Verbatim report of proceedings of 12 March 2019
Date: 2019-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202403817EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














20.6.2024







            12 March 2019
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 12 MARCH 2019
            
         
(C/2024/3817)

Contents







1.

Opening of the session
5










2.

Opening of the sitting
5










3.

Decision on the application of urgent procedure (Rule 154): see Minutes
5










4.

Amendment of the agenda : see Minutes
5










5.

Security threats connected with the rising Chinese technological presence in the EU and possible action at EU level to reduce them (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
5










6.

Gender balance in EU economic and monetary affairs' nominations (debate)
5










7.

Debate with the Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic, Peter Pellegrini, on the Future of Europe (debate)
17










8.

Resumption of the sitting
40










9.

Voting time
40










9.1.

Request for the waiver of the immunity of Monika Hohlmeier (A8-0165/2019 - Jean-Marie Cavada) (vote)
40










9.2.

Request for the waiver of the immunity of Jean-Marie Le Pen (A8-0167/2019 - Kostas Chrysogonos) (vote)
40










9.3.

Request for the waiver of the immunity of Dominique Bilde (A8-0166/2019 - Kostas Chrysogonos) (vote)
41










9.4.

Extending Rule 159 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure until the end of the ninth parliamentary term (B8-0147/2019) (vote)
41










9.5.

Electronic freight transport information (A8-0060/2019 - Claudia Schmidt) (vote)
41










9.6.

EU-Vietnam Voluntary Partnership Agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (A8-0083/2019 - Heidi Hautala) (vote)
41










9.7.

EU-Vietnam Voluntary Partnership Agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (resolution) (A8-0093/2019 - Heidi Hautala) (vote)
42










9.8.

Protocol amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (A8-0070/2019 - József Nagy) (vote)
42










9.9.

Authorising Member States to become party to the Council of Europe Convention on an Integrated safety, security, and service approach at football matches and other sports events (A8-0080/2019 - Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann) (vote)
42










9.10.

Protocol amending the EU-China Agreement on Maritime Transport (accession of Croatia) (A8-0168/2019 - Francisco Assis) (vote)
42










9.11.

EU-Egypt Euro-Mediterranean Agreement (accession of Croatia) (A8-0025/2019 - Ramona Nicole Mănescu) (vote)
42










9.12.

EU-Turkmenistan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (A8-0072/2019 - Ramona Nicole Mănescu) (vote)
42










9.13.

Implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in the United Kingdom (A8-0092/2019 - Branislav Škripek) (vote)
42










9.14.

Exchange of information on third country nationals and the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) (A8-0219/2016 - Daniel Dalton) (vote)
42










9.15.

Centralised system for the identification of Member States holding conviction information on third country nationals and stateless persons (ECRIS-TCN) (A8-0018/2018 - Daniel Dalton) (vote)
42










9.16.

European Solidarity Corps programme (A8-0079/2019 - Michaela Šojdrová) (vote)
43










9.17.

EU Cybersecurity Act (A8-0264/2018 - Angelika Niebler) (vote)
43










9.18.

Unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain (A8-0309/2018 - Paolo De Castro) (vote)
43










9.19.

European citizens' initiative (A8-0226/2018 - György Schöpflin) (vote)
43










9.20.

Import of cultural goods (A8-0308/2018 - Alessia Maria Mosca, Daniel Dalton) (vote)
44










9.21.

Protection of personal data in the context of elections to the European Parliament (A8-0435/2018 - Mercedes Bresso, Rainer Wieland) (vote)
44










9.22.

Security threats connected with the rising Chinese technological presence in the EU and possible action at EU level to reduce them (B8-0153/2019, RC-B8-0154/2019, B8-0154/2019, B8-0155/2019, B8-0159/2019, B8-0160/2019, B8-0162/2019, B8-0164/2019) (vote)
44










9.23.

State of EU-Russia political relations (A8-0073/2019 - Sandra Kalniete) (vote)
44










9.24.

Building EU capacity on conflict prevention and mediation (A8-0075/2019 - Soraya Post) (vote)
44










10.

Explanations of vote
44










10.1.

EU-Vietnam Voluntary Partnership Agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (A8-0083/2019 - Heidi Hautala)
44










10.2.

EU-Vietnam Voluntary Partnership Agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (resolution) (A8-0093/2019 - Heidi Hautala)
45










10.3.

Exchange of information on third country nationals and the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) (A8-0219/2016 - Daniel Dalton)
45










10.4.

European Solidarity Corps programme (A8-0079/2019 - Michaela Šojdrová)
46










10.5.

EU Cybersecurity Act (A8-0264/2018 - Angelika Niebler)
47










10.6.

Unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain (A8-0309/2018 - Paolo De Castro)
48










10.7.

European citizens' initiative (A8-0226/2018 - György Schöpflin)
48










10.8.

State of EU-Russia political relations (A8-0073/2019 - Sandra Kalniete)
49










10.9.

Building EU capacity on conflict prevention and mediation (A8-0075/2019 - Soraya Post)
50










11.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions : see Minutes
50










12.

Resumption of the sitting
51










13.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes
51










14.

Documents received: see Minutes
51










15.

A European human rights violations sanctions regime (debate)
51










16.

2018 Report on Turkey (debate)
60










17.

Interpretation of the Rules of Procedure (follow-up): see Minutes
77










18.

Delegated acts (Rule 105(6)) (follow-up): see Minutes
77










19.

Emergency situation in Venezuela (debate)
77










20.

Follow up taken by the EEAS two years after the EP Report on EU strategic communication to counteract propaganda against it by third parties (debate)
86










21.

EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development – EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development (resolution) (debate)
96










22.

Association Agreement between the EU and Monaco, Andorra and San Marino (debate)
102










23.

Accessibility requirements for products and services (debate)
108










24.

Urgency for an EU blacklist of third countries in line with the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (debate)
114










25.

Visa Information System (debate)
124










26.

Asylum and Migration Fund (debate)
131










27.

Instrument for financial support for border management and visas (debate)
139










28.

Internal Security Fund (debate)
144










29.

Action taken on Parliament's resolutions: see Minutes
149










30.

Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes
149










31.

Closure of the sitting
149




Verbatim report of proceedings of 12 March 2019
                  


VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident

1.   Opening of the session

Der Präsident. – Ich erkläre die Sitzungsperiode 2019-2020 des Europäischen Parlaments für eröffnet.
               
2.   Opening of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 9.00 Uhr eröffnet.)

3.   Decision on the application of urgent procedure (Rule 154): see Minutes
4.   Amendment of the agenda : see Minutes
5.   Security threats connected with the rising Chinese technological presence in the EU and possible action at EU level to reduce them (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
6.   Gender balance in EU economic and monetary affairs' nominations (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zum Thema ‘Ausgewogenes Verhältnis von Frauen und Männern bei Nominierungen für Positionen im Bereich Wirtschaft und Währung auf EU-Ebene’ (2019/2614(RSP)).
               

Melania Gabriela Ciot,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank President Tajani for his letter, which the Council received last week. I can assure you that we are committed to promoting gender balance. This is an important issue and the gender balance among the top staff of EU official financial bodies is also a key issue for the Council.
At the same time, the selection procedures are based on rules that we have to respect. The Council has always acted – and will continue to act – in line with all the relevant provisions of EU law as regards its role in appointments. I would also expect all the other institutions involved to act within the legal framework and to do their utmost to promote gender balance.
Against this background, I was surprised that Parliament is raising this issue specifically with the Council. President Tajani's letter refers to legal acts that regulate appointments to three EU legal organs. These three bodies are the Single Supervisory Board, the Banking Stakeholder Group within the European Banking Authority, and the Single Resolution Board. Please allow me to clarify that the Council is not involved in drawing up shortlists, nor in selecting successful candidates, for any of these three bodies. The shortlists for appointments to the Single Resolution Board are provided by the Commission. Candidates for the Single Supervisory Board are the responsibility of the European Central Bank. Subsequently, for both of these boards, the European Parliament decides on the successful contenders. The Council's role is limited to formally approving the selection made by Parliament.
As regards appointments to the European Banking Authority, the Council has no role to play at all. Regarding the selection of members of the ECB Executive Board, the Council does indeed have a role in the selection procedure. I can assure you that we reiterate the importance of gender balance in each selection procedure and call on Member States to propose female candidates. I trust that all EU institutions involved in preparing shortlists and selecting candidates observe and respect the principle of gender balance and that they will continue to do so in the future.
As the Presidency of the EU Council, Romania will continue to promote at European level the principle of gender balance, by facilitating debate on possible ways forward and advancing the legislative agenda, especially the negotiations on the directive on women on boards. Important progress in this area of action has already been achieved through the consistent efforts of both the Council and Parliament in relation to the work-life balance directive, on which we have been able to finalise negotiations. We are determined to make our contribution to mainstreaming gender balance on the EU agenda in order to ensure a fair and equitable environment in our societies and within our labour markets.

Věra Jourová,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, on behalf of the Commission, including Vice-President Dombrovskis and Commissioner Moscovici, who are in Brussels this morning at the Ecofin Council, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to exchange views on gender balance in the EU financial bodies. President Juncker replied yesterday to the letter sent by President Tajani on this matter.
First of all, let me emphasise that this Commission is fully committed to the principle of gender balance and has taken decisive action in this regard. 39.6% of middle and senior management is now female, up from 30% in November 2014. The number of female Directors-General has increased from 14% to 30%, from five to 12. The number of female deputy Directors- General has increased from 8% to 42% – it means from just three to 20.
We also agree that women continue to be particularly under-represented in executive positions in the field of banking and financial services. Women only account for about 15% of private executives. The under-representation of women can also be observed in the public sector entities in this field. Women rarely make up more than a third of the governing bodies of most national central banks. The under-representation of women can be observed in a similar way in the applications for positions in EU agencies active in this field. On average, there are four to five times more male candidates than female candidates.
On the specific cases you are debating today, I would like to stress that it follows from Article 283/2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that the Commission plays no role in the appointment of a new member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank.
As regards the European Banking Authority, the Commission's role is limited to assisting the Board of Supervisors in relation to the appointment of the chairperson of the European Banking Authority. For the Single Resolution Board, currently chaired by a woman, the Commission is indeed entrusted with providing the European Parliament with a shortlist of candidates for the positions of chair, vice-chair and other members of the board. In line with the relevant regulation establishing the board, appointments are to be based on merit, skills, knowledge of banking and financial matters and on relevant expertise and experience. Moreover, in line with Article 56/4 of that Regulation, candidates shall be chosen on the basis of an open selection procedure which must respect the principles of gender balance, experience and qualification.
The Commission is strongly in favour of supporting women with the necessary qualifications reaching top positions. We have taken this into account and rigorously respected the legal requirements in the selection procedures, and we have kept the European Parliament informed at all stages of the process. In the cases of the chair of the European Banking Authority and the position of board member of the Single Resolution Board, several candidates, including female candidates, failed to meet the eligibility criteria, often because they did not have the required minimum professional or senior management experience in the field of finance.
We look forward to continuing the cooperation with this House on this very important matter. In the cases where the Commission has a role in the process, the Commission will continue to pay close attention to the issue of gender balance when composing shortlist of candidates for the EU financial services agencies.

Esther de Lange,
namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, ik kom hier nog een beetje hijgend binnen, mijn jas ligt nog naast me. Excuses daarvoor. Ik heb dus ook maar de helft gehoord van wat de Europese Commissie zei. De reden was vrij simpel: ik was nog via FaceTime op mijn telefoon het naar school gaan van mijn zoontje van acht aan het managen. Dat is dus waar vrouwen in hun beroepsleven tegenaan lopen op het moment dat ze proberen om hun job met het leven thuis te combineren.
               

                  Volgens mij moeten we het daarover hebben in dit debat. Dus niet over dat topje van die ijsberg en die drie nominaties die nu op de agenda staan, die volgens sommige fracties nu moeten worden stilgelegd. Ik wil u er ook aan herinneren dat diezelfde fracties die u zo meteen gaat horen, zeker de Italiaanse vertegenwoordigers uit die fracties, op het moment dat wij voor een positie bij het SSM een uitstekend gekwalificeerde Ierse vrouw hadden, hun voorkeur toch liever lieten uitgaan naar een Italiaanse man.
               

                  Met andere woorden, dit debat is in zeer hoge mate, helaas, een symbooldebat, omdat genderevenwicht bepaalde fracties blijkbaar uitkomt op het moment dat hun nationaliteit niet bij de kandidaten zit. Is dat wel het geval, dan gaat de voorkeur in de praktijk stiekem toch nog naar een man. Dus veel mensen die later in dit debat zullen spreken, hebben een grote berg boter op hun hoofd.
               

                  Waar moeten we beginnen? De Europese Commissie zei het al: het probleem is dat er bij die hoge functies vaak een te kleine vijver van goed gekwalificeerde vrouwen is om uit te kiezen. Het is onze opdracht, hier in het Europees Parlement, om ervoor te zorgen dat die vrouwen er zijn: in banken, in de overheid, in de politiek, in het bedrijfsleven.
               

                  Dat begint al met het mogelijk maken van het combineren van werk en privéleven. Dat begint bij goede kinderopvang en dat begint vooral bij onze zonen en dochters het goede voorbeeld te geven. Hoe komt het dat kindjes van vijf, zes, zeven jaar oud in Kent op het moment dat hen op school gevraagd wordt een chirurg, een brandweerman en een astronaut te tekenen, dat meer dan vijftig van de zestig kindjes een man tekent en zwaar verbaasd is als vervolgens in dat klaslokaal een vrouwelijke astronaut, een vrouwelijke chirurg en een brandweervrouw binnenkomen.
               

                  Het gaat daar dus al fout. Daar moeten wij beginnen met onze kinderen fatsoenlijk op te voeden, die vijver zo groot mogelijk te maken, zodat we dit symbooldebat niet meer hoeven te voeren.
               

Mercedes Bresso,
a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, come è stato ricordato, la procedura, per carità, è avvenuta correttamente e quindi noi voteremo. Il problema è però molto più complesso. In particolare, come ha ricordato la Commissaria, siamo di fronte a una sottorappresentazione delle donne in tutte le posizioni di vertice e a tutti i livelli, ma certamente nelle compagnie private e nelle istituzioni a carattere economico, finanziario e monetario questa sottorappresentazione è ancora superiore.
               

                  Il problema è come si inverte questa tendenza perché, se le candidature non ci sono, capisco anche che non si possa fare in altro modo. Perché ci siano le candidature occorre facilitare le carriere delle donne, in particolare in queste istituzioni occorre dire alle ragazze che si può studiare economia e avere un percorso professionale decente, perché se si dice loro ‘guarda, tanto se fai degli studi economici non potrai andare avanti’, in questo modo non succede nulla e alla fine non abbiamo le candidature.
               

                  Chiedo quindi alla Commissione non solo di avere atteggiamenti corretti, ma di fare anche una promozione a livello europeo, di chiedere agli Stati di promuovere a livello europeo gli studi delle donne nelle materie tecniche, economiche e scientifiche, se vogliamo poi avere le candidature giuste.
               

Ulrike Trebesius,
im Namen der ECR-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Das deutsche Bundesland Brandenburg hat entschieden, dass das Landesparlament zukünftig paritätisch besetzt sein soll. Ich nenne das hier als Beispiel für Sie. Die Begründung ist, dass das Parlament zu gleichen Teilen männlich wie weiblich besetzt sein soll, weil das die Situation in der Gesellschaft widerspiegelt. Mal davon abgesehen, dass ja bereits 50 % der Wähler weiblich sind und sich natürlich für männliche oder weibliche Abgeordnete entscheiden können, besteht doch die Herausforderung darin, dass eben der Anteil von Frauen in der Politik deutlich geringer ausfällt als in der Gesellschaft.
               

                  Ich habe an vielen Parteiveranstaltungen teilgenommen, und da hat der Frauenanteil meistens nicht mehr als 15 oder 20 % betragen. Wie ist dann wirklich so eine paritätische Aufstellung zu verstehen? Ist das wirklich fair? Und wo hören wir auf? Welche Randgruppen wollen wir zukünftig über den Frauenanteil noch mitberücksichtigen? Wollen wir alle Religionen gleichmäßig bedenken? Wollen wir Christen, Buddhisten, Muslime, Atheisten auch noch mit aufstellen? Und haben wir auch noch alle Minderheiten im Blick? Wollen wir schwul, queer, transgender, Menschen mit Diabetes, mit körperlichen Einschränkungen, alte, dicke, junge, dünne – wo werden wir die Grenzen ziehen?
               

                  Unsere Demokratie bietet dem Wähler die Möglichkeit, sich für die Person zu entscheiden, die ihn am besten vertritt. Und das können wir den Bürgern auch zutrauen, und in der Wirtschaft ist es nicht anders. Wir sollten uns immer für die Person entscheiden, die die beste Qualifikation hat und sich am besten für einen Beruf eignet und für die Ausübung eines Berufes, und zwar unabhängig vom Geschlecht – und ich sage das, weil ich selbst Bauingenieurin von Beruf bin. Als ich vor 30 Jahren mein Studium begonnen habe, war der Frauenanteil in diesem technischen Studium bei 15 %, und 30 Jahre später hat sich daran nichts geändert. Wir müssen einfach anerkennen, dass Männer und Frauen unterschiedlich sind.
               

Nils Torvalds,
för ALDE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Vi hörde i de föregående uttalandena, både från rådet och från kommissionen, de vanliga ursäkterna och förklaringarna. Om man förkortar hela resonemanget kan man säga att vardera parten egentligen sa: Det är inte vårt fel det här.
               

                  Och jag tror att det här finns ett allvarligt cirkelresonemang. Om ni lyssnar noga på det sätt på vilket problemet beskrevs, så beskrevs det kort på det här sättet: Eftersom det inte finns kvinnor som har den nödvändiga kunskapen på en lägre nivå så kommer de aldrig upp till en högre nivå. Det är där problemet finns. Det är samma förklaring som vi hör på flygplatserna när man säger att flygplanet är försenat på grund av att det är försenat. Det är ju ingen förklaring. ‘Due to late incoming aircraft’ är den vanliga förklaringen vi får, och lika ‘late incoming’ är besluten om balansen i fråga om könen.
               

                  Det här är inte bara en formell fråga, det är också en innehållsmässig fråga, för vi vet att hjärnorna är lite olika. Mina kvinnliga kollegor säger ibland att om en man tänker – om en man tänker, det händer ju inte alla gånger att vi gör det – så gör han det på ett lite annorlunda sätt än en kvinna, med kanske mindre helhetsuppfattning. Vi såg det här också under krisen som började 2008. De stora bankerna, hela deras ledningsgarnityr var besatta av män och besluten var systematiskt felaktiga. Vi hade klarat också den krisen betydligt bättre om vi hade haft en jämnare fördelning mellan könen i bankernas beslutande organ.
               

Sven Giegold,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Die erneuten Vorschläge von EU-Kommission und Rat für die Spitzen und bereits für die Auswahllisten von Führungspositionen in den europäischen Finanzinstitutionen sind einfach aus der Zeit gefallen. Die Zeit, dass ausschließlich Männer vorgeschlagen werden, gehört nicht ins 21. Jahrhundert. Und hier geht es auch nicht darum, dass Männer und Frauen unterschiedlich sind, wie das eben gesagt wurde, vielmehr haben Frauen längst Führungspositionen in der Finanzwirtschaft, in den Wissenschaftsinstitutionen, und sie verdienen, dass sie auch gleichberechtigt beteiligt werden.
               

                  Wir als Parlament sind seit Jahren an dieser Frage dran. Die Frage lautet: Wie lange sehen wir dem noch tatenlos zu? Und da fordere ich die Kolleginnen und Kollegen auf, jetzt auch konsequent zu sein. Das bedeutet, wir ernennen diese Personen im Rahmen des europäischen Rechts erstmal nicht, sondern warten darauf, dass wir von Rat und Kommission eine ausgehandelte Lösung bekommen, wie sich diese mittelalterlichen Zustände bei den Benennungen verändern.
               

Marisa Matias,
em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Senhor Presidente, a igualdade de género é um direito humano fundamental, mas parece ser letra morta quando chegamos às questões económicas e monetárias, porque aí as mulheres normalmente tendem a desaparecer. Nos corpos financeiros, diretivos e executivos da União Europeia não há praticamente mulheres. Há 2 em 25 no Conselho Executivo do Banco Central Europeu.
               

                  O Conselho diz que não tem nada a ver com isso, quando são aos governos que nomeiam. A Comissão diz que não tem nada a ver com isso, quando é a Comissão Europeia que apresenta a lista final. E nas listas finais raramente há mulheres, desaparecem, os governos desta União Europeia não têm mulheres, como dizia a Senhora Comissária, competentes, com mérito, com habilitações, com o conhecimento sobre áreas bancárias suficiente.
               

                  Isto não é apenas um insulto às mulheres. É um insulto a toda a gente. É um insulto à União Europeia e é uma vergonha. Sinceramente, eu espero que, enquanto se continuar a apresentar listas, nomeações, apenas compostas por homens, esta Casa, que diz defender a igualdade de género, as chumbe, não as deixe passar, porque são um atentado à democracia, à igualdade e à justiça na União Europeia.
               

Mireille D'Ornano,
au nom du groupe EFDD. – Monsieur le Président, mardi 26 février dernier, les membres de la commission des affaires économiques et monétaires ont procédé à un échange de vues avec M. Philip Lane, sélectionné pour le poste de membre du directoire de la Banque centrale européenne, M. José Manuel Campa pour le poste de président de l'Autorité bancaire européenne et M. Sebastiano Laviola pour le poste de membre du conseil de résolution unique.
               

                  Le constat est sans appel: comme souvent, les femmes restent sous-représentées aux postes de direction du secteur des services bancaires et financiers. Cela ne m'étonne aucunement, quand on sait que seuls 39 % des postes d'encadrement et de direction dans les instances européennes sont occupés par des femmes. On aime bien discuter de cette thématique, débattre, j'oserais même dire brasser du vent, mais lorsqu'il faut agir concrètement, il n'y a plus grand monde, en particulier au sommet de l'Union européenne elle-même, à savoir la Commission à Bruxelles. Sur les 13 présidents de la Commission européenne qui se sont succédé, aucun n'a été une femme. Pas une femme non plus parmi les pères fondateurs de l'Union européenne. Sur 28 commissaires européens, on compte seulement 9 femmes. Doit-on trouver cela normal? Sur 250 millions de femmes en Europe, est-il si difficile de trouver 14 femmes compétentes? Évidemment que non! Tout ceci est délibéré et rien n'est fait pour montrer l'exemple au sommet des institutions européennes. Quand on voit les dérapages de M. Juncker que l'on a vu devant les caméras ébouriffer les cheveux d'une fonctionnaire, Mme Pernilla Sjölin, cheffe adjointe du protocole, on peut se poser des questions. Est-ce là l'exemple que l'on veut montrer? Est-ce là l'image de la femme que porte la Commission Juncker?
               

                  Les européistes rappellent souvent que le traité de Rome a été très en avance en gravant dans le marbre le principe d'égalité salariale dès 1957. Sauf que 60 ans plus tard, les faits sont là: les inégalités salariales hommes-femmes sont toujours criantes dans l'UE, a fortiori dans des pays fondateurs. Je dis donc stop aux déclarations d'intention, passons à l'action concrète!
               

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Kolejny raz celebrujemy niezdrową obsesję tego Parlamentu na punkcie płci. Po raz kolejny pokazujecie, że jesteście oderwani kompletnie od rzeczywistości.
               

                  Pierwsze wystąpienie już pokazało, że przeciętny przedszkolak ma więcej rozsądku niż przeciętny poseł tego Parlamentu. Macie jasne dowody tego, że kobiety nie zgłaszają się nam na niektóre stanowiska albo zgłaszają się w mniejszości, mimo to uważacie, że wiecie lepiej, mimo to wiecie, że kobiety chcą, potrafią, czują to, że kobiety nadają się do tego –wiecie lepiej od nich samych. Chcecie je zmuszać na siłę do tego, żeby realizowały waszą obłąkaną wizję równości płci, równości wszystkiego ze wszystkim.
               

                  Mówi się, że kobiety to połowa wyborców. Mówicie –no i co z tego? Wśród obywateli naszych państw są również osoby niepełnoletnie. Nie mają reprezentacji w parlamentach – od dwudziestu jeden lat można kandydować w większości krajów do parlamentu. I co z tego? Czy te osoby są prześladowane? Czy jakaś krzywda im się dzieje z tego powodu, że nie siedzą w Parlamencie?
               

                  Mamy w Parlamencie stu dwudziestu kierowców – w tym tylko dwie kobiety. I co z tego? A mamy większość tłumaczek. To poprzesadzajmy tłumaczki za kierownice, a kierowcom każmy tłumaczyć obrady.
               

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


Hilde Vautmans (ALDE),

                        ‘blauwe kaart’-vraag. – Voorzitter, ik denk dat alle vrouwen hier vandaag in de zaal echt geschandaliseerd zijn.
               

                  Let's stand up together here today. I think it's incredible that you are saying this Parliament doesn't have any intelligence!
               

                  Ik denk dat het onwaarschijnlijk is dat u uithaalt naar de vrouwen! Graag zou ik u willen vragen … (De Voorzitter interrumpeert de spreker)


Der Präsident. – Frau Kollegin Vautmans! Die blaue Karte ist nicht für eine Stellungnahme, sondern für eine Frage. Und wenn Sie nach 25 Sekunden nicht zur Frage gekommen sind, habe ich auch keine Hoffnung, dass die Frage gestellt wird. Sie haben für die blaue Karte 30 Sekunden. Ich bin da sehr liberal. Aber bei allem Verständnis: Die blaue Karte ist für eine Frage, nicht für ein Statement, auch wenn man noch so empört ist.
               

                  Very short: Finish the question, please!
               

Hilde Vautmans (ALDE),

                        ‘blauwe kaart’-vraag. – Kunt u alstublieft uw stelling herhalen dat u denkt dat vrouwen minder geschikt zijn om dezelfde taken uit te voeren als mannen? Want dat is wat ik begrepen heb uit uw tussenkomst.
               

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI),
odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Nie powiedziałem, że w Parlamencie brakuje inteligencji, tylko rozsądku. Nie wiem, jak było z tłumaczeniem. Ale to dwie różne rzeczy. A fakty pokazują, że kobiety do niektórych zawodów nadają się lepiej, a do niektórych gorzej. Najwyraźniej lepiej się nadają do zawodu tłumacza niż mężczyźni, bo mamy przewagę kobiet, a gorzej do zawodu kierowcy, bo mamy mniej kierowców–kobiet. Gorzej do stanowisk kierowniczych, a lepiej na przykład do opieki nad dziećmi. Obie płcie mają różne uzdolnienia i przyjmijcie to w końcu do wiadomości. Halo, Ziemia!
               

Der Präsident. – So, wir haben die Frage gehabt. Ich denke auch, dass der Grund für die Fragen überall der gleiche ist. Deshalb lasse ich nur eine blaue Karte zu. Sie werden bemerkt haben, dass ich weniger streng als sonst auf die Redezeit geachtet habe. Das waren keine Anfälle von Großzügigkeit, sondern als Frau Kollegin de Lange gesprochen hat, war ich abgelenkt und habe ihr sehr viel Leine gelassen. Deshalb habe ich gedacht, ich gleiche das zwischen den Fraktionen ein bisschen aus. Wir sollten uns jetzt trotzdem an die Redezeiten halten.
               

Markus Ferber (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Dass wir ein Geschlechterungleichgewicht bei den Führungsgremien der europäischen Finanzaufsichtsinstitutionen und der Zentralbank haben, ist kein Geheimnis. Dieses Ungleichgewicht auf europäischer Ebene rührt auch daher, dass es auf nationaler Ebene ein Ungleichgewicht in den Führungsgremien der nationalen Aufsichtsbehörden und Notenbanken gibt und deswegen kaum weiblicher Führungsnachwuchs für die europäische Ebene zur Verfügung steht. Deswegen meine Bitte an den Rat, auch in den nationalen Strukturen dafür zu sorgen, dass Frauenförderung entsprechend stattfindet. Deswegen müssen wir diese Debatte führen.
               

                  Aber was mich hier wirklich stört, ist die Scheinheiligkeit, mit der wir diese Debatte führen. Die Fraktionen, die sich jetzt hier so erregen, hätten die große Gelegenheit gehabt, bei der Nachbesetzung einer Frau, nämlich des zentralen Aufsichtsmechanismus, wieder eine Frau zu benennen, und genau diese Fraktionen, die sich heute hier so empören, haben sich für den Mann entschieden, obwohl beide gleich qualifiziert waren. Wir haben als EVP klar gesagt: Bei gleicher Qualifikation hat die Frau den Vorrang. Und dann werden auch noch Briefe geschrieben, E-Mails, wo drinsteht, der eine ist qualifiziert, und die andere ist eine Frau. Mit Verlaub, einen solchen diskriminierenden Vorgang habe ich noch nie erlebt. In der Privatwirtschaft hätte das rechtliche Konsequenzen gehabt.
               

                  Deswegen sage ich allen Kolleginnen und Kollegen: Wenn wir die Möglichkeit haben, eine Frau ins Amt zu bringen, dann sollten wir das bitte auch miteinander tun und nicht diese verlogene Diskussion hier im Plenum führen.
               

Pervenche Berès (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, il y a un peu plus d'un an, le 8 mars 2018, le Président de cette institution écrivait aux autorités européennes, à la suite de la nomination de M. de Guindos, et demandait qu'à l'avenir, dans le cadre des nominations à la Banque centrale, soit mis à la disposition du Parlement européen une liste restreinte de candidats ou un minimum de trois noms dans le respect de l'équilibre hommes-femmes. Cela n'a pas été le cas en l'occurrence au moment de la désignation ni en ce qui concerne la proposition du nom de Philip Lane.
               

                  Nous invitons le Conseil, la Banque centrale et la Commission à joindre leurs efforts pour que lors des prochaines nominations, au lieu d'expliquer que leur rôle est limité, ils agissent afin de changer la situation.
               

                  Il y a un moment où cette situation n'est plus acceptable et ce moment est arrivé. Il n'est pas normal que ces institutions financières, pas plus que les autres institutions négligent l'équilibre hommes-femmes. Je note les efforts engagés au sein de la Commission européenne, mais il faut changer la donne. Pour ce faire, vous devez soutenir la proposition de manière à ce que, lors de la prochaine législature, chaque État membre désigne un candidat et une candidate au poste de commissaire, seule solution pour garantir une parité effective dans la prochaine Commission.
               

                  De la même manière, s'agissant des postes à responsabilité dans les domaines économiques et financiers, lorsqu'il existe une liste restreinte, celle-ci doit respecter l'équilibre hommes-femmes. Il faudra que, tôt ou tard, le Parlement assume ses responsabilités.
               

                  J'observe la singulière et sournoise bataille que livre le PPE pour tenter de faire porter la responsabilité au groupe S&D, sous prétexte qu'au moment de la sélection, notre groupe n'aurait pas choisi la candidate proposée. Certes, nous demandons l'égalité des chances, mais cela ne signifie pas qu'il faille, a priori, toujours choisir la femme. On ne saurait, à cet égard, accuser notre groupe de manœuvres quelconques. En revanche, j'observe que le groupe PPE veut, à des fins politiques, saper la seule des nominations qui sera à l'ordre du jour jeudi prochain, alors que c'est une nomination qui intervient dans le cadre d'une institu… (Le Président retire la parole à l'oratrice)


Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Debatujemy dzisiaj nad uwzględnieniem równowagi płci w nominacji trzech kandydatów na ważne stanowiska w instytucjach gospodarczo-monetarnych Unii Europejskiej. Nasz Parlament ma jedynie zatwierdzić mandaty dla trzech kandydatów znajdujących się na tak zwanych ‘krótkich listach’.
               

                  Grupa Europejskich Konserwatystów i Reformatorów wspiera zachowanie równowagi płci w procedurze wyłaniania tych kandydatów, ale chciałaby też, aby zachowano równowagę geograficzną. Wszyscy kandydaci pochodzą z krajów Europy Zachodniej – to znaczy tak zwanej ‘starej Unii’, a przecież w Europie Środkowej i Wschodniej nie brakuje kandydatów o dużym doświadczeniu i kompetencjach na te stanowiska. Trzeba jednak pamiętać, że wszyscy wyłonieni kandydaci posiadają odpowiednie kwalifikacje do pełnienia tych funkcji. Dlatego nie uważam, aby płeć była jedyną i wystarczającą kompetencją w obsadzaniu tych stanowisk.
               

                  Tak na marginesie – koniecznie trzeba zauważyć, że Komisja Europejska składa się z dwudziestu ośmiu komisarzy, w tym dziewiętnastu mężczyzn i tylko dziewięciu kobiet. Przecież to czytelny dowód na brak uwzględnienia równowagi płci w tym jednym z najważniejszych gremiów Unii Europejskiej. Czy polityki równościowej Komisja nie powinna więc rozpocząć od samej siebie?
               

Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – Mr President, I think Mr Sośnierz has just proved beyond any doubt why we cannot possibly leave it to men to run the world.
We've been having this debate for many years now and every time we hear the same argument, ‘this time the appointment of the male candidates should go ahead, but next time – really, really next time – we'll have a gender-balanced ballot paper’. But we've been hearing this for many years and it is just not credible anymore.
What is also interesting is that this is not about men being better than women or women better than men. It is a known fact that diverse teams perform better. We are talking about something very serious here. We're talking about governance and oversight of the financial sector. So why do we settle for an inferior team rather than having the strongest possible team to oversee this sector? We've also heard some of our colleagues say that there are not enough qualified female candidates. Come on, people. We are living in the European Union with over 500 million citizens and you're telling me there are not sufficient candidates.

(The President cut off the speaker)


Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, why does it matter that economics is dominated by men? Could it be related to the fact that men own the overwhelming volume of the world's assets, with just eight men owning the same amount of wealth as the whole of half of the world? Conventional economics is dominated by the rational economic man, a man who arrives as a full-grown adult in the world of work and ignores the mother who raised him, the teachers who educated him, the people who nursed him back to health. Whenever women come into any sphere, they bring different perspectives and insights. We don't have to argue about whether we're better or worse. We only have to accept that my half of the human race deserves to be fully represented in all domains where power is exercised, including the economy.
As a female economist, I'm tired of waiting for a world where women play an equal role in finance and economics. I will no longer collude in a process of uttering hypocritical words and then taking no action. I will not support any more men being appointed to the boards of the financial regulatory bodies until the shortlists include at least one woman.

Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, esta questão levanta dois problemas: em primeiro lugar, a igualdade de género que manifestamente não é respeitada nas agências de supervisão ou no Banco Central Europeu. Mas levanta também uma outra questão, não menor, que é a do escrutínio democrático sobre essas instituições. As agências, e em particular o BCE, quando foram criadas, eram para ser instituições politicamente neutras, com uma função técnica. Mas a verdade é que foram acumulando poderes no quadro da supervisão, no quadro dos programas de assistência, e isto nunca foi acompanhado do necessário escrutínio democrático. E, sejamos sérios, o envolvimento deste Parlamento na escolha dos dirigentes de topo destas instituições não passa de uma fachada, de uma verdadeira fantochada democrática.
               

                  As listas de candidatos que alegadamente nos deveriam ser fornecidas ou têm apenas um nome ou não têm nenhuma presença feminina e, na única situação onde nós tivemos acesso a uma lista com vários candidatos, a escolha final nem sequer respeitou a decisão que foi tomada aqui por este Parlamento. A presença feminina residual nas instituições é incompreensível, é intolerável, mas reflete também a natureza opaca e antidemocrática destas instituições que são hoje dominadas pela alta finança e onde não há nenhuma vontade sincera de qualquer escrutínio.
               

Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – Señor presidente, veamos los siguientes ejemplos:
               

                  Banco Central Europeo: una mujer en el Comité Ejecutivo entre cinco hombres, y una mujer en el Consejo General entre veintinueve hombres. Autoridad Bancaria Europea: todos los candidatos a presidirlo hombres. Junta Única de Resolución: todos los candidatos hombres. Mecanismo Único de Supervisión: presidente, un hombre. Tres Autoridades Europeas de Supervisión: también presidente un hombre.
               

                  Está claro que las estructuras de poder son desiguales y está claro que hay un desequilibrio de género en los servicios bancarios y financieros, concretamente en sus puestos ejecutivos, y también está claro que uno de los valores de la Unión Europea es la igualdad de género y la perspectiva de género como un valor y un principio horizontal.
               

                  Igualdad significa más democracia. Igualdad significa salvaguardar los derechos humanos. Por eso es importantísimo romper los estereotipos, lo que no ha entendido nuestro compañero el señor Sośnierz. Hay que romper estereotipos y coeducar en la mirada contra los estereotipos y así conseguiremos una sociedad más justa, una sociedad igualitaria también en el tema económico.
               

(La oradora acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la ‘tarjeta azul’ (artículo 162, apartado 8, del Reglamento interno)).
               

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI),
pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Dysponujemy na YouTube statystykami, co kto ogląda i można łatwo sprawdzić, że widownia filmików o tematyce politycznej to w 80-90 procentach mężczyźni i to nie dlatego, że zły Sośnierz zabrania kobietom oglądać filmiki o tematyce politycznej, tylko kobiety nie interesują się polityką. Co Pani zamierza z tym zrobić? Zamierza Pani nakazać kobietom interesować się polityką? (Przewodniczący przerwał mówcy)


Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege Sośnierz, das war keine Frage.
               

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI),
pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Było pytanie – zapytałem, co Pani zamierza zrobić z tym, że kobiety nie oglądają filmów o tematyce politycznej na YouTube?
               

Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE),
respuesta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                     . – Señor Sośnierz, es una vergüenza que usted ocupe un escaño en este Parlamento, en la casa de la paz y de los valores europeos. Esa es mi respuesta.
               

Patrizia Toia (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non voglio sprecare neanche un secondo del mio minuto, ma devo farlo per esprimere la vergogna e anche l'indignazione di sentire voci così vergognosamente arretrate in questo Parlamento quando si esprimono a proposito delle donne.
               

                  Voglio dire, però, che è una sconfitta per noi che chiudiamo la legislatura, ancora una volta, con il solito film. Il Parlamento chiede, ma la Commissione – lo ammetta, Commissaria Jourová – e il Consiglio non ci sentono, di fronte a questa macroscopica assenza di donne nelle istituzioni finanziarie. E devo dire che ciò che è in gioco non è un astratto principio di equità – che pur varrebbe la pena di difendere, perché a volte i principi hanno il loro fondamento, anche se astratti – ma è un discorso proprio di equità ed è un discorso di interesse generale.
               

                  Io credo che non si tratti di un atto di buona volontà, non siamo qui a chiedere questo o un gesto di attenzione: si tratta di riconoscere che la presenza delle donne è inclusiva per le istituzioni, le rafforza, le rende più solide. Voglio solo citare uno studio svolto dalla Consob (l'istituzione di controllo della Borsa in Italia), uno studio da cui emerge chiaramente, scientificamente, che le società che hanno donne nei consigli di amministrazione sono più capaci di resistere alla crisi e hanno migliori risultati…
               

(Il Presidente toglie la parola all'oratrice)


Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, permítame empezar con el más firme rechazo de las palabras que acabo de oír de que si los hombres no pueden ser intérpretes las mujeres no pueden ser chóferes. Qué clase de sexismo y machismo barato es este que tenemos que oír a veces en esta Cámara, de verdad.
               

                  Sobre la cuestión que nos atañe. Mire —lo han dicho antes mis compañeros—, no puede ser que las instituciones financieras europeas estén copadas por hombres. En el Banco Central Europeo esta situación es clarísima: dos mujeres de veintinueve en su Consejo de Gobierno. Ahora, además, la señora Nouy y la señora Lautenschläger, que ocupaban posiciones importantes, van a salir y las vamos a remplazar por hombres.
               

                  Le hemos pedido desde la Comisión de Asuntos Económicos al Consejo tantas veces que nos manden listas de candidatos paritarias para tener margen para poder elegir que es vergonzoso. Y después de lo que está pasando en la sociedad europea, con la movilización masiva de las mujeres el 8 de marzo, esto es algo que ya no puede tolerarse. Por lo tanto, si este Parlamento quiere ejercer sus derechos y si estamos todos de acuerdo, lo que hay que hacer esta semana es bloquear los nombramientos y pedir que nos manden otra propuesta.
               

Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, parlamentti on toistuvasti ottanut kantaa siihen, että talous- ja finanssialan johtopaikoilla ei ole riittävästi naisia ja joka kerta luvataan tilanteen korjaaminen seuraavalla kerralla. Tämä ei vetele.
               

                  Kysymys ei ole siitä, etteikö meillä olisi tyttöjä, jotka kouluttautuvat, ja naisia, jotka ovat päteviä ja johtavia kansantalouden, taloustieteen ja sekä julkisen että yksityisen finanssipuolen johtavissa tehtävissä tai finanssivalvonnan tehtävissä. Kysymys on siitä, nähdäänkö tämä pätevyys, asetetaanko ihmiset ehdolle ja tuodaanko tähän prosessiin vaihtoehtoja, jotka edistävät sukupuolten välistä tasa-arvoa, ja silloin ei ole kysymys vain tasa-arvosta, vaikka se on tärkeä peruspilari. Kysymys on laadusta: jätämmekö puolen kansakunnan voimavarat ja lahjat käyttämättä päätöksenteossa?
               

                  Esitän, että jatkossa on siirryttävä siihen – kuten parlamentti esitti komissaariehdokkaiden osalta – että jokainen jäsenmaa esittää sekä naista että miestä silloin kun nimityksiä näille paikoille tehdään.
               

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – Gerbiamas Pirmininke, ketvirtadienį balsavimo metu turėsime pritarti arba nepritarti kandidatų skyrimui į svarbias Europos Sąjungos ekonomikos ir pinigų politikos sričių pareigas. Ir visos Parlamentui pateiktos kandidatūros yra vyrai. Moterims tikrai nepakankamai atstovaujama bankų ir finansinių paslaugų institucijose – tik apie 15 procentų. Kolegos, sunku patikėti, kad 21 amžiuje vis dar turime kovoti ir kaskart priminti, kad vienas iš kertinių Europos Sąjungos principų – lyčių lygybė – turi būti įgyvendinamas skiriant ir pačios Europos Sąjungos institucijų vadovus bei valdybų narius. Lyčių lygybės principo užtikrinimas aptariamose pozicijose yra įtvirtintas ne tik Europos Sąjungos sutartyse, bet ir bent jau trijuose reglamentuose, apibrėžiančiuose Europos Sąjungos finansinių įstaigų veiklą. Kaip gali būti, kad pati Europos Sąjunga nesilaiko savo pačios teisės aktų? Ir todėl mes Europos Parlamente reikalaujame, kad visur būtų gerbiama lyčių pusiausvyra.
               

Spontane Wortmeldungen


José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, antes de mais quero dizer que lamento as palavras do Sr. Sosnierz. Nesta Casa não podem ser permitidas.
               

                  Senhora Comissária, como relator para a integração da perspetiva de género no Parlamento Europeu, só posso lamentar que a nomeação para três altos cargos em instituições europeias, como é o caso do Banco Central Europeu, tenha sido atribuída a três homens. Numa Europa em que os valores que defendemos são os da igualdade e dos direitos humanos, não se consegue conceber como é que, quando chega a hora de pôr em prática estes mesmos valores, optamos por ignorar e perpetuar uma cultura liderada maioritariamente por nós, homens. O argumento que estes homens eram os mais qualificados já não pega. De que serve bandeirar a igualdade de género se, no final, as pessoas mais qualificadas para esses casos acabam sempre por ser homens?
               

                  Por isso, pergunto: não existem mulheres suficientemente qualificadas para assumir estas posições? Para quando o fim deste estigma social e a aposta em mulheres para altos cargos de chefia? A União tem que liderar este desafio e estar na vanguarda da igualdade de oportunidades entre géneros. Incito não só os meus colegas da Comissão de Assuntos Económicos a repensarem as suas propostas como os próprios Estados-Membros a promoverem mais candidaturas de mulheres.
               

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisar, avem o dezbatere aici, și nu e prima, legată de egalitatea de gen. Egalitatea de gen este o necesitate, nu este un moft, nu este un slogan. Vorbim acum de egalitatea de gen din instituțiile economice, dar trebuie să recunoaștem că există responsabilități partajate. Cine propune comisarii de exemplu? S-a spus că avem doar nouă femei comisar. Statele membre!
               

                  După ce am auzit ce a spus colegul, mă gândesc că trebuie să revenim la punctul esențial, și anume educația. Dacă mai avem, în acest secol, bărbați în Parlamentul European care consideră că sunt meserii predestinate, suntem foarte jos cu nivelul educației și înțelegerii egalității de egalității de gen. De aceea cred, doamna comisar, că, pe de o parte, Parlamentul, Comisia și Consiliu, trebuie să dea dovadă de transparență și de bună intenție în promovarea femeii, pentru că avem mai puține vicepreședinte decât vicepreședinți, de exemplu, în propriul Parlament.
               

                  Dar, în același timp, trebuie să ne gândim ca, la noi acasă, statele membre să dea dovadă de aplicarea a ceea ce avem. Avem reglementări suficiente pentru egalitatea de gen. Și vă întreb, câte femei guvernatori ai băncilor naționale avem? Câte femei avem ca viceguvernatori? Cum o să avem candidați aici? Dragi colegi, acasă trebuie ca statele membre să își pună în aplicare politicile de egalitate de gen.
               

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, lo que ha ocurrido con estos nombramientos en instituciones económicas de la Unión acredita que en materia de igualdad no escuchamos el clamor que expresaron las mujeres europeas el pasado 8 de marzo. Crece cada año, porque no aprendemos.
               

                  Cuando celebramos el 20o aniversario del euro, solo hablaron hombres. Entonces deseé que dentro de veinte años no ocurriera lo mismo, pero vamos por mal camino.
               

                  La igualdad es más justa, es más democrática, pero, además, es más rentable. Estamos prescindiendo del talento, perdemos candidatas potencialmente excelentes. Existen, hay que pensar en ellas y proponerlas. Es inteligente, pero, además, es obligatorio. Por eso, hay que bloquear estos nombramientos.
               

                  El pasado 8 de marzo recibí una imagen en mi teléfono que lo decía todo. Piensen que la carrera profesional es una pista de atletismo: en la calle de los hombres no hay obstáculos; en la de las mujeres aparecen lavadoras, tendederos de ropa, niños, citas de escuelas de los niños, tareas domésticas…
               

                  Nuestros cien metros nunca son libres, están repletos de vallas. Ese es el primer problema que tenemos que resolver. Necesitamos leyes, autocrítica y compromiso…
               

(El Presidente retira la palabra a la oradora)


Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, as a firm believer that women are as capable – if not more capable, in many, many things – I find the idea of having to give extra assistance to women extremely patronising. The self-same people who say that there should be more women put forward and there should be artificial ways of pushing women into these roles they don't currently hold – or at least not so many of them currently hold – are the same people who, were there more women in these roles than men, would be celebrating it as a great victory for the progress of liberation of women's rights. They wouldn't say: ‘Hang on, where's the gender balance? We all work better as a team. Where are the men?’ They wouldn't be saying that!
This is just another way of virtue-signalling. Women are good enough, intelligent enough, and in the modern world, educated enough, to take top positions without anyone here having to ruffle their hair saying: ‘Good girl, go on, go ahead yourselves’. They can do it without that kind of patronisation.

Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – Arvoisa puhemies, kollegani, edustaja Sirpa Pietikäinen piti edellä erinomaisen puheenvuoron.
               

                  Kysymys ei todellakaan ole siitä, ettei Euroopassa olisi päteviä naisia taloudellisiin virkoihin ja Euroopan keskuspankkiin. Heitä vain ei löydetä tai ei haluta löytää. Vai onko todella joku, joka voisi aivan vakavissaan väittää, että Euroopan unionin jäsenmaissa ei ole päteviä naisia talousvirkoihin tai Euroopan keskuspankkiin?
               

                  Haluan todeta, että olen jyrkästi eri mieltä siitä, mitä Sośnierz sanoi. Hän puhui halventavasti naisista. Mutta minun on samalla todettava, että toisaalta on hyvä, että tuodaan tämä eriävä mielipidekin esille, koska itseasiassa tällainen kannanotto – vaikkakaan ei ehkä näin halventavassa mielessä – on aika yleistä Euroopassa, muuten naisia olisi esitetty virkoihin ja heitä olisi paljon enemmän, koska pätevyyttä löytyy – kysymys on asenteista.
               

Der Präsident. – Entgegen meiner sonstigen Gewohnheiten will ich dazu jetzt doch etwas sagen. Ich habe diese Debatte aufmerksam verfolgt und kann das Allermeiste, das hier gesagt wurde, unterschreiben. Ich möchte auf ein Opfer eingehen, das bei dieser Debatte sehr selten gesehen wird, nämlich auf die Sprache.
               

                  Ich bin völlig uneitel, ob ich jetzt von der rumänischen Kollegin als ‘Președinte’ angesprochen werde, als ‘Voorzitter’ oder, wie Herr Hannan das immer macht, als ‘Mister Deputy Speaker’. Die englische Sprache hatte da eigentlich einen schönen Begriff: ‘Chairman’ oder ‘Chairwoman’. Im Laufe der Zeit ist daraus eine ‘Chairperson’ geworden, damit könnte ich auch noch leben. Aber mittlerweile ist die Sache so zugespitzt, dass man nur noch als ‘Chair’ angesprochen wird. Und ich glaube, statt ‘Chairperson’, ‘Chairwoman’ oder ‘Chairman’ zu verwenden, je nachdem, wer gerade eben vorne sitzt, hat man die Sache so weit entpersönlicht, dass man nur noch von ‘Chair’ spricht. Man hat also aus dem Menschen eine Sache gemacht. Und da will ich mal sagen, dass ich mich dabei extrem unwohl fühle, ohne irgendeinen Kollegen konkret darauf ansprechen zu wollen.
               

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Věra Jourová,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I don't know if I would be making a mistake if I would dare to give you the title of ‘Mr’ President! Thank you for a very interesting debate. I will add a few comments.
We have enough very well qualified women in the financial sector. When speaking about sectors and a deficit, we see a deficit in relation to qualified women in the technology and IT sector, but for the financial sector, we do have enough highly qualified women. Out of 62% of university graduates who are women, we have a lot of very well qualified economists and financial experts. Indeed, we have surveys which say that it's in companies and in the financial sector and in banks where there is diversity on boards, where there is balanced representation, where there is more balanced decision-making. These are surveys which took lessons from the financial crisis, which say clearly that men have more of a tendency to take irresponsible and dangerous excessively risky decisions. This is not my invention; this is what we see in the facts and from the data collected from many institutions and that's why it's good to have diversity on boards and to have this balanced decision-making.
That's why I think that it will be good if we work together for the future on the procedures which will guarantee better representation of women by means of fair competition. This is what I introduced already in the current version of the proposed women on boards directive, where we say the first stage in decision-making and in the selection process must look at the qualification, expertise and experience – the professional ability and capability to do the job – and then the person whose gender is under-represented should be given priority. I think that this is very fair and in fact, it is gender-neutral because it could be a man who gets priority one day. I think that we should look into these processes and make them more fair.
I have been doing this job of Gender Equality Commissioner for five years now and I have heard a lot of different myths and also lies. One of them, I heard today is that we are different. Of course we are different. We have different ways of thinking and that's why we should have this balanced representation. We are different as individuals. I come from a totalitarian country. When I hear about equality, I am nervous because I lived in the regime which imposed equality. We are individuals. Our ability to do jobs differs and don't tell me that we have a problem from a gender point of view.
The second myth – speaking about the quota, which was introduced in this women on boards directive and which some of you called to be used in the process for the financial sector. I hear sometimes that under a quota system, a woman will end up replacing a fantastic, well-educated man. That's not true. I want to be well understood. I plea for fair competition. This is necessary to follow under excessive risk-taking and the lessons learned after the financial crisis. I think it was Neelie Kroes who said that the financial crisis would not have come about if it had been the Lehman sisters, but it was the Lehman brothers, so that's why we had the problem.
The last two comments: we had a few minutes ago a lot of very beautiful young people around here. When stagiaires and students visit me, the young women do not speak about discrimination. They are just ready to go for it. We should also fulfil the task of encouraging and helping them to have higher self-confidence and to be ready to do demanding jobs because low self-confidence, according to many other surveys, is one of the barriers for women to going for these high jobs, and to break some kind of risk-avoidance feature, which we as women also sometimes have.
Last comment on what we heard from Mr Sośnierz: yes, horrible things. I don't agree with what I heard from Mr Sośnierz but, ladies and gentlemen, I was here yesterday and we had a debate about agriculture and about the protection of fish and animals and yesterday I heard that fish do not deserve our protection because they don't have voting rights and they are not taxpayers! Today, speaking about women, I heard softer language, so thank you for that.

Melania Gabriela Ciot,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, to conclude, I would like to assure you once again that, as regards appointments to finance-related EU bodies, the Council is fully committed to promoting gender balance while acting strictly as required by EU law. I also hope that I have been able to clarify the Council's role in these processes. Thank you very much, once again, for your attention.

Der Präsident. – Die gemäß Artikel 123 Absatz 2 GO einzureichenden Entschließungsanträge werden zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt bekannt gegebe.
               

                  Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               

                  Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 14. März 2019, statt.
               


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162)



Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ECR),
kirjallinen. – On kiistatonta, että sukupuolten tasa-arvon edestä tehtävää työtä riittää kaikissa EU:n jäsenvaltioissa, vaikka meillä tilanne yleisesti ottaen on paljon parempi kuin esimerkiksi lukuisissa Afrikan ja Aasian maissa. Myös meillä naisten määrä monissa johtotehtävissä, kuten pankki- ja rahoitussektorin alalla, on huomattavasti vähäisempi kuin miesten määrä.
               

                  Jotta naisten ja miesten tasa-arvo toteutuisi käytännön elämässä paremmin, on tärkeää helpottaa työn ja perhe-elämän yhteensovittamista. Tärkeää on pitää huolta lasten päivähoidon hyvästä tasosta ja saatavuudesta.
               

                  Tässä keskustelussa esitettiin myös sukupuolikiintiöiden käyttämistä yhtenä keinona saavuttaa sukupuolten tasapuolinen edustus. Mielestäni kiintiöt ovat väärä tapa epätasapainon korjaamiseksi, sillä niin sanottu positiivinenkin syrjintä on syrjintää. Yleensä kukaan ei halua tulla valituksi virkaan tai tehtävään sukupuolensa vaan oman kyvykkyytensä ja pätevyytensä johdosta. Jokaisella henkilöllä on omat yksilölliset mielenkiinnon kohteensa. Naisia ja tyttöjä tulee kannustaa hakeutumaan opiskelemaan niille aloille ja niihin tehtäviin, jotka heitä itseään kiinnostavat, myös vaativammalle tasolle. On tärkeää, että nuorilla on roolimalleja, jotka konkretisoivat tämän ja osoittavat, että naisetkin voivat menestyksekkäästi edetä korkeisiin tehtäviin ja pärjätä niissä jopa paremmin kuin miehet.
               

(Die Sitzung wird kurz unterbrochen.)


PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ANTONIO TAJANI


Presidente

7.   Debate with the Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic, Peter Pellegrini, on the Future of Europe (debate)

President. – The next item on the agenda is the debate with the Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic, Peter Pellegrini, on the Future of Europe (2019/2515(RSP)).
Prime Minister Pellegrini, thank you for coming. Commission President Juncker, friends, it is important for us to have a debate with the Slovak Prime Minister on the future of the European Union.
The European Parliament, Mr Pellegrini, is the heart of democracy. We want to know, as well as the position of the Commission, as well as the position of the French Republic, the position of every Member State of the European Union. This is an open debate. As you know, for us, for the future, it is important to strengthen the position of the European Parliament.
In terms of content, immigration is a key point. Parliament approved reform of the Dublin rules, and we have asked for a decision by the European Council, but at the same time we want to do more work in Africa. We want to invest more money in Africa.
The other important point is social policy. We are strongly committed to combating youth unemployment. For this, we need to work in favour of the real economy, but at the same time we need to work against climate change. This is an important commitment for the European Parliament.
We are talking about the future of the European Union during a time of difficulties. Today, Parliament will vote on China policy. This is important for us, and there are other important points on our agenda before the European elections. Brexit is one of the most important. Yesterday Prime Minister May was here. On this point, it is important for us to know the Slovak position. Prime Minister, thank you very much for coming. You have the floor.

Peter Pellegrini,
Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic. – Mr President, I should like to thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate about the future of Europe. It is a real honour and privilege for me to be here today, as this democratic House represents all European citizens.
Human history is driven by a desire to achieve ideals and create a better future. This is exactly what was at the birth of the European Union 60 years ago. It is what started democratic changes 30 years ago in Czechoslovakia. We were driven by ideals of peace, prosperity and unity. The project of the European Union brought peace to Europe and it brought us stability, freedom and prosperity. It brought us success – even to smaller countries like Slovakia.
Dámy a páni, slovenská cesta späť do vyspelej Európy sa začala v roku 1989 túžbou po slobode, demokracii, ľudských právach, ekonomickom a technologickom pokroku. Pred pätnástimi rokmi sme sa vrátili tam, kam sme vždy patrili –do západoeurópskeho a transatlantického hodnotového priestoru prostredníctvom integrácie do Európskej únie a NATO.
Následný slovenský príbeh bol mimoriadne úspešný. Ale nebola to vždy ľahká a priamočiara cesta. Museli sme prekonať éru ekonomického prepadu a transformácie. Museli sme bojovať s vysokou nezamestnanosťou, zvládnuť rekonštrukciu bankového sektora i štrukturálne zmeny v našom hospodárstve. Vybudovali sme demokratické inštitúcie v novej slovenskej samostatnej štátnosti, prekonali sme aj obdobie demokratickej krízy a zvládli sme náročné kritéria na vstup do NATO a Európskej únie.
Rozširovanie EÚ v rokoch 2004 až 2013 bolo klasickou ukážkou obojstranne prospešného ‘win-win’ procesu. Nové členské krajiny získali perspektívu modernizácie a rastu, staré členské krajiny rozšírili zónu stability a získali väčší jednotný trh.
Slovensko je dnes plnoprávny člen európskej rodiny. Patríme medzi krajiny s najvyšším rastom HDP v EÚ, sme stabilným členom eurozóny s relatívne nízkou nezamestnanosťou a z vysťahovaleckej krajiny sme sa za posledné roky zmenili na krajinu, do ktorej viac ľudí prichádza, než z nej odchádza. A zmenila sa aj celková atmosféra v krajine. Naši občania sú slobodnejší a bohatší, no aj náročnejší na úroveň politického života. Tento potenciál využívame na modernizáciu našej krajiny. Slovensko má silnú občiansku spoločnosť a vysokú mieru slobody médií. Sami si však uvedomujeme, že sú oblasti, v ktorých musíme pridať, napríklad aj v kvalite vzdelávania, výskumného a inovačného potenciálu, v kvalite štátnej správy, či znižovaní priestoru na korupciu. Ale slovenský príbeh môže byť inšpiráciou pre Európsku úniu aj v súčasnej situácii. Úspešne možno zdolať ťažké výzvy a prekonať veľké prekážky, treba to však chcieť. Už Milan Rastislav Štefánik, veľký slovenský a európsky diplomat a jeden zo zakladateľov Československej republiky v roku 1918, náš francúzsky generál povedal: 
                     ‘For people of strong determination and endurance there is nothing they cannot achive.’
                   – ‘Pre ľudí so silným odhodlaním a vytrvalosťou nie je nič nedosiahnuteľné.’. A jeho odkazom sme sa riadili aj po vstupe do Európskej únie, keď nás čakalo množstvo ďalšej práce. Prešli sme náročným procesom vstupu do Schengenu a eurozóny. Na svojej ceste v integrácii sme sa nikdy nezastavili, pretože úprimne veríme v silu a správnosť európskej myšlienky. Zjednotenú Európu považujeme za prirodzený priestor pre našu existenciu. Som presvedčený, že iná alternatíva pre nás neexistuje. Toto sme potvrdili aj počas slovenského predsedníctva v Rade Európskej únie a bratislavský summit vyslal jasný signál jednoty Únie po šoku z výsledkov britského referenda. No Slovensko podobne, ako celá Európa v súčasnosti, nie je úplne imúnne proti útokom na hodnoty Európskej únie. Aj v takej dôležitej oblasti, ako je sloboda slova. Akékoľvek útoky na novinárov vyvolávajú oprávnenú reakciu verejnosti a videli sme to aj na Slovensku. To je znak veľkej vyspelosti našej demokracie a našich občanov.
Pred pár týždňami uplynul rok od vraždy novinára Jána Kuciaka a jeho partnerky Martiny Kušnírovej. Dvojnásobná vražda dvoch mladých ľudí otriasla celým Slovenskom, spoločensky aj politicky. Ale chcem Vás uistiť, že všetci máme len jeden jediný cieľ: vypátrať a potrestať páchateľov tohto zločinu. A tu chcem vyjadriť aj poďakovanie Európskemu Parlamentu vrátane monitorovacej skupiny pre právny štát za doterajšiu, a hoci aj často kritickú spoluprácu. Rovnako ďakujem aj Europolu za pomoc pri vyšetrovaní, ktoré prinieslo svoje výsledky: prví obvinení sú už vo väzbe a čakajú na spravodlivý súd.
Dnes za Slovensko môžem potvrdiť, že aj v týchto neľahkých časoch chceme aj naďalej patriť do skupiny najviac integrovaných krajín Európskej únie. Sme pripravení znášať svoj adekvátny podiel na bremene zodpovednosti za spoločný integračný projekt, ako aj spoluformovať našu európsku budúcnosť. V najbližšej dobe nás čakajú voľby prezidenta Slovenskej republiky. Verím, že občania Slovenska preukážu svoju vyspelosť a vyberú si kandidáta s jasným proeurópskym smerovaním. A dovolím si povedať, že strana, ktorú zastupujem, ako vládna strana nemohla postaviť viac proeurópskeho kandidáta ako podpredsedu Európskej Komisie, Maroša Šefčoviča. A aj to považujem za signál o hodnotách do vnútra krajiny ako aj navonok.
The success story of Slovakia is, to a certain extent, defined by where we come from. Central Europe is a natural living environment for Slovakia, on the basis of our history, geography and culture. After all, regional political cooperation is the essence of EU success.
Franco-German cooperation, Weimar, Benelux, the Baltics and even the Visegrád Group are bringing new initiatives and ideas and thus strengthening our Union. Slovakia currently holds the Presidency of the Visegrád Group. Our main objective is to bring a positive agenda to strengthen the EU. Of course, we are aware of differences, maybe even of criticism and misunderstandings, but in these challenging times we need to keep everyone on board, at the table, and we need to resolve our disputes through dialogue.
The European Union is the product of a strong vision and the immense efforts of several generations. We are simply obliged to protect it, especially now when Europe and western democracies face dramatic new developments. We are surrounded by challenges coming from all directions, from both inside and outside Europe. We see growing Russian and Chinese aspirations, which require a strong and united EU response. We see that climate change can have an unpredictable economic, political and social impact on our lives. We see a new wave of technological revolution – Industry 4.0 – and Europe as we know it will survive only if it stays in the forefront of technological progress and innovation. To achieve this, our governments need to become Governments 4.0.
Moreover, we face many challenges from within Europe. Growing social differences are destroying the original social contract. We face a dramatic ageing of our societies. Regional socioeconomic disparities do not contribute to a feeling of unity: many people feel they are being left behind. In this context, it is no surprise that mass immigration from countries outside the EU has caused new tensions and conflicts. We forgot to talk to our citizens about Europe, about democracy and about our plans for the future. When they hear no answers from us, they turn elsewhere. Lack of communication can become a breeding ground for disinformation and fake news. One example was the British referendum in 2016.
It is obvious that isolationism, protectionism and nationalism are not a solution. Our answer must not be fragmentation into small national states with limited resources, but stronger unity of the EU as a global power.
Honourable Members, as 17 of my colleagues have done already, let me be brave and determined in presenting my vision of our common future: a vision of an attractive Union that citizens can trust and support. This remains a valid message from the Bratislava Summit: first, a Union which is united, prosperous and secure; and, second, a Union which is globally relevant, a Union which is honest with its citizens, and a Union which cares about its own future. However, we need to find a common path to achieve our ideals. So my question is ‘How shall we get there?’
               
First, we need to be united. ‘Unity’ was the word most frequently used by my colleagues who have already addressed this House, and they are completely right. Without unity among the Member States we would become subject to the decisions of others. We cannot be credible and successful in achieving our ideals if we do not overcome the last leftovers of the former east-west divide. We have to get rid of the stereotypes through which we perceive our differences.
Here I would like to recall the words of the highly regarded Slovak politician Milan Hodža, who served as Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia from 1935 to 1938. Back in 1942, he wrote: ‘European security cannot be built only in the West, it also requires central Europe, and the common democratic ideals and institutions of both provide hope for the future’. I believe that beyond differences and geographical boundaries there lie common interests. We need to communicate, try to understand one another, and perhaps go the extra mile on both sides.
There are many positive examples of differences being overcome – to name just two major examples, the rules on the posting of workers and on dual food quality. On the other hand, there is one major issue on which we have failed, on both sides, to communicate – namely, migration. We must work out a solution that can work for everyone. Immigration must be manageable and migration should serve European interests.
Yet, we cannot preserve political unity without achieving sufficient socioeconomic convergence and cohesion in the EU. In other words, we must use prosperity for the benefit of all. We must mitigate the negative consequences of globalisation and prevent tax avoidance by corporations. We have to make them pay taxes consistently in the countries where they really operate and generate their profits. We have to combat growing inequalities in society and redistribute wealth more efficiently. The introduction of a European minimum wage would be one way to create social solidarity.
My government is particularly committed to the European Pillar of Social Rights, which should provide a strong social dimension in the European Union of the future. Slovakia also advocates fair labour mobility, which will allow our citizens and companies to seize the opportunities of the single market. We therefore welcome the agreement to establish the European Labour Authority and we have already declared our intention of hosting it in our capital.
Secondly, we need to be globally relevant. We need the EU, which plays an important global role, reflecting its economic power. We must take action to unify our forces and increase capacity building in defence. Therefore, Slovakia strongly supports Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) on security and defence, while ensuring complementarity between the EU and NATO. Being globally relevant also means that we should uphold our long-term commitments. We are not an exclusive club. We want to be an inclusive community, open to those who fulfil criteria and even to those who once left. This is in our strategic interest, as otherwise somebody else will fill the vacuum around us.
At the same time, ‘global’ means having significant economic power, backed by a strong currency and based on free but fair international trade. The EU has to remain the champion in this regard.
Thirdly, we need to be honest with our citizens. We cannot promise our citizens a life without problems, hard work and challenges. The EU has no magic wand to solve all problems. However, we can offer our citizens a credible vision of our future, and turn that vision into tangible deeds. We need to make our citizens – above all, young people – feel a sense of ownership. The EU is not some fictitious, distant ‘Brussels’. We are the European Union.

(Applause)

We need to confront those who tell us otherwise. Ignoring them or ridiculing them is not the solution. We need to challenge them by facts.
The EU is now a large and strong community. It provides us with a collective identity because there is something about the EU that is also personal. However, it does not take away our national or personal identity. Our unity must be a unity of values within the diversity of our national, regional and local cultures.
Finally, we need to care about the future. Soon, in the run-up to the European elections, you, the European political parties, will have an opportunity to present a new, realistic vision of our Union. The European debate has become very lively and intense at many levels, political and civic, national and regional. My appreciation goes to President Macron, who has significantly stimulated these discussions with his own vision of the future – and I agree with him. We cannot be trapped in the status quo and give way to resignation. We have to renew our Union.
It is up to us as leaders to find a common path and instruments which citizens can trust and support, because we need freedom, progress and protection in the European Union. We have to find a way of protecting the four freedoms that are at the core of EU integration. We need an EU-wide debate on what our strategy and aspirations should be for the middle of the century.
The EU will certainly have to undergo a major transformation towards a climate neutral economy. We need a transition that is socially just towards our citizens and fair to our businesses.
An important issue for the future development of the European economy is that of digitalisation and automation. On the one hand, there is great concern that people will not have enough jobs because robots will replace them. On the other hand, there is great concern about the lack of skilled workers on the markets. Yet, in the future we shall need even more highly skilled people. The best evidence of this is that the countries with the highest number of robots per job, Germany, South Korea, Singapore, have the lowest unemployment rates. There are currently around 151 robots per 10 000 working places in Slovakia. That is more than half the European average and the highest level in Central and Eastern Europe. We should not be afraid of technological change: we just need to adopt smart and responsible policies.
If we want to be honest in our aspiration for the future, we must have the right tools, such as the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). The current EU budget represents only 1% of EU gross national income. While focusing the budget on new challenges, we should not give up on cohesion policy. Calls for its reduction in the next MFF reflect a wrong understanding of the role of cohesion policy. It is cohesion policy that helps rich and poor regions to converge, and contributes to growth even in economically difficult times.
I mentioned that we need to speak about our future, but how can we speak about the new MFF without having a clear vision of the European Union? I don't think it is the right approach to see firstly what kind of budget we have and then to decide what we can pay for out of it. I think we should do it otherwise. First we have to see where we would like to be in the next five, seven, ten or fifteen years – what are our priorities – and then to decide how big a budget and what kind of budget we need for our priorities. That is the approach which I prefer over the current one.

(Applause)

On the subject of new technologies, we have to admit openly – and I'm not talking here about the European Parliament but rather generally – that, at European level, we are not able to keep pace with developments in this area. We are always behind. We are facing a digital revolution but we are not able to effect a revolution in the regulatory framework. We are always behind. We are trying to regulate something that people are already using, and sometimes we do so in such a way that we over-regulate everything, and then we find ourselves crying that we are not at the same level as the USA or Asia, where the innovation environment is growing up, while we are still divided with 27 or 28 different sets of regulations.
So please, we need to consider some flexible regulatory framework, not to regulate each simple thing that is going on in our lives, because this is not the future in the digital revolution. We need to table only some basic rules and some kind of framework that is flexible enough, because we politicians are not able to act as fast as we need to act. That's why I mention the world. If we are talking about Industry 4.0, then we need to push our Member States to introduce ‘Government 4.0’, because what we currently have in some countries is more like Government 2.0 or maybe 3.0. I am not sure if we have a Government 4.0 anywhere reflecting the needs of the future.
Honourable Members, the European elections are quickly approaching and we need to mobilise our forces to fight against fake news, hybrid threats and cyber-propaganda.
Make people feel the urgency! Talk to them about the importance of the EU for their everyday lives. Make them understand that elections matter: that this is their only opportunity to steer the EU, and that they should not let others speak for them. There is a lot of work ahead of us.
Let me finish my speech with the words of one of the founding fathers of European integration. Jean Monnet said: ‘People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognise necessity when a crisis is upon them.’ We must be brave and determined. We have to make changes and make the Union attractive to all: a Union able to learn from its past mistakes in order to prepare itself to embrace the future. Once again, we need a vision of an attractive Union that citizens can trust and support.

Jean-Claude Juncker,
président de la Commission. – Buongiorno, Mister President, Mister Prime Minister, dear Peter, je vais vous confier un secret. J'ai peu dormi cette nuit, à cause de Mme May, mais suffisamment longtemps pour pouvoir rêver de la Slovaquie et de Bratislava. Car en négociant hier avec Mme May, j'ai pensé au sommet européen de Bratislava de septembre 2016, trois mois après la décision du peuple britannique de quitter l'Union européenne.
               

                  Votre gouvernement – dont vous faisiez partie d'ailleurs, et vous avez beaucoup de mérite pour ce qui est du bilan de la présidence slovaque – avait accepté l'idée de réunir, pour la première fois dans l'histoire, un sommet européen des 27. Le gouvernement slovaque, tout comme nous, considérait que le Brexit était le passé et que nous devions préparer l'avenir de l'Union européenne. C'est ce que nous avons fait à Bratislava, en adoptant ce qu'il est convenu d'appeler ‘la feuille de route de Bratislava’.
               

                  J'ai un bon souvenir de ce Conseil européen, qui intervenait quelques jours après le discours sur l'état de l'Union que j'avais prononcé dans cet hémicycle. Pour la première fois, et probablement aussi la dernière, les 27 Premiers ministres ont salué le contenu de ce discours. Cela n'était jamais arrivé auparavant, cela n'arrivera plus jamais, mais je retiens le sommet de Bratislava comme un grand moment dans ma petite vie politique, puisqu'il a fait en sorte que nous avons pu, avec courage, avec détermination, bien que, parfois, à un train de sénateur, avancer vers un avenir européen dont certains nous avaient prédit à l'époque qu'il ne verrait plus jamais le jour après la décision britannique.
               

                  Nous nous sommes mis d'accord cette nuit, avec le gouvernement britannique, sur les conditions et les conséquences du Brexit. J'ai dit hier soir, ou pendant la nuit, que c'était la deuxième chance, mais qu'il n'y en aura pas une troisième. Je voudrais donc que les membres du Parlement britannique, aujourd'hui, appuient la démarche, à la fois britannique et européenne, qui a fait l'objet d'un accord au niveau de l'Union européenne, sous la forme d'un texte commun.
               

                  Je voulais, Peter, vous remercier, au nom de la Commission, pour tout l'appui que le gouvernement slovaque ne cesse de nous apporter. Je pense notamment à l'effort qu'il a fourni lorsqu'il a fallu innover en modifiant la directive sur le détachement des travailleurs. Ce fut un pas important. La même remarque s'applique à la création de l'Autorité européenne du travail. Je note par ailleurs, et ce n'est pas une remarque que je t'adresse, que le nombre de gouvernements qui veulent accueillir sur leur territoire l'Autorité européenne du travail est plus élevé que ne fut le nombre de gouvernements qui, ab initio et spontanément, avaient appuyé la Commission dans sa volonté de créer cette autorité, sur le modèle de l'Autorité bancaire.
               

                  Je suis heureux de vous entendre dire que vous aimez le pilier social de l'Union européenne. Plus il y a de Premiers ministres qui le disent, non seulement ici, mais aussi au Conseil européen et au niveau du Conseil des ministres, moins je me sens isolé au niveau de l'Union européenne. Le gouvernement slovaque nous a beaucoup aidé à mettre en place le socle social lors du Conseil européen extraordinaire de Göteborg, qui, d'ailleurs, je le dis à ceux qui ne cessent de le revendiquer, a exprimé la nécessité d'instaurer partout en Europe un salaire minimum. Ce n'est pas une idée née ces dernières semaines, c'est une idée qui nous anime depuis l'entrée en fonction de cette Commission, et je voudrais que nous le mettions en œuvre le plus rapidement possible. La même remarque s'applique pour ce qui est de la création dans tous les pays de l'Union européenne d'un revenu minimum.
               

