Verbatim report of proceedings of 12 February 2020
Date: 2020-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202404416EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














12.7.2024







            12 February 2020
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 12 FEBRUARY 2020
            
         
(C/2024/4416)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
4










2.

Composition of interparliamentary delegations: see Minutes
4










3.

Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes
4










4.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
4










5.

Delegated acts (Rule 111(2)): see Minutes
4










6.

Documents received: see Minutes
4










7.

Preparation of the Extraordinary European Council Meeting of 20 February 2020 on the Multiannual Financial Framework (debate)
4










8.

Resumption of the sitting
36










9.

Composition of committees and delegations
36










10.

Announcement by the President
37










11.

Voting time
37










11.1.

Conclusion of the EU-Viet Nam Free Trade Agreement (A9-0003/2020 - Geert Bourgeois) (vote)
37










11.2.

Conclusion of the EU-Viet Nam Free Trade Agreement (Resolution) (A9-0017/2020 - Geert Bourgeois) (vote)
37










11.3.

EU-Viet Nam Investment Protection Agreement (A9-0002/2020 - Geert Bourgeois) (vote)
37










11.4.

EU-Viet Nam Investment Protection Agreement (Resolution) (A9-0014/2020 - Geert Bourgeois) (vote)
37










11.5.

Objection pursuant to Rule 111: Union list of projects of common interest (B9-0091/2020) (vote)
37










11.6.

Objection pursuant to Rule 112: Lead and its compounds (B9-0089/2020) (vote)
38










11.7.

An EU strategy to put an end to female genital mutilation around the world (B9-0090/2020, B9-0092/2020) (vote)
38










11.8.

Automated decision-making processes: Ensuring consumer protection, and free movement of goods and services (B9-0094/2020) (vote)
38










11.9.

Proposed mandate for negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (B9-0098/2020) (vote)
38










11.10.

European Central Bank – Annual report 2018 (A9-0016/2020 - Costas Mavrides) (vote)
38










11.11.

The illegal trade in companion animals in the EU (B9-0088/2020) (vote)
38










12.

Explanations of vote
38










12.1.

Conclusion of the EU-Viet Nam Free Trade Agreement (A9-0003/2020 - Geert Bourgeois)
39










12.2.

Conclusion of the EU-Viet Nam Free Trade Agreement (Resolution) (A9-0017/2020 - Geert Bourgeois)
42










12.3.

EU-Viet Nam Investment Protection Agreement (A9-0002/2020 - Geert Bourgeois)
43










12.4.

EU-Viet Nam Investment Protection Agreement (Resolution) (A9-0014/2020 - Geert Bourgeois)
43










12.5.

Objection pursuant to Rule 111: Union list of projects of common interest (B9-0091/2020)
44










12.6.

An EU strategy to put an end to female genital mutilation around the world (B9-0090/2020, B9-0092/2020)
46










12.7.

Automated decision-making processes: Ensuring consumer protection and the free movement of goods and services (B9-0094/2020)
50










12.8.

Proposed mandate for negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (B9-0098/2020)
51










12.9.

European Central Bank – Annual report 2018 (A9-0016/2020 - Costas Mavrides)
55










12.10.

The illegal trade in companion animals in the EU (B9-0088/2020)
56










13.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions : see Minutes
58










14.

Resumption of the sitting
58










15.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes
59










16.

A social Europe in a Digital world (topical debate)
59










17.

Gender Equality Strategy (debate)
73










18.

The EU priorities for the 64th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (debate)
88










19.

Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes
99










20.

False and Authentic Documents Online (FADO) system (debate)
99










21.

State of play of the EU's fight against money laundering, in light of the Luanda Leaks (debate)
107










22.

Composition of political groups : see Minutes
115










23.

Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes
115










24.

Humanitarian situation of refugees at EU external borders (debate)
116










25.

Better internet for children (debate)
134










26.

Coronavirus: ensuring fundamental rights and a coordinated European response (debate)
141










27.

Approval of the minutes of the current sitting: see Minutes
149










28.

Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes
149










29.

Closure of the sitting
149




Verbatim report of proceedings of 12 February 2020
                  


PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. DAVID MARIA SASSOLI


Presidente

1.   Opening of the sitting

                  (La seduta è aperta alle 9.06)
               
2.   Composition of interparliamentary delegations: see Minutes
3.   Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes
4.   Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
5.   Delegated acts (Rule 111(2)): see Minutes
6.   Documents received: see Minutes
7.   Preparation of the Extraordinary European Council Meeting of 20 February 2020 on the Multiannual Financial Framework (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulle dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione sulla preparazione del Consiglio europeo straordinario del 20 febbraio 2020 sul Quadro finanziario pluriennale (2020/2538(RSP)).
               

                  Ringrazio per la presenza la Presidente della Commissione Ursula von der Leyen e do la parola, salutandola e ringraziandola, alla Ministra Brnjac per il suo intervento.
               

Nikolina Brnjac,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, it is my pleasure to address this assembly today to discuss the preparation for the special European Council meeting on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) that will take place on 20 February.
Following the presentation by the Commission of its proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the Bulgarian, Austrian, Romanian and Finnish Presidencies worked hard at the technical and political levels to prepare the ground for an agreement.
We have now entered a decisive phase. Following the discussion at the December European Council, the President of the European Council has carried out extensive consultation with his counterparts. On this basis, he will submit, with a view to the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 17 February, his proposal for a deal at the level of the European Council.
The Croatian Presidency fully supports the view that a deal must be found swiftly. This will not be easy, as we all know, but there is still, in many parts, an expectation gap between what we want to achieve at EU level and the funds to achieve these goals. However, postponement would not make things easier, quite the contrary.
The departure of the UK creates a budgetary gap, further tightening the situation, with the Union facing, at the same time, a number of new challenges and, hence, priorities. A balanced agreement reflecting the ambitious objectives of the strategic agenda at the level of the European Council in February is necessary to open the way for concluding the negotiations on the many pending sectoral codecision files so as to be ready for the beginning of the new cycle in January 2021. The urgency to adopt the draft MFF regulation at the Council level also stems from the fact that this will not be the end of the road, since the European Parliament must give its consent to this regulation.
We are aware of the concerns and the positions expressed by the Parliament. That is why, all along the process, the successive presidencies have taken great care to keep Parliament informed, for instance, through regular meetings both before and after the General Affairs Council meetings discussing the MFF, which will be the case next week as well.
The Croatian Presidency will continue with this practice whenever the MFF is on the GAC formal agenda. Moreover, that is also why the President of the European Council has had several high-level contacts with the representatives of the Parliament. Once unanimous agreement is found at the level of the European Council, the Croatian Presidency will work very hard with the Parliament to ensure a positive outcome when the House votes on this regulation.
Reaching a timely and balanced agreement on the whole MFF package, including the own resources part, is in the common interest of all institutions, Member States, and their citizens. I very much hope that we will achieve that objective. The Croatian Presidency will do all it can in that respect.

Ursula von der Leyen,
Präsidentin der Kommission. Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren Abgeordneten! In der Tat, wir werden nächste Woche den außerordentlichen Europäischen Rat haben, und das ist ein wichtiger Moment für Europa. Die Ausgangsposition ist im Prinzip gut, denn alle drei Institutionen – das Parlament, der Rat und die Kommission – sind sich einig über die strategische Agenda. Wir wissen alle, was auf dem Spiel steht.
               

                  Wir haben sehr klare gemeinsame politische Ziele: Europa soll 2050 der erste klimaneutrale Kontinent sein, und zwar nicht nur, weil es um die Gesundheit des Planeten geht – das ist das Hauptziel –, aber auch, weil wir wissen, dass dahinter, wenn wir eine saubere und umweltfreundliche Wirtschaft entwickeln, neue Jobs stehen, die nachhaltig sind und die damit auch Zukunft bedeuten. Wir wollen vom digitalen Wandel in der Welt profitieren, und zwar nicht nur passiv, sondern wir wollen auch aktiv Akteure sein. Und wir wollen die Menschen in Europa stärken, indem wir einerseits den Übergang, der durch die ökologische und digitale Transformation ausgelöst wird, abfedern und andererseits genau das machen, was richtig ist, nämlich investieren in die Bildung und Ausbildung, gerade mit Kompetenzen auf dem ökologischen und digitalen Feld.
               

                  Doch uns läuft die Zeit davon, und lassen Sie es mich noch einmal ganz deutlich formulieren: Wenn der Haushalt nicht bald beschlossen wird, dann werden wir im nächsten Jahr nicht in der Lage sein, mit dem neuen Haushalt die neuen Prioritäten tatsächlich auch so zu finanzieren, wie wir uns das alle vorstellen.
               

                  And, therefore, after nearly two years of deliberations it is high time now.
               

                  All of us must be ready to find common ground. And what is important: we have to find the right balance between old priorities and new priorities. Because if you look at the negotiations, while there are many, many Member States that strongly defend cohesion policies, and rightly so. And there are many Member States that strongly defend the common agricultural policies, and rightly so.
               

                  But I also expect to see the same dedication when it comes to defending our new priorities. Because the day the budget will be signed, the day we have agreed on a budget – and I know that – everybody will turn around towards the Parliament and towards the Commission and will ask for: Horizon Europe, will ask for Erasmus, ask for migration funds, for defence, for digitalisation, for infrastructure, you name it. And, therefore, we really have to make sure that these new priorities get the attention they deserve.
               

                  We have to deliver on a European budget that is able to invest in digital start-up, to explore the potential of artificial intelligence, to anchor Europe's position as the world's leading research region, to offer young people a better future and all parts of Europe, to address the root causes of migration, to allow us to demonstrate solidarity in cases of humanitarian or natural catastrophes, to allow to build the European Union of security and defence.
               

                  But, most of all, we need a budget so that citizens and companies see that we are able to act on climate change. For citizens this is the top priority. For us, it's a challenge, but it's our duty to turn this challenge into an opportunity.
               

