat actuel est une piste, mais d'autres sanctions, notamment de nature économique, pourraient intervenir.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το χτύπημα των εμπόρων ναρκωτικών πρέπει να γίνει στο πλαίσιο του κράτους δικαίου, πρέπει να επιβληθούν φυσικά αυστηρές ποινές και πρέπει επίσης να μην γίνεται καμία απελευθέρωση εμπόρων ναρκωτικών από τις φυλακές με οποιοδήποτε πρόσχημα – γιατί αυτό συμβαίνει πολλές φορές. Όμως στις Φιλιππίνες ο πόλεμος κατά των ναρκωτικών έχει εξελιχθεί πλέον σε μία εκκαθαριστική επιχείρηση που διεξάγουν οι ένοπλες δυνάμεις με πάνω από 20.000 θύματα και με εξωδικαστικές εκτελέσεις. Ταυτόχρονα, ο Πρόεδρος των Φιλιππίνων αξιοποιεί αυτή την ευκαιρία του πολέμου, όπως λέει κατά των ναρκωτικών, για να αντιμετωπίσει πολύ σκληρά τους πολιτικούς του αντιπάλους και φυσικά οδηγεί τις Φιλιππίνες σε ακραίες καταστάσεις με βία κατά των γυναικών και επαναφορά της θανατικής ποινής. Επομένως, πρέπει να ληφθούν μέτρα κατά των Φιλιππίνων, καταργώντας για παράδειγμα τις γενικές δασμολογικές προτιμήσεις Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με τις οποίες εισάγονται αδασμολόγητα πλέον προϊόντα των Φιλιππίνων εδώ στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.
                  

Ignazio Corrao (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il clima di terrore che sta avvolgendo le Filippine ha raggiunto livelli estremamente preoccupanti, che non possono essere più tollerati.
                  

                     La dura guerra alla droga portata avanti dal presidente Duterte sta portando con sé un numero allarmante di vittime cadute sotto i colpi della polizia e dei mercenari, troppo spesso in modo sommario, senza processo e senza alcuna motivazione plausibile. Un presidente di uno Stato sovrano che giustifica lo stupro, che incoraggia la repressione armata di attivisti e che incita all'uccisione di donne non può essere ignorato.
                  

                     Sebbene la dura repressione al traffico di droga e la lotta senza quartiere alla criminalità organizzata siano delle battaglie assolutamente condivisibili, qui oggi non stiamo discutendo del fine ma dei metodi. Nelle Filippine si sta assistendo infatti a un numero spaventoso di esecuzioni extragiudiziali per mano di polizia e mercenari, mascherate da operazione antidroga. A farne le spese non sono i signori della droga ma, in prevalenza, persone di bassa estrazione sociale dei quartieri più poveri di Manila.
                  

                     Ritengo pertanto necessario da parte nostra esercitare tutta la pressione possibile sul presidente Duterte affinché ponga immediatamente fine alle esecuzioni extragiudiziali e garantisca un giusto processo alla sua lunga lista di sospetti terroristi.
                  

Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Elnök Úr! A Fülöp-szigeteken tapasztalható drogellenes háború számos kérdést vet fel, amelyekre már rámutattak az emberi jogok védelmével foglalkozó nemzetközi szervezetek is. Két fontos aspektusra hívnám fel a figyelmet. Az egyik az erőszak állami monopóliumával kapcsolatos probléma. Az erőszakos eszközökkel való fellépés az állami szervek, kiemelten a rendőrség feladata, mégis sok olyan hír lát napvilágot a Fülöp-szigeteken, hogy a civilek is önbíráskodásba fognak, a jelenség fölött pedig szemet hunynak a hatóságok.
                  

                     Ez rendkívül veszélyes és öngerjesztő folyamat, mely könnyen ellenőrizhetetlenné válik, amellett persze, hogy a polgárok biztonsághoz való jogát – amelyet szintén a rendőrség hivatott védeni – semmibe veszi. A másik probléma épp a jogbiztonság hiánya. Ha bárki eldöntheti bírósági tárgyalás nélkül, hogy ki az, aki drogokkal való visszaélés miatt büntetést, akár halált érdemel, akkor visszatértünk az őskorba, bár még ott is működtek valamiféle szabályok. Pontszerű visszaélések persze minden országban történnek sajnos, a Fülöp-szigeteken azonban, úgy tűnik, hogy állami politikát csinálnak ebből.
                  

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ‘se ostacolano la giustizia, sparategli!’, parole agghiaccianti che il presidente castigatore Duterte pronunciava l'agosto scorso, quando istruiva la polizia su come attaccare i difensori dei diritti umani e chiunque si mettesse di mezzo alla sua pulizia della nazione.
                  

                     Parole tristemente attuali: oltre diecimila morti, di cui meno della metà ammessi dalla polizia e giustificati con una reazione all'arresto. La cosiddetta lotta contro la droga di Duterte continua imperterrita; la giustizia è costantemente negata a migliaia di innocenti e alle loro famiglie; gli abusi dei diritti umani si moltiplicano a dismisura. A combattere contro questa violenza dilagante restano pochi attivisti e giornalisti e anche parte della classe politica.
                  

                     Da 14 mesi Leila De Lima è detenuta illegalmente nella prigione di Manila: nessun processo, nessuna prova. Avevamo già condannato il suo arresto. Oggi dobbiamo alzare la voce e chiedere al governo di rilasciare immediatamente la senatrice, di non ritirarsi dallo statuto di Roma e di collaborare con le indagini della Corte penale internazionale.
                  

                     L'Unione europea deve esercitare ogni pressione possibile per chiedere alle Filippine di adempiere ai loro obblighi internazionali e al presidente Duterte porre fine a questa sua vera e propria politica del terrore.
                  

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, on behalf of the EU, we have expressed strong concerns about the various human rights issues in the Philippines on numerous occasions, both in bilateral meetings at political level with the government as well as in different statements.
The issues that have been raised are the issues you raised here: the high number of killings associated with the campaign against illegal drugs, the climate of impunity, the declared withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, the possible reintroduction of the death penalty, as well as a possible lowering of the age for criminal responsibility to nine years.
Further, the issue of the general situation of human rights defenders have been raised: the arrest of Senator De Lima and challenges to the freedom of expression and opinion as well as to the independence of institutions, including the impeachment procedures initiated against the chief justice.
This has been raised in different declarations and statements by the EU28 Human Rights Council, the High Representative's spokesperson and we addressed it in a very comprehensive way in the EU Special Incentive Arrangement for Sustainable Development and Good Governance (GSP+) monitoring report that I discussed here with you earlier this year. I have also personally met with Filipino representatives of government on numerous occasions where I have raised the concerns.
We are closely monitoring development, especially now regarding the petition of 21 February by the Department of Justice, which includes a list of more than 600 individuals, alleging that they are members of the Communist Party and the New People's Army. The list includes inter alia, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People. We note that UN special rapporteurs are protected by specific diplomatic protocols during their United Nations-mandated work.
Regarding all the individuals on the list, the EU expects the Government of the Philippines to fulfil, in all its proceedings on the matter, its obligation under national and international law, in particular, the respect of the rule of law and human rights, and to ensure their physical safety. That includes the right to due process, the independence of the judiciary and a fair trial for every individual.
We are disturbed by the denial of entry into the Philippines and the subsequent forced deportation from the country of the PES Group Deputy Secretary-General Giacomo Filibeck. He was blacklisted for participating in supposed illegal political activities, where as you know and you also referred to, he was officially invited to attend the congress of Akbayan, an opposition party which is represented both in the Senate and in the House. We immediately raised the matter with the government, as this is the first case of a foreign-national and an EU citizen being expelled from the country for political reasons during the current administration.
Human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, and widespread impunity have been a long-standing problem in the Philippines, as highlighted in the GSP+ report. We remain convinced that both the Philippines and the EU have most to gain from constructive engagement. The partnership and cooperation agreement between the EU and the Philippines entered into force on 1 March this year. And this agreement foresees the establishment of a structured human rights dialogue between the parties, which will be an important forum for addressing all human rights issues.
The issue of the GSP+ commitment was raised by several of you, as you remember we discussed this in this plenary in January where we highlighted that indeed, there are several areas of progress by the Philippine Government when it comes to the work on gender equality health, education, social and economic rights, labour rights, fight against corruption, protection of the environment.
However – and this was also very clear in the report – extra-judicial killings, especially in the fight against drugs-related impunity, and the possible reintroduction of the death penalty were mentioned. We also addressed recommendations to the Philippine Government and I have also personally conveyed them to the minister that they need to do more to address the issues we have discussed here.
We are monitoring the situation closely, and this year's GSP+ monitoring mission will focus on the issues related to the war on drugs. And the EU will assess recent developments before deciding on the next steps. You can count on the European Commission and on the External Action Service to continue raising these matters with the Philippine Government in a clear and constructive way.

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.
                  

                     Głosowanie odbędzie się po zakończeniu debat.
                  


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)



Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE),
in writing. – President Duterte's murderous ‘drug war’ entered its second year resulting in the killing of more than 12,000 drug suspects. Duterte has responded to increased criticism of his anti-drug campaign by impugning, harassing, and threatening critics of the government and human rights defenders. Under unclear circumstances and fabricated evidences Senator Leila M. de Lima has been put in jail while at the same time the UN Special Rapporteur, Ms Tauli-Corpuz, has been put in the terrorist list. Unfortunately, President Duterte's rule looks more like an authoritarian regime rather than democracy. Under his term the principle of the rule of law has not been respected in Philippines and human rights have been constantly abused by the government. In this context, I call on the authorities of the Philippines to immediately stop the extrajudicial killings, to prosecute all perpetrators, to respect the rule of law and international human rights law. In addition, the EU must support the independent international investigation into the unlawful killings and other violations in the Philippines in the context of President Duterte's actions. Last but not least, I call on the Philippines to remove UNSR Tauli-Corpuz from the terrorist list and to ensure that Senator Lima has the right to fair trial.

Rolandas Paksas (EFDD),
raštu. – Ne kartą esu pabrėžęs, jog esminė valstybės pareiga ir funkcija yra tinkamai, efektyviai užtikrinti jos piliečių bei gyventojų teises, sukurti visuomenės klestėjimui ir vystymuisi palankią terpę. Esu tvirtai įsitikinęs, kad Filipinų valdžia privalo imtis neatidėliotinų priemonių, siekdama užkirsti kelią narkotikų platinimui ir vartojimui, masiniams žmonių žudymams, terorizmo nusikaltimams, vystyti aktyvų tarptautinį bendradarbiavimą nusikalstamumo prevencijos srityse. Mano nuomone, smurtu grindžiama bauginimo ir priespaudos politika nėra tinkama ir proporcinga priemonė iškeltiems taikos ir gerovės Filipinuose tikslams pasiekti. Būtina užkirsti kelią mirties bausmės taikymui, užtikrinti, kad teisingumo būtų įmanoma siekti taikiomis, adekvačiomis priemonėmis, garantuojant asmens teisę į gynybą, į teisingą ir nešališką teismo procesą. Didelį dėmesį reikia skirti visuomenės sveikatai, gauti tinkamą gydymą ir padėti socializuotis nusikaltimų aukoms bei jų giminėms. Taip pat imtis veiksmų švietimo ir mokslo sistemai gerinti, kelti visuomenės socialinį bei ekonominį lygį.
                  
7.   Request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee (Rule 137(2) (approval): see Minutes
8.   Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (continuation of debate)
8.1.   Situation in Gaza Strip

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest debata nad sześcioma projektami rezolucji w sprawie sytuacji w Strefie Gazy (2018/2663(RSP)).
                  

Cristian Dan Preda,
auteur. – Monsieur le Président, le texte que nous allons voter aujourd'hui, soutenu par le PPE, est équilibré et énonce clairement un certain nombre de choses.
                  

                     Tout d'abord, le rapport mentionne que les protestations à Gaza ont été orchestrées par le Hamas qui est inscrit – il faut le rappeler – sur la liste des organisations terroristes de l'Union européenne et a pour but ultime la destruction d'Israël.
                  

                     Ensuite, nous reconnaissons le droit d'Israël à se défendre. Nous condamnons donc fermement les attaques récurrentes du Hamas à l'encontre d'Israël, ainsi que l'usage des civils comme bouclier. Nous déplorons aussi, évidemment, les pertes de vies humaines et les blessés lors des récentes protestations et encourageons la retenue dans l'usage de la force. Notre but est, bien sûr, de prévenir une escalade de la violence, mais ce n'est pas ce que souhaite le Hamas, qui cherche la confrontation et à détourner l'idée de protestations non violentes à ses propres fins.
                  

                     Je voudrais aussi souligner que la réaction des Palestiniens de Gaza est significative puisqu'un nombre beaucoup plus réduit que ce que le Hamas espérait a participé aux manifestations de la deuxième semaine. Cela montre que les Gazaouis protestent aussi contre leurs dirigeants, contre le fait que le bien-être de la population n'est pas du tout une préoccupation du Hamas, qui, au lieu d'investir dans l'éducation et la santé au bénéfice de la population, finance des tunnels de la terreur et des tirs de roquettes sur Israël. C'est complètement stupide!
                  

Norbert Neuser,
Verfasser. – Herr Präsident! Ich habe leider nur eine Minute. Das, was der Kollege Preda gesagt hat, kann nicht so im Raum stehenbleiben. Er sieht nur die Hamas und sagt nichts zu dem was die Verteidigungskräfte Israels gemacht haben.
                  

                     Wir haben heute 75 Jahre ‘Beginn des Aufstands im Getto von Warschau’, 70 Jahre Unabhängigkeit Israels, gleichzeitig 50 Jahre Besetzung Palästinas. Wenn Israel seine Unabhängigkeit feiert, muss man sagen: Die internationale Gemeinschaft hat Israel damals unterstützt. Das verpflichtet Israel aber auch, zu internationalem Recht, zur Achtung der Menschenrechte zu stehen, und alles, was Israel permanent in der Zeit des Status quo macht, ist eine Verletzung von Menschenrechten und von internationalem Recht. Nicht zuletzt das, was am Gazastreifen war: Ggezielte Scharfschützen dort einzusetzen, die unter anderem auch drei Kinder getötet haben, ist eine ganz brutale Verletzung von Menschenrechten und internationalem Recht.
                  