                  Vous avez parlé du cadre financier pour les sept années à venir et, à raison, vous avez dit qu'il faut d'abord se mettre d'accord sur les politiques, puis sur les moyens de financement des politiques qui ont été décidées. C'est exactement ce que la Commission a fait. La démarche qui fut la nôtre correspond exactement au souhait que vous avez exprimé.
               

                  Vous dites qu'il ne faut pas négliger la nécessité de maintenir la politique de cohésion. Je suis un fervent partisan de la politique de cohésion, mais pour nous mettre d'accord à ce sujet, nous avons dû prendre en considération, et vous l'avez réclamé il y a quelques instants, les politiques d'innovation et de modernisation, la politique numérique ou encore l'Europe de la défense. Nous avons fait tout cela, et si nous n'avions pas revu la politique de cohésion, qui reste nécessaire, et la politique agricole commune, nous serions arrivés à un niveau budgétaire de 1,41 %. Même votre gouvernement, malgré votre enthousiasme, n'aurait jamais accepté un budget de 1,41 %. Nous devions donc faire des choix, et nous les avons faits.
               

                  La Slovaquie exerce actuellement la présidence du groupe de Visegrád. Je voudrais que vous profitiez de cette occasion pour contribuer à mettre un terme à ce débat inutile entre les Européens de l'Est, ou plutôt du centre, et les Européens de l'Ouest. L'Europe doit respirer avec deux poumons et il faut tout faire pour que ces deux poumons ne s'entrechoquent pas dans le même corps.
               

                  Nous avons tous notre contribution à apporter. Il ne faut pas croire que ce serait seulement la Commission, le Parlement européen et quelques gouvernements de l'Europe de l'Ouest qui seraient responsables de cet affrontement qui, parfois, est ridicule et qui, de toute façon, est nuisible. Mettez à profit votre présidence du groupe de Visegrád pour remédier à cette situation.
               

                  Vous savez, la Slovaquie, pour nous autres qui venons de l'Ouest et qui ne sommes plus tout jeunes, mais qui essayons de le rester, la Slovaquie n'est pas un pays comme les autres. J'avais treize ans au moment de ce qu'il est convenu d'appeler le printemps de Prague, qui est aussi le printemps de Bratislava – je crois même que les premiers mouvements ont pu être observés en Slovaquie. Nous vouons à ce pays une attention particulière, un amour fait d'expérience et d'espoir, et je voudrais donc que les Slovaques ne pensent pas que le reste de l'Europe n'aime pas la Slovaquie, au contraire, et je voudrais que la Slovaquie aime davantage l'Union européenne.
               

                  Certains éléments de l'histoire survenus après les deux guerres mondiales sont peu connus. Ainsi, le gouvernement en exil de la Tchécoslovaquie de l'époque et d'autres gouvernements de l'Europe centrale avaient déjà esquissé un projet pour l'Europe, qu'ils appelèrent projet pour l'Union européenne. À la fin de ce document peu connu figure une phrase qui m'a toujours impressionné, ému même. Ces pays de l'Europe centrale, avec leurs gouvernements en exil, ont écrit en guise de conclusion: ‘Nous voudrions qu'un jour les pays de l'Europe occidentale nous rejoignent pour construire l'Union européenne.’ L'histoire vous a empêchés de sortir de son ombre, mais comme les Européens du centre étaient les premiers à rêver d'une Europe pacifiée, il est de notre devoir et de notre obligation ardente de continuer le travail qui est le nôtre.
               

(Applaudissements)


Esteban González Pons,
en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, señor Juncker, gracias por sus palabras. Señor presidente del Gobierno, bienvenido al Parlamento Europeo y gracias por compartir con nosotros su visión de Europa. Desde el Grupo del Partido Popular Europeo le agradecemos el tono y el lenguaje empleados. Y le agradecemos que se haya referido desde la tribuna al asesinato del periodista Ján Kuciak y su pareja, aunque no nos parece suficiente.
               

                  La libertad de prensa es uno de los pilares fundamentales de la democracia y cuando un periodista es asesinado esa tragedia afecta a todas las democracias. En Malta, nadie ha asumido todavía ninguna responsabilidad por la muerte de Daphne Caruana. Algo que lamentamos profundamente.
               

                  En Eslovaquia, más allá de la dimisión de Robert Fico, tampoco vemos que se hayan hecho grandes progresos. No se llega hasta el final de la investigación. ¿Por qué? ¿Qué cosa impide que se llegue al final de la investigación? Es más, nos preocupa, y mucho, la retórica de algunos miembros de su coalición o de algún candidato presidencial. Siguen empleando un lenguaje de odio contra la oposición y un lenguaje de odio contra la prensa. ¿Qué piensa hacer usted al respecto? ¿Está usted verdaderamente comprometido en la lucha contra el extremismo y el discurso del odio que algunos practican bastante cerca de usted?
               

                  Señor presidente del Gobierno, se acercan tiempos difíciles para Europa. El Brexit no sabemos dónde nos va a llevar. La Alianza Transatlántica se pone regularmente en cuestión. El Gobierno ruso está ansioso por debilitarnos, por vernos fracasar, por dividirnos. Hay una crisis migratoria sin precedentes desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial.
               

                  Estos son problemas que los Estados europeos no pueden asumir por sí mismos. Son problemas para los cuales necesitamos una mayor unidad y, sin embargo, cuando estamos en esa circunstancia, su Gobierno parece apostar justo por lo contrario. Su discurso es uno aquí, pero luego su Gobierno en su país hace lo contrario. Nos gustaría saber cuál es realmente su posición: ¿la del discurso que hemos escuchado o la que practica su Gobierno en Eslovaquia? ¿Está usted comprometido con el proceso de una mayor integración europea? ¿Está usted comprometido con la pertenencia de su país a la OTAN? Hay cuestiones que nos preocupan y que nos parece que no solo no se han aclarado, sino que esta mañana entran en contradicción con las acciones que su Gobierno desarrolla en su país.
               

                  Nosotros, como Grupo del Partido Popular Europeo, lo tenemos clarísimo: Europa hay que construirla sobre la base de acciones concretas; Europa hay que construirla desde la base, desde la sencillez de los ciudadanos y los ayuntamientos, y no desde el elitismo. Los grandes discursos sobre Europa no sirven si después uno en su propio país tiene la agricultura peor gestionada de la Unión Europea.
               

                  Europa hay que construirla con rigor, con seriedad, con propuestas ambiciosas pero también realizables. No se puede basar la política nacional en la confrontación con Bruselas, en el enfrentamiento con Bruselas, en la guerra política contra Bruselas. El europopulismo es tan peligroso como el nacionalpopulismo. Y Europa hay que construirla desde dentro, atendiendo a los problemas, pero también desde fuera, porque hay batallas ideológicas, señor presidente del Gobierno, que sin ocurrir en suelo europeo son también batallas europeas, como la que está teniendo lugar en Venezuela, que es una batalla por la libertad y por la democracia y también hoy, desgraciadamente, por la comida.
               

                  Su Gobierno todavía no ha reconocido al presidente interino de Venezuela, el señor Guaidó. En este sentido se coloca en la misma órbita que Rusia, que Cuba o que Irán. Eso es para hacérselo mirar, señor presidente del Gobierno. ¿Cuánto más va a tardar, señor Pellegrini, en colocarse del lado del pueblo que está pasando hambre y al que no le llegan las medicinas?
               

                  Señor presidente del Gobierno, es verdad, el sueño europeo merece esfuerzo y unidad por parte de todos. Hay que recuperar la ambición, recuperar el idealismo, recuperar el contacto con los ciudadanos. Algo estaremos haciendo mal, por lo tanto, para que cada día haya más y más ciudadanos que vuelven sus ojos hacia los movimientos antieuropeos y extremistas. No le quepa duda, señor Pellegrini, el nacionalpopulismo sí es la amenaza más seria que se cierne hoy sobre el sueño de la Unión Europea.
               

                  Es el nacionalpopulismo la amenaza mayor. Todas las demás existen, pero ninguna es para nosotros tan corrosiva como la que viene desde dentro. Y, o mucho me equivoco, o la próxima legislatura tendremos en este Parlamento un grupo numeroso de nacionalpopulistas. Por eso, todos, usted desde su responsabilidad —como le ha recordado el presidente Juncker— y nosotros desde la nuestra, tenemos que hacer lo que esté en nuestras manos.
               

                  Y ustedes como Consejo van a tener pronto un trabajo muy importante, que es el de proponer a este Parlamento un presidente de la Comisión. Me gustaría que se fuera de aquí habiéndole recordado nosotros que tenemos un compromiso de no aceptar un candidato que no haya sido previamente candidato en las elecciones europeas, que no venga refrendado por el voto de los ciudadanos, que venga impuesto y no votado. En definitiva, señor presidente del Gobierno, el próximo 26 de mayo se abrirá un nuevo capítulo de la historia europea, un capítulo que ha de construirse con la colaboración y con todas las voces, las grandes y las pequeñas, porque la grandeza de Europa es la unidad.
               

Josef Weidenholzer,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Herr Ministerpräsident, es war sehr inspirierend, Ihnen zuzuhören, welche Vorstellungen Sie von der Zukunft Europas haben und welche Rolle die Slowakei spielen kann. Ihr Land liegt im Zentrum Europas an der Trennlinie zwischen Ost und West – Jahrzehnte lang getrennt durch den eisernen Vorhang und gleichzeitig verbunden durch die Donau, eine der wichtigen Lebensadern Europas. Seit der Wiedervereinigung unseres Kontinents hat die Slowakei eine erstaunliche Entwicklung durchgemacht, die ihr manche gar nicht zugetraut hätten. Die Trennung von der Tschechischen Republik verlief friedlich, und die Slowakei konnte sich entgegen mancher Prognosen wirtschaftlich überaus positiv entwickeln. Als erster Mitgliedstaat in der Region konnte die Slowakei die Konvergenzkriterien zur Einführung des Euro erfüllen. Das hat auch zu dem bemerkenswerten wirtschaftlichen Aufschwung beigetragen. Diese Entwicklungen sind äußerst positiv, und Ihr Land ist auf einem guten Weg zu einem wichtigen Faktor in Europa geworden. Das haben Sie nicht zuletzt mit dem EU-Vorsitz vor zwei Jahren bewiesen.
               

                  Doch wo viel Licht ist, ist auch viel Schatten. Leider hat der Erfolg auch die Motten magisch angezogen, und seit Jahren wurden Vermutungen angestellt über den Einfluss der Mafia und korrupte Mechanismen, auch im Zusammenhang mit europäischen Geldern. Der investigative Journalist Ján Kuciak wollte Licht ins Dunkel bringen und hat dafür mit dem Leben bezahlt. Dieser grausame Mord an ihm und an seiner Partnerin hat die europäische Öffentlichkeit wachgerüttelt, die slowakische Zivilgesellschaft mobilisiert und in Ihrem Land zu politischen Konsequenzen geführt. Das Europäische Parlament hat im Rahmen des LIBE-Ausschusses eine rule of law working group eingerichtet, die sich grundsätzlich mit diesen Vorgängen, die es ja nicht nur in Ihrem Land gibt, beschäftigt. Im nächsten Plenum werden wir darüber abstimmen. Die Bilanz Ihr Land betreffend fällt in vielen Bereichen positiv aus. Es konnten wesentliche Fortschritte bei der Aufklärung der Morde erzielt werden, wenngleich die Drahtzieher immer noch nicht wirklich bekannt sind. Und positiv ist die Zusammenarbeit mit Europol hervorzuheben, ein echter europäischer Mehrwert.
               

                  Allerdings bestehen nach wie vor Zweifel, ob Sie wirklich nachhaltige Konsequenzen gezogen haben, sowohl was die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz als auch die Freiheit der Presse betrifft. Wir ersuchen Sie eindringlich, hier nicht nachzulassen und das Parlament in seinen Bestrebungen zu unterstützen, einen Rechtsstaatlichkeitsmechanismuns zu schaffen, der unabhängig von solch tragischen Ereignissen eine ständige Evaluierung ermöglicht. Herr Ministerpräsident, das ist keine Einmischung in die inneren Angelegenheiten Ihres Landes. Rechtsstaatlichkeit dient vor allem dem Sicherheitsbedürfnis der Menschen. Niemand will Ihr Land belehren. Es geht um gemeinsame Regeln und um ein gemeinsames Rechtsverständnis. Nur so können Ost und West zusammenwachsen.
               

                  Präsident Juncker hat in diesem Zusammenhang heute von den beiden Lungenflügeln Europas gesprochen. Und deshalb ist es auch notwendig, kritisch die Rolle der westlichen Länder zu beleuchten. Auch hier ist einiges problematisch zu bewerten. Allzu oft wird der Osten als verlängerte Werkbank gesehen, wo man dank niedriger Löhne und schlechter Arbeitsbedingungen kurzfristige Gewinne erzielen kann. Nachhaltig ist das keineswegs, weder für den Osten noch für den Westen. Genauso wenig wie der brain drain, der durch die anwachsende Arbeitsmigration verursacht wird. Durch die Schaffung einer europäischen Arbeitsbehörde könnten diese Ungleichgewichte reguliert werden. Wir unterstützen Sie bei diesen Bemühungen, und wenn wir diese Gelegenheit und andere wie die Schaffung einer europäischen Arbeitslosenversicherung jetzt nicht beim Schopf packen, dann riskieren wir, dass diese Union auseinanderbricht. Es geht um Nachhaltigkeit und nicht um lediglich innenpolitisch motivierte kurzfristige Vorhaben.
               

                  Der Schutz unserer Umwelt und die Erreichung der Klimaziele dürfen nicht auf die lange Bank geschoben werden. Die Klimaveränderungen machen nicht vor nationalen Grenzen halt. Das Projekt betrifft uns alle, den Osten und den Westen. Wir werden aber nur dann die Menschen für nachhaltige Veränderungen gewinnen können, wenn dies einhergeht mit mehr Fairness und sozialer Gerechtigkeit. Das ist schon lange nicht bloß eine Frage nationaler Zuständigkeit. Europäisches Handeln ist notwendig – entschlossen und zukunftsorientiert. Ost und West werden nur dann zusammenwachsen, wenn gemeinsame Lösungen gesucht werden – soziale Grundsicherung, Mindestlöhne und gleiche Bezahlung am Arbeitsplatz, faire Bedingungen im digitalen Sektor usw. Ein soziales Europa ist der beste Kitt für unseren Kontinent, der gegenwärtig von geschürten Ängsten aufgewühlt wird. Sie haben schon viel dazu geleistet. Herr Ministerpräsident, die Slowakei und Sie könnten noch einen viel größeren Beitrag dazu leisten.
               

Jana Žitňanská,
za skupinu ECR. – Vážený pán predseda, pán premiér, presne pred dvadsiatimi rokmi došlo k prvému rozšíreniu NATO po ukončení studenej vojny. Hoci Slovensko nebolo súčasťou tohto rozšírenia, napokon došlo aj k nášmu civilizačnému ukotveniu nielen v severoatlantickej aliancii, ale aj v Európskej únii. V poslednom čase, žiaľ, dochádza k jeho otvorenému spochybňovaniu nielen zo strany rôznych extrémistov, ale aj časti vládnej koalície.
               

                  Podkopávanie našich strategických spojenectiev a ľahkovážne nadbiehanie Rusku sú v rozpore so záujmami Slovenska a Európskej únie. Ak chceme byť dôveryhodným partnerom pre našich spojencov, musíme byť konzistentní. Musíme byť jednoznační aj smerom k verejnosti na Slovensku. Neuchyľovať sa ku klamstvám či vyvolávaniu strachu len kvôli vyššej popularite. Áno, na negatívnu emóciu sa ľudia ľahšie mobilizujú, ale je nebezpečné sa s ňou zahrávať. Môže sa ľahko vymknúť a byť deštruktívna.
               

                  Preto dnes viac ako v minulosti musíme ponúknuť nielen Slovensku, ale aj Európe pozitívnu víziu. Víziu spravodlivej, bezpečnej a dobre spravovanej spoločnosti. Miesta, kde ľudia chcú žiť, pracovať, vychovávať svoje deti. Verím, že na takejto vízii sa zhodneme. Dnes však už od slov treba prejsť k činom. Aby súdnictvo, školstvo, zdravotníctvo, sociálne služby boli fungujúce a aby aj tí najzraniteľnejší, deti a dospelí so zdravotným postihnutím, mohli žiť dôstojný život.
               

Sophia in 't Veld,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to say to Mr Pellegrini that it is a pleasure to see him here today. We have met a couple of times in the past year following the very dramatic events in your country, the murder of Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová, but I will come back to that in a minute. I was visiting your country as the Chair of the Rule of Law Monitoring Group, and I went to Slovakia with some critical questions, but it also made me feel that we have a special bond as Europeans. I have a special place in my heart for Slovakia and the Slovaks now. I very much agree with one thing you said, and I think that this is key: there is No Eastern Europe or Western Europe or Central Europe – there is only one Europe. It is about time for everybody to start feeling that, particularly in Western Europe, where they are still blind on one side.
I very much welcome your speech; it shows leadership in Europe. It was a very pro-European and ambitious speech, and it clarifies what ALDE also feels: the European Union needs to be much more than mere technocratic intergovernmental cooperation. In the world of today, we need a fully-fledged political union to give an answer to all the political challenges that we have, because that is the only way to remain a global leader. Your speech was excellent, but as we all know, true leadership is not in words – it is in actions. Like many countries in Europe and in the wider world, your country is witnessing deep divisions, and forces are pulling it in different directions. I just referred to my visit as the Chair of the Rule of Law Monitoring Group, and I have seen that there are many positive developments in Slovakia. I have seen that the institutions are strong and that civic engagement is extremely strong in Slovakia, and I commend the Slovak people for that. Many concerns remain, however, and new ones are also emerging.
I would urge you to show the same leadership in tackling these concerns, because in a sense you hold the key. You hold the key to the future of the European Union, and the choices that you make will determine not only the future of your country, but also that of the European Union as a whole. You can show which forces will prevail in the European Union.
You have a choice, and this will be a burden on your shoulders, I warn you. You are at the fork in the road. Do you want to join and strengthen the ranks of those who are wrecking the European Union, those who put short-term electoral gains, or even material gains, before the general interest – or worse, the ranks of those who are corrupt, even connected to organised crime? Or do you want to go down in history as a statesman, somebody courageous and wise in difficult times, who led his country forward, making it a role model for others, a leader in the Europe of the future. So do you choose the old Europe or the new Europe?
I hope, and trust, that you will choose leadership for the future, and I shall be very specific. I would strongly recommend that you break ranks with Mr Fico, because he is the old Slovakia – you are the new Slovakia – and show the world that there is truly a new hand at the helm in Slovakia. You can also show them that the Visegrád Four is staunchly pro-European and not the vehicle of reactionary nationalist autocrats. It is very important that those guilty of the murder of Ján and Martina are brought to trial – not just those who actually carried out the murder and were arrested, but the brains behind it. That is crucial for trust in the Slovak authorities.
I also count on you to make sure that the nominations of nine Constitutional Court judges happen very shortly, because the Constitutional Court is effectively not operational. I would also urge you to reverse the changes to the media law, because in practice it means severe restrictions on freedom of speech.
Finally, I would call on you next month to decide to extend to cooperation with Europol, and not just for the investigation into the murder of Ján and Martina, but also the other parts of the investigation that have been split off by the Ministry of Justice into corruption and fraud and all the other things. In other words, I have just put a burden on your shoulder and I am asking you to choose. I am counting on your wisdom. You can count on the European Parliament, and I can also pledge my personal commitment in the next period to working with you and with the civic forces in Slovakia to make sure that you can provide this leadership in the European Union.

Ska Keller,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Prime Minister very much for joining this debate on the future of Europe. The future of Europe has lots of different, very important, aspects and the one I would like to focus on today is the issue of democracy.
I think the way in which the European Union treats democratic deficits in the future is really decisive of how we're moving forward. There is of course also advancing the democratic procedures inside the European Union – definitely – but the question right now is also how we deal with Member States who are turning the clock backwards on the rule of law, democracy and civil liberties.
Hungary might be the worst example in the whole picture, but we also see a lot of problems in other Member States. So we should really look around and not close our eyes to what's happening in terms of media freedom, freedom of association and freedom of speech – all of those things which are very, very important. In Slovakia you have the situation where a journalist was murdered because of his investigation into corruption and fraud, and that is something which we need to deal with. We need to make sure it never happens again anywhere in the European Union.
So it's really time that we address this issue, especially at the European Union level, because there are so many citizens out in the streets in Budapest, Warsaw and Bucharest who are asking the European Union to step up and to help them because their own governments won't listen to them. So we need to get active on that. They are European citizens like all of us. But, instead of helping, at the European Union level we see too much infighting between parties – ‘is it your bad guys or my bad guy?’ – but we need to get beyond that so that we ensure the civil liberties and the rights of all European citizens.
For that, my group is suggesting that we set up an independent commission of experts to look into the situation of the rule of law and democracy in every single Member State all the time and is then able to give recommendations before it's too late. It's also a problem right now that we are only starting when things are too late. This commission would also be able to enact sanctions if necessary. Indeed, we also need to look at the European Union funds because, unfortunately, some governments use them to implement their personal pet projects, to favour certain people or to ensure favourable reporting.
But the EU funds also do a lot of good. You've mentioned the Cohesion Funds, which are very important for many citizens. We have many Citizens' Initiative projects going on. EU funds are important all over Europe. So we need to find a smart way to deal with that situation without cutting the support to our European citizens when we're actually trying to hit the government and a specific action of the government.
So for that we are suggesting that we ask the Commission to take over the distributing element of that whole so that the money still arrives with the citizens and for the benefit of the citizens without being used at the discretion of national government. This is certainly not the easiest answer – maybe cutting funds might be easier – but it's one where we ensure that there remains a link between the EU institutions and citizens without allowing the governments to do whatever they want with that.
Mr Prime Minister, you made a very interesting and comprehensive speech about all sorts of aspects, but you also underlined the issue of unity and understanding. I think that is very important indeed and we count on you to promote those ideas, also in the Council, which is being difficult and blocking a lot of initiatives that also come from this House.
We also count on you to implement all of those issues and promote democracy and the rule of law in Slovakia. The issue of press freedom has been mentioned. This is very important. Addressing fraud and corruption is not an easy task anywhere, but it needs to be done. There have been examples in Slovakia of how urgent that matter is.
All of those issues are also very important for a well-functioning state that could put forward all of these reforms that you've been advocating, and of course especially also to continue the investigation into the murder of Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová will be extremely important until the masterminds have been found. I think the help of Europol will be important in that.

Kateřina Konečná,
za skupinu GUE/NGL. – Pane premiére, děkuji za to, že jste dnes mezi nás zavítal a jsem velmi ráda, že tu zazněl hlas ze země střední Evropy a Visegrádské čtyřky, jelikož o těchto zemích kolují často, i tady v Evropském parlamentu, velmi mylné představy. Domnívám se, že dnešní projev pana premiéra nám ukázal, že snaha o démonizaci zemí z Visegrádské čtyřky se prostě nezakládá zcela na pravdě a že i tyto země mají Evropské unii co nabídnout a chtějí prezentovat svoji představu o budoucnosti Evropy.
               

                  Jak pan premiér jistě ví, Evropský parlament po vraždě Jána Kuciaka a jeho partnerky truchlil spolu se slovenskými občany a silně apeloval na to, aby byl tento případ co nejrychleji vyřešen a spravedlnosti bylo učiněno zadost. Je jisté, že tento případ významně ovlivnil fungování slovenského státu a bohužel i jeho pozici navenek. Ovšem je třeba vnímat, že zde máme představitele suverénního státu, který se situaci věnuje a nadále činí i další kroky k tomu, aby rozvoj Slovenska naplňoval demokratické hodnoty, na kterých bylo Slovensko založeno.
               

                  Současná slovenská vláda připravila obědy zdarma pro žáky základních škol, poprvé v historii země připravila vyrovnaný rozpočet a radikálně zvýšila platy ve veřejné a státní správě. Slovenská ekonomika roste, nezaměstnanost se snižuje a mzdy se relativně rychle kontinuálně zvyšují. Plánuje se rekordní navýšení minimální mzdy, což považuji za ukázku toho, že Slovensko neustrnulo a na několika úrovních se věnuje zvyšování kvality života na svém území. I to je tedy třeba brát v potaz, pokud chceme Slovensko, vážení kolegové, vnímat komplexně.
               

                  Vážený pane premiére, před rokem jsem z tohoto místa apelovala na kolegy v Evropském parlamentu, aby respektovali demokratickou kontrolu a nedělitelnost moci a nechali slovenské orgány čelící mimořádně těžké situaci konat. Žádala jsem, aby se debata o smrti Jána Kuciaka vedla s úctou ke Slovensku a jeho demokratickým a nezávislým institucím. Vyjádřila jsem také přesvědčení, že Slovensko si zaslouží pomocnou ruku, pokud o ni požádá, a nikoliv odsuzování. Váš dnešní projev mě ubezpečil, že tento pohled byl správný a Slovensko si bylo, je a bude vědomo nároků, které jsou na něj kladeny, a dokáže se s nimi popasovat důstojně.
               

                  Nyní jsme však v situaci, kdy pomocnou ruku potřebuje celá Evropská unie. Ani vy jste tedy nezaváhal a přijel jste mezi nás se svými vizemi pomoci Evropě v těžké hodině. Debata o budoucnosti Evropské unie musí pokračovat, čehož bychom si měli být vědomi právě v den, kdy se v Londýně odehraje další důležité hlasování o brexitu. Domnívám se, že největší problémy současnosti bychom mohli shrnout do tří bodů: Evropská komise je příliš silná a je navíc odtržená od lidí, Evropský parlament nemá zákonodárnou iniciativu a Evropská unie není dostatečně demokratická a sociální. Do toho čelíme nebezpečí klimatické změny, která se projevuje nejen extrémními výkyvy počasí, ale také posouváním přírodních pásů, které z dříve úrodných oblastí dělají vyprahlé pouště. Dochází k úbytku pitné vody, živočišných druhů, tající ledovce mění směr oceánských proudů, což opět ovlivňuje podnebí.
               

                  Samotná Evropská unie prostě musí navrátit svou pozornost evropským občanům. Teď jsme na konci pětiletého volebního období, přičemž Evropská unie, respektive nová Komise, se půl roku rozkoukávala, dva roky nemluvila o ničem jiném než o migraci, poté další dva roky o brexitu a posledního půl roku dojíždí rozjetou agendu a připravuje se na volby. Občanům se dá na poslední chvíli jako dáreček zrušení změny času a bude se doufat, že to nacionalistům sebere pár procent hlasů. Takto se prostě politika pro občany již dále dělat nedá. A přiznejme si, že občané ohledně Evropské unie a její práce tápou ve tmě.
               

                  Důkazem toho mohou být i evropské občanské iniciativy. Od tohoto nástroje si mnoho z nás slibovalo, že překlene propast na ose občan a Evropská unie, ale bylo z toho hořké zklamání a volání po reformě. Ovšem ani ta však zde nevyšla, jelikož se zdá, že se podařilo pouze vytvořit nové omezení, které by lidem umožnilo zapojit se do evropské demokracie namísto odstranění již existujících problémů.
               

                  Vážený pane premiére, děkuji, že jste mezi nás zavítal, přeji vám hodně štěstí a pevně věřím, že tato debata nebude o tom, co by mělo Slovensko dělat, ale co máme společně dělat jako celá Evropská unie.
               

Rolandas Paksas,
EFDD frakcijos vardu. – Gerbiamas Pirmininke, pone Premjere, šiandien ir čia pagrindinis klausimas, į kurį turime rasti atsakymą ir tam darbui neturime daug laiko, yra kodėl? Ieškoti, kodėl Europos Sąjungos realybė esmingai skiriasi nuo Europos Bendrijos tėvų siekių, yra turbūt vienintelis būdas atsakymui į nuolat kamuojantį klausimą, kas su mumis darosi ir kas su mumis daroma, rasti. Pone Premjere, Tautų Europos idėją, nuo kurios ji ir prasidėjo, neatsakingų politikų rankomis naikina pati Europos Sąjunga. Kol kas ji prarado tiktai Didžiąją Britaniją – tai pirmas ir paskutinis įspėjimas tiems, kurie Europos valstybių sąjungą siekia pakeisti globalia Europa. Tokios nėra ir negali būti. Kaip nėra ir globalios mano Lietuvos, kaip nėra ir šiandienos mūsų svečio pono Peter Pellegrini globalios Slovakijos – tos Slovakijos, kuri šiandien pirmininkauja Višegrado šalių grupei, kuri siūlo gerokai perspektyvesnį Europos Sąjungos ateities modelį už tą, kurį siūlo federalistai. Visuomenei primetamas globalizmas yra kapitalo hidra, siekianti pelno kiekvienam žemės lopinėly ir pelno bet kokia kaina, nualinanti valstybes ir išsunkianti žmones. Tai politika, siekianti paversti visuomenę darbo jėga be tėvynės, be įsitikinimų, o valstybes – be joms lojalių piliečių. Pone Premjere, buvau, esu ir liksiu Lietuvos pilietis. Nenoriu ir niekada nebūsiu Europos Sąjungos pilietis. Manau, kad savos tautybės ir pilietybės taip pat nenorėtų atsisakyti lenkai, prancūzai, vokiečiai ar Ispanijoje teisiamus savo lyderius palaikantys katalonai. Neatrastos tapatybės kompleksų kamuojama dabartinė Europos Sąjunga yra sunkus ligonis – ligonis, kurio užkalbėjimu apie demokratiją, solidarumą, gilesnę integraciją nepagydys joks auksaburnis. Reikia gero chirurgo, kuris sveikatos labui nurėžtų pūliuojančius genderizmo, multikultūriškumo, globalizmo argumentus. Politikai privalo nustoti engti žmones, prisidengiant demokratijos ir laisvos rinkos vardais, privalo atsisakyti savo dogmų, neva vienintelių teisingų primetimų visuomenei, privalo liautis meluoti, liautis gąsdinti. Reikia tartis, o ne valdyti. Reikia dialogo, o ne auginama priešprieša paremtos naujos Europos Sąjungos.
               

Marcel de Graaff,
namens de ENF-Fractie. – Voorzitter, ik heet de minister-president van Slowakije, de heer Pellegrini, van harte welkom in dit Parlement. Ik ben het – dat wil ik van tevoren zeggen – zeker niet met zijn visie op de EU eens. Ook zijn politieke kleur is niet de mijne. Maar toch.
               

                  Ik waardeer de strijd tegen corruptie die de minister-president voert in zijn land ten zeerste. Dat is een hele belangrijke stap in de toekomst van Slowakije. Slowakije is lid van de Visegrad-groep, en zelfs voorzitter op dit moment. Ik wil zeggen dat het beleid van de Visegrad-landen ten aanzien van migratie van harte op mijn steun mag rekenen. Het is de Visegrad-groep die de EU een spiegel voorhoudt, die de EU laat zien hoe het wél moet. De EU faalt hopeloos in haar aanpak van illegale migratie. In plaats van te zorgen voor waterdichte grenzen komt de EU met de verliezersoplossing, namelijk het legaliseren van illegale migratie.
               

                  De EU zegt te staan voor Europese waarden, maar verwelkomt migranten die deze waarden haten, verwelkomt migranten die deze waarden minachten en het liefst zo snel mogelijk de sharia in de EU willen invoeren. Het zijn de Visegrad-landen die daadwerkelijk de Europese waarden verdedigen, die staan voor een Europa dat zijn vrijheden, zijn mensenrechten verdedigt. Daarom wil ik bij dezen mijn steun uitspreken voor de heer Pellegrini en de Slowaakse regering in hun afwijzing van het VN-migratiepact.
               

                  In Slowakije is men zich maar al te bewust van de verschrikkingen van een totalitaire overheersing op basis van een totalitaire ideologie. Nog tot in 1989 ging men gebukt onder het communistische regime. Zij, de Slowaken, weten hoe het is om in angst te moeten leven, om te moeten zwijgen over wat je daadwerkelijk denkt en voelt. Dergelijke totalitaire ideologieën mogen in Europa geen voet aan de grond krijgen. Daarom is het volkomen terecht dat de Centraal-Europese lidstaten zich verzetten tegen islamisering van hun land. Een religie die tegelijkertijd een absolute zeggenschap over het politieke domein claimt, is daarmee een totalitaire ideologie die onverenigbaar is met alles waar de EU voor staat, met alle Europese waarden, met alle Europese mensenrechten, met alle Europese vrijheden.
               

                  Daar vroeg ik aan toe: er is hier vaak ook gesproken over fake news, ook door de heer Pellegrini en ook door diverse sprekers. Het is de vrijheid van meningsuiting, die tot de kern behoort van onze democratie. Juist door steeds te roepen dat fake news moet worden aangepakt, maar zichzelf tegelijkertijd op te werpen als degene die daarover beslist en daarmee elke kritiek op beleid smorend, dat is een dictatuur waardig. Daarom waarschuw ik ook de heer Pellegrini om die EU die zo gevaarlijk is voor de vrijheid van meningsuiting niet te steunen.
               

                  Ik roep de Commissie op een voorbeeld te nemen aan Slowakije om corruptie in eigen gelederen aan te pakken. Om de heer Selmayr uit zijn functie te ontheffen. Om te stoppen met miljarden te sluizen naar corrupte landen als Oekraïne en naar half Afrika, waar corruptie de normaalste zaak van de wereld is. Ik roep de Commissie op om een voorbeeld te nemen aan de weerbaarheid van de Visegrad-landen tegen illegale migranten die op geen enkele wijze inpasbaar zijn in onze samenlevingen. Laat de EU haar grenzen sluiten, zowel tussen de lidstaten als met derde landen, en laat de EU het VN-migratiepact afwijzen. Daarom roep ik de Commissie op om de eigen identiteit van de lidstaten de hoogste prioriteit te geven, zodat de interne veiligheid op orde kan komen. Deze Europese Commissie die niet kan optreden, moet aftreden!
               

Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Chcę bardzo serdecznie podziękować panu premierowi za wystąpienie i zacząć od podziękowań za tę deklarację prowadzenia w sposób jednoznaczny i z determinacją śledztwa w sprawie zabójstwa słowackiego dziennikarza. To są rzeczy, na które musimy reagować ze względów oczywistych.
               

                  Trzy kwestie są tutaj bardzo istotne. Po pierwsze, troska o to – wyrażona w przemówieniu pana premiera – żeby nie dzielić Europy na zachodnią i wschodnią, nie mnożyć nieufności. Tym bardziej, że bardzo dużo problemów, którymi obciążona jest Europa, wynika nie z doświadczeń krajów Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, choćby zagrożenie dla stabilności strefy euro.
               

                  Po drugie, widzenie integracji regionalnej jako komponentu szerszej integracji. Świetnie, że pan premier wspomniał nazwisko prekursora integracji europejskiej, Milana Hodžy.
               

                  I wreszcie batalia o to, by przeciwstawić się protekcjonizmowi, zamykaniu się rynków bogatych krajów europejskich w tym konkurencyjności kosztem energii gospodarczej, szczególnie tej energii, którą przejawiają narody Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. To są rzeczywiście sfery, od których zależy przyszłość Unii i jej prawdziwy rozwój.
               

Peter Pellegrini,
predseda vlády Slovenskej republiky. – Vážené kolegyne, kolegovia, dovoľte mi urobiť pár poznámok k témam, ktoré ste otvorili počas Vašich vystúpení.
               

                  Na úvod chcem veľmi pekne poďakovať za slová podpory, ktoré ste adresovali Slovenskej republike. Aj za slová uznania v tých oblastiach, kde Slovenská republika urobila veľký kus práce a postúpila veľmi dopredu. Chcem Vás všetkých uistiť, že vláda pod mojím vedením nijakým spôsobom nezmení náš jasný proeurópsky, náš jasný proseveroatlantický kurz. Aj keď sa v rámci vládnej koalície môžu vyskytnúť názory alebo nejaké iné pohľady na vec, chcem garantovať, že vláda, ktorá je zodpovedná za zahraničnú politiku Slovenskej republiky, bude naďalej konať tak, ako som povedal. Slovensko patrí do Európskej únie, Slovensko nemá iný priestor na svoju existenciu ako Európska únia a Slovensko si je vedomé, že aj v oblasti bezpečnosti a obrany nikdy nebude schopné brániť sa samo a chce a bude vždy zodpovedným členom Severoatlantickej aliancie.
               

                  A chcem pripomenúť, že aj vďaka excelentným ekonomickým výsledkom našej krajiny, ktoré tu spomínala pani kolegyňa z Českej republiky, aj napriek tomu, že sa snažíme zvyšovať úroveň kvality života ľudí a investujeme obrovské množstvo prostriedkov do opatrení v sociálnej oblasti, aj napriek tomu sme ešte schopní nájsť zdroje na to, aby sme si na rozdiel od mnohých členských krajín NATO čo najskôr splnili svoj záväzok a plnili úroveň 2 % hrubého domáceho produktu výdavkov na našu obranu a bezpečnosť. A to nie je bežným štandardom ani v iných väčších krajinách, ktoré sú členské krajiny NATO, nehovoriac už o kvalite a bojaschopnosti ich armád, o ktorých sa môžeme dočítať v médiách.
               

                  Chcem vás uistiť, že na tomto sa nič nemení, a ak sa ma pani kolegyňa z Holandska pýtala, že ktorú stranu si vyberiem, tak ju chcem uistiť, že si vyberiem tú správnu a budem vždy stáť na strane tých myšlienok, ktoré som predniesol aj vo svojom príhovore, pretože som o nich presvedčený, že sú tým jediným správnym riešením pre našu krajinu.
               

                  Dotkli sme sa viacerí – a očakávala som to, veď je to veľmi čerstvé – aj tej tragickej udalosti týkajúcej sa vraždy novinára. Chcem pripomenúť, že predtým ako sa to stalo Slovensko patrilo, nech mi odpustia, ak sa pomýlim, ale patrila nám sedemnásta priečka vo svete, ktorá sa týka slobody slova a tlače. Opakujem sedemnásta, to znamená, ak máme 28 členských krajín, tak si viete predstaviť, koľké z nich – a častokrát mnohé staršie demokracie – nedosahovali a nedosahujú úroveň slobody slova a tlače tak, ako bola uznaná v Slovenskej republike. To chcem zdôrazniť, lebo sa možno o tom málo vie a možno ani vy o tom vždy všetko neviete. Veľmi nás mrzí tragédia, ktorá sa stala, chcem vás uistiť, že budeme robiť všetko preto, aby sme vyslali jasný signál, že takéto veci na Slovensku nikdy tolerovať nebudeme a že urobíme všetko preto, aby sa nielen na Slovensko, ale nikde vo svete, nikde v Európe takéto zločiny neopakovali.
               

                  A pán kolega, nemyslím, že komentovať demisiu premiéra a odchod niektorých ministrov spôsobom, akým ste to urobili Vy, že ste povedali, že 
                        ‘No, len odstúpil premiér.’
                     . Rezignácia predsedu vlády je veľkým politickým gestom a asi tým najvyšším, aké môže líder v krajine urobiť. Chcem vás uistiť, že robíme všetko pre to aby sme potrestali vinníkov, vykonávatelia vraždy aj spolu s objednávateľom sú s najväčšou pravdepodobnosťou už vo väzení a budú čakať na spravodlivý súd. Želajme si spoločne, aby nikde na európskej pôde sa viac takéto veci nediali. Ak hovoríme o boji proti korupcii, proti zneužívaniu niektorých dotačných schém a eurofondov, chcem vás uistiť, že aj tu Slovenská republika prijíma mnohé opatrenia a veci, ktoré sa mohli na Slovensku diať možno niekedy v roku 2016, 2016, sa už teraz v roku 2018 alebo 2019 nemôžu stať, pretože sme už reagovali na zistenia a opatrenia. A ja si vážim vždy veľmi konštruktívne debaty s výborom, ktorý príde alebo prichádza na Slovensko, kde si môžeme vymeniť navzájom informácie a kde si môžeme povedať, čo sa nám už podarilo, a identifikovať oblasti, kde ešte máme čo robiť. A Slovensko je demokratická krajina, v ktorej sa plne rešpektuje náš parlamentný systém, kde moc vlády schádza z parlamentu, kde vláda sa zodpovedá Národnej rade a koaličnej väčšine.
               

                  Chcem vám pripomenúť, že v oblasti agrodotácií, aj keď dochádza k chybám, Slovensko je po Estónsku druhou krajinou v rámci celej EÚ s najnižšou chybovosťou, ktorá dosahuje úroveň 0,5 % zo všetkých agrodotácií. Samozrejme, sú veľmi viditeľné (very visible), ale to neznamená, že celý systém je nefunkčný, a preto vás chcem požiadať, aby ste sa vždy, keď rozprávate o Slovenskej republike, neuchýlili k paušalizovaniu a z niektorých čiastkových problémov hodnotili krajinu ako celok. To si nikdy nedovolím a som si nedovolil ani ja, aby som na základe nejakých konkrétnych udalostí v niektorej z vašich krajín povedal na vašu krajinu, že to tam tak vyzerá úplne všade a že tie krajiny tak aj fungujú. To by nebolo fér, a preto tak, ako som hovoril, musíme sa navzájom rešpektovať – a ďakujem, že ste to mnohí povedali – musíme sa prestať deliť na západ a východ, musíme sa prestať deliť na veľkých a malých, musíme sa prestať deliť na sever a juh, musíme sa prestať deliť na bohatých a chudobných. Som veľmi rád, že pán kolega, ktorý vystupoval ako prvý, povedal na záver o voľbách a použil výraz, kedy budú vypočuté požiadavky veľkých aj malých. A ja s Vami plne súhlasím, pán kolega, lebo len vtedy Únia bude schopná fungovať jednotne, keď sa budú navzájom počúvať aj veľkí aj malí, pretože tá jednota v rozmanitosti je ten kľúč a ten základ, na ktorom je EÚ postavená.
               

                  A na záver mi dovoľte možno povedať ešte jednu vec, pretože ste všetci spomínali, že od slov treba prejsť ku skutkom, a ja s vami plne súhlasím, pretože pokiaľ občania Európskej únie, Európania nebudú cítiť, že nielen rozprávame, ale aj reálne riešime ich dennodenné problémy, že sa naozaj nezaoberáme pseudotémami, ktoré dennodenne nesužujú našich občanov, ale že sa venujeme práve tomu, čo ich každý deň hnevá a čo by potrebovali vyriešiť, len vtedy budeme vedieť udržať podporu, širokú podporu Európanov v projekt Európskej únie.
               

                  A na záver by som možno použil výraz alebo slovné spojenie: občania Európskej únie musia v prvom rade byť schopní spoľahnúť sa na Európsku úniu. Občania Európskej únie sa najprv musia spoľahnúť na Európsku úniu, na to, že dokážeme zabezpečiť ich ochranu, ich prosperitu, demokratické hodnoty. V prvom rade občania Európskej únie sa musia spoľahnúť na Európsku úniu, až potom musíme robiť všetko preto, aby sa na Európsku úniu mohli spoliehať všetci naokolo. V prvom rade Európskej únii a celému projektu musia veriť tí, ktorí v nej žijú, a až keď toto budeme mať spravené a budeme mať dôveru a ľudia sa budú môcť spoľahnúť na európsku administratívu a Európsky parlament, a Európsku Komisiu, až potom sa môžeme zaoberať tým, či sme takí dobrí, aby sa na nás mohol spoliehať aj celý svet. Ale najprv sa potrebujeme venovať veciam dovnútra a urobiť si domácu úlohu u nás doma.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Primeiro-Ministro, muito obrigado pela sua exposição. Devo dizer, em primeiro lugar, que nós temos uma grande preocupação com as questões de Estado de Direito, de corrupção, na Eslováquia.
               

                  E aquilo que eu gostaria de ver, para que as palavras que aqui deixou hoje, nomeadamente a propósito do assassinato de Jan Kuciak e da sua companheira e da investigação que lhe está associada, era a Eslováquia, perante desenvolvimentos como aqueles que vemos hoje na Roménia, ou de desenvolvimentos como vemos em Malta, ser capaz, se não através do seu Primeiro-Ministro, ao menos através do seu partido, de fazer uma denúncia clara dessa situação.
               

                  Porque a Eslováquia pode fazer muitos progressos do ponto de vista da prosperidade, como disse, e do ponto de vista da integração na União Europeia, mas ela não será verdadeiramente um país com os valores europeus se continuarem estas suspeitas graves de que o Estado de Direito não funciona e não funciona a sério na Eslováquia e não funciona, em particular, por ação do Partido Socialista e do Partido Socialista Europeu que é incapaz de denunciar esse tipo de crimes e de atividades no plano europeu.
               

Babette Winter (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Herr Premierminister! Es ist ermutigend, dass die slowakische Regierung an der Einheit der Europäischen Union mitarbeiten will, und ich danke sehr für Ihre Ausführungen hier. Sie haben gesagt, Herr Premierminister: Wir müssen die Spaltung in der Europäischen Union überwinden, und das ist nicht nur, aber eben auch, eine Ost-West-Spaltung. Das sage ich als Abgeordnete aus Deutschland, aus Mitteldeutschland, die aus einer Gegend kommt, die selber früher – vor 30 Jahren – noch sozialistische DDR war. Wir erleben in Deutschland auch 30 Jahre nach der friedlichen Revolution, wie die großen Umbrüche noch fortwirken. Wir müssen – und da appelliere ich an Sie – dies auch innerhalb der EU noch stärker einbringen und diese ungeheure Leistung des Aufbaus der Demokratie nach der Überwindung des Sozialismus anerkennen.
               

                  Diese gesellschaftlichen Prozesse sind nicht allein mit Kohäsionspolitik zu überwinden. Es geht eben auch um Anerkennung, auch von Seiten der anderen Staaten in der EU. Sie als Vorsitzender der Visegrád-Gruppe mit einem proeuropäischen Ansatz können diese Brücken schlagen; da appelliere ich an Sie, ich ermutige Sie. Sie haben das Weimarer Dreieck angesprochen, die deutsch-französischen Ansätze, aber auch, in der Visegrád-Gruppe daran zu arbeiten, dass dort proeuropäischer agiert wird. Ich appelliere an Sie, sich einzusetzen für die vielen Bürgerinnen und Bürger in den Visegrád-Staaten, die proeuropäisch sind, und gegen das, was hier vor allem auf der rechten Seite über die EU erzählt wurde.
               

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Mr President, Mr Pellegrini, you described your vision of an attractive European Union. I would like to tell you that if Prime Minister May today gets her deal through the British Parliament, I don't think we will have an attractive European Union. Britain was always an advocate for competition and now we are going towards harmonisation. Britain was always an advocate for safe responsibility for countries' debts and now we are going towards socialisation. Britain was always in favour of subsidiarity and now we are going towards centralisation. My last hope for an attractive European Union is that the British Parliament today rejects the deal and opens the way towards a second referendum with the result that Britain stays in the European Union.

Romeo Franz (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Ministerpräsident Pellegrini! Meinen Fokus lege ich auf die Lage der slowakischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger mit Romno-Hintergrund, also Roma und Sinti. Segregation in Bildung, Wohnen, Zugang zum Arbeitsmarkt und Gesundheitsversorgung sind an der Tagesordnung, zum Beispiel im Dorf Rankovce, in dem zirka 300 slowakische Roma leben und sich ihr Wasser aus zwei Brunnen mit Handpumpen holen müssen. Laut der europäischen Grundrechteagentur FRA sind 43 % der Schulkinder mit Romno-Hintergrund in der Slowakei in den letzten zwölf Monaten antiziganistischen Beleidigungen ausgesetzt gewesen. Mehr als die Hälfte der Befragten fühlen sich im Beruf aufgrund ihrer Zugehörigkeit zur Minderheit diskriminiert. Ähnliche Zahlen haben wir leider auch in Deutschland. Traurig ist es – auf antiziganistischen Hass zurückzuführende körperliche Gewalt erfährt in der Slowakei jeder neunte Rom oder Romni. Der Anteil der Jugendlichen aus der Minderheit ohne Job bzw. Ausbildung ist stark angestiegen, während die Zahlen für die Mehrheitsbevölkerung stabil sind. Außerdem ist der Schulbesuch von Kindern mit Romno-Hintergrund in den letzten Jahren prozentual gestiegen, bleibt jedoch in der Größenordnung hinter dem der Mehrheitsbevölkerung zurück. Ein Roma-Gymnasium in Košice habe ich besucht, da waren 90 % der Schüler Roma und der Rest waren schwer Beschulbare aus der Mehrheitsbevölkerung.
               

                  Welche Maßnahmen schlagen Sie vor, Herr Ministerpräsident, um den lang gewachsenen Antiziganismus effektiv zu bekämpfen? Wie wollen Sie der nachgewiesenen Ungleichbehandlung und Ausbeutung der slowakischen Bürger mit Romno-Hintergrund entgegenwirken?
               

Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε πρωθυπουργέ, καλωσορίσατε! Ανήκει στη Σοσιαλιστική Ομάδα το κόμμα σας και μας είπατε σωστά πράγματα και για τις πολιτικές συνοχής και για την ανάγκη να προωθηθούν μέτρα υπέρ του κοινωνικού πυλώνα. Μπορείτε να μου εξηγήσετε στο προσφυγικό, για το οποίο δεν αναφερθήκατε, γιατί ακολουθείτε μια πολιτική που είναι τόσο κοντά με την πολιτική του Viktor Orbán, αν δεν είναι παρόμοια; Τον Viktor Orbán, σε λίγες μέρες, συζητάει να τον αποκλείσει από τις τάξεις του ακόμη και το Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα, που είναι πολύ πιο δεξιά από το κόμμα σας.
               

                  Ως προεδρεύων των χωρών του Visegrád, σκοπεύετε να βοηθήσετε το Κοινοβούλιο και την Επιτροπή, έτσι ώστε να υπάρξει επιτέλους αυτή η μεταρρύθμιση των πολιτικών ασύλου και μια δίκαιη κατανομή ευθυνών ανάμεσα σε όλα τα ευρωπαϊκά κράτη στο προσφυγικό; Ή θα μπλόκαρετε, μαζί με τον Orbán και τον Kaczyński, την ενιαία ευρωπαϊκή πολιτική για το προσφυγικό; Μας είπατε πολλά ωραία πράγματα για την Ευρώπη και την ενότητα και τη δημοκρατία. Είναι ώρα, όμως, να τα κάνετε και πράξη και στο προσφυγικό.
               

Patrick O'Flynn (EFDD). – Mr President, Mr Pellegrini, this debate is about the future of Europe, but the blunt truth is that the EU only has a future if it learns to respect the wishes of people across Europe to maintain the sovereignty of their nations. In my country, that manifested itself in the glorious vote for Brexit. In Peterborough, where I'm based, more than 60% voted to leave. Until yesterday, the grand old men of the EU pretended to respect that, but last night, Mr Juncker himself warned the British people that unless the Brexit-in-name-only withdrawal agreement is accepted, there may be No Brexit at all. With a craven British Prime Minister sitting next to him like some lapdog, the EU's top man sought to call the British people to heel. What arrogance! What conceit!
You should have let us go with good will. Instead, you have decided to make an example of us to frighten the others. The EU clearly has the measure of Mrs May, but the British people will never surrender to these imperial ambitions.

Eduard Kukan (PPE). – Vážený pán predseda, srdečne vítam pána Pellegriniho na pôde Európskeho parlamentu. Sme radi, že ste sa prišli s nami porozprávať o Vašich názoroch na budúcnosť Európy a Európskej únie.
               

                  Tá budúcnosť podľa mňa je tu a teraz. My všetci aj tí, čo tu nesedia, ju tvoríme a my všetci za ňu nesieme zodpovednosť. Vy ste jasne vysvetlili, aké miesto pre Slovensko si predstavujete v tejto Európskej únii. Oceňujem to, bolo to vysvetlené veľmi jasne. Ale napriek tomu alebo možno práve preto by som chcel na Vás apelovať, pán premiér, aby ste pri prezentovaní svojich postojov a stanovísk či už v Európskej únii, alebo na Slovensku mysleli na túto zodpovednosť, na európsku demokraciu, na zodpovednosť za európsku solidaritu a na zodpovednosť za európsku bezpečnosť. Aby ste sa vedeli postaviť tým svojim kolegom a politickým partnerom na Slovensku, ktorí zámerne šíria vymyslené lži o Európskej únii a ktorí tým hazardujú s dôverou slovenskej spoločnosti voči únii. Bol by som rád, keby ste to mohli komentovať, a vo Vašej ďalšej práci pre Slovensko Vám želám úspech.
               

Ivan Štefanec (PPE). – Vážený pán predseda, vážený pán premiér, tiež Vás vítam na pôde Európskeho parlamentu, ktorý bol v poslednom roku naozaj veľmi aktívny smerom k Slovensku. Prejavilo sa to aj v tom, že sme tlačili na vytvorenie medzinárodného vyšetrovacieho tímu, a vidieť už výsledky, najmä po vražde Jána Kuciaka a Martiny Kušnírovej. A verím, že tento tím bude pokračovať. Prejavilo sa to aj v tom, že sme jednali na pôde Osobitného výboru pre daňové podvody o kauzách Bašternák či Kočner, a je jasné, že len európska spolupráca a zdieľanie informácií dokážu zabrániť takýmto podvodom.
               

                  A prejavilo sa to takisto v povinnej kontrole európskych peňazí, ktoré idú do poľnohospodárstva, čo je jedna z našich hlavných kompetencií. V tejto súvislosti je na Slovensku špecifická situácia, že väčšina podpory ide nie malým farmárom, tak ako v Únii, ale veľkým farmárom. Preto sú potrebné podstatné zmeny, o ktoré Vás chcem tiež požiadať. Je to jednak zmena v oblasti pozemkových úprav, povinnom zastropovaní platieb, ale predovšetkým v kontrole rozdeľovania európskych zdrojov, pretože nie je možné, aby agentúra vlády, ktorá rozdeľuje peniaze, nevedela, kto pôdu vlastní a kto na nej vykonáva svoju prácu. Tieto zmeny sú potrebné nielen pre zlepšenie situácie malých farmárov, ale aj pre lepšiu kontrolu európskych zdrojov.
               

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule prim-ministru, vă felicit pentru discursul pe care l-ați avut și viziunea pentru Uniunea Europeană. Sunteți al 18-lea prim-ministru sau șef de stat care își prezintă viziunea.
               

                  Eu vin din România. Mă bucur că Slovacia, o țară care nu este foarte departe de țara mea, are o asemenea viziune și un asemenea lider. Ați spus că avem nevoie de o Europă atractivă, unită, prosperă, sigură și onestă față de cetățeni. Este perfect, acesta este și punctul meu de vedere. Dar vreau să vă întreb punctual. Ați vorbit de fondul de coeziune. Credeți domnule prim-ministru că este bine să condiționăm fondurile de coeziune de funcționarea statului de drept? Este această prevedere în tratat? Care este poziția dumneavoastră?
               

                  Și a doua întrebare. Vi se pare că este onest față de cetățenii din România și Bulgaria ca noi să avem o rezoluție în Parlament ca aceste două țări să fie Schengen și în Consiliu există o opoziție de ani de zile, din 2011? Este onestitate față de cetățeni? Este onestitate că avem pentru două țări MCV-ul, care este caduc? Nu este nici o prevedere în tratat – să existe MCV. Ce părere aveți și cum putem să explicăm acum, în pragul alegerilor, în țările noastre? Iată, doi colegi de aici au nominalizat țara dumneavoastră și țara mea, pentru că avem oameni în stradă, dar n-au spus nimic de Franța, unde stau oamenii în stradă de luni de zile.
               

(Fine della prima parte della procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Peter Pellegrini,
predseda vlády Slovenskej republiky. – Vážený pán predseda, dovoľte mi, aby som zareagoval na niekoľko z tých vystúpení, pretože nemám kapacitu, aby som bol schopný odpovedať na záver úplne na všetky.
               

                  Dotknem sa agrodotácií. Ja plne súhlasím s tým, čo povedal pán poslanec, čo sa týka kontroly týchto prostriedkov a samozrejme zabránenia akejkoľvek defraudácii. Ale chcem sa spýtať tu vás všetkých – európskych poslancov, čo to je za systém, ak na základe bruselského nariadenia dotácie rozdeľujeme na základe obhospodarovaných hektárov bez ohľadu na to, či na tom niekto niečo robí alebo len dvakrát za rok pokosí trávu. Ako je možné, že sme nútení všetkým plošne vyplácať na jednu plochu nejakú sumu z európskych peňazí a nemať pritom možnosť krátiť tieto peniaze tým, ktorí na tej pôde nič nerobia, nikoho nezamestnávajú, nič nevyrábajú, nič nepestujú, nič nezabezpečujú alebo nemajú žiaden prínos k sebestačnosti Slovenska alebo Európy. Ako je toto možné? Potom sa z toho stáva nie skutočný systém na podporu poľnohospodárstva, ale ide o boj o dotácie, to znamená o vojnu, kto bude mať na papieri koľko hektárov, dvakrát za rok pokosí, sedí doma a poberá dotácie. Toto je chybné a toto musíme zmeniť, aby sme z európskych peňazí nepodporovali tých, ktorí na európskej pôde nerobia nič a len dvakrát kosia. To môžu spraviť aj bez toho, aby na to potrebovali prostriedky z Európskej únie.
               

                  Druhá vec, pani kolegyňa poslankyňa z Rumunska: Slovensko vždy jasne podporovalo a bude podporovať, aby v prípade, ak krajina splní akékoľvek podmienky, to znamená v tomto prípade podmienky na vstup do Schengenu, tak je dôležité, aby dostala jasnú odpoveď, aby sa nehrala Rumunskom a Bulharskom politická hra, ale ak sú pripravení technicky, tak máme mať samozrejme absolútne jasno v tom, kedy a k akému dátumu Bulharsko a Rumunsko do Schengenu vstúpia, už aj vzhľadom na situáciu, ktorej čelíme, keď je potrebné ochraňovať vonkajšie hranice Európskej únie. Neviem, s čím váhame a čo sú to za politické hry. A rovnako by sa Únia, trochu odbočím, mala férovo správať aj ku krajinám západného Balkánu, pretože donekonečna im nemôžme hovoriť: ‘robte takú reformu, zmeňte tamto, otvorte takú kapitolu, neviem aké spros…’. Bolestivé veci musia tie krajiny robiť. A dokedy nám tie krajiny toto budú tolerovať a dokedy občania budú schopní a ochotní robiť takéto reformy, keď nevidia svetlo na konci tunela, a my im nie sme schopní odpovedať, kedy sa môžu stať súčasťou tohto, ako ho nazývame, elitného klubu. Toto sú presne tie veci, kde Únia robí chybu a kde nevysiela naokolo tam, kde treba, zásadné myšlienky. Takže chcel som sa teraz vyjadriť k týmto dvom veciam.
               

(Seguito della procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Premierze! Panie i Panowie Posłowie! Europa żeby trwać, żeby przetrwać, musi być wspólnotą losu, dlatego równie ważne jak poczucie jedności jest poczucie szacunku dla naszych poszczególnych doświadczeń i dla charakteru mniejszych wspólnot, które tworzymy, takich jak wspólnota narodów, wspólnota losu i wspólnota kultury narodów Europy Środkowej. Chcę pogratulować Słowacji obrony i sprzeciwu wobec genderowej konwencji stambulskiej. W tej sprawie niektóre kraje poszły bardzo daleko, broniąc swoich rodzin, tak jak Bułgaria. I ciągle jedna trzecia państw Unii Europejskiej zajmuje w tej sprawie stanowisko niezależne. Chcę powiedzieć, że stanowisko, które zajmujecie, jest ważne nie tylko dla Słowacji i dla przyszłości waszych rodzin, ale jest ważne dla przetrwania Europy takiej jaka jest. Akceptacja choćby tych niektórych narodów, które chcą pozostać wierne cywilizacji życia i rodzinie, to kwestia przetrwania Europy, również przetrwania współpracy naszych państw i narodów. Bo gdy zdelegalizuje się tożsamość narodów, Europa tak naprawdę przestanie istnieć.
               

Jaromír Štětina (PPE). – Vážený pane premiére, mluvil jste o budoucnosti Evropy. Já se Vás chci zeptat, jak hodnotíte politiku pana Orbána v souvislosti s hodnotami, na kterých je Evropská unie postavena. Mluvil jste ve spojení s Visegrádskou čtyřkou o nutnosti dialogu, mluvil jste o neúčinnosti nacionalismu. Není nacionalismus a populismus pana Orbána nebezpečí pro Slovensko? Děkuji za odpověď.
               

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane premiére, vítejte v Evropském parlamentu, jsem ráda, že jste představil svoji vizi pro společnou Evropskou unii. Musel jste počítat s tím, že budete čelit kritice k vyšetřování vraždy Jána Kuciaka a jeho partnerky, protože sice byli nalezeni vrahové, ale ne ti, kteří si vraždu objednali. Dokud případ nebude objasněn, musíte počítat s tím, že nebudeme považovat tento případ za uzavřený, protože svoboda slova je podmínkou fungující demokracie v členských státech, ale i v Evropské unii, a my musíme hájit svobodu médií. Slovensko ví dobře, že jeho místo je v Evropské unii a v eurozóně, a nikoho u vás nenapadá něco v tomto měnit. Také euroskepticismus není na Slovensku dobrým politickým programem, zatímco v mnoha jiných zemích velmi kvete. Přeji Slovensku, aby získalo evropský pracovní úřad, jak se tomu zkráceně říká. Myslím si, že sídlo na Slovensku by bylo dobrým příkladem spolupráce na území Evropské unie.
               

Monika Smolková (S&D). – Vážený pán predseda, vážený pán premiér, vitajte na pôde Európskeho parlamentu. Hovorili ste veľmi pekne o vízii Európskej únie. Ja sa k tomu prikláňam a myslím si, že spoločnú Európu budeme mať len vtedy, keď potiahneme spolu všetci, každý jeden členský štát. Nakoniec sa o tom hovorilo.
               

                  Ako negatívny príklad uviedla kolegyňa z Rumunska, keď bránime Rumunom a Bulharom vstúpiť do schengenského priestoru. Ja by som sa spýtala len také dve otázky: ako môžeme jednotne ťahať, keď je tu na stole Nordstream 2? A moja otázka je, ako zastávajú túto pozíciu jednotliví premiéri v Rade Európskej únie, pretože si myslím, že poškodzujeme niektoré členské štáty. Ďalšia otázka je, ako sa stavia Európska rada k rozmiestňovaniu jednotlivých agentúr, pretože vieme, ako nespravodlivo a proti všetkým pravidlám sa rozdelila alebo pridelila Agentúra pre lieky, a teraz je na stole pracovná agentúra. Takže keby ste sa mohli aj k tomuto vyjadriť.
               

Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, Prime Minister Pellegrini, tonight is the meaningful vote on Brexit in the House of Commons. I personally don't support Mrs May's hard Brexit deal as it recognises her regrettable red lines to leave the EU single market and customs union, so it can never really deliver UK-EU frictionless trade.
Nevertheless, there is one part of the Withdrawal Agreement I do strongly agree with, which is its aspiration to keep the United Kingdom closely linked to the EU's internal and external security arrangements. On internal security, I particularly fear now a security cliff edge if there's a no-deal scenario, excluding the United Kingdom's access to key EU databases and instruments such as the Schengen Information System (SIS) and the Anti-Counterfeiting Rapid Intelligence System (ACRIS) database. It's also vital to keep the UK, post Brexit, close to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) in the external security area.
The UK is a UN Security Council P5 member and a nuclear power. So how, Prime Minister Pellegrini, do you see, post Brexit, a way of keeping the United Kingdom closely linked into the EU security structures and, in particular, the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), which you mentioned in your speech?

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Premierze! Szanowni Państwo! Wysłuchałem na tej sali kilkunastu szefów rządów, którzy mówili o przyszłości Europy, i muszę powiedzieć, że nie znalazłem w tych wystąpieniach niczego bulwersującego czy kontrowersyjnego. Wręcz odwrotnie. Padały komplementy pod adresem instytucji europejskich, Parlamentu Europejskiego, naszych aktywności. Natomiast niestety martwi mnie rozpiętość pomiędzy słowami, które padają tu, a tymi, które są realizowane na rzecz polityki krajowej. Ta rozpiętość według mojej oceny ma charakter niestety niszczący. Dotyczy to różnych grup politycznych. Natomiast to co dla mnie jest istotne, to dzisiejsza wyraźna deklaracja zmniejszenia tych dysproporcji, zmniejszania tego wszystkiego, co nie mieści się w ramach debaty o wartościach Unii Europejskiej. Czy dostrzega Pan ten problem? Czy zwraca Pan uwagę także na to, jak Grupa Wyszehradzka pracuje na rzecz wzmacniania instytucji europejskich? I czy to wzmacnianie nie budzi w Panu od czasu do czasu pewnych wątpliwości?
               

Alojz Peterle (PPE). – Spoštovani gospod predsednik vlade, omenili ste leto 1989. Takrat smo še videli razdeljeno Evropo. Danes pa nimamo zelo enotne Evropske zveze.
               

                  Gospod Juncker vas je pozval k pozornosti do dialoga znotraj Višegrajske četvorke. Mene zanima, kaj vi vidite kot ključno specifiko Srednje Evrope in o čem bi moral predvsem teči pogovor z ostalo Evropo?
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to thank Prime Minister Pellegrini for being here and for making the case for a more social Europe. Wages, equal pay, unemployment schemes and decent jobs are of the essence to relaunch Europe. Best wishes to Mr Maroš Šefčovič, who is running for the Slovakian Presidency, and, of course, all support to your endeavours to clear out the murderer of the Slovakian journalists and to fight corruption against EU interests.
But, just a question, as you're about to hold the presidency of the Visegrád Group: what is its nature? What's its purpose? What does it deliver? And, more importantly, you've heard a Member here saying that the purpose of the Visegrád Group is to close the external borders in order to prevent Sharia and Islamisation. Do you agree with that notorious infamy? Or do you disagree with that crap? Because we didn't hear a word from you. You didn't react when you heard that notorious infamy, which is absolutely unacceptable.
Is that the purpose of the Visegrád Group, Prime Minister Pellegrini?

Joachim Starbatty (ECR). – Herr Präsident! Meine Antwort, Herr Ministerpräsident, ist zugleich auch eine Antwort auf Emmanuel Macron, der uns mit seinem Aufruf beschäftigt hat und aufrüttelt. Er sagte, wie auch Sie, wir brauchen in der Europäischen Union eine soziale Grundsicherung und einen europäisch abgestimmten Mindestlohn.
               

                  Nun weiß jeder von uns, dass das Wohlstandsniveau entscheidend ist für soziale Leistungen. Da aber die Wohlstandsniveaus in der EU unterschiedlich sind, kann es keine einheitlichen Mindestlöhne, keine einheitliche Grundsicherung geben. Ansonsten gäbe es Arbeitslosigkeit. Also gibt es nur noch die Möglichkeit der Umverteilung. Das sollte man hier sagen, auch wenn Herr Juncker sich glücklich fühlt, dass dies hier gemacht wird. Das gibt eine Umverteilung.
               

                  Und dann möchte ich einen Satz zitieren von Herrn Macron: Wir könnten ohne den Euro, der die gesamte EU stark macht, den Krisen des Finanzkapitalismus nicht widerstehen. Es gibt keinen falscheren Satz als diesen hier. Denn der Euro hat nicht die Eurounion stark gemacht, sondern er schwächt sie, er spaltet sie. Die Eurounion ist die am schwächsten wachsende Region in der Weltwirtschaft. Das ist die Wahrheit. Alles andere sind fake news.
               

Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Vážený pane premiére, moje intervence bude mít dvě části. První část je k tomu, že jsem čekal od Vás, že představíte nějakou vizi, že nám ukážete jako premiér Slovenska, suverénní země, že chcete reformovat Evropskou unii a ukázat nám, jak chcete třeba reformovat zemědělskou politiku. Víte o tom, že vy můžete určit, kam zemědělské dotace půjdou?
               

                  A druhá věc, pane premiére, na kterou bych chtěl odpověď – bylo tady zmíněno několik obětí na Slovensku. Já bych chtěl vzpomenout Vlada Rybára. Když jsme byli na Slovensku, měli jsme se s ním sejít. Je to zemědělec, který měl lukrativní pozemky nedaleko Bratislavy. Když jsme tam přijeli, policie nám tvrdila, že spáchal sebevraždu. Teď se ukázalo, že Vlado Rybár byl zavražděn. Chci se Vás zeptat, zda i tyto případy prověřujete, zda se opravdu budete těm zprávám Evropského parlamentu věnovat a zda jsou vám poslanci Evropského parlamentu skutečně na obtíž tak, jak jste to komentoval v souvislosti s naší návštěvou na Slovensku.
               

(Fine della seconda parte della procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Peter Pellegrini,
predseda vlády Slovenskej republiky. – Prepáčte, pán kolega, ale musím na vás reagovať ihneď. Pretože nebudem tolerovať, hoci som na pôde Európskeho parlamentu, aby niektorý poslanec Európskeho parlamentu hovoril takéto nepravdy a klamstvá.
               

                  Ak ste spomenuli pána Rybára a chcete tu vytvárať dojem, že bol zavraždený kvôli pozemkom a tak ďalej, tak Vám dám do pozornosti vyjadrenia jeho vlastného syna, ktorý povedal, že pán Rybár je zneužívaný tými, ktorí organizujú protesty, že títo ľudia ho v živote nepoznali, nikdy sa s ním nestretli, že jeho otec mal problémy už dávno a niekoľko mesiacov sa trápil niektorými inými vecami, a že si neželá, aby niekto spájal jeho smrť, ktorá je riadne vyšetrovaná a ktorá preukazuje, že to bolo úplne inak, ako ste povedali Vy, že si neželá, aby bol jeho otec vťahovaný do takýchto politických hier. Takže Vás poprosím, pán poslanec, aby ste si nerobili závery a nerozprávali tu o Slovenskej republike niečo, čo nie je vôbec pravda, pretože ja si to nikdy nedovolím a nikdy som si to nedovolil ani vo vzťahu k Českej republike, hoci tam máte tiež svoje vlastné problémy. Takže Vás poprosím o korektnosť, lebo len vtedy budeme môcť viesť zodpovednú debatu.
               

                  Áno. Ak hovoríte o agrodotáciách, práve som sa vyjadril. Je potrebná zmena, aby sme nepodporovali tých, ktorí pôdu len majú na papieri, nič na nej nerobia, neprispievajú k sebestačnosti Európskej únie a dostávali rovnakým dielom z európskych peňazí ako tí, ktorí sa tam lopotia a pracujú od rána do večera.
               

                  A ak sa ma pani poslankyňa Smolková spýtala na Nord Stream 2: áno, aj tu na tomto mieste zaznievalo obrovské množstvo vzletných rečí, ako musíme a máme pomôcť Ukrajine. No toto je excelentný prípad, ako jej môžeme ublížiť.
               

                  Slovenská republika si splnila svoju úlohu a urobila technické zmeny, aby sme reverzným tokom – a dodnes, ešte aj túto zimu, zásobujeme Ukrajinu cez náš tranzitný plynovod smerom na Ukrajinu, aby sme tak garantovali ich energetickú bezpečnosť. Ale sú krajiny, ktoré v rámci biznisu sú schopné zapredať aj túto myšlienku, že sa máme postarať o Ukrajinu a sú ochotné tolerovať bypass, ktorý, keď sa raz dostavia, bude možné plynovo obísť celú Ukrajinu.
               

                  A veľmi ma mrzí, že aj pri nedávnom prideľovaní agentúr, o ktorom ste, pani poslankyňa, hovorili – boli dve – a o ktorých sa všetci jasne vyjadrovali, že majú skončiť v niektorej z nových krajín Európskej únie a majú skončiť v niektorej, kde ešte žiadna agentúra nie je, tak skončili obidve v starej krajine, členskom štáte Únie a skončili v takých krajinách, kde už agentúry sú. A potom je ťažko hovoriť o tom, že prestaňme sa deliť na staré a nové, na západ a východ a na bohatých a chudobných, keď ešte aj takýmito prejavmi dávame jasný signál, ako to v skutočnosti je. A čo si o tom môžu potom myslieť občania, ktorí žijú v tej inej časti Európskej únie?
               

                  Prepáčte, ale budem k Vám vždy veľmi otvorený a veľmi priamy v odpovediach na otázky, ktoré dávate.
               

(Seguito della procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedniče, poštovani premijeru Pellegrini, hvala Vam na doprinosu važnoj raspravi o budućnosti Europe. Drago mi je što se Vaša Slovačka može pohvaliti dobrim rezultatima. Kao što ste i sami rekli, nije uvijek bilo lako i put nije bio jednostavan, ali Slovačka je danas u svakom smislu naprednija država nego što je bila u trenutku kad je postala samostalna.
               

                  Preuzimanje odgovornosti za vlastitu sudbinu slovačkim je građanima donijelo prosperitet i bolju kvalitetu života. Nije li to dokaz da je samostalnost bila dobar put za vašu zemlju? No vi sad preporučujete daljnju političku integraciju i želite odluke o sudbini Slovaka prepustiti većima i jačima.
               

                  To je u osnovi priče ‘više Europe’. Iza fasade solidarnosti, zajedničkih vrijednosti, bratstva i jedinstva stoji novi proces donošenja većine političkih odluka na europskoj razini u kojemu manje zemlje poput Vaše Slovačke i moje Hrvatske imaju slabiju mogućnost zaštititi svoje interese. Koncentracija političke moći u Bruxellesu nikako ne može biti u interesu Zagreba, a ni Bratislave.
               

Richard Sulík (ECR). – Vážený pán predseda, pozdravujem Vás aj ja, pán premiér, bezpochyby má Slovensko mnoho vlastných problémov, ako napríklad vplyv mafie alebo obrovskú korupciu. Väčšinu z týchto problémov si ale musí riešiť naša krajina sama. Konkrétne, vláda, ktorá vznikne na základe slobodných, všeobecných a tajných volieb. Preto, aj keď doma patrím k najtvrdším kritikom premiéra Pellegriniho a strany Smer, z ktorej pochádza, tu sa chcem ohradiť voči zasahovaniu do vnútorných záležitostí suverénneho štátu.
               

                  Považujem za neprijateľné, aby tu poslanec Papadimoulis cvičil premiéra Slovenskej republiky. Ako to, že my si dovoľujeme odmietať migrantov? Zasahovaním však nemám na mysli vyšetrovanie vraždy novinárov, o ktoré sme požiadali, a chcem sa aj poďakovať za angažovanosť Sophie in 't VELD a pani Grässle.
               