                  Le succès de ces négociations budgétaires dépendra des moyens que nous nous donnerons de financer notre pacte vert pour l'Europe. Moi, je n'accepterai aucun résultat qui ne garantisse pas qu'au moins 25 % du budget soit consacré à la lutte contre le changement climatique. J'attends un budget qui alloue les nouvelles ressources nécessaires au mécanisme pour une transition juste. La raison en est simple: si nous ne nous donnons pas les moyens nécessaires pour soutenir les régions et les travailleurs les plus exposés aux conséquences économiques et sociales des politiques relatives au changement climatique, nous ne réussirons tout simplement pas à atteindre la neutralité climatique.
               

                  Le pacte vert pour l'Europe se fera avec les citoyens européens, avec les chercheurs européens, avec les entreprises européennes, ou il ne se fera pas du tout.
               

                  Je pense, tout comme vous, que de nouvelles ressources propres pour l'Union constitueraient une avancée importante. Pour cela, j'ai instamment prié les États membres de tenir pleinement compte de la position du Parlement européen à cet égard. Je suis convaincue que cela donnera un coup d'accélérateur à notre programme commun et allégera la pression exercée sur les budgets nationaux, rendant ainsi possible l'allocation des fonds supplémentaires nécessaires. Ainsi, c'est véritablement une solution gagnant-gagnant que nous recherchons.
               

                  Honourable Members, we all know the negotiations will not be easy. As a Union of 27, as you said, we have fewer resources. It's about EUR 75 billion less for the whole 7-years period, but more common challenges that no Member State can solve on its own. And at the same time, expectations towards the next long-term budget of the Union could not be more diverse.
               

                  As Members of Parliament, you are well aware of the discussions in your home countries, while you also see the different positions in the Member States of your colleagues. Arriving at an agreement will therefore be a serious challenge. We all know this. But we also know that citizens will not understand it if decision-makers fail to make the funding available for policies needed.
               

                  It's our common responsibility in the European Council, and in the European Parliament to deliver for Europe.
               

(Applause)


Manfred Weber,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, Frau Ratsvertreterin! Wenn wir über Geld sprechen, über Budget sprechen, sprechen wir über Politik, über die Zukunft Europas. Wo können wir Schwerpunkte setzen? Ich möchte zunächst unterstreichen, dass es aus unserer Sicht gut gewesen wäre, wenn Charles Michel heute da gewesen wäre. Das Zuhören wäre gut gewesen. Wir wissen, dass er im engen Austausch mit unserer Steering Group ist, sich mit den Fachleuten trifft, aber ins Plenum zu kommen hat auch noch einmal eine andere Bedeutung; deswegen möchte ich das zu Beginn schon sagen, dass es schön gewesen wäre, wenn er da wäre. Aber positiv ist, dass er den 20. Februar gesetzt hat. Er macht Druck bei der MFR-Diskussion, er versucht, Antworten zu geben, er versucht, Sicherheit für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu erzielen. Die Bauern, die Studenten, die Forscher – alle warten auf Klarheit, wie es in den nächsten Jahren weitergeht. Deswegen: Für den 20. wünschen wir ihm viel Erfolg.
               

                  Es ist der richtige Moment, das zu machen: Wir haben ein frisches Mandat – wir als Abgeordnete des Parlaments von den Wählerinnen und Wählern, die Kommission hat ein frisches Mandat. Wir alle sind mit neuem Schwung ausgestattet, und wir wissen, was die Menschen uns auf den Weg gegeben haben nach diesen Europawahlen, und das gilt es jetzt, gemeinsam umzusetzen.
               

                  Der erste Punkt ist, dass wir deutlich machen als europäische Ebene, dass es nicht nur darum geht, die bestehenden Mittel zu verteidigen. Ich möchte schon deutlich sagen, dass auch wir zur Selbstkritik fähig sind, und es muss auch bei Budgetverhandlungen möglich sein, dass man zunächst selbstkritisch darauf blickt, ob die bestehenden Gelder ordentlich ausgegeben werden. Das haben sowohl Günther Oettinger als auch jetzt Johannes Hahn in ihrer Verantwortung gemacht mit den Vorschlägen, die vorliegen. Das heißt, in den Bereichen wirklich selbstkritisch darauf zu blicken. Ein Thema, das uns als EVP wichtig ist, ist aus dem Bereich der Haushaltskontrolle: die mögliche Begrenzung für Zahlungen an eine individuelle Person. Wenn eine Person in Europa aus dem EU-Budget große Summen bekommt, dann kann das nicht richtig sein. Wir sprechen uns für eine Art Anti-Oligarchengesetz in der Europäischen Union aus, wo wir deutlich machen, dass die Gelder nicht in einer Hand dann landen dürfen.
               

                  Ein zweites Thema ist für uns, dass wir die bestehenden Gelder auch verteidigen und deutlich machen, dass sie gut investiert sind. Die Bauern brauchen Unterstützung im globalen Wettbewerb, die ländlichen Räume brauchen Unterstützung in der Globalisierung. Die Regionalförderung führt dazu, dass Europa zusammenwächst. Das ist richtig, und die Solidarität ist weiter notwendig. Im Bereich von Forschung: Erasmus zeigt Europa den European added value, den zusätzlichen europäischen Vorteil.
               

                  Als Drittes ist uns wichtig, dass wir nicht an der Zukunft sparen dürfen. Agrar ist wichtig, Regionalförderung ist wichtig – wir haben das in unseren Positionen immer unterstrichen –, aber es darf jetzt nicht die Dynamik entstehen, dass an den Zukunftsfeldern der Europäischen Union gekürzt wird. Ich würde mir wünschen, dass im Rat jetzt nicht nur eine Ein-Prozent-Diskussion entsteht, dass nicht nur eine Prozentdiskussion über die Obergrenze weitergeführt wird, sondern dass wir konkret über Inhalte reden. Wenn der Europäische Rat beschließt, 10 000 Frontex-Beamte in Kraft zu setzen, die unsere Außengrenzen besser schützen, dann ist es inakzeptabel, wenn die finnische Präsidentschaft diesen Budgetanteil um ein Drittel reduziert. Entweder man steht zu seinen Zusagen oder man steht nicht zu seinen Zusagen. Das gilt auch für die Forschung. Unser Projekt beispielsweise, das uns als EVP sehr wichtig ist: Im Kampf gegen Krebs brauchen wir dann auch die notwendigen Mittel, um erfolgreich zu sein. Bei Erasmus hatte ich es bereits angesprochen, und da bedanke ich mich bei Johannes und auch bei Ursula von der Leyen für die Klarheit, dass diese Themenfelder nicht unter den Tisch fallen dürfen.
               

                  Ich würde mir auch wünschen – das sage ich auch als Deutscher –, dass wir endlich die Nettozahlerdiskussion beenden. Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, wenn wir einen ordentlichen Grenzschutz in Europa aufbauen, wenn wir einen Marshallplan für Afrika aufbauen, dann sind das beides keine Gelder, die in die Niederlande, nach Österreich oder nach Deutschland zurückfließen werden, aber es ist im tiefen Interesse der Deutschen, der Österreicher und auch der Niederländer. Deswegen: Hören wir bitte auf mit der Nettozahlerdiskussion. Der beste Ansatz, sie zu überwinden, wäre, endlich den Einstieg in die own resources zu schaffen, wenn europäische Aufgaben mit europäischen Mitteln finanziert werden, dass das gemeinsame Interesse der Europäer auch über europäische Mittel finanziert wird, dann wäre das die beste Antwort, die wir geben können. Ich möchte ausdrücklich sagen, dass der Rat wissen sollte, dass für uns als EVP-Fraktion die Frage der Eigenmittel auch eine rote Linie ist. Wir brauchen eine systemische Veränderung der Finanzierung der Europäischen Union, und das werden wir auch bei den weiteren Beratungen unterstreichen.
               

                  Ein weiteres systemisches Thema ist rule of law: Steuergelder der Europäer können nur ausgegeben werden, wenn Rechtsprinzipien eingehalten werden. Eine unabhängige Justiz, eine freie Medienlandschaft ist die beste Garantie dafür, dass Gelder ordentlich ausgegeben werden. Und deswegen vertreten wir den Ansatz, dass eine Kombination von rule of law mit dem MFR sinnvoll ist.
               

                  Und zu guter Letzt: David Cameron hat in der letzten Diskussion über den MFR intensiv dafür geworben: nur ein Prozent, nur ein Prozent, nur ein Prozent! Damit könne er die Briten überzeugen, dass dann Europa effizient ist, zukunftsfähig ist und schlank aufgestellt ist. Wir haben am Brexit-Beispiel erlebt: Wenn wir den Populisten Futter geben, wenn wir den Populisten nachgeben, dann wird das die Populisten stärken und sie nicht schwächen. Und deswegen brauchen wir jetzt einen ambitionierten Ansatz – nicht den kleinsten gemeinsamen Nenner, sondern Ambition für Europa!
               

(Beifall)


Iratxe García Pérez,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señoras presidentas, señorías, estamos en uno de los debates más importantes y que van a marcar toda la legislatura europea, pero también el futuro de la Unión. De nada sirve marcarnos objetivos de aquí a 2050 si nos atamos las manos durante los próximos siete años.
               

                  Que estamos en un momento crucial para Europa lo sabemos todos. También el Consejo. Que Europa necesita realmente poner en marcha una gran transformación para liderar la sostenibilidad en el mundo, una transformación en materia económica, social, medioambiental. Por supuesto que esa agenda de la transformación es necesaria. Lo sabemos todos y también el Consejo.
               

                  Ahora solo hace falta que seamos capaces de poner encima de la mesa los medios necesarios para llevarlo a cabo. La propuesta de este Parlamento es muy razonable y afronta esta necesidad: un 1,3 % del producto nacional bruto, más recursos adicionales para nuevas políticas que se tienen que poner en marcha, como abordar la transición justa en esta materia.
               