                     Wir müssen und werden dies als Parlament verurteilen.
                  

Hilde Vautmans,
Auteur. – Voorzitter, ik wil in de eerste plaats de collega's bedanken, want we hebben gisteren moeilijke en zware onderhandelingen gehad maar ik ben heel erg fier op het resultaat, het compromis dat vandaag voorligt. Het is immers een compromis dat we in eenheid gaan steunen en het zegt toch wel in een heel duidelijke taal, in eenheidsstaal, wat we eigenlijk bedoelen. We veroordelen allemaal samen het geweld, we roepen op tot het onmiddellijk stopzetten van het geweld. We tonen ook in eenheid aan dat we niet naïef zijn. We weten natuurlijk welke rol de terroristische organisatie Hamas speelt.
                  

                     We zijn ook één in onze resolutie waar we oproepen tot een onafhankelijk onderzoek. En ja, we juichen toe dat Israël een eigen onderzoek start, dat we ook zullen bekijken. Dat onafhankelijk onderzoek naar wat er daar echt gebeurd is, vind ik wel heel erg belangrijk. We geven ook een belangrijk signaal door op te roepen tot het einde van de blokkade. Want de humanitaire situatie in Gaza is dramatisch. Vandaar dat deze resolutie echt een wake up call moet zijn, de zoveelste.
                  

Margrete Auken,
stiller. – Hr. formand! Da Ghandi i sin tid satte gang i sin ikke-voldelige modstand mod englænderne, skød kolonimagten bare løs på dem. Mange døde. Men Ghandi fortsatte. Det kunne englændernes vold også have gjort, hvis ikke det var for en vågen presse fra England, som rapporterede hjem om de militære overgreb mod de ubevæbnede indere. Protesterne rejste sig i England, og sagen endte som bekendt med indernes befrielse. Uden den offentlige opmærksomhed kunne volden mod inderne nok bare have fortsat. Vi har i EU et historisk medansvar for situationen i Palæstina, og det er os, der nu har ansvar og pligt til at stoppe umenneskeliggørelsen af palæstinenserne, som klogt har valgt Ghandis vej, endda med Hamas' støtte til ikke-vold.
                  

                     Det fælles beslutningsforslag er ikke godt! Det er fuld af selvmodsigelser, endda beviseligt falske beskyldninger som i punkt 3, men det rummer også vigtige punkter, f.eks. fordømmelsen af drab på og kvæstelser af ubevæbnede civile. Der er krav om en umiddelbar og betingelsesløs slut på blokade mod Gaza og åbning af alle passager og andre vigtige ting. Derfor kan de fleste i vores gruppe stemme for den.
                  

Bas Belder,
Auteur. – Voorzitter, één recent beeld uit de Gazastrook heeft mij sterk geschokt en schokt me tot op vandaag. Dat was een scène met een doodskist, gedrapeerd met de Israëlische vlag. Aan de zijkant van de kist waren de foto's van twee jonge Israëlische soldaten afgebeeld. Op één foto herkende ik het gezicht van Hadar Goldin. Hadar Goldin werd vermoord door Hamas-terroristen tijdens een VN-wapenstilstand in 2014. Zijn lichaam is nog steeds niet teruggegeven aan de familie. Dit gaat in tegen principes van internationaal humanitair recht. Ik ken de moeder van Hadar Goldin persoonlijk, Lea Goldin. Eén intens verlangen drijft haar: een waardige begrafenis vlakbij huis voor een geliefd, begaafd kind.
                  

                     Het Europees Parlement neemt vandaag een resolutie aan waarin duidelijk wordt opgeroepen om de lichamen van Hadar Goldin en Oron Shaul terug te geven aan de families. Deze paragrafen onderstreep ik en verwelkom ik ten zeerste. Het gaat om de principes van respect voor het leven en waardigheid van de doden. Het is mijn hartenwens dat deze resolutie ertoe bijdraagt om de lichamen en elementaire menselijke waardigheid terug te brengen voor de families Goldin en Shaul. Het Europees Parlement peilt hiermee de zielen van zwaar getroffen ouders aan beide zijden.
                  

Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης,
Συντάκτης. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, από τις 30 Μαρτίου είμαστε μάρτυρες, για ακόμα μια φορά, της εγκληματικής δράσης του ισραηλινού στρατού. Επιτέθηκαν στον άμαχο παλαιστινιακό λαό, βάφοντας με αίμα τις ειρηνικές διαδηλώσεις. Από τα πυρά του κατοχικού στρατού σκοτώθηκαν 34 Παλαιστίνιοι και τραυματίστηκαν χιλιάδες. Φέτος συμπληρώνονται έντεκα χρόνια από τότε που άρχισε ο απάνθρωπος ολοκληρωτικός αποκλεισμός της Γάζας εξαιτίας της βαρβαρότητας του Ισραήλ. Η Γάζα αποτελεί πλέον μια ανοιχτή φυλακή στην οποία συνωστίζονται 2 εκατομμύρια άνθρωποι. Καταδικάζουμε απερίφραστα αυτές τις κατάφωρες παραβιάσεις των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων των Παλαιστινίων και απαιτούμε να τεθεί τέρμα στην εγκληματική δράση του Ισραήλ και να δεσμευτεί επιτέλους το Ισραήλ να εφαρμόσει τις αποφάσεις της Διεθνούς Κοινότητας. Θεωρούμε ότι το ψήφισμα που προτείνεται από πολλές πολιτικές ομάδες είναι ετεροβαρές. Δυστυχώς σε πολλά σημεία εξισώνει τους θύτες, τον δολοφονικό Ισραηλινό κατοχικό στρατό, με τα θύματα, τους Παλαιστίνιους. Γι' αυτόν τον λόγο δεν μπορούμε να εγκρίνουμε αυτό το ψήφισμα. Εμείς καλούμε την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να πάψει την απαράδεκτη πολιτική των ίσων αποστάσεων.
                  

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Na wstępie od razu dodam, że nie jestem optymistą. Wydaje się, że konflikt, który trwa tak długo, i który składa się z tak wielu elementów politycznych, kulturowych, religijnych, militarnych, nie może być rozwiązany z dnia na dzień. Mamy tego świadomość.
                  

                     To, co może cieszyć, to to, że pod tą rezolucją, pod tym tekstem podpisało się pięć głównych grup, a więc jest zgoda na określone zdefiniowanie sytuacji, z jaką mamy do czynienia w chwili obecnej. Chcę zaznaczyć, że to, co nas dzisiaj na tej sali cieszy, czyli ta wzrastająca świadomość ludności palestyńskiej, że celem Hamasu nie jest pokój, nie jest rozejm, nie jest to cel, który jest istotny z punktu widzenia rozwiązania konfliktów, które tam mają miejsce od wielu lat, ale może być źródłem pewnej nie tyle satysfakcji, ile pewnej nadziei.
                  

                     I ostatnia rzecz – rezolucja powstawała w pewnych bólach. Mam świadomość, uczestnicząc w uzgodnieniach tych ostatnich, że mamy do czynienia z pewnym kompromisem, ale jeszcze raz podkreślę: podpisanie się pięciu grup pod tym jednolitym tekstem jest pewnym sukcesem.
                  

Elena Valenciano,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, la verdad es que el Grupo Socialista promovió esta Resolución y quiso trabajar con un amplio consenso en esta Cámara. Nos parecía muy importante que la Resolución fuese apoyada por el máximo número de grupos. La verdad es que cuando escucho al señor Preda no les puedo decir cuánto me arrepiento de haber finalmente hecho un compromiso con el Partido Popular Europeo. Las cosas como son: Gaza es la peor prisión al aire libre que existe en el mundo. Esa es la verdad. Lo que pasa es que la compasión del señor Preda llega justo hasta la Franja de Gaza, ahí ya no tiene compasión.
                  

                     Jóvenes bloqueados durante decenios —decenios—, que no tienen nada a su alcance —ni agua, ni aire, ni capacidad de respirar, ni de alimentarse, ni de curarse—, están siendo disparados a las rodillas y a los tobillos para dejarles inválidos el resto de su vida.
                  

                     Sí, Israel tiene derecho a su seguridad, por supuesto, y este Grupo condenará el terrorismo siempre, pero lo que se está haciendo en Gaza es intolerable, inhumano, inútil y muy, muy peligroso. Y le ruego al Grupo Popular que, una vez que se ha llegado a un gran acuerdo en esta Cámara en el que todos hemos tenido que renunciar, no haga declaraciones tan sumamente lesivas para el consenso de esta Cámara.
                  

                     Exigimos el inmediato cese del bloqueo en Gaza. Y exigimos una investigación independiente para juzgar lo que creemos que ha sido un uso desproporcionado de la fuerza por parte del ejército israelí contra jóvenes desarmados. Esa es la posición del Grupo Socialista y esa es la posición que defiende esta Resolución.
                  

Anders Primdahl Vistisen,
for ECR-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Den beslutning, som vi forhandlede i går, er selvfølgelig udtryk for et kompromis. Men det er et kompromis, som vi fra ECR-Gruppens side har valgt at leve med. Vi er glade for, at det er blevet understreget adskillige gange i beslutningen, at Hamas er en terrororganisation, og at Gazastriben fungerer som hub for international terrorisme. Vi er også glade for, at man i beslutningen beder om at få returneret ligene af de to israelere, som bliver holdt tilbage af Hamas i Gazastriben, sådan at de to døde kan få en værdig begravelse. Når det er sagt, så er det ingen tvivl om, at ECR-Gruppen står fast på det meget klare synspunkt, at terroren må stoppe, og at Israel har en ret til at forsvare sig selv og sine grænser. Indtil den dag, man finder en politisk løsning på konflikten, så er man nødt til at fastholde, at Israel har en suveræn ret til at forsvare sine grænser og til at forsvare sine territorier både mod de terroristangreb, der er kommet fra Hamas og Gazastriben, men også helt generelt fra overløbning.
                  

Ernest Urtasun,
en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor presidente, el 30 de mayo y el 9 de abril las fuerzas de seguridad israelíes abrieron fuego contra manifestantes en Gaza que pedían el retorno de los refugiados y el fin del bloqueo: más de treinta fallecidos —tres niños; un periodista que llevaba una chaqueta acreditándose—; más de 1 350 heridos de bala y cuarenta personas aún en estado crítico.
                  

                     Los expertos de Naciones Unidas han señalado que en ningún momento los manifestantes pusieron en peligro la seguridad física de las fuerzas de Israel.
                  

                     Quiero recordar que el uso de la fuerza letal contra manifestantes que no suponen un riesgo para la vida o la integridad física es contrario al Derecho internacional —y concretamente al Cuarto Convenio de Ginebra— y un crimen según el Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional. Todo Estado está obligado a respetar la protesta pacífica y a intervenir con la mínima fuerza necesaria.
                  

                     Condenamos los asesinatos; exigimos una investigación imparcial; exigimos a Israel que permita la entrada de medicinas urgentes en Gaza.
                  

                     Pedimos al fiscal de la Corte Penal Internacional que abra inmediatamente una investigación y exigimos, de una vez por todas, el fin de este bloqueo inhumano al cual se somete a la población de Gaza y que hace que Naciones Unidas esté señalando ahora mismo que hay 1,3 millones de personas con necesidad de ayuda humanitaria urgente.
                  

Patrick Le Hyaric,
au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Monsieur le Président, il y a trop de collègues qui renversent la situation. Quelle est cette phrase selon laquelle Israël aurait le droit de défendre sa frontière? Israël ne connaît même pas ses frontières. Par contre, c'est Israël qui occupe la Palestine et qui fait de Gaza une prison à ciel ouvert dont l'ONU a dit qu'elle deviendrait invivable d'ici 2020 si on ne fait rien. Qui, quelle conscience ici, quelle conscience humaine peut accepter cela? Ce pays viole tous les chapitres du droit international ainsi que la lettre et l'esprit de l'accord d'association que nous avons avec lui. Il y a eu à Gaza au moins 40 tués, dont des enfants, des paysans et des journalistes totalement désarmés dans une manifestation pacifique.
                  

                     L'Union européenne doit elle-même demander et diligenter une commission d'enquête indépendante, créer un mécanisme de protection du peuple palestinien, faire lever le blocus de Gaza et faire cesser le processus de colonisation de destruction des maisons et des expulsions à Jérusalem. Au nom même du droit international, il faut maintenant des sanctions contre le pouvoir israélien.
                  

Ignazio Corrao,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'attuale modello di repressione al quale stiamo assistendo a Gaza ha raggiunto livelli drammatici che non possono essere più ignorati o giustificati dalla comunità internazionale.
                  

                     Nelle due giornate di protesta che si sono svolte nelle scorse settimane sono state uccise più di 30 persone, oltre alle circa 2 000 che erano già state ferite. L'esercito israeliano ha disposto tiratori scelti lungo il confine per sparare sui manifestanti che provavano a raggiungere la recinzione che protegge il confine: ma in realtà hanno aperto il fuoco su tutti, come testimoniato dalle drammatiche immagini che hanno fatto il giro del mondo.
                  

                     La risposta dello Stato israeliano si è dimostrata del tutto sproporzionata di fronte alle manifestazioni di protesta. Trovo sconcertante la giustificazione che hanno dato le autorità politiche e militari israeliane, secondo le quali alcuni dei feriti e deceduti erano membri di Hamas e che dunque costituissero un pericolo immediato per la sicurezza di Israele. Numerose ONG e gli esperti dell'ONU hanno ritenuto che non ci fossero minacce gravi all'incolumità delle forze di sicurezza israeliane: l'uso di munizioni letali al di fuori di situazioni di grave pericolo costituisce una grave violazione del diritto internazionale e dei diritti umani.
                  

                     Onorevoli colleghi, mi duole constatare come la situazione della striscia di Gaza, sottoposta a blocco navale e marittimo da parte Israele e con 1,3 milioni di persone in stato di grave privazione materiale, economica e sanitaria, è un palese esempio di violazione dello Stato di diritto, certamente da parte di Hamas ma anche e soprattutto da chi si considera l'unica democrazia del Medio Oriente e che dunque dovrebbe rispettare, per esempio, la quarta convenzione di Ginevra per la protezione dei civili in tempo di guerra.
                  