                  Ak chce Európska únia niečo spraviť preto, aby neboli rozdiely medzi západom a východom, medzi starými a novými, nech sa páči. Nech dodržiava pravidlá, ktoré si dala, nech má na všetkých rovnaký meter, nech vypláca rovnaké agrodotácie pre všetkých, nech neporušuje sankcie, napríklad Nord Stream 2, nech sa Európska komisia najmä správa ku všetkým rovnako, potom ani rozdiely nebudú.
               

Arne Lietz (S&D). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Premier, herzlichen Dank, dass Sie sich so stark für ein soziales Europa aussprechen und sich für das Prinzip von nationalen Mindestlöhnen einsetzen, dessen Bedeutung Kommissionspräsident Juncker eben gerade hier im Haus nochmals eindrucksvoll unterstrichen hat. In Deutschland war es die SPD, die die Mindestlöhne umgesetzt hat, und Ostdeutschland hat insbesondere davon profitiert. Die Sozialdemokraten kämpfen an Ihrer Seite für dieses Prinzip nun in Europa.
               

                  Herr Juncker, Ihnen gehen aber die Konservativen in dieser Frage nun von der Fahne. Die neue CDU-Vorsitzende Kramp-Karrenbauer hat sich klar am Wochenende gegen das Prinzip von nationalen Mindestlöhnen ausgesprochen – wir sind für dieses Prinzip. Und ich möchte zusätzlich unterstreichen, dass für mich die Wahrung der europäischen Grundwerte, wie Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Pressefreiheit und Meinungsfreiheit, von großer Bedeutung ist.
               

                  Sie sind derzeit in der bedeutenden Rolle, die Visegrád-Gruppe anzuführen. Ich appelliere an Sie als Ostdeutscher, als Visegrád-Deutscher, das insbesondere gegenüber Ungarn und Polen klarzumachen. Wir haben gemeinsam den Sozialismus bekämpft und überwunden. Lassen Sie uns nun für diese Demokratie einstehen, in diesem Europa, in dem wir stark sind.
               

Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Vážený pán predseda, pán premiér, ja Vám tiež ďakujem za predstavenie vízie pre Slovensko, vízie pre Európu a súhlasím, že Slovensko chce byť zodpovedným partnerom v Európskej únii a náš úspech súvisí práve s našou európskou integráciou a zapojením sa do severoatlantických štruktúr.
               

                  Ale pozastavím sa pri stanovisku, že Slovensko chce byť súčasťou všetkých aktivít, čo smerujú k utužovaniu jednoty alebo, ako ste častokrát povedali, byť v jadre, súčasťou jadra Európskej únie. Ste si však naozaj istý, že naši občania chcú viac Európskej únie v oblastiach ako európsky sociálny pilier či spoločná európska armáda?
               

                  Ja ako slovenský zástupca v tomto Parlamente pokladám za dôležité hovoriť o potrebe zníženia miery zainteresovania inštitúcií Európskej únie v záujme subsidiarity. Ako predseda Európskeho kresťanského politického hnutia ponúkam takú reformu Európskej únie, v ktorej poukazujeme na to, kde sú európske inštitúcie a legislatíva prospešné a prinášajú skutočný rozvoj Slovenska.
               

                  Je kľúčové, aby sme znovu uplatňovali víziu zakladateľov založenú na židovsko-kresťanských hodnotách vo výzvach, ktorým čelí dnešná Európa. Verím totiž, že základné hodnoty Slovenska sú silnou stránkou aj Európskej únie. Spoločne si ctíme zodpovednosť a chceme pracovať na takej budúcnosti Európskej únie, v ktorej je život cenený a spoločnosť je plodná tak, aby mohla prinášať mier a stabilitu pre budúce generácie.
               

(Fine della procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Peter Pellegrini,
predseda vlády Slovenskej republiky. – Vážený pán predseda, vážený pán viceprezident Európskej komisie, ešte pred tým, ako urobím nejaké záverečné poznámky, mi dovoľte odpovedať na jednu otázku, ktorá tu zaznela: Čo je úlohou Slovenska? Čo je úlohou krajín V4, ale čo by malo byť úlohou všetkých lídrov, všetkých 28 a 27 krajín Európskej únie?
               

                  Hlavnou úlohou, aj mojou, aj mojich kolegov, musí byť len jedno jediné: aby sa ľuďom v našich krajinách dobre žilo. To je jediný a jasný cieľ, s ktorým preberáme líderstvo a mandát a to je jediné, s čím máme ráno vstať a večer zaspať, aby sa našim občanom dobre a pokojne žilo. A preto prosím, vždy rešpektujem, ak hovoríme o niekom a o niečom, či máme splnený najprv tento cieľ, aby sme sa potom mohli venovať vzletným a vznešeným debatám o nejakých iných veciach.
               

                  Ako môžete občanom Európskej únie vnútiť, aby diskutovali o nejakých pseudotémach, pokiaľ nevyžijú z výplaty alebo nemajú prácu, alebo ako seniori, ktorí tu poberajú svoj dôchodok, žijú v pásme chudoby. Najprv si vyriešme tieto veci a potom môžeme vnášať do našich debát vznešené a veľké témy, ktoré, samozrejme, patria k modernej spoločnosti, ale pokiaľ nemáme spravenú domácu úlohu, že sa Európanom nebude spokojne a dobre žiť, tak najprv si robme túto úlohu. A ja som rád, že v našom regióne sa ľuďom začína žiť lepšie, ako sa im žilo predtým, že náš región prosperuje ekonomicky, aj sociálne, aj kultúrne, aj spoločensky, a som na to primerane hrdý.
               

                  A ďakujem za slová podpory všetkým tým, ktorí nás podporili a ktorí sa aj zastali Slovenskej republiky pri niektorých komentároch, ktoré už presahujú aj právomoci konkrétneho poslanca, niekedy aj normy slušného správania.
               

                  Na záver mi dovoľte, pán predseda, kolegyne, kolegovia, vyhlásiť, že Európska únia zostane pre Slovensko, pre nás, pilierom stability, slobody a prosperity. Áno, uvedomujem si aj naše slabosti aj chyby, a aj nedostatky Európskej únie, ale chceme ich spoločne riešiť ako súčasť ďalšieho budovania európskeho projektu. Máme spoločné výzvy ekonomické, sociálne, environmentálne, tu v týchto oblastiach hľadajme, prosím, spoločne jednotu. Znovu zdôrazňujem technologický rozvoj, ktorý je nesmierne dôležitý a kde nesmieme zaostať za ostatnými časťami sveta.
               

                  Ak hovoríme o kohézii, prosím, nevnášajme do toho politiku a to, či niekto chce alebo nechce v kohézii pokračovať. Kohézia vznikla preto, aby nám pomohla odstrániť veľké regionálne rozdiely nielen medzi členskými krajinami, ale aj v rámci členských krajín. Kohézia nemá byť rukojemníkom politických hier. Ak musíme s ľútosťou skonštatovať, že proces zmierňovania regionálnych rozdielov v Európskej únii sa zastavil, to je hrozivá správa, že sa zastavil, tak viesť debatu o tom, aká má byť budúcnosť kohézie, je zvrátené. Vážené dámy a páni, kohézia tu musí byť dovtedy, dokiaľ tu regionálne rozdiely tak výrazné, aké sú, budú. A dovtedy sme povinní tieto regionálne rozdiely medzi jednotlivými časťami Európy odstraňovať, pokiaľ ich neodstránime kompletne, a potom sa môžeme venovať diskusii o tom, či ešte kohézia má alebo nemá v našom európskom priestore existovať. A na záver: snažme sa, prosím, pekne byť všetci bližšie k občanovi, čo najbližšie k tým ľuďom, ktorí budú už o niekoľko mesiacov rozhodovať, kto zasadne na tieto dôležité stoličky. A ja vás chcem uistiť, že ako predseda vlády Slovenskej republiky urobím všetko preto, aby Slovensko bolo aj naďalej pozitívnym hlasom a konštruktívnym hlasom zo strednej Európy.
               

President. – The debate is closed.


Written statements (Rule 162)



Csaba Molnár (S&D),
írásban. – Miközben az európai gazdaság hetedik éve növekszik, a munkavállalók, bérből és fizetésből élő európaiak helyzete nem javul. A válság terheit – a bankok megmentésétől az állami költségvetések kiegyensúlyozásáig – ők viselték. Megemelkedtek az adók, drágultak a közszolgáltatások, kevesebb jutott oktatásra, egészségügyre, munkanélküli ellátásra, a legelesettebbek támogatására. Milliók vesztették el munkájukat, és ha találtak új munkaadót, gyakran rendkívül előnytelen munkaszerződéseket kellett elfogadniuk. Tömegjelenség, hogy dolgozó emberek élnek a létminimum alatt. Tömeges a gyermekszegénység, a kiszolgáltatottság. Az elkeseredés táptalajt ad a szélsőségeseknek, akik most az egész EU elpusztítására szövetkeztek. A adófizetők áldozatát sem az állam, sem a gazdaság nem viszonozta.
               

                  Az információs forradalom következtében hosszú távon is az élőmunka visszaszorulása fenyeget. Alapvető fordulatra van szükség. Vissza kell állítani a szociális piacgazdaságot, a jövedelmeket újra kell osztani – a munkavállalók javára. A munkahelyteremtésen túl az Európai Unió erejével kell garantálnunk az emberhez méltó bérek és nyugdíjak minimális szintjét, a gyermekes családok támogatását. Ki kell irtanunk a gyermekszegénységet az egész EU-ban. Ennek finanszírozására európai multiadót kell kivetni a nagyvállalatokra. Véget kell vetni az adóelkerülésnek, a munkavállalók kirablásának. Az erős, emberközeli, egyesült Európa nem lehet más, csak a szociális jogok Európája!
               

(The sitting was suspended at 12.19 prior to Voting Time)


IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS


Vice-President

8.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 12.30)


Pina Picierno (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io vorrei porre, prima di passare alle votazioni, all'attenzione di questo Parlamento la vergognosa ingiustizia di cui è stata vittima Nasrin Sotoudeh, già premio Sacharov, che è stata condannata a quattro decenni di carcere e a 148 frustate per aver difeso in Iran i diritti delle donne, per aver chiesto in Iran l'abolizione della pena di morte.
               

                  Allora io credo che questo Parlamento, Presidente, tramite la Sua autorevole voce, tramite la voce autorevole del Presidente di questo Parlamento, debba esprimersi immediatamente in merito ad una condanna assoluta verso questa vergognosa sentenza che c'è stata in Iran, e credo che dovremmo chiedere immediatamente il rilascio immediato e senza condizioni di Nasrin Sotoudeh, perché è veramente incredibile!
               

                  L'Iran si conferma ancora una volta essere nemico acerrimo dei diritti delle donne e tutto ciò è davvero intollerabile, Presidente.
               

President. – Ms Picierno, we have taken note of your comments and will pass them to the President.
9.   Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.

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

9.1.   Request for the waiver of the immunity of Monika Hohlmeier (A8-0165/2019 - Jean-Marie Cavada) (vote)
9.2.   Request for the waiver of the immunity of Jean-Marie Le Pen (A8-0167/2019 - Kostas Chrysogonos) (vote)

— Before the vote:


Marie-Christine Arnautu (ENF). – Madame le Président, mes chers collègues, en dehors des cas relevant du droit pénal, rien ne devrait justifier une levée de l'immunité parlementaire. Jean-Marie Le Pen, lui, a d'ailleurs toujours voté en faveur de ses collègues persécutés, car il s'agit bien, en l'occurrence, d'une persécution politique. Si, au seul prétexte d'un différend d'ordre idéologique, vous votez pour la dixième fois contre l'immunité de Jean-Marie Le Pen, cela signifie que vous trouvez normal que des éléments partisans viennent s'immiscer dans le travail de vos assistants, que l'administration européenne, sur ordre, s'arroge le droit de prélever… (la Présidente retire la parole à l'oratrice)


President. – Ms Arnautu, we will move to the vote. We are not having a debate now.

Jean-Marie Cavada (ALDE). – Madame la Présidente, je serai très rapide. Quand on s'exprime, il convient d'être précis et d'éviter tout amalgame. Mme Hohlmeier a demandé elle-même la levée de son immunité parlementaire pour une banale histoire d'accident de la route et, par conséquent, je n'accepte pas que l'on mélange tout.
                  

President. – Thank you for that clarification.
9.3.   Request for the waiver of the immunity of Dominique Bilde (A8-0166/2019 - Kostas Chrysogonos) (vote)
9.4.   Extending Rule 159 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure until the end of the ninth parliamentary term (B8-0147/2019) (vote)

— Before the vote:


Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjedavajuća, u ovom domu svakodnevno možemo čuti velike planove za Europu, daljnja politička integracija, nove zajedničke institucije, veliki proračun za ambiciozne programe, europska vojska, Sjedinjene Europske Države i tako dalje. Velike ideje, a u praksi to izgleda ovako: ni u trećem sazivu Europskog parlamenta, u čijem će radu sudjelovati zastupnici iz Hrvatske, naš hrvatski jezik neće biti u potpunosti primijenjen u radu ove institucije. Produženje članka 159. Poslovnika znači daljnju odgodu pune primjene hrvatskog, irskog i malteškog jezika, uz objašnjenje da ni na početku sljedećeg saziva Parlamenta neće postojati kapaciteti za osiguravanje cjelovite prevoditeljske usluge. Pa koliko stoljeća je točno potrebno da se ti kapaciteti osiguraju? Za razliku od Irske i Malte, Republika Hrvatska ima jedan službeni jezik, hrvatski, pa ovom odlukom Hrvati, uz šutnju hrvatske Vlade, i dalje ostaju građani drugog reda u Europskoj uniji.
                  

                     Kolegice i kolege, da vidimo sada koliko smo doista ujedinjeni u raznolikosti u ovome Parlamentu.
                  

President. – Ms Tomaševski, thank you for your point. I think there has been a great deal of advice on this issue.
9.5.   Electronic freight transport information (A8-0060/2019 - Claudia Schmidt) (vote)

— Before the vote:


David Coburn (EFDD). – Madam President, I was most interested in this: if you can check freight with satellites, why is there a problem doing that with the border in Northern Ireland? Surely we do not need to have a hard border in Northern Ireland if we can do it by having satellites. So if it works for other parts of the world, why not Northern Ireland? Is it singularly unable to use satellites?

(The President cut off the speaker)


President. – I am afraid, Mr Coburn, I don't have the time to explain the ‘why’ of that just now because we are in the middle of votes, but I did hear your comment.
9.6.   EU-Vietnam Voluntary Partnership Agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (A8-0083/2019 - Heidi Hautala) (vote)
9.7.   EU-Vietnam Voluntary Partnership Agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (resolution) (A8-0093/2019 - Heidi Hautala) (vote)
9.8.   Protocol amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (A8-0070/2019 - József Nagy) (vote)
9.9.   Authorising Member States to become party to the Council of Europe Convention on an Integrated safety, security, and service approach at football matches and other sports events (A8-0080/2019 - Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann) (vote)
9.10.   Protocol amending the EU-China Agreement on Maritime Transport (accession of Croatia) (A8-0168/2019 - Francisco Assis) (vote)
9.11.   EU-Egypt Euro-Mediterranean Agreement (accession of Croatia) (A8-0025/2019 - Ramona Nicole Mănescu) (vote)
9.12.   EU-Turkmenistan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (A8-0072/2019 - Ramona Nicole Mănescu) (vote)
9.13.   Implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in the United Kingdom (A8-0092/2019 - Branislav Škripek) (vote)
9.14.   Exchange of information on third country nationals and the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) (A8-0219/2016 - Daniel Dalton) (vote)
9.15.   Centralised system for the identification of Member States holding conviction information on third country nationals and stateless persons (ECRIS-TCN) (A8-0018/2018 - Daniel Dalton) (vote)

— Before the vote:


Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, estamos votando los primeros de un conjunto de informes relativos a la seguridad de los europeos entre los que se incluirá, en esta sesión parlamentaria de Estrasburgo, el informe sobre el Fondo de Seguridad Interior de la Unión Europea.
                  

                     Y creo que es una ocasión para recordar que ayer se cumplieron quince años de la masacre con mayor número de víctimas que recuerda la historia de la Unión Europea: la masacre terrorista que tuvo lugar en España el 11 de marzo del año 2004.
                  

                     Y creo, por tanto, que es una buena ocasión para que en el acto del voto emitamos un mensaje de solidaridad infinita con las víctimas del terrorismo y de determinación en la lucha contra todas las formas de terrorismo y sus amenazas.
                  

President. – Mr López Aguilar, your point is well supported.

Dennis de Jong,
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, I just wanted to ask, in accordance with Rule 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure, to vote first on the amendments, and also I would like to ask for a roll call vote on the procedure of this decision.

Daniel Dalton,
Rapporteur. – Madam President, very briefly, we've negotiated this for years. We've got a deal. Parliament got significance concessions. If any amendment passes, the deal falls, so I would object to the proposal by the GUE/NGL and suggest that we just vote directly on the deal.

(Parliament rejected the request by Mr de Jong)

9.16.   European Solidarity Corps programme (A8-0079/2019 - Michaela Šojdrová) (vote)
9.17.   EU Cybersecurity Act (A8-0264/2018 - Angelika Niebler) (vote)
9.18.   Unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain (A8-0309/2018 - Paolo De Castro) (vote)

— After the vote:


Paolo De Castro,
relatore. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio davvero tutti i colleghi per la straordinaria collaborazione che ha portato all'approvazione così ampia di questa direttiva. Senza questo fondamentale gioco di squadra non saremmo riusciti ad arrivare oggi a un risultato che poteva sembrare difficile, se non irraggiungibile.
                  

                     Colleghi, sono passati solo 11 mesi dalla presentazione della proposta e oggi possiamo finalmente dire di aver dato una risposta concreta alle richieste di agricoltori, produttori e consumatori europei rimaste per troppo tempo inascoltate.
                  

                     Questo Parlamento, Presidente, ha fatto un piccolo miracolo, ma è solo un primo passo. Ora dobbiamo valorizzare i risultati raggiunti e garantire una giusta applicazione nei nostri Stati membri. Questa è l'Europa che vogliamo: un'Europa che sia di supporto alle imprese più deboli e che tuteli i nostri consumatori, con norme trasparenti che assicurino la qualità dei prodotti e la sostenibilità dei processi produttivi. Mi auguro davvero che questa direzione possa essere seguita in futuro con lo stesso impegno, la stessa serietà e collaborazione da parte di tutti.
                  
9.19.   European citizens' initiative (A8-0226/2018 - György Schöpflin) (vote)

— Before the vote:


Barbara Spinelli,
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, I wish to present, on behalf of my Group, a request to proceed to the votes on the amendments, in accordance with Rule 59 of the Rules of Procedure, and to request that the vote be taken by roll call.
I believe that the current text has some flaws, as denounced by several non-governmental organisations, and my Group has tabled amendments aimed at improving it. The amendments touch upon important issues: in particular, preserving the individual online collection systems; requesting the Commission to carry out real legislative follow-up in full observance of Article 11 of the Treaty; and allowing citizens' initiatives to propose the modification of ongoing legislative proposals.

(Parliament rejected the request)

9.20.   Import of cultural goods (A8-0308/2018 - Alessia Maria Mosca, Daniel Dalton) (vote)
9.21.   Protection of personal data in the context of elections to the European Parliament (A8-0435/2018 - Mercedes Bresso, Rainer Wieland) (vote)

— Before the vote:


Gilles Lebreton,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, conformément à l'article 59, paragraphe 3, du règlement, je demande que les amendements soient mis aux voix et je souhaite que ma demande soit traitée par appel nominal.
                  

(Parliament rejected the request)

9.22.   Security threats connected with the rising Chinese technological presence in the EU and possible action at EU level to reduce them (B8-0153/2019, RC-B8-0154/2019, B8-0154/2019, B8-0155/2019, B8-0159/2019, B8-0160/2019, B8-0162/2019, B8-0164/2019) (vote)
9.23.   State of EU-Russia political relations (A8-0073/2019 - Sandra Kalniete) (vote)

— After the vote on paragraph 30:


Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I would like to move the following oral amendment: expresses its conviction that Russia's membership in the Council of Europe is an important element of the present landscape of institutional relations in Europe; hopes that ways can be found to convince Russia of not abandoning its Council of Europe membership.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

9.24.   Building EU capacity on conflict prevention and mediation (A8-0075/2019 - Soraya Post) (vote)

President. – That concludes the vote.
10.   Explanations of vote
10.1.   EU-Vietnam Voluntary Partnership Agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (A8-0083/2019 - Heidi Hautala)

Oral explanations of vote


Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, it's nice to be first. I welcome this important partnership agreement and commend the work done by the rapporteur, MEP Hautala and my colleague, Mr Franck Proust. The protection of forestry is an extremely important element in the overall protection of the environment and in slowing down climate change. The illegal timber trade has a devastating environmental effect and so I welcome this recommendation warmly as a step in the right direction for both the EU and Vietnam.
The preservation of habitats and biodiversity can only be accomplished by working with third countries to ensure that not only does the EU not export illegal timber, but equally does not support the trade of imported illegal timber. I am hopeful that this Voluntary Partnership Agreement will achieve this, and I welcome the firm commitments given by Vietnam to set up the necessary structures to enforce the commitments included in this agreement.

Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, I'm in favour of this accord. It seems a perfectly sensible thing for the European Union to work with Vietnam on sustainability. But I'd ask Members just to stand back and contemplate the miracle that has made this report possible: that sees Vietnam exporting a sum equivalent to its GDP.
In the mid-1980s, Vietnam was one of the poorest countries in the world. GDP was a little bit over USD 200. Now it has increased by 1 000% – by 2 000% if we measure by purchasing power parity. What an extraordinary thing, when we think of the lengths that the USA went to to stamp out communism by military means – spending a trillion dollars at today's prices, losing 60 000 of its soldiers, 250 000 South Vietnamese, a million North Vietnamese – and it failed! Yet a couple of decades of free trade have led to the rule of law and the development of economic freedom in that country.
It's the same lesson every time. Let goods and services cross borders so that soldiers don't have to.
10.2.   EU-Vietnam Voluntary Partnership Agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (resolution) (A8-0093/2019 - Heidi Hautala)

Oral explanations of vote


Alex Mayer (S&D). – Madam President, Britain is the EU's largest importer of tropical timber by a significant margin. I support the voluntary partnership agreement with Vietnam as an important contribution in the fight against illegal logging, with governments, civil society and businesses working together.
Sadly, across the world, up to half of all timber still comes from illegal sources. Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) is a good thing, but the voluntary approach alone is not going to defeat the illegal timber trade. My view is that the UK and the EU need to go further with legislation banning all imports of illegal and destructively logged timber, coupled with more support to improve governance and stamp out corruption in timber producing countries.
Illegal logging robs governments and communities of resources. It damages ecosystems, accelerates climate change and fuels conflict. We cannot afford to rest until the market for illegal timber in Europe is closed forever.
10.3.   Exchange of information on third country nationals and the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) (A8-0219/2016 - Daniel Dalton)

Oral explanations of vote


Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Wczorajsza debata była bardzo interesująca i podczas niej udało mi się zabrać głos à propos pierwszego sprawozdania, pierwszej części. Zabrakło natomiast czasu, żeby wypowiedzieć się w tej drugiej bardzo istotnej sprawie, dlatego dzisiaj tytułem uzupełnienia – po pierwsze najważniejszą, najbardziej kontrowersyjną kwestią było objęcie osób o podwójnym obywatelstwie właśnie rozstrzygnięciami dotyczącymi tego sprawozdania.
                  

                     Bardzo się cieszę, że pod koniec 2018 roku udało się w tej materii uzyskać porozumienie i konsekwencją było dzisiejsze głosowanie. Zwrócę także uwagę na bardzo ważną kwestię dotyczącą danych osób posiadających nie tylko podwójne obywatelstwo, ale także tych, które umykały do tej pory z tych rozstrzygnięć, które dotyczą rejestru – rejestru, jakby nie było, problemów kryminalnych różnych osób. Dla bezpieczeństwa Europy rozstrzygnięcia, które zapadły dzisiaj, są z mojego punktu widzenia korzystne.
                  
10.4.   European Solidarity Corps programme (A8-0079/2019 - Michaela Šojdrová)

Oral explanations of vote


Dominique Bilde (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, j'avais dès le départ dénoncé la tendance boulimique de la Commission, qui, avec le corps européen de solidarité, créait un doublon du Service volontaire européen. Il ne faisait aucun doute que ce nouveau programme chercherait à justifier son existence en étendant toujours plus ses prérogatives. Aujourd'hui, tout ceci se confirme. Alors que le précédent texte a été adopté il y a à peine quelques mois, son champ d'action est étendu aux opérations d'aide humanitaire, être citoyen d'un État membre n'est plus une condition pour participer, le budget est augmenté. Absurde, quand on sait que le programme ne rencontre pas le succès escompté! Ce qui me révolte par-dessus tout, c'est l'impossibilité de mener ces activités de solidarité dans son propre pays. Bruxelles invite donc à être solidaire, mais le plus loin possible de chez soi, et il nous est dit que les activités doivent mettre l'accent sur la résolution des défis rencontrés par les migrants. On le voit, cet amour d'autrui conduit au mépris de soi. Si ce n'était pas si grave, ce serait risible.
                  

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Madam President, I believe that the Solidarity Corps has real potential to bring added European value to the social policies. It creates solidarity among young Europeans and allows for the personal growth of participants. It is particularly great that, since 2019, organisations from non-EU countries can participate in these projects. In the case of European Neighbourhood Policy countries, it becomes another element in the chain of contacts and people-to-people diplomacy. In addition to that, volunteering strengthens engagement and makes young people appreciate the non-material side of their work.
I supported this report and I wish volunteering could become a part of life for other groups of citizens who want to get engaged in the issues of public interest, dedicating some hours per week to a cause that they really care about.

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Dzisiaj chciałbym zwrócić uwagę na trzy kwestie. Po pierwsze, w tej perspektywie 2018-2020, mówię o budżecie – mamy jedynie orientacyjne, podkreślam, orientacyjne progi podziału środków finansowych. Bardzo istotne jest, aby one uległy uściśleniu. Po drugie, nie mamy w chwili obecnej zapewnionej odpowiedniej promocji tego ważnego kompletnie nowego programu. I po trzecie, wykorzystanie dynamicznych środków komunikacji – myślę o tych portalach społecznościowych – jest niezbędne już dzisiaj w okresie wdrażania tego projektu. W innym wypadku zakończy się ten program połowicznym sukcesem. I ostatnia rzecz, bardzo istotna. Mówimy tutaj o młodych ludziach. Mówimy o środkach budżetowych im dedykowanych. Potrzebna jest znowelizowana strategia dla właśnie młodego pokolenia po to, aby stała się ona rzeczywistym podmiotem tych wszystkich programów, które próbujemy włączyć w chwili obecnej w Europejski Korpus Solidarności.
                  

Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Europejski Korpus Solidarności to nie tylko wspaniała inicjatywa, ale także piękna i szczytna idea. Ma walory moralne, etyczne, humanitarne, charytatywne, edukacyjne… Jest to bardzo ważne, daje bowiem szansę na samorealizację, ale także podnoszenie kwalifikacji zawodowych. Wspiera ludność, regiony, także państwa, daje możliwość udziału – będzie dawało możliwość udziału nawet trzystu pięćdziesięciu tysiącom ludzi.
                  

                     Nie dziwi więc to, że Instytut Innowacji w Wiedniu nagrodził tę inicjatywę i to przedsięwzięcie, dlatego popierałem to sprawozdanie.
                  

José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, votei favoravelmente este relatório que criou o programa do Corpo Europeu de Solidariedade porque, numa época da ascensão de nacionalismos e xenofobia no nosso continente, todas as iniciativas que reforcem a cidadania ativa e o conceito de solidariedade devem ser apoiadas.
                  

                     Contudo, uma vez que este programa é, desde o seu início, mais do que um mero programa de voluntariado e abrange também o apoio a projetos de mobilidade e voluntariado em contexto profissional, através de estágios profissionais e contratos com estruturas que desenvolvem ações na área social, importa garantir que, na sua implementação prática, sejam evitados abusos de abusos e que o Corpo Europeu de Solidariedade não seja utilizado pelas organizações não governamentais, pelos organismos públicos e pelas empresas públicas para obter mão-de-obra barata.
                  

                     O voluntariado, que pode, obviamente, melhorar perspetivas de emprego dos jovens, não deve ser encarado como um substituto ao emprego dignamente remunerado como modo de perpetuar a precariedade dos vínculos laborais ou como um sucedâneo de políticas de combate ao flagelo do desemprego juvenil na Europa.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I too was pleased to vote in favour of this report, and indeed the objectives of this important programme to promote solidarity as a value and enhance the engagement of young people. The European Solidarity Corps programme is a valuable pathway for young people to develop their skills, whether through an internship, traineeship or volunteering experience. The changes proposed, to increase the budget for the programme, will allow many more to benefit from it. I welcome particularly the emphasis to be placed on marginalised and disadvantaged young people. Four hundred and eighty Irish young people have already registered to take part and I hope to see many more do so from all backgrounds, including especially those in isolated rural regions and other disadvantaged areas on which the programme aims to focus particular attention.
10.5.   EU Cybersecurity Act (A8-0264/2018 - Angelika Niebler)

Oral explanations of vote


Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, μιλούμε για την κυβερνοασφάλεια τη στιγμή που υπάρχουν σοβαρές παραβιάσεις σε συγκεκριμένα κράτη μέλη. Χτες ζήτησα από τον Επίτροπο, τον κύριο Anship, να τοποθετηθεί στις καταγγελίες που έκανα, διότι η ελληνική κυβέρνηση προβαίνει σε προληπτικές συλλήψεις όσων διαφωνούν με το ξεπούλημα της Μακεδονίας μας και της ιστορίας μας, και έκανε προληπτικές συλλήψεις στην περιοχή των Γιαννιτσών. Είπε δε η Υπουργός Προστασίας του Πολίτη ότι γνωρίζει τα στοιχεία τους διότι η αστυνομία παρακολουθεί το Facebook και τα social media.
                  

                     Αυτό συμβαίνει σήμερα στην Ελλάδα και σχηματίζονται δικογραφίες εναντίον όσων διαφωνούν με το ξεπούλημα της Μακεδονίας, όσων διαφωνούν με την κατάπτυστη συμφωνία των Πρεσπών, όσων συμμετέχουν στα συλλαλητήρια. Η κυβέρνηση επεξεργάζεται τα προσωπικά τους δεδομένα και παρεμβαίνει και βλέπει τι υποστηρίζουν και τι λένε στα social media. Πρέπει να υπάρξει τοποθέτηση της Επιτροπής για το θέμα αυτό.
                  

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! W bardzo ważnej kwestii cyberbezpieczeństwa nadrobiliśmy stracony czas. Przypomnę, że temat był podjęty dwa lata temu z dobrym, jak się okazuje, skutkiem. Przypomnę, że w grudniu ubiegłego roku zostało osiągnięte porozumienie na posiedzeniu trójstronnym i w rezultacie tego mogliśmy w komisji ITRE jeszcze w styczniu tego roku zatwierdzić przedłożony dokument. Dzisiaj go przegłosowaliśmy. Zwrócę uwagę na to, że ten stały mandat dla agencji jest istotny w jednym bardzo istotnym punkcie. Otóż oprócz zbierania danych, oprócz tych wszystkich aktywności eksperckich po raz pierwszy pojawiła się możliwość wykonywania także zadań operacyjnych. Zwracam na to uwagę dlatego, że w cyberbezpieczeństwie zwłaszcza skuteczność możliwość działania, a nie jedynie zbieranie informacji, jest rzeczywiście tym kluczowym elementem budowania bezpieczeństwa w cyberprzestrzeni.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, vótáil mé i bhfabhar an achta seo agus ghlacas páirt sa díospóireacht a bhí againn aréir agus molaim arís ár gcara agus ár rapóirtéir, Angelika Niebler, as an sárobair atá déanta aici maidir leis an acht seo.
                  

                     Gach lá cloisimid anois faoi fhogha cibir i ngach uile áit, cuid díobh déanta ag daoine aonair, cuid díobh ó chomhlachtaí caimiléireachta, agus cuid díobh, agus a lán díobh, ó thíortha cosúil leis an Rúis agus an Chóiré Thuaidh.
                  

                     Dá bhrí sin, tá sé an-tábhachtach go mbeimid ar an airdeall agus go ndéanfaimid gach rud chun é seo a chosc, agus cabhróidh an t-acht seo chun é sin a dhéanamh. Go háirithe, molaim an chumhacht atá á tabhairt do ENISA – d'fhéadfadh siad i bhfad níos mó a dhéanamh agus déanfaidh siad sin de bharr an achta seo, go háirithe mar a bhaineann le teastas agus mar sin de. Dá bhrí sin, is céim ar aghaidh an t-acht seo agus molaim é.
                  
10.6.   Unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain (A8-0309/2018 - Paolo De Castro)

Oral explanations of vote


Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhora Presidente, votei a favor deste relatório pois bem sabemos que no meu país, onde o preço do leite é de 28 cêntimos, os produtores de leite não recebem mais que o custo de produção, ao passo que os transformadores recebem muitíssimo mais, o que deixa os primeiros numa posição de especial fraqueza em relação às práticas comerciais desleais. Muitas vezes, os produtores agrícolas não têm um poder de negociação equivalente ao dos parceiros que compram os seus produtos.
                  

                     As práticas comerciais desleais ao longo de toda a cadeia do abastecimento alimentar são tão significativas que a Comissão Europeia teve que intervir três vezes e já é tempo de tomar realmente as rédeas neste assunto. Por estas razões, esta presente proposta da Comissão sobre práticas comerciais desleais corresponde a uma procura forte e de longa data da população agrícola e à sentida convicção de que os agricultores devem ser muito mais bem protegidos contra estas práticas abusivas e comerciais desleais.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, προκειμένου να στηριχθούν οι αγρότες μας πρέπει να υπάρξει απόλυτη απαγόρευση όλων των αθέμιτων πρακτικών και όχι μόνο συγκεκριμένες πρακτικές όπως περιγράφει η έκθεση. Όλες οι πρακτικές που είναι αθέμιτες πρέπει να σταματήσουν, διότι είναι δεδομένο ότι οι παραγωγοί κερδίζουν μόνο το 20 % επί της τιμής πώλησης ενός αγροτικού προϊόντος. Διότι επί της ουσίας υπάρχει αισχροκέρδεια, από την πλευρά των εταιρειών διανομής τροφίμων, από τις αλυσίδες διατροφής οι οποίες επί του πρακτέου εκμεταλλεύονται τους ίδιους τους παραγωγούς με εκβιασμούς, με μείωση των τιμών, παίρνουν επιταγές και στο τέλος δεν πληρώνουν και επίσης οι χονδρέμποροι, επί της ουσίας, διαμορφώνουν τέτοιες τιμές που οι ίδιοι οι παραγωγοί δεν έχουν κανένα κέρδος. Άρα απόλυτη απαγόρευση όλων των αθέμιτων πρακτικών που είναι εις βάρος των γεωργών μας.
                  

Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Płatności po trzydziestu dniach od dostawy, jednostronne anulowanie umów, jednostronne lub wsteczne zmiany warunków umów, żądanie zapłaty za dostawę towaru, żądanie zapłaty przez dostawcę za utratę lub pogorszenie towaru, za magazynowanie, za promowanie, za reklamowanie, za wystawianie na półkach, także obowiązek przyjęcia bez zapłaty zwrotu niesprzedanego towaru, pokrywanie rabatów, et cetera, et cetera – są to tylko niektóre przykłady praktyk handlowych uznanych za nieuczciwe.
                  

                     Dobrze, że się tym zajmujemy. Dobrze też, że w ramach dyrektywy, a nie rozporządzenia, a więc dając państwom członkowskim elastyczność w podejmowaniu własnych rozstrzygnięć. Musimy bowiem także pamiętać, że tu mamy zawsze dwie strony umowy i oczywiście jeśli jedna stosuje praktyki nieuczciwe wobec drugiej, zwłaszcza słabszej i mniejszej, należy ingerować, ale też każdą sprawę trzeba indywidualnie rozstrzygać.
                  
10.7.   European citizens' initiative (A8-0226/2018 - György Schöpflin)

Oral explanations of vote


Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhora Presidente, votei a favor pois considero que a iniciativa de cidadania europeia é um instrumento direto de participação do público, democrático e participativo. Participei ativamente defendendo várias delas, como a do direito à água como direito humano básico, que finalmente não passou, ou a do ‘Minority Safe Pack’, para proteger as línguas das minorias nacionais, os direitos linguísticos e as culturas.
                  

                     Há muito a melhorar, como o prazo para recolha de assinaturas que deveria ser muito mais longo, também as campanhas para sensibilizar e a prova é que foram poucas as iniciativas aprovadas desde que entrou em vigor em 2011. A Comissão deve pôr à disposição do público um registo em linha que permita aos grupos de organizadores gerir a respetiva iniciativa durante o processo. O registo em linha deve incluir um sítio Internet público de acesso eficaz e fácil com informações gerais, claras, precisas e abrangentes.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Πρωτοβουλία Πολιτών είναι μία έκφραση της αρχής της συμμετοχικής δημοκρατίας στο πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και θα πρέπει να ασκείται με τον πιο δημοκρατικό, πιο άμεσο και απόλυτο τρόπο, χωρίς γραφειοκρατίες. Εδώ υπάρχει μια αντίφαση: με την Ευρωπαϊκή Πρωτοβουλία οι πολίτες καλούν την Επιτροπή να αναλάβει νομοθετική πρωτοβουλία. Ποιος, όμως, είναι αυτός που ελέγχει αν η νομοθετική πρωτοβουλία αυτή των πολιτών είναι σύννομη; Η Επιτροπή. Δηλαδή εδώ έχουμε ‘Γιάννης πίνει και Γιάννης κερνάει’. Δηλαδή, πρακτικά τι συμβαίνει; Η ίδια η Επιτροπή ελέγχει αν η νομοθετική πρωτοβουλία είναι ορθή, ενώ η ίδια η Πρωτοβουλία καλεί την Επιτροπή να αποφασίσει. Είχα πει ότι άλλο όργανο έπρεπε να ελέγχει τη νομιμότητα της Πρωτοβουλίας των Πολιτών. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, χρειάζεται ένα σύστημα που να δίνει την ευκαιρία στους πολίτες να ασκούν απόλυτα αυτό τους το δικαίωμα, το οποίο είναι δικαίωμα συμμετοχικής δημοκρατίας.
                  

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Madam President, the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) was created as a tool for sharing power by making citizens active participants in legislation, but it is still inefficient and not a single legislative initiative of the Commission was based on an ECI. Sixty-three per cent of citizens have little or no knowledge of their rights under EU law. At the same time, thousands of lobbyists operate in Brussels and dominate in the EU policy process.
In this reality, it's very difficult for EU citizens to make their voices heard and the reform of the ECI in a fact need. But, in my opinion, the current reform package makes it even more difficult for citizens to participate, for example, by eliminating individual online collection systems. We are in the 21st century and we need to have quick and easy digital ways to encourage civic engagement. But, of course, in general, I voted in favour.

Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Europejska inicjatywa obywatelska to nie jest tylko instrument demokracji, ale to jest także mechanizm na rzecz jednoczenia się obywateli Europy wokół idei, wokół sprawy, wokół jednego celu, choćby dlatego że by powołać Komitet Obywatelski, potrzeba co najmniej siedmiu obywateli, co najmniej siedmiu państw. No i oczywiście potem zbieranie miliona podpisów. Wspaniała rzecz. Potrzeba oczywiście dalszych liberalizacji i ułatwień. Wprowadziliśmy większe wsparcie Komisji Europejskiej na tę rzecz, centralne zbieranie podpisów i wiele innych. Ale dla mnie bardzo cenną rzeczą jest to, aby właśnie Parlament Europejski obradował nad inicjatywami, które zostaną złożone. I tak będzie. Dlatego popieram to sprawozdanie.
                  

José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, votei favoravelmente o relatório que moderniza a iniciativa cidadã europeia porque acredito que é preciso dar mais credibilidade a este instrumento de participação e de aproximação dos cidadãos. Para isso é preciso que este instrumento aglutine e que não divida ainda mais os cidadãos. É preciso que dê mais oportunidades de participação através de uma Europa que tem as suas diferenças, permitindo o uso de plataformas de recolha de assinaturas, tanto da Comissão Europeia como independentes, desde que reconhecidas por autoridades competentes para impedir eventuais fraudes.
                  

                     É preciso que o debate destas iniciativas seja integrador e que privilegie o diálogo entre todos os atores da sociedade civil, porque só assim se consegue chegar ao consenso. É preciso também dar tempo para que as propostas se consolidem e possam, de forma efetiva, chegar a um processo legislativo coeso. É preciso que este instrumento espelhe a vontade real dos cidadãos distribuídos pelo território da União para que não esteja cativo de interesses de uns poucos, de um só Estado-Membro ou de um interesse financeiro.
                  

                     Para que tudo isto se concretize, há que alocar recursos e ferramentas para emponderar os cidadãos para que possam, de forma séria, fazer uso deste instrumento democrático da União Europeia.
                  
10.8.   State of EU-Russia political relations (A8-0073/2019 - Sandra Kalniete)

Oral explanations of vote


Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Madam President, I was taken aback by the spirit of hostility the rapporteur managed to impart on this report and it states that EU relations with Russia are based on deterrence and isolation. It gives many recommendations on how to limit cooperation with the Russian Federation and no recommendation on how to resume communication. It also undermines the credibility of the EU message by expressing mere beliefs, condemnations and accusations on the issues which have not even been investigated.
Concerning the sanctions, the more effective they are at weakening the Russian economy, the more they undermine the EU's bigger objective. First, because a weaker Russia would not be a better partner and second, sanctions marginalise pro-Western members of the Russian elite, meaning that we managed to lose the interlocutors we needed.
Of course, the real challenge of the EU foreign policy is not Russia, as the report states. The real challenge of the group of European politicians, unlike some Members of this House who still profess confrontation and an overtly anti-Russian agenda with the hope to collect some votes, voted against.

Момчил Неков (S&D). – Уважаеми колеги, съгласен съм с доводите на г-н Мамикинс и искам да кажа, че Русия е страна със стратегическо значение и положение за голяма част от Европа. Тя е страната, граничеща с най-много държави – членки на Европейския съюз, и има обща граница със Съюза от близо 2 300 километра.
                  

                     Отказвайки ѝ статут на стратегически партньор, освен че е недалновидно, е и стратегическа грешка. Подобна теза означава отричане на европейската реална политика на 21-ви век. Никой не печели от излизането с политически декларации, напоени с езика на назидателния тон.
                  

                     Искам да обърна внимание на параграф 6 например, в който решително се осъжда участието на Русия в случая ‘Скрипал’. Това е смело твърдение, имайки предвид, че специалните служби на Великобритания все още не дават 100-процентова сигурност за това твърдение дори година след този случай. Нима моите колеги, подкрепили този текст, имат повече познания и информация от разузнавателните служби?
                  

                     И последно, критикуваме разследващата журналистика в трети страни, но знаете ли, уважаеми колеги, че в България биват сваляни предавания от национален ефир, защото разкриват истината около корупционните практики в страната?
                  
10.9.   Building EU capacity on conflict prevention and mediation (A8-0075/2019 - Soraya Post)

Oral explanations of vote


Alex Mayer (S&D). – Madam President, armed conflicts are rarely fought on well-defined battlefields, but in and around communities. Health, education, transport and employment opportunities all suffer. Women are in the middle of this, yet they are excluded in global work on preventing conflict, mediation and peace-building. Indeed, women have made up just 2% of mediators and 5% of witnesses or signatories to major peace processes in the last 30 years.
This report, like UN Resolution 1325, rightly accepts that women experience conflicts differently from men. Take Kashmir, where 8 000 men are unaccounted for since 1989, leaving thousands of half-widows living in poverty, lacking property rights and unable to remarry, pellet guns blinding and maiming and the use of rape as a weapon of war. After 70 years we need some new approaches, and I hope that this report is a step in the right direction.
11.   Corrections to votes and voting intentions : see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 13.34)


PREȘEDINȚIA: IOAN MIRCEA PAȘCU


Vicepreședinte

12.   Resumption of the sitting

(Ședința a fost reluată la ora 15.01)

13.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes
14.   Documents received: see Minutes
15.   A European human rights violations sanctions regime (debate)

Președintele. – Următorul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea privind Declarația Vicepreședintelui Comisiei și Înaltului Reprezentant al Uniunii pentru afaceri externe și politica de securitate, referitoare la un regim european de sancționare a încălcării drepturilor omului (2019/2580(RSP)).
               

Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, I very much agree with colleagues that human rights are under attack worldwide and on the need to continue to do all we can to prevent gross human rights violations. A major challenge for us is always to focus even more on the day-to-day implementation of our extensive toolbox and convince partners to deliver on existing commitments and obligations.
Our current EU human rights toolbox is already quite comprehensive, encompassing a strong multilateral and bilateral dimension. The Union will continue to denounce human rights violations and abuses wherever they are committed, to call on state and non-state actors to prevent them, and to seek justice and accountability. There is no doubt about that. It's true that the global landscape is rapidly evolving and we need to ensure that the European Union is adequately equipped to remain a leader in the field of human rights.
In this context, a targeted assessment is ongoing as to how a European Union horizontal human rights sanction regime might bring added value in our collective efforts to further realise human rights and prevent gross violations or abuses of human rights. Here the issue of the scope of a possible future regime will be particularly important and the need to define which type of violations would fall under such a regime. Should such a regime, for example, focus on gross and systematic human rights violations? Should it cover violations of international humanitarian law? Should it address corruption cases?
Another important question is the interplay between such a potential regime and other existing EU sanctions regimes, but also regimes established at UN and national level. Human rights violations are already addressed in a number of geographical sanction regimes, for example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iran and Myanmar. Here we should consider whether the potential of integrating human rights into geographical regimes has been fully exploited. Obviously, there are some existing gaps, since geographical sanction regimes by definition are limited in focus. Could a horizontal human rights sanction regime usefully fill such a gap and offer a more flexible approach?
Last but not least, sanctions listings must be underpinned by robust, open-source evidence in order to be upheld in court. Listings are reviewed regularly and listed persons have the right to have their delisting requests considered. Respecting due process is an overarching principle underpinning all sanction regimes, but even more so in the context of a potential human rights regime. Given these multiple important issues, I am therefore pleased that expert discussions are taking place in the Council to look in detail at all these elements. Once the experts have finalised their discussions, more political discussions can take place. The creation of any new regime is a matter for the 28 Member States to agree by unanimity, as is the imposition of concrete sanctions.
Thank you for your attention and your interest. I am looking forward to our discussion.

Sandra Kalniete,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, sometimes a name means a lot. To name a European human rights violations sanctions regime after Sergei Magnitsky would send an unambiguous message to the human rights abusers in our closest neighbourhood that Europe is going to create serious consequences for them and around the world. Magnitsky stood up to the corruption of the Putin regime. The way in which the Russian Government tried to cover up his murder and exonerate the people involved became a symbol of impunity worldwide. That is why Magnitsky's name speaks to people everywhere.
I believe that the repeated calls of this House to adopt a European Magnitsky Act mean creating a legal basis for imposing visa sanctions and asset freezes on human rights violators around the world. There should be no impunity for killers of Rohingya in Myanmar, the rapists in the Central African Republic or the killers of the Saudi journalist. We will once again urge the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) to come up with a proposal for an EU Magnitsky Act before the end of the current parliamentary term. The Council has so far failed to act, but now this initiative is gaining momentum.

Ana Gomes,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, em 2013, este Parlamento adotou por esmagadora maioria o relatório ‘Corrupção nos setores público e privado, impacto nos direitos humanos em países terceiros’ de que eu fui relatora, que diz no ponto 3: ‘É de opinião que a UE deve seguir o exemplo dos Estados Unidos da América no que se refere à adoção do “Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act” de 2012 e adotar legislação semelhante a nível da UE, enquanto quadro simbólico e operacional que estabeleça a ligação entre corrupção e violações dos direitos humanos; exorta o Conselho a estabelecer uma lista comum a toda a UE dos funcionários implicados na morte de Sergei Magnitsky, pelo subsequente encobrimento do caso e insta a Comissão a elaborar um plano de ação para impor sanções específicas semelhantes contra agentes de países terceiros envolvidos em violações graves dos direitos humanos e em “manipulações” judiciais contra os autores de denúncias, jornalistas que investigam casos de corrupção e ativistas dos direitos humanos’.
               

                  Ora, é exatamente isso que, volvidos seis anos, é reforçado pela resolução que o Parlamento Europeu amanhã votará. O mecanismo que especificamos tem o nome Magnitsky com ele, porque tem origem neste assassinato perpetrado na Rússia de Putin, mas tem aplicação universal onde quer que semelhantes crimes ocorram. Listamos os critérios de base, exigindo ação e coerência aos Estados-Membros na aplicação de sanções, exigência crucial numa altura em que muitos dos nossos governos parecem reféns de governos oligárquicos, corruptos e violadores dos direitos humanos, de Moscovo a Pequim e de Riade a Washington, na era Trump.
               

                  A propósito, se os responsáveis dos assassinatos de Daphne Caruana Galizia e Jan Kuciak e parceira não forem a julgamento deveremos estudar a aplicação de semelhantes sanções aos responsáveis pelo encobrimento nesses países da União Europeia.
               

Amjad Bashir,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Milton Friedman argues that one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results.
From Ancient Greece's Peloponnesian War, to modern-day Belarus, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea and Russia, evidence suggests that sanctions targeted at entire countries rarely achieve the intended foreign-policy objectives. Very often, collective punishments result in further collectivism. Innocent citizens in sanctioned countries become even more dependent on their domestic oppressors for the straight provision of basic goods in return for further encroachment on their political and social freedoms.
As a free marketeer, I have always believed in individual responsibility. We should, therefore, promote a smarter sanctions policy to ensure that sanctions are both legally robust and effective against those individuals committing abuses around the world.

Marietje Schaake,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, it's hard to believe that it's been almost nine years since I first submitted amendments for a European Magnitsky Act, and the urgency for us of having an EU-wide smart mechanism to hold human rights violators individually to account has only become more pressing since then. Given that the UN Security Council and the UN generally is often paralysed and blocked by vetoes, the EU should show leadership and join the coalition of the willing – if you want to look at it that way – between the USA, the UK, Canada and the Baltic states, which already have ‘Magnitsky’ laws.
Targeted human rights sanctions, including asset freezes, entry bans and also the calling out by name of perpetrators of the worst human rights violations, whether they be state or non-state actors, can make a huge difference, including in terms of differentiating between the punishment of individuals versus hitting entire populations. It is the elites who often participate in these human rights violations who enjoy buying real estate in Europe, sending their children to our top universities or going shopping in our wonderful capitals. We cannot allow such ‘business as usual’ to continue for the murderers of journalists or the rapists of women.
When we talk about sanctions regimes, let us also look at ourselves critically because, despite sanctions being in place, Ali Mamlouk from Syria, on our blacklist, visited Italy, companies from the EU built the Kerch Strait Bridge, chemicals were exported from Belgium to Syria – and the list goes on. Clearly we're only as credible as the weakest link in our own behaviour.
Concluding, a horizontal human rights sanction regime is essential, but it can never replace the need to hold perpetrators to account through criminal prosecution in domestic and international courts. It is high time to end impunity and, if we adopt this regulation, it would also be a small step towards justice for Sergei Magnitsky.

Barbara Lochbihler,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Mit der Schaffung eines EU-weiten Sanktionsmechanismus gegen Verantwortliche von Menschenrechtsverletzungen senden wir ein sehr deutliches Signal, dass Menschenrechtsverletzungen immer geahndet werden müssen. Priorität muss dabei immer die strafrechtliche Verfolgung der Täter haben, aber es muss auch in den Fällen geahndet werden, bei denen sich die Täter einer Anklage entziehen können. Die EU wendet bereits seit langem personenbezogene Sanktionen an. Eines der ersten EU-Einreiseverbote aufgrund von Menschenrechtsverletzungen wurde im Kontext der Hinrichtung des nigerianischen Umweltaktivisten Ken Saro-Wiwa im Jahre 1995 verhängt.
               

                  Heute kommt es darauf an, dass wir die Anwendung von Einreiseverboten und das Einfrieren von Konten gegen Täter effizient, transparent und in einem ordnungsgemäßen Verfahren umsetzen. Daher ist es richtig, dass Sanktionsentscheidungen gerichtlich angefochten werden können. Erforderlich ist, dass belastbare Beweise vorliegen, die auch der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich sind. Einen wichtigen Beitrag hierzu, dass es besser gelingt, können zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen leisten.
               

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


Gunnar Hökmark (PPE),
blue-card question. – I want to raise the question as to why the Green Group would not support naming this legislation the ‘Magnitsky Act’ – not only because it has a symbolic meaning, which is obvious, but because it's a way of defining why we need to have this legislation in place, and to send a signal to those who use criminality to make themselves rich at the expense of their own people. Why couldn't your group support giving this legislation the proper name?

Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Auf Ihre Frage: Wir haben auch im Unterausschuss Menschenrechte sehr ausführlich mit allen politischen Gruppen diskutiert. Also, es gibt nur einen Fall weltweit, nämlich das entsprechende US-Gesetz, das den Fall Magnitski im Titel hat. Alle anderen Gesetze, die genauso und sehr qualifiziert und gut sind, zum Beispiel in Kanada, haben eine fachliche Terminologie. Ich glaube, Herr Preda liegt falsch in der Annahme, dass er sagt, dieses Gesetz wäre weniger wichtig oder würde weniger wahrgenommen, wenn es nicht diesen Titel hätte. Und ich bedaure es sehr, dass er in der Ausschusssitzung nicht darauf eingegangen ist, dass wir selbstverständlich im Entschließungstext selber auf den Magnitski-Fall verweisen können, der sehr entscheidend war in der ganzen Entwicklung so einer Art von Sanktionsregime.
               

Mylène Troszczynski,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, s'il est évidemment vital de sanctionner sévèrement toute atteinte aux droits de l'homme, ce n'est certainement pas à l'Union européenne d'en imposer les sanctions.
               

                  Vous brandissez cet anathème contre les États, et notamment les États membres, qui n'approuvent pas vos politiques en matière migratoire ou au sujet de l'idéologie du genre – je pense évidemment à la Pologne, ou encore à la Hongrie. Vous utilisez cet argument pour tenter d'abattre vos adversaires politiques, ce qui est doublement condamnable, d'abord parce que vous instrumentalisez la cause des droits de l'homme, si noble soit-elle, à des fins bassement politiciennes, mais aussi parce qu'en agissant de la sorte, vous masquez les réelles menaces qui pèsent sur les citoyens européens, notamment celle de l'islamisme radical, qui fait, entre autres, reculer le droit des femmes. Je pourrais aussi évoquer les 372 victimes du terrorisme islamique en France depuis 20 ans. Voici ce qui menace réellement les droits de l'homme.
               

                  Et comment ne pas évoquer la Cour européenne chargée d'assurer le respect de ces mêmes droits – je veux parler de la CEDH – qui protège, justement, à l'inverse, ces terroristes. Dernièrement, elle a même interdit l'expulsion de Kamel Daoudi, terroriste algérien déchu de sa nationalité française, désormais logé aux frais de la princesse à Aurillac. Elle interdit aussi la fouille systématique des visiteurs en prison, ce qui a permis l'attaque par un autre terroriste de deux gardiens de prison à Condé-sur-Sarthe la semaine dernière. Vos ingérences et celles de structures supranationales deviennent insupportables et sont dangereuses pour nos concitoyens.
               

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – Mr President, we are all well aware of the context of the draft resolution we are debating today. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the United Kingdom, Canada and the USA have their Magnitsky laws in action, enabling their governments to impose targeted sanctions on perpetrators and beneficiaries of serious human rights violations. We, the European Parliament, have repeatedly called for the establishment of an EU-wide equivalent. I am convinced that this has to be done at EU level, and without further postponement or delay.
I call on High Representative Mogherini and I urge the Commission and the European External Action Service to bring forward a legislative proposal for an EU Magnitsky Act before – and I stress before – the end of the current parliamentary term. I firmly believe we have had enough of differing interpretation and differing implementation of the EU sanctions, and we should stop this practice.

Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, a União Europeia é hoje uma grande referência, senão a principal referência mundial, no que toca à proteção dos direitos humanos. Em nenhuma outra parte do mundo encontramos o mesmo grau de preocupação, vigilância e respeito no campo destes direitos.
               

                  Cidadãos e organizações da sociedade civil de todos os cantos do mundo dirigem-se à União Europeia quando os seus direitos humanos são postos em causa porque sabem que serão ouvidos e que serão, na medida do possível, defendidos. Mas esta autoridade moral e política só é verdadeiramente credível se for acompanhada por instrumentos que não deixem impunes aqueles que desrespeitam os direitos humanos e que corroem o Estado de direito por via da corrupção.
               

                  A condenação política ou institucional, sendo imprescindível, não é, porém, suficiente. Uma dissuasão eficaz tem de ir além da pressão diplomática e passar em muitos casos pela aplicação de sanções.
               

                  É por isso que o reforço do regime de sanções da União Europeia, tornando-as mais consequentes e mais direcionadas, é um passo muito importante para a consolidação da União Europeia como o posto avançado da causa dos direitos humanos no mundo.
               

Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie i Panowie Posłowie! Nasza polityka praw człowieka powinna się opierać na paru prostych zasadach.
               

                  Po pierwsze – wierność tym, którzy wspierają nasze prawa. Po drugie – uznanie dla tych, którzy życzą nam pokoju. Po trzecie – szacunek dla tych, którzy chronią tych, za których szczególnie odpowiadamy – na przykład chrześcijan w krajach, gdzie są zagrożeni.
               

                  W centrum tej polityki powinni być zawsze ludzie – prawo ludzi do życia w pokoju i bezpieczeństwie, co jest podstawą wszystkich ludzkich praw, a na pewno nie animowanie konfliktów politycznych. Oczywiście – Europa powinna podejmować interwencje humanitarne, powinna reagować na niesprawiedliwość, ale zawsze pamiętając, że nie chodzi o szerzenie jakiegoś uniwersalizmu politycznego, tylko obronę konkretnych ludzi ze świadomością co nasze działania oznaczają.
               

                  Mamy dziś problem Algierii, być może jutro będziemy o tym decydować. Pamiętajmy o tych zasadach.
               

Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). – Voorzitter, in mijn vorige leven en ook als lid van het Europees Parlement ben ik zo'n 18 jaar bezig geweest met sancties tegen Zimbabwe, tegen de regering in Zimbabwe. Dat waren zogenaamde smart sanctions. Toch was het elk jaar opnieuw in februari een gevecht in de Raad tussen de Europese lidstaten om die sancties nog weer een jaar door te zetten.
               

                  Als ik luister naar de collegae hier lijkt het alsof het een makkie is om nu eindelijk een nieuw Europees sanctieregime te beginnen dat zich richt op individuen en het debat over landensancties wat eenvoudiger maakt. Zo eenvoudig is het niet! Als we zien dat de Nederlandse regering afgelopen november een initiatief genomen heeft, zeer low profile, zonder er ruchtbaarheid aan te geven, om lidstaten op één lijn te krijgen om tot zo'n regime van gerichte sancties te komen, dan kunnen we zien hoe moeilijk het is.
               

                  U kunt nu allemaal suggereren dat het eenvoudig is en dat als we het maar een naam geven, dat het dan extra rechten doet gelden. Dat is niet zo!
               

Marie-Christine Arnautu (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, ô droits de l'homme, que de tartufferies ne commet-on pas en ton nom…
               

                  Une fois encore, nous voilà amenés à copier-coller une loi américaine, le Magnitsky Act. Son seul but était de faire peser sur les dirigeants russes des menaces de sanctions financières et de limitation de circulation, afin de les forcer à accepter pour leur pays les ingérences étrangères, en particulier américaines, et, in fine, empêcher la Russie de reprendre sa position régionale.
               

                  Sous prétexte de faire respecter les droits de l'homme partout dans le monde et de sanctionner les dirigeants qui ne s'y soumettraient pas, vous désirez acquérir une influence que seuls certains États membres de l'Union détiennent encore résiduellement. Assez d'hypocrisie! Il ne faut pas être grand clerc pour deviner que les dirigeants de certains pays seront épargnés quand l'économie de l'Union aurait plus à y perdre qu'à y gagner. Car, en vérité, dans l'Union, aujourd'hui, seuls les profits sont considérés comme primordiaux. Dirigeants du monde, selon que vos pays seront puissants ou faibles, les jugements de l'Union vous rendront blancs ou noirs.
               

José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – Señor presidente, desde el año 1990 en que por primera vez se incluyó en el Acuerdo Unión Europea-Argentina la cláusula democrática, esta constituye un elemento esencial de los acuerdos que la Unión Europea suscribe con terceros países. Esta cláusula democrática está en el código genético de la Unión y supone una prueba tangible del compromiso irrenunciable que la Unión Europea tiene con el respeto de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales.
               

                  Sin embargo, hay dos problemas. Primero, la aplicación, que no es inmediata. Y, en segundo lugar, la tardanza en la toma de decisiones. Mientras nosotros estamos implicados en largos procedimientos —el comisario hablaba de la regla de la unanimidad—, hay otros que toman decisiones de la noche a la mañana.
               

                  Es importante, por tanto, que la Unión Europea se dote de un código ágil y eficaz de sanciones por violaciones de los derechos humanos —la señora Kalniete pedía que esto se adopte en la presente legislatura—. Eso contribuirá, señor presidente, a que la Unión Europea sea más coherente con sus principios, a que sea más respetada en la escena internacional y a que tenga mayor credibilidad.
               

Kati Piri (S&D). – Voorzitter, ik juicht dit voorstel toe. De bescherming van mensenrechten is een van de belangrijkste kernwaarden van de Europese Unie. Helaas laat de EU niet altijd meer zien onvoorwaardelijk een gezamenlijk front te vormen tegen de individuele personen die deze rechten schenden.
               

                  Het huidige voorstel waarin personen die grove schendingen van de rechten van de mens begaan de toegang tot de EU wordt ontzegd en hun tegoeden worden bevroren, is een effectief instrument. Dit voorstel heeft twee grote voordelen: de onschuldige bevolking van het land blijft buiten schot en de mensenrechtenschenders worden aangepakt waar het hun het meest pijn doet. Bovendien waarborgt dit nieuwe plan de neutraliteit van onze gezamenlijke sancties door het sanctieproces te depolitiseren. Dat maakt de Europese Unie slagvaardiger.
               

                  Daarom zie ik uit naar het definitieve voorstel van de Commissie, zodat onze Unie nog beter dan nu in staat zal zijn de universele rechten van de mens te verdedigen.
               

Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, today the world has seen a sweeping wave of autocratic governments and strongmen, and our human rights toolbox needs to respond to these changes. By the way, we need only to listen to the debates in this Parliament, this very week, to understand that the situations in countries like Russia, China, Turkey, Nicaragua and Kazakhstan are totally anti-democratic and put the international human rights obligations of those countries into question.
So the EU human rights toolbox must adapt. The global sanctions regime is one of the best tools for doing just that. The EU comprehensive sanctions regime for human rights violations is long overdue. To make it a success, it is vitally important that the new regime is legally sound and complies in full with the highest standards of due process. The listings should be based on hard evidence and on open source information and should be strictly rights based, as opposed to geostrategic, financial or other bases: that is the only way to guarantee political legitimacy.
We do not wish to see symmetry with the US sanctions regime, as it does not have adequate judicial safeguards. I'm very grateful that the High Representative and the Council have undertaken an open approach to this possible new instrument, understanding that it's a complex system that must be put in place. We cannot afford to fail.

Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, finally EU ministers have decided to establish an EU global human rights sanctions regime. But, to be efficient and credible, it needs joint efforts and rigorous and consistent implementation by all Member States. I welcome the move to drop the unanimity rule in this area, but on the condition that it must not lead to selective implementation by those who don't agree. Implementation has to be mandatory for all. So far, progress since the 2014 European Parliament decision to establish an EU Magnitsky list has been alarmingly slow. Only five more states have followed the US Congress resolution and I think it is very important to maintain the name Magnitsky, which has symbolic and universal meaning.
Finally, it is shameful that Russia is so far not included in the money-laundering and terrorist-financing blacklist.

Νίκος Ανδρουλάκης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση παραμένει η κύρια δύναμη υπεράσπισης των ευρωπαϊκών δικαιωμάτων σε ολόκληρο τον κόσμο. Η συζήτηση για να δημιουργήσουμε έναν ευρωπαϊκό μηχανισμό επιβολής στοχευμένων κυρώσεων σε ανθρώπους ή κυβερνήσεις παγκοσμίως που παραβιάζουν τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα είναι μια μεγάλη πρόκληση και πρέπει όλοι σήμερα απαντήσουμε θετικά για να ενισχύσουμε την αξιοπιστία μας ανάμεσα στους λαούς που επιζητούν την Ευρώπη της αλληλεγγύης, της δημοκρατίας και του ανθρωπισμού.
               

                  Για να είναι όμως αποτελεσματικό, θα πρέπει να βασίζεται σε αντικειμενικά κριτήρια και να μην λειτουργεί με την αρχή της ομοφωνίας. Δεν μπορούμε να είμαστε έρμαιοι πολιτικών και εθνικών συμφερόντων, όπως συμβαίνει πολλές φορές στο Κοινοβούλιο, όσο και στο Συμβούλιο. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα και κόμματα της ευρωπαϊκής ακροδεξιάς κάνουν ότι δεν βλέπουν τις παραβιάσεις ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων σε χώρες της Μέσης Ανατολής. Όπως, από την άλλη πλευρά, η ευρωπαϊκή αριστερά δεν πιστεύει ότι υπάρχει ευρωπαϊκή και ανθρωπιστική κρίση στη Βενεζουέλα των τριών εκατομμυρίων προσφύγων και της έλλειψης βασικών αγαθών. Τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα όμως δεν είναι πεδίο μικροπολιτικών σκοπιμοτήτων. Η υπεράσπισή τους πρέπει να είναι αδιαπραγμάτευτη.
               

Jaromír Štětina (PPE). – Pane předsedající, není to poprvé, co náš Parlament volá po globálním režimu sankcí v souvislosti s lidskými právy, který by po vzoru Spojených států amerických, Kanady a dalších zemí, například Litvy, Lotyšska, Estonska, nesl jméno pana Magnitského.
               

                  Dnes jsme naši výzvu ve zprávě o vztazích Evropské unie a Ruska zopakovali, zpráva naléhavě žádá Komisi a Evropskou službu pro vnější činnost, aby neprodleně připravily legislativní návrh celounijní verze Magnitského zákon, který by umožnil ukládat zákazy udělování víz a cílené osobní sankce, jako je zablokování vlastnictví a zájmu v oblasti majetku a tak dále a tak dále. Plně podporuji celounijní mechanismus, který by měl účinněji postihovat jednotlivce, kteří jsou implikováni v závažném porušování lidských práv.
               

                  Pokud má Evropa zůstat věrná svým hodnotám, nemůže k okolnímu bezpráví jen vzhlížet. Bezzubost našich reakcí na vykonstruované procesy, na mučení politických vězňů snižuje naši autoritu a posiluje rozpínavost a troufalost autoritářských režimů.
               

Liliana Rodrigues (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, não pode haver qualquer espécie de impunidade para aqueles que perseguem povos, para aqueles que exterminam em nome da religião, para os traficantes de pessoas e de armas, para os exploradores sexuais ou para os assassinos de jornalistas.
               

                  Por muito dinheiro que tenham, por muita proteção que possuam determinados regimes não democráticos, a União Europeia nunca poderá dar abrigo aos violadores dos direitos humanos. Nós ainda somos uma esperança no mundo.
               

                  Precisamos de mostrar determinação e estabelecer uma lei à escala da União que não compactue com aqueles que não respeitam a dignidade humana. Imponham a proibição de concessão de vistos, congelem os ativos dos infratores e proíbam-nos de entrar na nossa casa. É altura de nos juntarmos aos países que já o fizeram. A Europa precisa urgentemente de uma proposta concreta para punir estes violadores. Precisamos de o fazer se não queremos que os nossos discursos sejam cheios de conteúdo, mas vazios de ação. Até lá, as armas que compramos e os acordos que fazemos estarão sempre manchados do sangue daqueles que se batem pela liberdade.
               

Intervenții la cerere


Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Już na wstępie zaznaczę, że nie wierzę w sankcje. Nie wierzę w sankcje jako jedyne, wyłączne narzędzie, a nie jako jeden z elementów wywierania określonej presji. Podobnie zresztą jak z rezolucjami. Im więcej jest rezolucji, tym bardziej podlegają inflacji i stają się nieskuteczne. Jestem przewodniczącym Delegacji ds. Białorusi i wiem, jak ważne jest stosowanie wielu narzędzi po to, aby wywrzeć określoną presję, określony efekt. Przede wszystkim trzeba rozmawiać. Trzeba utrzymywać kanały komunikacji. Trzeba zwracać uwagę także na pewne swoistości państw, wobec których stosujemy różnego rodzaju narzędzia. W każdym razie chciałbym się opowiedzieć przede wszystkim przeciw inflacji w rezolucjach i w naszych wystąpieniach, za sankcjami, które połączone są z innymi elementami, elementami innych presji, elementami edukacyjnymi, elementami utrzymania komunikacji, bo dopiero wówczas uzyskamy rzeczywisty efekt.
               

Κώστας Μαυρίδης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θέλω κι εγώ με τη σειρά μου να τονίσω πόσο σημαντικό είναι να δημιουργήσουμε έναν μηχανισμό επιβολής κυρώσεων, ο οποίος να στοχεύει και σε άτομα εγκληματίες, όσο και σε κυβερνήσεις κρατών. Το ζητούμενο όμως είναι ο μηχανισμός αυτός να είναι αποτελεσματικός και αμερόληπτος, είτε τα εγκλήματα διαπράττονται εντός Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, είτε εκτός Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, είτε ο παραβάτης είναι στη Ρωσία, είτε είναι στην Τουρκία. Δυστυχώς, η συμπεριφορά μας μέχρι σήμερα θα δείξει στην πορεία αν θα αλλάξει και θα αντιμετωπίσουμε, επιτέλους, όλους αυτούς τους παραβάτες με τον ίδιο τρόπο.
               

                  Πάντως, οι ευρωπαϊκοί θεσμοί έχει καταφανεί ότι δεν αντιμετωπίζουν τους παραβάτες και εγκληματίες με τον ίδιο τρόπο. Για παράδειγμα – και τελειώνω – το έγκλημα της εξαφάνισης του χριστιανικού και ευρωπαϊκού πολιτισμού στο βόρειο τουρκοκατεχόμενο μέρος της Κύπρου είναι έγκλημα για το οποίο σιωπάτε, κύριε Επίτροπε.
               

Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, ljudska prava kršile su i još uvijek krše brojne treće države s kojima imamo diplomatske i trgovinske odnose, neke naše saveznice, kao i neke države članice. Iako europski lideri često govore o tome da je Europska unija ‘zajednica vrijednosti’, moram priznati da smo ljudskim pravima često trgovali.
               

                  Određene sankcije za sustavno kršenje ljudskih prava unutar Unije moraju postojati jer ono predstavlja jasno kršenje ugovora. Zato imamo Sud Europske unije i tu nam novi mehanizmi nisu potrebni. Bojim se da bi bili iskorišteni za discipliniranje država članica koje s Bruxellesom ne dijele istu viziju Unije, dok bi se nekim drugima, koji dijele federalističku viziju, kao i dosad gledalo kroz prste.
               

                  Prema trećim zemljama, s druge strane, tek trebamo razviti učinkovite mehanizme koji bi bili vezani uz naše trgovinske i druge sporazume s tim zemljama.
               

Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, for the EU to be credible when standing for the protection of human rights worldwide, we need more than just words. We also need instruments. In this regard, the European regime to impose sanctions on individuals from both state and non-state actors responsible for human rights violations is imperative. It places the EU as the front-runner for the protection of human rights worldwide. It enhances the visibility of the EU as a responsible international actor. It sends a strong signal to those many existing dictatorships and authoritarian regimes which systematically disregard the right and the duty to preserve human dignity. It would be a tool to make life a bit more difficult for those responsible for – or involved – in grave human rights violations and abuses. It would be a way to support the victims of those abuses as well as human rights defenders and a step towards fighting against impunity. For all these reasons, I call on the Council to reach a prompt agreement on this much-needed regime.

Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει αποτέλεσμα στον τομέα των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων χωρίς κάποιου είδους κυρώσεις. Οι κυρώσεις όμως αυτές πρέπει να υλοποιούνται μετά από μια ενδελεχή και δημοκρατική συζήτηση με το κράτος κατά του οποίου επιβάλλονται. Σε μια τέτοια περίπτωση, μπορεί να μην πείσουμε το υπό συζήτηση κράτος ή τους αξιωματούχους του, αλλά χωρίς αμφιβολία θα έχουμε καταφέρει να αναπτυχθεί η αναγκαία συζήτηση μέσα στον πληθυσμό αυτού του κράτους. Χωρίς αυτή τη δημόσια συζήτηση, μπορεί εύκολα οι κυρώσεις να εκλαμβάνονται από αυτό το κράτος ως εχθρική κίνηση κι αυτό δεν θα είναι καθόλου εποικοδομητικό.
               

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, today, the global trend leans towards undermining international law, in particular when it comes to human rights. Multilateralism is under attack by a number of countries, with the US leading the way. In this context, it's essential that the EU's foreign policy continues to focus on human rights, democracy and the rule of law, so I'm happy that the idea of a European human rights sanction regime is progressing. Sanctions can be a powerful tool, but it's important to make them as efficient and as targeted as possible. A coherent European sanctions regime is therefore a step in the right direction.
Seeing this progress being made at European level reminds me that that if Brexit happens, the UK will not be able to participate in such positive policies. Since the Brexit negotiations began, the Conservative Government has shown increasing cynicism in its foreign policy, with Theresa May holding hands with Presidents Trump and Erdoğan, while Liam Fox went on a trade crusade with the self-confessed murderer Duterte, now the President of the Philippines. So, 28 countries working together in a sensible sanctions regime is far more effective than one desperate lonely island.

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, un sistema de sanciones europeo para la violación de los derechos humanos contaría con nuestro apoyo, sin duda. Sería muy necesario. Pero, sobre todo, también sería muy necesario no continuar con una visión, con cierta complicidad hacia la impunidad. Y voy a ponerle tres ejemplos, señor comisario, tres países.
               