                  La propuesta de este Parlamento es muy clara y tiene una gran mayoría de apoyo por parte de los distintos grupos políticos. La presidenta Von der Leyen ha insistido mucho en la necesidad de que esta sea una Comisión geoestratégica y de que tengamos nuestra posición en el mundo. Y también el presidente del Consejo, el señor Charles Michel, ha aludido a la necesidad de liderar la lucha por la neutralidad climática en el mundo. Ahora solo hace falta que convenza a sus socios del Consejo —y también quiero decir en este momento que nos hubiera gustado que el señor Charles Michel estuviera hoy aquí; quizá todavía tiene poco que decir, pero tiene mucho que escuchar—. Para convencer a los socios del Consejo creo que es necesario entender la gran responsabilidad a la que nos enfrentamos y es necesario tener delante un acuerdo en el que no haya ganadores y perdedores porque entonces estará perdiendo Europa.
               

                  Esto no va de quitar dinero a unas políticas para ponerlo a otras. Esto no va de quitar dinero a unas regiones para ponerlo a otras. Quiero recordar aquí una cosa: fue Jacques Delors el que puso en marcha el primer programa plurianual. Y lo hizo teniendo en cuenta que era necesario hacer una gran agenda europea y que debía estar por encima de los intereses nacionales. Que era mucho más importante avanzar en la solidaridad del proyecto europeo. Y esa es la ambición que debemos tener en este momento.
               

                  Le pido a los jefes de Gobierno una visión europea, porque estamos en un momento importante y nos estamos jugando también ahora mismo el futuro del proyecto de la Unión. Es importante que entendamos que es necesario abordar ya de una vez por todas el discurso de los recursos propios para esos fondos adicionales que necesitamos. Es un presupuesto fuerte y ambicioso. No podemos hacer más con menos.
               

                  Necesitamos abordar las políticas europeas para los jóvenes. Necesitamos abordar las políticas europeas para el sector primario, para los agricultores y para los ganaderos. Necesitamos abordar la política europea para apoyar a los nuevos emprendedores, a los investigadores. Son tantas y tantas las políticas a las que Europa en estos momentos puede responder que no vamos a cejar en el intento de continuar con esta cuestión.
               

                  El tiempo pasa y el reloj corre. Y para nosotros podemos decir: ‘En este Parlamento somos pacientes’. Solo voy a decir dos últimas cuestiones. El Parlamento decide en igualdad de condiciones junto con el Consejo y no vamos a ceder a la presión del tiempo porque el futuro de la Unión Europea está en nuestras manos y es la responsabilidad más importante que tenemos en estos momentos.
               

Dacian Cioloș,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, nous voyons ces dernières années combien il est attendu de l'Europe qu'elle apporte des réponses aux défis qui se présentent à nous – la crise financière, la crise migratoire, les changements climatiques… Crise après crise, on en appelle de plus en plus à l'Europe. Plus que jamais, l'Europe apparaît comme nécessaire; il est donc nécessaire, aussi, d'adapter le budget à cette nouvelle réalité.
               

                  Je souhaite saluer la détermination et l'engagement de Charles Michel qui, aux côtés de la présidence croate, cherche à trouver un accord sur le budget européen. Il a notre plein soutien pour y parvenir, mais à condition que ce soit un bon budget.
               

                  L'Europe n'est pas seulement une affaire d'engagement, puisque nous avons pris beaucoup d'engagements politiques ces dernières années. Nous avons aussi besoin de garantir que ces engagements se traduisent par des faits tangibles pour les citoyens. L'adoption d'un bon budget montre la détermination d'agir ensemble. C'est seulement quand nous accordons le budget à nos ambitions politiques que nous sommes crédibles.
               

                  Les effets du changement climatique sont tangibles et appellent des solutions, de même que la transformation numérique, mais nous avons aussi besoin de moderniser notre politique agricole commune et notre politique de cohésion. Tout cela appelle des actions urgentes de la part de l'Union européenne.
               

                  Je souhaite souligner trois points clés pour mon groupe. Tout d'abord, la taille du budget. Il nous faut des moyens pour relever les défis actuels et futurs, et nous ne pouvons pas nous entendre sur de belles ambitions un jour et, le lendemain, limiter nous-mêmes notre capacité à atteindre nos ambitions. Il en va de la crédibilité de l'Union européenne devant les citoyens de mettre en accord nos déclarations politiques et notre capacité d'agir.
               

                  Deuxièmement, les nouvelles ressources propres. La partie ‘recettes’ du budget européen doit maintenant être modernisée et alignée sur les traités. Un budget européen réel appelle des ressources propres solides. La dernière réforme à ce sujet a été faite en 1988. Il est temps maintenant de repenser et de moderniser ce budget.
               

                  Troisièmement, un mécanisme solide d'état de droit. Nous devons disposer de mesures efficaces pour protéger le budget européen, dès lors que les valeurs européennes sont attaquées. Mon groupe n'est pas prêt au compromis sur la question de l'état de droit. Erasmus, l'emploi des jeunes, la sécurité et la défense, la protection des frontières et la gestion de la migration: tout cela demande un budget solide.
               

                  Après le Brexit, après les crises que nous avons traversées, nous sommes d'accord sur la nécessité maintenant de renouveler l'euro, et la décision sur le budget doit être la preuve que nous en sommes capables. Le Parlement européen ne doit pas accepter un compromis qui mine la crédibilité d'une Europe capable d'agir pour ses citoyens.
               

Marco Zanni,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è un peccato che il Presidente Michel non sia qui con noi a discutere di questo punto importante, perché mi pare abbia messo sul tavolo, convocando questo meeting straordinario, tanto del credito politico iniziale che si è guadagnato con la sua nomina a Presidente del Consiglio europeo.
               

                  Aspettiamo quindi la nuova proposta per vedere i numeri, per vedere se qualcosa è cambiato, ma dalle notizie che riceviamo e dagli incontri bilaterali non sembra che questa proposta si discosti molto da quanto presentato dalla Presidenza finlandese, che era una proposta che aveva scontentato quasi tutti, sia gli Stati membri in Consiglio, sia questo Parlamento, sia la Commissione.
               

                  Io credo che a pochi mesi da una deadline importante per il nuovo Quadro finanziario pluriennale sia opportuno chiudere un inutile libro dei sogni e avere più pragmatismo e più realismo e accettare il fatto che le risorse sono limitate. Le risorse sono limitate perché – e condivido quanto detto dal collega del PPE – molto spesso questo Parlamento e queste istituzioni non sono stati in grado di dare un'attuazione concreta e positiva del bilancio. Non solo casi di frodi, ma in molti casi i programmi su cui si era politicamente puntato molto non hanno portato i risultati positivi.
               

                  Questo è chiaro che si traduce in un atteggiamento degli Stati membri più conservativo. Se noi non siamo in grado di dimostrare l'efficienza e il valore aggiunto del bilancio europeo, è normale che si sia più restii a dare del denaro. E poi questo stesso Parlamento e queste stesse istituzioni più volte hanno votato risoluzioni direttive e regolamenti che chiedevano agli Stati membri disciplina di bilancio. Allora ci vuole un po' di coerenza anche per avere disciplina nella gestione del nostro bilancio e nella gestione delle nostre risorse.
               

                  Io credo che le priorità che ci sono, quelle che sono fondamentali, quelle che sono iscritte nei trattati europei possano essere finanziate senza richiedere risorse aggiunte. L'agricoltura, la pesca, il supporto allo sviluppo regionale e alla politica di coesione: credo che ci sia spazio in questo bilancio per finanziare queste priorità senza chiedere risorse aggiuntive.
               

                  Si possono tagliare i 20 miliardi di euro di un inutile programma di supporto alle riforme strutturali, che si tradurrà solamente in un condizionamento delle scelte degli Stati membri, si possono tagliare drasticamente i 13 miliardi destinati ai fondi di preadesione, soprattutto alla Turchia. Insomma, abbiamo spazio per fare una proposta veramente pragmatica e per trovare un accordo il prima possibile. Per fare questo però è necessario pragmatismo, realismo e smetterla di sognare perché le risorse non ci sono.
               

Philippe Lamberts,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, le budget est un outil. Mais vous savez, on peut discuter à satiété de la taille de l'outil – un gros marteau, un petit marteau sera toujours un marteau, et quand vous avez besoin d'un tournevis, hé bien ça ne vous aide pas d'avoir un gros marteau. Ce que je veux dire, c'est que ce qui compte d'abord, c'est ce que nous voulons faire du budget de l'Union européenne.
               

                  J'ai beaucoup aimé ce que vous avez dit, Madame la Présidente, à un point près. Quand vous dites ‘je n'accepterai pas un budget dont moins de 25 % soit consacré à la lutte contre le changement climatique’, j'ajouterais: et si les 75 autres pour cent aggravent le changement climatique, on est évidemment à côté de la plaque. Je sais que ce n'est pas ce que vous pensez, mais je crois qu'il est important d'assurer la cohérence de tout le budget européen avec la transition écologique et solidaire. Et là, je serais d'accord avec presque 100 % de ce que Manfred Weber a dit mais, sur la politique agricole commune, je ne suis pas d'accord. Le but de la politique agricole commune n'est pas d'aider nos fermiers dans la mondialisation de l'agrobusiness; le but de la politique agricole commune doit être d'aider nos fermiers à la transition vers l'agroécologie. C'est là qu'on marquera la différence. Même chose pour les fonds structurels, même chose pour les programmes de recherche de l'Union européenne: tout doit contribuer à cet effort.
               

                  Et donc, la question de la cohérence est le premier élément qui nous permettra de juger de la qualité de la proposition du Conseil. Je rappelle qu'il s'agirait d'une proposition, pas d'un disque – ce n'est pas parce que le Conseil approuve quelque chose que le Parlement se comporte comme une chambre d'enregistrement.
               