Σωτήριος Ζαριανόπουλος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το κράτος του Ισραήλ κατέχει παράνομα επί δεκαετίες τώρα Παλαιστινιακά εδάφη, αρνούμενο τις διεθνείς συμφωνίες, αρπάζει νέα εδάφη με τους εποικισμούς, επεκτείνοντας καθημερινά τα σύνορά του σε βάρος της Παλαιστίνης, στερεί τροφή ακόμα και νερό από τους Παλαιστινίους, καταπιέζει, εξορίζει, φυλακίζει, δολοφονεί ατιμώρητα άοπλους διαδηλωτές και παιδιά, όπως τώρα στην αποκλεισμένη Γάζα, μια ανοιχτή φυλακή. Γι' αυτό οι διαδηλωτές το χαρακτηρίζουν κράτος-δολοφόνο. Έχετε ευθύνες εσείς που εξισώνετε το θύμα Παλαιστίνιους με το θύτη Ισραήλ, κάνοντας πλάτες στο τελευταίο, επιδιώκοντας να ξεχάσουμε -λέει- τη λέξη ‘αντίσταση’. Θυμηθείτε όμως ότι, χωρίς αντίσταση, η Ευρώπη σήμερα θα ήταν ακόμα ναζιστική. Αμερικάνοι, ΝΑΤΟ, Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και κυβερνήσεις όπως του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ ενισχύουν τη συνεργασία με αυτό το κράτος-χωροφύλακα του ιμπεριαλισμού στη Μέση Ανατολή και βομβαρδίζουν μαζί του τη Συρία, αντί να αναγνωρίσουν όλες οι κυβερνήσεις το κράτος της Παλαιστίνης. Με την αλληλεγγύη των λαών όμως και τον δικό του ηρωικό αγώνα, είμαστε βέβαιοι ότι ο Παλαιστινιακός Λαός θα αποκτήσει το ανεξάρτητό του κράτος, στα σύνορα του 67, με πρωτεύουσα την Ανατολική Ιερουσαλήμ.
                  

Soraya Post (S&D). – Mr President, at huge risk of being judged anti-Semitic, I, as a Roma and Jewish person, dare to strongly criticise the Israeli government. Israel has to end the blockade and the closure of the Gaza Strip. The people living there are living without access to such basic needs as food, water, electricity and education.
Recently we, as EU officials, went to Israel. We were not allowed to enter Gaza. We were in the West Bank, and what we did see there was an apartheid state system, with great humiliation as regards their basic human rights. There are currently 356 Palestinian children – children – in Israeli prisons. Now is the time for the EU to speed up the two-state solution. It is the only way to secure a peaceful, fair future for both of them, and I mean it. After being there and talking to Israeli and Palestinian officials, now is the time.

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – O Parlamento Europeu tem de condenar redondamente o massacre feito por Israel ao assassinar 30 manifestantes pacíficos de Gaza e ferir 2 mil, entre eles mulheres e crianças.
                  

                     O uso da força contra manifestantes pacíficos, com ataques desproporcionados pelas forças de defesa de Israel, nunca, nunca pode ser justificado por razões de segurança. Há muitos sionistas nesta câmara, como acabámos de escutar. O povo palestino tem o direito fundamental ao protesto pacífico e à livre circulação, incluindo o retorno dos refugiados.
                  

                     Temos que ser claros: ou estamos do lado da violência ou estamos do lado da paz. Israel despreza a vida humana com total impunidade. Os oficiais militares recusaram cancelar as ordens ilegais de tiro aberto e o governo continua a justificar o fogo aberto. Quando um Estado ataca manifestantes pacíficos com força desproporcionada é um Estado criminoso.
                  

                     Que se pode esperar de um Estado que prende menores como Ahed Tamini, que mata jornalistas, que fere crianças? Apelamos ao fim do bloqueio da faixa de Gaza e queremos um inquérito independente e transparente. Não como disse a Ministra de Defesa que acaba de negar em Israel esse inquérito. Pedimos o fim da ocupação ilegal e do apartheid.
                  

Miguel Urbán Crespo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, en las últimas semanas treinta manifestantes pacíficos han sido asesinados y más de 3 000 heridos por el ejército israelí en Gaza. El asesinato de manifestantes es una gravísima violación de los derechos más básicos y una intolerable práctica del ejército israelí. También lo son otras violaciones, como el encarcelamiento de menores como la activista Tamimi.
                  

                     Palestina sigue viviendo bajo una ocupación militar que practica a diario la limpieza étnica contra su pueblo. ¡Basta ya de palabras, señorías! Si Israel se niega a la investigación independiente que pidió Mogherini, la Unión Europea debe suspender inmediatamente la exportación de armas y cualquier acuerdo de seguridad y comercial con Israel.
                  

                     La Unión Europea no puede ser cómplice de los crímenes de apartheid contra la libertad y la igualdad de los palestinos y de las palestinas, contra los derechos de los refugiados, como denuncia la campaña legítima y pacífica BDS y reconocen las instituciones de las Naciones Unidas.
                  

                     La Unión Europea está obligada a actuar y a sancionar a Israel como ya se sancionó a Sudáfrica y a su apartheid. ¡Viva la lucha del pueblo palestino!
                  

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Sama rezolucja jest zasadniczo wyważona i rozsądna, natomiast moje wątpliwości budzi sens produkowania takiej ilości tego rodzaju dokumentów przez Parlament, ponieważ są to tylko okazania na arenie międzynarodowej, bo jeśli chce się na arenie międzynarodowej wywierać realny wpływ, to trzeba powiedzieć, co się może komuś dać i czym się mu może zagrozić, a ten dokument nie zawiera odpowiedzi na żadne z tych pytań. W związku z tym jest tylko takie pouczanie – państwo się tutaj tak denerwują, wzniecają, a nikt tego niestety nie słucha, bo za takimi działaniami muszą iść konkretne środki nacisku.
                  

                     Myślę więc, że należy powściągnąć pęd do produkowania takiej liczby rezolucji międzynarodowych, ponieważ prowadzi to do inflacji ich znaczenia i po prostu nikt nie będzie się nimi przejmował. Co do meritum – uważam, że należy unikać narzucania wszystkim krajom na Bliskim Wschodzie demokracji, bo to się w wielu przypadkach bardzo źle skończyło.
                  

Zgłoszenia z sali


Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem velmi pozorně poslouchal tu emociální rozpravu, která zde byla, a dovolte mi několik poznámek. Za prvé chci stejně jako většina mých kolegů odsoudit tragický incident na palestinsko-izraelské hranici. Na druhou stranu se tady musím zastat svého kolegy Predy, který byl často zmiňován našimi levicovými kolegy. Asi se neshodneme na popisu izraelsko-palestinského problému. My jsme tady jasně konstatovali, říkal to i kolega Preda, že zkrátka nelze brát pouze ten následek, ten tragický incident, který všichni odsuzujeme, ale je třeba vnímat aktivity teroristického hnutí Hamás, které tam provádí a které výrazně přispívají k takovýmto incidentům a výrazně přispívají potom k tomu, co se na izraelsko-palestinské hranici děje. A to je dobré říci, ten kontext je tady zjevný a není možné pouze konstatovat, že je zde tragický následek.
                  

Maria Arena (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, je voudrais dire à M. Preda que s'il veut faire œuvre utile en matière de lutte contre l'antisémitisme, il peut sortir des rangs du PPE M. Orbán, qui est le premier antisémite européen et qui a tenu des propos irresponsables sur le peuple juif.
                  

                     En ce qui concerne Gaza en particulier, ce territoire a été victime de trois guerres en moins de six ans, vit sous blocus israélien depuis plus de dix ans. Gaza, ce sont 2 millions de Palestiniens qui vivent sur 300 km2 sans pouvoir en sortir, sans électricité ni eau, sans éducation ni emplois, c'est un désastre humanitaire. C'est contre cela que manifestent les Palestiniens qui vivent à Gaza, et la seule réponse israélienne a été de tirer à balles réelles sur des manifestants non armés. La réaction, encore une fois israélienne, n'est ni légitime ni acceptable, elle est illégale.
                  

                     Je tiens ici à rendre hommage aussi à la société civile israélienne comme l'ONG B'Tselem qui demande aux soldats israéliens de ne pas tirer. Je demande aux Européens d'être aussi courageux que la société civile israélienne et de prendre des sanctions à l'égard des politiques israéliennes.
                  

Σοφία Σακοράφα (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, καταρχήν πρέπει να πούμε ότι υπάρχει Hamas χαρακτηρισμένη τρομοκρατική οργάνωση και εδώ μέσα και από πολλούς άλλους, υπάρχει και Hamas εκλεγμένη κυβέρνηση από τους Παλαιστινίους, άρα πρέπει να το αποδεχθούμε. Δηλαδή πώς περιμένετε κυρία Επίτροπε να είναι η κατάσταση στο μεγαλύτερο στρατόπεδο συγκέντρωσης του κόσμου; Η Ισραηλινή κατοχή είναι το θέμα που έχουμε συζητήσει περισσότερες φορές σε αυτήν την αίθουσα, περισσότερες ακόμα και από τον πόλεμο της Συρίας. Πείτε μας ένα μέτρο που έχετε πάρει – ένα όχι δύο – για τις δολοφονίες. Πείτε μας μια πρωτοβουλία που έχετε πάρει για να πιέσετε το Ισραήλ. Δολοφονούνται Παλαιστίνιοι πολίτες από Ισραηλινούς στρατιώτες εν ψυχρώ και ο Lieberman τους μοιράζει μετάλλια τιμής. Δηλώνει ότι θα εξαφανίσει τους Παλαιστινίους και εγγυάται ότι δεν θα υπάρξουν συνέπειες. Φαίνεται ότι για τον κύριο Preda έχουν απανθρωποποιηθεί τόσο πολύ οι Παλαιστίνιοι που δεν αξίζουν ούτε μια ανθρωπιστική παρέμβαση, το αίμα τους είναι φτηνό, τα δεινά τους άνευ σημασίας και οι δολοφόνοι τους μπορεί να είναι φίλοι και εταίροι σας. Κάθε φορά απαντάτε ότι δεν υπάρχει πλειοψηφία στο Συμβούλιο – πώς το ξέρετε; Το προτείνατε εσείς; Σας έχω κάνει τόσες εκκλήσεις να παγώσετε τη συμφωνία σύνδεσης με το Ισραήλ, είστε υποχρεωμένοι και από τις Συνθήκες και από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και από την ίδια τη Συμφωνία. Αν δεν αλλάξετε πολιτική σπαταλάτε άδικα και τον δικό σας χρόνο αλλά και τον…
                  

(Ο Πρόεδρος διακόπτει την ομιλήτρια)


Rosa D'Amato (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, proprio per inquadrare il profondo significato e le preoccupanti conseguenze pratiche per le relazioni tra Israele e Palestina di quanto sta accadendo nella striscia di Gaza in queste settimane, vorrei partire dai seguenti e tragici dati: dal 30 marzo l'esercito israeliano ucciso 25 palestinesi che avevano preso parte alle proteste, tra cui ci sono anche 3 bambini e un giornalista. Ci sono più di 2 000 feriti, di cui 350 minori e 76 donne.
                  

                     L'esercito israeliano, come riportato da numerose agenzie, spara ormai anche sui giornalisti e ricordo che sparare sui civili disarmati è crimine di guerra, così come è di una gravità assoluta il blocco navale e terrestre della striscia di Gaza da parte di Israele, che ha trasformato questo lembo di terra in una bomba umanitaria su cui, tranne in casi di morti violente, cala spesso il silenzio da parte dell'intero occidente.
                  

                     Lo abbiamo detto e lo ripetiamo: non possono bastare i pur condivisibili appelli dell'Alto rappresentante alla soluzione dei due Stati se poi non si fa nulla. Quindi dobbiamo, come in Cisgiordania ad esempio, rivedere l'accordo di associazione UE-Israele qualora quest'ultimo perseveri nelle sue politiche espansionistiche e discriminatorie nei confronti dell'intero popolo palestinese.
                  

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já svým vystoupením chci podpořit tento konsenzus, který je zde předložen právě v tak citlivém tématu, jako je situace v Pásmu Gazy. Usnesení se zabývá konkrétními případy osob zadržených Hamásem v Pásmu Gazy a vyzývá k jejich propuštění. Vraždy civilistů jsou pro nás nepřijatelné, ať jsou páchány kteroukoliv z obou stran. Vyzýváme k deeskalaci násilí na obou stranách, Pásmo Gazy se totiž stává neobyvatelnou zónou, což přispívá k radikalizaci jeho obyvatel. Za nejdůležitější poselství tohoto usnesení, které se liší od všech předchozích, je uznání toho, že Izrael čelí v oblasti bezpečnosti velkým výzvám a že musí chránit své území a hranice za využití přiměřených prostředků. Usnesení odsuzuje teroristické útoky na Izrael, které z Pásma Gazy provádí Hamás a další militantní skupiny, včetně odpalování raket, proto toto usnesení podpořím.
                  

Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Gaza é a maior prisão a céu aberto no planeta, uma vergonha para a humanidade. Gaza sofre a tripla opressão do Hamas, do cruel bloqueio israelita e da ocupação ilegal da Palestina por Israel.
                  

                     Sem Estado da Palestina viável não haverá paz e sem paz em Israel, que tem legitimidade e existência em causa. Contam-se já 30 mortos e 2 000 feridos, muitos, mulheres e crianças, às mãos armadas e criminosamente desproporcionadas das forças da defesa de Israel nos últimos protestos dos desesperados de Gaza.
                  

                     Nesta resolução, o Parlamento pede o que pedem as Nações Unidas, o mínimo: fim do bloqueio, libertação dos presos políticos, investigação internacional e independente aos crimes contra os protestantes desarmados e desesperados de Gaza.
                  