                  Marruecos, el caso del Rif. Ayer mismo condenaban a varios activistas del Rif precisamente por haber defendido derechos sociales, por haber defendido la libertad de expresión.
               

                  Le seguiré poniendo ejemplos, señor comisario. El caso del Sáhara Occidental, donde, en estos momentos, hay prisioneros políticos en huelga de hambre y, por supuesto, el caso de Turquía. Hablaremos más tarde de Turquía, pero tenemos líderes políticos en la cárcel, académicos, periodistas.
               

                  Y, ¿qué decir de Israel, señor comisario? ¿Qué decir de Israel?
               

                  Por eso, nos gustaría mucho que se deje de tener cierta complicidad, porque la influencia política también está en no hacer acuerdos comerciales paralelos.
               

                  Las Naciones Unidas acaban de afirmar que los ataques de Israel en Gaza, en la marcha del retorno, pueden constituir crímenes contra la humanidad y que han matado a 189 personas —35 de ellas, niños— en esas marchas desde el año 2018
               

(Încheierea intervențiilor la cerere)


Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, allow me first of all to thank you for this extremely valuable, useful and timely exchange of views. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you again for all your speeches, comments and suggestions.
Today's debate illustrates again that the possible EU global human rights sanctions regime is an interesting and necessary issue, but also a complex one meriting careful further study. As already mentioned, the current discussions are focusing on the various open questions that should be considered in order to allow for an informed political decision on the feasibility of such a proposal. Discussions will continue in the Council, and we stand ready to contribute to the debate constructively. A final decision will have to be taken unanimously. Allow me, therefore, to express my appreciation for your attention to this highly important topic.

Președintele. – Propunerile de rezoluție, care urmează să fie depuse în conformitate cu articolul 123 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul de procedură, vor fi anunțate ulterior.
               

                  Dezbaterea a fost închisă.
               

                  Votul va avea loc joi, 14 martie 2019.
               


Declarații scrise (articolul 162)



Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar (PPE),
por escrito. – Já por várias vezes a Alta Representante instou à criação de um mecanismo à escala da UE para a imposição de sanções específicas contra pessoas envolvidas em violações graves dos direitos humanos. Na verdade, ao longo das duas últimas décadas, as sanções da UE tornaram-se parte integrante do conjunto dos seus instrumentos em matéria de relações externas, e foram impostas no sentido de apoiar objetivos em matéria de respeito pelos direitos humanos e pelas liberdades fundamentais. A existência de um regime próprio à escala da UE viria a tornar a aplicação de sansões mais eficaz, não limitando a sua aplicação às pessoas de determinados países ou envolvidas em determinados crimes, mas que abrangesse todos os autores de graves violações dos direitos humanos que gozam de impunidade, intervenientes estatais e não estatais, tais como os terroristas e os grupos terroristas. Esta eficácia na imposição de sanções representaria um valioso instrumento que reforçaria o papel da UE enquanto interveniente à escala global no domínio dos direitos humanos.
               

Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE),
kirjalikult. – Käesolev resolutsioon on ilmekas näide järjekordsest Euroopa Liidu tõhusast töövahendist ühtse välispoliitika teostamiseks. Meie idanaabri õõnestustegevus ning sekkumine liikmesriikide siseriiklikusse poliitikasse on olnud võimalik tänu lihtsakoelise narratiivi levitamisele läbi kasulike idiootide. Liidu kodanike tähelepanu hajutamine läbi infooperatsioonide on ka osa Kremli laiemast strateegiast, mille kohaselt ei tohiks ei Venemaa kodanikud ega ka ülejäänud maailm näha neid õudusi, mida selle autoritaarse riigi vähesed inimõiguste eest seisjad peavad läbi elama. Kõnealune Magnitski seadus, nagu ka sanktsioonid üldiselt, on parim meede Vene võimude agressiooni vastaseks võitluseks ning tähelepanu juhtimiseks asjaolule, et Venemaal piiratakse isikuvabadusi. Seda demonstreerib Putini närvilisus ning pealetükkiv käitumine tema Euroopa Liidus pesitsevate partnerite suunal, kelle kaudu ta on üritanud sanktsioone tühistada või juriidilistest tekstidest nimelisi viiteid Magnitskile eemaldada. Aga tulemuseta – ning nii tulebki seda hoida! Mõistagi omab Magnitski nimi antud instrumendis olulist sümboolset tähtsust, kuid samas ei takista see kuidagi instrumendi kasutamist teiste riikide puhul.
               
16.   2018 Report on Turkey (debate)

Președintele. – Următorul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea comună privind raportul Kati Piri, în numele Comisiei pentru afaceri externe, în ceea ce privește Raportul pe 2018 referitor la Turcia (2018/2150(INI)) (A8-0091/2019).
               

Kati Piri,
Rapporteur. – Mr President, sitting in a cell for 17 months without knowing what you are being accused of – that is reality in today's Turkey. Osman Kavala, a leading figure in Turkey's civil society, and one of the many victims of President Erdoğan's witch-hunt against his critics, was arrested in October 2017. Osman and 15 others heard the charges against them last week. They are being held responsible for an attempt to overthrow the government and are facing life imprisonment without parole if found guilty. The 657-page indictment talks of the spontaneous wave of anti-government Gezi protests in 2013, which have now been reframed as an outcome of an international conspiracy to unseat the government. The evidence against Kavala: in some intercepted calls, he is offering to lend a plastic folding table and in another call, he agrees to send some packages of fruit juice and milk. The indictment includes no evidence of Osman or any of the others planning the protest, let alone an uprising. One could have a good laugh about this if it wasn't so serious. This is the level to which Turkey's democracy has sunk.
And now, what is the answer of the EU to all of this? What is the answer to blatant human rights violations in our neighbouring country? During the last five years, the European Parliament has taken the lead in not only speaking out, but also asking the Commission and the Council to use all available tools to send a firm signal to President Erdoğan and prevent further backsliding and, on the other hand, to show Turkey's citizens who adhere to values of freedom, human rights and the rule of law that the EU stands by their side. But so far, our European leaders have bitterly failed in doing so. Turkey has disappeared from our attention. It is no longer in the news, except when EU nationals are concerned. It seems that our government leaders have accepted that the situation in Turkey is as it is. Our calls for respect of fundamental rights have not only fallen on deaf ears in Ankara, but also in EU capitals. The red lines of this House have all been crossed. Severe human rights violations continue. The rule of law has been dismantled. Turkey is the record holder of jailed journalists and on top of that, the new constitution consolidates Erdoğan's authoritarianism. That is why we asked the Council to formally suspend the accession talks with Turkey. Not that anyone was seriously considering accession under the current circumstances, but continuing talks on EU integration with President Erdoğan is a charade.
We want to hear what the EU will do for Osman Kavala. What will the EU do for Selahattin Demirtaș, the opposition leader who was imprisoned for two and a half years, for the other members of parliament in jail, for the tens of thousands of people who have been jailed without a fair trial, for the LGBTI activists, for the Saturday mothers who are no longer allowed to protest, for the brave Turkish women who, on 8 March, went out on the streets and were met with rubber bullets fired at them by the police?
The silence of the Council is fuelling Erdoğan's authoritarianism. It is also fuelling the disappointment of Turkey's democrats. It is time to come up with a strategy. You can start on one this Friday, when you will have a meeting with Turkey's Foreign Minister.
President, allow me also after these five years, to thank my colleague shadow rapporteurs who have been working on this file for the last five years in good cooperation. I very much hope that tomorrow we will be able to unite this House again and to give a strong signal to our European leaders.

Melania Gabriela Ciot,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, thank you for the invitation to participate in this debate today to discuss the European Parliament's 2018 Turkey report, and to look at the issues of mutual concern, as well as those of mutual interest. We take note of the clear messages and concerns referred to in your resolution. We are continuing to follow domestic developments in Turkey very closely, in particular the implementation of the constitutional amendments.
Particularly worrying in this respect, as you have also rightly noted on many occasions, is the continuing backsliding in the areas of rule of law and respect for fundamental rights, also highlighted in the Commission's 2018 communication on enlargement policy. These concerns were clearly reflected in last June's Council conclusions, as well as in Parliament's report on the table today.
In its conclusions of 18 July 2016, the Council strongly condemned the 15 July coup attempt and expressed solidarity with the Turkish people and full support for the democratic institutions of Turkey. The EU recognises the serious security threats that Turkey has faced. However, the disproportionate scale and scope of measures taken in the aftermath of the failed coup attempt also continue to raise serious concern. Turkey has been moving further away from the EU, and we are not currently in a ‘business as usual’ situation.
While noting your call for a formal suspension of accession negotiations with Turkey, let me remind you that the Council noted in its June 2018 conclusions that Turkey's accession negotiations have effectively come to a standstill, due to the issues just outlined. At the same time, we agree with you that it is important not to close the door to Turkey, but to keep the channels of communication open; the Council maintains that continued engagement and an open and frank dialogue with Turkey, as a candidate country and a key partner of the EU in many areas, remains important and is in the best interests of both sides. I refer in particular to the common challenges that we face and the need to cooperate in essential areas of joint interest such as migration, counterterrorism, energy, transport, economy and trade.
The EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan for refugees and migration management and the March 2016 EU-Turkey statement are continuing to be implemented in the interest of both parties. This successful cooperation has led to a drastic decrease in deaths at sea, a substantial reduction in irregular migrant arrivals from Turkey, and a better future for the Syrian migrants in Turkey, to which the EU-funded Facility for refugees in Turkey is continuing to contribute.
The Council fully subscribes to Parliament's acknowledgement of the important role played by Turkey in responding to the migration crisis, as confirmed in its conclusions commending Turkey for its renewed efforts and constructive cooperation. At the same time, Turkey needs to commit to a normalisation of relations with Cyprus and fully implement the provisions of the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement.
Let me use this opportunity to assure you that we, as the Presidency, will therefore continue to raise these important matters with our Turkish interlocutors at every level and on every occasion, and do our utmost to persuade Turkey to do its part and live up to its promises of reform.

Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, let me start by congratulating the rapporteur, Kati Piri, and all the shadow rapporteurs, not only for this year but also in previous years, for all their excellent work on Turkey – a candidate country and, of course, a partner of strategic importance to the European Union.
In relation to the rule of law and human rights, the negative developments that the Commission identified in its last – 2018 — report have continued. They have caused further serious concerns about the direction that the Turkish leadership is taking. The recent indictment against Osman Kavala, and 15 other highly respected civil society actors, exemplifies the increasing pressure that civil society is facing. It also casts doubt as to whether the judicial process in Turkey respects the principles of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
Honourable Members, Turkey says it remains committed to its goal of EU accession. It should not then be surprised that we are following developments in Turkey very closely and that we raise our strong concerns when the values and principles on which the European Union is founded – and to which Turkey too has officially committed as a member of the Council of Europe – are being ignored. On the contrary, one would expect Turkey to carry out the necessary reforms.
But Turkey is also, and will remain, our neighbour and a partner of strategic importance for the European Union, with whom we work closely on areas such as energy, counterterrorism, trade and migration. Turkey is a key player in regions that are of strategic interest for the European Union. It also hosts the largest refugee population in the world, and our cooperation under the Facility for Refugees is an example of successful cooperation.
A series of high-level sectoral dialogues on political issues, transport and the economy has taken place recently and an Association Council will be convened later this week. These meetings provide useful platforms not only to further our cooperation but also to share our grave concerns. Our engagement is not unconditional: open dialogue is not uncritical dialogue. Most recently, at our high-level political dialogue on 22 November in Ankara, the High Representative and I made it clear to our Turkish counterparts that there is an urgent need for Turkey to reverse its policy stance if it seriously wants EU-Turkey relations to improve. And during the recent high-level economic dialogue, Vice-President Katainen specifically raised our concerns about press freedom, in particular the accreditation of foreign journalists.
We also continue to call on Turkey to improve its relations with all our Member States bilaterally, especially with Cyprus. We have emphasised that the Turkish Government should refrain from provocative and illegal actions, notably in the eastern Mediterranean and in the Aegean.
At the same time, we must not lose sight of the long term and, perhaps even more importantly, of the many people in Turkey who are directly affected by the current downward trend on fundamental freedoms. We must keep our hands stretched out towards them, especially, and help them to defend our shared European values.

Renate Sommer,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Frau Ministerin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, ich möchte der Berichterstatterin Kati Piri und auch den Schattenberichterstattern der anderen Fraktionen für die sehr gute Zusammenarbeit über Jahre hinweg danken.
               

                  Letztendlich konnten wir uns auf einen guten Text einigen, der nur noch punktuell der Verbesserung bedarf. Und in einem Punkt, denke ich, ist er verbesserungsbedürftig, nämlich er fordert, die Beitrittsverhandlungen nur auszusetzen, und diese Forderung ist ja nicht neu. Wir hatten sie für den Fall erhoben, dass ein Präsidialsystem etabliert und damit die Demokratie in der Türkei abgeschafft wird. Aber damit haben wir natürlich das Erdoğan-Regime in keiner Weise beeindruckt. Die Verfassung wurde geändert, Demokratie und Rechtsstaat sind abgeschafft. Selbst wenn die Beitrittsverhandlungen ausgesetzt würden, hätte die Türkei weiterhin ein Anrecht auf Zahlung der Vorbeitrittsmittel. Mit diesen Geldern aber unterstützen wir de facto die türkische Regierung, die die Menschenrechte und bürgerlichen Freiheiten mit Füßen tritt, Kritiker und Oppositionelle bis ins Ausland verfolgt, verhaftet und zu hohen Gefängnisstrafen verurteilen lässt. Eine regelrechte Hexenjagd trifft die Gülen-Anhänger. Können wir das wollen? Helfen wir so den Regimekritikern?
               

                  Aus meiner Fraktion kommt der Wunsch, die Beitrittsverhandlungen endgültig zu beenden, und ich unterstütze das. Dann könnten wir nämlich die Vorbeitrittsmittel zur Unterstützung der türkischen Zivilgesellschaft umwidmen. Seien wir doch mal ehrlich – jeder weiß, dass es unmöglich ist, die Türkei aufzunehmen, und dass die Europäische Union selbst über lange Zeit in keiner Weise erweiterungsfähig ist. Deswegen bitte ich um Unterstützung zur Änderung des Textes in ‘Beendigung der Verhandlungen’.
               

Victor Boștinaru,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I would first like to thank the Council, the Commission and the Romanian rotating Presidency for their very balanced judgment and assessment on EU-Turkey relations.
I remain convinced that Turkey is an important partner of the EU. The enlargement process has allowed us to significantly influence Turkey's path towards democracy in the last decades – maybe for too long. With regret I can only note the shredding of some of the democratic achievements since 2016. I trust nevertheless that a European Turkey is for the benefit of all: the EU, NATO and each of our Member States. Europe should be vigilant and firm when it comes to condemning the violations of human rights, freedom and the rule of law in Turkey, while always keeping up a strong, regular and constructive dialogue with this important country. Both are imperatives. This also includes an intensive dialogue on alignment of foreign policy, defence and security issues, with a strong focus on counterterrorism and matters of military and strategic importance, as Turkey is a very important member of the military alliance, NATO.
Finally, while Turkey is the EU's fifth largest trading partner and Europe is by far Turkey's largest economic partner, with Germany in the lead, the customs union is still the world one. That is why I am calling on the Commission to start the preparatory work for the upgrade of the customs union and on the Council to provide the necessary mandate as soon as possible.

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


Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE),
ερώτηση ‘γαλάζια κάρτα’
                     . – Άκουσα με προσοχή τον κύριο Boștinaru να αναφέρεται πολλές φορές στο ότι η Τουρκία είναι ένας εταίρος. Ήθελα πραγματικά να μας εξηγήσετε, εμάς εδώ στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, πώς εννοούμε και πώς αισθανόμαστε τους εταίρους. Εταίροι όπως την Τουρκία που είναι ο πλέον αναξιόπιστος, ο πλέον προκλητικός εταίρος, ο οποίος επιτίθεται σε χώρες μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Και θα ήθελα να ξέρω, αν η Τουρκία επιτίθετο στη Ρουμανία κατά τον ίδιο τρόπο που επιτίθεται στην Ελλάδα και στην Κύπρο, αυτή θα ήταν η αντίδρασή σας; Εάν στη Ρουμανία η Τουρκία δεν αναγνώριζε την χώρα ως χώρα μέλος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, ως μια ανεξάρτητη χώρα, όπως δεν αναγνωρίζει την Κύπρο, θα θεωρούσατε την Τουρκία αξιόπιστο εταίρο που οφείλουμε να συνεχίσουμε να την αντιμετωπίζουμε με αυτόν τον τρόπο, χωρίς να λαμβάνουμε μέτρα και κυρώσεις;
               

(χειροκροτήματα)


Victor Boștinaru (S&D),
blue-card answer. – Dear Colleague, I'm looking at Turkey, not with my Romanian eyes. To make it clear, we are here the European Parliament. I'm looking at the role of Turkey from an EU perspective, and no matter whether it is you, me or others, we are looking at Turkey. Turkey geographically is there, politically is there, militarily is there, and Europe can do better if it has stronger, more effective relations with Turkey. Europe will be much weaker and exposed to much higher risks if we sever relations with Turkey completely, as the EPP is doing in order to make the Turkish issue a hostage to different political agendas.
I don't share your view.

Bas Belder,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, dankzij amendering staat het Turkije-verslag kort stil bij Diyanet, het Turkse directoraat voor religieuze zaken, invloedrijk binnen en buiten de Turkse staatsgrenzen en ruim voorzien van financiën, met een beoogd budget voor 2019 van circa 1,7 miljard euro en met 140 000 vaste werknemers. Hier is Europese alertheid, mijnheer de commissaris, werkelijk geboden. Zie ook de grondige analyse van doctor Salim Çevik, ‘Erdoğan's Comprehensive Religious Policy’, vers van de pers, vorige week verschenen in Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Lees het!
               

                  Met klem verzoek ik Raad en Commissie, alsmede de regeringen en parlementen van de EU-lidstaten de activiteiten van Diyanet op Europees grondgebied grondig te onderzoeken en ook daarover te rapporteren. We krijgen allereerst de gelegenheid bij het nieuwe voortgangsverslag van de Commissie. Dit vanwege de ernstige verdenkingen van spionage, surveillance en rekrutering van agenten door Diyanet-functionarissen.
               

                  Aan het eind van paragraaf 11 roept het verslag de Turkse autoriteiten op alle manifestaties van antisemitisme in de samenleving daadwerkelijk te bestrijden. Met zo'n oproep is de minuscule joodse minderheid niet gebaat wanneer het verslag tegelijkertijd zwijgt over de presidentiële promotie van prominente figuren die met stuitende antisemitische statements strooien. Een gemiste kans! De afwijzing ook van dit amendement. Zo heeft het geen zin!
               

Marietje Schaake,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the annual debate about Turkey's progress towards EU accession has become more difficult and painful each year. It is now a report on regress.
A lot has happened over the past year and, while it's absolutely legitimate to hold the perpetrators of the failed coup and the attack on the Grand National Assembly to account, nothing justifies the overreaction that continues to haunt Turkey: hundreds of thousands fired from their jobs or arrested; abuse of the state of emergency and counterterrorism measures; limitations to press and internet freedom; and trumped-up charges to accuse civil society leaders, such as Osman Kavala. All in all, core principles are at stake: the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers and the rule of law. These developments impact disproportionately on the opposition and on women, LGBTI people, journalists, religious minorities, human rights defenders and other minorities.
But everybody in Turkey, whether openly or quietly in their hearts, knows what is going on and fears what may yet come. A fear of what could get worse still seems to paralyse the Commission and the Council too. Or is it the cynical outsourcing of the sheltering of refugees – for which Turkey deserves our support – that risks overshadowing everything else?
I believe that our credibility is at stake and I insist that our words and principles must have meaning. As we warned in previous years, with the adoption of the constitutional reform package, a presidential system is now in place, one that lacks checks and balances, not so much according to us but according to the Venice Commission. So we need to be honest and principled. When we continue our relations on trade, defence, foreign policy or asylum, we must always work with Turkey on the basis of the rule of law and respect for human rights.

Bodil Valero,
för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Vi behandlar nu egentligen kommissionens Turkietrapport för 2017, och som alla vet har mycket hänt sedan dess. Det började med invasionen av Afrin redan i januari 2018. Jag besökte Turkiet två gånger förra året. I somras gjorde jag ett besök i Diyarbakir. Jag intervjuade politiker, nätverk, organisationer och medborgare i allmänhet om situationen där. Jag besökte stadsdelen Sur, eller snarare skådade in över vad som var kvar av Sur uppifrån världsarvets murar. Jag deltog också en hel dag i rättegången i Ankara mot bland annat de turkiska gröna språkrören, som är anklagade för att ha undertecknat ett upprop mot invasionen av Afrin. Jag träffade akademiker, EU-representationen med flera med flera. Jag ställde samma fråga till alla om hur de såg på de fortsatta anslutningsförhandlingarna. Och jag fick samma svar: ‘Var mycket tuffa mot regimen, men stäng inte dörren helt för medlemskap.’
               

                  Under mitt andra besök i december träffade jag förutom organisationer och politiker, företrädare för försvaret och ett antal syriska rebellgrupper. På agendan stod en, som de uttryckte det, ‘nära förestående utrensning av terrorister i norra Syrien’. Flera av dem hänvisade till vårt gemensamma arbete med att bekämpa terrorismen och bad om vårt stöd för sin planerade insats i Syrien. Syftet med insatsen är att rensa ut i princip alla de kurdiska grupper som så framgångsrikt bekämpat Daish, och som vi i stället borde vara evigt tacksamma mot.
               

                  Att vara kandidatland förpliktar. EU-medlemskapet bygger på respekt för mänskliga rättigheter, inklusive minoriteters rättigheter, pressfrihet, yttrandefrihet, domstolarnas oberoende. I parlamentet har vi tröttnat på att se president Erdoğans styre ta stormsteg bort från våra gemensamma värderingar. De går inte att bortförklara med det misslyckade kuppförsöket 2016, och det finns inga godtagbara ursäkter för invasioner av andra länder. Men vi har olika syn på anslutningsförhandlingarna. Från oss gröna – vi väljer att lyssna på demokraterna och minoriteterna. Vi vill vara tuffa mot regimen, men vi vill inte suspendera förhandlingarna. Vi vill att de ska fortsätta att vara frysta.
               

Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητέ κύριε Hahn, κυρία Piri, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, ίσως αυτή είναι η τελευταία ουσιαστική μου παρέμβαση ενώπιον του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, ενός πολύ φιλόδοξου πειράματος που ανέλαβε η ανθρωπότητα. Μιλώντας, όμως, για την Τουρκία, οφείλω να σας πω – και δεν αναφέρεται αυτό μόνο στην Τουρκία – μας λείπει η αλληλεγγύη, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, μεταξύ των κρατών μελών και συνακόλουθα δυστυχώς, κάποτε και μεταξύ των λαών. Δεν αποτελεί η Κύπρος – προέρχομαι από την Κύπρο και οφείλω να σας πω δυο κουβέντες – δεν αποτελεί η Κύπρος σε αυτή τη συζήτηση κατεχόμενη χώρα, δεν αποτελεί αναγκαίο βάθος της συζήτησης που λαμβάνει χώρα σήμερα εδώ.
               

                  Υπάρχει μια ασάφεια, για να πω το ελάχιστο, στη στάση που έχουμε απέναντι στην Τουρκία και ως κράτη μέλη αλλά και ως ευρωβουλευτές. Δεν ξέρουμε τι να πούμε στην Τουρκία, αλλά την ίδια ώρα η Τουρκία ξέρει πολύ καλά τι λέει σε μας. Την ίδια ώρα το Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα ζήτησε τερματισμό των διαπραγματεύσεων με τη χώρα αυτή, αλλά την ίδια στιγμή ζητά αναβάθμιση της τελωνειακής ένωσης. Είναι σαν να παίρνεις από κάποιον το ψωμί, αλλά του δίνεις τον φούρνο και το σιτάρι. Θεωρώ ότι αυτή είναι μια λανθασμένη προσέγγιση. Πρέπει να είμαστε τίμιοι απέναντι στην Τουρκία και να ξέρει ακριβώς τι είναι αυτό που ζητούμε από αυτή.
               

                  Ο κύριος Çavușoğlu, πρόσφατα, αλλά και πάρα πολλοί άλλοι αξιωματούχοι – δώστε μου μερικά δευτερόλεπτα, κύριε Πρόεδρε – αναφέρονται συχνά-πυκνά στη φράση ‘είμαστε έτοιμοι για οποιαδήποτε λύση στην Κύπρο’. Αυτό εμπεριέχει τη βέβαιη τοποθέτηση ότι αναζητούν λύση δύο κρατών. Δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει Κύπριος που θα σηκώσει το στιλό για να υπογράψει λύση δύο κρατών. Γι' αυτό και το μήνυμά μου και προς τούρκους αξιωματούχους, αλλά και ως προς οποιονδήποτε Κύπριο είναι ότι πρέπει να ανασχεθεί αμέσως η οποιαδήποτε συζήτηση υπάρχει για λύση δύο κρατών. Μόνο η Ομοσπονδία μπορεί να αποτελέσει διέξοδο στη λύση αυτού του μεγάλου προβλήματος.
               

                  Σας καλώ σε αλληλεγγύη απέναντι στον κυπριακό λαό και καλώ και τους Κύπριους σε αλληλεγγύη απέναντι σε όποια προβλήματα αντιμετωπίζουν άλλοι λαοί στην Ευρώπη.
               

President. – I allowed you to speak more because you promised that this would be the last speech.

James Carver,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, last Wednesday, 6 March, Russian and Turkish media reported that ships from the Russian Black Sea fleet held a joint exercise drill with a Turkish navy corvette and a minesweeper, near the Port of Novorossiysk. This came shortly after President Erdoğan's clarification over speculation about a Turkish deal to purchase Russian S-400 Triumf air defence systems, when he confirmed that his government will not cancel that deal, despite protests from his American NATO partner.
Since the British people's vote to leave the European Union, this place has increased rhetoric, emphasising alarming support for the development of integrated EU military forces. My only hope is that after the European elections a majority here will step back from this crazy federalist mantra and understand that NATO is a vital component of peace and security in Europe.
Mr President, to my mind the threat to NATO from a developing EU military capability is as concerning as Ankara's continuing military alignment with Moscow.

Mario Borghezio,
a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono anni che da questi banchi, del tutto isolatamente, noi sostenevamo la tesi della pericolosità assoluta di un progetto di introduzione nella nostra Unione europea di un paese che non ne aveva le prospettive, non perché – come forse erroneamente o in maniera grossolana dicevamo all'epoca –tutta la Turchia non fa parte dell'Europa: una parte rilevante della Turchia è certamente Europa, tant'è vero che persino durante il fascismo venne convocata alla grande convention di Roma del 1932 sull'idea d'Europa, venne invitata anche la Turchia.
               

                  Ma era una Turchia diversa, una Turchia laica. Non era la Turchia guidata da Erdoğan, con il suo sogno di califfato islamico, la Turchia che fa paura, che alleva e probabilmente ha fatto entrare i terroristi, la Turchia che oggi voi scoprite essere il paese dell'illegalità, dell'antidemocrazia. Avete scelto proprio quello per affidare i rifugiati della Siria e di altri paesi. Complimenti per la vostra ipocrisia. In realtà è il tempio della prigione, per chi non la pensa come il governo, a cominciare dai 150 giornalisti in prigione. Una vergogna!
               

Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση απεικονίζει την πραγματική κατάσταση που υπάρχει αυτή τη στιγμή στην Τουρκία, δηλαδή παραβίαση των αρχών του κράτους δικαίου, των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, συλλήψεις και βασανιστήρια αντιφρονούντων και μη, χειραγώγηση της δικαιοσύνης, διώξεις αντιφρονούντων στο εξωτερικό και κατάργηση της ελευθερίας του Τύπου. Επίσης, επισημαίνει τη μη αναγνώριση της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας από την Τουρκία, το ότι δεν της επιτρέπει να εκμεταλλεύεται τους πόρους στην οικονομική της ζώνη και, επίσης, διότι παραβιάζει συνεχώς τον εναέριο χώρο της Ελλάδος και τα χωρικά ύδατα και επιπλέον προκαλεί και δεν αναγνωρίζει τις αρχές του διεθνούς δικαίου.
               

                  Όλα αυτά που ανέφερα δεν είναι απλές διμερείς διαμάχες μεταξύ της Τουρκίας και των γειτόνων της. Είναι μια ευθεία παραβίαση των αρχών του διεθνούς δικαίου και, προκειμένου να υποχρεωθεί η Τουρκία να συνετιστεί, θα πρέπει να διακοπούν άμεσα οι ενταξιακές διαπραγματεύσεις, οι διαπραγματεύσεις για την τελωνειακή ένωση και η χρηματοδότησή της. Είναι απαράδεκτο να χρηματοδοτεί η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση την αγορά τεθωρακισμένων οχημάτων μάχης Cobra II από την Τουρκία.
               

Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, susțin perspectiva prezentată mai devreme de raportoarea grupului PPE, doamna Sommer, dintr-un motiv foarte simplu: poziția pe care o îmbrățișează astăzi Kati Piri, noi am îmbrățișat-o deja în urmă cu 2 ani și Consiliul ne-a ignorat. Există state membre care blochează schimbarea poziției față de Turcia. Cred, de altfel, că nu trebuie să ne facem iluzii, din păcate există state membre care sunt atrase de modelul Erdogan și chiar președinția rotativă a Consiliului e unul dintre aceste cazuri.
               

                  Turcia fascinează și fascinează și în Balcanii de Vest. Vă reamintesc că singurul loc în care Erdogan a putut să facă un miting electoral e Sarajevo. Așa că, trebuie să vedem pericolul nu doar pentru unele dintre statele membre, dar și pentru prietenii din Balcanii de Vest. De asta cred că semnalul din Parlament European trebuie să fie mai dur decât în trecut, pentru că istoria asta trebuie să se încheie. Turcia trebuie să plece, clar, de la masa negocierilor.
               

Knut Fleckenstein (S&D). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Hunderttausende von Menschen in der Türkei erfahren fundamentale Verletzungen der Menschenrechte. Es ist an der Zeit, dass die Europäische Union ein klares Zeichen setzt und die Beitrittsverhandlungen, die ohnehin schon stillstehen, auch formal aussetzt. Zehntausende Menschen sitzen in Gefängnissen und warten in oft unfairen Gerichtsprozessen auf ihr Urteil. Die Forderung des Europäischen Parlaments nach einer formalen Aussetzung der Beitrittsverhandlungen ist folgerichtig und konsequent, weil wir schon im letzten Bericht damit gedroht hatten, wenn die Verfassungsreform in der Türkei umgesetzt wird. Das ist jetzt geschehen. Und die formale Aussetzung sollte auch deshalb geschehen, damit jeder weiß, dass das Europäische Parlament ein glaubwürdiger Gesprächspartner ist.
               

                  Wir sagen ‘aussetzen’, nicht ‘beenden’. Die Tür bleibt angelehnt. Trotz der strikten Forderungen des Europäischen Parlaments sollten die Türen zur Zusammenarbeit mit der Türkei als einem wichtigen strategischen Nachbarn nicht zugeschlagen werden. Es ist wichtig, dass wir bei aller Härte in der Diskussion mit der türkischen Regierung die Zivilgesellschaft nicht im Stich lassen. Gerade jetzt braucht sie unsere Unterstützung. Die Unterstützung der EU ist wichtiger denn je. Und das Europäische Parlament wird nicht aufhören, Gerechtigkeit zu fordern für Selahattin Demirtaș und die vielen anderen zu Unrecht im Gefängnis Sitzenden.
               

Anders Primdahl Vistisen (ECR). – Hr. Formand! Tyrkiet er et land, der historisk, kulturelt og geografisk aldrig har hørt og aldrig vil komme til at høre til i Europa. Og derfor er det velkomment, at dette Parlament har lavet den første og den mest kritiske rapport nogensinde mod tyrkisk medlemskab. Men det er ikke acceptabelt, at man ikke afslutter disse forhandlinger. Tyrkiet har i en årrække vist, at man er på en glidebane mod et mere og mere islamiseret samfund. Vi har set store tilbageskridt med det tyrkiske samfund generelt, men også med den indflydelse, som Tyrkiet øver her i Europa. Besættelsen af Cypern og den helt uacceptable adfærd, man har vist over for de mange tyrkere, der bor og lever i andre europæiske lande. Derfor er tiden inde nu til at sige stop. Og til at være ærlige i vores snak med Tyrkiet og indrømme over for dem, at de aldrig bliver – og aldrig bør blive – medlemmer af Den Europæiske Union.
               

Nedzhmi Ali (ALDE). – Mr President, the final text of the 2018 report on Turkey doesn't help to continue a constructive dialogue between the EU and our strategic partner. Suspension of the negotiation process is unacceptable for us. Before the final decision we need to take into account the progress made by Turkey recently.
On 11 December 2018, the fifth meeting of the Reform Action Group (RAG), held in Ankara, announced that Turkey would decisively continue its efforts to align with EU standards despite political obstructions in the negotiations. Ankara has set the goal of achieving closure of the monitoring procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Ministry of Justice intends to update the Judicial Reform Strategy together with the Council of Europe and the EU. To strengthen the protection of fundamental human rights, the RAG plans to update the Action Plan on the Prevention of the Violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
A proposal to suspend the negotiation process – even formally – will be received negatively by Turkish society: that was made clear during the recent meeting in Ankara of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, where the EU is seen as a friendly community. In the light of the upcoming elections in Europe and in Turkey, we need to be careful about the kind of messages we are sending to voters.

Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, tomorrow this House, the very same institution that in 2004 eagerly voted in favour of starting negotiations, will vote on the formal suspension of accession talks with Turkey. Much has happened in these 15 years and our relationship has been difficult at many times. However, the current stalemate could have been avoided if the accession framework had been used fully and if Turkey had kept its path towards reform and towards more democracy. Regretfully, the situation in Turkey has deteriorated a lot in recent years. The rule of law, fundamental rights and basic freedoms have been under great pressure. The recent indictment seeking a lifelong imprisonment for Osman Kavala is just one among thousands of examples of this backlash. However, suspending accession negotiations with Turkey is not the solution. In order to keep alive the prospect of democracy in Turkey, respect for human rights and individual and collective freedoms, we need to keep the doors open – if not for the present, then for the future. If not for us, then for those men in Turkey fighting for human rights and justice.

(The President cut off the speaker)


Martina Michels (GUE/NGL). – Herr Präsident! Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Erdoğan hatte den gescheiterten Putsch als ein Geschenk Gottes bezeichnet. Die Folgen davon stehen im EU-Türkei-Bericht. Das göttlichere Geschenk aber hat die EU den türkischen Machthabern selbst gemacht.
               

                  Der Flüchtlingsdeal förderte das Wegschauen bei der systematischen Verfolgung der Opposition, das Schweigen beim Überfall auf Afrin. Inzwischen ist die einzige Europaparlamentarierin Feleknas Uca mit vielen Jahren Haft bedroht. Seit November ist die Politikerin Leyla Güven im Hungerstreik. Zu solchen Mitteln greift man erst, wenn man jeglicher Handlungsmacht beraubt wurde. Übrigens leiden besonders die Frauen akut unter dem Erdoğan-Regime. Sie sollen systematisch mundtot und unsichtbar gemacht werden.
               

                  Entscheiden wir uns für das Signal des Einfrierens der Verhandlungen und nicht für Abbruch. Zeigen wir Dialogfähigkeit und Solidarität, denn die Türkei, ist mehr als Erdoğan, es ist vor allem die Opposition und die Zivilgesellschaft. Sie brauchen unsere Stimme!
               

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE),
otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Vážená paní poslankyně, já jsem vás pozorně poslouchala. Vy jste hovořila o tom, že Evropský parlament, Evropská unie vyměnila v dohodě s Tureckem pomoc v migrační krizi za to, že budeme mlčet k nesvobodě, která v Turecku je. Ale to přece není pravda! My přece nemlčíme, Evropský parlament opakovaně vyzývá k propuštění politických vězňů, měli jsme zde urgentní zprávy, naše společná delegace EU-Turecko v Ankaře jasně žádala o propuštění politických vězňů. Já se Vás ptám: Víte o tom, o čem tady jednáme?
               

Martina Michels (GUE/NGL),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Verehrte Kollegin! Ich erinnere Sie daran, dass wir hier in diesem Hause eine Situation hatten, wo wir uns eigentlich fraktionsübergreifend einig waren, dass wir uns mit dem EU-Türkei-Deal erpressbar gemacht haben. Diese Situation habe ich angesprochen. Erpressbar, dass uns Erdoğan hier monatelang, ja jahrelang sozusagen am Nasenring vorführen konnte. Und da, denke ich, sollten wir die eigene Situation auch nicht verschweigen. Das gehört genauso dazu wie alles andere, was wir an kritischem Dialog mit dem Erdoğan-Regime bereits unternommen haben.
               

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa discussione cade in un momento molto opportuno, con la recente espulsione dal territorio turco di ben 3 corrispondenti tedeschi dichiarati soggetti indesiderati dal paese. È la conferma di come la Turchia continui probabilmente ad essere il peggior paese al mondo per i giornalisti, con ben 68 di loro in carcere.
               

                  La purga erdoganiana non accenna insomma a placarsi e sembra ora accanirsi in particolar modo sui media, rei di mettere in cattiva luce il presidente-sultano. Colpa gravissima, specialmente a poche settimane dalle elezioni locali, già molto complicate a causa della traballante economia. Per non parlare delle altre incredibili e ben note violazioni dei diritti umani.
               

                  Quello di Ankara è veramente un caso eccezionale, colleghi. La Turchia continua ad essere un paese candidato all'adesione, nonostante i fatti ci dicano che tutto ciò semplicemente non dovrebbe essere possibile. L'unica piccola consolazione è che questo non avviene a causa di questo Parlamento. In questi anni non facili, la relatrice Kati Piri ha gestito con saggezza un complesso dossier.
               

                  Ma voglio ricordare che già nel 2016 noi avevamo chiesto un blocco temporaneo dei negoziati, diventato nel 2017 una richiesta di sospensione formale, posizione che confermeremo magari domani. Ma sono tutte parole vane, perché il pallino resta nelle mani del Consiglio, che in questi anni ha adottato la coraggiosissima scelta politica di non fare assolutamente niente, sperando forse che in qualche modo le cose migliorassero da sole: aspettativa ipocrita, irrealistica e puntualmente disattesa.
               

                  Non voglio con questo dire che si debbano totalmente recidere i rapporti con la Turchia, paese che resta ovviamente strategico. Sono però convinto che siano necessarie forme nuove e alternative di dialogo e di cooperazione, che archivino una volta per tutte un processo di adesione che ormai manca di qualunque credibilità e legittimità. Dobbiamo dare un segnale serio e inequivocabile. Avremmo dovuto farlo da tempo, in verità.
               

                  È evidente che le strategie attendiste non portano a nulla e non solo utili né a noi né tantomeno alla popolazione turca, che di questa situazione è vittima e che un giorno potrebbe chiedere conto della nostra incapacità di agire in modo deciso e tempestivo.
               

Jacques Colombier (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, chaque année, le rapport présenté par notre collègue, Mme Piri, a de plus en plus de mal à cacher la vérité. La situation en Turquie demeure des plus inquiétantes, et même les partisans les plus fanatiques de l'adhésion font désormais profil bas.
               

                  Mais le rapport de Mme Piri se borne à une seule analyse, certes négative, de la situation, mais qui n'exclut nullement la perspective d'adhésion à l'Union européenne. Pour nous, il s'agit avant tout d'une question essentielle: la Turquie n'a pas sa place dans l'Union européenne pour des raisons culturelles et même civilisationnelles, même si le peuple turc, peuple ami de la France de longue date, mérite toute notre attention. De plus, nous ne pouvons admettre une modernisation de l'union douanière entre l'Union européenne et la Turquie qui irait contre nos intérêts économiques et, en premier lieu, contre ceux de nos agriculteurs.
               

                  Que vous faut-il: plus d'incarcérations, de violations des droits de l'homme pour prendre la seule décision qui vaille? Aussi, je vous invite, chers collègues, à voter en faveur de la résolution alternative présentée par le groupe Europe des nations et des libertés, qui demande la fin définitive des négociations d'adhésion.
               

Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η αστική τάξη της Τουρκίας εντείνει την επιθετικότητά της, γκριζάροντας χωρικά ύδατα και εναέριο χώρο με διαρκείς παραβιάσεις, παράνομες NAVTEX στρατιωτικές ασκήσεις και απειλές, ενώ η κυβέρνηση ΣΥΡΙΖΑ εμπλέκεται στους ανταγωνισμούς ως σημαιοφόρος των ευρωατλαντικών σχεδιασμών στην αντιπαράθεση με τη Ρωσία, προσπαθεί να ξεπλύνει τον επικίνδυνο ρόλο των ΗΠΑ-ΝΑΤΟ-Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και καλλιεργεί τον εφησυχασμό.
               

                  Όσες επικριτικές διατυπώσεις για τον Ερντογάν και αν περιλαμβάνουν οι εκθέσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, χαρακτηρίζονται από τον δεδομένο ρόλο στρατηγικού εταίρου που αποδίδουν στην Τουρκία, φωτογραφίζοντας την ευρωνατοϊκή διευθέτηση στο Αιγαίο για συνεκμετάλλευση, καθώς και διχοτομικό σχέδιο στην Κύπρο, προκειμένου να μοιραστεί η πίτα της ενέργειας. Προκαλούν δε μεγάλα ερωτηματικά, θολές αναφορές στην έκθεση για επίλυση διμερών διαφορών που εκκρεμούν, για μη διευθετημένες νομικές υποχρεώσεις και ανεπίλυτες διαμάχες με τους άμεσους γείτονες, όσον αφορά χερσαία, θαλάσσια σύνορα και εναέριο χώρο.
               

                  Οι λαοί επιβάλλεται να είναι σε ετοιμότητα με πάλη ενάντια στον εθνικισμό και τα ιμπεριαλιστικά σχέδια Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, ΝΑΤΟ και αστικών τάξεων.
               

PŘEDSEDNICTVÍ: PAN PAVEL TELIČKA


místopředseda


David Casa (PPE). – Sur President, taħt l-amministrazzjoni li għandna bħalissa, it-Turkija tinsab iżjed 'il bogħod mis-sħubija fl-Unjoni Ewropea milli kienet meta applikat snin ilu. Mingħajr midja ħielsa ma teżistix demokrazija u l-każ ta' Pelin Unker juri eżattament l-istat ta' demokrazija fit-Turkija.
                  

                     Pelin hija parti mill-konsorzju internazzjonali tal-ġurnalisti investigattivi u kienet waħda minn dawk illi rrappurtat fuq l-iskandlu tal-Paradise Papers. Dak li kitbet ma nnegah ħadd u issa qed tiffaċċja tlettax-il xahar ħabs u numru ta' multi. Dan kollu għaliex fir-rappurtaġġ tagħha ssemmi nies importanti fil-politika – nies ta' poter fil-Gvern Tork. Pelin hija omm, u din is-sentenza, jekk tiġi fis-seħħ, tkun tfisser illi l-omm tiġi sseparata mit-tarbija tagħha.
                  

                     Din hija amministrazzjoni krudili u bla qalb, u l-poplu Tork jixraqlu aħjar. Għalhekk qed insejjaħ fuq il-kollegi tiegħi hawn illum, fuq il-Kummissjoni u fuq il-Kunsill, ħudu azzjoni issa u itolbu lill-awtoritajiet Torok biex iwaqqgħu dawn l-akkużi fażulli kontra Pelin Unker.
                  

Μιλτιάδης Κύρκος (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δήθεν αναστολή, αλλά ουσιαστικά οριστική διακοπή των ενταξιακών διαπραγματεύσεων με την Τουρκία. Το θέλει, μεταξύ άλλων, εμφατικά ο κύριος Weber, που θεωρεί ότι η Τουρκία δεν έχει θέση στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ό,τι και να κάνει, έστω και είκοσι χρόνια αργότερα. Η συμφωνία Siemens και Deutsche Bank των 32 δισεκατομμυρίων για τους τουρκικούς σιδηρόδρομους μας δείχνει το προνομιακό πεδίο σχέσεων Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-Τουρκίας, που κάποιοι οραματίζονται, χωρίς φυσικά τα ενοχλητικά κριτήρια της Κοπεγχάγης. Το θέλουν όμως και άλλοι, ως τιμωρία του Προέδρου Ερντογάν, για την απαράδεκτη παραβίαση του κράτους δικαίου.
                  

                     Όμως, όλοι οι δημοκράτες στην Τουρκία, μέσα και έξω από τις φυλακές, και ο Kavala και ο Demirtaș, όλα τα πολιτικά κόμματα, σε μια σπάνια στιγμή σύμπνοιας, ζητούν να μη σκοτώσουμε το ευρωπαϊκό όνειρο της χώρας τους. Εμείς ξέρουμε καλύτερα, ε; Business as usual και δήθεν ηθικό πλεονέκτημα, χέρι με χέρι, ακυρώνουν την ευρωπαϊκή προοπτική ενός λαού της γειτονιάς μας, αλλά και το μόνο εργαλείο θεσμικής μας παρέμβασης εκεί, όπως σωστά υποστηρίζει και η ελληνική κυβέρνηση.
                  

Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR). – Mr President, I have always taken the view that we need to keep Turkey close. Although neither side is under any illusions, the process of EU accession has proved beneficial to both Turkey and the EU. There is a saying that sometimes it's better to travel than to arrive. This journey has been going on for at least 15 years; some might say over 30 years. Why add injury to insult and suspend it now? And surely it's not in the interests of the EU to create animosity with its neighbours – Mr Barnier, take note.
Over the years, there has been a range of obstacles to progress with Turkey; some real, some contrived. One consistent element has been Cyprus. The EU talks grandly about principles of democracy, but it is content to ignore the people of a third of the island of Cyprus. Seats allocated to the Republic of Cyprus should be used proportionately to represent the peoples of all parts of the island either through a Turkish Cypriot Member of the Parliament or through observer status, as is the case in the Council of Europe.

Jörg Meuthen (EFDD). – Herr Präsident! Es geht heute einmal mehr um die Vorbereitung eines Beitritts der Türkei zur EU. Aber wir dürften hier in diesem Haus dazu eigentlich gar nicht mehr sprechen, denn die Türkei ist heute ein islamisches Land unter seinem diktatorgleichen Kalifen vom Bosporus. Es hat in dieser Verfassung mit der westlichen Wertegemeinschaft nichts gemeinsam. Die Türkei gehört nicht in die EU.
                  

                     Meine Fraktion hat schon mehrfach beantragt, die Beitrittsverhandlungen nicht nur zeitweise auszusetzen, sondern sie nun endlich endgültig zu beenden – bisher erfolglos. Doch jetzt haben wir eine neue Chance, denn Manfred Weber hat letzte Woche gesagt, dass er die Beitrittsverhandlungen beenden würde, wenn er denn Kommissionspräsident wird. Warum warten, Herr Weber? Warum nicht jetzt, liebe CDU und CSU? Wir können das sofort hier im Plenum entscheiden. Stimmen Sie meinem Änderungsantrag Nummer 17 zur endgültigen Beendigung der Beitrittsverhandlungen zu! Wir fordern Sie auf: Schenken Sie den Wählern noch vor der Europawahl reinen Wein ein und zeigen Sie, wie sie zu einem Ende der Beitrittsverhandlungen wirklich stehen.
                  

Michał Marusik (ENF). – Panie Przewodniczący! Mamy do uchwalenia kilka stron bardzo ładnie napisanego tekstu. Nie jest to jednak plebiscyt na dzieło literackie – pięknem słów nie kształtuje się rzeczywistości politycznej.
                  

                     Polityka to jest przede wszystkim umiejętność budowania i wykorzystywania siły. Unia Europejska jest dzisiaj tym obszarem świata, który rozwija się najwolniej. Turcja natomiast chce i potrafi budować swoją siłę – śmiało i brutalnie walczy ze swoimi wrogami, tak zewnętrznymi, jak i wewnętrznymi.
                  

                     Wyrażona w proponowanej rezolucji radość z przynależności Turcji do NATO jest pewnym przejawem politycznej naiwności, bo przecież w tym miesiącu – w marcu — odbyły się na Morzu Czarnym wspólne manewry wojskowe jednostek Rosji i Turcji. Tureckich było ponad czterdzieści okrętów, a latem tego roku ma być zainstalowany w Turcji najnowszy system rosyjskich właśnie rakiet przeciwlotniczych. Jest system S-400 ‘Triumf’. Turcja zaczyna więc odbudowę swojego imperium osmańskiego. Obyśmy się nie obudzili… (Przewodniczący odebrał mówcy głos)


Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, πριν δυο χρόνια από αυτό το βήμα, είχα επισημάνει τον ύπουλο τρόπο με τον οποίο η Τουρκία του Ερντογάν κλείνει συμφωνίες. Είχα καταδικάσει την προσπάθεια εξαγοράς της Τουρκίας με πακτωλό δισεκατομμυρίων ευρώ για λύση του μεταναστευτικού. Εκδιώχθηκα, κατά παράβαση του Κανονισμού, από την αίθουσα, από τον τότε πρόεδρο Schultz. Δύο χρόνια μετά, η Ένωση σπατάλησε κοντά 5 δισεκατομμύρια, όμως η Ευρώπη πλημμύρισε λαθρομετανάστες. Ο Schultz πήγε σπίτι του αποτυγχάνοντας στη γερμανική πολιτική σκηνή, όμως το καταστροφικό του πέρασμα παραμένει.
                  

                     Ο Weber υιοθέτησε τη ρητορική μου κι αυτό δεν με κάνει απλώς ικανοποιημένο αλλά κυρίως δικαιωμένο. Βέβαια, δεν βλέπω τους ευρωβουλευτές της Ελλάδος που ανήκουν στο Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα να κατηγορούν τον Weber για ρατσισμό, όπως έκαναν στη δική μου περίπτωση. Νομοτελειακά, στις επερχόμενες εκλογές, η Ευρώπη θα γυρίσει σελίδα. Οι πατριωτικές ευρωσκεπτικιστικές δυνάμεις θα σαρώσουν τις απάτριδες, διεθνιστικές και εθνομηδενιστικές τάσεις.
                  

Esther de Lange (PPE). – Voorzitter, ik wil de rapporteur vooral bedanken voor dit verslag. Mevrouw Piri, het is niet makkelijk om in dit Parlement een brede meerderheid in de Commissie buitenlandse zaken te krijgen. Dat heeft u gedaan en dat is op zich al een felicitatie waard. Het is ook een stuk sterker dan het pappen en nathouden dat we horen vanuit de Europese Raad.
                  

                     Toch vind ik het heel erg jammer dat de rapporteur voorstelt om weliswaar de onderhandelingen op te schorten, maar om uiteindelijk niet over te gaan tot het stoppen van deze onderhandelingen. Ik denk, als je luistert naar de collega's, als je keer op keer hoort waarom Turkije zich elk jaar verder beweegt van de Europese Unie in plaats van dichterbij te komen, dat je dan ook de conclusie moet trekken dat je moet gaan voor een alternatief partnerschap. Dus niet de deur dichtgooien, maar wel werken aan dat alternatieve partnerschap, in plaats van maar weer keer op keer te proberen die onderhandelingen die eigenlijk toch al stilliggen nieuw leven in te blazen.
                  

                     Dan vind ik het heel erg jammer, moet ik zeggen tegen mevrouw Piri, dat ze via haar eigen amendement 21 zegt: ja, we gaan het opschorten, maar maakt u zich geen zorgen, Turkije, uiteindelijk blijven jullie Europese ambities overeind. Zij blaast dus een beetje warm en koud tegelijkertijd. Dat is jammer.
                  

(De Voorzitter ontneemt de spreker het woord.)


Javi López (S&D). – Señor presidente, en primer lugar lo que querría hacer es dar las gracias a Kati Piri, la ponente de este informe, por su trabajo, y no solo por el de este año, sino por los cinco años de trabajo incansable sobre Turquía, algo que no ha sido siempre fácil. Hoy enviamos la enésima advertencia como Parlamento Europeo al señor Erdogan por el deterioro institucional que el país ha padecido durante los últimos años. Un deterioro que ha sido especialmente profundo después del golpe de Estado.
                  

                     Hemos visto purgas salvajes en la administración pública, violaciones sistemáticas de los derechos humanos, falta de respeto a las minorías o detenciones de periodistas, día tras día. Y lo que ha sido la gota que ha colmado finalmente el vaso han sido unas reformas constitucionales que han acabado transformando la identidad de Turquía: de una Turquía moderna a una Turquía monolítica.
                  

                     Pero hoy también es el día para enviar un mensaje sobre que Erdogan no es Turquía y necesitamos canales de diálogo y negociación. ¿Cuáles? Con condicionalidad, la modernización de la Unión Aduanera. Y, al mismo tiempo, la liberalización de visados para que Turquía vuelva a la senda del Estado de Derecho.
                  

Ελένη Θεοχάρους (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση παραγνωρίζει πλήρως τις βασικές αρχές δικαίου για την επίλυση του κυπριακού προβλήματος και όχι μόνο υποστηρίζει αναληθή γεγονότα, αλλά ψεύδεται κατάφωρα όταν αναφέρεται σε δήθεν συμφωνία που επετεύχθη στο Crans-Montana. Η διζωνική δικοινοτική ομοσπονδία που εισηγείται η έκθεση ως λύση του Κυπριακού δεν συνάδει με τις αρχές και τις αξίες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και οδηγεί σε εκτουρκισμό της Κύπρου. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο έχει ήδη βαρύτατη ευθύνη που αποδέχεται τα δεδομένα της τουρκικής στρατιωτικής κατοχής του νησιού.
                  

                     Η έκθεση απαλλάσσει την Τουρκία κάθε ευθύνης για τη μη επίλυση του κυπριακού και δεν κάνει αποδεκτή τη διασύνδεση αναγνώρισης της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας με την πρόοδο των ενταξιακών. Για παράδειγμα, πώς θέλετε επικαιροποίηση της συμφωνίας τελωνειακής ένωσης, όταν δεν έχει εφαρμοστεί η υφιστάμενη; Η Τουρκία απειλεί συνεχώς και εμπράκτως την Κύπρο. Η έκθεση αντιμετωπίζει τις απειλές με ευχολόγια. Θα καταψηφίσω την έκθεση επειδή περιέχει ψεύδη. Ζητά να συνεχιστεί μια επικίνδυνη διαδικασία πλήρους κατάκτησης της χώρας μου από την Τουρκία, νομιμοποιεί την κατοχή, στηρίζει την ένταξη ενός δικτατορικού καθεστώτος στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και, βεβαίως, για όσους θέλουν συνέχιση των ενταξιακών…
                  

(Ο Πρόεδρος διακόπτει την ομιλήτρια)


                     One minute each year for the most important issue of my country: the occupation by Turkey.
                  

President. – Thank you, colleague, I fully understand, we all have issues which are important to us, but I am afraid that the rules are the rules. I have to respect them, that is my obligation. However, you were absolutely clear in your message. Thank you for your understanding.

Marie-Christine Arnautu (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, en 1999, le Conseil européen reconnaissait officiellement à la Turquie le statut de pays candidat à la Communauté européenne. Vingt ans après, ce rapport préconise la suspension des négociations. Ainsi, le Parlement tergiverse. Pourtant, il s'honorerait à tenir un langage dénué d'hypocrisie. Faudra-t-il attendre encore vingt ans pour signifier clairement à la Turquie qu'elle ne sera jamais membre de l'Union? Contrairement aux européistes, notre ligne est restée constante et ferme. Déjà, en 1986, Jean-Marie Le Pen le rappelait dans un discours: la Turquie n'est européenne ni par la géographie, ni par l'histoire, ni par la culture, n'en déplaise aux tenants d'une Europe multiculturelle et à ceux qui, comme Erdoğan ou Chirac, ont pu affirmer que l'Europe ne doit pas être un ‘club chrétien’.
                  

                     La Turquie, elle, s'est islamisée depuis la chute de Constantinople. Il y a cent ans, les communautés chrétiennes représentaient encore un quart de la population turque contre un tout petit pourcent aujourd'hui.
                  

                     Cette tragédie justifie à elle seule que nous demandions l'arrêt définitif des négociations et non pas leur simple suspension.
                  

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, Turecko je náš strategický partner v otázkách bezpečnostních a migračních. Musíme jednoznačně odsoudit zneužívání boje proti terorismu k pronásledování kritiků režimu a politické opozice.
                  

                     Není to tak dlouho, před třemi měsíci, v prosinci, jsme v Ankaře na společné delegaci EU-Turecko opět požadovali propuštění politických vězňů. Na druhou stranu turečtí poslanci mají velký zájem o pokračování dialogu a možnosti účasti v programech, jako je Erasmus a další. Já nejsem stoupencem vstupu Turecka do Evropské unie, ale jsem přesvědčena o tom, že musíme využít všech prostředků k tomu, abychom podpořili občanskou společnost, lidská práva a politickou pluralitu. Evropský parlament by měl využít pozastavení jednání k tomu, aby se to stalo impulsem k nastavení nové formy, která by měla vést k partnerství.
                  

Δημήτρης Παπαδάκης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, λυπούμαι να παρατηρήσω ότι εξελίσσεται ένα θέατρο παραλόγου και μια προσπάθεια εξυπηρέτησης συμφερόντων. Κάποιοι μιλούν για διακοπή, αλλά την ίδια στιγμή προωθούν την αναβάθμιση της τελωνειακής ένωσης. Δηλαδή καμία υποχρέωση από πλευράς Τουρκίας, αλλά να εξυπηρετήσουμε τα οικονομικά και εμπορικά συμφέροντα και στις δύο πλευρές, και σε χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, αλλά και στην ίδια την Τουρκία. Αυτό θέλουμε;
                  

                     Επιτέλους, ας γίνουν ξεκάθαρα τα πράγματα. Θέλουμε να έχει ευρωπαϊκό δρόμο και προοπτική η Τουρκία, μόνον αν σέβεται τις αρχές και τις αξίες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Ας προβληματιστούμε: τι έγινε μέχρι σήμερα με την πολιτική που ακολουθήθηκε; Φυλακίζει τούρκους πολίτες, εξοστρακίζει ευρωπαίους δημοσιογράφους, συνεχίζει να κατέχει το 40 % της Κύπρου και απειλεί καθημερινά την αποκλειστική οικονομική ζώνη ενός κράτους μέλους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, με τη σημερινή μου ομιλία συμπληρώνω 2.500 ομιλίες και παρεμβάσεις στην Ολομέλεια του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου στην παρούσα θητεία και θεωρώ σημαντικό το γεγονός ότι η ομιλία μου αυτή αφορά την Τουρκία, την Τουρκία η οποία συνεχίζει παράνομα να κατέχει το 37 % του εδάφους της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, την Τουρκία που συνεχίζει τις απειλές κατά της Ελλάδος και παραβιάζει τα ελληνικά χωρικά ύδατα και τον ελληνικό εναέριο χώρο, την Τουρκία η οποία αρνείται να συμμορφωθεί προς το διεθνές δίκαιο και να επιτρέψει στους Έλληνες της Δωδεκανήσου να έχουν πρόσβαση στις περιουσίες τους. Κι όλα αυτά παρότι η Επιτροπή, μετά από παρέμβασή μου, έχει αναγνωρίσει ότι υφίσταται το θέμα για τις επονομαζόμενες δωδεκανησιακές περιουσίες.
                  

                     Μόνη λύση για να αναγκαστεί να συμμορφωθεί η Άγκυρα είναι η επιβολή κυρώσεων διπλωματικών και οικονομικών κατά της Τουρκίας. Εδώ και τώρα, άμεσος τερματισμός των ενταξιακών διαπραγματεύσεων Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-Τουρκίας και παύση κάθε χρηματοδότησης από πλευράς Ένωσης προς την Τουρκία.
                  

Angelo Ciocca (ENF). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la Lega diceva ‘no’ all'ingresso della Turchia in Europa, continuerà a dire ‘no’ all'ingresso della Turchia in Europa perché è un progetto folle, un progetto criminale: pensare di fare entrare in Europa un paese per il 100 % islamico è qualcosa che distruggerebbe definitivamente l'Occidente. La Lega dice ‘no’ perché un cittadino turco su 5 sostiene di apprezzare l'Isis, perché 3 milioni di rifugiati sono presenti in Turchia, perché la Corte di giustizia europea dice che sono stati commessi più di tremila reati e violazioni dei diritti umani verso minori, verso donne.
                  

                     Quindi questi sono alcuni dei motivi per i quali diremo sempre ‘no’ all'ingresso della Turchia in Europa, e sarebbe folle, sarebbe criminale pensare di continuare ad andare avanti in un progetto che ha già visto 15 miliardi di euro dei cittadini europei buttati per convincere la Turchia ad entrare in Europa. Usiamo questi soldi per i bisogni degli italiani, per i bisogni degli europei e non per buttarli…
                  

(Il Presidente toglie la parola all'oratore)


Асим Адемов (PPE). – Г-н Председател, за всички нас е ясно, че пълноправното членство на Турция в Европейския съюз на този етап е нереалистично. Днес в Турция има проблеми в доста сектори на обществено-политическия живот. Има проблеми със зачитането на върховенството на закона, с основните човешки права, свободата и независимостта на медиите, които са основни ценности на Европейския съюз.
                  

                     Но в Турция има опозиционни партии и огромна обществена маса хора, които не одобряват това, което се случва в страната им. Политиката на Европейския съюз трябва да е в посока на насърчаване на политическите реформи с цел утвърждаването на демокрацията в Турция. За Европейския съюз е важно да има сътрудничество с Турция по въпросите на външната политика, сигурността и икономиката.
                  

                     Като имаме предвид всичко това, нека се запитаме доколко е правилна препоръката на доклада за прекратяване на преговорите с Турция. Дали прекратяването ще направи границата между Турция и Европейския съюз по-сигурна? Каква алтернатива даваме на голямата част от турското общество, което е проевропейски настроено? Като прекъснем мостовете с Турция, накъде я тласкаме? Дали няма да я тласнем към ислямизация и радикализация?
                  

Eugen Freund (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Ich habe mich bei Kati Piri schon persönlich bedankt und werde das hier nicht wiederholen. Als langjähriger Journalist bin ich besonders über die Lage der Pressefreiheit in der Türkei bestürzt, und es ist keine Besserung in Sicht. Denn noch immer sitzen in der Türkei Journalistinnen und Journalisten im Gefängnis, nur weil sie ihren Beruf ausüben. Inakzeptabel ist es für mich auch, dass ausländischen Medienvertretern die Akkreditierung entzogen wird, wie das gerade bei den Korrespondenten des ZDF und des Berliner Tagesspiegels der Fall war. Uns Österreicher betrifft ganz besonders der Fall Max Zirngast. Der Journalist saß vier Monate lang ohne Anklage im Gefängnis und darf jetzt das Land noch immer nicht verlassen.
                  

                     Nichtsdestotrotz dürfen wir den fast 50 % der Türkinnen und Türken, die den Kurs der Regierung ablehnen, nicht die Tür vor der Nase zuschlagen. Der Stopp der Beitrittsverhandlungen richtet sich nicht gegen die türkische Bevölkerung, sondern ist eine Reaktion auf die gegenwärtige Regierung unter Präsident Erdoğan. Wir müssen den Menschen klarmachen, dass wir die demokratischen und proeuropäischen Kräfte in der Türkei nicht aufgeben.
                  

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Уважаеми г-н Теличка, позволете ми, уважаеми колега, да поздравя колегата Пири за този доклад. Най-сетне след пет години в тази зала виждам доклад, който засяга Турция, който да се доближава до реалността. Република Турция днес не е европейска държава.
                  

                     Република Турция днес е държава, която се намесва недопустимо във вътрешните работи на съседни държави. Мога да дам пример с намесата ѝ във вътрешните работи на Република България. Тази намеса – недопустима, неприемлива и осъдителна – е както в духовните дела на българите мюсюлмани, така и в недопустимите опити да прави политическо инженерство на територията на Република България. Опитва се да организира политически партии, опитва се да въздейства върху политически партии, опитва се да изкривява резултатите от изборите в Република България. Това е неприемливо и недопустимо.
                  

                     Затова настоявам преговорите с Република Турция да бъдат не просто замразени, а прекратени. Надявам се утре тази зала да гласува конкретния текст, който предполага, който задължава Комисията да прекрати разговорите с Република Турция.
                  

David McAllister (PPE). – Herr Präsident, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Freie und unabhängige Medien sind zentrale Werte der Europäischen Union und Eckpfeiler einer echten Demokratie. Deshalb finde ich in diesem Zusammenhang eben auch Ziffer 8 des Berichts von Kati Piri besonders wichtig, wo nämlich darauf hingewiesen wird, dass es unverhältnismäßige und willkürliche Maßnahmen gibt, mit denen die Meinungs- und Medienfreiheit in der Türkei leider beschnitten wird. Ein Beispiel aus aktuellem Anlass – sicherlich den meisten bekannt: Am Sonntag mussten mehrere deutsche und weitere internationale Korrespondenten die Türkei verlassen, da ihnen ohne Begründung die Arbeitserlaubnis entzogen wurde.
                  

                     Nach der weitgehenden Gleichschaltung der türkischen Medien sollen nun auch die ausländischen Korrespondenten eingeschüchtert werden. Inländische Kritiker gelten als Terroristen, ausländische Kritiker als ‘Feinde der Türkei’. Das ist nicht akzeptabel, und das ist ein eklatanter Verstoß gegen die Pressefreiheit. Das kann man als Europäisches Parlament gar nicht scharf genug kritisieren.
                  

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, first of all I would like to thank my colleague, Kati Piri, the rapporteur, for this extremely important work. Secondly, I wanted to say that, with the announced withdrawal of US troops from Syria, Turkey is now becoming even more important for the EU in terms of a solution to the Middle East security problem. Turkey is a key player that can help in restoring legitimate control by the Syrian Government over its territory and ending the eight-year-long conflict in Syria.
EU diplomacy has a big role to play in favouring this peace commitment by supporting the Astana process and by recognising the roles of Turkey, Russia and Iran in the region's stabilisation. We should not forget that it was Turkey and Russia who brokered a ceasefire in Aleppo, preventing a humanitarian disaster.
Next month, another round of Syria talks will be held in Turkey, and the EU must use this chance to support the outcome of peace talks. The Astana process is strategically crucial to security in Europe, especially in terms of preventing foreign fighters committing attacks.

Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Voorzitter, ik lees een verslag dat – alweer – zeer scherp is voor Turkije, en heel precies oplijst wat er allemaal fout loopt in het land, zeker na de couppoging van 2016. Maar wat ik niet of onvoldoende lees, zijn de gepaste conclusies, te weten: geen Europees geld meer voor Ankara, stop de financiering. De IPA II-middelen voor Turkije mogen dan wel verlaagd zijn, ze zijn nog altijd maar een klein deel van het totale budget dat de EU aan Turkije spendeert. Steun die bitter weinig effect heeft, want Turkije is alleen maar verder afgegleden in de richting van een autoritaire staat.
                  

                     De toetredingsgesprekken moeten onmiddellijk beëindigd worden. Niet opgeschort, maar beëindigd. Turkije kan geen lid worden van de Europese Unie. Een opwaardering van de douane-unie zou ook een fout signaal zijn. De wortel die dit Parlement wil voorhouden – opwaardering in ruil voor hervormingen – mist geloofwaardigheid. Tot slot: geen visumliberalisering, want die zou de EU-lidstaten voor grote problemen stellen. Dat zijn de enige juiste conclusies. Zo jammer dat ik die mis in het verslag.
                  

Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, πιστεύω ότι στα θέματα της Τουρκίας κρίνεται η αξιοπρέπεια και αξιοπιστία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και εμείς στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο οφείλουμε να προασπίσουμε τις ευρωπαϊκές αρχές και αξίες. Κι αυτές θα μπορέσουν να προσαπιστούν εάν η Τουρκία υποχρεωθεί, επιτέλους, να σεβαστεί και τα ψηφίσματα και τις εκθέσεις. Από τη στιγμή που δεν σέβεται τίποτα από όλα αυτά που συζητάμε, εμείς οφείλουμε να αντιδράσουμε. Και η μοναδική αντίδραση όταν η Τουρκία παραβιάζει αρχές και αξίες στην κατεχόμενη Κύπρο από τουρκικά στρατεύματα, όταν παραβιάζει την κυπριακή ΑΟΖ, όταν προκαλεί την Ελλάδα και την Κύπρο, χώρες μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, μία είναι η αντίδραση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου.
                  

                     Εάν δεν υλοποιήσει αυτά που καταγράφονται στην έκθεση, να υποχρεωθούμε να παγώσουμε την προενταξιακή βοήθεια της Τουρκίας. Δεν ρωτήσαμε κανέναν ευρωπαίο πολίτη εάν θέλει να δίνει έστω και ένα ευρώ στην Τουρκία σήμερα και οφείλουμε να το πράξουμε, γιατί μόνο και μόνον έτσι η Τουρκία θα συμμορφωθεί, επιτέλους, σε όλα αυτά τα οποία συζητάμε και ποτέ δεν συμμορφώθηκε. Είναι αδιανόητο να υπάρξει αναβάθμιση της τελωνειακής ένωσης χωρίς αναγνώριση της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, χωρίς να σπάσει το αδιέξοδο στο Κυπριακό που, παρά την καλή θέληση του Προέδρου της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, η Τουρκία και ο Ερντογάν παραμένουν αδιάλλακτοι και προκλητικοί.
                  

Liliana Rodrigues (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, ninguém duvida do papel importante que desempenhou a Turquia, que desempenha, na resposta à crise migratória durante a guerra da Síria. No entanto, isto não significa que a Europa fique refém de uma autocracia que esmaga todos os que pensam de forma diferente.
                  

                     A purga política é conhecida. Temos 150 mil detenções, 4 mil juízes demitidos, mais de 160 plataformas de meios de comunicação social fechados e mais de 114 mil websites bloqueados.
                  

                     Mas, por outro lado, são também estas pessoas que contam connosco. A situação, de facto, é má, bastante má, e, por isso mesmo, esta União deverá ser uma ponte de diálogo através da diplomacia.
                  

                     Existem critérios objetivos para a adesão da Turquia à União Europeia. Se a Turquia cumprir esses critérios entra, se não os cumprir, não entra. Cabe-nos a nós então apoiar a construção de mecanismos eficientes que promovam e protejam os direitos humanos e a democracia em países terceiros e, nesse sentido, o nosso apoio à sociedade civil é fundamental.
                  

Catch-the-eye procedure


Arne Lietz (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Herzlichen Glückwunsch, Kati Piri, für den ausgesprochen guten und wichtigen erneuten Türkei-Bericht. Es gibt einen dramatischen Rückgang der Demokratie in der Türkei, wie wir bei den Verhaftungen zu Zehntausenden sehen, aber auch bei der Entlassung von über 152 Staatsbediensteten. Insbesondere die Pressefreiheit ist in der Türkei besonders stark gefährdet. Rebecca Harms und ich waren bei dem Cumhuriyet-Schauprozess in Istanbul dabei, und der Journalist Can Dündar ist seinerseits jetzt in Deutschland. Er kann nicht wieder zurückreisen. Seiner Frau wurde der Pass entzogen. Das verurteilen wir aufs Schärfste.
                  

                     Aber auch deutsche Journalisten haben mittlerweile keine Presseakkreditierung mehr bekommen. Neben ausländischen Korrespondenten sind es Thomas Seibert und Jörg Brase vom Tagesspiegel und ZDF, die dort ihrer Arbeit nicht mehr nachgehen können. Auch das verurteilen wir aufs Schärfste und sehen, wie stark die Türkei die Pressefreiheit weiter einschränkt. Deswegen ist es wichtig, dass wir jetzt die Aussetzung der Beitrittsverhandlung offiziell angehen, aber eben keinen Komplettabbruch der Verhandlungen hier vornehmen, weil wir zu der Zivilgesellschaft und den demokratischen Kräften in der Türkei stehen, die sich für Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Menschenrechte und Demokratie einsetzen.
                  

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, I have always stood for human rights and democracy in Turkey since the beginning of my mandate and it's very sad to see how much the situation has deteriorated over the past five years. Calling for the suspension of accession talks is painful because I'm convinced that Turkey's future lies in Europe. My regular contact with Turkish civil society has convinced me that Turkish citizens long for human rights and democracy. However, the government's crackdown against human rights defenders, academics, civil servants, trade unionists, journalists, women, ethnic minorities and LGBTIQ+ people makes it impossible to continue a fruitful dialogue.
Zehra Doğan, a Kurdish, feminist journalist and artist who I have been twinned with as part of a project led by Human Rights Watch and the Committee to Protect Journalists, was recently released but her case shows just how Turkish authorities target any critical voices.
The ongoing hunger strike by hundreds of Kurds around the world against the isolation of Abdullah Öcalan is further evidence of huge dissatisfaction with Erdoğan's regime.

Κώστας Μαυρίδης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τι είναι σήμερα η Τουρκία; Μια ανοιχτή φυλακή με μαζική παραβίαση ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και κατάλυση του κράτους δικαίου. Έξω από την Τουρκία; Μια επεκτατική δύναμη που παραβιάζει το διεθνές δίκαιο και με ισλαμιστική πολιτική ατζέντα. Η πολιτική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης υπήρξε, δυστυχώς, δηλητηριασμένη με τα οικονομικά συμφέροντα και τις πολιτικές επιδιώξεις επιμέρους κρατών εις βάρος των αξιών μας. Το πιο τρανό παράδειγμα: οι υποχρεώσεις της Τουρκίας προς την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, που αφορούν ένα μικρό κράτος μέλος, την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, ουδέποτε εκπληρώθηκαν.
                  

                     Παρεμπιπτόντως, τέτοια υποκριτική πολιτική από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση τροφοδοτεί τις αντιευρωπαϊκές δυνάμεις, οι οποίες θέλουν να καταστρέψουν το ευρωπαϊκό εγχείρημα. Για να έχουμε λοιπόν αξιοπιστία, η πολιτική επιβολής κυρώσεων και εμπάργκο πώλησης όπλων έπρεπε να είναι ήδη στην έκθεση. Λυπάμαι που δεν είναι μέσα και πολύ περισσότερο λυπάμαι γιατί δυστυχώς κάποιοι θα το έχετε μετανιώσει στο μέλλον.
                  