                  Deuxième élément, comme Manfred l'a dit, le lien entre le budget et le respect des valeurs de l'Union européenne. L'Union européenne est une union de valeurs. Avant d'être une union économique et monétaire, avant d'être une union financière, c'est une union de valeurs, et on ne peut pas profiter des bénéfices économiques et financiers de l'appartenance à l'Union européenne si on ne joue pas l'air selon les règles du jeu, c'est-à-dire en respectant les valeurs de l'Union. Et on est encore loin du compte.
               

                  Et puis il y a le volume. Bien sûr, le volume est une vraie question. Je pense, comme l'a dit Iratxe, que la proposition du Parlement est raisonnable – 1,3 % du PIB! Tout le monde sait très bien que, macroéconomiquement, nous sommes en manque d'investissement. Le pacte vert est précisément ce qui, je pense, va stimuler l'investissement dans les années qui viennent. Bien sûr, le gros de l'investissement sera de l'investissement privé, mais on ne peut pas nier le rôle moteur et pilote que doit jouer l'investissement public, ne serait-ce qu'en matière d'infrastructures, par exemple ferroviaires. Et donc là, il nous faut évidemment un budget qui soit suffisamment volumineux pour assumer les nouvelles missions.
               

                  Je dirais donc au Conseil européen, soit vous signez pour 1,3 ou 1,5, soit vous nous donnez les ressources propres, mais vous ne pouvez pas continuer à dire ‘on vous serre le kiki sur le volume et en plus de ça, on ne vous donne pas la possibilité de mettre en place des ressources propres’, c'est-à-dire des impôts européens. Dernier point, et je termine, Monsieur le Président: j'étais ici il y a sept ans et j'ai entendu à l'époque Joseph Daul, Martin Schulz, Guy Verhofstadt dire avec Daniel Cohn-Bendit: ‘Over our dead body! Nous n'accepterons jamais un budget pluriannuel en recul pour la période qui nous a menés à 2020 par rapport à la période précédente.’ Qu'est ce qui est arrivé, à la fin? Les trois premiers ont accepté ce qu'ils avaient jugé inacceptable.
               

                  Je nous enjoins, à nous tous, d'être cohérents, et donc de tenir bon si la proposition que le Conseil avancera après le sommet extraordinaire ne correspond pas à nos critères. Nous ne devons pas avoir peur d'aller au conflit. Il n'y a d'accord que quand les deux sont d'accord. Le Parlement n'est pas une chambre d'enregistrement du Conseil et Charles Michel aurait été bien inspiré d'être présent pour entendre cela.
               

Raffaele Fitto,
a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, anch'io mi voglio unire al richiamo che è stato fatto da chi mi ha preceduto sulla opportunità che oggi fosse qui con noi il Presidente Michel per poter avere un'interlocuzione diretta con lui rispetto alle questioni di cui noi parliamo.
               

                  Io non voglio fare un intervento elencando le priorità. Come si può non essere d'accordo sugli obiettivi o sulla gran parte degli obiettivi che sono stati indicati? I discorsi che noi ascoltiamo e che facciamo sono una lotta ai cambiamenti climatici. Non c'è nessuno che non è d'accordo su questo, magari possiamo discutere sul come. Un intervento sull'innovazione, un aumento delle risorse per i nostri giovani, per i ricercatori, potrei unirmi anch'io ad un elenco di priorità che disegnano un'Europa più bella, migliore, come tutti noi la vogliamo.
               

                  Il tema però e i nodi stanno arrivando al pettine. I nodi sono costituiti da una situazione per la quale bisogna fare i conti con un bilancio diverso e soprattutto con dei rischi che possono ricadere in modo indiretto su alcuni Stati, a differenza di altri. È evidente che noi stiamo andando dritti verso una discussione che inevitabilmente riporterà il rischio che, per poter garantire una buona parte delle politiche alle quali è stato fatto riferimento come programma della Commissione, si vada a incidere e a tagliare su alcune voci che sono fondamentali e che costituiscono per questo Parlamento dei punti sui quali non si può arretrare. Mi riferisco in modo particolare alla politica di coesione e alla politica agricola.
               

                  Manca il coraggio di guardare – lo ha detto qualche collega e io sono d'accordo – a quella che è stata l'efficacia del precedente bilancio. Manca il coraggio di intervenire con dei tagli drastici e chiari su alcune voci che non hanno prodotto alcun tipo di risultato. Manca un'idea forte rispetto a come poter sviluppare e rilanciare gli investimenti. In questo senso, la discussione che si è aperta lunedì sulla riforma del Patto di stabilità mi sembra distante da quelli che sono gli obiettivi rapidi che dovrebbero accompagnare anche l'approvazione del bilancio.
               

                  Chiudo con un'ultima riflessione. Anche questa mattina riecheggia in quest'Aula il tema dello Stato di diritto. Noi abbiamo chi è il depositario dei valori europei, perché c'è questa presunzione e quindi si ha la convinzione di poter spiegare quali sono i criteri che reggono lo Stato di diritto e addirittura di collegare questi valori dei quali qualcuno è depositario alla possibilità o meno di utilizzare le risorse. Trovo tutto questo stucchevole e soprattutto non rispettoso del volere degli elettori, perché tutti coloro i quali sono qui dentro parlano perché hanno una legittimazione popolare.
               

Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η απουσία του Charles Michel από τη σημερινή συζήτηση είναι απαράδεκτη και είναι επίσης κακό σημάδι για όσα θα ακολουθήσουν. Κυρία von der Leyen, παρουσιάσατε ένα πρόγραμμα πενταετίας και πήρατε ψήφο εμπιστοσύνης από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Ως εκ τούτου, δεν είναι σωστό αυτό που λέει ο κύριος Hahn, που κάθεται δίπλα σας, ότι εσείς είστε απλώς ένας ‘honest broker’ στη συζήτηση μεταξύ Συμβουλίου και Κοινοβουλίου. Για να χρηματοδοτηθεί το πρόγραμμα που εσείς παρουσιάσατε χρειάζεται τουλάχιστον το 1,3% του ευρωπαϊκού ΑΕΠ, που ζητά το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο με μια τεράστια πλειοψηφία. Γιατί αλλιώς δεν είναι δυνατό να υλοποιηθεί το Green Deal χωρίς να περικοπούν δραστικά οι πολιτικές συνοχής ή η κοινή γεωργική πολιτική, και δεν θα υπάρχουν χρήματα για την καινοτομία και τις επενδύσεις. Και πρέπει να αντιμετωπίσουμε όχι μόνο την επιβράδυνση της ευρωπαϊκής οικονομίας αλλά και την πιθανή κρίση που έρχεται, και αυτό μπορούμε να το κάνουμε μόνο με έναν πιο φιλόδοξο προϋπολογισμό.
               

                  Και επειδή πρέπει να μιλάμε πρακτικά, για να πετύχουμε —οι τρεις συννομοθέτες— έναν ικανοποιητικό συμβιβασμό, πρέπει να τον αναζητήσουμε στην πλευρά αυτών που προτείνει το Κοινοβούλιο, πάνω από αυτά που προτείνει η Επιτροπή, τα οποία είναι πια ξεπερασμένα, κυρία von der Leyen. Διότι ο προϋπολογισμός που παρουσίασε η Επιτροπή, έναν χρόνο πριν ως πρόταση, είναι 5% κάτω από το ισχύον δημοσιονομικό πλαίσιο. Για να έχουμε αποτέλεσμα πρέπει εσείς, κύριε Weber, να καταφέρετε να πείσετε την κυρία Merkel και τον κύριο Kurz γι' αυτά που είπατε εδώ. Εσείς, κύριε Ciolos, να καταφέρετε να πείσετε τον κύριο Rutte γι' αυτά που είπατε εδώ, και εσείς, αγαπητή Iratxe, να πείσετε τους πρωθυπουργούς της Δανίας και της Σουηδίας. Αλλιώς θα αναγκαστεί το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο να ψηφίσει έναν προϋπολογισμό απαράδεκτο και αυτό κατά τη γνώμη μας δεν πρέπει και δεν πρόκειται να συμβεί.
               

Piernicola Pedicini (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, al momento la proposta più vicina alla nostra visione sul Quadro finanziario pluriennale è proprio quella della Commissione europea. Siamo pienamente a favore ovviamente – è stato già detto dai colleghi che ci hanno preceduto – di un contributo sostanzioso al Green Deal e alle politiche mirate alla crescita della competitività e all'innovazione. Come si potrebbe essere contrari?
               

                  Crediamo inoltre che il contrasto al fenomeno migratorio debba essere sostenuto in proporzione all'impegno reale degli Stati che si impegnano in questo, ma anche contrastando le cause profonde e le politiche di integrazione. Ma tutto questo non può avvenire a scapito delle politiche tradizionali, con i tagli alla politica di coesione e i tagli alla politica agricola che sono il cuore pulsante dell'Europa dei popoli. Per questo va migliorato il concetto di indice di prosperità relativa e corretto quello di convergenza esterna.
               

                  In ogni caso, i contributi nazionali non possono aumentare. L'Unione europea deve avere il coraggio di finanziarsi con risorse proprie, introducendo, finalmente una carbon tax e introducendo e implementando una vera e propria coraggiosa web tax.
               

Jan Olbrycht (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Debata budżetowa nigdy nie jest debatą czysto finansową, rozmawiamy bowiem o kwestiach przyszłych polityk. Pamiętajmy, że jesteśmy w okresie pobrexitowym. Ten moment to jest czas, w którym wielu mówi, że trzeba zrewidować, trzeba poprawić, trzeba coś uzupełnić. Tylko że sposoby rewidowania mamy jednak inne. Parlament Europejski zdecydowanie mówi o tym, że po wyjściu Zjednoczonego Królestwa Unia Europejska powinna jednak utrzymać zakres swoich działań i go poszerzyć, powinna utrzymać swój poziom ambicji. Program powinien odpowiadać temu co było, dodając nowe zadania dotyczące przyszłości.
               