                     O que tem a UE para não refletir na sua relação com Israel as violações que põem em causa o acordo associação? Porque se deixa chantagear e intimidar por Israel? Porque fecha os olhos aos hediondos crimes e consequências da ocupação ilegal da Palestina por Israel contra a segurança regional, europeia e global?
                  

Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dopo gli interventi dei colleghi non posso che rivolgere un appello alla Commissaria Malmström, che rappresenta qui la Commissione: le vite dei palestinesi non valgono meno delle vite degli altri.
                  

                     Non si può parlare di sicurezza di Israele quando vengono uccisi 30 manifestanti disarmati, quando i cecchini israeliani urlano ‘Wow!’ al fatto che si colpisca una vita umana. Non possiamo subordinare il rispetto dei diritti umani ad alleanze politiche che invece andrebbero messe in discussione, come andrebbe messo in discussione l'accordo di associazione tra Unione europea e Israele, dato che Israele non rispetta le risoluzioni ONU e non rispetta i diritti umani fondamentali.
                  

                     Infine faccio un appello al governo italiano affinché impedisca la partenza del Giro d'Italia da Israele: è un'ennesima provocazione, è qualcosa che va ancora una volta a offendere la dignità del popolo palestinese. Il Giro d'Italia non deve partire da Israele.
                  

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, undicesimo anno di blocco nella striscia di Gaza e le condizioni di vita stanno raggiungendo livelli insostenibili.
                  

                     Il 47 % delle famiglie soffre di insicurezza alimentare; il 97 % dell'acqua corrente non è potabile; il 40 % della popolazione è disoccupata. La striscia, secondo le Nazioni Unite, potrebbe diventare invivibile entro il 2020. Possiamo stupirci se migliaia di palestinesi hanno iniziato una protesta di massa ai confini con Israele?
                  

                     No. Dobbiamo invece indignarci per il sangue versato: 30 morti, più di 2 000 feriti, tutti palestinesi, con le autorità israeliane che in diverse occasioni hanno sparato direttamente sulla folla. Vogliamo un'indagine indipendente e trasparente ma chiediamo ancor di più il rispetto della quarta convenzione di Ginevra, palesemente calpestata.
                  

                     In futuro le nuove generazioni, quando studieranno la storia, si chiederanno come è stato possibile che quasi due milioni di persone, per più di dieci anni, abbiano vissuto nella peggiore prigione a cielo aperto del mondo e ci giudicheranno: ci giudicheranno per il nostro silenzio e ci giudicheranno per non aver sospeso questo accordo. Questo blocco deve finire!
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I congratulate those who worked so hard to bring this resolution here before us today. We have to condemn all violence, no matter who the perpetrators are. But at the same time we have to look at things from a point of view of the long-term perspective. One MEP said that we have to be clear on which side we are on.
Isn't that exactly the problem when you're trying to bring peace – taking sides? I know from Northern Ireland that, if the European Union (which played a very important part), and especially the US special envoy, George Mitchell, wasn't seen to be neutral and impartial by both sides, we wouldn't have the Good Friday Agreement: now, 20 years of peace. Similar diplomacy is needed if we are to bring about the two-state solution, which we all desire, I think, in Israel and the Gaza Strip, and I think we have a very important role to play in that. But we must get the confidence of both sides: get them around a table and hash out an agreement, for ever more. This cannot continue: killings after killings after killings.

Jean-Paul Denanot (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, comme l'ont dit plusieurs intervenants, la situation humanitaire à Gaza est particulièrement préoccupante et dramatique. On parle en effet de la plus grande prison à ciel ouvert du monde.
                  

                     Israël dit se défendre mais, en fait, il attaque et ne respecte ni les droits humains, ni la vie humaine. Nous avons, ici, le devoir de dénoncer cette violence et d'enquêter de façon indépendante sur ce qui se passe dans cette partie du monde. Nous devons exiger la fin du blocus de Gaza et donner l'autorisation aux associations humanitaires d'intervenir. Au fond, c'est la solution politique à deux États que nous appelons de nos vœux qui mettra enfin un terme à ce conflit quasi séculaire. L'Union européenne doit mettre tout en œuvre à cet effet, quitte, le cas échéant, à revenir sur les accords avec Israël.
                  

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, I'd like to state my solidarity with people living in Gaza, especially women and children, who've been living in horrendous conditions for far too long. Those of us who care about human dignity are appalled to see how Israel continues to turn a blind eye to the humanitarian consequences of its colonial policy. Israel uses security as an excuse far too often, as we well know when we speak to veterans from Breaking the Silence. These are veterans of the Israel Defence Forces.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to state my solidarity with colleagues, who like me, have been accused of being anti-Semitic simply because we are critical of Israel's policy in Palestine. I was shocked, therefore, to learn that my colleague Ana Gomes was the target of a smear campaign, including comments from EU officials, who should have been neutral. This is unacceptable, and I support her call for an investigation into this incident.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, recent events in Gaza are a stark reminder of how volatile the situation is without a clear political horizon. And that is why the European Union is consistently keeping the Middle East situation and the peace process high on the political agenda, at a time, moreover, when the region faces many other challenges.
The High Representative/Vice President was at the summit of the League of Arab States this past Sunday, where she met several leaders including President Abbas and the King of Jordan.
On the recent protests in Gaza. The European Union has been crystal clear: freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are fundamental rights that must be respected by all and Israel must respect the right to peaceful protests and proportionality in the use of force when defending its legitimate security interests.
The immediate priority for all sides must now be to prevent any further escalation and loss of life. We call for utmost restraint and responsibility. Those leading the protest in Gaza must ensure that they remain strictly non-violent and are not exploited for other means. The human rights situation in Gaza that you referred to cannot be separated from the broader political context, which contributes to a worsening situation on the ground. That is why the EU, together with our partners, has put a strong focus on Gaza in the last month, with two ad hoc liaison committee meetings in Brussels and a successful donor conference on the Gaza desalination plant, with a project on energy and more humanitarian aid.
We are also ready if the political conditions are met to assist in the re-opening of the Rafah crossing, which would be a game-changer for freedom of movement in Gaza. However, all these efforts …

(President: Excuse me Madam Commissioner. Dear colleagues please, you don't have to love the Commission but you should respect when the Commissioner is talking. Be quiet. Please, Madam Commissioner.)


(Applause)

Thank you. Israel needs to allow more access and movement. The Palestinian leadership or the Palestinian factions must assume their responsibilities for the people in Gaza. We are also engaging with Egypt in support of their efforts to bring back the Palestinian Authority to Gaza, but the latest developments show how fragile this process is.
The legitimate rights of Palestinians to self-determination in their own state and the legitimate rights of the Israelis to live in peace, security and recognised borders will only be achieved through a negotiated two-state solution. I know this is an objective we all share, and we are looking forward to working with you towards that goal.
From this debate I conclude that it is our common goal to ensure a sustainable solution is found for the situation in Gaza, with a return to the Palestinian Authority to resume its full responsibilities on the Strip, and sustained opening of the crossing points. The European Union will continue to support the process in its most effective way with all the instruments that we have.
So thank you for this debate, for the work you do highlighting the situation, this is certainly not the last time we will be discussing this issue.

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.
                  

                     Głosowanie odbędzie się po zakończeniu debat, o godz. 12.00.
                  


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)



Sander Loones (ECR),
schriftelijk. – Deze resolutie betreft de recente opstanden in Gaza. In de eerste plaats betreurt N-VA de onschuldige slachtoffers en roept zij alle partijen op tot kalmte. N-VA verdedigt de vrijheid van meningsuiting maar veroordeelt elke vorm van geweld. Daarnaast vraagt onze partij de Israëlische autoriteiten het evenredigheidsbeginsel te eerbiedigen in haar optreden. Wij wensen dat de politieke dialoog zo snel mogelijk opnieuw wordt opgestart en dat er werk wordt gemaakt van een tweestatenoplossing.
                  

Péter Niedermüller (S&D),
in writing. – We need a resolution which is as balanced as possible. Therefore, I am deeply convinced that a third-party investigation is not acceptable. Israel has an excellent record of investigating its own military actions and drawing the necessary conclusions to redress any exceptions to the proper implementation of its legitimate right to self-defence. Israel itself is also a vibrant democracy and the army's activity is a constant source of healthy public and political debate which itself contributes to the necessary oversight. To call for an independent investigation, even before the IDF has completed its own inquiry, is therefore at the very least premature and implies a grave accusation against a friendly country: namely, that its democratic process cannot possibly be trusted. The notion of a possible ICC inquiry is particularly unjustified. Given the legal principle of complementarity under the Rome Statute, the ICC can only initiate cases when a state to whom an alleged perpetrator belonged was unwilling or unable to act. In the case of Israel, that criteria has not been met because Israel has a proven track record of investigating its own military and is, as mentioned, in the process of investigating the recent events.

(Posiedzenie zostało na chwilę zawieszone)


IN THE CHAIR: HEIDI HAUTALA


Vice-President

9.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting was resumed at 12.03)

10.   Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details of the vote: see Minutes)

10.1.   Belarus (RC-B8-0197/2018, B8-0197/2018, B8-0199/2018, B8-0200/2018, B8-0201/2018, B8-0204/2018) (vote)
10.2.   Philippines (RC-B8-0198/2018, B8-0198/2018, B8-0202/2018, B8-0203/2018, B8-0205/2018, B8-0206/2018, B8-0208/2018) (vote)
10.3.   Situation in Gaza Strip (RC-B8-0191/2018, B8-0191/2018, B8-0207/2018, B8-0209/2018, B8-0210/2018, B8-0211/2018, B8-0212/2018) (vote)
10.4.   Common system of value added tax, with regard to the obligation to respect a minimum standard rate (A8-0124/2018 - Roberto Gualtieri) (vote)
10.5.   Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing (A8-0056/2017 - Krišjānis Kariņš, Judith Sargentini) (vote)
10.6.   Approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (A8-0048/2017 - Daniel Dalton) (vote)
10.7.   Organic production and labelling of organic products (A8-0311/2015 - Martin Häusling) (vote)
10.8.   Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (A8-0140/2018 - Miroslavs Mitrofanovs) (vote)
10.9.   Estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2019 — Section I – European Parliament (A8-0146/2018 - Paul Rübig) (vote)
10.10.   Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on European business statistics, amending Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 and repealing 10 legal acts in the field of business statistics (A8-0094/2018 - Janusz Lewandowski) (vote)

— Before the vote:


Janusz Lewandowski,
rapporteur. – Madam President, I would like to apologise, to our colleagues: I am neither the initiator of this vote today, nor a fan of interventions in voting time.
However, this voice against believes a short clarification is in order. This is a report on repealing 10 legal acts in the area of business statistics and replacing them with one. One instead of ten spirit goes against the spirit of the vote in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, which was 57 against 6.
Why is it now on the agenda? Because some of my colleagues' shadows introduced an additional amendment on additional taxation information, which was rejected. Of course taxation is important. However, we already have automatic exchange on taxation between tax authorities and a separate initiative in Parliament on country-by-country reporting on taxation. But it has been blocked in the Council since July 2017, as my colleagues from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs know.
There is a good reason not to place it in a very technical dossier on business statistics. There is no demand for that data in the business community, and I am sure that when we place it in this technical dossier, it stays as it is now with ten regulations instead of one. Therefore, I defend the mandate and hope you manage to leave on time.

Dan Nica,
în numele grupului S&D. – Doamnă președintă, opoziția pe care noi am exprimat-o s-a datorat unui fapt foarte simplu: nu credem în discriminare și nu credem că marile corporații trebuie să beneficieze de un tratament care să le fie mai favorabil decât cel pe care îl aplicăm unor întreprinderi mici, unor întreprinderi mijlocii. Dacă toate întreprinderile din Uniunea Europeană sunt obligate să își comunice taxele pentru scopuri statistice, de ce să facem o excepție pentru marile corporații? Care ar fi motivația? Aceasta lipsește și, din acest motiv, votul nostru este negativ și îi invit pe toți colegii să voteze împotrivă.
                  
10.11.   Common rules for the internal market in natural gas (A8-0143/2018 - Jerzy Buzek) (vote)

President. – We now move to the next item, the report by Mr Buzek. This is a decision by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy to enter into negotiations on the basis of the report by Mr Buzek concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas.
A plenary vote on the committee's decision was originally requested by the GUE/NGL and ENF Groups. Together, they constitute the so-called medium threshold, but the GUE/NGL Group has now withdrawn its request, and if there are no other requests for this vote to take place, the vote will be withdrawn from the agenda and the committee may enter into negotiations with immediate effect.
Are there any other requests? No. So this means that I don't need to put this to a vote and it will be withdrawn from the agenda.
10.12.   Protection of investigative journalists in Europe: the case of Slovak journalist Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová (B8-0186/2018) (vote)
10.13.   A European values instrument to support civil society organisations which promote democracy, rule of law and fundamental values within the European Union (B8-0189/2018) (vote)
10.14.   The violation of human rights and the rule of law in the case of two Greek soldiers arrested and detained in Turkey (B8-0194/2018, B8-0196/2018) (vote)
10.15.   Implementation of the Treaty provisions concerning national Parliaments (A8-0127/2018 - Paulo Rangel) (vote)
10.16.   Annual Report on Competition Policy (A8-0049/2018 - Ramon Tremosa i Balcells) (vote)
10.17.   Vaccine hesitancy and drop in vaccination rates in Europe (B8-0188/2018, B8-0195/2018) (vote)
10.18.   Implementation of the European Protection Order Directive (A8-0065/2018 - Soraya Post, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio) (vote)
10.19.   Implementation of the Bologna Process – state of play and follow-up (B8-0190/2018) (vote)

President. – That concludes the vote.
11.   Explanations of vote
11.1.   Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing (A8-0056/2017 - Krišjānis Kariņš, Judith Sargentini)

Suulliset äänestysselitykset


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem podpořila směrnici, která navrhuje opatření proti využívání finančních systémů k praní peněz nebo financování terorismu. Domnívám se, že tato směrnice dělá přesně to, co od Unie občané očekávají. Financování terorismu je úzce spojeno s trestnou činností a praním peněz. Tyto fenomény navíc neznají hranic a naopak využívají toho, že se státy dostatečně vzájemně neinformují, nespolupracují nebo mají různá pravidla. Proto je logické, že je zde legislativa na unijní úrovni. Za velmi důležité považuji zejména ta opatření, která ruší anonymitu vlastnictví a peněžních transakcí nad určitý limit, který zároveň musí být dostatečně nízký. Věřím, že tato směrnice pomůže zlepšit situaci proti praní špinavých peněz a terorismu.
                  

Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE). – Madam President, I voted in favour of this very important legislative proposal. This legal instrument will help us to prevent the cases where the Union's financial system has been abused for money laundering, fraud, terrorist financing or other illicit activities by third parties.
We need to put an end to dirty money – whether from Isis or Russian oligarchs – residing in EU banks. With this crucial proposal, financial intelligence units will be able to have direct access to the information they need on real owners of companies and trusts, and not the names on ‘letterboxes’. It will provide us with a tool to disclose complicated schemes of illicit activity and will bring more transparency to the system.

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, уважаеми колеги, подкрепих този доклад, защото съм твърдо убеден, че финансовата система има спешна нужда от това да бъде предотвратено финансирането на терористични организации през нея. Можем да обърнем внимание на последните фрапиращи случаи със зараждането и изграждането на терористичната организация ‘Ислямска държава’, която използва редица финансови организации и институции, за да финансира своята изключително опасна и незаконна дейност.
                  

                     Финансовите системи трябва да бъдат запазени от проникването на мръсни пари в тях и прането на пари, които да финансират терористични заплахи, които са най-голямата опасност за живота и здравето на гражданите на държавите – членки на Европейския съюз.
                  

Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já považuji boj proti praní špinavých peněz za mimořádně důležitý a je dobře, že Evropská unie proti tomuto fenoménu, této mezinárodní trestné činnosti bojuje. Na druhou stranu ale musím říci, že tato směrnice obsahuje určitá ustanovení, která vyvolávají třeba v mé zemi, v České republice, rozpaky u určitých profesních skupin. Já jsem dostal mnoho protestů například od českých starožitníků, kteří vnímají, že ta obecná, plošná regulace postihne hlavně malé a střední slušné podnikatele, kteří třeba obchodují se starožitnostmi a kulturními artefakty. Nakonec jsem se tedy zdržel, protože mám pocit, že některé formulace v předloženém textu mohly být přesnější, mohly být jednoznačnější, a já jenom budu doufat, že ty obavy, které vznáší česká veřejnost, se nakonec nenaplní a že ta směrnice opravdu bude postihovat praní špinavých peněz a nebude šikanovat a postihovat malé a střední podnikatele s kulturními artefakty v České republice.
                  

Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, money laundering is a global challenge and it's being met largely with global solutions, sometimes slightly more high profile, as is the case with the G20's initiatives, often in an unglamorous, unremarked, and unreported way among national regulators. The question is, why does the European Union need additional jurisdiction in this field? Money laundering isn't particularly a problem that afflicts people trying to shift money from one Member State to another. Of course there is a role for the European Union to support global initiatives, but I suspect that there are also people who see this as a general opportunity to extend EU jurisdiction.
There is, after all, some precedent here. When the FBI was set up in the United States its original purpose was to tackle terrorism and human trafficking and money laundering. All of the same things that were set up as targets for Europol and for Eurojust. It is, of course, a good thing to exchange information and to cooperate, but we should be very careful before creating a new bureaucracy with power to intervene directly within the national jurisdictions.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, tacaím go hiomlán leis an tuairisc seo. Is mór an trua go bhfuil an sceimhlitheoireacht tar éis teacht chun cinn san Eoraip le blianta beaga anuas, anseo sa Fhrainc ach go háirithe. Tá súil agam go gcabhróidh an scéim seo chun stop a chur leis an treocht imníoch seo. Caithfear rialacha láidre a chur i bhfeidhm ó thaobh trédhearcacht i gcórais airgeadais ionas nach féidir le grúpaí coiriúla méid mór airgead a chur i dtaisce i ngan fhios do na heagraíochtaí stáit. Cabhróidh comhoibriú idir na Ballstáit go mór leis seo chomh maith.
                  

                     Gan dabht, is é meas ar chearta daonna bunchloch an Aontais Eorpaigh. Táim sásta go bhfuil cothromaíocht sroichte ag an tuairisc seo idir chearta príobháideachais agus saoirse eacnamaíochta a chaomhnú agus slándáil a fheabhsú.
                  

                     Go raibh maith agat as ucht an seans a thabhairt dom é seo a dhéanamh.
                  
11.2.   Approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (A8-0048/2017 - Daniel Dalton)

Suulliset äänestysselitykset


Lucy Anderson (S&D). – Madam President, the Dieselgate scandal shows that consumers and the environment are the main victims of a car type-approval regime that cannot be relied upon and that has been subject to systematic abuse. So I welcome the fact that European Union law will be updated to make type-approval rules stronger and more effective.
The new rules will require Member States regularly to check cars circulating on their roads for compliance with relevant environmental and safety standards. And the European Commission will carry out audits of national car type-approval authorities and have the possibility to initiate EU-wide recalls. It will also be able to challenge the validity of inspection systems and issue fines of up to EUR 30 000 per non-compliant car.
I wanted the new rules to be effective sooner given the evidence of abuse uncovered. However, I am nevertheless pleased that they will take effect before the end of 2020, and so during the transition period currently proposed following the planned exit of the UK from the EU. But it is very disappointing that the initial proposals to break the financial link between car makers and test laboratories were dropped and that the idea of a powerful new agency providing tough oversight of the car industry across Europe was also rejected.
11.3.   Organic production and labelling of organic products (A8-0311/2015 - Martin Häusling)

Suulliset äänestysselitykset


Rosa D'Amato,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il regolamento che abbiamo votato relativo alla produzione biologica e all'etichettatura di prodotti biologici fa degli sforzi importanti e dà delle garanzie, ad esempio, sul miglioramento della qualità degli alimenti, sulla protezione dell'ambiente e sul benessere degli animali, questo lungo tutta la catena della produzione. Enuncia anche principi di base importanti: il divieto dell'uso di pesticidi chimici e di fertilizzanti sintetici nonché la limitazione all'uso di antibiotici.
                  

                     Ma quali saranno di fatto i risultati? Saranno scarsi, a nostro parere, perché le soglie dei residui di pesticidi saranno più basse rispetto a quelle usate ora, ad oggi, in molti Stati membri, ad esempio l'Italia. Così facendo, quindi, abbiamo abbassato gli standard esistenti, penalizzando di fatto gli agricoltori più coscienziosi. I consumatori andrebbero informati correttamente e il loro giudizio responsabilizzato, non aggirato attraverso etichettature fintamente biologiche.
                  

                     Per questo motivo il nostro voto è stato negativo.
                  

Момчил Неков (S&D). – Г-жо Председател, уважаеми колеги, приетият днес доклад за бъдещето на биологичното производство е важна стъпка за развитието на сектора. Научни изследвания показват, че биологичните продукти имат положителен ефект върху чувствителни членове от нашето общество, например деца, подрастващи, но също така и бременни жени и хора със сериозни заболявания.
                  

                     Интересът и търсенето на качествени продукти продължават да растат и в Европейския съюз, и в моята страна – България. С това растат обаче очакванията от гаранции за качество. В тази връзка смятам, че е изключително важно контролът да бъде спазван стриктно и последователно, имайки предвид и недобросъвестните практики от страна на земеделци, които пръскат близо до пчелини, без да ги предупреждават, или пръскат с препарати с бърз разпад.
                  

                     Аз съм на мнение, че проверките трябва да останат и да са важна и неразривна част от биологичното производство. Подкрепям доклада във връзка с въвеждането на по-строги правила за внос. Биологичното производство е свързано с процеса на отглеждане. Поради тази причина смятам, че е напълно справедливо същите условия да има и за производителите в трети държави извън Европейския съюз.
                  

Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE). – Madam President, in recent years the scope of organic farming and demand for organic products have grown dramatically. EU citizens see it as a source of a healthy lifestyle and sustainability. It is estimated that the total value of the eco-market in the European Union amounts to up to EUR 31 billion.
Taking this into account, I support this proposal aiming at the harmonisation of production rules and reducing the risk of contamination from pesticides in organic farms. This means that farmers will still have the choice of cultivating both conventional and eco-production, but will have to comply with certain standards respectively. We need to ensure the credibility of the organic logo and help consumers make informed choices, as well as to provide incentives for eco-farming in our states.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, vótáil mé i bhfabhar na tuairisce seo toisc gur dul chun cinn an-tábhachtach é.
                  

                     Ar fud an Aontais, níl go leor feirmeoireachta orgánaí chun an t-éileamh atá ar bhia orgánach a líonadh. Faoi láthair, táimid ag cailleadh amach ar an margadh seo. Ach tá seans againn anois an bia orgánach a tháirgeadh san Aontas in ionad leanúint ar aghaidh á iompórtáil.
                  

                     Tá go leor feirmeoirí Éireannacha a úsáideann modhanna talmhaíochta nach bhfuil i bhfad ón bhfeirmeoireacht orgánach ach braitheann siad go bhfuil an iomarca próisis agus páipéarachais ag baint le stádas orgánach a athnuachan. Cabhróidh an tuairisc seo chun an bac seo a shárú. Tá caighdeán ard ag baint le bia orgánach faoi láthair. Cinntíonn an tuairisc seo nach dtiocfaidh athrú air seo agus an talmhaíocht orgánach á leathnú. Molaim ar fheirmeoirí trasna na hEorpa, agus go háirithe in Éirinn, an deis seo a thapú.
                  
11.4.   Protection of investigative journalists in Europe: the case of Slovak journalist Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová (B8-0186/2018)

Suulliset äänestysselitykset


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, je důležité, že dnes Evropský parlament přijal výzvu k ochraně investigativních novinářů v Evropě. Média jsou pilířem demokracie, proto potřebujeme investigativní, odvážné novináře. Oceňuji protesty na Slovensku, které vytváří tlak na vyšetření vraždy Jána Kuciaka a jeho přítelkyně. Nemůžeme tolerovat to, že po dlouhé době na Maltě stále ještě není pokrok ve vyšetřování vraždy maltské novinářky Caruanové Galiziové, která rovněž figurovala ve vyšetřování, v investigativní činnosti proti politické korupci. Právě proto je důležité, že Evropský parlament se ujímá této role a vyzývá členské státy, aby přijaly opatření proti zastrašování novinářů včetně odsouzení veřejných urážek politiků na adresu novinářů. Novinář ve svobodné společnosti nemůže žít ve strachu.
                  

Monica Macovei (ECR). – Doamnă președintă, caracatița spălării banilor omoară jurnaliști, dar nu poate omorî adevărul, nu poate omorî cuvintele care se scriu în articole, pe bloguri, pe Facebook sau în cărți.
                  

                     Ján Kuciak a fost asasinat, știm cu toții. Colegii lui lucrează să afle adevărul despre cine l-a omorât și cine a dat ordinul să fie omorât. Este important de spus cum au reacționat politicienii din Slovacia: și-au dat demisia ministrul de Interne, șeful Poliției și, pe 15 martie 2018, premierul Slovaciei, Robert Fico. Și premierul Muscat ar trebui să urmeze exemplul premierului slovac, pentru că și acolo avem un asasinat al jurnalistei de investigații, Daphne Caruana Galizia, dar este o chestiune de onoare și de responsabilitate în fiecare caz în parte.
                  

                     Acum se cere în rezoluție autorităților să investigheze cine a dat ordinul să îi omoare. Mi se pare o ipocrizie: numai jurnaliștii de investigații, numai colegii lor vor afla adevărul, nu autoritățile, care sunt implicate, practic, în aceste omoruri.
                  

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Madam President, I strongly support the resolution, in particular its call for the highest level of protection for investigative journalists and whistle-blowers.
As a journalist and a Member of the European Parliament, and also as a citizen of Latvia, a state where serious investigative journalism is lacking, I am sure that we must, and can, do more for our journalists.
Speaking about disinformation and fake news in this House, we have repeatedly stated the need to stimulate critical thinking and media literacy among our citizens. They have the right to be more demanding and to call for investigations. Ján Kuciak did crucial work on large-scale tax evasion scandals, tax fraud, corruption and money-laundering, and it is regrettable that the simple duty of a journalist requires extraordinary courage, even in the EU.
It is the corrupted politicians that should be afraid of journalists, not vice versa. If our journalists operate in a climate of intimidation and fear we shall have weak and toothless journalism and, as a result, a weak civil society.

Francis Zammit Dimech (PPE). – L-ewwelnett nirringrazzja lill-kollegi f'dan il-Parlament li reġgħu rreferew għall-każ ta' Daphne Caruana Galizia.
                  

                     Irrid ngħid li llum għandek 25 ġurnalist minn madwar id-dinja li qegħdin ikomplu jinvestigaw l-istejjer li hija kienet qiegħda taħdem fuqhom. Huwa b'hekk biss li x-xogħol investigattiv ta' ġurnalisti bħal Daphne Caruana Galizia u Ján Kuciak inkomplu nħarsuh, għaliex meta ġurnalisti bħal dawn jitwaqqfu mix-xogħol tagħhom, dak li jkun qiegħed jiġri huwa attakk kontra s-soċjetà kollha biex ma nirċivux il-verità li għandna dritt għaliha.
                  

                     Irrid ngħid li f'Malta, il-Gvern, flok ma jipprova jsib min huwa verament responsabbli għall-qtil ta' Daphne Caruana Galizia, ikompli b'attività bħal li jiġġustifika s-SLAPP li hija proċedura użata kontra ġurnalisti milli jagħmlu l-ħidma tagħhom. F'ċirkostanzi bħal dawn huwa d-dmir tagħna f'dan il-Parlament Ewropew li nkomplu niddefendu l-ġurnaliżmu investigattiv għaliex huwa mibni fuq il-libertà tal-espressjoni.
                  

                     Il-ħsieb li nagħlaq bih huwa, huwa b'hekk biss li ma nħallux lil min irid jidfen lil dawn il-ġurnalisti jidfen ukoll il-verità li huma kienu qegħdin jistħarrġu.
                  