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Erdoğan et ses alliés ont pratiquement détruit toutes les institutions démocratiques de la Turquie. Le caractère de ce nouveau régime se manifeste en particulier par la répression exercée à l'encontre de l'opposition et vise en premier lieu les Kurdes et le HDP. Le président du HDP, M. Demirtaș m'a envoyé une lettre depuis sa prison, dans laquelle il demande un gel, et non pas une suspension, des négociations avec la Turquie. Mme Bodil, M. Solé et moi-même lui avions rendu visite en décembre dernier.
                  

                     Monsieur le Commissaire, l'Europe doit poursuivre le dialogue avec la Turquie dans la transparence, avec un regard à la fois proche et critique, notamment en vue des prochaines élections locales. La Turquie n'est pas Erdoğan. Les peuples turc et kurde méritent notre attention et notre collaboration. Nous ne devons pas les laisser seuls face à un dictateur qui a mis en prison plus de 150 000 fonctionnaires, qui a fermé plus de 2 000 ONG et plus de 200 médias, aussi des députés… (le Président retire la parole à l'oratrice)


Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Τουρκία συνεχίζει την καταπάτηση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και των βασικών ελευθεριών του λαού της, ενώ κατέχει παράνομα και δια της βίας των όπλων εδάφους κράτους μέλους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Είναι απαράδεκτο να ζητείται αναβάθμιση της τελωνειακής ένωσης, όταν η Τουρκία αρνείται να εκπληρώσει πλήρως και χωρίς διακρίσεις τις υποχρεώσεις που απορρέουν από την τρέχουσα συμφωνία και αρνείται να αναγνωρίσει την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία. Το ΕΛΚ, σε μια επίδειξη λαϊκισμού, προτείνει τον τερματισμό των ενταξιακών διαπραγματεύσεων, την ίδια ώρα που τάσσεται υπέρ της άνευ προϋποθέσεων αναβάθμισης της τελωνειακής ένωσης.
                  

                     Σας καλούμε, συνάδελφοι, να καταψηφίσετε την πρόταση για άνευ προϋποθέσεων αναβάθμιση της τελωνειακής ένωσης, καθώς αντιβαίνει κάθε κανόνα λειτουργίας της Ένωσης και κάθε έννοια δικαίου. Την ίδια στιγμή, αναμένουμε από την Ένωση να ασκήσει πιέσεις προς την Τουρκία, ώστε να υλοποιήσει όλες τις κυπρογενείς της υποχρεώσεις. Να τερματίσει τις παράνομες ενέργειες στην κυπριακή ΑΟΖ, να αποσύρει τον κατοχικό στρατό από την Κύπρο, να τερματίσει τον εποικισμό και να συμβάλει έμπρακτα στην επίλυση του Κυπριακού, στη βάση διζωνικής δικοινοτικής ομοσπονδίας, όπως καθορίζεται στα ψηφίσματα του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας του ΟΗΕ.
                  

Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, quella qui in foto è Leyla Guven, dall'8 novembre 2018 in sciopero della fame. In sciopero della fame anche per chiedere che Öcalan sia tolto da quella situazione di isolamento in cui versa da più di vent'anni nelle carceri turche.
                  

                     Quello che possiamo registrare in Turchia è ormai uno stato di eccezione permanente successiva al colpo di Stato, che è stato utilizzato per stabilizzare un regime autoritario. Io personalmente mi sono recata ad Ankara per cercare di assistere al processo dei due presidenti dell'HDP anch'essi detenuti, come molti altri deputati dell'HDP, Selahattin Demirtas e Figen Yuksekdag. Non è stato possibile e ci è stato negato l'accesso.
                  

                     Oggi mi recherò a salutare e incontrare le persone che qui a Strasburgo sono in sciopero della fame in solidarietà con Leyla Guven e per chiedere che Abdullah Öcalan sia tolto dall'isolamento. Credo che questo Parlamento debba prendere posizione.
                  

Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Τουρκία ακόμα και γεωγραφικά δεν είναι ευρωπαϊκή χώρα, δεν ασπάζεται και δεν επιθυμεί να ασπαστεί τις αξίες του δυτικού πολιτισμού, κάνει διακρίσεις εις βάρος των θρησκευτικών μειονοτήτων, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των Χριστιανών και των Αλεβιτών. Η κυβέρνηση Ερντογάν καθημερινά απολύει και διώκει δημόσιους υπαλλήλους, δασκάλους, γιατρούς, ακαδημαϊκούς, δικηγόρους, δικαστές και εισαγγελείς. Η Τουρκία, με εισβολή από το 1974, κατέχει παράνομα μεγάλο τμήμα της Κύπρου. Η Τουρκία ακολουθεί επιθετική πολιτική εναντίον της Ελλάδας, παραβιάζει καθημερινά τον εναέριο χώρο και τα χωρικά ύδατά της. Αρνείται να υπογράψει και να κυρώσει τη Σύμβαση των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για το Δίκαιο της Θάλασσας. Η Τουρκία υποστηρίζει και χρηματοδοτεί την τρομοκρατία.
                  

                     Απαιτούμε την άμεση, επίσημη και οριστική διακοπή των ενταξιακών διαπραγματεύσεων. Απαιτούμε την πλήρη διακοπή κάθε ευρωπαϊκής οικονομικής ενισχύσεως προς την Τουρκία και επιπλέον την εφαρμογή οικονομικών και άλλων κυρώσεων. Ζητάμε την επίσημη αποκήρυξη εκ μέρους της Τουρκίας κάθε επεκτατικής διεκδικήσεως εις βάρος της Ελλάδος και την πλήρη και άνευ φόρων απελευθέρωση των κατεχομένων της Κύπρου. Μέχρι τότε αυτό το κράτος-δολοφόνος δεν έχει καμία θέση στο ίδιο τραπέζι με τα κράτη μέλη της Ενώσεως. Στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, η Τουρκία ούτε έχει και ούτε θα πρέπει να έχει ποτέ θέση.
                  

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for all their contributions and remarks. I think we are all equally concerned about the state of EU-Turkey relations and the Council has already found, on the Commission's proposal, that the accession process has effectively come to a standstill and that no further chapters can be opened or closed.
I believe that the best way to strengthen our relations is by remaining critically engaged with Turkey and keeping channels open, and I think, unlike some others here in the plenary, that starting discussions about an upgrading of the Customs Union could be one of the opportunities, provided that some preconditions are fulfilled. At the same time, it is important to be crystal clear that Turkey must respect the norms and values to which it has subscribed, both as a candidate country and as a member of the Council of Europe.
We have underlined the need for Ankara to take clear steps to improve the human rights situation in Turkey and to fix contentious bilateral issues with EU Member States, and we will continue to do so. The Commission will continue to report on developments in Turkey in the context of our annual enlargement package due later this spring. We will also continue to use our instruments to support a vibrant civil society and those in Turkey who consider that democratic society starts with accountability and with checks and balances.

Melania Gabriela Ciot,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, to conclude, I wish to thank the House for the very useful debate. I have listened carefully to the views expressed and I take note that our institutions have similar assessments on a range of issues. We look forward to continuing this constructive dialogue and engagement. I can assure you that the Council will continue closely to monitor developments in Turkey, paying particular attention to the important issues discussed here today.
The imminent 54th meeting of the EU-Turkey Association Council, which will take place at the end of this week, on Friday 15 March, will provide an excellent opportunity not only to take stock of the state of EU-Turkey relations but also to reiterate our views on the challenges and the opportunities of our cooperation. We will convey to our Turkish interlocutors the unequivocal message that they must urgently and effectively address the shortcomings and outstanding issues identified both by you in your report today and by the Commission and the Council.
At the same time, I believe that all sides have much to gain from an intensified dialogue at all levels. On our side, the Presidency, together with the Member States and the Commission, will continue to do what we can to move things forward.
Finally, let me thank Parliament for its contribution and the rapporteur, Kati Piri, for her efforts in providing a comprehensive overview of developments in Turkey. Parliament's role is important in the wider political process in which we operate. Engaging the citizens of both Turkey and the EU Member States in democratic discussions remains important and is in the best interests of both Turkey and the EU.

Kati Piri,
Rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner, Minister, and my colleagues. Let me first come back to what the Council, as the presidency, has said – because you say that all channels of communication must be open with Turkey. We all agree. But the channel of accession – that's the one that we should close – because it has become a ridiculous channel.
Minister, you said, ‘we take note and we continue to follow’, and I am very happy to hear from you in your conclusion that on Friday's meeting with the Turkish President, you will put human rights at the top of the agenda. I'm very happy to have that commitment. But also, I want to hear from the Council, how are you going to help Turkey's democrats? Will you provide extra funds for human rights defenders? Will you put respecting fundamental rights as a key conditionality, including in the trade relationship? I really hope that the Council will come up with a more sophisticated strategy than we have seen so far in how to deal with Turkey.
I didn't hear more than five colleagues in this room who agree with the strategy of not having any consequences to the accession process. We have a big majority in this House to call for the formal suspension of the accession talks – to stop talks – I want to make it clear – to stop talks with President Erdoğan about accession. It doesn't make sense. They have become totally ridiculous and incredible.
But I also heard some colleagues from the far right and some members from the EPP Group who want to go one step further – not only stopping the talks, but also taking away the candidate status of Turkey. Now, I'm surprised to hear this. For 10 years, we had a Turkey rapporteur from the EPP who never made this call. If it's really about human rights violations then stick with the majority in this House calling for the suspension of the accession talks.
Perhaps I'm still hopeful that in the years to come, in the decades to come, things in Turkey will improve. I hope we all share that things can change inside Turkey and that means we shouldn't put a final stop forever on talks with Turkey on EU integration.

President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 13 March 2019.
17.   Interpretation of the Rules of Procedure (follow-up): see Minutes
18.   Delegated acts (Rule 105(6)) (follow-up): see Minutes
19.   Emergency situation in Venezuela (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the emergency situation in Venezuela (2019/2628(RSP)).

Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, we welcome Parliament's continued focus on the situation in Venezuela and your commitment to a lasting solution to the crisis in that country. It is important to use all the tools we have to encourage a peaceful and democratic solution, to be achieved through free and credible presidential elections.
Since our last debate on Venezuela in this plenary at the end of January, tension and polarisation have further escalated and living conditions have been worsening. The number of Venezuelans leaving their country continues to grow. According to the UNHCR, some 2.7 million Venezuelans have left the country since 2015 and the number could rise to 5 million by the end of the year if the crisis continues to worsen. The recent nationwide blackout that is still affecting certain states is contributing to a further deterioration in health services and in the supply of food and water.
As we all know, this crisis has at its origin a political and institutional problem. The current situation has built up over years of attacks against democracy, the constitution and fundamental human rights. The solution to the crisis needs to be political as well as democratic, peaceful and Venezuelan owned. Political prisoners need to be released and the powers of the National Assembly have to be restored as the National Assembly is currently the only democratically elected body in the country.
We have also called a number of times for the constitutionally mandated immunity of all National Assembly members, and of Assembly President Juan Guaidó, to be respected. They need to be able to exercise their political mandate without fear of reprisals or intimidation. We firmly reject the use of force to resolve this situation. Any military option would only cause more human rights violations and more suffering for the people of Venezuela.
At the same time, it is essential to avoid an escalation of violence within the country. We have called for a halt to attacks and intimidation against civilians and lawmakers, from both security forces and irregular armed groups.
The only way to end this crisis is to let the people of Venezuela express their will through a democratic presidential election that must be free, fair, inclusive and transparent. With this goal, the European Union has promoted the creation of an international contact group on Venezuela. The purpose of this group is to help create the conditions for a political process that should lead to free and fair presidential elections. The contact group has set a clear timeframe to verify whether we can encourage some guarantees to give credibility to the electoral process. The electoral supervisory bodies need to be reformed, starting with the National Electoral Council. The electoral register needs to be updated. All political parties and leaders need to be able to compete on equal terms, and political prisoners should be released. Independent electoral observation should also be ensured.
Our proposal does not aim to buy time. We are convinced that an international initiative can help build these minimum conditions, which would eventually lead to relaunching a meaningful political process and to new presidential elections.
Meanwhile, it is urgent to address the pressing needs of the population. This cannot wait for a political settlement of the crisis. Lives are at risk. Humanitarian assistance needs to enter the country unimpeded and reach those in need. In the past two years, the European Union has committed more than EUR 67 million of humanitarian and development assistance and we are ready to scale up this assistance.
The contact group is exploring the possibility of establishing an international mechanism for coordination and delivery of humanitarian assistance inside Venezuela in close cooperation with the United Nations and our international and local partners. The aid must be delivered impartially on the basis of the population's real needs and not that of a political agenda. It must be distributed by independent actors under the leadership of the United Nations. Aid should never be politicised and it should serve only humanitarian purposes.
The international contact group is now working on these two main areas: elections and humanitarian assistance. The group sent a technical mission to Venezuela in February to discuss with all sides the conditions and guarantees for holding credible presidential elections, and also the delivery of humanitarian assistance. A senior officials' meeting discussed the results of the technical mission and a new ministerial meeting will be held at the end of March in Latin America.
We Europeans are not neutral. More than one million Venezuelans have either a European passport or a family in Europe. We care about Venezuela and its people, and the people of Venezuela are asking for change. At the same time, we believe that change cannot be imposed from the outside. A sustainable solution can only come from the people of Venezuela. We are ready to do all in our power so that Venezuelans can be the masters of their own destiny.

Esteban González Pons,
en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, señorías, si ahora mismo nosotros nos quedáramos sin electricidad, en una hora morirían todos los pacientes que están en cuidados intensivos; en quince horas nos quedaríamos sin insulina; en veinte horas dejaría de salir agua del grifo; en un día se estropearía la comida que está en las neveras; en dos días morirían los bebés que están en unidades de neonatos; en tres días, el agua que tuviéramos almacenada dejaría de ser potable y, a partir del quinto día, morirían los pacientes que necesitan diálisis. Sería una enorme catástrofe.
               

                  Pues bien, esto es lo que está sucediendo en Venezuela: más de cien horas sin electricidad. El pueblo venezolano está indefenso ante el hambre, ante la sed, ante la falta de medicinas, ante los malvados que recorren el país armados, sembrando el terror, ante la falta de una moneda nacional.
               

                  Nicolás Maduro se ha convertido en la metáfora de la muerte en Venezuela y su régimen en la muerte misma. No pueden resolver los problemas aquellos que los han creado; no pueden resolver los problemas aquellos que no los ven.
               

                  La Unión Europea debe persistir en la exigencia de liberación de todos los presos políticos, empezando por Luis Carlos Díaz, un español que ha desaparecido hoy por cumplir con su trabajo de periodista.
               

                  La Unión Europea debe aumentar la lista de sancionados y debe aumentar la lista de sanciones. Es indignante ver a los hijos de los generales de fiesta en Madrid, mientras el pueblo agoniza en el barro. La Unión Europea debe respaldar cualquier decisión para tirar al tirano que adopte Juan Guaidó o la Asamblea Nacional.
               

                  La imagen de los telediarios de hoy es el pueblo de Caracas bajando al río a recoger aguas fecales para beberlas. ¿Podemos permanecer impasibles? ¿Qué hace ante eso el célebre grupo de contacto?
               

                  La democracia de Venezuela es nuestra democracia; la libertad de Venezuela es nuestra libertad. El hambre de Venezuela debería ser nuestra hambre. Si no es por convicciones, al menos que sea porque hay dos millones de ciudadanos europeos encerrados y aterrados con el pueblo venezolano.
               

                  Si de verdad creemos que ser europeos es cuestión de principios, no dejemos solos ni a Juan Guaidó ni al pueblo venezolano.
               

Ramón Jáuregui Atondo,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, a mí se me han acabado las palabras para condenar a Maduro, pero creo que es también la hora de hacer pronósticos muy serios y muy dramáticos, ciertamente, no solo por la falta de luz, sino porque, me gustaría equivocarme, pero creo sinceramente, señorías, que están creciendo los riesgos de un enfrentamiento interno en Venezuela. Y quiero equivocarme —repito—, pero la ruina del país puede acabar en una contienda social o peor y, en todo caso, sin solución.
               

                  Por eso creo que la Unión Europea está acertando buscando una negociación pacífica, una salida democrática. Y, por cierto, señorías, los únicos que pueden hablar con Gobierno y oposición hoy son la Unión Europea y el Grupo de Contacto junto a Costa Rica, Ecuador, Bolivia. Y estos países pueden y deben hacer la reconciliación interna, la salida pacífica interna. No hay otro camino para evitar la contienda social y para que la salida sea democrática y pacífica.
               

Charles Tannock,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the failure of the Guri hydropower plant last Thursday was yet another devastating blow to the people of Venezuela: the latest challenge to present itself to an already beleaguered, long-suffering and demoralised people. The exact causes of the problem are still difficult to ascertain, given the secrecy and the ludicrous claim circulating that this was an act of sabotage by the USA.
Much more likely, it seems, it was the result of underinvestment, attributable to the many years of corruption and mismanagement under the Chavez regime – a pattern we now see continuing under Maduro.
Reports suggest that all current attempts to resolve the situation have resulted in a worsening of the problem, with more substations and the wider national power grid now affected. With some 80% of the country's population now affected, it is difficult to overestimate the severity of the problems as hospitals and other key services and infrastructure struggle to keep afloat.
I call upon all those EU Member States that have yet to do so to recognise Juan Guaidó as the interim President of Venezuela, in order to bring some relief to that broken state.

Javier Nart,
en nombre del Grupo ALDE. – Señor presidente, Venezuela vive una profunda crisis de violaciones masivas de los derechos humanos ante la escasez de alimentos y medicinas, la hiperinflación, la violencia y la represión política, que ha obligado a más de tres millones de personas a huir del país.
               

                  La estrategia de control social de Nicolás Maduro a través del miedo y el castigo contra quienes exigen un cambio es repulsiva. Su gobierno se está ensañando con la gente más empobrecida a la que dice defender, pero a la que luego asesina, detiene y amenaza —no son mis palabras: es el informe de Amnistía Internacional de 20 de febrero—.
               

                  Con Maduro, la pobreza alcanza al 87 % de la población y el salario mínimo —mínimo, desde luego— es de seis dólares por mes. Venezuela tiene el honor de ser el país 168 en la lista de los más corruptos del mundo, en compañía de Siria, Somalia y Afganistán —países en guerra, porque Maduro está en guerra contra su propio pueblo—.
               

                  Hablar de justicia en Venezuela es un sarcasmo. Los jueces los nombra el madurismo. Se producen ejecuciones extrajudiciales selectivas por la policía nacional bolivariana, como denuncia Amnistía Internacional en el informe que les he presentado, y el Helicoide es una referencia de horror, de torturas por el SEBIN.
               

                  La democracia está ausente. La Asamblea Nacional legítimamente electa está duplicada por la madurista Asamblea constituyente. Guaidó es el legítimo representante, el legítimo presidente, no Maduro.
               

                  El país lleva cinco días sin electricidad y la gente toma agua de la cloaca que atraviesa Caracas —el río Guaire—.
               

                  Y todavía hay quien hablará de que es un proceso revolucionario y lo apoyará. La revolución hasta el último venezolano, desde luego, no de sus ilustres pellejos, que reclaman electricidad, luz, medicinas y alimentos, lo que el pueblo venezolano no tiene.
               

                  Yo pido para nuestros hermanos venezolanos toda la solidaridad, y para la repulsiva clase cleptocrática madurista todas las sanciones.
               

Javier Couso Permuy,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor presidente, me parece estar viviendo un déjà vu y no lo digo por las tantas veces que el asunto Venezuela se ha tratado en este Pleno. Lo digo por las tantas veces que este Parlamento, con la excusa humanitaria, ha acompañado e instigado el camino de las intervenciones militares o las agendas violentas de cambio de gobierno.
               

                  Pienso en Libia y en Siria y veo las mismas mentiras de democracia y derechos humanos, cuando lo único que importaba era tumbar gobiernos soberanos para acceder al gas o al petróleo. ¿Pidieron disculpas? ¿Le dedicaron acaso un minuto a pensar en la destrucción total del Estado libio o al apoyo de los grupos terroristas que asolaron Siria? En Venezuela usan las mismas mentiras.
               

                  Tras los fracasos de un golpe, del terrorismo callejero, del magnicidio, disfrazan un bloqueo criminal como crisis humanitaria y un sabotaje al sistema eléctrico como crisis de gestión. Las mismas mentiras que hace dos semanas con los camiones de supuesta ayuda —quemados por los seguidores de Guaidó—.
               

                  Mentiras para ayudar a los halcones de Washington a destruir la Carta de las Naciones Unidas. Son mentiras para esconder el ansia de tumbar a un gobierno que no es de su agrado. No les importaban los pobres cuando gobernaban los suyos, como no les importan los más de 500 niños que mueren cada año en La Guajira o los 120 líderes sociales asesinados en Colombia en estos tres meses de 2019. Dejen de mentir. Dejen de atizar la guerra criminal. Quiten sus manos de Venezuela.
               

Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, μόνο ο λαός της Βενεζουέλας είναι αρμόδιος να αποφασίσει ο ίδιος για το μέλλον του και για τις εσωτερικές υποθέσεις της ίδιας του της χώρας. Καταδικάζουμε και καταγγέλλουμε τα ιμπεριαλιστικά σχέδια που προωθούνται με προβοκάτσιες, ομάδες επαφής κι όλα τα υπονομευτικά μέσα από τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και τις συμμαχικές τους κυβερνήσεις στη Λατινική Αμερική, για να ανατρέψουν τον εκλεγμένο Πρόεδρο της Βενεζουέλας, βάζοντας τον αχυράνθρωπό τους. Όλους αυτούς δεν τους πήρε ο πόνος για τον λαό της Βενεζουέλας. Στο στόχαστρό τους βρίσκεται ο έλεγχος της ενέργειας μιας πλούσιας σε πλουτοπαραγωγικές πηγές χώρας.
               

                  Καταδικάζουμε κάθε σενάριο για πραξικόπημα και ιμπεριαλιστική στρατιωτική επίθεση που βαφτίζεται ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια ή και άλλα προσχήματα. Εκφράζουμε την αλληλεγγύη μας με τον χτυπημένο από την καπιταλιστική κρίση λαό της Βενεζουέλας και τον αγώνα του Κομμουνιστικού Κόμματος της Βενεζουέλας. Ο ιμπεριαλισμός δεν είναι ανίκητος. Η πραγματική υπερδύναμη είναι οι λαοί κι αυτοί θα νικήσουν.
               

Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dopo la risoluzione approvata alcune settimane fa, mi stavo chiedendo quale sia il compito principale che il Parlamento europeo deve assolvere per contribuire a risolvere la questione venezuelana. La prima cosa da fare credo sia sottrarre questo dibattito da una semplice dimensione propagandistica e strumentale.
               

                  Io penso che nella situazione di stallo politico attuale sia urgente trovare una via di uscita democratica alla crisi attraverso elezioni presidenziali libere e credibili, nella consapevolezza che la soluzione può essere soltanto pacifica e democratica. Non ci sono né vi possono essere altre opzioni perché causerebbero maggiori danni e sofferenze alla popolazione.
               

                  È essenziale poi l'assistenza umanitaria, che deve essere consentita attraverso canali appropriati. Sono le due opzioni sulle quali attestare il Parlamento europeo. Insisto: altre ipotesi rappresenterebbero solo forzature inutili e dannose. In una situazione come questa, complicata e difficile, penso che l'unica cosa che ci debba guidare sia l'intelligenza politica.
               

Beatriz Becerra Basterrechea (ALDE). – Señor presidente, ¿saben por qué Venezuela está en la oscuridad? Porque los criminales la necesitan para cometer sus crímenes.
               

                  El régimen chavista es incompetente, autoritario y corrupto. Por eso, en Venezuela, un país rico en recursos, falta la luz, falta la comida, faltan las medicinas. El régimen de Maduro es responsable de cada bebé, de cada enfermo que muere en un hospital por los apagones.
               

                  El régimen es responsable también de la detención y el encarcelamiento ilegal —hoy— del periodista Luis Carlos Díaz —por cierto, ciudadano español; por cierto, ciudadano europeo—.
               

                  El régimen quiere más oscuridad para sus crímenes. ¿Por qué? Porque quiere exterminar en masa, sin gastar una bala.
               

                  Y se lo voy a decir claro. ¿Sabe para qué sirve en estas condiciones el Grupo Internacional de Contacto? Para hacer el ridículo, para desacreditar a la Unión Europea.
               

                  ¿Saben lo que es estar cinco días sin electricidad? Nada funciona —no puedes sacar dinero, no puedes comprar comida, las gasolineras están cerradas, no hay agua—.
               

                  Venezuela tiene un presidente interino legítimo con una hoja de ruta que nos hemos comprometido a acompañar: cese de la usurpación, gobierno de transición y elecciones libres. Si este es su plan, este debe ser el plan de Europa y él, Juan Guaidó, es nuestro único contacto.
               

                  Con el país en estado de emergencia nacional, lo único que ha de hacer la señora Mogherini es llamar al presidente Guaidó y preguntarle qué puede hacer exactamente la Unión Europea por él y por los venezolanos, y, luego, hacerlo.
               

Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, o povo venezuelano está há cinco dias sem acesso a eletricidade, de que depende também o acesso à água para muitos. A pouca comida, que apodrece, comércios, escolas, transportes, serviços parados, sem geradores morrem crianças, velhos, doentes nos hospitais, apagam-se as notícias.
               

                  A Venezuela está no abismo. Maduro tem de ser rapidamente corrido pelo povo venezuelano. Nada se resolverá sem eleições livres e genuínas num horizonte de meses. As Forças Armadas têm de defender o povo, o Estado, não a clique podre, pela corrupção, pelo narcotráfico de Maduro.
               

                  A comunidade internacional tem de deixar claro que Maduro e os seus esbirros enfrentarão a justiça internacional, não escaparão. Os regimes russo e cubano têm de entender, por parte da União Europeia, que pagarão caro o preço de demorarem a destituição do guangue que, desumanamente, levou a Venezuela para este abismo.
               

                  É só uma questão de tempo, porque é só uma questão de tempo. Não é sustentável manter Maduro e manter o sofrimento terrível imposto ao povo venezuelano.
               

                  A União Europeia tem de ser clara nisto.
               

Dita Charanzová (ALDE). – Señor presidente, Venezuela está al borde del colapso. El apagón de los últimos días es uno de los incontrolables casos que confirman que Maduro no es el líder que el país necesita. Es un tirano. Es un ejemplo más de lo que sufren los venezolanos debido a un régimen que ni les representa ni les respeta.
               

                  El apagón es otra prueba de que la Unión Europea no puede seguir a la espera. Tenemos que ampliar las sanciones selectivas y asegurar que el régimen ceda el poder de manera pacífica. La Unión Europea tiene dos opciones: apoyar activamente una solución legal, pacífica y democrática, como la que propone Juan Guaidó, o quedar a la espera siendo testigos de más muertes, más crímenes y más sufrimiento hasta que Venezuela fracase completamente. La elección es nuestra.
               

                  Tenemos que respetar la democracia y la Constitución venezolana en nuestro enfoque y esto lógicamente implica el reconocimiento de Guaidó como presidente interino. Espero que podamos recibir pronto al presidente Guaidó en este Parlamento.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, a situação da Venezuela é uma situação de emergência e de urgência. Com a falha de eletricidade tornou-se mais clara a situação de miséria e de fome, mas agora até de urgência pela água, de praticamente encerramento dos hospitais, da ajuda clínica, da ajuda à saúde a pessoas que estão em risco de vida.
               

                  Hoje o problema da Venezuela já não é só um problema de ditadura e democracia, é um problema de vida ou de morte, é um problema de emergência humanitária.
               

                  Devo dizer aqui que, muitas vezes, neste Parlamento estiveram aqui muitos deputados que anunciaram que isto ia acontecer, e isso também deve ser posto a seu crédito, porque nós, a União Europeia e a comunidade internacional, demoramos muito tempo a reconhecer que Maduro é um ditador, e não é apenas um ditador, está a ser um déspota e, em certo sentido, verdadeiramente um homicida para com o seu povo. Temos que destituir Maduro.
               

(O Presidente retira a palavra ao orador.)


José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, a minha luta pela liberdade e pela democracia na Venezuela não é de agora, como acontece com alguns colegas recém-chegados a esta causa. E, por isso, quero dizer que, num país em estado terminal como a Venezuela, um apagão de quatro dias seguidos tem consequências tremendas. Os supermercados, muitos deles propriedade de portugueses, são saqueadas e o prejuízo só não é maior porque já resta pouco para vender e nos hospitais morrem bebés prematuros e muitos doentes cujas funções vitais dependiam dos equipamentos agora desligados.
               

                  Afirmar, como Maduro, que a precariedade da infraestrutura elétrica é o resultado de sabotagem informática internacional e das sanções económicas americanas é uma falácia e é, sobretudo, um insulto para os milhões que saem da Venezuela desesperados e com fome.
               

                  O colapso do sistema elétrico é o resultado de anos de corrupção e de incompetência de um regime ditatorial que há muito aproveita esses apagões para desviar para offshores muitos milhões de petrodólares que o país recebe.
               

                  Estes cleptocratas do regime e os responsáveis pelos crimes contra a humanidade na Venezuela devem continuar a ser alvo de sanções da União, que necessitam agora de ser também estendidas aos seus familiares.
               

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Sytuacja w Wenezueli jest rzeczywiście dramatyczna. To dramat dzieci, dramat matek, dramat starszych osób, dramat całych rodzin. Ale chcę wyraźnie podkreślić, że pomysły, które pojawiły się na sali, z mojego punktu widzenia są mało wiarygodne, jeżeli chodzi o rzeczywistą skuteczność. Uważam, że nasze interwencje polityczne będą miały bardzo ograniczony skutek. Natomiast to, nad czym trzeba się skupić, to oczywiście mobilizacja opinii międzynarodowej i pomoc humanitarna. I wydaje mi się, że bardzo istotne jest, aby pamiętać, że Wenezuela z tymi kłopotami zmaga się od de facto 1948 r. I dzisiejszą debatą nie pomożemy Wenezueli, jeżeli nie będziemy konsekwentni, jeżeli nie będziemy stale monitorować sytuacji w takich przypadkach, jeżeli pomoc humanitarna będzie, krótko mówiąc, chaotyczna.
               

José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – Señor presidente, el gobierno usurpador de Venezuela se está desmoronando. Se mantiene solamente en el poder como consecuencia del uso y del ejercicio de la fuerza bruta en medio de enormes sufrimientos de la población.
               

                  La pregunta, señor presidente, es cuánto sufrimiento tiene que experimentar todavía la sociedad de Venezuela y cuántas muertes se tiene que cobrar todavía el experimento del socialismo del siglo XXI hasta que llegue su colapso final.
               

                  El país se encuentra en una situación absolutamente caótica, señor presidente, y, sin embargo, la represión no para.
               

                  Estamos hablando del periodista al que se han referido otros colegas, cuya liberación inmediata solicitamos. Hemos visto el hostigamiento a la tripulación de la compañía aérea Air Europa y hemos visto la destrucción de la ayuda humanitaria en las fronteras de Brasil y de Colombia.
               

                  Señor comisario, la Unión Europea no puede permanecer impasible ante la violación grave y sistemática de los derechos humanos, hay que incrementar las sanciones respectivas y, señor comisario, aplicar efectivamente las sanciones diplomáticas.
               

                  No he oído una protesta por la expulsión del embajador de Alemania…
               

(El Presidente retira la palabra al orador)


María Teresa Giménez Barbat (ALDE). – Señor presidente, es lamentable que uno de los países más ricos en recursos energéticos del planeta lleve más de cinco días en la oscuridad y viva la peor crisis energética de su historia. Y de eso no tienen la culpa los imperialistas y otras falsas conspiranoias. Es el socialismo chavista lo que ha llevado al caos y la desesperación.
               

                  Mientras en Venezuela los ciudadanos —como han dicho mis compañeros— van a buscar agua contaminada y se mueren los niños en los hospitales, resulta que, desde el año 2013 las instalaciones eléctricas en Venezuela están militarizadas. Y Cuba sigue actuando como un auténtico vampiro, chupando más de 80 000 barriles de petróleo al día.
               

                  La Unión Europea debe exigir que se recuperen y se devuelvan las centrales eléctricas al pueblo venezolano, representado por el presidente interino Juan Guaidó, y que se detengan esos envíos de petróleo que hace el Gobierno de Nicolás Maduro a Cuba. Estas decisiones son prioritarias.
               

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, el desabastecimiento, el hambre, la ausencia de medicamentos, la corrupción, llevan años asfixiando a los venezolanos. Por eso Maduro perdió las elecciones y se inventó una Asamblea para mantener el poder. Entonces llegaron las sanciones.
               

                  Los apagones, que agravan hoy el drama en el país, son una prueba más de la incapacidad, inhumanidad e incompetencia de un régimen al que algunos organismos internacionales investigan ya como autor de un crimen de lesa humanidad.
               

                  La pasada semana, en la frontera con Perú, tuve ocasión de escuchar a las víctimas de Maduro: personas con formación, con futuro en cualquier otro lugar; hombres y mujeres condenados al hambre, a la marginación, necesitados de la ayuda humanitaria que bloquea el dictador. Quieren un país libre y en paz.
               

                  Y la solución pasa por el grupo de contacto, por mantener una posición europea contundente y común y por organizar unas elecciones libres y creíbles ya.
               

                  Y quiero mostrar mi oposición a cualquier solución que se intente al margen del Derecho internacional.
               

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, apagão, houve efetivamente um apagão físico, mas há também um apagão informativo para falar das duas caras da realidade. Senhor Comissário, viu o artigo do New York Times? Não creio que o jornal norte americano seja cúmplice de Maduro e, no entanto, desmentem muitas mentiras, muitas fake news, e sabe o pior? Que há muitos oradores, sobretudo conservadores desta câmara, que não estão preocupados com o povo da Venezuela, fazem discursos de consumo interno espanhol para se candidatarem como candidatos europeus. E tampouco estão interessados no grupo de contato de Montevidéu e o boicotam de vez em quando estão à procura de uma solução de diálogo.
               

                  Como podem falar de diálogo se não querem diálogo, só querem ‘business as usual’, negócios, petróleo, dinheiro, dinheiro e dinheiro. Deveriam estar preocupados sobretudo, porque, em breve, os seus assentos serão ocupados pela extrema-direita. Com isso, sim, deveriam estar preocupados.
               

Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señorías, voy a pedirles cuatro cosas.
               

                  Una, que dejen en paz a Venezuela para que —como ha dicho usted, señor comisario— sean las venezolanas y los venezolanos quienes decidan su futuro.
               

                  Dos, que no sean cínicos y que, si de verdad les interesan la democracia y los derechos humanos, condenen los ataques y las acciones criminales de los Estados Unidos. Ataques como el que ha producido el apagón del que tanto se está hablando aquí, pero que no se está diciendo de dónde viene.
               

                  Tres, que demuestren que les interesa el pueblo venezolano y no su petróleo.
               

                  Y cuatro, que saquen sus manos de Venezuela y utilicen su tiempo en elaborar políticas que de verdad pongan fin al empobrecimiento de la clase trabajadora y no enriquezcan más las multinacionales.
               

João Pimenta Lopes (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, a credibilidade dos debates sobre a Venezuela neste Parlamento esvaiu-se, se alguma vez a teve.
               

                  Mentem descaradamente e sem pudor, atentem-se às razões deste debate, o apagão elétrico no país procurando atribuir ao legítimo governo da Venezuela a responsabilidade do que sabemos ter sido uma sabotagem terrorista do sistema elétrico venezuelano.
               

                  Não querem nem o diálogo nem a paz, mas escutem bem, os vossos intentos, o vosso apoio aos setores mais reacionários da oposição venezuelana, o vosso seguidismo à Administração Trump, tudo fracassou, fracassou o apagão, fracassou a farsa da ajuda humanitária queimada pela oposição na fronteira, fracassou o vosso autoproclamado fantoche.
               

                  Os senhores espezinham o direito internacional, os princípios da não ingerência e respeito pela soberania consagrados na Carta das Unidas. Procuram incendiar o país, comprometendo os interesses de comunidades, como a portuguesa, que ali reside e trabalha.
               

                  O povo venezuelano mobilizado nas ruas mantém-se firme e resistente afirmando que não abdicam da sua independência e revolução bolivariana e gritando ‘tirem as mãos da Venezuela’.
               

Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, the situation in Venezuela is an absolute tragedy. What has led to it is socialism, which when in government always leads to catastrophe; and absolute socialism has led to absolute catastrophe. The people there are in an awful place, a crisis is going on. The only thing I can possibly say that could make it worse is well-meaning but bumbling intervention. I suggest that the EU and other foreign players be very, very careful about this and that they then be there to trade with – and, in the diplomatic sense, talk to – the Venezuelan people when they get back on their feet.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, this has been a very useful and meaningful exchange and I thank the honourable Members for their contributions. EU policy towards Venezuela will continue to encompass both elements of pressure and the political channels through which we can contribute to a peaceful and democratic solution.
We will continue working with countries in the region and other international stakeholders, notably through the International Contact Group, and will use all our instruments to accompany the country towards a peaceful and negotiated solution. Of course, Venezuelans both in Venezuela and abroad will continue to be our key concern, and we will continue our efforts to help address their needs.
Let me close by signalling once again my appreciation of Parliament's role in keeping this important issue on the international agenda.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


President. – I understand that one colleague was asking for the floor under the catch-the-eye procedure, but I have been informed that that was the case only the moment we started the catch-the-eye procedure. The rule is that the procedure was then closed. I am sorry, but my colleagues did not see you. I apologise but I cannot do anything about it.
I will take an unusual step and give you one minute. Do you want the one minute? We are running out of time.
Once again, for all colleagues, the rule is that in catch-the-eye you ask for the floor. You eventually get the floor, but the moment we start speaking it is closed. So, colleagues, we were right not to take that request, and in any case I did not see it. My apologies. You now have one minute.

Catch-the-eye procedure


Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE). – Señor presidente, yo sé que Venezuela vivía un periodo de oscuridad —eso ya lo sabíamos—, pero con una crisis humanitaria sin precedentes. Pero hoy esa oscuridad no es una metáfora, es una realidad en una ciudad donde mueren los niños en los hospitales, sin luz, sin agua, con una…
               

                  Ya hemos visto la reacción de Maduro en la frontera, quemando los camiones con medicinas delante de los enfermos, quemando la comida delante de los hambrientos…
               

                  Y Europa sigue hablando del grupo de contacto. Y Maduro se ríe de nuestro grupo de contacto y de nuestro diálogo; meses y años llevamos viéndolo.
               

                  Yo creo que la Unión Europea no puede hablar de elecciones libres solo en modo no concreto. Tiene que hablar con Guaidó y poner una fecha y saber lo que va a hacer, no simplemente decir… Porque Maduro jamás va convocar unas elecciones libres.
               

                  Por tanto, lo único que quiero es decirle al bravo pueblo venezolano…
               

(El Presidente retira la palabra a la oradora)


President. – Thank you, colleague, the same rule applies to everyone: one minute sharp. We are behind schedule. Once again, please remember what I have said about the rules on the catch-the-eye procedure. I have no other option.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the next part-session.


Written statements (Rule 162)



Francisco Assis (S&D),
por escrito. – Há pouco mais de meio ano liderei uma delegação do Parlamento Europeu à fronteira entre o Brasil e a Venezuela. Mesmo tendo de antemão um conhecimento profundo sobre a situação dramática vivida naquele país que levava – e continua a levar – a um êxodo de milhões de venezuelanos, o que ali observei deixou-me profundamente inquieto e indignado. De então para cá quase tudo piorou: as condições económicas, a crise humanitária, a repressão política. Apenas uma coisa melhorou na Venezuela nos últimos tempos: com Juan Guaidó ressurgiu a esperança. O que se tem passado nos últimos dias, com a morte de imensas pessoas devido a um apagão elétrico da exclusiva responsabilidade do sinistro regime que o tirano Maduro continua a liderar, ultrapassa tudo o que é moralmente aceitável. Guaidó e tudo o que ele hoje significa precisam de uma solidariedade ativa, que vá muito para além das palavras ocas dos que, no mais fundo de si mesmos, não conseguem verdadeiramente romper com a ilusão de que subsiste qualquer coisa de progressista e de esquerda na ditadura cleptocrática que não quer largar o poder em Caracas e que se recusa a dar a voz ao povo venezuelano.
               

Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL),
por escrito. – A credibilidade dos debates sobre a Venezuela neste parlamento esvaiu-se, se alguma vez a teve. Mentem descaradamente e sem pudor. Atentem-se às razões deste debate. O apagão elétrico no país, procurando atribuir ao legítimo Governo da Venezuela a responsabilidade do que sabemos ter sido uma sabotagem terrorista do sistema elétrico venezuelano. Não querem nem o diálogo nem a paz. Mas escutem bem! Os vossos intentos, o vosso apoio aos sectores mais reacionários da oposição venezuelana, o vosso seguidismo à Administração Trump, tudo fracassou. Fracassou o apagão, fracassou a farsa da ajuda humanitária queimada pela oposição na fronteira, fracassou o vosso autoproclamado fantoche. Os senhores espezinham o direito internacional, os princípios da não ingerência e respeito pela soberania consagrados na Carta das Nações Unidas. Procuram incendiar o país comprometendo os interesses de comunidades como a Portuguesa, que ali reside e trabalha. O povo venezuelano mobilizado nas ruas mantém-se firme e resistente, afirmando que não abdicam da sua independência e revolução bolivariana e gritando: Tirem as mãos da Venezuela!
               
20.   Follow up taken by the EEAS two years after the EP Report on EU strategic communication to counteract propaganda against it by third parties (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the report by Anna Elżbieta Fotyga, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy concerning taking stock of the follow-up taken by the EEAS two years after the EP report on EU strategic communication to counteract propaganda against it by third parties (2018/2115(INI)) (A8-0031/2019).

Anna Elżbieta Fotyga,
Rapporteur. – Mr President, it is my privilege to present recommendations to the Council and the Vice-President/High Representative prepared two years after the adoption of the important report on the EU strategic communication to counteract hostile propaganda against it by third parties. I served as the EP rapporteur for the other report as well.
The first report, adopted in November 2016, was divided into two parts. It indicated major actors in this work against the EU in the presentation of hostile propaganda. It was a state actor, namely the Russian Federation, and non-state actors, predominantly radicalised Islamic organisations like Isis. This time we decided to structure the report's recommendations differently, thanks to the contribution of representatives of major political groups in the Parliament. We divided the recommendations into parts, indicating the state of play in 2018 and targeting the hybrid warfare methods of this.
We stress there the necessity to avoid censorship while countering the hostile propaganda, disinformation and misinformation that is presented to the EU and its Member States. We stress the importance of quality journalism sustaining freedom of speech and freedom of the media. We also indicate the notion of possible legislative regulatory activity, at both EU and international level. There parties indicated the necessity to even introduce humanitarian law to deal with cyber-warfare or information warfare.
We stress the changing patterns of a variety of actors. In terms of radicalised organisation, we mentioned that, instead of very popular websites that increased the level of radicalisation of young people, there are methods of encrypted messaging services that are very popular. Much has been done, both within the EU institutions, EU-based institutions and organisations, and by civil society during those two years. We mention all of these activities in citations. I would like to stress the importance of the Code of Practice on Disinformation, the activity of the European Endowment for Democracy (EDD), as well as the transatlantic cooperation, and cooperation with like-minded countries and institutions like the Transatlantic Commission on Election Integrity on this.
In the second part of this report, we focus on indicating types of misinformation, disinformation and hostile propaganda. The third part is dedicated to methods for safeguarding our elections. The current year, 2019, is the year of over 29 elections in EU Member States, including the European elections that are to take place at the same time. After the experience of interference by the Russian Federation in elections and referendums in the EU and elsewhere, we have to strengthen our resilience to this kind of activity. We indicate the role of East StratCom and complement its activity, also indicating two other task forces for the Western Balkans, the Middle East and the North African Gulf area.

PRZEWODNICTWO: ZDZISŁAW KRASNODĘBSKI


Wiceprzewodniczący


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable Members, many thanks for making time to debate the challenge of disinformation and foreign interference, which is more urgent than ever in view of the European elections. Thanks to all who contributed and in particular to the rapporteur, Anna Elżbieta Fotyga, for delivering such a timely and helpful recommendation. It closely matches the logic and actions set out in the action plan against disinformation which the High Representative and the Commission submitted to the European Council.
The response against hybrid threats should be a joint enterprise. We are doing, and will continue to do, our part, but Member States need to step up efforts collectively too, as the European Council indicated in its conclusions. The recommendation underlines the centrality of freedom of speech and expression, as well as media pluralism, to resilient democratic societies. Indeed, our fundamental values must be at the heart of our response to the challenge of disinformation.
This is precisely the spirit in which we have drafted, and now are implementing, the action plan against disinformation. The report calls on the EU institutions to ensure that EU strategic communication becomes a matter of high priority on the European agenda and that the EU institutions and Member States work hand in hand in fighting against disinformation. I can assure you that all of this is already happening. However, this is a long-term endeavour which goes beyond this year's European elections, so we are counting on the European Parliament's continued support, not least in budgetary terms.
With the action plan against disinformation, we are increasing the staffing of our three strategic communication task forces to better enable them to detect, analyse and expose disinformation, and raise awareness of its negative impact, as well as – crucially – to improve the way in which we communicate about our values and policies.
Next week we launch the Rapid Alert System, as set out in the action plan. The system will make it easier for Member States to share assessments, data and best practices in tackling disinformation. This will, ahead of the European elections, bring better situational awareness, make it easier to determine responsibility for attacks and promote joint response, if and when needed, including in terms of awareness raising and increasing our society's resilience.
I appreciate your acknowledgment of the work done so far by the East StratCom Task Force, both in terms of positive communications and in addressing disinformation. I would also like to praise the other two task forces, for the Western Balkans and the South. The East StratCom Task Force had a pioneering function. To date, it has catalogued, and raised awareness of, more than 5 000 cases of disinformation coming from Russian sources. Unfortunately, the number is likely to rise further, as the problem will not go away anytime soon.
It is our collective duty to keep the European elections clean from foreign interference. One way to do it is to raise awareness about the challenge, closely cooperating with the media, civil society organisations and online social media platforms. The European External Action Service is working on this in full concert with Parliament's and the Commission's services. Obviously, the action plan will fully respect the different national approaches, with freedom of expression and freedom of the media as guiding principles of our action.
In parallel, we are building better cooperation in tackling foreign interference and hybrid threats with our international partners, such as NATO and G7. To give an example, our cooperation with NATO already involves sharing assessment reports on the information environment and conducting parallel and coordinated exercises involving hybrid threat scenarios, such as the base exercise.
In addition, we should partner more with our neighbours to promote a positive European agenda. Investing in the EU's positive communications and public diplomacy in our neighbourhood is crucial in addressing disinformation and promoting European values and interests. Cultural and economic diplomacy and close cooperation between EU Member States' missions and the European Union delegations on the ground are powerful tools for projecting a positive image of the EU in the world.
The best antidote against disinformation is, on the one hand, to promote a healthy media environment and, on the other, to spread the word about the positive impact of EU policies. Our citizens, as well as the citizens of our region, have the right to make decisions based on correct information, not on fake news. They have the right to a pluralist media environment and to high-quality information. This is about the quality of our democracies and about the quality of our Union.

Ramona Nicole Mănescu,
în numele grupului PPE. – Domnule președinte, vreau mai întâi să o felicit pe doamna Fotyga pentru un raport excelent, venit chiar la timpul potrivit. Avem un text prin care se recunoaște existența campaniilor de dezinformare și a propagandei ostile și prin care cerem statelor membre măsuri proactive, măsuri de contracarare a propagandei, măsuri eficiente de răspuns la cazurile dovedite de spionaj efectuate de țări terțe, un schimb de informații între statele membre, precum și investiții educaționale și alocarea, nu în ultimul rând, a unor lor fonduri adecvate pentru istrat.com.
                  

                     Războiul informațional este cât se poate de actual și Uniunea este obligată să acționeze ferm. Să ne amintim că, deja din anul 2013, Valeri Gherasimov declara că ‘rolul mijloacelor non militare de atingere a obiectivelor politice și strategice a crescut și, în multe cazuri, a depășit puterea armelor prin eficiența lor’. Așadar, nu vorbim doar despre promovarea unor minciuni, vorbim, mai ales, despre anihilarea capacității propriilor noștri cetățeni de a face diferența între adevăr și minciună. Nu întâmplător, de curând Putin îi felicita pe cei care muncesc la conceperea acestei propagande: ‘îi felicit pentru modul activ, fructuos și cu talent în care muncesc’.
                  

                     Iată, așadar, că este timpul să acționăm ferm. Europa are nevoie urgentă de măsuri ferme și, mai ales, de coordonare cu partenerii NATO și G7. Altminteri, cei care continuă să susțină contrariul sau să promoveze non acțiunea pun în pericol interesele celor 500 de milioane de cetățeni, pun în pericol valorile, securitatea și chiar integritatea Uniunii Europene.
                  

Eugen Freund,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! In etwas mehr als zwei Monaten geht in Europa wieder eine Wahl los, und wie schon beim Brexit, bei der Wahl des amerikanischen Präsidenten und bei der Entscheidung über die französische Präsidentschaft sehen wir uns mit besonderen Herausforderungen konfrontiert, nämlich, dass wir im Internet und ganz besonders in den sozialen Medien mit Desinformation, mit Falschmeldungen und mit Propagandaartikeln bombardiert werden. Und die sind oft so formuliert, dass viele Benutzer Schwierigkeiten haben werden, Fakten von Fiktion, Informationen von Propaganda oder Wahrheit von Lüge zu unterscheiden.
                  

                     Ich begrüße daher uneingeschränkt, dass sich eine eigene Abteilung des Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienstes mit der Abwehr dieser demokratiefeindlichen Auswüchse befasst. Trotz allem glaube ich, dass es sich dabei nur um erste Schritte handeln kann. Das Problem, das ich sehe, besteht darin, dass der technologische Fortschritt die Gegenmaßnahmen längst überholt hat und das auch ständig tut. Im Großen und Ganzen bekämpfen wir immer noch die gestrige Desinformation mit Mitteln von vorgestern.
                  

                     Wenn wir uns den Bereich der künstlichen Intelligenz ansehen, dann erschaudern wir vor dem, was da auf uns zukommt oder schon am Markt ist. Da werden Personen Äußerungen im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes in den Mund gelegt, die diese nie getan haben, und das gefälschte Video ist von einem echten dann nicht mehr zu unterscheiden. Wie soll ein Politiker beweisen, dass er das nie gesagt hat, wenn es genauso, wenn auch fiktiv, zu hören und zu sehen war?
                  

                     Lassen Sie mich zum Abschluss noch allen danken, die an der Erstellung dieses Berichtes beteiligt waren. Es war meine letzte Mitarbeit als Schattenberichterstatter. Ich werde dem nächsten Parlament nicht mehr angehören. Es war mir eine besondere Freude, als ein Vertreter Österreichs die Europäische Union mitgestaltet zu haben. Ich hoffe, dass dieser Prozess nicht durch nationalistische oder populistische Strömungen eingebremst wird, denn nur ein gemeinsames, ein geeintes, ein starkes Europa kann sich den großen Herausforderungen der Zukunft stellen.
                  

Ryszard Czarnecki,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! Gratulacje dla pani minister Anny Fotygi za to sprawozdanie – bardzo ważne sprawozdanie, bo jesteśmy na froncie. Jest tak, że cyberprzestrzeń, media to są instrumenty wykorzystywane przeciwko Europie, przeciwko wolności europejskiej, przez państwa trzecie – konkretne państwa trzecie i warto je nazywać po imieniu.
                  

                     Życie polityczne stwarza takie okazje, abyśmy byli atakowani właśnie przez te instrumenty. Mamy wybory europejskie – one mogą być okazją. Mamy brexit – też może być okazją. Mamy również inne sytuacje, o których wręcz już wiemy, że będą wykorzystywane przez wrogów wolności – chociażby dziesięciolecie utworzenia Partnerstwa Wschodniego, które jest solą w oku dla niektórych sąsiadów Unii Europejskiej – także sąsiadów mojego kraju.
                  

Petras Auštrevičius,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, access to information increasingly risks receiving unverified information. All EU Member States and countries that continue to deny the existence of disinformation and hostile propaganda, as well as its impact on public opinion, should recognise them, evaluate the situation within their territories and take proactive means in order to counteract and debunk them. We have to break down the existing market for fake news, lies, disinformation and propaganda in the European Union, which is effectively fuelled from inside and outside.
There are different kinds of terrorism – from military ones to social security threats. Informational terrorism is one of those which we must regard as a threat to public order, security and the fundamentals of life and of our societies. Informational terrorism is directly connected to hybrid warfare and attacks the minds and hearts of our people.
To make the ongoing battle between so-called elves and trolls more successful, we have to address current deficiencies in the East StratCom Task Force as its lack of regional expertise, institutional weaknesses, etc., requires urgent decisions in turning the East StratCom Task Force into a fully-fledged structure with increased support and funding.

Rebecca Harms,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Anders als beim ersten Bericht Fotyga waren sich die Vertreter der Fraktionen in der Verhandlung des neuen Berichts viel einiger. Das hat meiner Meinung nach damit zu tun, dass unsere Erfahrungen mit organisierter Falschinformation, Propaganda und Hetze in unseren Ländern inzwischen viel tiefer gegangen sind. Das Land, mit dem wir uns in dieser Frage am meisten rumschlagen müssen, ist Russland. Nicht nur die Ukraine ist zu einem Schlachtfeld geworden, sondern inzwischen richtet Russland, richtet der Kreml immer größere Anstrengungen mit immer größeren Mitteln darauf, auch Bürger europäischer Länder gegen ihre Regierungen aufzuhetzen – zuletzt gesehen während der Proteste der Gelbwesten. Gegen Migranten werden Bürger aufgehetzt, aber auch gegen die EU, zum Beispiel während der Brexit-Abstimmung.
                  

                     Die Abteilung ‘Strategische Kommunikation zur Erkennung und zur Abwehr organisierter Desinformation’ muss meiner Meinung nach wesentlich gestärkt werden. Da müssen mehr Experten rein, da muss mehr Geld rein. Und sehr wichtig ist, dass diese Abteilung in Zukunft auch mit Behörden der Mitgliedstaaten zusammenarbeiten kann. Dazu gehören unbedingt auch die Geheimdienste und die NATO. Ziffer 1a des Berichts darf aber nicht vergessen werden. Unabhängige freie Medien, Pluralismus in demokratischen Gesellschaften sind das A und O, um gegen Hetze und gegen Propaganda bestehen zu können.
                  

Javier Couso Permuy,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor presidente, dos años han pasado ya desde la presentación de este informe. Nadie lo diría. Las mismas acusaciones sin pruebas firmes, las mismas argumentaciones basadas en teorías de la comunicación desacreditadas hace décadas, la misma miopía en lo que se refiere a una política de buena vecindad con Rusia.
                  

                     Y lo que es peor, la misma voluntad de cargar las culpas de los resultados de procesos políticos internos aquí en Europa a actores externos, cuando es el electorado quien castiga a los partidos mayoritarios por sus políticas neoliberales.
                  

                     Y, para colmo, este informe incluye una referencia al mal llamado Estado Islámico que a lo único que contribuye es a empeorar nuestras relaciones con Rusia, equiparándola con un grupo designado como terrorista por las Naciones Unidas.
                  

                     Este Parlamento propone crear grupos independientes de comunicación y periodistas. ¿Pero cómo se puede ser independiente si recibe financiación de la Unión Europea? Este Parlamento hace lo que critica y no critica lo que hace.
                  

Fabio Massimo Castaldo,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è innegabile che la dimensione delle minacce ibride, soprattutto quelle legate alla diffusione di informazioni, sta diventando sempre più strategica per le nostre società, soprattutto ora che le nuove tecnologie hanno aumentato l'intensità, la velocità e la portata di questi attacchi in un contesto globale interconnesso.
                  

                     Partendo da questo dato mi e vi chiedo, colleghi, se la relazione che voteremo serva veramente a tutelare i cittadini dalle azioni potenzialmente nocive messe in atto da terzi, siano essi Stati, attori non statali o addirittura terroristi.
                  

                     Forse sarebbe stato più auspicabile un testo più bilanciato, che affronti tanto la disinformazione quanto la minaccia jihadista on line, un testo che non si limiti a un elenco preciso di paesi, quando sappiamo che di preciso in questo dominio c'è sempre meno, tanto meno da parte di quegli Stati che spesso utilizzano i cosiddetti proxy. Un testo, infine, che affronti la comunicazione strategica in modo olistico e che non si focalizzi, come invece è avvenuto, su una sola dimensione geografica, per di più utilizzando una terminologia vaga e talvolta al limite della censura.
                  

                     Queste sono a mio avviso le istanze alle quali dovremmo far fronte. Istanze che però non trovano riscontro in questa relazione, perché le intenzioni, pur condivisibili, sono state declinate in modo parziale e, permettetemi, non efficace.
                  

Jean-Luc Schaffhauser,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, Madame Fotyga, vous ne traitez pas vraiment de la communication stratégique. Vous proposez des mesures coercitives pour lutter contre une propagande non définie, qui émanerait de pays hostiles à l'Union européenne. Vous vous inspirez de la même logique conspirationniste et, j'ose dire, bolchevique, que le rapport Kalniete. Vous voyez la main de l'étranger derrière toute dissidence à l'égard du projet européiste: le Brexit? C'est Poutine! Les gilets jaunes? C'est Moscou! Il pleut à Varsovie? C'est la faute aux Russes!
                  

                     Il faut désormais déployer la censure pour condamner la volonté populaire qui monte partout en Europe. Nous sommes dans une approche stalinienne. À quand les camps de rééducation? C'est le bon vieux temps communiste: tout opposant est un traître.
                  

                     Madame, vous trahissez l'héritage d'un grand Polonais, Saint Jean-Paul II, qui voulait travailler pour une Europe avec la Russie, une Europe chrétienne, capable de donner son souffle de l'esprit à un monde désormais multipolaire, à une Europe sans âme. Vous coupez ainsi l'Europe de son âme russe et de son âme tout court.
                  

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question ‘carton bleu’ (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement))


Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE),
blue-card question. – Mr Schaffhauser, would you agree with me that comparing Ms Kalniete with Stalinism and all sorts of things is a little bit inappropriate because, according to my knowledge, she was born in a Siberian gulag? That's the end of the question. You can answer now.

Jean-Luc Schaffhauser (ENF),
réponse ‘carton bleu’
                        . – J'ai eu l'occasion de parler hier à Mme Kalniete de son expérience du goulag. Malheureusement, elle ne m'écoutait pas pendant que je lui parlais. Je lui ai dit qu'il s'agissait d'intervenir vis-à-vis de la Russie, non pas uniquement par sentiment, voire par ressentiment, mais qu'il fallait aussi un peu de raison dans son analyse de la situation. Je dirais que je peux d'autant plus me permettre de le dire que j'ai combattu le communisme et que, le 8 septembre 1989, c'est ici, à Strasbourg, que nous avons réuni toutes les forces anticommunistes avant la chute du mur.
                  

Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ας πούμε μια φορά την αλήθεια μέσα σε αυτή την αίθουσα. Δεν σας ενοχλεί η προπαγάνδα, κύριοι της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως. Άλλωστε, από την ίδια την Ένωση εκπορεύεται το μεγαλύτερο ποσοστό προπαγάνδας που κατευθύνεται προς τους πολίτες. Σας ενοχλεί μόνο οτιδήποτε στρέφεται εναντίον των δικών σας συμφερόντων. Η Ένωση χρηματοδοτεί εκατοντάδες μη κυβερνητικές οργανώσεις, οι οποίες προπαγανδίζουν τα ιδεολογήματα των κρατούντων αυτή τη στιγμή σχηματισμών. Μάλιστα, είχατε το θράσος να βαφτίσετε τις δικές σας πεποιθήσεις ως αξίες της Ενώσεως, χωρίς ποτέ, βέβαια, να ερωτηθούν οι πολίτες των κρατών μελών για κάτι τέτοιο.
                  

                     Το χειρότερο, όμως, είναι πως με τη στάση σας αυτή αποδεικνύετε το γεγονός πως θεωρείτε τους πολίτες ανίκανους να κρίνουν τις πληροφορίες που δέχονται και να επιλέξουν τις θέσεις που τους εκπροσωπούν. Αντίθετα, με μια πατερναλιστική λογική, θεωρείτε πως μόνο εσείς μπορείτε να τους υποδείξετε τη ‘σωστή’ άποψη. Για εσάς, οι πολίτες είναι ελεύθεροι να ψηφίζουν ό,τι θέλουν, αρκεί να συμφωνεί με εσάς. Για εμάς, οι πολίτες της Ένωσης έχουν τον νου και τη γνώση να κρίνουν και να αποφασίζουν ποιος τους αντιπροσωπεύει.
                  

Sandra Kalniete (PPE). – Mr President, if there is one recommendation to be repeated over and over again, it is that the East StratCom Task Force should urgently be turned into a permanent fully fledged structural unit of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and properly supported with adequate financial and personnel resources.
Secondly, we have to continue support for the work of the European Endowment for Democracy (EED) aimed at strengthening democratic and independent national language media in the EU neighbourhood and within the EU itself.
And thirdly, a recommendation aimed at all political parties in the EU: be transparent about donors, big and small. European voters deserve to know which parties are directly or indirectly funded by the Russian intelligence services or global mega companies to make them into mouthpieces for these foreign and not always democratic interests.

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, propaganda against the EU is not just about homegrown far-right nationalist Eurosceptics, who sit in this House with the intention of destroying the European peace project. As I discovered whilst working on the 2016 report, this phenomenon is about Russia and other countries who do not share our European values. Having successfully influenced the 2016 UK referendum, Putin's agents could have a huge impact on the forthcoming European elections. The EU therefore needs to take proactive measures.
Firstly, tech companies should invest much more in tools to identify propaganda and ensure better identity checks of platform users in order to eliminate bots, and to reduce financial incentives for those who profit from disinformation.
Secondly, we need more awareness at political level. For example, the French far-right MEP, Aymeric Chauprade, gave employment to the daughter of President Vladimir Putin's spokesman here in the European Parliament and this should not have been allowed.
Finally, the UK Government continues to ignore the hostile propaganda that proliferated in the Brexit campaign, so we must have a Mueller-style investigation in the UK regarding the dark money and the interference that clearly entered the campaign.

Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, ca să contracarezi propaganda trebuie să-i înțelege mecanismele. Ele pot fi diferite de la țară la țară. În România, de pildă, tezele lui Dughin sunt difuzate de fundația unui fost prim-ministru socialist, prin conferințele unui actor de la Teatrul Național și cu ajutorul unui colonel în rezervă. Toate astea în condițiile în care guvernul actual este el însuși sursă de fake news referitor la Comisia Europeană și la Parlamentul European. MCV este descris de către miniștrii ca instrument bazat pe informații eronate, iar rezoluțiile adoptate aici ca niște manipulări electorale. Nu-i de mirare, de aceea, că premierul, fosta noastră colegă Dăncilă, e lăudată de Sputnik în fiecare săptămână.
                  

                     Să adăugăm că principalele posturi TV de știri sunt controlate de condamnați pentru corupție, care susțin că statul de drept este o manipulare a lui George Soros. În fine, Facebook a închis 31 de pagini care manipulau opinia în favoarea social-democraților români. Iată ce propagandă trebuie să fie contracarată în țara mea!
                  

Tonino Picula (S&D). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, skandal Cambridge Analitica jasno potvrđuje razmjere vanjskog utjecaja na izbore i referendume. Dok čekamo vijesti iz Londona, sjetimo se svih lažnih informacija prenesenih bez sankcija građanima Britanije koje su u značajnoj mjeri utjecale na rezultat Brexita.
                  

                     Što se tiče nadolazećih europskih izbora, ne treba zanemariti ruski utjecaj preko raznih medijskih kanala i društvenih mreža, a koji dopire i do Europskog parlamenta. To sigurno nije agenda za snažniju Europsku uniju, upravo suprotno.
                  

                     Naglasimo i utjecaj hibridnog ratovanja na naše zapadnobalkansko susjedstvo uključeno u eurointegracijske procese. Sumnja se i na jedan pokušaj državnog udara.
                  

                     No Rusija nije jedini izvor ovakvog djelovanja. Lažna propaganda dolazi i sa zapada i Bliskog Istoka. Svi imaju slično operativno djelovanje i isti cilj – slabljenje europskih demokratskih institucija.
                  

                     Podržavam ovo izvješće i predložene mjere. Uoči europskih izbora od presudne je važnosti osigurati da građani donose odluke temeljene na istinitim informacijama jer o njihovim odlukama ovisi budućnost europskog projekta.
                  

Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Имайки предвид мащабите на водената активна хибридна пропагандна война срещу Европейския съюз, трябва да признаем, че мерките, които досега вземаме, не са достатъчни. Аз твърдо подкрепям оперативната група за стратегически комуникации към Външната служба да прерасне в постоянно звено за противодействие на дезинформационните кампании, както и да бъде адекватно финансово и кадрово обезпечена.
                  

                     Нужно е не само Европейският съюз, но и страните членки да направят такива структури. Например, България създаде такава структура. Знам, че и други страни също имат такива. Под ръководството на комисар Мария Габриел Европейската комисия също предложи координиран отговор на това предизвикателство: кодекс за поведение на онлайн платформите, мерки за насърчаване на образованието и критичното мислене, особено на младите поколения на Европейския съюз, подкрепа за обективна разследваща журналистика. Всичко това трябва да бъде приведено в действие възможно най-скоро.
                  

                     Нашият отговор на хибридната война трябва да включва и мерки за идентифициране и санкциониране на лицата, отговорни за организирането и провеждането на дезинформационни кампании чрез онлайн медии, агенти на влияние и други.
                  

                     Разбира се критиката към Европейския съюз – не всяка критика е хибридна война. Европейският съюз не е свещена крава. Ние всички трябва да сме критични към това, което се случва около нас, но и да не позволяваме на трети страни да водят враждебна пропаганда срещу нас.
                  

Michael Gahler (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Ich wollte eigentlich dem Kollegen Eugen Freund zurufen, dass ich seiner gesamten Rede zu hundert Prozent zustimmen kann – er ist jetzt leider nicht mehr da –, aber dass ich mich gewundert habe, dass er es in zwei Minuten nicht geschafft hat, den Namen ‘Russland’ zu nennen. Das ist vielleicht eine österreichische Besonderheit, es wird euch aber nichts helfen. Ich möchte das Kind beim Namen nennen. Das wichtigste Anliegen Russlands ist es, die EU zu destabilisieren. Die Hauptsache ist, den Mainstream zu schwächen. Alles, was dazu beiträgt, ist attraktiv. Die Zeiten, in denen Russland wie die frühere UdSSR eine eigene Ideologie vertritt, sind vorbei.
                  

                     Wir müssen uns in allen Ländern der EU der Tatsache bewusst werden, dass dies stattfindet, um die Widerstandsfähigkeit unserer Bevölkerung zu schwächen. Dort, wo Geld fließt, um Gleichgesinnte zu unterstützen, Herr Schaffhauser, brauchen wir gesetzliche Regelungen, die das verbieten, und wir brauchen den entsprechenden Informationsaustausch unserer zuständigen Behörden. Die EU könnte da eine koordinierende Rolle spielen. Ich wünsche mir deshalb, dass die East-Stratcom-Arbeitsgruppe der EU gestärkt wird und sich weiter mit entsprechenden Experten in den Mitgliedstaaten vernetzt.
                  

Eduard Kukan (PPE). – Mr President, Europe faces a grave threat to our democracies. The ability to argue with facts against lies, disinformation and propaganda from third countries, is becoming more and more difficult. We must strive at both EU and national level to defend our values and fight off cyber- and information warfare.
It's a problem we face both in the EU and in the regions on our borders, in the western Balkans and the eastern neighbourhood. In this respect, we need the European External Action Service (EEAS) East StratCom Task Force with particular regional focuses, which need to improve communication on EU topics.
I also support the call for improving the funding and resources for these structures and their cooperation with official EU bodies such as EU delegations in third countries. Countering this information and hostile propaganda needs to be a priority, not only in the European elections but also for the incoming European Commission, Council and Parliament. We need to do a much better job in communicating the EU's values and policies effectively. Otherwise our democracies might not survive this external pressure.

Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, East StratCom has delivered excellent results. It has analysed and collected more than 5 000 examples of pro-Kremlin disinformation. We keep demanding that East StratCom is turned into a fully-fledged structure within the European External Action Service with adequate financial and personnel resources. Financing has finally increased but is still lagging behind exponentially growing tasks – because next to East StratCom, there's also the Western Balkans StratCom and Task Force South.
The EU Action Plan has an important task – to improve capabilities, enhance coordination and joint responses by EU institutions and Member States, develop better cooperation with the private sector, raise public awareness and promote education on disinformation, and not least provide adequate resources. Networkers and fact-checkers could be helpful in tackling disinformation, and the Commission task is to coordinate their activities into the European network.

Jaromír Štětina (PPE). – Pane předsedající, zpráva paní Fotygové obsahuje celkem třicet osm doporučení Radě a vysoké představitelce Unie. Cílem doporučení je bojovat proti propagandě, kterou proti Evropské unii vedou třetí strany. Jedno z nejdůležitějších doporučení se ve zprávě skrývá pod písmenem h): zvyšovat povědomí o dezinformačních kampaních Ruska, neboť jsou hlavním zdrojem dezinformací v Evropě.
                  

                     V roce 2014 vytyčil ruský generál Gerasimov doktrínu o nových druzích útoků, podle které jsou vhodně použitá slova silnější, než raketové systémy a tanky. Mluví-li Gerasimov o vhodně užitých slovech, není pochyby, že má na mysli lež. Lež se stala oficiální doktrínou kremelské politiky. Je nejvyšší čas, abychom si to v Evropské unii uvědomili. Abychom si uvědomili, že hybridní válku s Ruskem prohráváme. Ztratili jsme schopnost nazývat věci pravými jmény. Ztratili jsme schopnost Evropskou unii bránit. Rusko není náš spojenec, Rusko je náš nepřítel.
                  

Dubravka Šuica (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, u svakom sam slučaju zabrinuta zbog dezinformacija koje u posljednje vrijeme kolaju po Europskoj uniji, a koje dolaze od strane trećih zemalja. Svakako se trebamo zabrinuti. Stoga maksimalno podržavam ovo izvješće koje vodi računa o tome da se na neki način koordinirano borimo protiv takvih dezinformacija. Razumijem da borba treba biti na nacionalnoj razini, ali s obzirom na to da internet ima prekograničnu dimenziju, sigurna sam da trebamo razmjenjivati najbolje prakse i dogovarati se.
                  

                     Također i ja podržavam ovo stajalište koje kaže da je ruska propaganda jako bitna, odnosno jako negativna i da je definitivno utjecala na referendum u Velikoj Britaniji. I danas trpimo posljedice tog referenduma, ne samo mi nego, vjerujem, i britanski građani, štogod o tome mislili. U svakom je slučaju potrebna snažna borba protiv dezinformacija i onemogućavanje miješanja trećih strana u izborni proces, posebice imajući u vidu izbore za Europski parlament koji nam slijede.
                  

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Na początku obecnej kadencji zwracałem uwagę na to, że konflikty hybrydowe, wojny hybrydowe wymagają hybrydowych odpowiedzi, hybrydowych reakcji, czyli bardzo złożonych. Na składniki takie podstawowe tych właściwych odpowiedzi powinny się składać właśnie: walka z propagandą, walka z dezinformacją, ale także bezpieczeństwo w cyberprzestrzeni, edukacja na każdym szczeblu czy też współdziałanie, czyli to co w sprawozdaniu nazywane jest strategicznością. Muszę powiedzieć, że w jakimś sensie Komisją jestem zawiedziony. Trzeba zwrócić uwagę na to, że to sprawozdanie, do którego się dziś odwołujemy z 2016 r., także to z obecnego roku, nie jest inicjatywą Komisji. Jest inicjatywą pani przewodniczącej Komisji Obrony i Bezpieczeństwa. Wydaje mi się, że w tej materii akurat Komisja powinna wyprzedzać fakty. To że w cyberbezpieczeństwie czy w informacji, w walce z dezinformacją, przodują eurodeputowani, nie jest dobrym sygnałem. Jest sygnałem, że Komisja Europejska zbyt późno reaguje na rozmaite problemy, które pojawiają się w przestrzeni publicznej i w przestrzeni bezpieczeństwa. Chcę podkreślić, że te zalecenia – jest ich blisko czterdzieści – są dobrze adresowane, dobrze napisane, dobrze opisane i we właściwym czasie. Ważne dziś, aby reakcje na nie, nie były spóźnione.
                  

Zgłoszenia z sali


Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Mr President, I apologise, but I was having a meeting with Mr Barnier who, as you can imagine, at this moment is quite busy. So it was impossible for me to attend here on time.
Senhor Presidente, gostaria de frisar essencialmente o seguinte: a questão da propaganda e, em particular, daquela que, na verdade, visa essencialmente enganar os públicos e que, como sabemos, é paralela, no fundo, de toda uma discussão que temos tido das fake news, é hoje, sabemos, extremamente dominada por terceiros países.
E penso que aqui nós temos que ter uma ação muito determinada no sentido de bloquear toda a possibilidade de interesses estratégicos muitas vezes malignos, de terceiros países e de alguns bem conhecidos, como o caso da Rússia, poderem influenciar as nossas campanhas eleitorais, os nossos debates, os nossos referendos.
E, por isso, saúdo bastante esta atitude da Comissão no sentido de combater este tipo de atuação.

Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, hibridno ratovanje nije novitet, ali je ubrzani razvoj informacijskih tehnologija otvorio nove kanale i danas je lakše nego ikad propagandom doći do ljudi.
                  

                     S druge strane, povjerenje građana u institucije na povijesno je niskoj razini, što onima koji žele utjecati na demokratske procese i javno mnijenje u Europi, otvara puno prostora za djelovanje. Kolegica Fotyga odradila je sjajan posao, pa preporuke iz ovog izvješća mogu samo podržati.
                  

                     Mislim da ipak vrijedi istaknuti, iako bi to u jednoj razvijenoj demokraciji trebalo biti jasno, da postoje i opravdane kritike na račun Europske unije, njezinog vodstva i pojedinih država članica, te da nije svaka kritika neprijateljsko djelovanje. Ovo naglašavam zato što vodstvo Unije već neko vrijeme svaku kritiku pokušava pripisati vanjskim i unutarnjim neprijateljima, umjesto da sluša građane i donese promjene sukladne njihovim zahtjevima.
                  

Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, στη σημερινή εποχή που χαρακτηρίζεται από την αλματώδη εξέλιξη της τεχνολογίας, οι αρχές και οι μέθοδοι της προπαγάνδας είναι δυνατό να εφαρμοστούν με πολλούς και διαφόρους τρόπους, οι κυριότεροι από τους οποίους είναι η παραποίηση της αλήθειας και η διασπορά ψευδών ειδήσεων. Βασική αρχή για μια δημοκρατική κοινωνία, ώστε να μπορέσει να αντιμετωπίσει την εχθρική προπαγάνδα, είναι η παρουσίαση της αλήθειας στο κοινό και όχι η δίωξη των πολιτικών αντιπάλων και των δημοσιογράφων, οι οποίοι ασκούν κριτική στην κυβέρνηση είτε παρουσιάζουν διάφορα σκάνδαλα.
                  

                     Σε εθνικό επίπεδο, η ενημέρωση του κοινού, η αντικειμενική και αμερόληπτη, επιτυγχάνεται μέσω της δημιουργίας ενός λειτουργικού συστήματος ραδιοτηλεοράσεως. Πολλές φορές όμως, το σύστημα αυτό δεν λειτουργεί σωστά. Αυτό συμβαίνει στην Ελλάδα όπου οι εθνική ραδιοτηλεόραση έχει μεταβληθεί σε όργανο κομματικό του κυβερνώντος κόμματος και μάλιστα φτάνει στο σημείο να μην καλεί στις εκπομπές τους βουλευτές και τους ευρωβουλευτές του κόμματος στο οποίο ανήκω, της Χρυσής Αυγής, που είναι η τρίτη πολιτική δύναμη της χώρας. Όπως αντιλαμβάνεστε, με τέτοιες μεθόδους υπάρχει αναξιοπιστία και δεν είναι δυνατόν να αντιμετωπίσει την οποιαδήποτε εχθρική προπαγάνδα.
                  

Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, sosiaalisessa ja perinteisessäkin mediassa yleistyvä disinformaatio uhkaa kansanvaltaa.
                  

                     On tärkeää, että kansalaiset saavat paikkansapitäviä tietoja, jotta voidaan muodostaa perusteltuja ja faktoihin perustuvia äänestyspäätöksiä. Facebookin kaltaisilla sosiaalisen median yhteisöpalveluilla on suuri vastuu disinformaation tunnistamisessa ja poistamisessa alustoiltaan. Väärään ja valheelliseen tietoon perustuvat vaikutuspyrkimykset on tärkeää havaita mahdollisimman nopeasti ennen kuin ne leviävät laajalle.
                  

                     Verkkoalustojen velvollisuutena on myös taata poliittisen mainonnan avoimuus ja selvittää, mitkä tahot ovat mainosten takana. Aktiiviset valekäyttäjätilit, joita on miljoonittain, on myös poistettava mahdollisimman nopeasti. Teknologisen kehityksen johdosta esimerkiksi aidolta näyttävien valevideoiden tekeminen on helpompaa kuin koskaan. Valeuutisten purevuutta on ehkäistävä ennen kaikkea koulutuksen ja tietoisuuden lisäämisen avulla. Korostaisin medialukutaidon edistämistä ongelman ratkaisemisessa.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, συζητούμε εδώ για την παραπληροφόρηση, την προπαγάνδα, τις ψευδείς ειδήσεις, αλλά αυτά πρέπει να εφαρμοστούν και εναντίον του ίδιου του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, διότι, όπως ξέρετε όλοι, το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο ανέθεσε σε μια δημοσκοπική εταιρεία να κάνει δημοσκόπηση για τις ευρωεκλογές, η οποία δημοσκοπική εταιρεία, αντί να κάνει δημοσκόπηση, πήρε τις δημοσκοπήσεις σε εθνικό επίπεδο, δημοσκοπήσεις που έγιναν για εθνικές εκλογές και έβγαλε συμπεράσματα για το ποιοι εκλέγονται και ποιοι δεν εκλέγονται από αυτή εδώ την Ευρωβουλή, πόσοι ευρωβουλευτές από εμάς δεν θα εκλεγούν και πόσοι δήθεν θα εκλεγούν. Αυτό είναι μαύρη προπαγάνδα, παραμονές των ευρωεκλογών, είναι fake news, είναι καθοδηγημένη προπαγάνδα εναντίον συγκεκριμένων ευρωβουλευτών.
                  

                     Αυτό πρέπει να καταγγελθεί και να απαγορευθεί και να σταματήσει αυτή την τακτική το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, διότι είναι αίσχος και γι' αυτό πρέπει να τοποθετηθείτε όλοι οι συνάδελφοι. Να μην επιτρέπουμε τα fake news, ότι ορισμένοι δήθεν από μας δεν θα εκλεγούν επειδή το λέει μια δημοσκοπική εταιρεία και αυτό έχει αναπαραχθεί σε όλα τα μίντια, σε όλη την Ευρώπη. Είναι ντροπή, είναι αίσχος!
                  

Przewodniczący. – Dziękuję Panu bardzo za to pełne pasji wystąpienie.
                  

Karol Karski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Padło tu wiele wskazań na to, iż mamy do czynienia z fałszywymi informacjami przekazywanymi przez media elektroniczne, także przez media tradycyjne, ale także takie informacje padają na tej sali w Parlamencie Europejskim i także w trakcie tej debaty. Dzisiaj mieliśmy przykład takiego działania ze strony posła Schaffhausera, który wycierał sobie usta pamięcią św. Jana Pawła II. Posunął się do tego, iż osoby, które działają zgodnie z nauczaniem Jana Pawła II, które realizują ten program przez niego wytyczony, wskazywał, że one działają wręcz przeciwnie. To jest sytuacja, to jest podstawa wyjątkowo zła, wymagająca potępienia. Te osoby, które akurat zajmują się tą problematyką, działają zgodnie z nauczaniem Jana Pawła II, to jest dla nich wszystkich oczywiste. Natomiast ta wypowiedź posła Schaffhausera zapewne gdzieś będzie potem transmitowana, reprodukowana, a może nawet w niektórych państwach podawana jako główna linia wypowiedzi w trakcie dzisiejszej debaty Parlamentu Europejskiego. I to jest też właśnie przykład takiego działania, dezinformowania, mówienia oczywistych nieprawd, które tu dla nas na tej sali są oczywistymi nieprawdami, a już poza tą salą w określonych miejscach mogą być prezentowane jako coś zupełnie odmiennego, jako główna linia wręcz tej debaty.
                  

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, this has been a very useful exchange. I thank the rapporteur, Ms Fotyga, and the honourable Members for their interventions.
From this debate, I conclude that we overwhelmingly share a common interest in tackling the challenge of disinformation and foreign interference ahead of the European elections. This debate has been a further opportunity to increase awareness about the subject. I close by reiterating once again my appreciation of Parliament's role in keeping this important issue on the agenda.

Anna Elżbieta Fotyga,
Rapporteur. – Mr President, disinformation poisons the minds and conscience of people affected. The best example of this was accusations delivered against persons like Sandra Kalniete and myself. Well, it is Putin who affirms the policy of Stalin, not ourselves; he tells it himself. And there are well-known fans of Putin in this Chamber from time to time.
I would like to very warmly thank all shadow rapporteurs. Their contribution was really excellent. I'm aware of deep debates about this topic within each political group. I think that the final outcome is a real contribution to further work by all EU institutions in countering hostile propaganda. I would like to thank especially Charles Tannock, who assisted me in a very difficult period of preparation for this report when I had certain health problems. Thank you very much indeed.

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.
                  

                     Głosowanie odbędzie się w środę 13 marca 2019 r.
                  


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)



Urmas Paet (ALDE),
kirjalikult. – Venemaa, Hiina, Iraani ja Põhja-Korea üha agressiivsemad sammud, millega püütakse õõnestada Euroopa demokraatia aluseid ning idapartnerluse riikide suveräänsust, ei ole vastuvõetavad ning nende vastu tuleb järjepidevalt võidelda. On oluline välja töötada õigusraamistik ELi ja rahvusvahelisel tasandil hübriidohtude, sh küber- ja infosõja vastu võitlemiseks. Venemaa väärinfokampaaniad on Euroopas peamine väärinfo allikas ja seetõttu tuleks kujundada idanaabruse strateegilise kommunikatsiooni töörühmast kiiresti Euroopa välisteenistuse raames tegutsev täieõiguslik struktuuriüksus, et võidelda Venemaa propagandaga. Kolmandate isikute sekkumine valimistesse tuleb lõpetada ning selleks on oluline, et ELi riigid muudaksid oma valimisseadusi, võttes arvesse väärinfokampaaniatest, küberrünnetest ja küberkuritegudest tulenevaid võimalikke ohte.
                  
21.   EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development – EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development (resolution) (debate)

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest wspólna debata nad:
               






—



                        zaleceniem sporządzonym przez Annę Fotygę w imieniu Komisji Spraw Zagranicznych w sprawie projektu decyzji Rady w sprawie zawarcia, w imieniu Unii, Umowy o współpracy na rzecz partnerstwa i rozwoju między Unią Europejską i jej państwami członkowskimi, z jednej strony, a Islamską Republiką Afganistanu, z drugiej strony (15093/2016 — C8 0107/2018 — 2015/0302(NLE)) (A8-0026/2019) oraz
                     










—



                        sprawozdaniem sporządzonym przez Annę Fotygę w imieniu Komisji Spraw Zagranicznych zawierającej projekt rezolucji nieustawodawczej dotyczącej projektu decyzji Rady w sprawie zawarcia, w imieniu Unii, Umowy o współpracy na rzecz partnerstwa i rozwoju między Unią Europejską i jej państwami członkowskimi, z jednej strony, a Islamską Republiką Afganistanu, z drugiej strony (15093/2016 — C8-0107/2018 – 2015/0302M(NLE)) (A8-0058/2019)
                     





Anna Elżbieta Fotyga,
Rapporteur. – Mr President, the Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development (CAPD) between the EU and Afghanistan was signed in February 2017, partially and provisionally entering into force on 1 December 2017. It was upon a Council decision that the agreement remains a mixed one, meaning that both the EU and Member States are engaged in the process of ratification.
The security situation in Afghanistan remains difficult, yet over 56% of the territory is under the control of the Afghan Government. That means that more than 65% of the population is also under the control of the Government. Since 2002, when the EU engaged in financing, more than EUR 3.66 billion of humanitarian aid has been delivered in Afghanistan. For the decade of transformation starting in 2015 we intend to deliver a further EUR 1.4 billion to stabilise this country.
Efforts by the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operation and current resolute support with the participation of many countries, including my own, has brought development to the security situation, although, after the emergence of Islamic State Khorasan (ISK), the Daesh cells and groups that emerged following operations in Iraq make this situation still vulnerable and fragile.
The CAPD focuses on areas of relevance to the rule of the law, good governance, human rights, economic stabilisation and social stabilisation. We have to acknowledge and compliment the good achievements reflected in the statistics. Access to health care has increased, due to European assistance, from 9% to 57%, a huge development. Life expectancy has increased from 45 to 60. The level of education – schooling, access to schools – is much higher. Voting patterns, in terms of participation in elections and the empowerment of women, also represent achievements in this country.
The agreement was signed by Vice-President / High Representative Federica Mogherini and by the Minister of Finance of Afghanistan, in the presence of the country's President. We parliamentarians consider it regrettable that information about proceedings in the negotiation of the agreement came to this Chamber considerably late, after the signing of the agreement. While our role is substantial, we participate, in accordance with the Treaties, in the consent procedure for this agreement. I welcome and support it. I hope that it will be voted on positively.

Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, let me start by thanking the honourable rapporteur, Madam Fotyga, for your report, your positive opinion and the consent expressed on the conclusion of the EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development.
After decades of war, Afghanistan stands at a crossroads. Last year was the deadliest ever for civilians since the start of the war in 2001. Yet 2019 could be the year of peace. In recent years, the European Union has engaged even more closely with the Government of Afghanistan to accompany the country in this delicate moment of its history.
This is the goal that we set both in the Afghanistan strategy of 2017 and in our latest Council conclusions. This agreement represents the first legal framework governing EU-Afghanistan relations and is the result of a long negotiation process.
The agreement is now being applied provisionally and we already had a promising start to our structured dialogue and cooperation. Two bilateral meetings took place in 2018 where we discussed a number of key issues that we have agreed together with our Afghan friends. These include human rights, gender issues and good governance, development cooperation, trade, regional cooperation and migration. On all of these files, Afghanistan wants to make substantial progress for the benefit of its citizens and we Europeans have offered assistance and support.
We paid special attention to the situation of Afghan refugees in the region. The European Union remains committed to working towards finding a comprehensive and durable regional solution by supporting the predictable, safe, orderly and dignified return of Afghan nationals residing in neighbouring countries and to continuing to implement the EU's regional programmes on migration and forced displacement.
In your report, you draw a realistic picture of the situation in Afghanistan. I would like to elaborate a little more on the current developments related to peace. The situation on the ground remains worrying. Innocent Afghan men, women and children continue to suffer from this conflict. Yet there are good reasons to hope that this year could finally bring good news for the country. President Ghani's peace offer for the Taliban in February 2018, just a little over a year ago, has created an unprecedented opportunity for peace, and since September last year, the US and the Taliban have been negotiating international troop withdrawals and counter-terrorism commitments.
We know that lasting peace will take time. A quick agreement is not necessarily a lasting one. This is why the European Union is committed to supporting Afghanistan before, during and after a peace agreement to ensure that this will be sustainable.
Last November, at the Geneva Ministerial Conference on Afghanistan, hosted by the United Nations, High Representative Mogherini made a concrete five-point offer to Afghanistan about how the European Union could support a peace deal. First, we can help make the peace process more inclusive. Second, we can assist with reforms, including in the security sector. Third, we can help with the reintegration of former fighters and their families. Fourth, we can act as a guarantor of a possible peace agreement, and fifth, we can promote regional trade and connectivity. Since then, we have been working closely with our Afghan partners to better define our assistance. We are launching a dedicated peace mechanism to help repair and build capacities for inclusive negotiations. As the High Representative said in Geneva, the Afghan people are asking to move forward and there is no going back.
During the coming months, we will continue to work together with the international community to support a better electoral process for this year's presidential elections in Afghanistan. As you rightly pointed out in your report, the EU committed a large amount of funding in terms of development aid. At a Brussels conference on Afghanistan in October 2016, the EU and its Member States pledged EUR 5 billion, and this pledge is currently being operationalised. Let me also mention the fact that the EU development support for Afghanistan has a strong focus on peace and state building and supports Afghanistan in its regional contacts. With other development partners, we are exploring how to adapt the existing development programmes to a peace scenario. This would include supporting post-conflict reforms, social cohesion at community level, cross-border trade and regional connectivity.
Afghanistan has a unique chance for peace. We Europeans will do everything in our power to help the people of Afghanistan turn this opportunity into a truly sustainable and lasting peace.

Bernd Lange,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für internationalen Handel. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es ist eine etwas absurde Situation heute. Wir sollen ein Abkommen billigen, das vorläufig schon seit über einem Jahr in Kraft ist und in dessen Aushandelsprozess überhaupt keine Transparenz stattfand. Eigentlich, wenn es nicht um Afghanistan gehen würde, würde ich sagen: So kann man mit dem Europäischen Parlament nicht umgehen! Und deswegen richte ich an den Rat, aber auch an die Kommission nochmal die klare Ansage: Es kann nicht sein, dass ein Abkommen vorläufig angewandt wird, ohne dass dieses demokratisch gewählte Haus die Zustimmung gegeben hat.
               

                  Das entspricht überhaupt keinem Demokratieverständnis. Wir haben im Handelsbereich die klare Abmachung, dass kein Abkommen vorläufig angewendet wird, bevor das Europäische Parlament ja gesagt hat. Und das verlange ich als generelles Prinzip von der Kommission und vom Rat. Wir sind die demokratische Institution der Europäischen Union, wir haben das Recht, transparent beteiligt zu werden und vor jeglichem Inkrafttreten eine Entscheidung hier in unserem demokratischen Haus zu treffen.
               

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Panie Przewodniczący! Kompletnie nie zgadzam się z moim przedmówcą. Wcale nie jest tak, że potrzebna jest zgoda Parlamentu Europejskiego do jakiejkolwiek współpracy. Współpraca ta natomiast wkracza w tej chwili w decydującą fazę i na tym etapie ta zgoda jest niezbędna.
               

                  Cieszę się, że Komisja Spraw Zagranicznych przyjęła pozytywną rekomendację dla zgody Parlamentu. Jestem zadowolony z tego, że dojdzie do pierwszej formalnej współpracy pomiędzy Unią Europejską i Afganistanem, ale cieszę się przede wszystkim z samego sprawozdania, które pod każdym względem jest po prostu kompletne – zawiera aspekty polityczno-strategiczne, mówi o roli i odpowiedzialności podmiotów regionalnych, porusza kwestie dotyczące bezpieczeństwa i budowania pokoju w Afganistanie, ale także budowanie państwa, bo to państwo cały czas jest w fazie budowy.
               

                  Zwracam uwagę także na prawa człowieka, które w Afganistanie są bardzo często podważane, na kwestie dotyczące gospodarki, a zwłaszcza rozwoju i handlu. Ale to, co jest także kluczowe, to same procesy migracyjne. Trzeba pamiętać, że Afganistan obawia się migracji ze strony Pakistanu czy Iranu – nie jest na to przygotowany. I bardzo istotne, że w końcowej fazie w sprawozdaniu także zawarto współpracę sektorową. To czyni to sprawozdanie, krótko mówiąc, kompletnym.
               

Doru-Claudian Frunzulică,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, the Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development confirms the EU commitment to Afghanistan's future development during the decade of transformation – 2014 to 2024 — and lays the foundations for the Union's continued support for the country in implementing key reforms. Through the report I'm also trying to flag up the point that, despite the significant progress made, Afghanistan still faces substantial challenges that require further stronger, longer force to safeguard and build on these joint achievements.
I also put emphasis on a more constructive dialogue on human rights, in particular the rights of women, of children, and of ethnic and religious minorities, which are essential elements of this agreement. The agreement aims to develop EU-Afghan relations in a growing range of mutually beneficial areas, such as rule of law, fighting terrorism and extremism, improved governance, achieving sustainable peace in development, combating terrorist financing, countering narcotics smuggling, fostering inclusive and sustainable economic growth and social and rural development and addressing global challenges such as climate change.
Afghanistan needs to refrain from involving proxies in internal rivalries. Neighbouring countries should contribute to the stability of Afghanistan instead of undermining it.

Petras Auštrevičius,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all let me thank Anna Fotyga for her excellent job in drawing up this report being presented to us for our attention and consideration. The EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development brings the EU's relationship with Afghanistan to a new qualitative level of mutually beneficial cooperation. Undeniably, Afghanistan has made very significant progress in many fields, as rightly mentioned by Anna before. However, security concerns, corruption, human rights issues and other problems still persist, endangering the current achievements.
Afghanistan is at a crucial point in its history, as in the absence of further efforts, all of the progress and sacrifices hitherto could be wasted. Withdrawing the coalition forces prematurely could have negative consequences and should be decided by all consulting allies.
The European Union is committed to a long-term partnership with Afghanistan. Therefore, following the November 2018 Geneva Conference on Afghanistan, the European Union announced a financial package worth EUR 474 million to support state-building and public sector reforms, health, justice and elections, as well as to address migration and displacement challenges in Afghanistan.
I hope that this Agreement embedded in a regional approach which includes the Afghanistan neighbourhood, the global powers and the international community, can pave the way for a better future for the country. The first step to the path of stability is peace. Achieving a peace agreement between warring parties in Afghanistan is a priority at the moment, and I hope very much that the Qatar process of negotiations will include the Afghanistan Government in the very essence of this meaning. In particular, a peace deal cannot compromise the values of democracy, human rights and rule of law. The citizens of Afghanistan deserve this.

Sabine Lösing,
im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Es ist gut, wenn Ziele eines Abkommens mit Afghanistan – unter anderem die Beseitigung von Armut, die Umsetzung der UN-Entwicklungsziele, die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter – ein Handeln auf Augenhöhe mit sich bringen. Doch es ist nicht so, als hätten wir keine Erfahrung mit der Strategie neoliberaler, sogenannter Reformen, welche das neue Kooperationsabkommen leitet, über das wir heute hier sprechen.
               

                  Bereits 2003 hat der Westen mit dem IWF in Afghanistan einen neoliberalen, marktradikalen Umbau des Wirtschaftssystems begonnen. Zahlreiche Studien und die Erfahrung der Jahre belegen doch, dass ein solches Befriedungskonzept ungeeignet ist, die soziale Lage der Bevölkerung zu verbessern und zu einer Stabilisierung beizutragen. Die heutige Situation in Afghanistan ist ein Desaster, doch ich fürchte, dass das Abkommen mit der Förderung ausländischer Direktinvestitionen, des Privatsektors und der Ausbeutung natürlicher Ressourcen nicht diesem gequälten Land auf die Füße helfen wird, sondern vor allem die Gewinne europäischer Unternehmen vermehren wird und soll.
               

                  Das Abkommen beinhaltet außerdem den bereits im Vorfeld – und hier setze ich ein Ausrufungszeichen – im Vorfeld informell beschlossenen Abschiebedeal mit dem zynischen Namen ‘gemeinsamer Weg nach vorne’, der afrikanische Geflüchtete gemeinsam zurück in den Tod schickt. Diese menschenverachtende Praxis muss sofort beendet werden.
               

Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, nos últimos 17 anos, os aliados, no quadro da ISAF e da missão EUPOL e outras da União Europeia, quiseram dar voz àqueles que o regime talibã oprimiu, mulheres e minorias étnicas em especial.
               

                  A História ensinou uma lição sangrenta no Afeganistão, de que não há paz sem inclusão e com o poder entregue aos senhores da guerra.
               

                  Ora o acordo que está a ser negociado entre a Administração Trump e os talibãs com vista a uma retirada de tropas a mata cavalos do Afeganistão é muito preocupante, não inclui as vozes das mulheres afegãs, dos jovens, da sociedade civil nem sequer do governo eleito. Os parcos ganhos de inclusão duramente conquistados estão sob ameaça e podemos voltar a ver a maioria da população afegã, mulheres e crianças, barbaramente oprimidas.
               

                  Negociar assim, não é negociar, é trair, como se vê pelos ataques crescentes dos talibãs contra civis e militares no Afeganistão. À União Europeia não basta ajeitarmos o tal acordo de partenariado e cooperação que pode não valer o papel onde está escrito, temos de nos fazer ouvir politicamente e evitar o retrocesso civilizacional que tornará em vão o tal acordo de partenariado e cooperação e todos os esforços financeiros, humanitários e o sacrifício de vidas, de tantos civis e militares afegãos e também aliados, incluindo europeus naquele país.
               

Neena Gill (S&D). – Mr President, I note the agreement between the EU and Afghanistan and do believe that it would have been better had Parliament been informed earlier about the negotiations, particularly covering trade and investments. However, being mindful of the fact that Washington is no longer pressing for a military advantage means there is an opening up of space for diplomacy and the EU needs to support political resolution for the conflict in Afghanistan.
But I have a number of questions for the Commission. The US and Taliban negotiators have reached a draft peace framework in Qatar, but it has not been disclosed if it contains assurances about the rights of Afghan women or minorities. Given the EU's efforts to enhance women's participation in public life, how are we going to ensure that this will not be in vain, once the Taliban have a political role again.
Secondly, there is no regional agreed framework corresponding to the Doha talks. Neither the US nor the Afghan Government can lead it. How do we ensure sustained interest by regional powers and neighbours like Pakistan, China, India and Iran in a stable state? And finally, how do we ensure that the Afghan Government plays a core role in the dialogue in the Afghan peace process?

Zgłoszenia z sali


Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, EU Member States continue to consider Afghanistan a safe country. This allows them to return to the country people who have come to Europe to seek asylum, often through very dangerous routes. However, the security situation on the ground has severely deteriorated and the Taliban now control a significant part of the territory. It is hypocritical and irresponsible for our Member States to be sending these people back to a land where they will inevitably face persecution, especially those who came to seek shelter in Europe after being targeted for their cooperation with Western forces.
Another worrying issue is the current exclusion of women and young people from talks that could lead to a peace deal between the US and the Taliban. My colleague, Ana Gomes, brought an important initiative to our attention last week, whereby a group of Afghan women have launched an appeal regarding those who are currently excluded from the talks. It's essential that their voice is heard in order to build sustainable peace and to safeguard women's hard-won rights in the country.

Patricia Lalonde (ALDE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, un accord vient d'être conclu entre les talibans et les États-Unis il y a quelques heures à Doha.
               

                  Pas plus tard qu'hier, les talibans ont attaqué toute une compagnie de l'armée afghane, de 50 soldats: 16 ont été tués et 40 faits prisonniers. Dix jours plus tôt, 40 soldats ont été tués par les talibans dans le sud du pays. Je pourrais multiplier les exemples récents. Les talibans refusent toujours de négocier avec le gouvernement afghan, malgré les demandes répétées de celui-ci. Au contraire, ils multiplient les attaques contre le gouvernement, qui ne contrôle plus que 50 % du territoire.
               

                  Ces négociations avec les États-Unis ouvrent la voie au retour politique des talibans au pouvoir au niveau national, face à un exécutif qui est, de ce fait, affaibli. Cela signifierait une régression importante pour le droit et la liberté fondamentale des Afghans et surtout des Afghanes. La société afghane tout entière s'inquiète à l'idée de voir se constituer, de nouveau, un Émirat islamique taliban liberticide en Afghanistan, tel que cela fut le cas dans les années 1990.
               

                  L'Union européenne ne peut pas se permettre de cautionner une telle éventualité après 20 ans d'investissement en Afghanistan. Il y va de sa crédibilité. Monsieur le Commissaire, nous ne pouvons pas laisser les Afghans retomber sous le joug des talibans, même au nom de la paix.
               

Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, so we're discussing Afghanistan, the historically ungovernable, impossible State, and the EU – and again, really, really, with the right intentions – we're looking at billions of euros, offers to help with state building, social programmes, but there's the word – ‘state building’ – to try and get to democracy and so on.
Now, Russia, the United States and the British Empire have all failed to try and impose themselves upon Afghanistan and I don't think there's any change to make us suggest that anything will be any different if this place – through its soft power – tries to impose itself on Afghanistan. I would suggest the best way to improve the lot of the people of Afghanistan is to agree to have tariff-free trade, to open the border to trade completely with them, and allow their economy to grow and people there to get better off and better educated through trade and the economic growth that will come with free trade. Everything else is doomed to failure.

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Afghanistan è uno Stato che non può che essere vicino alla nostra sensibilità di cittadini e di europei, non fosse altro che per tutti i caduti provenienti da Stati membri e paesi alleati che in questi anni hanno sacrificato la loro vita laggiù e che oggi vorrei quindi ricordare.
               

                  Detto questo, credo che l'Afghanistan e l'Unione europea abbiano bisogno di un accordo che sostenga il dialogo politico bilaterale per consolidare la stabilità interna del paese, senza però dimenticare, anzi ponendo al centro, i diritti dei civili, lo Stato di diritto, la riforma della giustizia, lo sviluppo sostenibile e la lotta alla corruzione.
               

                  Nel contesto di un'Asia centrale in forte cambiamento, la stabilità afghana rientra infatti in una logica di win-win, con benefici per tutti gli attori regionali. Senza il loro coinvolgimento i soli sforzi dell'UE non saranno possibili, non saranno sufficienti e saranno in definitiva molto più difficili. Al di là della stabilità, l'accordo ha come logica conseguenza un preciso controllo sui fondi: si tratta di un aspetto per noi fondamentale, per far sì che questi ultimi siano utilizzati veramente a favore delle popolazioni locali.
               

                  Il cammino è arduo, ma questo è un primo passo positivo e dobbiamo tenere aperte le porte per assicurare una speranza e un futuro ai cittadini dell'Afghanistan.
               

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, allow me to thank the Members for this useful debate. My conclusion is that we should pursue the implementation of the Cooperation Agreement with Afghanistan and the overall EU effort to support Afghanistan. This is especially important at this moment, when increased commitment from all the international community is needed. We will keep the European Parliament involved in, and informed about, our ongoing work and dialogue.

Anna Elżbieta Fotyga,
Rapporteur. – Mr President, the Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development (CAPD) is the first ever legal base for a relationship between the EU and Afghanistan. It is to remain in place, in force, presumably, for the next decade. We have to use it to its full extent to further provide peace, stability, security and development, and social sustainability for this country. The task is really difficult.
I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs or persons who contributed to this report, the advisers of my political group, the staff of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, naturally, and my own assistants. Thank you very much indeed.

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.
               

                  Glosowanie odbędzie się w środę 13 marca 2019 r.
               


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)



Janusz Zemke (S&D),
na piśmie. – Wojna w Afganistanie trwa od wielu lat i jej końca niestety nie widać. Miniony, 2018 r., pochłonął wyjątkowo wiele ofiar, zwłaszcza wśród cywilów. Tylko w tym roku zginęło co najmniej 3800 cywilów, w tym prawie 1000 dzieci. W Afganistanie utrzymuje się cały czas wszechogarniająca bieda, 54% ludności żyje w nędzy lub na skraju nędzy. Trzeba zrobić wszystko, by tę okrutną wojnę skończyć i ograniczyć cierpienie ludności. Proponuję, by UE skupiła się na trzech działaniach. Po pierwsze, wsparła rozmowy pokojowe miedzy Amerykanami, obecnymi władzami w Kabulu i Talibami. Porozumienie tych sił jest kluczem do pokoju. Po drugie, trzeba silniej wesprzeć reformy wojska i sił bezpieczeństwa w Afganistanie. Siły te należy wspierać, ale nie wyręczać ich. Po trzecie, pilnie należy zwiększyć pomoc humanitarną, dostawy żywności i leków dla ludności cywilnej. To skrajna bieda i rozpacz powodują, że wiele osób staje się sprzymierzeńcami talibów.
               
22.   Association Agreement between the EU and Monaco, Andorra and San Marino (debate)

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Juana Fernanda López Aguilara w imieniu Komisji Spraw Zagranicznych w sprawie zalecenia Parlamentu Europejskiego dla Rady, Komisji i wiceprzewodniczącej Komisji / wysokiej przedstawiciel Unii do spraw zagranicznych i polityki bezpieczeństwa w sprawie układu o stowarzyszeniu między UE a Monako, Andorą i San Marino (2018/2246(INI))(A8-0074/2019).
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar,
ponente. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, es para mí un honor intervenir en esta sesión del Pleno del Parlamento Europeo como ponente de la Recomendación del Parlamento Europeo sobre el Acuerdo de Asociación de la Unión Europea con el Principado de Mónaco, el Principado de Andorra y la República de San Marino.
               

                  El 22 de diciembre de 2014, el Consejo autorizó a la Comisión Europea, en nombre de los Estados miembros, a negociar un acuerdo de asociación entre los tres microestados europeos y la Unión Europea.
               

                  La Comisión Europea ya había establecido esa voluntad en 2012, pero esta es la primera vez que el Parlamento Europeo tiene la ocasión de debatir esta propuesta de Recomendación en la que el Parlamento Europeo fija su posición, antes del final de esta legislatura, sobre este acuerdo de negociación en curso que —no se ignore— no podrá entrar en vigor sin el consentimiento final del Parlamento Europeo, porque esa es la regla del Tratado de Lisboa, que fortalece, como nunca antes, a este Parlamento Europeo como última palabra en los acuerdos internacionales negociados en nombre de la Unión Europea.
               

                  Pues ahí los tenemos: Principado de Andorra, Principado de Mónaco, República de San Marino, Estados soberanos que cuentan con una larga historia que me ha interesado —debo decir— como jurista especializado en Derecho constitucional comparado, con peculiaridades que deben ser observadas y respetadas a lo largo de toda la negociación del Acuerdo de Asociación en curso y de su celebración.
               

                  Pero he podido comprobar también el interés que suscita no solamente en sus Estados fronterizos —Francia, Italia y España—, sino también en el conjunto de la Unión Europea. Son socios importantes para el futuro de la Unión, a pesar de ser microestados, a pesar de su reducida dimensión y de su reducida población.
               

                  Pero de acuerdo con la Declaración relativa al artículo 8 del Tratado de la Unión Europea, tiene pleno sentido hacer un ejercicio de flexibilidad, un ejercicio de realismo a la hora de incorporar el acervo comunitario -las cuatro libertades en términos de seguridad jurídica-, pero, al mismo tiempo, respeto a las singularidades y especificidades y a la capacidad de absorción del acervo europeo por parte de estos tres microestados.
               

                  Porque está claro que, en relación con la implantación de las cuatro libertades en territorios pequeños con población muy reducida, habrá que establecer excepciones temporales revisables en el curso del tiempo, de acuerdo con las circunstancias y con la evolución de su adaptación en cada uno de los tres Estados involucrados en esta negociación, para asegurar una implantación adecuada del mismo. Como igualmente es limitada la capacidad presupuestaria de estos tres pequeños Estados, de modo que debe establecerse un mecanismo de resolución de conflictos y hasta un foro de consulta. Porque no estamos hablando de incorporación a la Unión, estamos hablando de un acuerdo de asociación sin incorporación y adhesión a la Unión Europea, que es una cosa muy distinta.
               

                  Pero debo incidir finalmente en un punto que es interesante. Las cuestiones fiscales han quedado fuera del mandato de negociación —lo sabemos todos— y, sin embargo, hay que reconocer los esfuerzos efectuados por estos tres pequeños Estados en relación con la transparencia y la cooperación en materia fiscal, la disposición a cooperar en la lucha contra el blanqueo de dinero y la financiación del terrorismo muy particularmente. Creo que es importante llamar a estos tres Estados a continuar en la buena senda de cooperación con la OCDE y con todos los organismos internacionales.
               

                  Hay que saber que estos tres Estados son miembros del Consejo de Europa, que están incorporados al Grupo Greco de lucha contra la corrupción, y en estas estructuras es importante reconocer los esfuerzos.
               

                  La Recomendación llama la atención sobre la importancia de subrayar la relación con los Estados fronterizos —es el caso de España, Francia e Italia— y de realizar una mejor cooperación en ámbitos de mutuo interés y políticas horizontales. Y, finalmente, quiero simplemente señalar tres puntos.
               

                  En el caso de Andorra, creo que es preciso reconocer los esfuerzos hechos en materia de regulación financiera, particularmente en relación con el tabaco, ámbito en el que se ha suscrito un acuerdo no solamente con la Unión Europea, sino con el Estado fronterizo que lo demandaba, España.
               

                  Es importante también reconocer las dificultades de San Marino para exportar a los Estados miembros debido a la documentación del IVA conocida como T2.
               

                  Y, finalmente, con Mónaco hay que reconocer que se trata de una población muy reducida en la que, además, la población monegasca es minoritaria en relación con la población que habita en la villa de Mónaco.
               

                  De modo que será muy importante hacer ese ejercicio activo de flexibilidad, de inteligencia, para que esta negociación pueda ser conducida con éxito.
               

Neven Mimica,
on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, over the past year the negotiations on the Association Agreement with Andorra, Monaco and San Marino have intensified. We aim to finalise discussions on the framework of the agreement by June. Then it might take an additional two years for negotiations on the very high volume of EU legislation to be adopted by our partners.
As rightly pointed out in the report by Mr López Aguilar, we enjoy excellent relations with these three small-sized states. The three countries are proud of their history and independence, yet we also have much in common. We are part of the same European family and it is only natural to seek an even closer partnership with them. We appreciate their desire to seek full integration into the internal market.
Andorra, Monaco and San Marino have made considerable efforts in the past years towards financial and economic recovery and towards preparations for the future Association Agreement. For example, they have already transposed, or are transposing, certain EU internal market rules.
In line with Parliament's draft recommendations, we continue to encourage our partners to seek support from Member States for the acquis takeover and implementation process. This will require strong administrative capacity, and cooperation with the EU countries can be of great help.
We welcome the fact that the draft recommendations emphasise the importance of preserving the overall integrity and homogeneity of the internal market and of respect for the fundamental freedoms. We fully share Parliament's view and the Union will not compromise on the main principles of the internal market.
This is also our guideline in the negotiations with the United Kingdom and Switzerland. Any agreement will fall within the limits set by these principles and rules, but within these limits there is certainly room for mediation that takes full account of the specific situation of our small-sized partners. In this respect, Parliament's recommendations are particularly welcome and timely.
The European Union seeks a comprehensive agreement with full access to the EU internal market, therefore covering all the four freedoms: movement of goods, services, persons and capital. The overall principles are always the same: same market, same rules. There is no such thing as partial integration. The four freedoms cannot be cherry-picked and separated from one another. For the same reason, the EU Court of Justice should have exclusive competence for the uniform interpretation and application of the agreement, including for last-resort dispute settlement. The Commission, as guardian of the EU treaties, should be given competence to monitor the overall implementation of the agreement, including in the area of state aid.
In line with Parliament's recommendations and with the EU Treaties, we will look carefully into Andorran, Monegasque and San Marinese requests for transitional arrangements on issues such as the right of establishment, the free movement of workers and the free provision of services. These requests should be duly justified and proportional.
An association agreement would be a clear win-win situation and a further step towards a more united European continent.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. DAVID-MARIA SASSOLI


Vicepresidente


Željana Zovko,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, it was a pleasure to be a shadow rapporteur on this report. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr López Aguilar, for his guidance, and the other shadow rapporteurs for their constructive cooperation.
An important aspect of the report is the recognition of the territorial dimensions of these states and its implications. Together with my colleagues, I proposed measures to adopt an institutional framework that will help the three neighbouring countries to implement the future association agreements in an effective and efficient way.
Parliament undoubtedly needs to encourage these association agreements with Andorra, Monaco and San Marino. All three countries are surrounded by EU Member States and clearly share our history and cultural values. The three states have each, in their own right, pursued important reforms and regulatory alignment with the European Union, in particular regarding the regulation of banking and finance. These great efforts deserve our appraisal.
With the adoption of this report we call for the rapid conclusion of the negotiations on a comprehensive agreement in order to build on our long-standing relations with our neighbours.

Brando Benifei,
a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, desidero ringraziare innanzitutto il collega e relatore López Aguilar.
                  

                     L'accordo di associazione tra Unione europea, Monaco, Andorra e San Marino è un passo importante nella costruzione dell'integrazione europea, che oggi vede coinvolti questi tre paesi da sempre radicati nella storia dell'Europa ma finora fuori dal progetto unitario.
                  

                     Al fine di migliorare il testo e rinforzare ulteriormente la collaborazione, anche grazie al dialogo con il partito della mia famiglia politica, il Partito dei Socialisti e Democratici di San Marino, ho presentato e sono stati approvati due emendamenti su aspetti cruciali come la ricerca scientifica e l'interazione tra il Parlamento europeo e i parlamenti dei tre Stati.
                  

                     Le negoziazioni possono essere l'occasione per mettere in campo misure per gli investimenti su infrastrutture d'interesse comune, così come sulla ricerca accademica e gli scambi in materia scientifica. È necessario inoltre prevedere audizioni periodiche di delegazioni nazionali al Parlamento europeo per tutta la durata delle negoziazioni.
                  

                     È fondamentale, quindi, che l'integrazione di questi tre paesi proceda da subito nella maniera più proficua possibile, anche per il confronto sui temi dove possiamo avere delle controversie o delle reciproche richieste. Nel mondo di oggi, più siamo uniti nello spazio europeo più siamo più forti tutti.
                  

Charles Tannock,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the geographic, cultural and historical links between the European Union and those three enchanting micro-states are undeniable. There exists already, though, a good degree of political and practical cooperation between them and the EU. All three of them use the euro as their currency, whilst Andorra and San Marino are members of the EU Customs Union.
The three states combined have a population of around just 150 000 people – three times smaller than the EU's smallest Member State, Malta. Therefore, the Association Agreement will recognise this important imbalance between the two negotiating sides, and I'm pleased to note that the López Aguilar report repeatedly calls for its implications to be taken into account, so as to recognise the difficulties facing the micro-states in concluding an association agreement. They range from the practical difficulties of the disproportionate burden of implementing the EU's ‘acquis communautaire’, given the small size of their civil services, to more divisive debates around freedom of movement.
Given the intense debates in my own country around Brexit, I'm only too familiar with the importance of the indivisibility of the four freedoms of the Single Market. Clearly, for any state the size of the United Kingdom, freedom of movement opt-outs, whether within or outside the EU, would be problematic but, in the case of the three micro-states, permanent derogations must surely be considered reasonable.
As shadow rapporteur, I too would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr López Aguilar, for his positive approach throughout the negotiations on our text. I will be very pleased tomorrow to vote in favour.

Jordi Solé,
en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor presidente, Andorra, San Marino y Mónaco son tres países europeos con unas particularidades históricas, políticas y socioeconómicas muy claras, que tienen buenas relaciones con sus países vecinos. Como Unión Europea nos interesa tener relaciones más estrechas con ellos y el Acuerdo de Asociación es sin duda una oportunidad para mejorar y modernizar estas relaciones.
                  

                     Es importante para el buen cauce de las negociaciones —que espero que se puedan concluir brevemente— que las opiniones públicas de los tres países, sobre todo aquellos sectores que pueden tener más reticencias al Acuerdo, estén bien informadas en todo momento del contenido y del avance de las mismas, que deben ser transparentes.
                  

                     Concretamente sobre Andorra es de justicia reconocer el esfuerzo que este país pirenaico está haciendo para transformar las bases de su modelo económico y también —y esto era muy urgente— para disponer de un régimen fiscal transparente y homologable a los estándares europeos e internacionales. En este sentido, cabe emplazar a las autoridades andorranas a seguir avanzando en este camino de reformas, de cooperación y de mayor relación con la Unión Europea.
                  

Santiago Fisas Ayxelà (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, en primer lugar, me gustaría felicitar al ponente Juan Fernando López Aguilar por el excelente trabajo realizado.
                  

                     Este Acuerdo es muy relevante, ya que, aunque se trata de Estados pequeños, se encuentran situados en el territorio de la Unión Europea, por lo que considero que es importante que puedan participar del mercado interior europeo.
                  

                     Me alegro de una forma muy especial por Andorra, por razones de proximidad y por ser el presidente del Grupo de Amistad entre la Unión Europea y el Principat d'Andorra.
                  

                     He podido constatar el gran esfuerzo que ha hecho el Gobierno de Andorra para ajustarse a los criterios europeos y superar la imagen de paraíso fiscal. La evolución de Andorra en los últimos años es realmente destacable, pues ha pasado de ser una economía opaca a ser una economía basada en servicios, turismo y el negocio bancario, entendido de forma transparente. Se trata de un Estado modélico en toda Europa, con altísimos estándares de bienestar.
                  

                     En definitiva, estos tres Estados, que por sus características no pueden pertenecer a la Unión Europea, gracias a este Acuerdo tendrán el máximo grado de integración posible.
                  

Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, nos Estados de Andorra, Mónaco e São Marino vivem cerca de 150 mil europeus numa relação de grande proximidade com Estados vizinhos que são membros da União Europeia e cuja História é indissociável da História daqueles territórios.
                  

                     É, por isso, altamente desejável renovar a moldura político-institucional que enquadra as relações destes países com a União Europeia e os seus Estados-Membros no sentido do seu estreitamento.
                  

                     A diminuta dimensão de Andorra, do Mónaco e de São Marino torna-os mais vulneráveis no contexto da globalização e coloca o desafio de preservar as suas especificidades culturais e garantir que continuem a ser viáveis enquanto realidades sociais e económicas.
                  

                     Este acordo de associação não poderá deixar de levar em conta esse desafio, reforçando o acesso desses países ao mercado interno europeu. Claro que isto também exige um esforço por parte desses Estados de uma maior aproximação à regulamentação da União Europeia nas áreas financeira e bancária e na segurança jurídica e na troca de informações.
                  

                     Felizmente os progressos alcançados na adoção do acervo comunitário são já assinaláveis. Por isso mesmo este acordo de associação deve merecer o apoio e o empenho deste Parlamento, tal como a proposta contida neste relatório de criação de uma delegação dedicada ao diálogo interparlamentar com estes três Estados.
                  

Procedura ‘catch the eye’
                        


Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, so the three micro-states are the next in line for the Association Agreement – I can't help but think of Pacman as he goes round gobbling things up as he goes along! But if these nations think that they're going to get some special treatment, I would refer them to the words of the Commissioner – there is no such thing as partial integration he says; there are a lot of laws and rules of the EU and the single market that have to be taken on board. Despite some of the earlier words about concessions and temporary opt-outs, I wonder just how long those will last. I'm thinking specifically in terms of the banking regimes of these countries – just how long they'll be tolerated once they get closer to the EU, the Single Market and all of the other rules that go with it. My advice to these three excellent micro-states, actually, would be ‘watch out, Pacman's coming, start running’.

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE). – Señor presidente, esta intervención es muy breve, simplemente quiero dar las gracias y felicitar al ponente Juan Fernando López Aguilar, a los ponentes alternativos y especialmente al diputado Santiago Fisas porque han hecho un trabajo extraordinario.
                  

                     Mi padre nació en el Pirineo, en un valle cercano a Andorra; allí las condiciones de vida han sido históricamente muy duras durante siglos. Andorra ha protagonizado en los últimos años una transformación extraordinaria y es muy encomiable este Acuerdo que mañana se aprobará por amplia mayoría. Y quiero agradecer a todos los diputados, y especialmente a los que he nombrado, su dedicación y su trabajo para conseguir la armonización en buenas prácticas que está realizando el Gobierno de Andorra. Y también quiero reconocer —como ha hecho Jordi Solé— los esfuerzos del Gobierno andorrano, de su Parlamento y de la población de Andorra para converger y para acercarse a las buenas prácticas y a la Unión Europea.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το Μονακό, η Ανδόρα και ο Άγιος Μαρίνος είναι τρία μικροκράτη, τα οποία ήταν και είναι γνωστά ως φορολογικοί παράδεισοι, ως περιοχές όπου βεβαίως πηγαίνουν πολυεθνικές ή πάρα πολύ πλούσιοι και εγκαθίστανται, και είναι γνωστός ο ρόλος τον οποίο παίζουν. Τώρα, με τη συμφωνία σύνδεσης, υποτίθεται ότι αυτά θα απαλειφθούν. Είμαι ιδιαίτερα προβληματισμένος για το αν αυτό θα συμβεί, αν θα σταματήσουν να είναι φορολογικοί παράδεισοι, αν θα προχωρήσουν με διαφάνεια στις ρυθμίσεις που επιβάλλει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.
                  

                     Ρωτώ: μπορεί κάποιος να ασκήσει δικηγορία στο Μονακό; Διότι αυτό απαγορεύεται. Ρωτώ: τι θα γίνει με το οικογενειακό δίκαιο, ιδίως στο Μονακό που εισάγει διακρίσεις κατά των γυναικών; Υπάρχουν θέματα με την επιμέλεια των τέκνων, σχέσεις επίσης με τη λειτουργία των τραπεζών. Είναι σοβαρά ζητήματα αυτά, τα οποία πρέπει να παρακολουθήσει κανείς. Ορισμένα από αυτά, γιατί υπάρχουν και πολλά άλλα. Και γύρω από την έννοια της ευελιξίας, δεν πρέπει να επιτρέψουμε όλες αυτές τις απαράδεκτες πρακτικές.
                  

José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, começo por felicitar o colega e amigo Santiago Fisas pelo seu empenho neste dossiê e queria dizer que a União Europeia e o Principado de Andorra, o Principado do Mónaco e a República de São Marinho compartem valores de História, interesses e desafios.
                  

                     Utilizam o euro como moeda nacional, falam línguas oficiais da União, são geograficamente tão europeus como os seis Estados-Membros fundadores e têm, desde há muito, acordos assinados com a União Europeia, tendo Andorra sido pioneira neste âmbito quando, em 1990, assinou com a então Comunidade Europeia um acordo comercial e aduaneiro que continua ainda em vigor.
                  

                     Face à proximidade das eleições europeias e perante os avanços da convergência regulamentar com a União registados nestes últimos quatro anos, em particular no âmbito da regulamentação financeira, da governação fiscal e da luta contra o branqueamento de capitais e o financiamento do terrorismo, urge dinamizar as negociações para que envolvendo governos, agentes económicos e sociedade civil possamos concluir as negociações o mais tardar nos próximos dois anos.
                  

                     Entendo que, face à competição sino-americana pela hegemonia do mundo, torna-se vital incrementar o processo de integração continental centrado na União Europeia para aumentar a competitividade global da Europa a nível económico, educativo e ambiental.
                  

(Fine della procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable Members, the adoption of the recommendations would be very useful and timely. I would like to thank the honourable Members for their speeches, comments and suggestions made today and in the Committee on Foreign Affairs on 21 January.
I am very grateful for Parliament's political support for a swift conclusion of the association agreement negotiations with Andorra, Monaco and San Marino.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar,
ponente. – Señor presidente, en esta intervención de cierre quiero manifestarme gratamente impresionado por el buen juicio ponderado y constructivo que ha dominado el conjunto de las intervenciones procedentes de muy distintos grupos parlamentarios, lo que expresa la mirada acogedora de la Unión Europea a tres Estados pequeños —tres microestados— que forman parte de la cartografía, de los valores y de la historia europeos.
                  

                     Y creo que en esta intervención de cierre lo que procede es llamar la atención sobre la oportunidad de que pongamos en marcha una declaración política conjunta entre la Unión Europea y estos tres Estados pequeños del mismo modo en que estamos aquí validando el informe sobre la recomendación del procedimiento en curso para apoyarla, para alentarla y para llamar la atención sobre la necesidad de llevarla a cabo con éxito manifestando sensibilidad ante las particularidades de cada una de estas tres situaciones.
                  

                     En segundo lugar, creo que hay que hacer un ejercicio de pedagogía porque se trata de tres países democráticos. Algunas de las críticas que he podido escuchar son perfectamente replicables a cada uno de los Estados miembros, incluso las que se refieren a particularidades fiscales, pero, en todo caso, se trata de tres países que han comprometido sus propios procesos democráticos de ratificación y creo que la Unión Europea también se la juega a la hora de alentar la pedagogía necesaria para completarla con éxito, explicando las bondades de un Acuerdo de Asociación de estos tres Estados pequeños con respecto del gran proyecto de integración europea, al que, sin embargo, no tocan a la puerta como aspirantes a Estados miembros sino como candidatos a la asociación.
                  

                     Y finalmente, una palabra de reconocimiento que procede. Hay que reconocer los esfuerzos de homologación de sus ordenamientos jurídicos en todos los ámbitos para continuar promoviendo y alentando la conclusión positiva de ese Acuerdo de Asociación que debe ser— esperamos, según he podido escuchar— pronto una realidad.
                  

Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.
                  

                     La votazione si svolgerà mercoledì 13 marzo 2019, alle 12.00.
                  


Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)



Karol Karski (ECR),
na piśmie. – Pomimo swoich niewielkich rozmiarów Andora, Monako i San Marino zawsze były integralną częścią historii działania Unii Europejskiej, a dziś mają silne stosunki ekonomiczne, polityczne i kulturalne z wieloma państwami UE. Najwyższy czas na sformalizowanie tych powiązań – stąd z zadowoleniem przyjmuję trwające negocjacje w sprawie umów stowarzyszeniowych. Po ich zakończeniu wszystkie trzy mikrokraje będą cieszyć się pełnym udziałem w rynku wewnętrznym, a nieliczne, ale wciąż istniejące utrudnienia w handlu zostaną zniesione. Musimy przy tym pamiętać o bardzo ograniczonych zasobach administracyjnych każdego z tych państw, a także o ogromie pracy związanej z koniecznością wprowadzenia zmian legislacyjnych oraz wdrażania nowych przepisów. Dlatego ważne jest zapewnienie, aby obciążenia z tym związane były możliwie jak najmniejsze. Mam nadzieję, że negocjacje zostaną sfinalizowane w ciągu najbliższych dwóch lat, tak jak jest to planowane, a po ich zakończeniu Andora, Monako i San Marino będą się cieszyły jeszcze bliższymi relacjami z Unią Europejską.
                  

Bogusław Sonik (PPE),
na piśmie. – Andora, Monako i San Marino to trzy mikropaństwa, które zawsze wpisywały się w historię Europy, nie tylko dzięki swojej geograficznej bliskości względem państw Unii, ale także poprzez wspólnotę wartości politycznych i kulturowych. W konsekwencji dążeń tych państw do zwiększenia integracji z UE, w 2015 roku rozpoczęto negocjacje umowy stowarzyszeniowej, które obecnie są w fazie końcowej.
                  

                     Andora, Monako i San Marino przeprowadziły ważne reformy i zadbały o zbieżność przepisów z prawem UE. Dlatego też ważne jest stworzenie skutecznych ram w celu ułatwienia wdrażania układów o stowarzyszeniu w tych trzech państwach i zapewnienie spójnej interpretacji dorobku prawnego UE, przy uwzględnieniu ich wymiaru terytorialnego i implikacji społecznych, gospodarczych oraz administracyjnych. Mam nadzieję, że negocjacje zakończą się w najbliższym czasie, co z kolei otworzy drogę do ratyfikacji umowy przez wszystkie zainteresowane strony.
                  
23.   Accessibility requirements for products and services (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Morten Løkkegaard, a nome della commissione per il mercato interno e la protezione dei consumatori, sulla proposta di direttiva del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sul ravvicinamento delle disposizioni legislative, regolamentari e amministrative degli Stati membri relative ai requisiti di accessibilità dei prodotti e dei servizi (COM(2015)0615 - C8-0387/2015 - 2015/0278(COD)) (A8-0188/2017).
               

Morten Løkkegaard,
Ordfører. – Hr Formand! Kære kommissær, kære skyggeordførere, kære kolleger! Det er jo et vigtigt øjeblik for os her i Parlamentet og for ca. 80 millioner europæiske borgere. Vi står over for at skulle bekræfte en lovgivning, som vil løfte og sikre tilgængeligheden på diverse produkter og tjenesteydelser. Således at man fremover, uanset hvilket handicap eller hvilken funktionsnedsættelse man har, kan forvente at éns telefon, éns computer, éns TV er tilgængelige for én, og at man kan bruge disse hverdagsredskaber på lige fod med alle andre forbrugere. I en nødsituation kan man ringe 112 om hjælp, man kan finde information om en togrejse – enten digitalt eller på stationen – man kan hæve penge i en hvilken som helst automat, der ligger på éns vej. Ting, vi andre tager for givet i hverdagen, men som man ikke nødvendigvis kan foretage sig på samme måde som handicappet. Med denne lovgivning leveres endelig den harmonisering, som har været ventet i mange år, og dermed stadfæstes de ambitioner, som vi finder i United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.


                  Det er jeg personligt rigtig, rigtig stolt af. Det har været et langt og hårdt træk at lede disse forhandlinger, men jeg er stolt af de forandringer, som vi er med til at bringe frem nu. Hvad vil der konkret komme til at ske? Ja, som sagt er alarmcentraltjenesten 112 med i aftalen, vi har check in-maskiner, betalingsterminaler og andre terminaler blandt de self service-terminaler, som nu skal gøres tilgængelige. Takket være Parlamentet er alle terminaler i bytransport som metro, bus og sporvogn også med. Parlamentet har formået at inkludere offentlige udbud i aftalen, selv om det fra starten var et problem for Rådet. Vi har også skabt den nødvendige balance for virksomhederne ved at ekskludere mikrovirksomheder, der leverer tjenesteydelser. Og for de mikrovirksomheder, der leverer produkter, vil der være støtte fra medlemslandene og mere lempelige krav. Kravene til tilgængelighed er funktionelle, de er ikke tekniske – det var der en stor debat om – hvilket betyder, at virksomhederne fortsat kan innovere og arbejde for at forbedre deres produkter. Vi skal ikke fortælle dem, hvordan de skal gøre det. Altså perfekt – nej, selvfølgelig er det ikke det, selv om man i alle forhandlinger jo må indgå kompromiser. Og jeg ved, at der er skuffelse over, at for eksempel obligatoriske krav til det bebyggede miljø ikke er en del af lovgivningen. Jeg er klar over, at der var ønske og håb om mere. Så prøvede jeg da også at levere dette her, men måtte indse, at for at få alle de gode ting igennem, så var vi nødt til at lave kompromis. Jeg er jo ikke villig til at smide de hele på gulvet og dermed fratage så mange borgere muligheden for fremskridt på andre vigtige områder. Det glæder mig dog, at det bebyggede miljø kom med, om end på et frivilligt niveau, og at Kommissionen skal vurdere, hvor langt medlemslandene er kommet på det område nogle år efter, at loven er trådt i kraft. Jeg håber på en bred støtte fra dette hus til en så vigtig lovgivning som denne.
               

Ádám Kósa,
A Foglalkoztatási és Szociális Bizottság véleményének előadója. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Hosszú út vezetett idáig. 2009-ben én lettem az első siket képviselő itt a Házban. 2011-ben elfogadták a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról, valamint a 2010-2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi tervezetet. Ebben a jelentésben felhívtam a Bizottságot, hogy az európai akadálymentesítés intézkedési csomagban terjesszen elő lépéseket, és javaslatokat hangsúlyoztam a fogyatékossággal élő személyeknek az árukhoz és szolgáltatásokhoz való hozzáférhetőségéről, ennek a javításának az irányáról európai szintű szilárd, szigorú intézkedések révén.
               

                  Az előző ciklusban sajnos nem volt lehetőség erre. 2015-ben viszont a Bizottság mégis letette az asztalra ezt, és több mint három év feszített munka után elmondható, hogy egy kiegyensúlyozott szöveg született, aminek az eredménye, mind szociális, mind gazdasági fejlődés szempontjából jó, és már bizonyos területeken jó lett volna nagyobb előrelépéseket tenni. A tárgyalások lezárása sürgetőleges volt, és a jogszabály hatálybalépése miatt nem tűrt késedelmet.
               

                  Meghatódva és büszkeséggel állok ma itt előttük, és szeretném megköszönni a fogyatékossággal élő emberek nevében, egyben megkérem, hogy haladjunk tovább ezen az úton közösen, amit ma esetleg nem sikerült elérni, azt holnap biztosan sikerülni fog. Dolgozzunk ezért közösen a jövőben is, és a jelentéstevőnek pedig szeretném megköszönni az elkötelezettségét és kitartását. Jó szöveg született. Tiszta szívvel tudom ezt megszavazni holnap.
               

Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, around this time last year, Ireland was the last EU Member State to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It means that the European Union and all its Member States are now committed to carrying out the following message: it is not about adapting people to the environment, but it is about adapting the environment to people.
This is precisely what the European Accessibility Act will do. After three hard years of negotiating, after some tough give and take, you have reached an agreement with the Council on this important piece of legislation. I want to warmly congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Løkkegaard, and his co-rapporteurs, Mr Kósa and Mr Taylor. What is on the table is a solid package which will make Europe a more accessible place to live and work for persons with disabilities.
The European Accessibility Act is a key initiative of this Commission's social agenda. Back in December 2015, we tabled an ambitious proposal. It offered a coordinated EU-wide approach to implement the UN Convention's obligations on accessibility. It relied on the full strength of our internal market.
With the European Accessibility Act, we established the world's largest market for accessible products and services. The level playing field we have created is good for European business. It will increase the availability and affordability of accessible products and services. This will allow more than 80 million people with disabilities, including many older people, to participate in society and the labour market on an equal basis with others.
The European Accessibility Act will cover a wide array of products and services, such as phones; computers; payment terminals or self-service terminals; banking services; electronic communications, including the 112 emergency number; access to audio-visual media services; e-books; e-commerce, and some elements of transport services. These are key products and services for everyday life and they are increasingly affected by digitalisation. That is why the European Accessibility Act will also contribute to implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights and its principle on the inclusion of persons with disabilities.
We are adapting our rules to make them future proof, to make sure that the digital revolution can be a catalyst for social inclusion and that nobody is left behind. The European Accessibility Act needs to be seen in synergy with other important EU instruments, for example, the public procurement directives or the Electronic Communications Code, where accessibility is an obligation. The European Accessibility Act will facilitate its implementation.
To conclude, let me stress that the impact of the European Accessibility Act goes beyond its scope. Its accessibility requirements should be inspirational for other sectors and indeed for other parts of the world. Europe is about breaking down borders between countries and peoples. Let's continue to take the lead in breaking down barriers to the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in society. I count on you all to support the European Accessibility Act, which will make a difference in the lives of millions of European citizens.

Julie Ward,
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. – Mr President, there are more than 100 million disabled persons in the EU, a figure that is expected to rise to 120 million by 2020. Persons with disabilities in Europe often have difficulties accessing many basic products and services on an equal basis with other people. That means daily exclusion from society and from using basic products and services, something that is taken for granted by the majority, such as going to a bank, withdrawing money from an ATM, entering a school or university or library, a theatre or any public building, using the metro, buying a ticket.
We must ensure closer engagement and proper consultation with the disability community. We need to hear their needs and act on the reality of their daily-lived experiences so that no one is left out or falls behind in all areas of society. And that's what this report is about: ‘Nothing about us without us’, as my friends in the disability community say, and I know they will be looking for a good result when we vote on this report. We must not let them down.

Κωνσταντίνα Κούνεβα,
Εισηγήτρια της γνωμοδότησης της Επιτροπής Αναφορών. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, έξι χρόνια πέρασαν από την αναγγελία της Επιτροπής για την Ευρωπαϊκή Πράξη Προσβασιμότητας. Σήμερα καλούμαστε να την ψηφίσουμε πιο αποδυναμωμένη από ποτέ, γιατί δεν ακούστηκαν οι φωνές των ατόμων με αναπηρία. Προσπαθήσαμε να ενσωματώσουμε τις προτάσεις του αναπηρικού κινήματος μέσα από εκατοντάδες τροπολογίες, αλλά οι συντηρητικές δυνάμεις του Κοινοβουλίου τις καταψήφισαν. Έτσι, δεν έχουμε προσβάσιμο, δομημένο περιβάλλον, ούτε διευρυμένο πεδίο εφαρμογής της οδηγίας.
               

                  Το χειρότερο: χρειαζόμαστε τουλάχιστον άλλα έξι χρόνια μέχρι να δούμε την οδηγία να εφαρμόζεται. Τι προσβολή για το αναπηρικό κίνημα είναι αυτό! Όμως, εμείς σεβόμαστε τους φορείς αναπηρίας και γι' αυτό θα συνεχίσουμε τον αγώνα υπέρ των δικαιωμάτων των ΑΜΕΑ μέχρι να άρουμε όλα τα εμπόδια.
               

Andreas Schwab,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, ich freue mich auch, dass es gelungen ist, den Barrierefreiheitsanforderungen hier in Europa grenzüberschreitend Rechnung zu tragen, denn mehr als 80 Millionen Menschen in Europa haben eine mehr oder minder schwere Behinderung, und auch ihnen müssen die Infrastrukturen der Europäischen Union, der Mitgliedstaaten, barrierefrei grenzüberschreitend zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Das erhöht nicht nur ihre Chancen, Europa zu erkunden, sondern führt auch dazu, dass wir einheitliche Systemanforderungen für alle Infrastrukturbetreiber schaffen, und ich glaube, dass wir mit dem Rahmen, den wir hier geschaffen haben, dem Anliegen dieser Menschen einen großen Schritt entgegengekommen sind, und gleichzeitig – und das ist das Positive – ist es neben diesem wichtigen sozialen Erfolg auch gelungen, wirtschaftlich damit einen gemeinsamen Anreiz für weitere Investitionen zu schaffen. Ich denke, dass es trotzdem gerechtfertigt ist, dass wir Mikrounternehmen aus dem Anwendungsbereich ausgeschlossen haben, weil hier im Prinzip einzelne Investitionen vielleicht tatsächlich etwas über das Maß hinausgegangen wären, was darstellbar ist.
               

                  Und zum Zweiten ist es ja auch leider nicht gelungen, die bauliche Umwelt, die das Parlament gerne in den Anwendungsbereich aufgenommen hätte, dem Rat so abzutrotzen, wie wir das gerne gehabt hätten. Das wird ein Punkt sein, bei dem wir im neuen Parlament wieder einen neuen Anlauf werden müssen unternehmen.
               

Olga Sehnalová,
za skupinu S&D. – Pane předsedající, přístupnost běžných služeb a zboží, kterou většina společnosti považuje za samozřejmou, pro někoho může znamenat každý jeden den nepřekonatelnou životní překážku. Komunita osmdesáti milionů osob s postižením proto oprávněně vkládala do tohoto předpisu velké naděje.
               

                  Evropský akt přístupnosti přitom neměl na růžích ustláno od samého začátku. Více než deset let trvalo představení návrhu, k tomu přičtěme další čtyři roky intenzivního vyjednávání. A výsledek? Podle mého jsme zůstali v půli cesty. Několik věcí se povedlo a za to bych chtěla řadě kolegů zde v Evropském parlamentu poděkovat. Zejména v digitální oblasti povede akt ke zpřístupnění vybraných služeb a zboží v oblasti telekomunikací, platebních služeb nebo při používání počítačů.
               

                  Plnohodnotné zapojení do společnosti ale znamená zejména přístupnou mobilitu. Možnost pohybovat se bez omezení, cestovat hromadnou dopravou, zajít si do banky nebo do obchodu. A zde, dle mého názoru, Evropský akt přístupnosti zůstal daleko za očekáváním. Evropský parlament bývá občany občas kritizován, že dělá rozhodnutí odtržená od reality. Byly to ale členské státy, které bohužel od začátku k aktu přistupovaly chladnokrevně ve smyslu ‘Jen aby to moc nestálo.’ a zcela v rozporu se závazky, ke kterým se v oblasti přístupnosti dříve přihlásily.
               

                  Já ale věřím tomu, že ne všechno se dá vyjádřit prostými čísly. Pro nás, pro sociální demokraty, je využívání běžných služeb a zboží občany bez rozdílu na rovnoprávném základě základním lidským právem a předpokladem pro plnohodnotné zapojení do společnosti. Boj za práva slabších, osob s postižením, seniorů, všech, kteří nestojí na stejné startovní čáře, proto pro nás dneškem zdaleka nekončí.
               

Jana Žitňanská,
za skupinu ECR. – Vážený pán predsedajúci, som veľmi rada, že táto smernica, ktorú považujem za mimoriadne dôležitý legislatívny návrh smerom k zlepšeniu života osôb so zdravotným postihnutím, bude definitívne schválená ešte počas pôsobenia súčasného Európskeho parlamentu.
               

                  Od začiatku som návrh tejto smernice podporovala a prostredníctvom pozmeňujúcich návrhov aj spolu s ďalšími kolegyňami a kolegami sa snažila ju vylepšiť. Následné rokovania v trialógu však znenie smernice zmenili a neskrývam isté sklamanie z toho, že výsledok nie je tak ambiciózny, ako by som si nielen ja priala, ale najmä, ako je potrebné pre dennodenný život ľudí so zdravotným postihnutím.
               

                  Dnešným dňom sa ale nič nekončí, práve naopak. Verím, že snahy o lepšiu prístupnosť tovarov a služieb, ako aj debarerizáciu fyzického prostredia či dopravy budú pokračovať nielen tu v Európskom parlamente, ale najmä a predovšetkým v členských štátoch.
               

Igor Šoltes,
v imenu skupine Verts/ALE. – Več kot 80 milijonov Evropejcev je dolgo časa čakalo na ta prepotreben akt. Predvsem bi se na začetku zahvalil reporterju za pomembno delo in sodelovanje.
               

                  In moram reči, da seveda je ta akt izjemno pomemben tudi zato, ker lajša dostopnost invalidom in tudi starejših do tako storitev kot tudi blaga in aparatov. Ampak to je samo prvi korak. Pomislite, da ta dokument, ta direktiva seveda ni dosegla vsega, kar smo pričakovali.
               

                  Veliko stvari je ostalo odprtih, zlasti glede grajenega okolja, tudi glede nekaterih drugih stvari, ki so pomembne. Ampak je začetek. Je začetek nečesa, kar daje upanje za to, da pokažemo, da tudi Evropski parlament razume potrebe ljudi in da razume potrebe, da postanemo vključujoča družba za vse.
               

Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Als ich vor 25 Jahren mit meiner Arbeit im Europäischen Parlament begann, spielten die Menschen mit besonderen Bedürfnissen, oder, anders ausgedrückt, Menschen mit Behinderungen keine Rolle; sie waren schlechthin unsichtbar, was auch daran lag, dass es keine Bestrebungen zum Aufbau einer sozialen Säule gab. Dieser Mangel ist nun endgültig überwunden. Aufgrund der Alterung der Bevölkerung wird davon ausgegangen, dass im Jahr 2020 rund 120 Millionen Menschen in der EU mit mehrfachen und/oder leichten Behinderungen leben werden. Der heutige Bericht geht uns alle an, also nicht nur die über 80 Millionen Europäer mit Behinderung.
               

                  Für den Straßen-, Schienen-, Schiffs- und Busverkehr bestehen bereits europäische Regelungen zur Zugänglichkeit und zum Anspruch auf Hilfeleistung für Personen mit eingeschränkter Mobilität. Die neuen Regelungen hebeln diese bereits bestehenden nicht aus, sie ergänzen sie vielmehr, und das begrüße ich außerordentlich. Es besteht durchaus Bedarf für diese Ergänzungen, da beispielsweise die interaktiven Selbstbedienungsterminals an Flughäfen, Bahn- und Busbahnhöfen nach wie vor nicht barrierefrei sind. Das trifft auch auf die Bereitstellung von Reiseinformationen in Echtzeit zu, wie sie heute schon verfügbar sind. Besonders freue ich mich über unsere Strategie dafür, dass ein Mensch mit Behinderung wie jeder andere die lebensrettende Notrufnummer 112 nutzen kann.
               

                  Dieser Bericht ist ein wichtiger Schritt in die richtige Richtung, um ein selbstbestimmtes Leben von Menschen mit Behinderungen zu gewährleisten – eine Aufgabe, an der wir alle auch zukünftig gemeinsam arbeiten müssen. Das sage ich nicht nur als Mitbegründer des Disability Intergroup, sondern auch aus vollster Überzeugung.
               

Nicola Danti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'atto europeo sull'accessibilità porterà benefici tangibili per oltre 80 milioni di persone che in Europa sono affette da disabilità o limitazioni funzionali.
               

                  Computer, cellulari, ma anche servizi bancari e terminali self-service dovranno rispettare requisiti di accessibilità armonizzati per poter essere utilizzati in Europa. Dallo shopping online ai trasporti, dai servizi bancari al numero di emergenza unico europeo: a tutti i cittadini, compresi quelli più vulnerabili, saranno fornite identiche condizioni ed opportunità di accesso allo stesso prezzo.
               

                  Certamente potevamo fare di più sui tempi di applicazione di queste norme, che sono troppo lunghi, e sui requisiti di accessibilità all'ambiente costruito. In questo senso, la posizione del Parlamento era sicuramente migliore di quella che è uscita da questo trilogo. Tuttavia la direttiva sull'accessibilità, pur se non sufficiente, ci conferma che esiste un'Europa più giusta, a misura d'uomo e che garantisce i diritti fondamentali delle persone che hanno più bisogno.
               

Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, tämä on merkittävä askel yli kymmenen vuotta kestäneen kädenväännön ja kamppailun jälkeen ihmisoikeuksien, perusoikeuksien – vammaisten oikeuksien, jotka ovat ihmis- ja perusoikeuksia – puolesta.
               

                  Mutta tämä on vasta ensimmäinen askel. Meidän täytyy luoda mahdollistava elinympäristö. Se tarkoittaa sekä rakennettua ympäristöä, asuntoja, erilaisia tuotteita ja ennen kaikkea tässä otettua askelta digitaalisissa palveluissa, jotka uhkaavat syrjäyttää ison joukon ihmisistä ulkopuolelle. Informaatioteknologia voi olla suuri mahdollistaja kaikille vammaisille ja ikääntyneille tai sitten se voi olla suuri eriarvoistava ja hylkivä tekijä.
               

                  Sen takia seuraavat askeleet niin jäsenmaiden tasolla kuin komissiossakin tulisi olla siinä, miten me otamme erilaiset käyttäjäryhmät, vammaiset ja ikäihmiset, mukaan palveluiden ja tuotteiden suunnitteluun, käyttäjälähtöiseen suunnitteluun niin, että ne ovat käytettävissä –aivan kuten asuin- ja elinympäristötkin – olivatpa rajoitteet sitten näkemisen, kuulemisen, koskettamisen, liikkumisen, muistamisen tai kognition alueella. Me olemme sen velkaa, me olemme nyt suunnannäyttäjiä, nyt vain rohkeasti eteenpäin.
               

Procedura ‘catch the eye’
                     


Helga Stevens (ECR). – Voorzitter, er zijn in Europa zo'n 80 miljoen mensen met een beperking en zo'n 150 miljoen ouderen. Elke wetgeving die de toegankelijkheid van producten en diensten verbetert is een stap vooruit die echt iedereen in Europa ten goede komt.
               

                  Dus ik ben blij dat het dossier inzake toegankelijkheidsvereisten voor producten en diensten nu afgerond kan worden. Er zijn stappen in de goede richting gezet, al gaat het voor mij lang niet ver genoeg.
               

                  In vergelijking met de Verenigde Staten hinkt Europa serieus achterop als het gaat om integrale toegankelijkheid. In de VS zorgde de Americans with disabilities Act voor een ware cultuuromslag. Niet alleen de overheid, maar ook allerhande private bedrijven beschouwen toegankelijkheid als een opportuniteit eerder dan een verplichting.
               

                  Die mentaliteit missen we hier. Daardoor blijven personen met een beperking in Europa geconfronteerd met obstakels die eigenlijk niet meer zouden mogen bestaan. Gevolg is dat hun potentieel onvoldoende wordt benut, echt zonde!
               

Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, we absolutely have to improve accessibility to enable people to use products and services, especially the disabled. I can't help wondering, though, if so much top-down legislation may not always be the answer. Things like international trade bodies coming together, and manufacturers, companies, working together to get closer to the customer, might be a more efficient way.
I also have to flag up one thing that the Commissioner mentioned earlier, which always sets alarm bells ringing for me: ‘future proofing’. I don't believe that future proofing is actually possible. In fact, I think it may have been an idea invented by King Canute when he was trying to stop the tide. I don't think it can be done. If you set out to future proof, rather than being flexible, and rather than allowing businesses to react to the market, you are actually having a negative effect when you want a positive one. So, yes of course, more accessibility for the disabled, but don't be Canute.