                  Ale w Radzie widzimy inne podejście. Część państw chce nie tylko obniżenia budżetu, ale chce po prostu ograniczenia działań i zmniejszenia zakresu Unii Europejskiej. Chce bardzo często wrócić do starego pomysłu Brytyjczyków, a mianowicie renacjonalizacji niektórych polityk. Stąd właśnie bierze się hasło: nie damy więcej pieniędzy. Nie chodzi tylko o budżet, lecz o to, że Unia po brexicie ma być po prostu mniejsza w zakresie swoich działań.
               

                  Parlament Europejski zdecydowanie w swojej większości mówi ‘nie’. Nie, Unia po brexicie nie może rezygnować ze swoich ambicji, bo to będzie tylko dowód na to, że nie daje sobie rady. Unia Europejska musi znaleźć sposób, żeby uzupełnić pewne elementy i znaleźć środki na nowe zadania, np. przez dochody własne. Jeszcze raz chciałem powiedzieć: Parlament będzie bronił Unii Europejskiej i jej ambicji i nie będzie zgadzał się na działania prowadzące do jej stopniowego redukowania.
               

IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS


Vice-President


Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Presidente, Secretária de Estado, Comissários, a finalidade do quadro financeiro plurianual é conciliar prioridades políticas com despesa, ou seja, mobilizar os recursos necessários para os compromissos políticos, para os compromissos com os cidadãos. Conhecemos as expectativas dos cidadãos na União Europeia. Elegeram-nos para que as cumpríssemos. E o ciclo institucional que acabou de começar tem um desafio fundamental pela frente: reganhar a confiança dos cidadãos na União Europeia.
                  

                     Na negociação do quadro financeiro plurianual estamos confrontados com um exercício em que cada Estado-Membro precisa de sair dos seus egoísmos nacionais. Mas é possível, como quase sempre mostramos ao longo da história da União Europeia, compatibilizar interesses nacionais com interesses europeus.
                  

                     Uma oportunidade que permita que as prioridades políticas que preconizamos e que ouvimos, sistematicamente repetidas no discurso político de todos, ou quase todos, os líderes políticos europeus, não sejam palavras vãs, mas reflitam uma verdadeira vontade política.
                  

                     Apenas alguns exemplos. Queremos promover o investimento, o crescimento económico e a criação de emprego: temos o programa InvestEU. Queremos promover a coesão e combater as desigualdades: temos a política de coesão. Queremos gerar inovação e promover a transição para o digital: temos o Horizonte Europa e o Digital Europa. Queremos promover a cooperação entre sistemas educativos identitários de cada Estado-Membro e a mobilidade dos jovens: temos o programa Erasmus. Queremos combater as alterações climáticas: temos a política de coesão, a PAC e o Just Transition Mechanism.
                  

                     E poderia continuar! Mas para tudo isto precisamos de um financiamento adequado. A contribuição direta dos Estados-Membros não é suficiente. Precisamos de compensar e aumentar o financiamento da União Europeia recorrendo a recursos próprios sem penalizar os cidadãos.
                  

                     Finalmente, não queremos uma crise institucional. Só estamos dispostos a dar o nosso consentimento, como temos vindo a dizer, se tivermos um orçamento à altura das prioridades políticas e se tivermos um acordo político sobre recursos próprios.
                  

Valerie Hayer (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Madame la Ministre, après deux longues années de procrastination, un vent d'urgence souffle dans le dos des chefs d'État et de gouvernement. Et c'est heureux.
                  

                     C'est heureux, car l'Europe est à un tournant de son histoire; cela a déjà été dit. Les défis collectifs qui s'offrent à nous sont gigantesques; ils exigent des efforts rapides et sans commune mesure – nous le savons tous ici. Pourtant, après plus de 60 ans de vie commune, le dogme d'un budget aux alentours de 1 % du PIB n'est absolument pas remis en cause.
                  

                     Comme tous les sept ans, les États s'écharpent et s'enferment dans des comptes d'apothicaire: combien vais-je donner? Combien vais-je recevoir, surtout? Plus 0,01 % par-ci? Certainement pas. Moins 0,02 % par-là? Ah oui, certainement! C'est un fait: pour certains États, la quête du Graal, c'est la diminution de leur contribution nationale. Et cette obsession est facilitée, voire encouragée par notre système de financement.
                  

                     Assis à 80 % sur les contributions nationales, ce système de financement actuel est pervers. Pour satisfaire les uns et les autres, on rivalise d'ingéniosité, on introduit des complexités et des rabais en tous genres. La tâche du président du Conseil n'est pas simple, mais il a tout notre soutien, tout comme la Commission.
                  

                     Pour résoudre la quadrature du cercle, un seul combat: celui des ressources propres. Avec les ressources propres, jadis marque d'identité, les contributions nationales seront réduites – c'est d'ailleurs la solution gagnant-gagnant qu'a évoquée Mme la Présidente tout à l'heure.
                  

                     L'Union sera aussi renforcée, avec plus d'autonomie financière pour répondre aux priorités des Européens. Or aujourd'hui, disons-le, l'heure est grave. Dépecé de sa philosophie originelle, notre système de financement vit une crise existentielle. Soyons clairs: sans réforme, il risque d'emporter dans sa chute tous les espoirs que nous fondons sur notre Union.
                  

                     Chers collègues, le sommet de ce 20 février sera crucial. Crucial pour mesurer la réalité des ambitions des États avant le grand face-à-face avec le Parlement. En tant que négociatrice pour le Parlement, je m'engage à défendre cette réforme pour le bien de notre Union et des citoyens européens.
                  

Nicolas Bay (ID). – Madame la Présidente, le cadre financier pluriannuel et nos projets budgétaires sont normalement la traduction sur le plan financier de choix et de priorités politiques. Porter le budget de l'Union à 1,1 ou 1,3 % du revenu national brut, c'est-à-dire 1 100 à 1 200 milliards d'euros sur six ans, c'est en vérité une fuite en avant.
                  

                     Le retrait britannique, qui représente 12 milliards de contribution annuelle, devrait nous conduire à revoir à la baisse le budget, à nous recentrer sur l'essentiel, c'est-à-dire sur des projets concrets, au service de nos peuples et de nos citoyens. Qu'est-ce que nos citoyens, qu'est-ce que le reste du monde peuvent penser d'une Union européenne que le Royaume-Uni vient de quitter et qui s'apprête, non pas à se remettre en question, mais à se précipiter pour s'élargir à l'Albanie ou à la Macédoine du Nord?
                  

                     Au cours des six dernières années, l'Union européenne a consacré moins de 1 % de son budget à la maîtrise de ses frontières et à la lutte contre l'immigration. Aujourd'hui, le projet de CFP présenté par la présidence finlandaise et les objectifs de la Commission consistent à sacrifier notre agriculture – moins 17 % du budget qui lui est consacré – et à porter à 25, voire à 33 %, le budget consacré aux objectifs climatiques. Mais tout repeindre en vert ne réglera rien. Trois cents milliards d'euros pour ajouter des normes, des contraintes à nos entreprises dont la compétitivité est déjà terriblement fragilisée par la logique du libre-échange, cela va encore les affaiblir sur la scène mondiale.
                  

                     Madame von der Leyen, vous nous dites que vous voulez construire ce budget avec les citoyens européens, mais alors il faut les écouter. Ils attendent des protections économiques, ils attendent la maîtrise de nos frontières, ils ne veulent pas des ressources propres qui seront en fait un impôt européen, une couche supplémentaire au mille-feuille fiscal de pays tels que la France, qui sont déjà à 47 % du PIB en prélèvements obligatoires. C'est totalement déraisonnable!
                  

                     Enfin, les citoyens ne veulent pas d'une Union européenne qui, aujourd'hui, pour masquer son impuissance, multiplie les leçons données à la terre entière: des leçons d'état de droit à ses États membres, en conditionnant au respect de certains critères le versement des aides financières, et des leçons de droits de l'homme au reste du monde.
                  

Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Milliardenpoker um das EU- Budget – jetzt muss Merkel um Deutschlands Rabatt kämpfen. Die Schlagzeilen zum Mehrjahreshaushalt haben es in sich. Doch wenn sich die Staats- und Regierungschefinnen hinter Rabattzahlungen und Zahlenbergen verstecken, geht es in Wirklichkeit um die Zukunft der EU. Wollen wir die EU klimaneutral machen? Wollen wir Jugendarbeitslosigkeit und Armut bekämpfen? Wollen wir mehr in Forschung und Digitalisierung investieren? Wir Grüne wollen das, und wir wollen deshalb den Vorschlag, den Herr Michel jetzt ausarbeitet und der nächste Woche auf dem Tisch liegen wird, auch genau danach beurteilen und nach nichts anderem.
                  

                     Denn wir wissen, dass 1,0 % oder 1,07 % viel zu wenig sind. Es bedeutet Kürzungen für das EU-Budget und für die Zukunftsfragen. Wir brauchen mehr gemeinsame Investitionen in der EU, um die EU klimaneutral zu machen, wir müssen die Mittel aber auch klimagerechter ausgeben. Weniger für Kohle und industrielle Landwirtschaft, mehr für erneuerbare Energien und eine klimagerechte Landwirtschaft. Für uns ist die EU aber nicht einfach nur eine Geldmaschine, wo alle etwas bekommen, sondern für uns geht es in der Debatte um Demokratie und Werte, und wer unsere Demokratie mit Füßen tritt, darf kein Geld aus dem EU-Budget bekommen. Deshalb brauchen wir einen starken Rule-of-law-Mechanismus, und wir sagen ganz deutlich: Wenn Viktor Orbán zusammen mit anderen den Rule-of-law-Mechanismus kickt, dann werden wir dem Finanzrahmen zum Schluss als Parlament insgesamt nicht zustimmen.
                  