Monika Smolková (S&D). – Vražda novinára Jána Kuciaka a jeho priateľky vyvolala veľké zdesenie nielen na Slovensku, ale aj v celej Európe. Dnes sme prijali uznesenie, ktoré má prispieť k ochrane investigatívnych novinárov v Európe. Aj keď som veľmi chcela za takéto uznesenie hlasovať, pretože si myslím, že novinári musia mať ochranu pre svoju prácu, nakoniec som uznesenie nepodporila. Do uznesenia sa totiž dostali body, ktoré sú podľa môjho názoru skresľujúce a zmätočné. Týkajú sa slobody médií na Slovensku. V hodnotení Reportérov bez hraníc je Slovensko na 17. mieste svetového rebríčka slobody tlače zo 180 hodnotených krajín. Ďalší sporný bod je ten, kde sa hovorí o spolitizovaní výberu prokurátorov. Generálny prokurátor na Slovensku je schvaľovaný v tajnom hlasovaní v Národnej rade Slovenskej republiky. A napokon, sporný bod je aj ten, ktorý hovorí o miestnych médiách, ktoré sú vystavené politickým tlakom. Ja o takýchto tlakoch neviem. Z tohto dôvodu sme požiadali, aby tieto body boli zaradené na samostatné hlasovanie. Ale keďže napokon boli schválené, uznesenie som nemohla podporiť. Ale som za ochranu novinárov a očakávam od Komisie účinnú európsku legislatívu pre ochranu novinárov.
                  

Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, vážení kolegovia. Ja som uznesenie Európskeho parlamentu, ktoré sa zaoberá vraždou novinára Jána Kuciaka a jeho snúbenice, privítal. Pod text, ktorý pripravovala kancelária kolegu Sulíka, som sa podpísal aj ja. Tento text vyzýva slovenské úrady k dôkladnému prešetreniu vraždy, k čomu doteraz ešte neprišlo, k prísnejšej kontrole používania eurofondov, predovšetkým v našom agrosektore. Vyjadruje pochybnosti o spolitizovaní úradu generálneho prokurátora. Slovensko je hrdá a suverénna krajina. Žiaľ, na jej čele máme ľudí, ktorí podporujú podvody obrovských rozmerov. Nehovoriac o prípadoch verbálneho a fyzického násilia, ktoré sa u nás deje. Toto sa musí skončiť a nemôžeme dovoliť, aby to pokračovalo. Pevne verím, že Slovensko sa po tomto kroku už zobudí a zvolí si bohabojných reprezentantov. Demonštrácie na slovenských uliciach ukázali, že ani 29 rokov po nežnej revolúcii nie je slovenská verejnosť úplne apatická. Zvlášť ma teší iniciatíva mladých ľudí, ktorí nerezignovali na dianie v krajine a aktívne sa do neho zapojili. Ďakujem všetkým, ktorí vydržali a nevzdali sa v boji proti korupcii a zneužívaniu moci našimi politikmi. Nie je to správne.
                  
11.5.   A European values instrument to support civil society organisations which promote democracy, the rule of law and fundamental values within the European Union (B8-0189/2018)

Suulliset äänestysselitykset


Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Madam President, when we talk about shrinking space for civil society in this Parliament we usually talk about countries outside of the European Union, but we do have a shrinking space even inside the Union. For example in Hungary the law is about to be voted that requires every organisation that ‘supports immigration’ to obtain national security clearance.
In Poland restrictions have already been passed on the right to the civil society organisations to demonstrate during the December UN climate change talks in Qatar. So yes, we do need the instrument even here in the EU and I do support it strongly.

Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE). – Madam President, recent breaches of the rule of law in fellow EU Member States have shown once again that respect for European values needs to be significantly stepped up and can no longer be taken for granted. This tendency will remain in future as well.
Therefore I fully support the establishment of the European values instrument within the next MFF. We are seeing the positive results of similar instruments in the EU neighbourhoods, and I believe that the time has come to apply some similar instruments within the EU Member States as well.
Funding civil society organisations in the Member States will help us strengthen civil society, promote democracy, government accountability and respect for human rights. There is nothing more important than defending these values, because these are the values on which the European Union is based.

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, уважаеми колеги, гласувах против този доклад, защото според мен тук се прави една голяма грешка. Няма съмнение, гражданското общество и неговите организации са важни и трябва да имат своята подкрепа. Но под формата на граждански организации, на гражданско общество в много държави, особено в източната част на Европейския съюз, се правят опити за недопустими влияния и внушения и се променят традиционни ценности на тези държави.
                  

                     Всяка една държава има своята история, има своите традиции, има своята биография. Право на всяка една държава и на всяко едно общество в Европейския съюз е да защитава своите традиции и своите ценности. От една страна твърдим, че Европейският съюз е основан на равни в различието, а от друга страна се опитваме да променим ценностите на част от държавите в Европейския съюз. Това е неприемливо и недопустимо.
                  

                     По тази причина ние вярваме в нашата група, че традиционните ценности трябва да бъдат защитавани и държавите и обществата трябва да могат да пазят своето самосъзнание и своята идентичност.
                  

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, the success of the European project has made us think that the values in our Treaties are both exceptional and universal. However, with time we have to realise that not only our normative transformation power is limited, but that even at home our democracy is suffering.
We do not have the responsibility to democratise each and every partner, and there is no such thing as ‘democrat international’, but it is true that we need to have a functional democracy within the EU. Therefore I suggest that the European values instrument should not only finance NGOs, it should also provide monitoring and scrutiny on the ground.
Be sure that we will discover many uncomfortable truths about us. One such truth is the deprivation of the political and civil rights of the so-called ‘non-citizens’ of Latvia and Estonia, who are also restricted in their social and economic rights. Attention, colleagues: in the case of Latvia we are speaking of almost 20% of the population.
Such discrimination creates a divided society and the consequences bring security risks. If we wish to call EU countries ‘strong democracies’, we have at least to end a phenomenon of forced statelessness within our borders.

Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Paní předsedající, já jsem nehlasoval pro toto usnesení a dívám se na něj, musím říci, s velkým podezřením. Ono to zní samozřejmě velmi ušlechtile, když si tady řekneme něco o evropském nástroji na podporu nevládních organizací, které budou podporovat demokracii, vládu práva a základní hodnoty, ale já vím, jak to tady chodí, a velmi se obávám, že se z tohoto fondu stane nástroj propagandy té jediné správné a povolené představy o EU a evropské integraci, tedy že se pod tím bude skrývat podpora prohlubování evropské integrace, posilování evropských institucí, a že se opravdu k tomu peníze daňových poplatníků, veřejné prostředky nehodí. Doufám, že Evropský parlament bude řádně kontrolovat, jak jsou tyto prostředky využívány, jak jsou poskytovány, a že se to bude rozdělovat podle objektivních kritérií, ne podle kritérií stranických, ne podle kritérií, kdo je s kým kamarád a kdo hlásá ty jediné správné názory. Já se toho velmi obávám, protože jsme toho byli několikrát svědky v minulosti, a proto jsem pro toto usnesení hlasovat nemohl.
                  
11.6.   Implementation of the Treaty provisions concerning national Parliaments (A8-0127/2018 - Paulo Rangel)

Suulliset äänestysselitykset


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já se chci vyjádřit k této zprávě, protože vnitrostátní parlamenty tvoří samotné jádro demokratické legitimity EU a posilování jejich role považuji za nejlepší prostředek, jak nadále překonávat tzv. demokratický deficit. Za stěžejní považuji to, aby Komise naslouchala národním parlamentům, které se ve svých usneseních dožadují subsidiarity. Oceňuji návrh na ‘evropský týden’, který by spočíval ve vyhrazení jednoho týdne pro evropské záležitosti, který by umožnil diskusi poslanců i senátorů s představiteli institucí EU. Myslím, že by to dost napomohlo lepšímu porozumění procesům i aktuálním evropským tématům. To by přispělo k větší transparentnosti. Naopak jsem skeptická k novému nástroji, k tzv. minoritnímu stanovisku, protože národní parlamenty by spíše ocenily kvalitnější odpověď na své zprávy. Komise bohužel reaguje většinou dosti formálně, čili raději větší kvalitu než kvantitu.
                  
11.7.   Vaccine hesitancy and drop in vaccination rates in Europe (B8-0188/2018, B8-0195/2018)

Suulliset äänestysselitykset


Stefano Maullu (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, credo che il tema dei vaccini, complici anche gli strumenti che il mondo dei media ha messo a disposizione, in particolare i social, abbiano creato una condizione di totale disinformazione, che poi è sfociata in una dimensione di avversione ai vaccini, che invece rappresentano uno strumento scientifico indispensabile per poter prevenire e debellare le tante malattie che il nostro mondo negli anni è riuscito a sconfiggere.
                  

                     Penso anche che la necessità di far capire a fondo agli studenti, ai genitori e al mondo che gravita attorno alla comunicazione, sia fondamentale perché la copertura che l'Organizzazione mondiale della sanitò ci raccomanda per poter essere tranquilli e sicuri è pari al 95 % della popolazione. Scendere sotto questa soglia significherebbe mettere in pericolo la salute dei nostri figli e, soprattutto, non garantire il livello di copertura scientifica che abbiamo raggiunto sinora.
                  

Urszula Krupa (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Niestety mimo, że jako lekarz doceniam wartość i rolę szczepień, zagłosowałam przeciwko sprawozdaniu dotyczącemu uchylania się od szczepień w Europie, do czego przyczyniło się wiele czynników, w tym nie tylko lęk przed niekiedy ciężkimi powikłaniami poszczepiennymi, ale również ciągłe zwiększanie liczby szczepień obowiązkowych podawanych nawet dzieciom w pierwszej dobie życia, co prowokuje różnego rodzaju ruchy antyszczepionkowe. Zgłaszane przeze mnie poprawki dotyczące kontroli szczepionek, zorganizowania funduszu odszkodowawczego w przypadku ciężkich powikłań poszczepiennych, zwłaszcza dobrowolności szczepień, jaka występuje w Niemczech, Skandynawii i w dwudziestu innych krajach – oczywiście poza sytuacją zagrożenia epidemiologicznego – a także obowiązku przekazywania rodzicom informacji na temat ewentualnych ubocznych działań i utworzenia rejestru działań poszczepiennych, nie zostały przyjęte, a przecież tego rodzaju zmiany w rezolucji doprowadziłyby do większej przejrzystości i zapobiegania szerzącym się lękom i dezinformacji dotyczącej profilaktycznej roli szczepień.
                  

Bolesław G. Piecha (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Jako współautor tej rezolucji głosowałem oczywiście za jej przyjęciem. Szczepionki w zasadzie stały się taką ofiarą własnego sukcesu, gdyż to właśnie przez szczepionki zostały zlikwidowane największe plagi zakaźne naszego zdrowia publicznego w Europie i na świecie. Niestety to, że stały się ofiarą swojego sukcesu, to część ludzi po prostu z nich zrezygnowała, bo uważa, że takie schorzenia, takie zagrożenia nie istnieją, a to przecież nieprawda jak chociażby powrót odry wśród dzieci, wśród mieszkańców Europy.
                  

                     I druga sprawa to oczywiście jest strach, ten strach jest ciągle podsycany przez różnego rodzaju stowarzyszenia i akcje antyszczepionkowe. Sądzę, że dobrze się stało, że taka rezolucja została przyjęta. Uważam, że kwestia oczywiście jest zasadniczo w gestii państw członkowskich, bo taki jest system ochrony zdrowia, ale Unia Europejska powinna się angażować w propagowanie najlepszych praktyk, zwiększenie przejrzystości i obniżenie cen szczepionek.
                  

Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – Madame la Présidente, j'ai voté à deux mains cette résolution sur ce que l'on veut bien aimablement appeler ‘les réticences à la vaccination’. Je serai pour ma part un peu plus directe. Les discours anti-vaccins sont proprement irresponsables! Un parent qui fait ce choix ne met pas seulement la santé de son enfant en danger, mais aussi celle du reste de la société, puisque l'enfant peut ensuite transmettre et véhiculer le virus. Plus de 30 000 infections, parfois fatales, pourraient être évitées chaque année en Europe si les vaccinations étaient pratiquées correctement. Trente mille, c'est considérable! On voit aujourd'hui dans certaines régions d'Europe réapparaître des épidémies de rougeole, par exemple, et des enfants y succomber. En 2018, c'est parfaitement insupportable.
                  

                     Évidemment, tout y passe: les théories du complot, les collusions, le lobbying, l'industrie pharmaceutique. Or, les faits sont là: l'Europe, aujourd'hui, est la région du monde la plus sceptique à l'égard des vaccins, là même où les Lumières, Pasteur et la médecine moderne ont vu le jour. Le monde marche sur la tête, Madame la Présidente.
                  

Момчил Неков (S&D). – Г-жо Председател, уважаеми колеги, гласувах в подкрепа на резолюцията, защото смятам, че нарастващите обществени колебания относно ваксините и намаляването на равнището на ваксинация в Европа са тревожен феномен. Смятам, че е нужен широк обществен дебат както на европейско, така и на национално ниво. Недоверието на гражданите дава и своите последици – огнища на зараза с морбили, избухнала в редица държави членки, чието предотвратяване е било възможно.
                  

                     Масовата истерия, свързана със страничните ефекти от ваксинацията кара дори и най-смелият родител да ваксинира детето си със свито сърце. Това, което знаем със сигурност обаче е, че ваксинирането е от изключителна важност за колективното здраве. Не можем да си позволим да губим човешки животи заради липса на информираност.
                  

                     През последните няколко години Европейският съюз пое голяма бежанска вълна и трябва да мислим и в посока на превенция. Защото нека бъдем честни – голяма част от бежанците са с неясен здравен статус и това представлява допълнителен риск за общественото здраве.
                  