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, πράγματι, όπως ειπώθηκε, υπάρχουν 80 εκατομμύρια άτομα με αναπηρία στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, δυστυχώς, κι άλλα 150 εκατομμύρια οι οποίοι είναι ηλικιωμένοι και είναι δεδομένο ότι πρέπει να ληφθούν σοβαρά μέτρα για να υπάρξει πλήρης προσβασιμότητα στις υπηρεσίες και στα προϊόντα. Πρέπει να λάβουμε σοβαρά υπόψη ότι τα ΑΜΕΑ πραγματικά έχουν δυσκολίες για να συμμετάσχουν στην κοινωνική, οικονομική και πολιτική ζωή της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και γι' αυτό απαιτούνται πολύ συγκεκριμένα μέτρα και έχουμε πάρα πολλές καταγγελίες, κύριε Πρόεδρε, τις οποίες έχουμε λάβει στην Επιτροπή Αναφορών, από χιλιάδες πολίτες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Νομίζω ότι πρέπει να υπάρξει η εξής ρύθμιση: να μην χρηματοδοτείται κανένα έργο, είτε δημόσιο, είτε ιδιωτικό, με κοινοτικούς πόρους, με πόρους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, εάν δεν υπάρχει η ρύθμιση για πλήρη προσβασιμότητα. Αυτό πρέπει να είναι κριτήριο προκειμένου να εγκριθούν οι διάφορες χρηματοδοτήσεις.
               

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, quiero felicitar calurosamente a mi colega Morten Løkkegaard, porque, a la vista de la posición restrictiva —como siempre— del Consejo, ha conseguido el mejor de los acuerdos posibles.
               

                  Hemos avanzado en el reconocimiento de los derechos de los más de cien millones de europeos que padecen algún tipo de discapacidad en cualquier grado. La nueva Directiva va a garantizar que en toda la Unión se cumplan de igual manera las obligaciones derivadas de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad.
               

                  La Directiva proyecta sus efectos sobre el transporte y muchos servicios básicos a los que se accede por vía física o digital, y las mejoras incluyen desde servicios financieros a ordenadores, terminales telefónicas o libros electrónicos. Otra gran conquista es convertir en accesibles los servicios de emergencia a los que se accede a través del 112.
               

                  Lamento que no se incluyan en el ámbito de aplicación los entornos de nueva construcción o servicios turísticos en playas y otros lugares de ocio. Espero que la empatía que destila este informe estimule la innovación y nos ayude a ser líderes mundiales en todas las tecnologías que alivian la discapacidad.
               

(Fine della procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, we have come a long way to reach this result. The negotiations between the Council and Parliament have been intensive. We all had to show flexibility and willingness to reach an agreement.
I know very well that many of you would have liked to see more areas covered or more ambition on certain points. In fact, the Commission's proposal was more ambitious, so I can understand some of your concerns. But the perfect is sometimes the enemy of the good, and we must see the substantial progress we are making and will continue to make. The accessibility of many everyday products and services will be felt by everyone in their daily lives.
Everyone should benefit from the digital revolution. No one should be left behind as our society is changing. These changes to accessibility requirements are so obviously good, so obviously necessary, that people will soon say: why did we not we have them already?
I call on you to support the European Accessibility Act.

Morten Løkkegaard,
Ordfører. – Hr. Formand! Tak til alle kolleger for at have deltaget i debatten her, som jeg har lyttet intenst til. Det er jo klart, at når man har været igennem et intenst forløb med jer allesammen og har været igennem hårde forhandlinger, så er det rart at vide, hvordan I vurderer resultatet. Jeg kan kun sige, at i politik er glasset jo altid enten halvt tomt eller halvt fyldt, og i dette tilfælde må jeg sige, at jeg tilhører den del af menneskeracen, som mener, at glasset halvt fyldt. Jeg mener ligesom kommissæren, Mimica, at vi har et rigtig godt resultat. Nogle gange kan det bedste være det godes værste fjende, det er jeg helt enig i. Det har været mit udgangspunkt for hele forhandlingen, at vi sikrede os det bedst mulige resultat, fordi vi i virkeligheden nu er i en situation, hvor vi bryder med tre-fire årtiers stilstand på området, som min MEP-kollega sagde for lidt siden. I virkeligheden var man for tyve år siden overhovedet ikke parat til at give mennesker med handicap en plads i samfundet. Det synes jeg vi skal hæfte os ved, dette her er i virkeligheden et stort gennembrud for den tankegang, at handicappede skal være ligestillet. Det er det, jeg hæfter mig ved, det synes jeg er historisk, og jeg synes, vi skal glæde os over, at vi er i den situation, at vi faktisk nu kan tilbyde 80 millioner mennesker eller flere en værdig hverdag i forhold til tjenesteydelser og produkter. Så jeg er glad for det her –jeg noterer mig, at mange talere godt kunne have tænkt sig noget mere, det kunne jeg også personligt – men jeg må sige, at jeg stadig er ret stolt af, at vi nåede så meget, som vi nåede. Jeg havde slet ikke selv regnet med, at vi ville have opnået så meget, og det fortæller mig, at der også i medlemslandene er lydhørhed, og det er der selvfølgelig også i Kommissionen fra starten af. Så mange tak til alle for at have deltaget, mange tak for et fantastisk godt resultat, som jeg håber, vi vil bakke op i morgen. Tak!
               

Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.
               

                  La votazione si svolgerà mercoledì 13 marzo 2019, alle 12.00.
               


Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)



Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D),
raštu. – Deja, ES Prieinamumo akto tekstas nėra pakankamai ambicingas, ir man svarbu pabrėžti, kad tai yra tik pirmas žingsnis link prieinamesnės Europos. Kartu su nevyriausybinėmis organizacijomis tikiuosi tęsti kampaniją už neįgaliųjų ir pagyvenusių žmonių teises ir tikiuosi, kad naujasis Europos Parlamentas ir kiti ES sprendimų priėmėjai žvelgs į ateitį ir sieks patobulinto Prieinamumo akto, kad būtų užpildytos dar esamos spragos. Milijonams neįgaliųjų vis dar reikalinga geresnė prieiga prie ligoninių, savivaldybių, mokyklų, bankų ir kitų pastatų. Milijonams neįgaliųjų vis dar reikalingas prieinamesnis viešasis transportas. Tačiau dabar remiu pasiektą susitarimą dėl ES Prieinamumo akto. Tebūnie jis pirmas žingsnis siekiant ambicingesnių teisės aktų ateityje.
               
24.   Urgency for an EU blacklist of third countries in line with the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulle dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione sull'urgenza di una lista nera di paesi terzi adottata dall'UE in linea con la direttiva antiriciclaggio (2019/2612(RSP)).
               

Melania Gabriela Ciot,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank President Tajani for his letter and for inviting the Presidency to contribute to this debate. Let me start by very clearly stating that the Council is strongly committed to the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. There can be no doubt about that.
The Presidency and the Council as a whole fully share the sense of urgency and the commitment of the Parliament and the Commission in addressing this issue. Together we – the Parliament, Council and Commission – have worked closely over recent years in our common endeavour to establish an effective regime to counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
We have in particular strengthened EU rules with the adoption in 2019 of the latest amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which stands as a very good example of this good cooperation. Of course, further progress is needed in our joint fight.
So, coming straight to the issue at hand, the Council has objected to the Commission's delegated act identifying high-risk third countries with strategic deficiencies. This decision to object does not mean that the listing is not an important element of the ongoing work. On the contrary.
But to achieve the full impact of this instrument and to ensure its quality, we need to introduce the list in an orderly process. This is effectively what we wrote in our Council statement.
We believe that in order to establish a strong and effective instrument, the Commission proposal needs to be established in a transparent manner and one that incentivises affected countries to take decisive action.
This is why the Council calls for an EU listing in line, of course, with the 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which will effectively strengthen anti-money laundering and combat terrorist financing.
We are united and fully committed to maintaining and promoting the existing cooperation between the institutions. We are in fact advancing on other fronts as well in this fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.
Hopefully, we will be finalising negotiations in the coming days on an important piece of legislation on anti-money laundering, which is contained in the European System of Financial Supervision package.
Member States, but also the European Parliament, attribute a huge importance to this file. The Council also agreed last December on a dedicated anti-money laundering action plan with a view to further improving the current system, and we are monitoring developments on that front.
I look forward to hearing your views and the views of the Commissioner and to continue working closely with you on the new listing.

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΔΗΜΟΥΛΗΣ


Αντιπρόεδρος


Věra Jourová,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for organising today's debate on this important matter and I want to thank the Council for expressing the same sense of urgency on this issue.
After each terrorist attack, we hear passionate speeches about how we have to efficiently fight against terrorists. After each banking scandal, we hear a lot of other speeches about how we have to make our financial sector more healthy. This is what we try to do, including by means of high-risk third countries, and this is what we did. We did it according to the methodology on which consultations were held and which was adopted in a transparent manner. That's why I have to start by expressing my deep regret that the Council rejected this list – because being equipped with such a list, we would be able to start with this efficient fight immediately.
As you know, the Juncker Commission and I personally have made the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing a top priority during this mandate, and I always felt very strong support from this House, from the Members of Parliament who are also sitting here today.
In recent years, we have witnessed a series of terrorist attacks in Europe and we have seen major money laundering scandals that unveil how organised criminals misuse our financial system. Together with you, we have worked relentlessly to make our rules and systems stronger against financial crime that causes harm to our society and our citizens. We have twice updated the Anti-Money Laundering Directive. You have adopted a new directive on criminalisation of money laundering and we have provisionally agreed on a new directive on the use of financial information by law enforcement authorities. This week, we are in the final stage of negotiating a reform of the European Banking Authority that would give it a stronger role in anti-money laundering supervision of the financial sector, thereby helping to ensure that our strong rules are properly enforced across Europe.
The delegated regulation the Commission adopted on 13 February to identify third countries with strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist-financing frameworks is part of all these efforts to better protect the EU financial system from the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. Unfortunately, this measure will not enter into force for the reason I mentioned at the beginning: using its scrutiny rights, the Council objected on 7 March to this delegated act. As I said, I am disappointed by the decision of the Council and I regret that this issue has not been discussed at political level in the Council. Neither by the Justice and Interior Ministers last week, nor by the Finance Ministers meeting at the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) in Brussels today.
In the fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, this Parliament and the Council decided together to strengthen the rules with regard to third countries, complementing the legal criteria of the Financial Action Task Force. The Commission attaches great importance to multilateralism and the work the Financial Action Task Force is doing. We are an active founding member of this task force and we must take its important work into full account.
At the same time, it is necessary that we take further steps to protect the integrity of the EU financial system on the basis of the criteria set out in our anti-money laundering rules so that due diligence measures are applied.
In light of experience, including the lessons from the Panama Papers scandal, we, the European Parliament and the Council decided together to add transparency rules on beneficial ownership structures. This goes beyond the Financial Action Task Force rules. We, therefore, can no longer simply replicate this Action Task Force list. We have a legal obligation under the current anti-money laundering rules to carry out our own autonomous assessment.
In order to prepare our first autonomous list, the Commission carried out a careful assessment, based on a solid methodology, together with Member States' experts. Member States were also consulted on the methodology itself, which follows the criteria set out in the directive. The Commission also engaged with the third countries concerned immediately after the College of Commissioners endorsed the preliminary findings on 23 January 2019 in full of respect of the third countries' right to be heard. The Commission stands by its assessment. Therefore, we will continue to engage with the third countries concerned and encourage them to address their deficiencies in the areas of preventing money laundering and terrorist financing.
We do not list third countries for the sake of listing them, but in order to address the risks to the EU financial system. In terms of the next steps, I stand ready to engage with you and with the Council at political level to discuss the way forward. Our aim remains to fulfil our legal obligation under the Anti-Money Laundering Directive. It is a joint responsibility of the EU institutions to protect citizens and the EU financial system against threats of money laundering and terrorist financing. As for the timing, I asked the College to give me a chance to finalise the next list still in this mandate. I want to finish my mandate with a clean table and to do that, I also have to stress once again that I count on your support.

Markus Ferber,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Vertretung der Ratspräsidentschaft! Ich glaube, wir sind uns alle darin einig, dass wir im Kampf gegen die Geldwäsche eine schwarze Liste brauchen, die Biss hat, die Drittstaaten zum Einlenken bewegt und die glaubwürdig ist. Weil wir Zweifel hatten, dass das bei früheren Entwürfen der schwarzen Liste der Fall war, haben wir ja auch als Europäisches Parlament selbst schon delegierte Rechtsakte zurückgewiesen. Ich habe jetzt fast schon Mitleid mit der Kommission, weil wir immer gesagt haben: Es reicht nicht, nur die Liste der Financial Action Task Force zu kopieren, sondern wir müssen eigene Analysen anstellen. Das war genau das, was wir immer gefordert haben.
                  

                     Die Liste ist sicherlich nicht perfekt. Man kann sich auch die Frage stellen, warum ein Land wie Russland noch nicht auf dieser Liste steht. Und natürlich hat der Rat auch ein paar prozedurale Punkte genannt – wie kommt man drauf, wie kommt man wieder runter –, über die wir miteinander reden können. Aber ich habe trotzdem das Gefühl, dass der Grund für die Zurückweisung der Liste durch den Rat nicht ein formaler war, sondern dass hier auch eine Reihe von sachfremden Erwägungen eine Rolle gespielt hat. Man hat in den letzten Wochen öfter das Argument gehört, man dürfe diesen oder jenen Drittstaat nicht auf die Liste setzen, weil es sich um wichtige Verbündete handelt. Wenn wir uns auf diese Argumentation einlassen, verliert die Liste jegliche Glaubwürdigkeit. Denn dann ist klar, dass ein Drittstaat nur intensiv Lobbyarbeit bei den Mitgliedstaaten betreiben muss, dann ist er wieder weg von der Liste. Und wenn sich das erstmal herumgesprochen hat, dann ist diese Liste ein zahnloser Tiger. Das können wir nicht wollen, denn am Ende geht es darum, auch sicherzustellen, dass der europäische Finanzsektor nicht für Geldwäsche, Terrorismusfinanzierung oder für Zwecke der organisierten Kriminalität missbraucht wird.
                  

                     Es passt nicht zusammen, auf der einen Seite die europäische Bankenaufsicht mit neuen Geldwäschebekämpfungsbefugnissen auszustatten, aber auf der anderen Seite ein Einfallstor offen zu lassen, weil wir uns nicht auf eine Liste einigen können. Ich kann die Kommission nur ermuntern, möglichst schnell wieder einen Vorschlag zu machen. Und ich kann nur an den Rat appellieren, dieser Liste dann auch zuzustimmen.
                  

Ana Gomes,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, a Comissão Europeia elaborou a lista de países terceiros com falhas estratégicas no combate ao branqueamento de capitais, financiamento de terrorismo e evasão fiscal, na base de uma avaliação autónoma e independente, levando em conta também a avaliação do GAFI, como insistiu o Parlamento e como dita a 5.a diretiva contra o branqueamento de capitais e o financiamento do terrorismo e outras conexas, como dita a necessidade de dar combate eficaz à criminalidade financeira e fiscal que vive dos off-shores dentro e fora da União Europeia.
                  

                     A Comissão cumpriu, o Parlamento aplaudiu, o Conselho destruiu. Mais uma vez, esforços pela transparência, justiça fiscal contra a criminalidade organizada, incluindo o terrorismo, são bloqueados pelos governos dos Estados-Membros contra a segurança coletiva. Não venham os governos da União Europeia alegar agora que é Bruxelas que tem culpa. Quem trava soluções, quem assim instiga os populismos, quem falha aos cidadãos, incluindo no combate ao terrorismo, é o Conselho, todos e cada um dos 28 governos dos Estados-Membros que se deixam capturar por interesses perversos, sucumbindo a pressões seja do regime esquartejador saudita, seja da sua protetora, a Administração Trump.
                  

                     O meu tributo, Senhora Comissária Jourová, pela sua determinação e pela sua persistência. Tem todo o nosso apoio.
                  

Ralph Packet,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, Europa komt weer met een nieuwe lijst van belastingparadijzen. Gelukkig heeft de Commissie deze keer haar werk wél gedaan. Het kan altijd beter – het moet ook beter – maar het Parlement heeft hier twee weken geleden óók een lijst van belastingparadijzen opgesteld en daar hadden ze zonder enige methodologie België op gesmeten. Dus ik denk dat de Commissie het hier al bij al naar behoren heeft gedaan.
                  

                     Er is nu dus een nieuwe lijst en de landen hierop, Panama, Iran, enzovoort krijgen geen sanctie, maar Europese banken moeten transacties waar klanten of banken uit die landen bij betrokken zijn wel extra controleren. Dat is volgens mij zeer belangrijk in de strijd tegen financiële fraude. Wij ondersteunen die strijd. Het is iets waar mijn partij zich de voorbije jaren hard voor heeft ingezet en we zullen die strijd dan ook voortzetten.
                  

Nils Torvalds,
för ALDE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Det var med ett visst intresse jag läste igenom listan på de svartlistade. Intresset berodde på att vi har hållit på med den här saken ganska länge. Bredvid mig här i salen har jag Sargentini, och det är ungefär sex år sedan vi försökte få ordning på de här listorna, utan att riktigt få ordning på dem.
                  

                     När jag läser igenom argumenteringen kring vilka länder som har satts in på den här listan blir jag ännu mer förvånad av den enkla orsaken att det i alla de bankskandaler vi har sett under den senaste tiden finns ett återkommande mönster. Det mönstret heter Ryssland. Det kan hända att de som skriver den här listan har ganska liten erfarenhet av hur det ryska systemet fungerar. Jag har faktiskt bott i landet i sex år. Jag måste säga att jag är djupt förvånad över att man inte tar det här mer på allvar. Vi har sedan Sovjetunionens sammanbrott sett ett systematiskt stjälande av statlig och annan egendom, som sedan via diverse kanaler förvandlas till egendom ute i Europa eller i skatteparadis. Det är ju det som har varit den genomgående egenskapen i alla de bankskandaler vi har sett.
                  

                     Att inte sätta in Ryssland på den här listan antyder för oss att man inte riktigt allvarligt överväger hur det här ska handskas med, och det här kommer tillbaks till oss i form av ett minskat förtroende för de europeiska institutionerna. Vår uppgift är att slå vakt om förtroendet och se till att det vi gör på den internationella arenan också är av den kvaliteten, av den kalibern, att våra medborgare tror på att vi faktiskt är ute och försöker få ordning på penningtvätt, på terrorismfinansiering och på skatteparadis.
                  

Sven Giegold,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Was hier in den letzten Tagen passiert ist, ist ein Stück aus dem Tollhaus. An den Rat muss man ganz klar sagen: Wir haben eine Methodik gemeinsam abgestimmt. Die Kommission hat darauf hingewiesen. Über Monate hat es keine methodischen Einwände gegeben. Dann, als die Liste langsam bekannt wird, gibt es massive Interventionen aus Panama, aus den entsprechenden amerikanischen Jurisdiktionen und ebenso aus Saudi-Arabien. Und plötzlich entwickelt sich eine Methodenkritik. Diese Methodenkritik ist überhaupt nicht glaubwürdig. Es ist auch bis heute nicht eine einzige der Länderbewertungen der Kommission in der Substanz von den Mitgliedsländern kritisiert worden. Stattdessen streichen Sie dieses wichtige Instrument gegen die Geldwäsche. Und daher ist jetzt die Frage: Wie gehen wir jetzt weiter? Da kann ich nur sagen: Lassen Sie uns jetzt nicht nachlassen, sondern – die Kommission hat darauf hingewiesen – für wichtige Länder ist die Prüfung nicht abgeschlossen: für Russland, für Aserbaidschan, für die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate, für Länder, wo wir hier gesehen haben, dass es große Probleme gibt.
                  

                     Also ganz klar: Wir dürfen jetzt nicht nachlassen, sondern die Prüfungen müssen fortgesetzt werden. Und wir brauchen nicht eine kürzere Liste, die um problematische Staaten bereinigt ist, sondern eine anspruchsvollere Liste. Und die Kommission sollte alle Länderevaluierungen endlich veröffentlichen, damit wir die transparente Debatte bekommen, die die Bürger zu diesem Thema auch verdienen.
                  

Matt Carthy,
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, we have before us one of the starkest examples that we've seen of the impact of lobbying on the Council that is harming the people of the EU. The new process for compiling the anti-money laundering blacklist is far from perfect. It ignores the fact that the majority of international money laundering scandals in recent years have actually involved European banks. Nevertheless, we welcome the increased autonomy in the process. The Council's objections are politically motivated interference in a process that's supposed to be independent. I'm particularly concerned that the defence of Saudi Arabia and the US by EU governments is a direct result of their close financial and trading ties and of lobbying by the US and Saudi Arabia. We don't just urgently need an anti-money laundering blacklist; we urgently need mechanisms to prevent the lobbying by corporations and countries from harming the public interest and to ensure that we have full transparency over the lobbying process.

David Coburn,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, EU Socialists have an obsession about money laundering; a total fear that some poor over-taxed soul might make an extra centime or an extra penny. This taxes your every waking moment, if you'll pardon the pun! Some clever creature will always find a way around taxes, that's just the way it is. We look to minimise it in the UK and move on.
This is better than crucifying every job-creating, hard-working businessman or businesswoman, disrupting their business with pointless money-laundering bureaucracy and seizures of money until they can prove what they've done with it or where they got it.
Business people need to get on with creating wealth and jobs. The UK is less neurotic about money laundering and we have lower unemployment. Youth unemployment in Spain stands at 34%, in Italy 30%, in France 21%, – surely wealth and job creation through the cutting, not the increasing, of red tape is more useful to the citizens of Europe than any sort of European socialistic avarice and jealousy of hard-working, successful businessmen and women who want to keep the fruits of their labour and employ their fellow citizens.
The EU wants to turn all of us into a spy state. Meanwhile, the European Investment Bank bankers will have immunity in the UK, even after Brexit. Even after Brexit! This is appalling. This is hypocrisy of immunity. One rule for the EU, one rule for the rest of us.

Mario Borghezio,
a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, stiamo assistendo a uno spettacolo veramente impressionante, cioè questo gioco dei paesi che come in un gioco di carte entrano ed escono dalle liste, che rappresenta plasticamente la scarsa volontà, l'opacità dell'intervento delle istituzioni europee su un tema così delicato e così importante e grave. Basterebbe ricordare l'allarme lanciato anche nelle nostre commissioni da una personalità importante come l'allora direttore dell'antidroga di Ginevra, che disse che tutto il traffico internazionale della droga passa attraverso il riciclaggio, il sistema bancario, alcuni settori del sistema finanziario e bancario.
                  

                     Ma finché dura la pacchia fiscale delle piazze offshore, come potrà l'Unione europea aggredire con misure chiare e risolutive tutta l'enorme ragnatela di paesi che consentono il riciclaggio e sono quindi un paradiso per terroristi, criminali, trafficanti di droga e di armi? Questo è il punto.
                  

                     Io vorrei indicare alla cortese rappresentante della Commissione che la quinta direttiva introduce come elemento qualificativo la disponibilità dei titolari effettivi di società e istituti giuridici. Lei è sicura che per esempio in Lussemburgo sia così agevole risalire ai veri proprietari delle società offshore? È così sicura che nei nostri paesi sia possibile, nei paesi dell'Unione europea…
                  

(Il Presidente toglie la parola all'oratore)


Dariusz Rosati (PPE). – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Commissioner Jourová for providing EU citizens with what we have asked for for a long time: a real EU list of third countries that are too lax on money laundering. The list we received is based on the Commission's new methodology and its own assessment of various third countries and I would like to commend you, Commissioner, for this initiative.
At the same time, I would like to tell colleagues that, together with my group, I very much regret that the Council officially objected to the delegated acts proposed by the Commission last Thursday. This is very unfortunate, I must say, because the blacklist – the identification of non-cooperative jurisdictions – is an important component of our fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. Frankly, it is difficult to understand this obstruction on the part of the Council.
Still, while I welcome the new methodology, I expect the Commission to include in the further assessment the findings of the TAX3 Committee of this House, especially findings on Russia and its deficiencies in fighting money laundering. Let me underline that virtually all major money-laundering scandals uncovered during this legislative term were connected to Russian money or Russian individuals. EU citizens expect us to act and be ambitious in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. That's why I encourage you, Commissioner, to continue your work and to come up with a new delegated act on this matter.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisaria Jourová, a lo largo de esta legislatura nos hemos tenido que lamentar muchas veces de la falta de resultados y del bloqueo sistemático por parte del Consejo a piezas de legislación extremadamente importantes para este Parlamento Europeo. Pero el balance de resultados en materia de lucha contra el blanqueo de capitales y contra la financiación del terrorismo no es negligible, no es un balance que pueda ser subestimado.
                  

                     Ahí tenemos la quinta Directiva contra el blanqueo de capitales, adoptada, que empieza a desplegar sus efectos en toda la Unión Europea y la Directiva en materia de Derecho penal europeo, que es una herramienta extremadamente importante para aproximar las normas penales y para llenar de sentido el trabajo legislativo de este Parlamento como legislador penal europeo.
                  

                     El Grupo socialista ha apoyado todas y cada una de estas iniciativas, fuertemente. Lo ha hecho en la Comisión que trató los papeles de Panamá, en la Comisión TAX3 —de la que he tenido el honor de ser parte—. Ahora es el momento de decirle a la Comisión que tiene que resistir las presiones del Consejo para intentar decolorar o degradar la lista de países que sospechosamente contribuyen a estas prácticas inadmisibles.
                  

                     Y pedimos a la Comisión que se mantenga firme, particularmente en todo lo que respecta a la lucha contra el blanqueo y la financiación del terrorismo en una fecha como la de hoy, en la que hace quince años que España sufrió el peor atentado terrorista con el mayor número de víctimas de toda la historia de la Unión Europea. Es el momento de ser firmes, comisaria Jourová.
                  

Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). – Voorzitter, of minister Siod spreekt werkelijk alle talen, of zij luistert niet naar het Parlement. Ik had verwacht dat u bij uw introductie ons zou uitleggen waarom 28 lidstaten zich verzetten tegen de Europese Commissie die de wet uitvoert. Dit Europees Parlement heeft met de Raad twee keer onderhandeld – en ik was de rapporteur – over het herzien van de witwasrichtlijn tegen crimineel geld en tegen terrorismefinanciering.
                  

                     Dit Parlement heeft ook van de Raad de wind van voren gekregen toen wij niet snel genoeg waren met regels om terrorisme te bestrijden na de aanslagen op Charlie Hebdo en de Bataclan. Dit Parlement is daarom ook reuze verbaasd dat nu de Europese Commissie dat doet wat moet, namelijk ons beschermen tegen terroristen door de financiering ervan aan te pakken, u met een argument komt dat bestaat uit: we snappen de procedure niet. Misschien kan ik u uitnodigen als u zo direct aan het eind van het debat spreekt, om ons uit te leggen wat het probleem is met Saoedi-Arabië, Panama en de Maagdeneilanden op de lijst.
                  

Miguel Urbán Crespo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, durante esta legislatura la Comisión ha presentado dos listas de países. Ambas han sido rechazadas por este Parlamento a iniciativa, entre otros, de mi grupo político, por omitir, principalmente, las guaridas del entorno de la Unión Europea.
                  

                     Celebramos que la Comisión haya decidido, ahora, incluir a Panamá y a Arabia Saudí. Sin embargo, una vez más, para analizar la lista tenemos que fijarnos sobre todo en los países que no están en ella. Sobre todo, en esos; en los que no están. En los que no se señalan.
                  

                     ¿Qué ocurre, por ejemplo, con Suiza, que viola de manera flagrante varios artículos del código del Grupo de Acción Financiera Internacional sobre el Blanqueo de Capitales?
                  

                     Señorías, si queremos afrontar seriamente el terrorismo internacional y el blanqueo de capitales, tenemos que cortar sus vías de financiación. Y eso, les guste o no, implicará acabar, también, con los paraísos fiscales en donde las grandes fortunas y las multinacionales europeas esconden su dinero.
                  

Ignazio Corrao (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, siamo lieti di vedere finalmente che la Commissione europea ha pubblicato una blacklist dei paesi a rischio riciclaggio degna di questo nome. Troviamo però assurdo che questo Parlamento abbia dovuto più volte denunciare la mancanza di un processo davvero indipendente ed autonomo per giudicare gli Stati che presentavano una minaccia di criminalità finanziaria.
                  

                     Dopo varie bocciature, la Commissione europea è riuscita finalmente a formulare una lista più esaustiva, anche se non completa, e con una metodologia più indipendente. La pubblicazione della nuova blacklist è un passo nella giusta direzione ma va considerato solo come un primo passo.
                  

                     Va innanzitutto chiarito che è necessario assicurare che le persone fisiche e giuridiche provenienti dai paesi in questa lista siano soggette a controlli più rigidi nel momento in cui svolgono attività all'interno dell'Unione, date le carenze strategiche su antiriciclaggio e contrasto al finanziamento del terrorismo presenti in tali paesi.
                  

                     Inoltre c'è ancora molto da fare per assicurare che tutte le attività di pressione esercitate dalle lobby di alcuni paesi non annacquino la capacità delle istituzioni europee di agire in maniera autonoma e indipendente.
                  

                     Da ultimo, è necessario che il processo diventi ancora più trasparente. Per questo chiediamo alla Commissione di pubblicare le sue valutazioni sui paesi in lista per assicurare lo scrutinio pubblico.
                  

                     Sono felice che prima della conclusione di questa legislatura sia stato fatto un altro importante passo avanti nella lotta contro il riciclaggio di denaro, crimine odioso che arricchisce i criminali e mette fuori mercato coloro che agiscono nella legalità. È un crimine che va represso e al quale ho dedicato molti sforzi nel corso di questo mandato, tra l'altro licenziando una direttiva – quella sulla lotta al riciclaggio attraverso norme penali – che permetterà alle autorità di contrasto di tutta Europa di investigare e perseguire in maniera più efficace il reato stesso.
                  

                     Colgo questa occasione per rinnovare il mio invito agli Stati membri affinché procedano ad una rapida e corretta trasposizione del testo nei propri ordinamenti nazionali.
                  

Емил Радев (PPE). – Г-н Председател, уважаема г-жо Комисар, дами и господа, член 9 от Четвъртата и Петата директива за борба срещу изпирането на пари и финансирането на тероризма съдържа ясно задължение за Европейската комисия да извърши анализ на правната и институционална рамка на страните извън Европейския съюз, правомощията на компетентните им власти и ефективността на системите им, за да определи къде съществуват проблеми с борбата срещу изпирането на пари и финансирането на тероризма. Тези изисквания са договорени съвместно от Европейския парламент и Съвета и в нито един момент по време на преговорите никоя държава членка не се противопостави на тези правомощия на Комисията.
                  

                     Нека бъда ясен – и преди Европейската комисия е публикувала списъци на високо рискови държави, реално идентични с тези на FATF. Но за първи път тя е натоварена със задача да извършва анализ, вземащ под внимание, но не и идентичен с този на FATF.
                  

                     Европейският съюз е огромен единен пазар и основната задача на Комисията е да защити функционирането му от всички видове заплахи, вкл. от такива, идващи от трети държави. Задължените субекти в Европейския съюз трябва да са наясно, че финансовите потоци от определени райони по света могат да бъдат със съмнителен произход. Но това в никакъв случай не означава, че всички финансови потоци са съмнителни или че бизнесът с тези държави ще спре. Повишеното внимание вследствие на списъка е предупреждение за задължените субекти да внимават, защото в противен случай ще носят отговорност за подпомагане изпирането на пари и финансирането на тероризма.
                  

Jeppe Kofod (S&D). – Mr President, like my colleagues, I also want to commend the work the Commission is doing on listing third countries as high risk for money laundering and terrorist financing. We all know how huge a threat to our security in Europe is posed by financial crimes, terrorist financing and terrorism, as well as the threat that these countries that are acting as safe havens for this pose to Europe. So it's a very serious threat to us and I commend the Commission for working seriously and objectively on this, along with the directives on anti-money laundering. In a way, I just want to say that it's a little bit ironic. We are a Union based on the rule of law and objective criteria, and yet we see that the Council, one of our institutions, undermines that principle when we apply the objective criteria and methodology that we have agreed upon in this case. I think it is a disaster and a scandal.
I want say one more thing. I think what we see in the Council is a black box. We don't see what Member States' representatives are doing in the secret working groups and I think we could at least demand from their side that they are accountable and transparent so that citizens, the media and others – we in Parliament – can see what is happening. Why are countries taking items off the list in the Council? Why are they blocking items? What is the reason? We need to get that out in the open to get a real debate going because, if we don't do this, we will never have an efficient list and I do not think we will fulfil the principle of the rule of law that we should all support.

Martin Schirdewan (GUE/NGL). – Herr Präsident, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich würde die Debatte gern mit einem praktischen Beispiel bereichern: Jedes Jahr fließen nachweislich – das haben etliche Studien mittlerweile belegt – Milliarden an kriminellen Geldern aus kriminellen Geschäften allein in den deutschen Immobilienmarkt, und da wird dann das schmutzige Geld gewaschen. Das treibt natürlich die Preise auf dem Immobilienmarkt in die Höhe, und das wiederum treibt die Mieten in die Höhe. Die Mieterinnen und Mieter, die dann immer mehr Miete zahlen müssen und sich teilweise ihre Wohnung nicht mehr leisten können, sind dann im Endeffekt diejenigen, die die Zeche an dieser Stelle für die politische Untätigkeit des Rates zahlen müssen. Und allein vor diesem Hintergrund ist die Ablehnung der überarbeiteten Geldwäscheliste durch den Rat ein Skandal. Und klar, die von der Kommission vorgelegte Liste ist durchaus mangelhaft, aber sie ist doch ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung. Mit Halbherzigkeit gewinnt man den Kampf gegen schmutziges Geld jedenfalls nicht. Den gewinnt man mit Entschlossenheit und politischem Willen. Und daran mangelt es einigen europäischen Regierungen ganz offenkundig.
                  

Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for being here. Anti-money laundering, the fight against financial crime and tax fraud are among the key priorities of civilised countries in the 21st century, despite the fact that maybe Mr Coburn would not agree. I believe that we are civilised countries, so I believe that this is our priority, but instead of that, maybe I should say I wish it were our priority. Today I feel great frustration, maybe the most frustration I have ever experienced here for some time, and this is really something. A clear majority of the Member States in the Council have rejected the methodology-based, relatively transparent and evidence-based list proposed by the Commission and Commissioner Jourová, and this is really frustrating. Obviously, nothing is perfect. The list was not perfect, but this could have been a good start to a good process in which we expressed our view on this very important matter.
This is a really shocking result and this is putting into doubt our dedication, our principles and our self-confidence, so that's why I kindly ask the Commission to continue and I ask the Council to reconsider this position and not put us into such a shameful position.

Emmanuel Maurel (GUE/NGL). – Monsieur le Président, la Commission propose une liste noire anti-blanchiment et anti-financement du terrorisme, et c'est une bonne initiative. Mais qu'apprenons-nous aujourd'hui, et nous l'apprenons avec consternation? C'est que le Conseil s'est empressé de détricoter cette liste, de refuser qu'y figurent des pays qui, pourtant, de notoriété publique, sont des champions de l'opacité, voire pire!
                  

                     Je prends deux exemples: comment peut-on nier aujourd'hui l'implication de pays comme le Panama ou l'Arabie Saoudite – implication délictueuse, voire carrément criminelle – au moment où les peuples européens demandent plus de transparence? Je rappelle que les Panama Papers ont fait l'objet de perquisitions qui ont conclu à la participation à un blanchiment. Quant à l'Arabie saoudite, on sait très bien que des particuliers ont participé au financement de Daech et que le royaume ne pouvait l'ignorer. Donc, ce que je constate, c'est qu'entre les chèques de M. Ben Salman et l'intérêt des citoyens européens, le Conseil a tranché. Il faut que le Parlement refuse, et refuse clairement, ce scandale démocratique.
                  

Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – Señor presidente, el Consejo rechaza la lista. Mal. Evitar que se utilice el sistema financiero para el blanqueo de capitales o de financiación del terrorismo es parte de cualquier estrategia para hacer frente a la amenaza. Para ello, se aprobó la Directiva contra el blanqueo de capitales que entró en vigor el pasado julio.
                  

                     El artículo 9, apartado 2, faculta a la Comisión para adoptar actos delegados a fin de identificar los terceros países de alto riesgo, teniendo en cuenta sus deficiencias estratégicas. Si bien esta lista no es perfecta, sí que resulta necesario que las entidades financieras refuercen sus controles. Sin embargo, es necesario conceder a los países concernidos el tiempo suficiente para que se puedan acometer las reformas necesarias en sus sistemas y no incluir a aquellos que ya están en proceso avanzado de reformas.
                  

                     La Unión tiene que realizar el seguimiento y la evolución de veintitrés Estados y otros y dotar de medios suficientes a las unidades de la Comisión para que tengan la operatividad e independencia necesarias para modificar la lista, cuando proceda, con la mayor eficacia posible. En el mismo sentido, la Unión tiene que encontrar mecanismos reforzados para hacer frente a las presiones legítimas de los terceros países que no quieren ser asociados con el blanqueo de capitales o la financiación del terrorismo, pero a los que, al mismo tiempo, una regulación laxa les reporta importantes beneficios.
                  

                     Y luego está el tema de Rusia. Las Comisiones LIBE, ECON y TAX3 en reiteradas ocasiones han señalado la no adecuación de Rusia al marco financiero. En este sentido, señor presidente, la Comisión debe tener en cuenta la opinión reiterada del Parlamento.
                  

José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, a segurança dos cidadãos e do sistema financeiro da União Europeia tem de estar protegida dos instrumentos ilegais que permitem o financiamento do terrorismo e o branqueamento de capitais. A União tem a capacidade de elaborar uma lista de países terceiros com base no risco identificado através de fluxos de capitais suspeitos que circulam entre empresas fictícias e estruturas opacas usadas para ocultar os verdadeiros beneficiários de uma transação, incluindo para os efeitos de evasão fiscal.
                  

                     Com base em inteligência fornecida pela Europol e pelo Grupo de Ação Financeira, conseguimos apertar a malha de avaliação e aumentar a lista de países suspeitos. É preciso que se perceba que, com esta lista, não estamos a aplicar nenhuma sanção económica nem a fazer nenhum boicote diplomático. Antes pelo contrário. Não se compreende, por isso, a recusa do Conselho em aceitar a lista de países de risco proposta pela Comissão.
                  

                     A União tem de manter o seu compromisso de intervir junto dos países com deficiências estratégicas para evitar que o dinheiro sujo sirva para financiar a corrupção, o crime organizado e o terrorismo. Claro que nenhum país fica contente por estar nesta lista negra, e tenta, por todas as vias, incluindo através de conversações bilaterais, juntar argumentos que justifiquem a sua exclusão.
                  

                     Meus caros Colegas, convenhamos: sabemos como pode ser insidiosa para a nossa União a penetração da corrupção, do crime organizado e do terrorismo no seio do território europeu. Há assuntos em que a Europa tem de cerrar fileiras e atuar com uma só voz e, neste caso, é do mais puro bom senso que mais vale prevenir do que remediar.
                  

Διαδικασία ‘Catch-the-Eye’
                        


Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το ξέπλυμα του μαύρου χρήματος, η νομιμοποίηση των εσόδων από παράνομες δραστηριότητες, η φοροδιαφυγή και η φοροαποφυγή πρέπει να χτυπηθούν. Και αφού πείστηκε η Επιτροπή, επιτέλους, να διαμορφώσει τη μαύρη λίστα των χωρών που φοροδιαφεύγουν, βλέπουμε ότι το Συμβούλιο αρνείται να προχωρήσει σε αυτή τη διαδικασία. Μπλοκάρει πραγματικά την έκδοση της μαύρης λίστας των χωρών της φοροδιαφυγής. Γιατί; Επειδή εκεί είναι ο Παναμάς; Επειδή είναι η Σαουδική Αραβία; Από εκεί και πέρα, υπάρχει ένα άλλο ζήτημα: ζήτημα διαφάνειας. Όταν λέμε το Συμβούλιο, ποιες χώρες εννοούμε; Όλες οι χώρες στο Συμβούλιο ήταν αυτές που αρνήθηκαν να επικυρώσουν τον κατάλογο της Επιτροπής; Αν όχι, θέλω να μας πείτε ποιες ήταν οι συγκεκριμένες χώρες οι οποίες έφεραν τα εμπόδια. Διότι πίσω από τη λέξη Συμβούλιο υπάρχει μια πλήρης αδιαφάνεια και καλύπτονται συγκεκριμένες χώρες και πολιτικές. Θέλουμε μια απάντηση, κυρία Ciot, στο θέμα αυτό, πολύ συγκεκριμένη.
                  

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señor presidente, en esta lista no están todos los que son, pero son todos los que están. No me gusta la actitud del Consejo ante las propuestas que hace la Comisión. Felicito a la comisaria por defender sus valoraciones. Tiene todo nuestro apoyo.
                  

                     La actitud del Consejo en este asunto es mala por dos razones. Primero, porque erosiona la confianza y credibilidad de las instituciones europeas. Y, segundo, porque alienta comportamientos que nos perjudican a todos.
                  

                     Tenemos que creernos que lo que es bueno para la Unión es bueno para todos sus miembros. Y lo que no es transparente, lo que desgraciadamente es repetido, es ver a los Estados miembros hacer cambalaches entre ellos para proteger intereses particulares, Estado a Estado, cambiar cromos entre ellos y que no defienden a la Unión.
                  

                     Estamos ante un asunto que habla de nuestra ética colectiva. Estamos ante unas prácticas que perjudican globalmente el volumen de recursos disponibles que manejan las Haciendas europeas. Y este es uno de esos temas en los que los Estados son los que toman las decisiones injustificables y es la Unión la que paga, en términos de prestigio, una gran factura. Esta es la gasolina del populismo.
                  

                     Por eso me gustaría preguntarle a la representante del Consejo cuáles son esos motivos por los cuales han rechazado la lista. Díganos, al menos, dos de ellos.
                  

Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, indeed, combating terrorism sounds like a great idea. Nobody – nobody – is more in favour of combating terrorism than I am. Absolutely. Let's get to grips with it, let's stop them getting their dirty money, let's stop this money laundering. But hang on. Then something occurred to me. In all of the debates that I sit through here, and I've sat through a lot today, often one of the things that gets mentioned is that you're really quite frustrated that you can't get to grips with banks and bankers and finances and that you can't really peek into bank accounts as much as you'd like. I've heard this for five years now. Isn't it really convenient to put up Russia, terrorists and all sorts of baddies and say ‘Oh, we must get to them. I know: we need to be able to see into people's bank accounts, we need more power for the financial authorities, and we need to be able to blacklist people if they don't play along’. Strongman arguments. I'm a little concerned, a little suspicious. Yes, combat terrorism, but I think – I detect – a little bit more about this: I think you'd like to have a peek into someone's bank account.

(Λήξη της διαδικασίας ‘Catch-the-Eye’)


Věra Jourová,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, yes, this is the first time we are working on this autonomous EU list of high-risk third countries. We knew when we were planning this and discussing the methodology, the rationale and the criteria which will be used for the assessment that it would be difficult, that it would demand expertise and that it would be sensitive – because we work in the context of the geopolitical and external ties and contacts of each Member State – and that it might be unpopular, but we knew absolutely, clearly and for sure that it was necessary. These high-risk third countries are a very important element of everything we do against money laundering and terrorist financing. This is the most important element of the whole system. I will repeat again that this is what we do in the field of the fight against organised crime, where we need to be much better on the side of systematic prevention.
This is about prevention. We must be aware of how the financial sector is interconnected and that, if we want to have a safe financial sector, we must not leave any weak points or easy entry points into the system from outside. Whenever I discuss these matters with law enforcement authorities, with practitioners and experts, they always have a very clear goal for us: cut the influx of illicit money into Europe because this is the money which is financing organised crime and terrorism. So this is what we are doing, and I remain convinced that the countries we listed belong to the list.
At the same time, we see that we have to work with the Member States on procedural matters because they were at the centre of the criticism which we heard from the Member States. So I agree that maybe we need more transparency. I also heard in this House and in the two days of debate that you would like to see a more detailed assessment. We need more clarity and we need stronger – I would even say full – ownership from the side of the Member States. We need to check again whether the Member States are ready to cooperate and whether that readiness is driven by a genuine interest from the side of the Member States to fight against organised crime and terrorism. I hope – and I do believe – that we will find this readiness from the side of the Member States because the Member States must be aware that in a system where the financial institutions and the whole financial system has no borders in the EU, individual Member States cannot efficiently fight against these dangerous phenomena. It has to be a common task and this is what we are doing.
The Commission is going to work on two parallel strands. On one side, we will work with the Member States and with Parliament on procedural matters. We will look into the methodology and the criteria we use. I am convinced the criteria are pretty precise and we use them in full. It was a very objective assessment, based on the criteria known, but we will work on this with the stakeholders. The second strand will be our parallel work with the listed countries, with those who are willing to eliminate the risks on their side. I have had discussions with several of those listed and who don't want to be listed, so this is the invitation: let's work on the elimination of risks on your side. We need to see the partners where there are no deficiencies anymore. I think that we are very clear about this. This will be one strand of work with the listed countries. The second strand will be working on the assessment of the countries which are in group two, where indeed we also have Russia and other countries which you mentioned in this debate.
My message is also for the Member States. I am not giving up. The machine is working. We are working on it. We are continuing to fulfil our obligations, which we have in legislation. We are doing what's necessary and we will be back with the new list later this year.

President. – You had a lot of criticism from almost all the political groups and a lot of questions. We are very interested to hear your answers.

Melania Gabriela Ciot,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I have followed your contributions and heard the intervention by the Commissioner. I take this opportunity to reaffirm the importance which the Presidency attaches to the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.
As mentioned, the Council felt that there were problems with the process as it was conducted by the Commission. I am encouraged by the fact that Commissioner Jourová already said that the Commission was aware that many considered that the time for consultation was too short, as well as by her recognition that the process could be improved in the future. We stand ready to continue engaging with the Commission in this respect.
The Council has no position on the listing of any particular country on the list. The reasons for the Council's objection to the list are very well known and were the ones presented in my initial intervention. They relate to the process employed by the Commission to arrive at the list and are clarified in the Council statement. The Presidency will remain available for exchanges on the subject as needed.

Πρόεδρος. – Οι προτάσεις ψηφίσματος που θα κατατεθούν σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 123 παράγραφος 2 του Κανονισμού θα ανακοινωθούν αργότερα.
                  

                     Η συζήτηση περατώνεται.
                  

                     Ψηφοφορία: 14 Μαρτίου 2019.
                  


Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 162 του Κανονισμού)



Eva Joly (Verts/ALE),
par écrit. – L'Europe qui protège, c'est une Europe qui agit de manière impartiale et déterminée contre l'argent sale et le financement du terrorisme, quels que soient les pays concernés. N'acceptons pas l'Europe du double standard et des privilèges défendue par Emmanuel Macron! Une liste noire est une liste noire: si un pays représente une menace, il doit y figurer. Quelles que soient sa taille, son influence, ou les armes qu'il nous achète! Car c'est bien pour rassurer l'Arabie Saoudite, entre autres, que le gouvernement français et les autres États membres ont rejeté la liste noire anti-blanchiment. Ils ont cédé au lobby de pays tiers mécontents d'être sur la liste. Ce petit jeu est insupportable. Il est temps que les gouvernements cessent leur double discours: on ne peut en même temps vouloir combattre l'argent sale et s'opposer à une liste noire plus complète. Le Conseil doit revoir sa position. La mise à jour de la liste proposée par la Commission doit être adoptée au plus vite. Ne laissons pas nos portes ouvertes à l'argent sale. Soyons cohérents dans nos combats.
                  
25.   Visa Information System (debate)

Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η συζήτηση επί της εκθέσεως του κ. Carlos Coelho, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Πολιτικών Ελευθεριών, Δικαιοσύνης και Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων, επί της προτάσεως κανονισμιού του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου για την τροποποίηση του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 767/2008, του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 810/2009, του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) 2017/2226, του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) 2016/399, του κανονισμού ΧΧ/2018 [Κανονισμός για τη Διαλειτουργικότητα] και της απόφασης 2004/512/ΕΚ, και για την κατάργηση της απόφασης του Συμβουλίου 2008/633/ΔΕΥ (COM(2018)0302 - C8-0185/2018 - 2018/0152(COD)) (A8-0078/2019).
               

Carlos Coelho,
Relator. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Senhor Ministro, Caros Colegas, não me canso de recordar que Schengen e a liberdade de circulação são o sucesso da integração europeia que os europeus mais prezam. Mas esta liberdade de circulação exige medidas que garantam a segurança das nossas fronteiras comuns e a cooperação entre as polícias dentro do nosso território. E também exige uma política comum de vistos, isto é, uma abordagem europeia para quem, de forma legal, atravessa as nossas fronteiras, seja para visitar, estudar ou trabalhar.
               

                  O sistema de informação sobre vistos, o VIS, é o exemplo mais visível desta política. Atualmente este sistema está limitado à entrada de turistas, os chamados vistos de curta duração. Só no ano de 2017 foram registados cerca de 16 milhões de vistos. Como é evidente, não são apenas turistas que entram em Schengen. Em 2017 entrou na União Europeia um milhão de trabalhadores, mais de 800 mil pessoas vieram juntar-se a familiares e mais de meio milhão veio estudar. Estas pessoas, apesar de beneficiarem também de livre circulação, não estão registadas em nenhuma base de dados europeia.
               

                  Mais preocupante ainda, cada Estado-Membro decide quais os controlos de segurança a que são sujeitos. Há ainda uma última categoria de pessoas, os grandes investidores, os chamados vistos Gold, que já são emitidos por 20 Estados-Membros. Também estes estão atualmente fora do VIS e sem estarem sujeitos a qualquer tipo de controlo de segurança, contra os outros sistemas de informação da União, como o Sistema de Informação de Schengen.
               

                  Com esta reforma do VIS pretendemos mudar isso. Aliás, esta reforma só fará sentido se os vistos de longa duração e autorizações de residência, onde se incluem os vistos Gold, passarem a estar registados no VIS. É por isso que vejo com surpresa e preocupação que o grupo S&D tenha mudado de ideias no último mês. Quando votámos este relatório em sede de comissão parlamentar apoiaram a medida, agora parecem querer seguir os Verdes e o GUE.
               

                  Caros Colegas, sejamos claros, a atual distinção entre vistos de curta duração e documentos de longa duração não faz qualquer sentido. Quem pretende um visto de entrada na União Europeia deve ser sujeito aos mesmos controlos de segurança por toda a Europa. Os turistas que nos visitam e que normalmente permanecem no nosso território por um período bem inferior a 90 dias são sujeitos a controlos de segurança europeus. Mas pessoas que decidem instalar-se de forma mais permanente do nosso território ou adquirir residência através de investimentos, estou a falar dos vistos Gold, não são sujeitas a controlos sequer remotamente semelhantes.
               

                  É por isso que, com esta reforma, pretendemos, em primeiro lugar, garantir que todos os vistos, seja de que duração forem, são precedidos automaticamente por controlos de segurança adequados, em pleno respeito dos direitos fundamentais, dos princípios da necessidade e da proporcionalidade, mas garantindo que um investidor russo, alvo de um mandado detenção europeu, não acaba com o visto Gold na Roménia.
               

                  Estes controlos serão feitos de forma sistemática e completa antes da emissão dos vistos. Qualquer nacional de um país terceiro será sujeito a 15 controlos de segurança contra sete sistemas de informação da União Europeia, antes mesmo de chegar a solo europeu. É justamente por razões de segurança que a Comissão das Liberdades Cívicas, da Justiça e dos Assuntos Internos deste Parlamento entendeu que deveriam ser recolhidas impressões digitais a partir dos seis anos de idade. Só assim podemos melhor proteger as nossas crianças, seja contra a fraude de identidade, o rapto ou tráfico. Todos os anos são traficadas 15 mil pessoas na Europa, das quais, pelo menos, três mil são crianças. Temos o dever de lutar contra este flagelo e através desta reforma estamos a fazê-lo.
               

                  Senhor Presidente, com este VIS reforçado vamos facilitar a emissão de vistos, prevenir o chamado visa shopping, a fraude de vistos e a imigração ilegal, vamos aumentar o escrutínio de vistos Gold e melhor proteger as nossas crianças. Enfim, damos mais um passo importante para um espaço de livre circulação com justiça e segurança. Damos mais um passo para uma verdadeira Europa dos cidadãos.
               

Dimitris Avramopoulos,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, allow me to start by expressing my thanks to our rapporteur, Mr Coelho, and the shadow rapporteurs for the work done in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the proposal we are discussing tonight.
We all know that every year, millions of non-EU nationals enter the European Union with a visa, be it for a short stay or for a longer period. Most of them are legitimate travellers who fulfil the entry and stay conditions on the territory of the Member States. The current Visa Information System (VIS) allows us to check at the external borders, and in the consulates around the world, that these conditions are fulfilled. There are, however, still some gaps that we need to close.
With the new Visa Information System, we will remove blind spots in our systems and give visa authorities and border guards the information they need to do their jobs properly. We cannot allow criminals and potential terrorists to enter Europe undetected. Europe, I have repeatedly said, is not a fortress, and will never become one but, at the same time, we need to know who is crossing our borders.
The Commission welcomes Parliament's support on the key objectives of our proposal. Let me mention the most important ones.
Firstly, the interlinking of the VIS to the Entry/Exit System, ETIAS (European Travel Information and Authorisation System), the Schengen Information System and ECRIS (European Criminal Records Information System). This will help us to detect the use of multiple identities and to identify anyone posing a security risk.
Secondly, the closing of the information gap on long-stay visas and residence permits – which currently is information not shared at EU level – will allow guards and immigration authorities quickly to determine whether the documents presented to them are valid, and whether they are in the hands of persons entitled to have them. It will also allow national authorities not to legalise the presence of third-country nationals who do not fulfil basic security conditions for entry and stay in the European Union, such as persons with links to known terrorists or organised crime networks. This will close an important security gap.
Finally, the inclusion of copies of the visa applicant's travel document in the VIS database is a measure which, together with authorisation for European Border and Coast Guard Agency staff to have access to the VIS, will facilitate the identification and readmission of undocumented irregular migrants. This will increase the efficiency of the European Union returns policy, notably in relation to third countries refusing to give us their cooperation.
In addition to this, to strengthen our capacity to prosecute and prevent crime, law-enforcement authorities and Europol will have better access to the Visa Information System for prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences or other serious crimes. Access to the VIS will also be opened to law-enforcement authorities for the purpose of searching or identifying missing or abducted persons and victims of trafficking. This access will always be subject to full respect for the European Union's data protection rules.
The VIS upgrade is part of the Smart Borders package and also part of interoperability. For that reason, the rationale and foundations of this proposal should be preserved throughout the legislative process. That is why I would like to refer to some changes proposed in the report.
Firstly, the inclusion of information on residence permits in the VIS is linked also to the issue of golden visas. While registering all permits issued by Member States in a single EU information system might not resolve the question of possible abuse in granting such permits, it provides greater transparency among Member States. I understand that Parliament wants to take this measure one step further and enable the storage and verification of these documents in the VIS from the moment of application, in order to ensure better control over the issuing process. We are looking positively at this proposal.
Secondly, regarding multiple queries for security and irregular migration checks, the benefits of interoperability should not be watered down by excluding some databases from searches. We managed to agree that ECRIS and the travel documents associated with notices are relevant in ETIAS, and that should be the relevant standard for the VIS as well. It is a matter of coherence and consistency. The standards of verification of third-country nationals who can enter the EU visa free should not be tougher than those applied to third-country nationals under visa obligations.
Thirdly, the Commission proposed to update the existing law-enforcement access rules for the VIS. But it is important to ensure that law-enforcement access remains balanced and is not detrimental to the efficiency of the procedure. For instance, adding the obligation to consult Prüm databases first will make access more burdensome.
Fourthly, regarding the finger-printing of children, we have to be consistent. We have proposed lowering the age for finger-printing because we want to fight child trafficking more effectively. I am sure this is an objective that we all share. I understand that you are concerned about the fundamental rights of children and so are we.
Trafficking of children, abduction or smuggling is an abuse of fundamental rights. Statistics show that, annually, between 1 500 and 2 000 third-country national children under the age of 12 are victims of trafficking in the Schengen area, and between 3 200 and 4 250 aged between 12 and 17. Most of these children come from countries that are under visa obligation.
We need to make all possible efforts to tackle this issue. The lowering of the age of finger-printing provides us with a key tool for achieving concrete results.
I want to close with the most important point for our citizens. Fundamental rights will be, as always, at the heart of all our policies, including in the design of our information systems. All reports on the performance of the VIS indicate that its implementation has never led to fundamental-rights or data-protection concerns. Not a single complaint has been registered against the VIS in its first five years of functioning.
We have taken the relevant provisions one step further following the ‘data protection by design’ principle. We stand ready to work with the co-legislators, during the trilogies, to improve those standards further, but we need to remain effective and not depart from our key objectives.
Thank you for your attention. I'm looking forward to our debate.

Bernd Kölmel,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Haushaltsausschusses. – Herr Präsident! Zunächst einmal möchte ich mich bei dem Berichterstatter für seine gute Arbeit bedanken. Der Haushaltsausschuss unterstützt die Aussagen des Berichterstatters vollumfänglich.
               

                  Die Sicherstellung von kompatiblen IT-Systemen ist heutzutage absolut notwendig. Gerade im Bereich von Grenzübertritten und im Bereich von Visa müssen diese Voraussetzungen gegeben sein, damit wir Mehrfachidentitäten und Identitätsbetrug bekämpfen können. Wir brauchen auch die Möglichkeit, die Identitäten einfacher feststellen zu können. Dies ist ein Beitrag, um Straftaten zu verhindern, insbesondere auch beim Kampf gegen Terrorismus. Hierfür sind Investitionen notwendig. Insgesamt sind nach den Berechnungen 461 Millionen Euro in neun Jahren zu investieren. Das ist ein hoher Betrag, aber ich bin überzeugt, dafür erhalten wir, erhalten die Bürger in der EU, eine bessere Sicherheit, und deshalb ist das gut investiertes Geld.
               

                  Wir müssen uns allerdings darüber im Klaren sein, dass nur für die Jahre 2019 und 2020 die hierfür erforderlichen Haushaltsmittel vorhanden sind. Im neuen mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen müssen diese Mittel erst noch vorgesehen werden, und deshalb plädiere ich dringend dafür, dass sich dieses Haus auch im Klaren darüber ist, dass, wenn man dieses Projekt angeht im nächsten Haushalt auch die erforderlichen Mittel bereitgestellt werden müssen, ansonsten schaffen wir einen Torso, und von dem hat natürlich niemand etwas.
               

Емил Радев,
от името на групата PPE. – Г-н Председател, уважаеми г-н Комисар, дами и господа, Визовата информационна система е важен елемент от рамката за сигурност в Европейския съюз, защото чрез нея компетентните служби могат да засекат истинността и валидността на издадените визи, позволяващи свободно движение в Шенгенското пространство. Фактът, че системата включва на този етап единствено краткосрочните визи, обаче, е пробойна в европейската сигурност.
               

                  Затова приветствам реформата, предложена от Европейската комисия миналата година, вследствие на която в системата ще бъде съхранявана информация за дългосрочни визи и за разрешителни за пребиваване в рамките на Европейския съюз. Тези документи също предоставят възможност за свободно движение в рамките на Шенген и е важно властите, борещите се с нелегалната миграция и осигуряващи сигурността на европейските граждани, да имат информация за валидността и истинността им.
               

                  Реформата на Визовата информационна система е и важен елемент от взаимносвързаността на информационните системи в сферата на сигурността в Европейския съюз. Крайно време е органите на сигурността да могат да се възползват от наличната информация в различните системи, естествено без да бъде компрометирана сигурността на личната информация и данните на гражданите.
               

                  Не на последно място, искам да отправя призив към Съвета по вътрешни работи да вземе най-накрая положително решение за незабавното присъединяване на България към Шенген, което ще позволи на страната ни активно да използва Визовата информационна система и по този начин да допринася за гарантиране на сигурността в Европа.
               

Péter Niedermüller,
a S&D képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Mindenekelőtt szeretném megköszönni a jelentéstevő Coelho úrnak a nagyon konstruktív, nyitott és közös megoldásokat kereső együttműködésre épülő munkáját.
               

                  A vízumrendszer azt gondolom, nagyon fontos eleme a közös európai menekültügyi politikának. Ezen a területen különösen lényeges a közös fellépés, hiszen évente több millió Európai Unióba szóló vízum kiállítására kerül sor. A most javasolt reform elsődleges célja, hogy javítsa a vízumok kiadásával kapcsolatos releváns adatok cseréjét, megosztását a különböző uniós információs rendszerek között. Minderre pedig azért van szükség, mert napjaink biztonsági kihívásai közepette az eddigieknél jóval hatékonyabb működésre van szükség, és arra, hogy ennek a rendszernek a segítségével is erősíteni tudjuk az Európai Unió külső határainak védelmét.
               

                  A rendszer reformja során az én frakcióm számára különös fontossággal bírt az Unió alapjogi ügynökségének és az európai adatvédelmi biztosnak a véleménye, különös tekintettel a hosszú távú vízumokra, amelyekkel kapcsolatban mindkét jelentés hangsúlyozta a szükségesség és az arányosság elvének érvényesítését. Mivel a törvényjavaslat szorosan kapcsolódik az uniós információs rendszerek átjárhatóságához a bármely adatbázisban történő változás hatással van a harmadik országbeli állampolgárok adatainak kezelésére is. Ez pedig ismételten fölveti a korábban már említett szükségesség és arányosság kérdését, valamint a diszkrimináció esetleges lehetőségének szükségszerű kizárását. Azt gondolom, hogy végeredményben elfogadható kompromisszumot értünk el. A jelentés nem csorbítja az alapvető jogokat, miközben hozzájárul a biztonság növekedéséhez és növeléséhez, és ezzel elérte eredeti célját. Köszönöm, elnök úr.
               

Helga Stevens,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, het Visum Informatie Systeem vergemakkelijkt de visumaanvraagprocedure en bestrijdt tegelijk visumfraude en illegale migratie. Grenswachten worden via het systeem verbonden met EU-consulaten over de hele wereld. Het verstrekt de autoriteiten die het visum afleveren essentiële informatie over de aanvragers, terwijl de grenswachten reizigers met slechte bedoelingen kunnen opsporen en tegenhouden.
               

                  Jaarlijks worden 16 miljoen Schengenvisa voor kort verblijf afgeleverd. Het belang van het systeem kan aldus niet onderschat worden.
               

                  Ik stem volmondig in met de praktische verbeteringen die dit voorstel naar voren schuift, van automatische kruiscontroles met andere databanken en toegang voor rechtshandhavingsautoriteiten, tot het opslaan van informatie die de terugkeer van illegalen moet vergemakkelijken. Elke hervorming die de gebreken van de huidige databank kan wegwerken, zodat het nog nuttiger en doeltreffend wordt, kan op onze steun rekenen.
               

                  De tekst die vandaag voorligt, lijkt ons een uitstekende startpositie om tijdens de volgende zittingsperiode de onderhandelingen met de Raad aan te vatten.
               

Gérard Deprez,
au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, plus de 48 millions de demandes de visa et 41 millions d'empreintes digitales enregistrées. À la vérité, le système d'information sur les visas est déjà, dans son état actuel, un très bel outil, à la fois nécessaire et performant. Grâce aux propositions contenues dans le rapport de notre ami Carlos Coelho, que je veux féliciter pour la qualité de son travail, le système deviendra demain encore plus performant.
               

                  Nous soutenons l'inclusion dans le VIS, des visas de long séjour et des permis de résidence. À l'heure actuelle, les données relatives aux ressortissants de pays tiers en long séjour sur le territoire d'un État membre ne sont pas échangées. Les échanger permettra demain aux résidents de prouver facilement leur droit de séjour sur tout le territoire Schengen et d'introduire en outre un début de transparence dans l'octroi – je devrais dire la vente – de visas et de documents de long séjour.
               

                  Je soutiens et nous soutenons l'idée de faciliter l'accès des services répressifs et d'Europol aux données enregistrées dans le VIS. Je soutiens et nous soutenons la volonté d'enregistrer une copie du document de voyage du demandeur, afin de faciliter les procédures de retour. Je soutiens, même si ce point ne fait pas l'unanimité au sein de mon groupe, la volonté d'abaisser de 12 à 6 ans l'âge à partir duquel les empreintes digitales seront enregistrées dans le VIS, ce qui permettra un meilleur contrôle lors du franchissement d'une frontière extérieure et offrira une meilleure protection aux enfants. Je rappelle que, d'après les données disponibles, 40 % des enfants concernés par le trafic des êtres humains ont moins de 12 ans.
               

                  Je souligne, enfin, qu'en plus de la recherche automatique dans les bases de données, les demandes de visas seront analysées sur la base d'indicateurs de risque spécifiques fondés sur des statistiques et des informations fournies par les États membres, ce qui permettra d'éliminer les taux de refus anormaux ou le dépassement de la durée de séjour de certaines catégories de ressortissants de pays tiers. Carlos, je te félicite pour ton travail, qui mérite le soutien de notre Parlement.
               

Marie-Christine Vergiat,
au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Monsieur le Président, j'ai l'impression que je vais me sentir un peu seule.
               

                  Créé en 2004, entré en vigueur en 2014, le VIS (système d'information sur les visas), comme le code des visas, avait pour objectif de faciliter les visas. Depuis 2014, nous avons assisté à une regrettable évolution. En effet, il n'est plus question que de contrôle généralisé et de fichage systématique.
               

                  Je salue le travail de notre rapporteur, qui nous a permis de retirer quelques points parmi les plus problématiques, comme la TDAWN d'Interpol, qui permet à certains pays de rattraper leurs opposants en fuite, comme on l'a vu récemment dans le cas de Saoudiens. Cependant, nous refusons les indicateurs de risque qui mélangent sécurité, immigration irrégulière et risque sanitaire. Bonjour le principe de finalité! Nous refusons l'intégration des visas de long séjour, qui ne relève pas de la compétence de l'Union. Bonjour la subsidiarité! Nous sommes scandalisés par le relevé des empreintes digitales des enfants et surtout par son abaissement de 12 à 6 ans, quels que soient les motifs mis en avant. Bonjour la proportionnalité! Nous disons non à ce texte, comme à tout le paquet ‘Frontières’. Nous refusons la logique du tout sécuritaire, du tous fichés aux coûts exorbitants. Un projet pour lequel l'argent coule à flots!
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisario Avramopoulos, debatimos aquí en el Pleno del Parlamento Europeo el nuevo Sistema de Información de Visados. En qué consiste. Pues en permitir la conexión de los guardias de fronteras —de las fronteras exteriores de los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea— con los consulados de los Estados miembros en todo el mundo en modo que se pueda proporcionar en tiempo real información de los solicitantes de visados Schengen que puedan plantear riesgos para la seguridad —a través de comparaciones biométricas, huellas dactilares y sistemas de identificación y de verificación—.
               

                  De manera que hay que saludar esta iniciativa que responde a los desafíos de la seguridad en la Unión Europea y, en particular, permite la interconexión a través de las nuevas tecnologías y la interoperabilidad de los datos relativos a los solicitantes de visados y a las amenazas a la seguridad de los Estados miembros.
               

                  Desde el Grupo socialista hemos aportado garantías de respeto de los principios del Tratado de Lisboa de proporcionalidad y de necesidad y al mismo tiempo de garantía y de respeto de los derechos consagrados en la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea y del Reglamento General de Protección de Datos.
               

                  Pero lo importante es que no sea exclusivamente en materia de seguridad que avancemos en la Unión Europea, sino que al mismo tiempo se ofrezca un sistema integral a los demandantes de asilo y refugio y a la administración de la Unión Europea.
               

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome the efforts to make visa applications and verifications more efficient, as well as the inclusion of long-stay visas and residence permits in the new regulation. However, as a member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, I am concerned about the data processing and the impact it will have on privacy. The connection of the Visa Information System with other databases, through interoperability architecture, poses a risk of unlawful data transfer and data leaks.
Yes, by making information on visas more complete we can achieve better risk assessment but, at the same time, we are exposing sensitive data to major risks.
I believe that we must first make full use of the Visa Information System's potential before we link it to other systems. Moreover, No European company is currently able to administer interoperability of information systems. So, shall we delegate this task to a Chinese or an Indian company? In such a case, I'm afraid our data security would be seriously jeopardised and we would achieve the opposite of what we want.

Διαδικασία ‘Catch-the-Eye’
                     


Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το σύστημα πληροφοριών για τις θεωρήσεις πραγματικά χρειάζεται αρκετές βελτιώσεις και νομίζω ότι τα μέτρα που λαμβάνονται σε αυτή την κατεύθυνση πραγματικά μπορούν να ανταποκριθούν στις ανάγκες. Όμως, κύριε Αβραμόπουλε, επιτρέψτε μου να σας θέσω ένα θέμα, γιατί φοβάμαι ότι σε λίγο όσοι ερχόμαστε με αεροπορικές πτήσεις από την Ελλάδα στο Βέλγιο θα χρειαζόμαστε βίζα. Σας είχα καταγγείλει το απαράδεκτο φαινόμενο της καραντίνας που είχαν επιβάλει στα γερμανικά αεροδρόμια, αλλά και στο αεροδρόμιο των Βρυξελλών, και είχα λάβει απάντηση στο θέμα αυτό από εσάς, στις 23 Νοεμβρίου ότι το είχατε βρει ότι ανταποκρίνεται στις προδιαγραφές.
               

                  Σας λέω, λοιπόν, ότι στις 19 Φεβρουαρίου και στις 5 Μαρτίου ξαναεπαναλήφθηκε αυτό το σύστημα καραντίνας και εκεί, στη μια περίπτωση, εμφανίστηκαν δήθεν αστυνομικοί, στην άλλη περίπτωση, εμφανίστηκαν δήθεν τελωνειακοί. Και εγώ, αλλά και ο κύριος Παπαδημούλης, που ήμασταν στην ίδια πτήση, και άλλοι ευρωβουλευτές είχαμε την δυσμενή τύχη – ατυχία αν θέλετε – να υποβληθούμε σε διαβατηριακό έλεγχο. Είναι νόμιμο αυτό; Μπορεί να συνεχίζεται αυτή η διαδικασία στο αεροδρόμιο των Βρυξελλών; Θέλουμε μια απάντηση, κύριε Επίτροπε. Να ληφθούν συγκεκριμένα μέτρα. Σε λίγο θα χρειαζόμαστε βίζα από την Ελλάδα και από τις Βρυξέλλες.
               

(Ο Πρόεδρος διακόπτει τον ομιλητή)


Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, this is a new, hugely ambitious, hugely expensive system for controlling people entering the EU, a visa scheme which will be in common use across the EU, disregarding the fact that different countries may have different requirements as to who enters their country – so a visa could be for a different place or perhaps for a different person. But it's not just that. One of the things that has been pointed out was that this is about combating terrorism, yet most terrorism appears now to be carried out by so-called home-grown terrorists, of the second or third generation of people who've been here. The system is intended to control the number of people coming in, yet already we've had millions of people coming to the EU, many of them actually invited in. They're already here.
This appears to be a high-tech, high-cost exercise in shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

(Λήξη της διαδικασίας ‘Catch-the-Eye’)


Dimitris Avramopoulos,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I welcome the fact that within the space of just one year we have managed to reach an agreement with the Council on eu-LISA, SIS, ETIAS and interoperability regulations. The Visa Information System (VIS), together with ETIAS and the entry-exit system, will form part of a single platform for third-country nationals visiting the European Union.
The VIS proposal will close the information gap on long-stay document holders, as well as a number of security gaps on both short and long-stay travellers. It is therefore extremely important that the systems are synchronised to the largest extent possible. I strongly believe that the Visa Information System should be swiftly agreed in the next legislature. I regret that this could not have already been done by now, but I hope we can start dialogues by the end of September.
We all remain committed here to delivering a Europe that protects and makes our citizens feel safe and secure. That is why I warmly encourage you to support the important elements of this legislation tomorrow in the vote, allowing us to close the existing security gaps and continue working towards building a safer Union for all our citizens. Let me now reply to my friend Mr Marias in Greek.
Αγαπητέ κύριε Μαριά, σήμερα συζητούμε εδώ ένα πάρα πολύ σημαντικό θέμα. Θα μου επιτρέψετε να σας πω ότι η ερώτησή σας δεν έχει καμία σχέση με αυτό το θέμα. Επειδή όμως, συμμερίζομαι την ευαισθησία σας, θα ήθελα να σας παρακαλέσω να μου στείλετε μία γραπτή ερώτηση. Θα φροντίσω να κάνω τις απαραίτητες ενέργειες να πληροφορηθώ και να σας απαντήσω.

Carlos Coelho,
Rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank my colleagues for their contributions to the European People's Party (EPP) and to myself. To keep the scope of the system is crucial. Without it, this reform loses much of its value. We will not be serving European citizens well if we take that out.
As citizens' representatives, we have the obligation to defend their best interests and we are accountable before them for the votes that we cast in this House. It is true and evident that every opinion is legitimate, but rest assured, those who think that golden visas should not be subject to greater scrutiny and those who do not want to better protect children will have to explain their actions to their voters.
I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their very constructive spirit. I also want to extend my gratitude to your staff, the Secretary of this House and the services of the European Commission. You have all been essential to this outcome.

Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.
               

                  Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί την Τετάρτη 13 Μαρτίου 2019.
               


Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 162 του Κανονισμού)



Claudia Țapardel (S&D),
in writing. – As rapporteur for opinion in the Committee on Budgets for the dossier regarding the Visa Information System, I salute the need to improve EU security through strengthened visa procedures and residence permit applications. The Visa Information System has been established by the Council to serve as the technology solution to exchange visa data between Member States. It provides visa-issuing authorities with key information on applicants for short-stay Schengen visas.
However, in 2016, the Commission outlined the need for the EU to strengthen and improve its IT systems, data architecture and information exchange in the area of border management, law enforcement and counter-terrorism and emphasised the need to improve the interoperability of IT systems. It also identified the need to address information gaps on third-country nationals holding a long-stay visa. Nevertheless, I would also like to express my concern that we should firstly focus on strengthening the current Schengen area and its external borders. While Romania and Bulgaria have partial access to the Visa Information System in the Schengen area, the two states have to join Schengen as full members as soon as possible, which I am confident will bring a positive contribution to the overall security of the EU.
26.   Asylum and Migration Fund (debate)

Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η συζήτηση επί της εκθέσεως της κ. Miriam Dalli, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Πολιτικών Ελευθεριών, Δικαιοσύνης και Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων, επί της προτάσεως κανονισμού του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου για τη θέσπιση του Ταμείου Ασύλου και Μετανάστευσης (COM(2018)0471 - C8-0271/2018 - 2018/0248(COD)) (A8-0106/2019).
               