                     Kein Land profitiert mehr von einer starken EU als Deutschland, und deshalb finden wir die Position der Deutschen Bundesregierung besonders kleinkariert. Deutschland wäre ohne die EU deutlich schwächer. Deutsche Unternehmen exportieren extrem viel ins EU-Ausland und profitieren von Investitionen in alle Mitgliedsstaaten. Deshalb wünschen wir uns, dass sich die deutsche Bundesregierung für ein starkes EU-Budget engagiert. Gerade einmal 87 Cent pro Tag und Bundesbürger bzw. -bürgerin investiert Deutschland in die Europäische Union. Wir glauben, dass es gut verträglich wäre, auch 20 oder 30 Cent mehr auszugeben. Wir sind gespannt auf nächste Woche; wir Grüne kämpfen für ein starkes Budget und für mehr Klimaausgaben.
                  

Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR). – Voorzitter, er wordt ons een enorme opportuniteit geboden door de huidige constellatie van de Europese instellingen. We hebben een pas verkozen parlement met 60 % nieuwe leden, er is een nieuwe Commissie met steile ambities en er is een vers aangestelde Europese president. Het is eigenlijk uniek dat we aan de start van de onderhandelingen rond het MFK een dergelijke institutionele convergentie zien. Aan de Raad zou ik nogmaals met aandrang willen zeggen dat een meerderheid in het Parlement – met 60 % nieuwe leden, zoals gezegd – niet zomaar voor lief kan genomen worden.
                  

                     De Commissie von der Leyen stelt ambitieuze doelen op het vlak van het klimaat, inzake digitalisering, inzake haar geopolitieke rol. Dat zijn prioriteiten die van groot belang zijn voor onze toekomst, voor de toekomst van de welvaartsstaat, voor onze competitiviteit. Maar daar moeten ook middelen voor zijn. Vandaar het belang van deze begroting.
                  

                     Ik wil ook waarschuwen voor financiële avonturen. Als ik sommige commissarissen hoor zeggen dat de Green Deal hoe dan ook voortgeduwd zal worden, of er nu financiering is of niet, dan vind ik dat behoorlijk onverantwoord. Met dat soort uitspraken jaag je namelijk – denk ik – investeerders die je absoluut nodig hebt eerder weg dan dat je ze aantrekt.
                  

                     Tot slot wil ik ook nog blijven benadrukken dat we erop moeten toezien dat performantie van alle programma's gegarandeerd wordt. Elke euro die wordt uitgegeven door de EU moet een meerwaarde bieden voor de Europese burger.
                  

Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL). – Madame la Présidente, ce qui me frappe dans ces négociations sur le CFP, c'est le manque de sens de l'histoire dont font preuve les chefs d'État. L'Union européenne, vous le savez, est à la croisée des chemins. Et quand les basculements économiques, démographiques, climatiques du monde obligent l'Europe à un bond en avant, quand grandissent partout les tentations de repli, nous avons au Conseil européen des chefs d'État qui ne sont pas à la hauteur de ce moment et qui se comportent en petits gestionnaires d'un syndicat de copropriétaires.
                  

                     Au Conseil, il n'y a plus de grandes voix, ni de courage d'ailleurs, pour ouvrir le chemin d'une Europe débarrassée de l'austérité et capable de tirer le meilleur des promesses de ce siècle ainsi que de placer les peuples à l'abri des dangers qui les guettent. Ne pas avancer, c'est reculer et avec un petit budget, l'Europe reculera pour les dix ans à venir – car le coût des coupes dans le budget de la PAC et de la cohésion sera très élevé. Moins de cohésion, ce sera moins de croissance, moins d'investissements, moins d'emplois, plus de fractures et plus de pauvreté.
                  

                     Je veux terminer en disant que la politique de cohésion est une politique d'avenir. Sur la programmation 2014-2020, près de 100 milliards d'euros ont été investis pour l'environnement et le climat au moyen de cette politique.
                  

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question ‘carton bleu’ (article 171, paragraphe 8, du règlement intérieur).)


Pedro Marques (S&D),
blue-card question. – Madam President, I say to Mr Omarjee: in my country, in Portugal, we did turn the page of austerity, we did bring hope to our country and also to many Europeans that it was possible to turn the page of austerity.
And as you say in this new budget, it is about a new hope for Europe. It is about us delivering on the promises that we made to the Europeans that we will have a Europe of more ambition, and also the modernisation, but defending the policies in which we believe, millions of Europeans….

(The President cut off the speaker)


Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL),
réponse ‘carton bleu’
                        . – Cher collègue, Pedro Marques, je crois que nos visions sont tout à fait convergentes. Il est vrai que la politique de cohésion est une politique qui va participer aux nouvelles priorités définies aujourd'hui. Et cette distinction entre politiques traditionnelles et politique nouvelle, en réalité, est une distinction qui n'a pas de fondement véritable.
                  

Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η συζήτηση του προϋπολογισμού είναι σημαδεμένη από μεγάλα συμφέροντα και ναρκοθετημένη για τον λαό. Εντείνεται με ταμεία και μηχανισμούς η στρατιωτικοποίηση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, διαγκωνίζονται χώρες, κλάδοι και όμιλοι για να ωφεληθούν περισσότερο από τους ανταγωνιστές τους στο έδαφος του Brexit. Επιδοτούνται οι όμιλοι στο όνομα της ψηφιακής μετάβασης, για να διευρυνθούν η εργασιακή γαλέρα, οι απολύσεις και η φτώχεια. Στην Ελλάδα, με Δούρειο Ίππο τα κονδύλια της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, η κυβέρνηση της Νέας Δημοκρατίας —σε συνέχεια του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ— κλείνει τις λιγνιτικές μονάδες οδηγώντας στην ανεργία πάνω από πέντε χιλιάδες εργάτες και στερώντας από τη χώρα τη δυνατότητα αξιοποίησης εγχώριων πηγών, ενώ ενισχύεται η εξάρτηση από εισαγόμενη ενέργεια την οποία ακριβοπληρώνει ο λαός. Με όχημα το Green Deal και τη νέα —ακόμα πιο αντιδραστική— ΚΓΠ προωθείται η κερδοφορία των ομίλων και το ξεκλήρισμα των βιοπαλαιστών αγροτών με μείωση των ενισχύσεών τους. Δεν μας ξαφνιάζει ο ταξικός αντιλαϊκός χαρακτήρας του προϋπολογισμού, γι' αυτό στηρίζουμε την πάλη των εργαζομένων για τις δικές τους ανάγκες ενάντια σε επιχειρηματικούς ομίλους και αντιλαϊκή πολιτική.
                  

(Ο ομιλητής δέχεται να απαντήσει σε ερώτηση με γαλάζια κάρτα (άρθρο 171 παράγραφος 8 του Κανονισμού))


Maria Grapini (S&D),
Întrebare adresată conform procedurii ‘cartonașului albastru’
                        . – Doamna președintă, stimate coleg, înțeleg că vă opuneți politicii agricole comune, spuneți că ar profita cineva. Considerați că din noul buget, în noul cadru financiar, ar trebui să diminuăm banii pentru acest buget sau ar fi mai bine să găsim, să aducem bani din evaziune fiscală, din criminalitate economică, din evaziunea pe TVA, pentru a nu diminua bugetul pe Politică Agricolă?
                  

Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI),
απάντηση ‘γαλάζια κάρτα’
                        . – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, σε κάθε περίπτωση, οι ωφελημένοι και της νέας ΚΓΠ θα είναι οι επιχειρηματικοί όμιλοι. Άλλωστε, ο πυλώνας των καπιταλιστικών επενδύσεων είναι αυτός που ενισχύεται και αυτό που συρρικνώνεται είναι το ποσοστό των ενισχύσεων της μικρομεσαίας αγροτιάς. Οι μικρομεσαίοι αγρότες είναι τα θύματα, για ακόμη μια φορά, και οι όμιλοι είναι αυτοί που κερδίζουν. Αυτή είναι η νέα γραμμή, που αποτελεί συνέχεια και των προηγούμενων ΚΓΠ και θα εντείνει ακόμα περισσότερο τα προβλήματα για τους μικρομεσαίους αγρότες, που μόνος δρόμος τους είναι να οργανώσουν την πάλη τους πριν να είναι αργά.
                  

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, estamos à espera da reunião do Conselho desde novembro de 2018. Mais vale tarde do que nunca!
                  

                     Nós precisamos de recursos financeiros suficientes para termos uma União Europeia coesa, solidária, competitiva, produtiva, uma União Europeia onde haja crescimento sustentável e amigo do ambiente. Os novos recursos próprios são a solução. Novos recursos próprios que têm de acabar com a lógica do juste retour e que permitirão termos o nível necessário para o orçamento da União Europeia e que não podem penalizar os cidadãos da União Europeia. E, por isso, há um princípio muito simples: quem não paga deve pagar. Por isso defendemos a taxa sobre as transações financeiras. Por isso defendemos, também, uma taxa sobre as grandes companhias do digital.
                  

                     Para além disso, o mercado de carbono, as emissões desse mercado, e, além disso, nas fronteiras, o mercado do carbono será também uma receita importante para a União Europeia.
                  

                     Eu espero que o Conselho esteja à altura e que não venha a trair os cidadãos da União Europeia, que não prejudique os agricultores, as regiões mais pobres, o desenvolvimento rural e que ajude, também, a um crescimento que seja amigo do ambiente. Essa é uma obrigação do Conselho que, se não for respeitada, nós rejeitaremos a sua proposta.
                  

Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D). – Señora presidenta, la verdad es que llevamos dos años hablando del marco financiero y, desde luego, ahora que llega el momento de la verdad, no empezamos muy bien.
                  

                     No empezamos bien porque el señor Michel no ha querido venir a escuchar a este Parlamento. Y no empezamos bien porque lo que nos llega del Consejo no es muy positivo. Si sus discusiones se van a centrar en cuántas centésimas vamos a ahorrar aquí o allá, lo que se pueden ahorrar es el Consejo, porque este Parlamento va a rechazar esa propuesta.
                  

                     Lo que tienen que discutir el 20 de febrero es qué políticas queremos hacer a nivel europeo y cómo las vamos a financiar. Y hay muchos motivos por los que hacer políticas a nivel europeo: porque los resultados son mejores si se hacen a nivel europeo que a nivel nacional, es decir, porque Europa es más eficiente; porque se reducen las desigualdades, es decir, Europa es más solidaria; o porque solo se puede hacer a nivel europeo y, por lo tanto, Europa es la única solución.
                  