11.8.   Implementation of the European Protection Order Directive (A8-0065/2018 - Soraya Post, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio)

Suulliset äänestysselitykset


Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). –
(początek wystąpienia poza mikrofonem) … przyprawiła mnie o poważny dylemat, ponieważ z jednej strony jej istota jest zasadniczo słuszna – wprowadzenie europejskiego nakazu ochrony, natomiast jest to wszystko zatopione w takim feministycznym bagnie, że trudno się pod tym podpisać. Z powodu tego dylematu spytałem swoich wyborców o zdanie i poprosili mnie o bezkompromisowe głosowanie przeciwko – nie dlatego że mamy coś przeciwko nakazowi ochrony, tylko ze względu na towarzyszące temu dodatki – kupujemy w ten sposób seksistowską propagandę w co drugim akapicie, kupujemy w ten sposób obowiązkową propagandę w szkołach i jakiegoś dodatkowego komisarza do spraw kobiet. Moi wyborcy nie chcą czegoś takiego.
                  

                     Apeluję o to, żeby przestać wciskać ten już naprawdę przebrzmiały temat do każdej możliwej rezolucji – a to o handlu, o Filipinach, o klimacie, o mediach. Jesteście Państwo nudni i monotematyczni w tej sprawie i po prostu nie da się już tego słuchać. Macie na tym punkcie obsesję i apeluję o to, żeby przestać niszczyć dobre projekty głupimi wstawkami.
                  
11.9.   Implementation of the Bologna Process – state of play and follow-up (B8-0190/2018)

Suulliset äänestysselitykset


Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Madam President, I support the call to reinforce the social dimension in the European Higher Education Area. Education should not be a luxury, but it has to be inclusive to the maximum degree. Inclusiveness and equal access are the keys to guaranteeing social justice in the European Union. The Bologna Process has brought significant mobility and offered many chances to students and researchers, making European universities the best performers in many sectors, but it still has its limits.
In its current form the Bologna Process does not really create a platform for social debate on education across Europe. The fact that the EU nation-states adopt their language policies in education without any scrutiny from the EU can lead to highly undemocratic practices. To give you an example, my home country, Latvia, has recently become a victim of disproportionate education reform, doing away, de facto, with education in minority languages. What I expect from the Bologna Process is major engagement with stakeholders and a closer look at the problems on the ground.

Puhemies. – Äänestykset ovat päättyneet.
                  
12.   Corrections to votes and voting intentions : see Minutes

(Istunto keskeytettiin klo 13.23.)


VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident

13.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

14.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes
15.   Major interpellations (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die große Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung mit Aussprache von Ivan Jakovčić im Namen der ALDE-Fraktion an die Kommission: Lage der europäischen Schiffbauindustrie (O-000022/2018 – B8-0019/2018) (2018/2672(RSP)).
               

Ivan Jakovčić,
autor. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, industrijski sektori pomorske opreme i brodogradnje desetljećima se nalaze među najvažnijim europskim strateškim industrijama te zapošljavaju oko 450 000 ljudi u državama članicama Europske unije. Riječ je o važnim sektorima i s ekonomskog i s društvenog stajališta s obzirom na to da pružaju kvalitetno zapošljavanje za velika poduzeća i manja i srednja poduzeća te doprinose regionalnoj industrijskoj infrastrukturi.
               

                  U Europi postoji danas oko 150 velikih brodogradilišta, od kojih su mnoga aktivna na svjetskom tržištu s tržišnim udjelom od oko 6% kada je riječ o tonaži. Međutim, poštovana povjerenice, brodograđevne nacije u Europi preslabe su da bi se mogle nositi s pritiskom konkurencije iz Azije, posebno, naravno, iz Kine i Južne Koreje u kojima postoje posebne nacionalne strategije za njihovu brodogradnju s jasnim ciljevima podrške.
               

                  S obzirom na inicijativu LeaderSHIP 2020., ima li Europska komisija poseban plan za stvaranje sveobuhvatne industrijske strategije za europski pomorski sektor i sektor brodogradnje kako bi se poduprla dugoročna konkurentnost, gospodarska stabilnost i rast tog važnog sektora? Poduzima li Komisija konkretne mjere za očuvanje i podupiranje visokotehnološke i visokovrijedne konkuretne prednosti europske brodogradnje? Ima li Komisija jasnu politiku i mjere, koje su na snazi danas, za suočavanje s prijetnjama koje predstavljaju nepoštenu međunarodnu konkurenciju i izostanak globalnih trgovinskih pravila? To su moja pitanja.
               

                  Ali naravno, želim se ovdje prije svega zahvaliti što ste prihvatili ovu moju inicijativu da razgovaramo o ovim temama i žao mi je da nema još nekih drugih kolegica i kolega iz moje zemlje zato što je za Hrvatsku to posebno važno. I zato se sada želim djelomično osvrnuti na hrvatsku brodogradnju.
               

                  Dobro mi je poznato koliko je važno osigurati opstanak brodogradnje u Hrvatskoj jer ne govorimo samo o očuvanju radnih mjesta, već govorimo o očuvanju znanja i vještine gradnje broda. Uljanik iz Pule, kojega, naravno, najbolje poznajem, može postati prava europska silicijska dolina brodograđevne pameti i znanosti. Pretpostavka za to je brza i ozbiljna i dugoročna reakcija državnih i europskih institucija. Uz Uljanik, i 3. maj iz Rijeke te Brodosplit i HBT iz Dalmacije još uvijek su poduzeća koja imaju znanje i tržište, ali trebaju europsku i nacionalnu pomoć.
               

                  Naime, glavni problem je prvenstveno financijske naravi. I to financiranje izgradnje broda i financiranje kupca tog broda, kao što to rade drugi, i to je ključno za opstanak brodogradnje, ne samo u Hrvatskoj. Zato pozivam Europsku komisiju da osmisli i predloži osnivanje posebnog instrumenta kako bi se mogla na konkurentan način financirati europska bodograđevna industrija.
               

                  Često ovdje, gospođo povjerenice, govorimo o potrebi reindustrijalizacije Europe. Umjesto da najprije usvojimo efikasne mjere za spas onih industrija koje imaju sinergijsku, tehnološku, znanstvenu i ekonomsku snagu, koje mogu nositi razvoj Europe i u budućnosti. Stoga predlažem da se odmah zaustavi zatvaranje ili likvidacija brodogradilišta u zemljama članicama Europske unije. Naravno da to znači i novo definiranje mjera i kriterija, što moraju zajedno učiniti Europska komisija i vlade zainteresiranih zemalja članica.
               

                  Ne možemo šutke promatrati kako nestaje jedna od ključnih europskih industrijskih grana, a da istovremeno naši partneri u drugim dijelovima svijeta provode svoju politiku otvorenih subvencija i pomoći svojoj brodograđevnoj industriji. Razumijem potrebu tržišnog i otvorenog pristupa jer sam, uostalom, u obitelji liberala, ali ako je konkurencija netržišna i neliberalna i čini sve kako bi spasila svoju industriju, onda pozivam da to učinimo i mi. Za mene je potpuno neprihvatljivo zatvaranje očiju pred konstantnim gubitkom udjela europskih proizvođača na svjetskom tržištu.
               

                  Upravo je brodogradnja simbol povezanosti europske industrije jer je naš brod, europski brod, zajednički europski proizvod u koji su ugrađeni mnogobrojni materijali i proizvodi koji se sastavljaju u brod u jednoj zemlji, a dolaze iz niza drugih zemalja. Zato, stvorimo odmah novi koncept i strategiju očuvanja brodogradnje.
               

Elżbieta Bieńkowska,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, firstly, I want to thank the House for having this opportunity to discuss this important sector of European industry. This is important for most of the European Member States.
Let me start my remarks by looking at the wider context. As you maybe remember, in September last year, President Juncker gave a very strong political signal about the need to make our industries stronger, and to make our industries more competitive. Just a few weeks after this, we at the Commission presented and adopted and comprehensive industrial policy strategy. The strategy addresses the remaining gaps with actions that this Commission and this Parliament can still carry out. Even though time is rather short, I think we can still take action here.
So, the document: our horizontal industrial strategies are empowering all sectors to innovate and to adapt. The ship building sector is one of many sectors within this framework, and some actions can be the same for all of them, although each sector has its own specifics. Within this framework, we have also taken concrete action to support industrial transformation in specific sectors. And this is an exact example of what we are doing.
The shipbuilding and maritime equipment industries are important from both an economic and social perspective as you rightly put it, Honourable Member. They have provided highly qualified jobs contributing to regional economic development, but the global market situation, as we all know, remains difficult for a number of companies in Europe.
Against this background, Leadership 2020, as adopted by all relevant stakeholders, constitutes an important initiative focusing on innovation, access to finance skills, market access and some incentives and, maybe, some support for shipyards and the maritime equipment industry. All of those topics and issues are Commission priorities.
As regards the first question, on the Commission plan to support long-term competitiveness and growth, our Leadership 2020 programme provides an action plan. Most of the actions are to be decided and implemented by stakeholders themselves, but we are not resting on our laurels and are doing our job. Some actions, especially regulatory ones or negotiations with third countries' international organisations are for the Commission to initiate or to follow.
The second question, on how to preserve and support the high-tech and high-value competitive advantages of European shipbuilding. The very purpose of Leadership 2020 exercise was to identify new opportunities in the areas of innovation, the application of new technologies for the purposes of greening and diversification into new markets.
Let me remind you that the recent historic decision by the global shipping industry to cut for the first time its greenhouse gas emissions is both a challenge but also an opportunity. It shows that Leadership 2020, with its strong innovation and greening focus, remains fully valid. More particularly, under the research pillar of Leadership 2020 we have actions to exploit new market opportunities and support zero-emission and energy-efficient vessels.
The high-value competitive advantage of European shipbuilding cannot be preserved unless we maintain our human capital and the necessary know-how and related skills. So, in 2015, the Commission endorsed the proposal by the maritime industry to set up a maritime European Sectoral Skills Council as part of the EU-funded project entitled ‘Creating a European Skills Council for the Maritime Technology Sector’.
Another initiative which we are quite proud of is maritime technologies, one of the pilot priority sectors under the blueprint for sectoral cooperation on skills. We have chosen a few sectors – seven or eight – for the first round of financing, and the maritime sector is one of them. This was launched under the new skills agenda for Europe in June 2016. Most recently, under the Erasmus+ sector skills alliances, we supported the project on maritime technologies with nearly EUR 4 million funding. This project kicked off in 2018, just a few weeks ago.
Regarding your question on the need for a clear policy on the measures to target threats under the unfair international competition. Let me say that, as you also rightly say, the shipbuilding nations in Europe are too weak to cope with the competitive pressure from Asia. Again, this is exactly what our document Leadership 2020 aims to change. The Commission continues to negotiate in the framework of the OECD Working Group on shipbuilding. The sixth EU-China shipbuilding dialogue took place in March 27 last year in Beijing. The objective was to address obstacles limiting business opportunities in China, for instance restrictions on ownership, local content requirements in granting subsidies, weak protection of intellectual property rights, etc. Such exchanges do not bring immediate results, but they represent the only way forward to demonstrate the mutual benefits of fair trade relations to China and other countries.
A word on foreign direct investment (FDI): Europe needs to remain open to FDI. However, let's not be naive, this openness cannot mean allowing transactions by foreign governments or state-owned foreign investors with a hidden agenda. They may seek to gain control of European companies, firms whose activities are critical for the EU or national security and public order. The FDI screening proposal, which is now in the hands of the Parliament and the Council, aims to target this issue. It provides a framework for screening FDI transactions that may pose a risk. Critical infrastructure, like ports and shipyards, are included in the proposal.
Finally, a recent study commissioned by the Commission on the new trends in globalisation in shipbuilding and maritime suppliers identifies a number of challenges but also – even more importantly – gives concrete recommendations. This Commission has been discussing those recommendations with industry representatives and we will draw appropriate conclusions. This will also be a part of our discussion at the next MFF.

Seán Kelly,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, it gives me great pleasure to represent the EPP here this afternoon. The EPP are fully committed to industrialisation of Europe and keeping our competitiveness. I would like to congratulate the ALDE Group and support and, indeed, reiterate their question on this crucial issue, which was so well presented to us just now by Ivan Jakovčić.
The future of the European shipbuilding sector is under great threat from growing international shipbuilding industries, and only a clear, targeted EU shipbuilding policy offering an integrated and unified approach towards international competition will help Europe to cope with these competitive and societal challenges. We need to develop a collective strategy that rivals that of our Asian counterparts, for example.
Ireland, my country, is an island nation and is well served by a thriving shipbuilding industry and can contribute greatly to a joint European effort to re-jig the sector. During the 1820s and 30s Cork, in my constituency, became the most important shipbuilding centre in the country and continued to be important until the 1860s. The Verolme docks at Rushbrooke in Cobh once employed over 1100 people in shipbuilding and many large ships were built and launched from there. This included a number of vessels such as the L.E. Eithne, which has been for the Irish naval service, which has its headquarters nearby.
The Verolme dockyard unfortunately closed in 1984 with major job losses to the area and greatly contributed to Ireland's dwindling shipbuilding sector. The Port of Cork, however, is the second biggest in the country and linked to major other ports. This could contribute greatly to this development. Small boat building, repair and refurbishment and offshore operation and maintenance continue to operate in Cork and throughout Ireland, but the potential beneficial opportunities in reviving this once-thriving shipbuilding industry are endless.
Limerick, also in my constituency, has Foynes port, a wonderful port. I'm currently working with the port company CEO, Pat Keating, to get it upgraded to corridor status. Given that it is one of Europe's most naturally deep ports, it has huge potential. And on May 18 I will be guest speaker at a major conference in Limerick organised by Foynes port.
I want to thank the Commission, who will be taking part there are and will be able to see the port for themselves. Also, there are many small fishing ports in my constituency, such places as Kilmore Quay, Castletownbere, Dingle and Dunmore East. They are fishing ports, they are vital for the economy of the constituencies and we must give them every opportunity to develop.
Finally, I just want to say, we also have Rosslare harbour in my constituency. This is used for ferries for human beings and for goods and also for haulage. Especially in a post-Brexit era its going become of major importance. So we have an opportunity to do what our President Antonio Tajani once said to stop the industrial massacre of Europe and especially to rebuild our shipping industry.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


Andrejs Mamikins (S&D),
zilās kartītes jautājums. – Godātais sēdes vadītāj, godātais kolēģi, paldies par to, ka jūs pieņemat manu zilās kartītes jautājumu! Kā mēs zinām, šobrīd kuģu būvēšanas nozarē Eiropai milzīgu konkurenci rada Ķīna kā valsts un Ķīnas kuģu būvēšanas sektors. Vai jūs saskatāt tuvākajā nākotnē iespējas Eiropas kuģu būvēšanas nozarei efektīvi konkurēt ar Ķīnas kuģu būvēšanas nozari?
               