Miriam Dalli,
Rapporteur. – Sur President, Kummissarju, kollegi, u ppermettuli billi nibda nirringrazzja lix-Shadow Rapporteurs tal-Gruppi kollha għall-kontribut tagħhom.
               

                  Ninsabu fl-istess kamra fejn f'diversi dibattiti tkellimna dwar il-valuri Ewropej, dwar il-prinċipju tas-solidarjetà u dwar kemm huma prezzjużi l-ħajjiet tan-nies. U f'din il-kamra kemm-il darba sħaqna fuq il-ħtieġa li bħala rappreżentanti taċ-ċittadini Ewropej, il-prijorità tagħna tkun dik li nissalvagwardjaw l-interessi tagħhom, li nkunu lesti li nieħdu deċiżjonijiet li forsi mhumiex daqstant popolari.
               

                  Għal żmien twil, il-kwistjoni tal-immigrazzjoni tħalliet taħt it-tapit, forsi bit-tama li tissolva waħedha. Ma kienx il-każ dakinhar u mhuwiex il-każ illum. Minflok, din l-attitudni wasslet biex aktar nies iħossuhom 'il bogħod mill-Unjoni Ewropea u sfortunatament jintilfu aktar ħajjiet. U qed inħallsu għaliha billi l-istituzzjonijiet Ewropej qed ikollhom jaqdfu ħafna biex jerġgħu jirbħu lura l-fiduċja taċ-ċittadini.
               

                  Huwa fatt li l-Unjoni Ewropea bdiet u kompliet tieħu passi u miżuri differenti biex tindirizza l-immigrazzjoni minn diversi aspetti, iżda filwaqt li l-Parlament Ewropew kompla miexi 'l quddiem biex nilħqu Sistema Komuni Ewropea għall-Asil li tqassam il-piż bejn l-Istati Membri, hemm proposti kruċjali li jinsabu mwaħħla fil-Kunsill Ewropew mill-mexxejja ta' wħud mill-Istati Membri.
               

                  Li jġibni għall-fond li għandna quddiemna llum. Fond ta' aktar minn 10 biljun euro biex l-Unjoni Ewropea tkun tista' tuża dawn il-flus mal-Istati Membri stess. Issa hawn min jargumenta, u se jkun hawn min jargumenta llejla, li l-kwistjoni tal-immigrazzjoni għandha tiġi indirizzata 'l barra mill-fruntieri tal-Unjoni Ewropea. Ir-realtà llum il-ġurnata, iżda, hi li għandna ħafna pajjiżi tal-Unjoni Ewropea li għandhom bżonn is-sostenn finanzjarju biex jindirizzaw il-problemi li qed jiffaċċjaw illum stess. U nagħmlu dan jekk verament nemmnu li rridu nimplimentaw politika li effettivament twassal għall-ġarr tar-responsabilità u s-solidarjetà.
               

                  Jiena ġejja minn Malta, pajjiż fejn iċ-ċittadini tagħna jafu u jifhmu xi jfisser li tkun fuq il-fruntiera. Bħala pajjiż salvajna l-ħajjiet, ilqajna l-persuni, ġarrejna r-responsabilità u wettaqna s-solidarjetà bil-fatti. U bħalna hemm pajjiżi oħra tal-Unjoni Ewropea li qegħdin fuq il-fruntiera u ma jdawrux wiċċhom in-naħa l-oħra. Ċerta li l-Kummissarju jaf x'jiġifieri.
               

                  Għalhekk kien ta' sodisfazzjoni għalija li l-Kumitat approva u għamel mill-prinċipju tas-solidarjetà, prinċipju fundamentali li jirregola dan il-fond.
               

                  Fl-ibliet u l-irħula tagħna naraw il-ħidma li tkun għaddejja mill-awtoritajiet nazzjonali, reġjonali u lokali flimkien mas-soċjetà ċivili u organizzazzjonijiet mhux governattivi biex l-immigrazzjoni irregolari ma tkunx ta' piż fuq il-komunitajiet tagħna. U nifhmu fuq kollox l-appoġġ li hemm bżonn fil-każijiet fejn ikun hemm tfal waħedhom. Hemm bżonn li din il-ħidma tkun sostnuta u għalhekk nilqa' wkoll id-deċiżjoni tal-Kumitat li jappoġġja dan.
               

                  Għalhekk ukoll l-importanza li t-titlu tal-fond jirreferi għall-integrazzjoni bl-għan li nirrikonoxxu u nsostnu l-importanza ta' soċjetajiet u komunitajiet aktar magħquda. Għandna 10,4 biljun euro li l-għan prinċipali tagħhom huwa li nagħtu l-għajnuna meħtieġa lill-pajjiżi tal-Unjoni Ewropea, speċjalment dawk l-aktar affettwati. U biex nagħmlu dan irridu nimplimentaw il-politika Ewropea fuq l-asil u l-immigrazzjoni. Ifisser ukoll li għandna nagħmlu l-aħjar użu possibbli minn dawn il-fondi. Wara kollox dan huwa l-uniku strument intern li għandna biex jindirizza l-kwistjoni tal-immigrazzjoni fost il-pajjiżi tal-Unjoni Ewropea.
               

                  U biex nindirizzaw il-kwistjoni tal-immigrazzjoni irregolari hemm bżonn ħidma li hija ffukata kemm fi ħdan il-pajjiżi iżda wkoll f'pajjiżi terzi. Imma dan l-istrument finanzjarju għandu jkun komplementat ma' strumenti diġà eżistenti li jindirizzaw pajjiżi terzi u mhux nippretendu li dan l-istrument finanzjarju se jagħmel tajjeb għal dak li ma jsirx b'fondi oħra. Dan il-fond huwa mibni fuq numru ta' pilastri fosthom is-CEAS, l-immigrazzjoni legali, l-integrazzjoni u s-solidarjetà. Għalhekk li fir-rapport hemm inkluż persentaġġi minimi għal kull wieħed minn dawn l-għanijiet. Dawn huma persentaġġi minimi li assolutament ma jnaqqrux mill-flessibilità imma jenfasizzaw il-fatt li kull objettiv għandu rwol importanti biex l-ebda pajjiż ma jitħalla għal rieħu.
               

                  Irridu naċċertaw ruħna li kull pajjiż jagħmel il-parti tiegħu f'din il-katina ta' solidarjetà u responsabilità. Wara kollox jekk id-diskors li ilna ngħidu fl-aħħar ħames snin dwar is-solidarjetà nemmnu fih, allura rridu narawh jitwettaq bil-fatti.
               

Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA


varapuhemies


Dimitris Avramopoulos,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the Commission welcomes the speedy work of Parliament in preparing the reports on the three important files that we are going to debate tonight and specifically on the new Asylum and Migration Fund. Many of the issues I will underline are of a horizontal nature and concern all three funds. I would like to stress that I hope the Council will also soon adopt its negotiating mandate.
Migration and security continue to be among the main concerns of our citizens today. We need enough resources to support our actions in these areas in line with our political priorities and in complementarity with all EU funds. In the current period assistance has been provided to approximately one million asylum applicants. Furthermore, integration support has been provided to 3.4 million third-country nationals. None of this could have been achieved without the support of the Union's budget.
Things can change and evolve and our funding has to be flexible, simplified and adaptable. Therefore, we propose a reinforcement of the overall budget for migration, border management and security of more than EUR 36 billion for the period 2021-2027, out of which EUR 10.4 billion for the Asylum and Migration Fund. This reflects the political importance that the Commission attaches to better managing migration, borders and security challenges. I know that this view is also shared by Parliament.
The Asylum and Migration Fund specifically will provide support for strengthening the Common European Asylum System, legal migration to the Member States and provide integration support for third-country nationals. Within these objectives it will provide incentives for integration measures at local and regional level, such as language courses and civic orientation courses, and it will support resettlement and solidarity with Member States. The Fund will also help to counter irregular migration through returns of persons that do not, or no longer, have the right to stay in the Union.
However, in order to succeed, in addition to more budget we also need to ensure flexibility for our funds. We need financing instruments that will be able to support EU policies and priorities as they develop until 2027, Financing instruments that will be able to support our Member States when they are in need. I cannot emphasise flexibility enough. This is why flexibility is built into all three funds that we will be discussing tonight through the thematic facility and the mid-term review, allowing us to allocate 50% of the funding, based on evolving needs and EU priorities at the point in time. At the same time, there will be enough upfront funding – 50% – to Member States to support actions quickly and allow them to plan long-term investment.
We have also proposed to simplify the implementation. The management of the funds will be simplified by using a single rulebook for the implementation of shared management funds. We have also built in synergies. We have worked to deliver a coherent and complementary approach to the migration and security objectives of the Union in different EU funds: areas such as integration of third-country nationals, anti-radicalisation measures, cooperation with the partner countries, to name a few.
While the Commission at this stage reserves its position, we must underline that Parliament proposes a number of important obstacles to the flexible use of the future funds that the Commission cannot accept. Minimum spending percentages are an obstacle to flexibility. Member States have different needs and experience different levels of pressure. They should be able to channel EU funding where it is most needed.
In addition, this proposal would make the funds even less flexible than in the current period and would add an administrative and monetary burden. By the same token, building strong partnerships with countries of origin and transit has been a key feature of the European Union's migration policy from day one. Close cooperation with our partners is key to be able to respond to these challenges.
I want to explicitly stress the following: setting a maximum limit for external actions and allowing cooperation only in exceptional cases will not only impact the flexibility of the Fund, but also the achievement of the migration and security objectives of the Union. Moreover, we have proposed a very high conditionality of 30% of absorption for Member States to benefit from additional funding at the mid-term and we have introduced rigidities in the thematic facility, including to implement it through delegated acts that is not legally possible. It is more important than ever that we get it right and design our instruments to withstand the test of time.

Elly Schlein,
relatrice per parere della commissione per lo sviluppo. – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio soprattutto la relatrice Miriam Dalli per il lavoro fatto su un dossier molto importante, nonché i colleghi della commissione per lo sviluppo, con cui abbiamo cercato di assicurare che la nuova dimensione esterna del Fondo tenga conto del possibile impatto sui paesi terzi e che non si sovrapponga in modo improprio con gli strumenti per la cooperazione allo sviluppo, che devono rimanere orientati a sradicare la povertà senza condizionalità su rimpatri e riammissioni.
                  

                     L'aumento dei fondi a disposizione per rafforzare il sistema europeo comune di asilo è una buona notizia: servono risorse adeguate per assicurare buona accoglienza, integrazione e vie legali a livello europeo. È importante che lo strumento non venga utilizzato per incentivare i rimpatri, i quali comunque non possono avvenire senza un'adeguata valutazione di impatto sul paese di origine che ne consideri anche le capacità di assorbimento.
                  

                     Quindi la proposta adottata in commissione LIBE appare già molto migliorativa del testo della Commissione, inserendo nel titolo e tra i criteri l'integrazione e la costruzione di vie legali e sicure per l'accesso.
                  

Daniele Viotti,
relatore per parere della commissione per i bilanci. – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, il nuovo Fondo AMIF, con una dotazione di oltre 10 miliardi di euro nei prossimi 7 anni, dovrà essere un punto di partenza per creare finalmente una politica comune di asilo e di integrazione basata sul valore della solidarietà tra gli Stati membri.
                  

                     I flussi migratori rappresentano, come sappiamo, un fenomeno di carattere globale che necessita di una risposta unanime a livello europeo. I fondi AMIF dovranno continuare a finanziare progetti di integrazione a livello locale, soprattutto i migliori, come il modello degli SPRAR in Italia, che il ministro Salvini sta cancellando con un assurdo decreto che sta portando soltanto insicurezza. Svuotare e chiudere i centri di accoglienza, sgombrare gli edifici, questa sarebbe la sicurezza secondo il governo italiano e secondo il ministro Salvini? Questo vuol dire trovare una soluzione a lungo termine alla questione migratoria?
                  

                     Naturalmente no, Commissario, perché le forze populiste che abitano alla destra di questa Camera e di questo emiciclo e che sono al governo in Italia vogliono lasciare aperta e irrisolta la questione degli immigranti per poter fare una campagna elettorale permanente. Questo è il motivo per cui non hanno voluto risolvere la questione di Dublino, per cui si alleano con i Kaczyński, con gli Orbán, con i Kurz in Europa. Guardi quest'Aula, Presidente: neanche un rappresentante dell'Italia, neanche un rappresentante della maggioranza del nostro paese, ed è il paese che avrebbe maggiore bisogno di essere qua a discutere di questi problemi.
                  

                     Grazie ancora Commissione, grazie ancora, signor Commissario, per il lavoro che state facendo, e grazie alla collega Dalli.
                  

Jeroen Lenaers,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, the migration crisis has been one of the deepest crises in the history of the EU. If one thing has become clear in recent years, it is that we need to strengthen our European response and the new Asylum and Migration Fund will play an important role in that. I thank Commissioner Avramopoulos for proposing that this fund be tripled. It is something the EPP has asked for and I'm very happy that the Commission delivered.
However, to deliver real results, we don't only need sufficient resources; we also need flexibility to adjust to the challenges in front of us and we need balance between the objectives served by this fund. I understand a little bit the frustration of the Commissioner in his speech because the flexibility and the balance that was there in the original proposal seems to have become a bit lost along the way in this House. The text in front of us focuses on legal migration and integration while minimising any attention on returns and fighting illegal migration, for instance, by introducing mandatory spending requirements for all the fund objectives, except for fighting illegal migration and ensuring returns.
Moreover – and the Commissioner said this – if we want to have a real, effective and holistic approach to migration, we need to cooperate with countries outside the EU: countries of origin and countries of transit. That is absolutely crucial. Yet, the amendments in front of us in the European Parliament will make it nearly impossible to cooperate with third countries on these issues. I am disappointed that a majority in this House seems to think that fighting illegal migration, ensuring the return of illegally staying third-country nationals and cooperating with other countries is not important. For the EPP, it is important. All the objectives of the fund are important, that's why we have tabled amendments for the vote tomorrow – to make this a more realistic fund, and we would like to call on all colleagues who share that realistic view to support us in the vote tomorrow.

Cécile Kashetu Kyenge,
a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio il signor Commissario per il suo lavoro. Il successo della gestione dei flussi migratori da parte dell'Unione europea si basa anche su politiche di accoglienza e integrazione efficaci. Politiche che siano attuate solidalmente nel pieno rispetto delle disposizioni sancite dall'articolo 80 del trattato.
                  

                     Per tale ragione, abbiamo ripristinato la voce dell'integrazione all'interno di questo Fondo, convinti che solo attraverso una gestione olistica del fenomeno migratorio sarà possibile far fronte alle priorità stabilite dalla Commissione nell'agenda europea sulla migrazione e ribadite dalla risoluzione del Parlamento europeo nell'aprile del 2016.
                  

                     Il sistema di asilo comune deve essere riformato in maniera più equa ed efficace anche rafforzando la protezione dei richiedenti asilo vulnerabili, come i minori e le donne, sostenendo strategie di integrazione e politiche più efficaci in materia di immigrazione legale, creando vie d'accesso sicure e legali.
                  

                     Con la maggiore flessibilità che abbiamo dato a questo Fondo ci aspettiamo che i diversi governi dell'Unione europea indirizzino i loro finanziamenti verso le priorità e le azioni dell'Unione con un significativo valore aggiunto per tutta l'Unione. Creando una politica solidale di fatto.
                  

Kristina Winberg,
för ECR-gruppen. – Fru talman! EU:s fall kommer inte att bero på en finanskris, miljöförstöring eller krig. EU:s fall kommer bli bristen på handlingskraft för att stoppa inflödet av ekonomiska och illegala migranter. Genom att tredubbla anslagen till asyl- och migrationsfonden, och på så sätt skapa fler incitament för lycksökare att ta sig till våra medlemsstater som bjuder på fler lagliga vägar och generösare villkor, öppnar vi upp för att öka migrationen till EU.
                  

                     Man pratar om vikten av integration i denna fond, utan att ens nämna assimilering. Vi har i Sverige under decennier satsat ofantliga summor av skattebetalarnas pengar på verkningslösa projekt för att försöka integrera det enorma antal migranter som anlänt till mitt land. Några integrationsprojekt som man satsat på för nyanlända är förtur på arbets- och bostadsmarknaden, specialkost, separata badtider för kvinnor och män samt att vissa skolor har slutat med en del svenska traditioner för att det kan uppfattas som negativt.
                  

                     Som jag föreslog i LIBE-utskottet ska fondens pengar halveras, och 85% ska läggas på att skapa åtgärder som drastiskt minskar migrationen till EU och dessutom se till att de som vistas inom EU:s gränser illegalt snarast omhändertas och återvänder till sina hemländer. De som har rätt att stanna ska så snart som möjligt assimileras in i vårt samhälle och ta seden dit de kommer.
                  

Ska Keller,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, my thanks to the rapporteur. I would like in particular to thank her for supporting our initiative to include funds for local authorities and communities, because that's where we see the action happening, where European citizens gather together to help people in need. This is really great. This is the Europe we really need to see and it's correct to put the money there.
On the other hand, though, it's an illusion to think that other countries are going to solve our problems: that we create closed centres somewhere in Egypt or I don't know where and that we put the problem away. This would violate human rights and it would also go totally against European Union values. I believe we should not put money into violating what we ourselves stand for; what this Union was founded on. Instead, the European Union needs human rights and it needs solidarity, so let's make sure that the Fund can indeed be used for integration, for supporting people in need and those people who are already active on the ground all over Europe.

Martina Anderson,
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, the scale of life lost in the Mediterranean is nothing short of abhorrent. EU migration policies have essentially authorised the death of thousands of refugees at sea. The EU has washed its hands of its responsibility for this humanitarian crisis. The Libyan coast guards are still dragging vulnerable refugees from unseaworthy rafts. Refugees are still being thrown into detention centres to rot. Refugees are still being starved, beaten, deprived of water, forced to live in abhorrent squalor and some are even murdered.
The scale of this crisis has been fed by EU asylum policy, which is facilitating torture. Shame on the European People's Party (EPP) and the far right who argue to use the large-scale amount of funding to force vulnerable people into unsafe countries under the guise of flexibility and balance. We need a sustainable solution based on the principles of dignity, safety and fundamental rights. No human being is illegal.

Bill Etheridge,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, on Wednesday, 6 March, Frans Timmermans, our esteemed colleague, said that Europe is no longer experiencing the migration crisis we lived through in 2015. This is backed up by UN statistics that show an 89% reduction in Mediterranean crossings from 2015 to 2018. Good news, eh! And then, all of a sudden, here we are with a EUR 10 billion package to deal with asylum and migration – asylum and migration that the great Mr Timmermans says is no longer a big deal.
And what's the money going to be spent on, then? Well, it includes bribe payments to third countries to set up camps to keep people in. It includes money to pay countries within the EU to settle migrants in their countries, and it includes a generally vague amount which I think is just generally for political use and which isn't particularly specified, but – hey ho! – it's only EUR 10 billion of taxpayers' money. What this actually amounts to is an organisation that has decided it can't stop mass immigration and, what's more, it actually thinks it's a rather good idea. Therefore, we're going to make sure that everyone, in the spirit of solidarity – that lovely word we hear so often – gets to take their share and gets paid to take people in, regardless of what the people in those countries might have thought. Because let's not forget, your great horror in this place is the awful populists; these terrible people who actually listen to what their electorate say.
You've got European elections coming up and, to my great concern and sadness after events in Westminster tonight, it would appear there's a very strong chance that the UK may take part in those. Do you seriously think that measures like these will go unnoticed? You had a problem with people across the rest of the EU gathering in their anti-EU feelings, you had a problem that at least a third of the votes in that election were probably going to go to anti-establishment forces. Well, I can tell you that if the UK is forced down the route of another EU election and we have these kinds of issues to deal with, you're going to have the really enjoyable prospect of 25, 30 or 35 little Nigel Farages running loose in this Parliament. I'm sure you'll be looking forward to that. If you're going to go down this route, I strongly suggest that you advise your colleagues to get the Brexit bill sorted fast, otherwise we're going to be here to haunt you and it's going to be very unpleasant.

Gilles Lebreton,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, en créant cette nouvelle version du Fonds Asile et migration, l'Union européenne persiste à s'enfermer dans sa folle politique migratoire.
                  

                     Le projet qui nous est proposé est catastrophique. Il vise à consacrer plus de 10 milliards d'euros à organiser la relocalisation des migrants et l'ouverture de voies légales d'immigration. Il vise aussi à encourager, je cite, ‘le dialogue interculturel et interreligieux entre les sociétés d'accueil et les migrants’, alors qu'il faudrait plutôt lutter contre la radicalisation islamique et défendre nos valeurs européennes, en particulier la dignité des femmes. Enfin, il vise à poursuivre le financement massif des ONG qui organisent la submersion migratoire, comme Open Society, du milliardaire George Soros, alors qu'il faudrait au contraire les combattre sans faiblesse.
                  

                     Une fois de plus, vous voulez trahir la civilisation européenne. Nous alerterons les peuples européens pour vous en empêcher.
                  

Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, el Fondo de Asilo y Migración debe ser un instrumento flexible para adaptarse a los futuros retos, así como a las diferentes necesidades de los Estados miembros, y, al mismo tiempo, estar dotado con suficiencia para hacer frente a nuevas contingencias. El Fondo tiene que integrarse plenamente en el acervo de la Unión para la migración, garantizado a través de la Agenda Europea de Migración de 2015, y coordinarse con las diferentes propuestas del paquete de migración y asilo y con los fondos fiduciarios de emergencia para África y Libia.
                  

                     La Unión debe apoyar a los Estados miembros en sus acciones y medidas para aliviar las presiones migratorias, así como para llevar a cabo sus obligaciones legales. Pero estos también tienen que garantizar que las personas que llegan a Europa tengan recepción y asistencia adecuadas y acceso a procedimientos de asilo equitativos, legales y eficaces. Se trata de un compromiso conjunto.
                  

                     Los diez mil cuatrocientos millones que propone la Comisión para este Fondo también deben utilizarse para intensificar el trabajo conjunto con los países de origen y de tránsito, con el fin de que las personas que se ven en la obligación de abandonar sus hogares no caigan en manos criminales.
                  

                     Las conclusiones del Consejo del pasado diciembre aplaudían la labor en la lucha contra los traficantes en el control de las fronteras exteriores y en la cooperación con los países de origen y de tránsito. Sin embargo, los esfuerzos siguen siendo insuficientes para acabar con esta tragedia. Por esto, este instrumento debe aprobarse y debe reforzarse.
                  

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, comisario Avramopoulos, estamos llegando al final de este mandato del Parlamento Europeo, tristemente caracterizado, de manera dramática, por la mal llamada crisis de los refugiados, que ha sido en realidad una crisis de confianza entre los Estados miembros y, sobre todo, de voluntad política de cumplir el Derecho europeo que ha sido adoptado por este Parlamento Europeo.
                  

                     Este Parlamento Europeo ha hecho su trabajo y lo hace también apoyando este notable informe de nuestra compañera, la señora Dalli, que apuesta por un Fondo de Asilo y Migración europeo que, dotado con nada menos que 10 400 millones de euros para el próximo marco financiero plurianual 2021-2027, intenta ofrecer una respuesta que sea coherente con las Resoluciones que hemos aprobado para dar una dimensión integral —holística la llamamos— a la problemática del asilo y el refugio, pero sobre todo que exija a los Estados miembros un porcentaje mínimo de cumplimiento del Derecho europeo para hacerlo efectivo y para poder acceder a la materialización de esos fondos, y que realice de manera verdadera el principio de solidaridad, que no es un wishful thinking, sino un mandato vinculante del Derecho europeo.
                  

Емил Радев (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, дами и господа, Фондът за миграция и убежище е един от най-важните фондове в сферата на вътрешните работи поради подкрепата, която оказва на държавите членки за справяне с миграцията и приема на бежанци. Приветствам значителното увеличаване на бюджета, което е предложено от Европейската комисия. То е доказателство, че темата за миграцията ще остане на дневен ред и че нито една страна няма да бъде оставена сама да се справя с продължаващия миграционен натиск.
                  

                     Като представител на държава на първа линия на миграционната вълна от последните години, за мен е изключително важно част от средствата по фонда да бъдат използвани за връщането на нелегални мигранти обратно в държавите им на произход. Недопустимо е по-малко от 40% от хората, които нямат право да пребивават в Европейския съюз, да бъдат връщани обратно. Този процент трябва да бъде увеличен значително. Европейският съюз не може и не следва да бъде спасение за всички, които искат да живеят тук по чисто икономически причини.
                  

                     Всеки, който не е бежанец или легален мигрант, следва да бъде върнат обратно в държавата, от която е дошъл, и фондът следва да подпомага дейностите по връщането.
                  

Péter Niedermüller (S&D). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! A közös európai menekültügyi politika alapja a szolidaritás és a felelősség megosztása. S noha a menekültek száma az utóbbi hónapokban folyamatosan csökkent, a menekültügy továbbra is komoly kihívást jelent az Európai Unió, illetve a tagállamok számára. Ebben a helyzetben különösen fontos az Unió pénzügyi támogatásának biztosítása. A tagállamok megsegítése mellett azonban alapvető fontosságú a közös európai menekültügyi politika legfontosabb intézményeinek a támogatása. Ebben az összefüggésben különösen sajnálatos, hogy a Tanács az évek során sem volt képes egyezségre jutni az Európai Menekültügyi Ügynökség létrehozásában. Ez kizárólag a Tanács felelőssége. Ugyanakkor örvendetes, hogy az alapnak fontos feladata lesz, hogy legyen a közös európai menekültügyi politika keretén belül integráció, hiszen nincs igazi biztonság integráció nélkül. A falak és a kerítések nem fognak nekünk biztonságot hozni.
                  

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το Ταμείο για το Άσυλο και τη Μετανάστευση οπωσδήποτε πρέπει και μπορεί να διαδραματίσει σημαντικό ρόλο. Σε μια φάση όπου υπάρχουν τεράστιες προσφυγικές και μεταναστευτικές ροές στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Και, κατά κύριο λόγο, πρέπει να στηρίξει τις χώρες πρώτης υποδοχής, τις χώρες οι οποίες πραγματικά υφίστανται τις μεγάλες μεταναστευτικές και προσφυγικές ροές, εκεί όπου πραγματικά οι κάτοικοι δίνουν μάχη και στηρίζουν την προσπάθεια των χωρών τους να σταθούν όρθιες και ταυτόχρονα να φιλοξενήσουν τους άτυχους πρόσφυγες.
                  

                     Όμως, βεβαίως, έχουμε και πάρα πάρα πολλούς παράνομους μετανάστες οι οποίοι κατακλύζουν αυτή τη στιγμή τα νησιά του Αιγαίου και νομίζω ότι ορθώς αναφέρεται στην έκθεση ότι πρέπει να δοθεί μεγάλη έμφαση στις επιστροφές, διότι πρέπει να δούμε το ζήτημα αυτό αποφασιστικά, ιδίως για τα νησιά του Αιγαίου, ιδίως για την Ελλάδα, όπου έχουμε χιλιάδες παράνομους μετανάστες, οι οποίοι δεν δικαιούνται διεθνούς προστασίας και αυτοί θα πρέπει πραγματικά να επιστρέψουν στις χώρες από τις οποίες ήλθαν.
                  

Julie Ward (S&D). – Madam President, improving the financial aspects of the EU's migration policy is essential and, therefore, I welcome the progress that this proposal brings. My colleague, Ms Miriam Dalli, the rapporteur, has put a strong emphasis on the importance of allowing local authorities to play a central role in European migration policy. Her focus on the importance of human rights and, in particular, human dignity is essential. The EU and its Member States have mostly adopted a shameful attitude towards refugees and migrants and it's crucial that we shift away from this tendency.
I'm particularly worried about the pressure put on many people to voluntarily return to their country of origin. When organising voluntary returns, authorities should make sure that potential returnees have genuinely and freely agreed to this return, and this is not always the case today. All across the EU, citizens and grassroots organisations have been taking responsibility for humanitarian relief and integration regarding migrants and refugees, and I have often spoken in this Chamber about Care for Calais and other organisations that help refugees and migrants living on the streets.

(The President cut off the speaker)


(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Dimitris Avramopoulos,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the EU budget is far more than an accounting exercise. We all know that. It is a clear and concrete expression of EU political priorities. The Commission remains fully committed to continue working with you and the Council to start the negotiations on the important files as soon as possible. I look forward to continuing the negotiations.

Miriam Dalli,
Rapporteur. – Madam President, I would like to thank colleagues for their contribution. The Commissioner is right in insisting that this is a fund that should help Member States when they are most in need, and this is precisely the position of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). Allow me to say that a minimum percentage of spending on the main objectives of the EU's migration policy is not an obstacle at all. It channels funding to the objectives that this Commission has until now put forward as priorities. Supporting flexibility does not exclude ensuring a minimum level of funding for the objectives of the Fund.
On another point, putting a cap on external funding simply ensures that this funding instrument is used for what it was originally aimed for, that is, an internal funding instrument for migration. We need to support frontline Member States. Actions in third countries are funded by other external funding instruments and no one should expect this Fund to compensate for other funds that might not deliver.
Let me turn finally to the PPE statement about returns. Member States currently spend 42% of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) on returns and this without any minimum percentage requirement. Returns remain an objective of the Fund. It has not been removed and Member States will certainly find it. We need to ensure it is not the only objective of this Fund; not to mention the statement that this Fund is not against fighting abuse. I'm still trying to find out where this emanates from.
Thanks to everyone. We look forward to tomorrow's vote and thank you for this discussion.

Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.
                  

                     Äänestys toimitetaan keskiviikkona 13.3.2019.
                  


Kirjalliset lausumat (162 artikla)



Kinga Gál (PPE),
írásban. – Felháborító, hogy az EP bevándorláspárti többsége a migránsok behozatalára szánja a háromszorosára növelt Menekültügyi és Migrációs Alap nagy részét, ahelyett, hogy megpróbálná megállítani a migrációt. A parlamenti álláspont a források jelentős részét kizárólag a legális migrációs csatornák kialakítására, a migránsok integrációjára, illetve ‘a tagállamok közötti szolidaritás’ végrehajtására szánja. Az a tagállam, amely nem kíván migránsokat betelepíteni saját területére, a most elfogadott javaslat szerint elesik a neki járó EU-s források jelentős részétől. Annak ellenére, hogy a Bizottság váltig állítja, nem lesznek betelepítési kvóták, a javaslat jelentős összeget különít el erre a célra. Felháborító, hogy az Európai Parlament bevándorláspárti többsége a helyben segítésre és a kiváltó okok megszüntetésére az Alap mindössze öt százalékát engedélyezi. Mindeközben tízezer eurót ítélne oda minden egyes áttelepített migráns után a tagállamok számára, ezáltal is ösztönözve a migránsok betelepítését kontinensünkre. A Bizottság uniós pénzek felhasználására tett javaslata alátámasztja, hogy az intézmény valódi szándéka minden tagadás ellenére a bevándorlás elősegítése, pénzzel ösztönözve a migránsbetelepítést. A kvóta szerinti elosztást a magyar bevándorláspárti ellenzék is előszeretettel tagadja. Ezzel ellentétben a ma elfogadott szöveg egyértelműen kimondja, hogy az Alap a dublini rendelet keretében a migránsok áthelyezésével kapcsolatos költségeket is téríteni fogja.
                  
27.   Instrument for financial support for border management and visas (debate)

Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana Tanja Fajonin kansalaisvapauksien sekä oikeus- ja sisäasioiden valiokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö ehdotuksesta rajaturvallisuuden ja viisumipolitiikan rahoitustukivälineestä (COM(2018)0473 – C8-0272/2018 – 2018/0249(COD)) (A8-0089/2019).
               

Tanja Fajon,
Rapporteur. – Madam President, I will use my six minutes at the beginning and I will speak in Slovene.
Evropska unija se je v zadnjih letih soočila s številnimi izzivi, ki so močno načeli zaupanje državljanov v evropske politike. Porast populizma in nacionalizma je posledica, da se evropske vlade niso uspele sporazumeti o učinkoviti evropski migracijski politiki.
Stiske migrantov in beguncev, pomanjkanje evropske solidarnosti in skupnih rešitev, skrajno desna politika z lažmi in ustrahovanjem vse bolj izkorišča za nabiranje političnih točk. To vse bolj vnaša razdor in nezaupanje med državljane in države, na kocko pa postavlja prihodnost Schengena in Unije na splošno.
Dovolj je, da pogledamo v sosednjo Avstrijo in še ostalih 5 držav schengenskega območja. Te, kljub številnim dodatnim ukrepom za zaščito zunanjih meja ter občutnemu zmanjšanju števila pribežnikov na evropska tla, že več kot tri leta neupravičeno in nezakonito podaljšujejo nadzor na notranjih mejah. Slovenkam in Slovencem danes težko pojasnim, zakaj jih organi pregledujejo na Karavankah ali na meji med Avstrijo in Nemčijo.
Ali nam bo uspelo ohraniti Schengen kot prostor svobode gibanja in brez meja znotraj Unije, ki je simbol evropskega povezovanja, je danes predvsem odvisno od politične modrosti in odgovornosti naših voditeljev. Zdi pa se mi, da te modrosti in odgovornosti ni dovolj. Seveda za varne zunanje meje Unije, ki so pogoj, potrebujemo tudi zadostna in učinkovita finančna sredstva.
Vesela sem, da danes razpravljamo o predlogu, po katerem bi v skupni evropski blagajni v naslednjih sedmih letih za meje in za vizume namenili več kot 9 milijard evrov. To je kar petkrat več kot do sedaj. To je zelo veliko denarja, če ga smiselno uporabimo. Tovrstni finančni instrumenti so izjemno pomembni za evropske državljane, saj evropske politike prevajajo v konkretne ukrepe. In tako tudi najbolj neposredno Evropejci občutimo Evropo.
Ob tem še posebej pozdravljam, da bo vsaj 70 milijonov evrov za različne ukrepe na voljo tudi moji državi Sloveniji, ki upravlja z eno izmed najbolj obremenjenih kopenskih schengenskih meja, zlasti v poletnih mesecih.
Finančni instrument bo zagotovil podporo ukrepom držav članic in ima dva ključna stebra. Prvi je integrirano upravljanje z mejami, kamor sodijo nadzor kopenskih, zračnih in morskih meja, vključno z iskanjem ljudi in reševanjem na morju; preprečevanje nezakonitih prehodov; boj proti čezmejnemu kriminalu ter razvoj in izvajanje informacijskih mejnih sistemov za nadzor potnikov in blaga. Na drugi strani bo finančni instrument podpiral države članice pri izvajanju skupne vizumske politike.
Od celotne finančne ovojnice bo 60 odstotkov sredstev namenjenih nacionalnim programom državam članicam ter 40 odstotkov za ukrepe, ki jih bo neposredno financirala Unija. Instrument tako zagotavlja finančno podporo za izvajanje politik, ki temeljijo na solidarnosti in pravični delitvi odgovornosti med državami članicami ter krepitvi medsebojnega zaupanja.
V pogajanjih nam je uspelo zagotoviti tudi, kar sem posebej vesela, da bo najmanj 20 odstotkov sredstev namenjenih prav vizumski politiki ter lajšanju prehajanja meja dobronamernim potnikom, ki ne predstavljajo nobene grožnje Uniji ali državam članicam.
Schengen oziroma potovanje brez pregledov na mejah in dolgih čakalnih dob je namreč eden izmed največjih uspehov in najoprijemljivejših dosežkov Unije tako za državljane kot za podjetja. Schengen je tudi eden izmed najpomembnejših sredstev, s katerimi lahko evropski državljani uveljavljajo temeljne svoboščine do prostega pretoka, notranji trg pa lahko uspeva in se razvija.
Uspelo nam je prav tako močno okrepiti določbe glede spoštovanja človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin. Z uveljavitvijo vse več pametnih informacijskih tehnologij in sistemov na mejah se je denimo močno povečala nevarnost po kršenju zasebnosti ter vse bolj okrepila potreba po celostni zaščiti in varovanju osebnih podatkov. In to nam je uspelo.
Podobno smo tudi okrepili določbe, ki države članice pri izvajanju ukrepov vselej obvezujejo k spoštovanju mednarodnega in evropskega prava, še posebej načela prepovedi vračanja.
V zvezi z upravljanjem meja, tudi v tako imenovanih žariščnih točkah oziroma hot spotih, pa smo uspeli izboljšati določbo o spoštovanju pravice do mednarodne zaščite ter še posebej pravice glede varstva ranljivih skupin, kot so otroci.
Sklad za meje in vize, o katerem govorimo nocoj, je eden izmed ključnih instrumentov, namenjenih podpori izvajanju politik znotraj Unije. V Parlamentu zato vztrajamo, jaz kot poročevalka, da dodeljena sredstva v prihodnjih sedmih letih ne bodo namenjena financiranju programov v tretjih državah. Evropsko upravljanje z mejami nikakor ni povezano z ustanavljanjem centrov za pridržanje ali izkrcanje migrantov v tretjih državah ali s prenosom upravljanja evropskih meja na tretje države.
In nazadnje še to. Za večjo preglednost predlagamo večjo vključenost civilne družbe ter lokalnih in regionalnih oblasti v procesu priprave nacionalnih programov. Za večji demokratični nadzor pa večjo vlogo Evropskega parlamenta glede porabe denarja.
Upam, da boste kolegi lahko jutri to poročilo tudi sprejeli.

Dimitris Avramopoulos,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I have already underlined, in our first debate, certain issues concerning all three funds, such as the need for flexibility, and synergies with all the other funds, and I am looking forward to the Council soon adopting its negotiating mandate.
EU funding is paramount for creating and sustaining strong external borders. Already, four years into the current Multiannual Financial Framework, EU funding has helped train almost 9 000 border guards. Funding from the EU budget has, furthermore, supported frontline Member States managing major migratory pressure at the EU external borders. Such efforts need to be sustained and strengthened with a view to increased migratory challenges and unforeseen events at the Union's borders. Synergies with Union action in other fields also need to be reinforced in order to maximise impact on the ground.
The Commission's response to the future challenges has been clear. We have proposed establishing a new, separate fund for integrated border management and further strengthening the European Border and Coastguard Agency with a standing corps.
The new border fund will, on the one hand, help Member States to carry out customs controls by financing necessary equipment. On the other hand, through the Border Management and Visa Instrument, more than EUR 8 billion will be devoted to strengthening the EU external borders, supporting the common visa policy and helping Member States to develop new large-scale IT systems and upgrade existing ones in line with the new requirements.
This represents a nearly three-fold increase, compared with the current borders instrument. Furthermore, the Commission has proposed to improve its response capacity by allowing funds to be deployed swiftly where there are major synergies. The increased flexibility of the instrument will help adapt the allocation of funding to developments on the ground, such as disproportionate pressure at the European Union's external borders. A robust and coherent approach to border management can be achieved by improving cooperation with customs authorities, and this funding instrument will help realise that.
Cooperation with third countries is another important pillar of strong border management. Allowing our border guards to work together with their counterparts in third countries, in a close and interoperable manner, will help reduce irregular migration and the loss of lives at sea. To achieve that, the Border Management and Visa Instrument has a strengthened external dimension while ensuring complementarity with action supported through external funding instruments. As I said before, capping funding for external action and allowing cooperation with third countries only in exceptional cases will hamper the Union's ability to act when it is most needed.
I'm looking forward to hearing your views at this late point in the evening.

Eduard Kukan,
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. – Madam President, first I thank the rapporteur, Ms Fajon, for her good work on this proposal.
As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I supported this proposed regulation and asked for a greater role for Parliament in its management. We have requested that Parliament be consulted on financial decisions and reporting on this instrument.
The instrument aims to safeguard freedom of movement but with particular emphasis on strong and efficient border management. In this respect, I welcome the increase in funding for this instrument, with a focus, among others things, on quality of spending as well as better monitoring of the evaluation framework. I could add that it is imperative that this fund complements the Union's other external financial instruments and instruments with an external dimension.
Compliance with fundamental rights and with the legal instruments of the European Union is also essential.

Monika Hohlmeier,
Verfasserin der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Haushaltsausschusses. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Herr Kommissar, zunächst einmal freue ich mich darüber, dass die Kommission einen sehr guten und auch konsistenten Vorschlag in Bezug auf die zukünftige Frontex – ich nenne es immer noch so, weil das die kürzeste und einfachste Version ist, es auszudrücken.
               

                  Ich glaube, dass der europäische Außengrenzenschutz eine ganze Zeit gebraucht hat, bis auch die Mitgliedstaaten bereit waren, sich auf ein verstärktes Konzept einzulassen, und um dieses verstärkte und verbesserte Konzept nunmehr umsetzen zu können, um den europäischen Außengrenzenschutz und alle Sicherheitsfragen zu gewährleisten, wollen wir von Seiten des Haushaltsausschusses natürlich auch alles dazu tun, dass die finanziellen Mittel für die Zukunft und im Besonderen schon für das nächste Jahr und das übernächste Jahr mit vorgesehen sind und auch im Rahmen des mehrjährigen Finanzrahmens entsprechend vorgesehen werden. Ich freue mich darauf, wenn die rechtliche Basis dann entsprechend besteht, damit wir das, was uns eigentlich gemeinsam ausmacht, nämlich gemeinsam miteinander auch für Sicherheit und Grenzschutz zu sorgen, gewährleisten können.
               

Carlos Coelho,
em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caros Colegas, começo por agradecer à colega Tanja Fajon a excelente cooperação que tivemos e sublinhar que a gestão das nossas fronteiras externas permanece e continuará a ser um ponto chave para a União Europeia, seja através de sua componente de segurança ou da política de vistos. É por isso que, planeando a próxima década, este fundo não podia deixar de espelhar o que aprendemos com o passado mais recente.
               

                  Em primeiro lugar, mais dinheiro: na gestão das fronteiras os Estados-Membros permanecem os principais atores, razão pela qual, a par de um reforço da Agência Europeia de Fronteiras e Costeira, multiplicamos por cinco os fundos disponíveis; são cerca de dez mil milhões que servirão para ajudar a proteger as nossas fronteiras e, ao mesmo tempo, promover a entrada legal no território.
               

                  Em segundo lugar, mais flexibilidade: o passado recente demonstrou que necessitamos de maior solidariedade e maior rapidez em situações de emergência; a União não pode estar refém de acordos de momento para acudir Estados-Membros em apuros; é por isso que propomos maior flexibilidade na gestão do fundo, em casos excecionais e de urgência.
               

                  Em terceiro lugar, maior justiça: por nossa iniciativa, os chamados países de coesão, como Portugal, terão um financiamento de 85 % em vez de 75 %; mas mais justiça também na atribuição, uma vez que é introduzido um claro incentivo àqueles projetos que visam dar consequência aos problemas detetados pelo mecanismo de avaliação de Schengen.
               

                  Enfim, tenho dito com frequência nesta Câmara que não há medidas que possam resolver todos os problemas de uma só vez. O que devemos e podemos fazer é definir prioridades e trabalhar para melhorar. Este é mais um passo decisivo para a proteção das nossas fronteiras. Continuemos a trabalhar.
               

Péter Niedermüller,
a S&D képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Tudjuk, hogy a populista kormányok folyamatosan megkérdőjelezik és tagadják, mégis úgy van, hogy az európai menekültügyi rendszer egyik legfontosabb elemét, a külső határok védelmének a biztosítása jelenti. És ebben a mostani vitában pontosan arról van szó, hogy hogyan tudjuk a pénzügyi kereteket ehhez biztosítani. Nyilvánvaló ugyanis, hogy a tagállamok egyedül nem mindig képesek megbirkózni a menekültügyi kihívásokkal. Ezért van szükség arra, hogy az unió anyagi támogatásban is részesítsen egyes tagállamokat. Ugyanakkor nagyon világossá kell tenni: a menekültügyet nem lehetett externalizálni, nem lehet harmadik országokra terhelni. Ez az alap nem ezt a célt szolgálja. A közös európai menekültügyi politikának valóban európainak kell lennie. A határvédelem nem jelentheti azt, hogy a menekülteket minél nagyobb számban kitoloncoljuk, de azt sem, hogy harmadik országbeli táborokban tartjuk őket. Ennek az alapnak sokkal inkább az a célja, hogy az emberi jogok figyelembevételével segítse az európai határok védelmét.
               

Anders Primdahl Vistisen,
for ECR-Gruppen. – Fru Formand! De sidste års frygtelige terrorangreb og masseindvandring – ulovlig masseindvandring – i hundredetusindvis til EU har vist, at det løfte, der blev givet, da Schengen blev oprettet, om en effektiv ekstern grænsekontrol ikke var realiseret, da den blev indført. Det forsøger Kommissionen nu at rette op på, og fra ECR-Gruppens side støtter vi Kommissionen i de initiativer, der er blevet taget for at få en effektiv, ekstern grænsekontrol. Derfor er vi også kede af, at Europa-Parlamentets flertal har taget dette samt andre elementer i den pakke, Kommissionen er kommet med, i en anden retning og har lagt fokus i altovervejende grad væk fra det helt afgørende sikkerhedsaspekt, når det kommer til den eksterne grænsekontrol, og over på andre hensyn. I ECR-Gruppen kan vi simpelthen ikke stiltiende se til, at Europa-Parlamentet gang på gang vægter borgernes sikkerhed lavest, når det kommer til en effektiv kontrol ved de ydre grænser. Derfor håber vi, at Kommissionen og Rådet vil kunne råde bod på det rod, som Europa-Parlamentet har lavet med denne betænkning, og bringe forslaget tilbage til dets oprindelig form.
               

Marie-Christine Vergiat,
au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Madame la Présidente, merci à notre rapporteure, qui a déployé beaucoup d'énergie pour rendre ces fonds -acceptables, disons, moins pires. Cependant, le FGIF, le Fonds pour la gestion intégrée des frontières, n'est ni plus ni moins l'instrument financier de l'Europe forteresse que nous dénonçons.
               

                  Pour mener à bien cette logique sécuritaire, il y a toujours des fonds disponibles. Un budget multiplié par cinq, soit 9,3 milliards d'euros, auxquels il faut ajouter les 12 milliards de Frontex, soit environ 2 % du budget de l'Union. Cet argent doit servir à financer les systèmes d'information, les fichages informatisés, seulement ceux déjà approuvés par le Parlement et le Conseil – c'est réconfortant –; les équipements et infrastructures, dont des drones; les fameux OLI, les officiers de liaison, envoyés pour aider les pays tiers en matière d'immigration, surtout irrégulière, bien évidemment – là, c'est inquiétant –; des aides supplémentaires à Frontex, en sus des 12 milliards; et, nouveauté, l'aide à tout pays tiers, jusque-là réservée aux pays du voisinage, et donc l'externalisation des frontières, même si elle reste limitée, et je m'en félicite. Enfin, soulignons que 60 % du fonds va être reversé aux États. Il est donc légitime de se demander où est la politique européenne.
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisario Avramopoulos, en esta sesión del Parlamento Europeo estamos impulsando y apoyando efectivamente el Fondo de Asilo y Migración europeo y el Fondo de Seguridad Interior europeo. Y apoyamos también esta iniciativa de establecer, como parte del Fondo para la Gestión Integrada de las Fronteras exteriores de la Unión Europea, el instrumento de apoyo financiero a la gestión de fronteras y los visados.
               

                  Porque se trata de reforzar, sí, la seguridad. Y de hacerlo preservando el activo más precioso de la construcción europea, el más valorado por la ciudadanía europea, que es, sin duda ninguna, la libre circulación de personas. El Fondo multiplica nada menos que por cinco los importes actualmente disponibles en el próximo marco financiero plurianual 2021-2027.
               

                  Beneficia a los ciudadanos europeos saber que va a haber un refuerzo de la solidaridad efectiva en la gestión integral de las fronteras exteriores de la Unión y en la garantía de la libre circulación de personas, pero insistimos de nuevo en que no es justo que se haya puesto tanto énfasis en el refuerzo de la seguridad de las fronteras exteriores de la Unión cuando el Consejo ha arrastrado los pies, ha sido tan reluctante y tan resistente a todo avance en materia de comprensión integral del fenómeno de las migraciones y de la ayuda al refugiado, donde se mide realmente la estatura moral de la construcción europea.
               

Cécile Kashetu Kyenge (S&D). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, lo spazio Schengen è una delle conquiste principali e uno dei risultati più concreti nel percorso di integrazione europea.
               

                  Un adeguato funzionamento dello spazio senza frontiere esterne deve andare di pari passo ad un livello elevato di sicurezza. Il che richiede l'attuazione di misure comuni in materia di attraversamento delle frontiere interne, di controlli alle frontiere esterne e una politica comune dei visti.
               

                  Anche grazie a questo strumento, l'Unione fa un passo avanti verso una gestione comune e integrata delle frontiere esterne, tutelando al tempo stesso la libertà di circolazione delle persone all'interno dei suoi spazi, nel pieno rispetto dell'acquis dell'Unione e degli obblighi internazionali.
               

                  Un punto per noi fermo è la salvaguardia dei diritti e delle libertà fondamentali. Lo strumento deve essere attuato nel pieno rispetto dei diritti, garantendo in particolare il rispetto dei principi di non respingimento, trasparenza e non discriminazione e del diritto di richiedere protezione internazionale.
               

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αναφερόμενος στην εισήγηση θα ήθελα να επισημάνω και εγώ ότι το θέμα των hot spot είναι κρίσιμο και αυτό, φυσικά, το γνωρίζουμε όλοι. Γνωρίζουμε ότι αυτή τη στιγμή η Μόρια έχει ξεπεράσει τα όρια της, στη Λέσβο, όπως επίσης και το hot spot στη Σάμο. Δεν μπορεί να συνεχιστεί αυτή η κατάσταση και όλα αυτά συμβαίνουν παρότι, βεβαίως, έχουν δοθεί πολλά χρήματα από την πλευρά της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, γι' αυτό και είναι βέβαιο ότι πρέπει να γίνει διαχειριστικός έλεγχος, διότι το πάρτι, δυστυχώς, συνεχίζεται.
               

                  Από κει και πέρα, θα ήθελα να θέσω και το θέμα, κύριε Αβραμόπουλε, της φύλαξης των συνόρων στην Ήπειρο, στα ελληνοαλβανικά σύνορα, διότι αυτή τη στιγμή υπάρχει παρουσία της FRONTEX. Παραταύτα, συνεχίζονται, δυστυχώς, οι παράνομες είσοδοι κακοποιών από την πλευρά της Αλβανίας, έχουν ρημάξει κυριολεκτικά τα χωριά, και νομίζω ότι εδώ πρέπει να έχουμε ένταση της φύλαξης, να υπάρξουν θερμικές κάμερες και, βεβαίως, να υπάρξει και συνεργασία με τις τελωνειακές αρχές, γιατί συμβαίνουν και τελωνειακές απάτες.
               

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Dimitris Avramopoulos,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for this interesting, though rather late, debate on the future of financial support for border management. Facilitating legitimate travel while ensuring the integrity and security of the Schengen area is at the core of our citizens' concerns, and that makes this one of the European Union's main priorities.
We now have to demonstrate our determination to act on that priority by securing sufficient funding for this policy area and by creating a funding instrument that can deliver on it. I look forward, of course, to continuing to work with you on that.

Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.
               

                  Äänestys toimitetaan keskiviikkona 13.3.2019.
               


Kirjalliset lausumat (162 artikla)



Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE),
na piśmie. – Otwarty obszar wewnętrzy Unii Europejskiej bez granic oraz swoboda przepływu osób i towarów są jednymi z największych, namacalnych sukcesów wspólnoty europejskiej. Unia Europejska musi stawić czoło pogłębiającym się problemom migracji, której następstwem jest zmniejszenie poziomu bezpieczeństwa w państwach członkowskich. Wzmożone kontrole na wewnętrznych granicach UE są przykładem spadku wzajemnego zaufania, co nie przyświeca idei zjednoczonej Europy. Jednym z rozwiązań mogących załagodzić ten problem jest ujednolicenie i integracja zarządzania granicami zewnętrznymi oraz wspólna polityka wizowa państw. Należy jednak pamiętać, że zdecydowana większość osób przekraczających granicę UE nie jest zagrożeniem dla bezpieczeństwa wewnętrznego, a jedynie turystami przybywającymi do Europy w dobrej wierze. Środki przeznaczane na ochronę granic zewnętrznych, jak i na programy wizowe, należy podzielić przejrzyście i uczciwie, tak aby ułatwiać legalne podróżowanie osobom przybywającym z państw trzecich.
               
28.   Internal Security Fund (debate)

Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana Monika Hohlmeierin kansalaisvapauksien sekä oikeus- ja sisäasioiden valiokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö ehdotuksesta sisäisen turvallisuuden rahastosta (COM(2018)0472 – C8-0267/2018 – 2018/0250(COD)) (A8-0115/2019).
               

Monika Hohlmeier,
Rapporteur. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, nachdem wir jetzt am letzten Tagesordnungspunkt angelangt sind, um uns so kurz vor Mitternacht mit der inneren Sicherheit und dem neuen Fonds zu beschäftigen, bedanke ich mich bei meinen Schattenberichterstattern, die alle samt dem Kommissar mit mir in diesem Saal geblieben sind und ein gutes Durchhaltevermögen zeigen, um auch den ISF hier zu behandeln.
               

                  Ich glaube, dass der ISF doch eine zunehmende Bedeutung bekommt, nachdem wir und auch die Mitgliedstaaten sowohl aufgrund der Bedrohung durch internationalen Terrorismus als auch aufgrund der Fragen der Bekämpfung internationaler Schwerverbrechen und organisierter Kriminalität zunehmend zu der Einsicht gelangen, dass wir mehr zusammenarbeiten müssen, effektiver zusammenarbeiten müssen, dass wir Informationen möglichst optimal austauschen müssen, dass wir uns miteinander koordinieren müssen und dass wir entsprechend auch technisch modernisiert auf alle Anforderungen vorbereitet sein müssen.
               

                  Um hier allen Herausforderungen begegnen zu können, hat die Kommission die neue Verordnung entsprechend vorgelegt, und ich betrachte sie als eine sehr gute Grundlage, um mit den Mitgliedstaaten ins Gespräch zu kommen. Als Parlament haben wir gemeinschaftlich versucht, uns mit großer Mehrheit den Schwerpunkten zu widmen, im Besonderen der Intensivierung des Informationsaustausches zwischen und in den Strafverfolgungsbehörden sowie mit Drittstaaten und internationalen Organisationen. Wir haben auch im Besonderen die grenzüberschreitenden Aktionen zwischen den EU-Strafverfolgungsbehörden in Bezug auf schwere und organisierte Kriminalität mit grenzüberschreitender Dimension in den Blickpunkt genommen, die Stärkung der Kapazitäten zur Bekämpfung und Verhütung von Kriminalität einschließlich Terrorismus und Cybercrime, insbesondere auch in Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Behörden, zivilgesellschaftlichen Partnern und privaten Partnern in den Mitgliedstaaten, und haben dafür auch bestimmte Schwellenwerte angesetzt.
               

                  Wir stellen nämlich mit einem gewissen Verdruss fest, dass es immer eine ganze Zeit dauert, bis die Mitgliedstaaten beginnen, die Mittel abzurufen und sich erst einmal mit den jeweiligen Programmen auseinanderzusetzen. Ich glaube, dass die Bürgerinnen und Bürger Europas von uns erwarten, dass wir uns angesichts der Größenordnung der Herausforderung den Sicherheitswünschen und dem Bedürfnis nach Sicherheit, die die Menschen verspüren, intensiv und gemeinschaftlich widmen und es nicht immer wieder an den nationalen Grenzen scheitern lassen, dass bestimmte Informationen nicht fließen, dass bestimmte Daten nicht eingegeben werden oder dass wir nicht jeweils auf dem neuesten Stand der Informationen stehen.
               

                  Aus dem Grund haben wir uns auch ein bisschen vorgewagt in etwas, was vielleicht noch ungewöhnlich scheint, nämlich dahingehend, dass wir auch wünschen, dass die Informationen mit den Nachrichtendiensten ausgetauscht werden, denn wir sehen, gerade in dem Feld der internationalen Schwerkriminalität und des Terrorismus ist es erforderlich, auch die adäquaten Informationen aus den Nachrichtendiensten zu erhalten und mit unseren europäischen zuständigen Agenturen, im Besonderen in diesem Fall Europol, sinnvoll zu vernetzen und auch Informationen analysieren zu können. Und wenn wir zum Beispiel Europol auch mit ausbauen wollen, dann ist es auch erforderlich, dass die Mitgliedstaaten darauf eingestellt sind, tatsächlich einen Informationsaustausch realisieren zu wollen.
               

                  Wir möchten aber auch deutlich sagen, dass wir die Einbindung des privaten Sektors nur dahingehend akzeptieren wollen – und die Einschränkung ist mit sehr großer Mehrheit hier angenommen worden –, dass der private Sektor nicht für die Wahrnehmung öffentlicher Aufgaben missbraucht wird, sondern nur dort, wo es zwingend erforderlich ist, mit dem privaten Sektor zum Beispiel im Bereich der Cybersicherheit oder auch dort, wo es aufgrund dessen, dass man beispielsweise mit Banken oder bei Großereignissen zum Teil mit Privaten zu tun hat, eine Kooperation anzustreben. Aber ein Ersatz für öffentliche Aufgaben oder eine Wahrnehmung öffentlicher Aufgaben sollte nicht durch entsprechende private Organisationen, sondern nach wie vor durch öffentliche Sicherheitsbehörden stattfinden. Es ist auch notwendig, mit den Drittstaaten und mit relevanten internationalen Organisationen zusammenzuarbeiten, denn internationale Kriminalität lässt sich nur bekämpfen, wenn wir auch mit Drittstaaten zusammenarbeiten.
               

Dimitris Avramopoulos,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the Commission welcomes Parliament's speedy work in preparing the report on the Internal Security Fund (ISF). Thank you for your introduction, Ms Hohlmeier.
I have already underlined, in the debate we have just had, certain issues that concern all three funds, such as the need for flexibility and synergies with all the other funds. As I said, I hope too that the Council will soon adopt its negotiating mandate. I will now set out some issues that more specifically concern the Internal Security Fund.
Over recent years, security threats have intensified and diversified. They are increasingly cross-border in nature, meaning that Member States can no longer act alone. While protecting citizens is a national competence, the European Union plays a vital role in supporting Member States' efforts. Security will remain a defining issue for the European Union in the years to come and Europe's citizens rightly expect their Union and national governments to deliver security in a fast-changing and uncertain world.
We need sufficient resources to support our actions in the area of internal security, in line with our political priorities and in complementarity with other EU funds. Therefore, we propose to reinforce the budget for security, increasing it from EUR 1 billion in the current period to EUR 2.5 billion in the next period. This reflects the political importance the Commission attaches to addressing security challenges more effectively. However, things can change and evolve. Therefore – and I believe this view is shared by Parliament – it is of the utmost importance that our funding is flexible, simplified and adaptable to changing needs.
How will the ISF better support new and emerging challenges? It will focus on three new objectives: increasing the exchange of information, intensifying cross-border joint operations and strengthening capabilities to combat and prevent crime. It will be more flexible, through the thematic facility and the mid-term review, allowing us to allocate funds on the basis on evolving needs and EU priorities at that point in time.
Last but not least, security is a cross-cutting issue, touching upon several policy areas and involving a number of different EU funds. It is more important than ever that we get it right and design our fund to withstand the test of time.

Cécile Kashetu Kyenge,
a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei ringraziare prima di tutto la relatrice, la collega Monika Hohlmeier, per il lavoro fatto insieme a noi.
               

                  In questi ultimi anni le minacce alla sicurezza in Europa si sono intensificate e diversificate. Le sfide che l'Unione europea deve affrontare non possono essere più lasciate alla sola competenza degli Stati membri. Occorrono, al contrario, una risposta forte e coordinata a livello dell'Unione nonché risorse adeguate per prevenire e contrastare questo settore in continua evoluzione.
               

                  Ma come si garantisce un livello di sicurezza adeguato? Sicuramente attraverso delle misure di contrasto, soprattutto dirette a prevenire e combattere il terrorismo, i reati gravi e di criminalità organizzata e la criminalità informatica, nonché a fornire assistenza e protezione alle vittime di reato.
               

                  Ma le misure di contrasto non sono sufficienti. Un livello elevato di sicurezza si garantisce anche attraverso delle misure di prevenzione, di coordinamento e di cooperazione. Grazie ai contributi di questo Fondo gli Stati membri potranno contrastare l'estremismo violento, compresa la radicalizzazione, l'intolleranza e la discriminazione, in particolare attraverso una maggiore cooperazione tra le autorità pubbliche e la società civile in tutti gli Stati membri.
               

                  Un punto per noi fermo è il rispetto dei diritti fondamentali e della dignità umana. Questo Fondo deve essere attuato nel pieno rispetto dei diritti e dei principi sanciti dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali e degli obblighi internazionali. È per questa ragione che abbiamo inserito tra le attività suscettibili di finanziamento anche l'istruzione e la formazione del personale di contrasto in merito ai diritti fondamentali, comprese le misure per individuare ed evitare qualsiasi forma di razzismo.
               

Helga Stevens,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Grensoverschrijdende problemen zoals terrorisme en zware criminaliteit kunnen niet door de lidstaten alleen worden opgelost. Bijgevolg is financiële en technische ondersteuning vanuit de EU welkom. Het veiligheidsfonds werd daarom opgericht. Het regelt onder andere de integratie van verschillende EU-databanken en de aankoop van technische apparatuur.
               

                  Ik steun de oproep om de begroting te verdubbelen, juist omdat de laatste jaren de veiligheidsdreiging in Europa enorm is toegenomen. Dat die centen ook specifiek zullen worden ingezet om kindermisbruik en hacking tegen te gaan, vinden wij uitstekend. Dat operaties zoals vigilant guardian, waarbij onze militairen op straat de burgers beschermen, ook in aanmerking zouden kunnen komen voor financiële steun onder deze begrotingslijn eveneens.
               

                  Maar het Parlement wil dat de begroting kan worden opgeschort in een lidstaat indien daar problemen met de rechtsstaat vastgesteld worden. Dit aspect is problematisch, want de juridische uitwerking van het afzonderlijke wetsvoorstel tot bescherming van de begroting van de Unie is niet waterdicht.
               

Romeo Franz,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zunächst möchte ich der Berichterstatterin für ihre Arbeit an diesem Dossier danken. Wir Grüne sind grundsätzlich für mehr Kooperation bei der innere, Sicherheit, und im jetzt zur Abstimmung stehenden Text sind einige gute Kompromisse enthalten, darunter eine Art Erasmus-Programm für Polizeikräfte und auch Antirassismus-Trainingsprogramme für Strafverfolgungsbehörden.
               

                  Dennoch werden wir so gegen den Bericht stimmen, und zwar aus folgenden Gründen: Erstens soll durch den Fonds die Geheimdienstkooperation gefördert werden, und darüber haben weder das Parlament noch der Rechnungshof eine Kontrolle. Fünf Prozent der von Mitgliedstaaten beantragten Mittel müssen in solche nachrichtendienstliche Zusammenarbeit fließen. Zweitens könnten mit dem Fonds in seiner geplanten Form auch militärische Einsätze innerhalb der EU gefördert werden. Das halten wir ebenfalls für hochproblematisch. Nicht zuletzt ist es mir wichtig zu erwähnen, dass in dem Bericht der Begriff ‘itinerant crime’ (‘Wanderkriminalität’) vorkommt. Diese Formulierung ist ein stigmatisierender Ausdruck, der oft benutzt wird, um ethnische Minderheiten zu kriminalisieren.
               

Cornelia Ernst,
im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Es ist, glaube ich, kein Geheimnis: Der Internal Security Fund gehört nicht zu unseren Favoriten, auch wenn es einige Verbesserungen gibt, die wir auch wirklich wertschätzen. Was uns nicht passt, ist einmal die drastische Erhöhung um das Anderthalbfache in Bezug auf diesen Fonds. Das Zweite sind die blending operations, wo auch private Finanzierungen – dazu hat vorhin die Berichterstatterin Einiges gesagt – herangezogen werden sollen, was uns aber nicht klar genug ist und wo wir wirklich Sorgen haben. Aber der dritte Punkt ist der eigentlich wichtigste: Der Fonds soll auch Geheimdienste fördern, zur Entwicklung – wie es so schön heißt – gemeinsamer Geheimdienstkultur, Austausch bewährter Verfahren, Wissen, Experten, best practice im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes. Ich sage mal ganz ehrlich: Ich kenne zumindest im deutschen Raum, also bei uns, eigentlich keine best practice von irgendeinem Geheimdienst, nur Vertuschung oder Pleiten, Pech und Pannen, wie man bei uns sagt. Geheimdienste sind wohl eher ein Teil des Problems als dessen Lösung, und dafür ist uns das Geld zu schade.
               

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Pani Przewodnicząca! To sprawozdanie i to rozporządzenie – jak na warunki tego Parlamentu – wcale nie jest najgorsze, natomiast brakuje w nim kilku rzeczy. Mam kilka poważnych zastrzeżeń: po pierwsze – kara śmierci. Dopóki nie pozbędziecie się Państwo przesądów przestarzałych na temat tego sprzeciwu wobec kary śmierci, nie jesteście w stanie wygrać z terrorystami, nie jesteśmy w stanie wygrać wojny, w której oni nas mogą zabijać, a my ich nie. Nie jesteśmy w stanie zapewnić obywatelom bezpieczeństwa wobec tego i wszystkie te pieniądze, wszystkie te udoskonalenia to będą pieniądze wywalone w błoto bez tego, bez kary śmierci.
               

                  Druga sprawa: artykuł 12. Tam jest zobowiązanie już państw do współpracy z unijnymi agencjami, niezależnie od tego, czy jest to finansowane w danym momencie przez Unię, czy nie. No tutaj kończy się już zasada pomocniczości, zaczyna się jej łamanie.
               

                  No i trzecia sprawa: artykuł 21 postuluje widoczność działań Unii. Unia konsekwentnie zmierza tą drogą, że po cichu zabiera, a daje głośno, chce obarczyć logo swoim każdą sytuację, kiedy na coś daje pieniądze. Ale ja postuluję, żeby w takim razie opatrzyć też logo unijnym wszystkie produkty, przy których zakupie dopłacamy do budżetu unijnego.
               

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot.


Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το Ταμείο Εσωτερικής Ασφάλειας πρέπει να επικεντρωθεί στο χτύπημα του οργανωμένου εγκλήματος, και κυρίως το διασυνοριακό έγκλημα. Είναι κάτι το οποίο πρέπει να προσέξουμε. Εγώ θα ήθελα να προτείνω να υπάρχει μια συνεργασία, επιπλέον, της Ελλάδας με τη Βουλγαρία, διότι έχει αναπτυχθεί, κύριε Αβραμόπουλε, πάρα πολύ το διασυνοριακό έγκλημα. Πέραν του ότι έχουμε πάρα πολλούς παράνομους μετανάστες που έρχονται από Τουρκία, Βουλγαρία και εν συνεχεία στην Ελλάδα, έχουμε πλέον και σπείρες εγκληματιών και κακοποιών, οι οποίοι κυριολεκτικά λυμαίνονται το κέντρο της Θεσσαλονίκης με ληστείες, κλοπές και, εν συνεχεία, επιστρέφουν στη Βουλγαρία. Πρέπει το θέμα αυτό να αντιμετωπιστεί. Είναι κυρίαρχο αυτή τη στιγμή.
               

                  Από την άλλη πλευρά, όπως ειπώθηκε, το Ταμείο Εσωτερικής Ασφαλείας δεν θα πρέπει να αποτελέσει και χρηματοδότη της συνεργασίας των μυστικών υπηρεσιών, όπως επίσης να μην έχουμε και μια είδους ιδιωτικοποίηση της εσωτερικής ασφάλειας. Αυτά είναι σημεία που πρέπει να τα προσέξουμε.
               

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät.)


Dimitris Avramopoulos,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for this interesting, if short, debate on the future of our financial support for EU security policy. I took note of all your comments, including the last points from Mr Marias, and I am looking forward to the Council mandate too, so that we can start our trilogue.
Thank you very much, and sleep tight – though not here.

Monika Hohlmeier,
Berichterstatterin. – Frau Präsidentin, sehr verehrter Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Heute haben die Frauen das letzte Wort – mal wieder. Das heißt, ich darf sozusagen das Schlusswort zur Mitternacht sprechen.
               

                  Ganz kurze Antwort an die Kolleginnen und Kollegen: Zunächst einmal darf ich meinen Schattenberichterstattern nochmal ein herzliches Dankeschön aussprechen. Denn es waren wirklich sehr viele gute und auch kreative Ideen, und ich glaube, wir hatten auch eine sehr gute Atmosphäre in den Gesprächen miteinander, wo wir versucht haben, aufeinander zuzugehen und gemeinsam ein gutes Konzept hier abzuliefern.
               

                  Erstens: In Bezug auf die Geheimdienste wäre es ein deutlicher Irrtum zu glauben, dass wir Geheimdienste an sich fördern – das ist laut Vertrag nicht einmal zulässig. Vielmehr wollen wir die Kooperation mit der europäischen Agentur Europol. Wir sehen im Bereich des Terrorismus sehr deutlich, dass Informationen aus dem Bereich der Geheimdienste zunächst präzise analysiert und ausgewertet werden müssen und dann daraufhin überprüft werden müssen, inwieweit sie für die entsprechenden Ermittlungen innerhalb der polizeilichen Zuständigkeit sinnvoll und verwertbar sind. Und dass sie dieses sind, haben wir beispielsweise in Deutschland beim sogenannten Rizin-Fall gesehen, der ohne geheimdienstliche Aktivitäten nicht aufgedeckt worden wäre. Das ist nur ein Beispiel unter vielen. Wir wollen also nicht die Geheimdienste überwachen und kontrollieren – was auch immer, das ist mitgliedstaatliche Kompetenz, das steht uns nicht zu –, sondern wir wollen eine geordnete und transparente Form der Zusammenarbeit fördern, und das halte ich für sinnvoll und zielführend.
               

                  Zweitens: Militärische Einsätze in der EU sind konkret auf die Aufgaben beschränkt. Das bedeutet, wenn zum Beispiel in Frankreich oder in Belgien auch militärische Einheiten – in Frankreich beispielsweise nach Bataclan – geholfen haben, um die innere Sicherheit zu gewährleisten, dann ist dies förderfähig. Militärische Einsätze anderer Art gehören nicht in das Aufgabenspektrum des ISF. Die Aufgaben sind sehr genau eingegrenzt, und sie können auch nicht x-beliebig außerhalb der Kompetenz erweitert werden. Diese Fragestellungen haben wir von Hause aus selbst im Ausnahmekatalog ausgenommen.
               

                  Und als Letztes: Wenn uns hier in diesem Hause – Frau Präsidentin, verzeihen Sie es mir, den Satz muss ich noch sagen – jemand dazu auffordert, das Thema Todesstrafe zu überdenken, dann muss ich ehrlich sagen, dreht es mir den Magen um. Wir haben die Grundrechtecharta, und wir werden nicht mit denselben Methoden antworten, mit denen die Terroristen und die Schwerverbrecher uns zu bekämpfen versuchen, sondern wir wollen rechtsstaatlich antworten und mit rechtsstaatlichen Mitteln und mit unseren Gesetzen eine Antwort geben und dementsprechend es den Gerichten überlassen, die Strafen auszusprechen, und anschließend auch rechtsstaatlich mit diesen Menschen umgehen.
               

Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.
               

                  Äänestys toimitetaan keskiviikkona 12.3.2019.
               


Kirjalliset lausumat (162 artikla)



Caterina Chinnici (S&D),
per iscritto. – Le sfide per la sicurezza interna dell'Unione europea sono sensibilmente aumentate negli ultimi anni: penso a minacce mutevoli e complesse quali le reti terroristiche globali, le nuove forme di criminalità organizzata o il cybercrime; fenomeni tutti di carattere transfrontaliero e intersettoriale e che nessuno Stato membro può affrontare da solo. In tale ottica, l'incremento della dotazione del Fondo Sicurezza Interna (FSI) rappresenta un importante mezzo finanziario attraverso il quale l'UE può sostenere la cooperazione e il coordinamento tra autorità di contrasto degli Stati membri. Come evidenziato dalla Relazione della commissione speciale sul terrorismo, lo scambio d'informazioni va rafforzato attraverso un maggiore ricorso ad operazioni di contrasto congiunte tra Stati membri (penso alle squadre investigative comuni) ma anche investendo nell'adeguata formazione del personale e facilitando lo scambio di best practices. Nell'ottica di un contrasto di lungo periodo al fenomeno del terrorismo risulta inoltre fondamentale ampliare il campo d'applicazione del Fondo alle misure finalizzate a prevenire l'estremismo violento, ad esempio attraverso interventi nelle carceri e nella sfera digitale. Concludo, sottolineando come anche le forze militari incaricate della sicurezza interna, quale per il mio paese l'Arma dei Carabinieri, debbano poter beneficiare del sostegno del Fondo poiché affrontano e prevengono quotidianamente diversi tipi di minacce alla sicurezza dell'Unione.
               

Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D),
în scris. – În ultimii ani, amenințările la adresa securității cu care s-a confruntat Europa s-au intensificat și s-au diversificat, luând forma atacurilor teroriste, a unor noi tipuri de criminalitate organizată și a criminalității informatice. Toate aceste provocări legate de securitatea internă și amenințările externe complexe nu pot fi abordate de statele membre la nivel individual și fără sprijinul financiar și tehnic al UE.
               

                  Ca atare, prin prezenta propunere, salutară, se încearcă să se înființeze un Fond de securitate internă pentru perioada 2021-2027, pentru o Uniune cu 27 de state membre. Fondul pentru securitate internă a fost instituit cu scopul de a facilita cooperarea transfrontalieră și schimburile de informații dintre funcționarii responsabili cu aplicarea legii din statele membre și alte autorități relevante. Fondul vizează intensificarea cooperării operaționale transfrontaliere în materie de prevenire, depistare și investigare a actelor de criminalitate transfrontalieră și sprijinirea eforturilor în vederea consolidării capacităților necesare pentru prevenirea acestor forme de criminalitate, inclusiv a terorismului, în special printr-o cooperare sporită între autoritățile publice, societatea civilă și partenerii privați din toate statele membre. Propunerea include restricții asupra finanțării țărilor terțe și elimină finanțarea în scopuri militare și posibilitatea achiziționării de arme cu fonduri UE în situații de urgență.
               
29.   Action taken on Parliament's resolutions: see Minutes
30.   Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes
31.   Closure of the sitting

(Istunto päättyi klo 23.34.)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)