                     Y en todos los casos salimos ganando, todos, toda Europa. Así que, sinceramente, no entiendo por qué las discusiones del Consejo se siguen basando en falsas premisas. Pero, más allá de este debate contable, lo que tenemos y lo que me preocupa es el debate político porque, ¿cómo piensan llevar a cabo todas sus discusiones y todos sus acuerdos del Consejo?
                  

                     Y voy a coger un ejemplo: el Pacto Verde Europeo. ¿Cómo lo piensan financiar? Porque si algunos de ustedes se creen que la transición hacia una economía neutra en carbono se va a hacer sin apoyar a nuestros agricultores, sin apoyar a nuestras empresas, sin apoyar a nuestras regiones y sin apoyar a nuestros trabajadores, tienen un verdadero problema.
                  

                     Y yo solo les digo una cosa: si no tenemos un presupuesto razonable, la alternativa es la irrelevancia política, la irrelevancia económica y el fracaso del proyecto europeo.
                  

Moritz Körner (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die meisten hier reden nur von einem größeren Haushalt. Ich finde, wir müssen von einem besseren Haushalt reden. Und das geht, wenn wir wirklich eine Priorität auf die Ausgaben mit einem wirklichen europäischen Mehrwert setzen. Es geht um den Arbeitnehmer in einem Industriebetrieb, der sich Sorgen um seinen Arbeitsplatz macht. Der kann doch erwarten und sich erhoffen, dass wir in Innovation und Digitalisierung investieren, damit auch in Zukunft in Europa bessere und gute Jobs und Wertschöpfung entstehen. Es geht um die alte Dame, die sich Sorgen macht, Angst hat vor Terrorismus. Die kann erwarten, dass wir Europol und Eurojust anständig finanzieren, damit sie gegen Terrorismus und Kriminalität kämpfen können. Und es geht um jeden Studierenden, um jede Auszubildende in Europa, die mit Erasmus überall in Europa tatsächlich einen Auslandsaufenthalt machen können, damit Europa zusammenwächst an dieser Stelle.
                  

                     Übrigens, klar muss auch sein: Wenn wir sinnvolle zusätzliche Aufgaben auf europäischer Ebene machen, dann heißt das manchmal auch, dass wir im Mitgliedstaat auch darüber nachdenken müssen, wo wir dann entsprechend einsparen können. Auch das müssen wir und das müssen auch die Mitgliedstaaten an dieser Stelle diskutieren.
                  

                     Klar ist aber auch: Es darf keinen Rabatt in Europa auf die Rechtsstaatlichkeit geben. Es kann nicht sein, dass manche Staaten das europäische Geld gerne nehmen und anschließend europäische Regeln und Werte mit Füßen treten. Deswegen brauchen wir einen robusten Rechtsstaatsmechanismus, nicht einen, der Spielball ist von irgendwelchen politischen Spielchen, sondern wo objektiv festgestellt wird: Wenn die Rechtsstaatlichkeit nicht eingehalten wird, dann kann es kein Geld geben. Denn auch das erwarten die Steuerzahler in Europa, dass wir anständig mit europäischem Geld umgehen.
                  

Harald Vilimsky (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Den ganzen EU-Fanatikern, die jetzt nach mehr und nach noch mehr Millionen für die Europäische Union rufen, möchte ich entgegenhalten: Es kann doch nicht die richtige Reaktion sein, nachdem uns die Briten als großes Land verlassen haben, nach noch mehr Geld zu rufen. Eine kleinere Union bedingt logischerweise auch weniger Mittel, und darauf sollte man sich einstellen.
                  

                     Sie haben auch gar nicht die Frage beantwortet, ob wir jetzt mehr an Kompetenzen nach Brüssel verlagern wollen oder mehr an Kompetenzen wieder Richtung Mitgliedstaaten kommen. In Wahrheit ist diese Frage seit dem Jahr 2016 nicht beantwortet, als nach der Schrecksekunde des Brexit-Referendums die Kommission fünf Szenarien für eine mögliche Zukunft gestellt hat und bis heute keine Antwort darauf gegeben wird. Jetzt, im Jahr 2020, nach einer Schrecksekunde von über vier Jahren, beginnt endlich eine Zukunftskonferenz. Die beginnt aber auch nicht am Anfang des Jahres, sondern irgendwann inmitten des Jahres und wird bis in das Jahr 2022 hinein dauern. Also die Frage, jetzt nach mehr Geld zu rufen, ist eine völlig überflüssige, nachdem die Antwort nicht gegeben werden kann, wohin sich die Europäische Union entwickelt.
                  

                     Klarheit herrscht allerdings beispielsweise im Lissabon-Vertrag: Die Reduktion der Kommission um ein Drittel. Alle sind sie säumig, hier entsprechend zu liefern. Weniger Kommissare, das heißt weniger an Richtlinien, weniger an Bürokratie und damit auch weniger an Kosten. Ich bin als Vertreter eines Nettozahlerstaates nicht bereit, einen Cent mehr an diese Europäische Union abzuliefern.
                  

David Cormand (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, le débat sur le budget est un débat qui concerne notre avenir. Sa technicité rebute parfois les citoyennes et les citoyens, alors je veux dire ici les choses le plus simplement possible, pour qu'il ne soit plus possible d'ignorer les enjeux. Le budget de l'Union européenne pour les sept prochaines années est celui qui permettra ou non à l'Europe de répondre à l'enjeu climatique et à l'urgence sociale. Il doit donc nécessairement être un budget de combat.
                  

                     Un budget de combat, c'est un budget global qui augmente au moins à hauteur de 1,3 % du revenu national brut pour donner à l'Union européenne les moyens de mener sa transition écologique. Un budget de combat, c'est un budget dont au minimum 50 % sont consacrés à la protection de l'environnement pour préserver le climat. Enfin, un budget de combat met l'outil fiscal au service de la justice sociale et de la transition écologique, par exemple en taxant comme il se doit les émissions de carbone, le kérosène et les transactions financières. Ces taxes pourront alors alimenter des ressources budgétaires propres. Pour deux euros levés par ces taxes, un euro irait dans les caisses nationales et l'euro restant serait reversé au budget européen. Ce serait à la fois une victoire de l'Europe politique et la marque d'une volonté de sortir d'un modèle irresponsable qui nous mène droit dans le mur. Il est grand temps de s'engager dans cette voie.
                  

Roberts Zīle (ECR). – Prezidentes kundze! Vispirms, ja Eiropadomē ir valstis, kuras nevēlas budžetā iemaksāt vairāk kā 1 % no nacionālā ienākuma, bet vēlas redzēt federālu Eiropas attīstību, tad jāatgādina, ka tas nestrādās — ASV federālais budžets ir krietni virs 20 % no nacionālā ienākuma.
                  

                     Budžeta izdevumu debatēs diemžēl pozīcijas tiek pretnostatītas: vecās politikas, kā kohēzijas un lauksaimniecības, pret jaunām, perspektīvākām, kurām jādod vairāk naudas. Kaut gan, ja mēs paanalizējam, piemēram, militārās industrijas pētniecību un attīstību būtu labāk finansēt no nacionālajiem budžetiem, jo tāpat šī nauda paliks tikai dažās valstīs.
                  

                     Bet, atgriežoties pie kohēzijas, ja mēs iedomājamies: jauns ambiciozs Eiropas Savienības kohēzijas valsts pilsonis uzzina, ka viņa kohēzijas aploksne būs par 25 % mazāka šinī jaunajā perspektīvā nekā vecajā, — tad viņš aizbrauks. Viņš aizbrauks uz attīstības centriem Rietumeiropā, un līdz ar to demogrāfiskā situācija un attīstības iespējas perifērijā kohēzijas valstīs kļūs vēl sliktākas, nekā tās ir tagad, un demogrāfija kopumā.
                  

José Gusmão (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, a Comissão e o Conselho vieram aqui hoje anunciar cortes na coesão e na agricultura, enganar os cidadãos sobre o novo Pacto Verde e chantagear o Parlamento com o fantasma de uma crise institucional.
                  

                     Não há dinheiro novo para o novo Pacto Verde. O que há são cortes, propostas de cortes, nas políticas que o poderiam implementar e uma aldrabice orçamental que é contar o velho dinheiro duas vezes. Continua a haver dinheiro, sim, para o velho Pacto Castanho e o financiamento das energias fósseis. E há dinheiro novo, sim, mas para a militarização da Europa, ou seja, para a indústria de armamento alemã e francesa.
                  

                     Se houver uma crise institucional ela acontecerá porque a Comissão e o Conselho não querem pôr o dinheiro da União Europeia onde põem os seus discursos, porque falam sobre objetivos sociais e ambientais, mas não é aí que querem, realmente, investir.
                  

Márton Gyöngyösi (NI). – Madam President, I would also like to start off by expressing my regret that the President of the Council is not present in this debate.
I was extremely happy to see the priorities of the Commission last year, especially the ones that were designed to improve European competitiveness through strengthening European solidarity via the social pillar. It would be a disastrous message if the adoption of the budget were to be delayed or if there were not sufficient funds to cover the implementation of the objectives.
Ms von der Leyen said that it is extremely important to get the balance right between all the new priorities and all the new objectives. However, new objectives, especially the ones that seek to improve the EU's positions in global competition, can only be achieved if the old objective of cohesion is completed.
Europe cannot function with economic and structural differences. They have to be eliminated or reduced. We cannot possibly look bravely into the future if a social and a wage gap exists between Member States. Therefore, we must strengthen our cohesion instruments and the EPP ought to fight corruption.