Seán Kelly (PPE),
blue-card answer. – I think that not only we will but we have to be. I was encouraged by the words of the Commissioner in stating how we were going to regain our competitiveness and help our ports. I think once we put our units and our strengths together we can do an enormous amount to help the shipbuilding industry and to compete with China, and not only with China but also Korea and other places. Europe has to regain its industrial strength, as I mentioned in relation to Antonio Tajani. And that's what we're going to do, and we can do it together with the Commission and – as you said – the Member States.

Andrejs Mamikins,
on behalf of the S&D Group. –Mr President, today Europe is still a major player in the global shipbuilding industry. However, low demand in shipbuilding production is expected in Europe in the next 10 years. This means that this industry will face serious challenges. As far as I can see, there are few of us here in the plenary but the topic doesn't become less important because of that.
The EU is a maritime power and we need to consider all the benefits and perspectives of this sector. Our European project is unique and makes our neighbours wonder about how we ensure such a stable regulatory framework. But we need to keep in mind that the EU is not only about norms and regulations. It is about geopolitics too.
The maritime industry still belongs, to a large extent, to power politics. To be a post-modern power in the world of modern nation-states requires us to be geopolitical players too. The study produced on behalf of the European Commission by BALance Technology Consulting shows that the well-being of the European shipbuilding sector has not only economic but also political, security-related and environmental implications for the European Union.
This is why today Europe needs a pragmatic and visionary approach towards its shipbuilding. The wise decision has been taken in Europe in recent years to concentrate shipbuilding industry on special high-tech and high-value ships. High technology is going to give us major competitive advantages and take our shipbuilding industry out of yesterday's world.
But we should bear in mind that China also has the political objective of entering the high-tech ship market. It means that we need to think of the next steps to preserve our competitive advantage.
In the absence of effective global trade rules we absolutely need a European umbrella to protect our shipbuilders who otherwise will struggle more and more every year. The shipbuilding market remains dollar-based, and that means that we have to protect this industry in Europe from financial imbalances and ensure a fair treatment for our producers.
A strong shipbuilding industry also contributes to the new maritime security policies, the EU maritime security strategy, EU Arctic policies and EU naval missions. The EU Member States certainly have strong economic or strategic maritime interests. Therefore, they are reluctant to transfer more competences in this field to the Commission. But if we are to compete with the world's major maritime powers we need to pool resources and adopt a common action. Brexit will undermine our maritime power to a certain extent, but it can also give us an impetus to go faster in building a common maritime policy.
Another reason why we need an effective industrial strategy in the maritime sector is environmental concerns. The EU has an image of the most progressive power in terms of environmental regulation and it should also uphold this principle in its maritime trade relations. This will also contribute to our efforts in promoting environmental standards.
Furthermore, climate change is going to uncover new maritime routes in the Arctic region. It will enable much faster transportation from Europe and Africa to Asia, rather than today when the ships pass through the Middle East and South Asia. Current routes will be abandoned as being slower, more expensive and more dangerous. This will immediately shift the competition to the north and to the Arctic region.
You have to think about it already today and start to develop new technologies for the new ships able to operate in zones of the extreme North. Colleagues, I also belong to a maritime country. Speaking about the shipbuilding industry in Latvia I need to say that our major current challenges in the shipbuilding sector are the development of workers' skills and the improvement of the marketing system.
Thanks to the historical roots and old traditions of the shipbuilding sector, Latvia conserves its respected position amongst the world's maritime power, which has been guaranteed by the introduction of some advanced materials, new manufacturing technologies and new designs. But such innovations are not enough to keep Latvian shipbuilding in good economic conditions, especially considering the slowdown of demand in Europe.
Today's shipbuilding sector is in part a knowledge-based economy, and I think that the Latvian Government has to officially state it will adopt a truly European approach to ensure the development of shipbuilding and the welfare of workers.

Urszula Krupa,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Całkowicie popieram troskę autora interpelacji i pytania do Komisji Europejskiej dotyczące europejskiego sektora morskiego i stoczniowego, tym bardziej że dotychczasowe działania Komisji Europejskiej doprowadziły – niestety także przy współudziale poprzednich rządów – do upadku stoczni w Polsce.
               

                  Najbardziej znana z racji wydarzeń grudnia 70 i powstania Solidarności Stocznia Gdańska w ciągu swojej działalności zbudowała ponad tysiąc statków. Po odzyskaniu niepodległości i wstąpieniu do Unii Europejskiej pomoc publiczna dla ważnych zakładów okazała się być wbrew unijnym zasadom i zażądano prywatyzacji stoczni, aby nie było potrzebne wsparcie publicznymi pieniędzmi, z groźbą upadku i utraty stu kilkunastu tysięcy miejsc pracy. Odrzucono także propozycję restrukturyzacji, dając tylko czas na wyprzedaż majątku stoczni Gdyni i Szczecinowi, pozostawiając częściowo sprywatyzowaną Stocznię Gdańską kupioną przez ukraińską spółkę. Brakowało woli odbudowy przemysłu, jaka występowała w gospodarkach morskich innych państw Unii. Systematycznie niszczony przez ostatnie trzydzieści lat przemysł stoczniowy jest obecnie odbudowywany dzięki Polakom, rządowi RP, będąc jednym z największych tego typu w Europie, obejmując osiem dużych stoczni w Gdańsku, Gdyni, Szczecinie i Świnoujściu.
               

                  Przemysł stoczniowy ma strategiczne znaczenie dla bezpieczeństwa państwa, dlatego ważne byłoby zwalczanie zagrożeń związanych z nieuczciwą konkurencją.
               

Martina Anderson,
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, Ireland as an island is more dependent on shipping than most EU Member States. The ongoing recklessness of the British Government with regard to Brexit means that it is only prudent to increase shipping capacity in order to avoid Ireland being punished by the likely difficulties in transit of Irish exports through Britain. So shipping and shipbuilding are of increasing importance to Ireland, north and south.
The EU strategy to deal with the economic crisis in shipbuilding has been embraced by Harland and Wolff, the largest shipyard in Ireland, which is in the city of Belfast. They have embraced innovation and technology, they are increasingly green and increasingly diversifying into new markets. A lot of the work done in recent years depends on the shipyard and the main ports in the north, namely Belfast Harbour, Warren Point, Larne and, in my home town of Derry, Foyle port, being plugged into the European market, and they all rely on the European supply chains.
Brexit is hugely damaging to that plan and risks seriously damaging the industry. Meanwhile the strategy of the British Government seems to depend more on gunboats than on any forward-looking vision for the sector. On this, like on so many other issues, the British Government seem oblivious to the consequences of Brexit for the north of Ireland. This all needs to be factored into the planning of the EU in the time ahead.
Solutions do exist to the threats posed by Brexit for each sector, including shipbuilding. We have presented these solutions through our case for designated special status for the north to remain within the EU post-Brexit. In that vein, we have also proposed a system of red and green channels that complement existing infrastructure at ports and could be used to address goods entering and leaving Ireland, north and south. I want to acknowledge the sterling work that is being done by MEP Liadh Ní Riada with regard to protecting the goods that are transiting from Ireland into Britain or via Britain into the EU.
So this system would be used for goods transiting through Britain from Ireland to the rest of the EU and would therefore protect the integrity of the single market and allow for east-west trade to continue. We do not want to see the border dividing Ireland being reinforced, nor do we want to see the Irish Sea between Britain and Ireland as an obstacle.
Need I remind Members that the Titanic was built in the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast? Belfast city centre and its Titanic quarter have, as a result of the peace process, community development and European funding, seen a transformation for the better. However, on its first voyage the Titanic hit an iceberg on the North Atlantic and sank. So my appeal to colleagues is don't let Ireland, north and south, crash on the looming iceberg that is Brexit.

André Elissen,
namens de ENF-Fractie. – Voorzitter, de Europese Commissie heeft in haar niet te stuiten regeldrift een nieuw plan gepresenteerd, een zogenaamde allesomvattende strategie voor de scheepsbouwsector. Wij zien helemaal niets in dergelijke plannen. In de eerste plaats denk ik bij plannen van de Europese Commissie aan bemoeizucht, onzinnige en overbodige regelingen en tegenwerking van nationale soevereiniteit.
               

                  Wij staan pal voor de vrije markteconomie. Bedrijven zijn zelf verantwoordelijk voor hun succes en moeten daarbij niet in de weg worden gezeten door Europese bureaucraten, bureaucraten die geen idee hebben wat gezonde concurrentie en marktwerking daadwerkelijk is. Wij zijn tegen het overdragen van bevoegdheden aan de Europese Unie. Wij zijn tegen het verspillen van Europees belastinggeld door het tegen beter weten in steunen van onrendabele bedrijven en failliete scheepswerven.
               

                  In het verleden is ook in andere sectoren gebleken dat staatssteun en subsidies slechts uitstel van executie betekenen. Het is vaak niet meer dan een tijdelijk doekje voor het bloeden. Denk hierbij bijvoorbeeld aan de vliegtuigbouw en de auto-industrie. Ook Nederland is wat staatssteun betreft door schade en schande wijs geworden. In de jaren tachtig van de vorige eeuw heeft de Nederlandse belastingbetaler miljarden en miljarden guldens betaald voor het steunen van scheepswerven in ons eigen land, uiteindelijk zonder resultaat. Grote werven werden na enkele jaren alsnog gesloten en tienduizenden arbeidsplaatsen gingen verloren. Al het belastinggeld was dus uiteindelijk voor niets geweest.
               

                  De laatste jaren komt in Nederland de scheepsindustrie weer tot bloei. Niet dankzij de overheid, maar dankzij de kracht van ondernemerschap en innovatie in de sector zelf. Uiteindelijk is het aan de markt en niet aan de overheid om te bepalen waar en wanneer welke goederen worden geproduceerd. Het is een kwestie van vraag en aanbod, prijs en kwaliteit. Kortom, stop met de zogenaamde hulpprogramma's, stop met het Europese subsidie-infuus, beteugel de regeldrift en laat de scheepsindustrie met rust!
               

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, благодаря на колегата Яковчич за повдигането на този изключително важен въпрос. Много държави в Европейския съюз имат традиции в корабостроенето и в момента тази индустрия е застрашена. А отделно стои въпросът, който се поставя непрекъснато, за т.н. реиндустриализация на Европа и на Европейския съюз.
               

                  Имаме нужда от подобни усилия, имаме нужда да запазим тези традиции. Имаме нужда да запазим тези работни места. Имаме конкуренция – немного лоялна – от държави извън Европейския съюз, които съвсем логично и съвсем нормално се опитват да влязат на тези пазари. И само от нас зависи – от нашите общи усилия като Европейски парламент и Европейски съюз, дали ще успеем да защитим собственото си производство и собствените си работни места.
               

(Ораторът приема да отговори на въпрос ‘синя карта’ (член 162, параграф 8 от Правилника за дейността))


Andrejs Mamikins (S&D),
zilās kartītes jautājums. – Liels paldies, godātais Dzhambacki kungs, par to, ka Jūs pieņēmāt manu zilās kartītes jautājumu! Mana valsts, Latvija, iestājās Eiropas Savienībā 2004. gadā. Bulgārija kopā ar Rumāniju iestājās vēlāk — 2007. gadā. Manā valstī ir lietas, ko mēs, objektīvi vērtējot, kuģniecības nozarē un kuģu būvēšanas sektorā esam zaudējuši, bet daudz ko esam ieguvuši — mūsu nozarei, vajadzībām, cilvēkiem un visai uzņēmējdarbībai. Kā ir jūsu valstī? Ko jūs pa šo laiku esat zaudējuši un ko ieguvuši?
               

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR),
отговор на въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта. – Благодаря за въпроса, колега Мамикинс, Вие сте прав: влизането в Европейския съюз както на Латвия, така и на България е въпрос на договаряне и на преговори. Да, първоначално имаше загуба на работни места, но това дава и възможност за бъдещо развитие.
               

                  В момента в България има две действащи държавни корабостроителници и няколко действащи частни такива. И те имат договори с други държави от Европейския съюз. Така че в рамките на Съюза би трябвало да си сътрудничим. Още повече, би трябвало да си сътрудничим и в сферата на военното производство, където можем да постигнем добри резултати.
               

Elżbieta Bieńkowska,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I want to thank everyone for their remarks. I think that the shipyard and maritime industry is so important that we probably need to take action – even more action than we've being doing so far – for the next 18 months.
As I mentioned our LeaderSHIP 2020 programme – which is the right framework and which provided the necessary orientation to our industries to embrace the new challenges, new opportunities to discuss innovation, the circular economy, and digitalisation – I am confident that while of course it cannot be fast, because we are jointly discussing it and making joint efforts with all stakeholders involved, it will continue to deliver useful results in the future. Member States, of course, have a key role in ensuring that the industry meets new challenges and takes advantage of the opportunities. Of course, we have to continue to work both with the Member States, with the Parliament, and with the stakeholders in the industry, but I can commit to you that I will look in those fields where our activities should be stronger and where our action can really make a difference, including access to finance, including access to markets. We are doing a lot on skills. We are doing a lot on access to markets, but I think that we will maybe get some new perspective while creating them, discussing the new budget generally on the industry – but in this framework also for the shipyard industry – so this is not the end of our discussion.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               
16.   Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes
17.   Petitions: see Minutes
18.   Documents received: see Minutes
19.   Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes
20.   Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting : see Minutes
21.   Closure of the sitting

Der Präsident. – Ich erkläre die Sitzungsperiode des Europäischen Parlaments für unterbrochen.
               
22.   Adjournment of the session

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.36 Uhr geschlossen.)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)