Siegfried Mureșan (PPE). – Madam President, the person preparing the budget of the European Union for the next seven years is the President of the European Council, Charles Michel. He has to be in Parliament. If he has no mandate, if he has nothing to tell us, at least he should come and listen.
Why? Because the last word on the EU budget for the next seven years lies with the European Parliament. We will only give our approval to the EU budget if our priorities are in. And what are our priorities? Firstly, cohesion and agriculture: finance them properly, they continue to be important all over Europe.
Secondly, finance the new priorities of the Union, in line with the political ambition. The Commission asks for support in financing future-oriented priorities. Let me tell you what happened to the budget for research this year. The Council says research is important. What does it do? It cuts it by EUR 500 million. Parliament says research is important, but we increased it by EUR 700 million.
We need to put our money where our statements are, and we should not play farmers against Erasmus students. We should not play researchers against the security of the European Union. And let's be honest: the position of the European Parliament is the only position which enables us to finance properly what we have agreed to do. It's the only position which enables the von der Leyen Commission to implement its programme.
Dear colleagues, the Parliament can be included in the negotiations before the European Council on 20 February. Or we can reject the agreement of the Council and we should be included afterwards, but we prefer it to be included before.
And let me say very clearly, if we are to choose between a delay of two months and a poor budget for the Union for the next seven years, we will choose to reject a bad Council compromise and have a delay of two months.
But we are ready to negotiate since November 2018. Council, stop dragging your feet.

Elisabetta Gualmini (S&D). – Madam President, it is really time to stand up and act and the Multiannual Financial Framework is really the last opportunity we have to change Europe for the next seven years and to shock our European citizens – yes, to shock them, to shock every single person in the EU – because we have to increase the total amount of available resources, not renounce it to 1.3 of GNI in order for our promises to become true: a Green New Deal, the additional unemployment benefit and the Child Guarantee of six billion. No one dares to take away from children what are their basic rights – food, health and education – and the traditional mainstream European programmes have to be financed as well, so we cannot deal with a war between the poor – agricultural policies, cohesion policies, Erasmus, have to be financed as well. And on the revenue side, let us think also of a digital tax and the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax for multinationals.
On this side of the Hemicycle we believe in more Europe and not less. We believe in more public investments and not in cutting down and downsizing. We believe in a good society which is a society for the many and not for the few, so the European Council has to listen to our voice.

Clotilde Armand (Renew). – Doamna președintă, vreau să vorbesc despre trei aspecte legate de fondurile de coeziune.
                  

                     Primul aspect: volumul acestor fonduri. Dacă din o sută de euro o țară ca România absoarbe 60 de euro, din 60 de euro va absorbi 36 de euro. Investiția va fi nesemnificativă, impactul va fi mic.
                  

                     Al doilea aspect: ratele de cofinanțare și prefinanțare. Dacă crește nivelul acestor rate de prefinanțare și cofinanțare, sunt niște state care, pur și simplu, vor renunța la fondurile de coeziune.
                  

                     Al treilea aspect este durata în care se pot depune cererile de plată. La ora actuală aceasta este de trei ani. Dacă scade brusc la doi ani, în contextul în care vom avea întârzieri în bugetul actual, va avea un impact, de asemenea, pe absorbție – un impact negativ.
                  

Paolo Borchia (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ogni sette anni assistiamo a questo gioco delle parti, dove da un lato ci sono i pragmatici, i realisti, quelli che devono far quadrare i conti, dall'altro lato invece c'è qualche venditore di fumo che invece si spaccia per ambizioso.
                  

                     Ma di questi tempi è il realismo che serve. Questa mattina, francamente, di realismo ne ho sentito poco. Ho sentito invece auspici da mille e una notte. Ho sentito vagheggiare di un bilancio in grado di ridurre le disuguaglianze, l'inquinamento, la disoccupazione, insomma una lunga e costosa lista dei desideri.
                  

                     Ma chi ha la capacità di amministrare la cosa pubblica inizia prima a riflettere sugli sprechi e sulle inefficienze. Infatti, ormai da anni da questi banchi sottolineiamo la necessità di dare la priorità alle politiche di bilancio più efficaci, dall'impresa all'agricoltura, alla ricerca e all'innovazione. Ma puntualmente, quando si tratta di tagliare i fondi destinati per esempio al Servizio di azione esterna, che è un inutile doppione delle ambasciate nazionali, oppure di ridurre i contributi alla Turchia, della quale l'Unione europea è diventata il bancomat, quest'Aula improvvisamente diventa sorda.
                  

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I say to the Presidency: don't you feel it's Groundhog Day? Some are defending in the Council the cohesion funds, the others the agriculture funds, and then you have countries that want less money.
But where is the fundamental discussion about modernisation? Where is the discussion that we are really preparing our economy for a green deal? Where is the discussion on the fundamentals of the rule of law? Where is that discussion? I challenge those countries that will have a big mouth about modernisation afterwards.
I challenge Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Austria. If you want modernisation, if you want a new economy, if you want to have rule of law, you cannot exchange that for just a penny or some percentage points. This is about the fundamentals of our future. This should not be about 0.1% more or less. That is what our British friends would call ‘penny wise, pound foolish’.

Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca, Panie Komisarzu! My, konserwatyści, uważamy, że finansowanie polityki spójności na okres 2021-2027 powinno być takie samo jak z lat 2014-2020. Należy też zachować współfinansowanie przy obecnych stawkach płatności zaliczkowych.
                  

                     Obniżenie środków na spójność jest niedopuszczalne i spowoduje turbulencje między dwoma okresami programowania. Ponadto mamy brexit. Daje nam on okazję do zniesienia rabatów od 2021 roku. Wszystkie państwa członkowskie powinny wnosić wkład na podstawie tych samych zasad. Przyczyny stojące za obecnymi mechanizmami korekcji są już nieaktualne. Struktura wydatków uległa bowiem zmianie i nie ma państw członkowskich z nadmiernym obciążeniem. Obecnie kraje korzystające z rabatów wnoszą około 0,70% swoich dochodów narodowych brutto, podczas gdy inne państwa członkowskie, w większości słabiej rozwinięte – 85%. Należy wprowadzić fundusz sprawiedliwej transformacji, jakkolwiek jego finansowanie nie powinno odbywać się kosztem innych polityk.
                  

Malin Björk (GUE/NGL). – Fru talman! Till skillnad från kommissionen och många av kollegerna här i parlamentet som alltid ropar efter mer EU-pengar så anser vi att EU måste rätta mun efter matsäcken. Vi accepterar inte en ökad EU-avgift eller en skenande EU-budget. EU:s budget måste ställas om inom de existerande ramarna och inte heller ‘boostas’ med egna ökade medel. Vi är inte emot till exempel klimatskatter naturligtvis, men de behövs för välfärden i medlemsländerna.
                  

                     Andra krav som måste ställas på EU:s långtidsbudget är följande: Alla medel ska klimattestats, inte en enda euro till klimatskadlig verksamhet, strukturfonderna måste ställa om för att leverera klimaträttvisa, EU:s korrupta och ineffektiva jordbrukspolitik måste göras om i grunden, ingen finansiering till Fästning Europa, Erdogan, gränspoliserna, och ingen finansiering till europeisk krigsindustri. Det är en skam att den nya kommissionen vill militarisera EU-samarbetet. Slutligen: Villkora EU:s budget i förhållande till rättsstat och demokrati. Inga pengar till medlemsländer som inte respekterar de grundläggande värdena.
                  

Antoni Comín i Oliveres (NI). – Madame la Présidente, nous demandons un meilleur budget, plus important, et une Commission dotée de plus grands pouvoirs. Mais cela implique une plus grande légitimité démocratique. Nous ne parviendrons à un véritable budget européen, conforme à nos ambitions, que si nous sommes en mesure de conférer à la Commission une légitimité démocratique directe. Ce cadre financier pluriannuel représente au mieux 11 % du PIB continental. Comment construire une Europe unie avec un budget aussi faible? La Catalogne est un contributeur net au budget européen et nous voulons continuer ainsi, mais sans l'intermédiation de l'Espagne.
                  

                     Pour les perspectives financières 2021-2027, quelques priorités: privilégier la recherche et l'innovation, qui sont le pétrole de notre siècle; conditionner l'attribution des fonds de cohésion au respect de l'état de droit et de la démocratie; lutter contre le changement climatique; lutter contre les inégalités sociales et économiques, etc.
                  

                     De même, quand aurons-nous le courage de construire un vrai système de ressources propres? La taxe carbone, la taxe numérique, la taxe sur les transactions financières devraient servir à nourrir un budget européen. La légitimité démocratique, les pouvoirs politiques et la capacité financière sont les trois côtés d'un triangle dont dépend l'avenir de l'Union.
                  

Monika Hohlmeier (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, lieber Herr Kommissar, liebe Ratspräsidentschaft, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Art und Weise, wie derzeit der Rat mit dem mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen umgeht, ist außerordentlich problematisch. Ein bisschen Kohäsion, ein bisschen Landwirtschaft, kein Ehrgeiz für Wissenschaft und Forschung, am liebsten weniger Erasmus, 1,0 ist das Maximum, möglichst viele Programme, aber möglichst viel unterfinanzieren – das ist das Motto. Jeder für sich, nur ich für mich. Das reicht nicht!
                  

                     Die EU müssen wir aufgabenbezogen angehen. Das bedeutet: Wir müssen mehr in Wissenschaft und Forschung investieren, wir müssen auch die Kohäsionsländer dazu bringen, mehr in Wissenschaft und Forschung zu investieren, ihnen dabei helfen, dass sie mehr in Wissenschaft und Forschung investieren. Denn wenn wir in den Sektor nicht investieren, dann – ganz trocken und nüchtern – werden wir nicht mehr wettbewerbsfähig sein gegenüber China, dann werden wir auch nicht wettbewerbsfähig sein gegenüber den USA, dann werden wir auch unsere Aufgaben nicht angehen können. Wir müssen eine aufgabenbezogene Betrachtung haben. Wenn wir uns Aufgaben wie Außengrenzschutz vornehmen, dann muss das ordentlich finanziert und auch mit ordentlichen Kompetenzen versehen werden.
                  

                     Wenn sie weniger bezahlen wollen, dann soll der Rat doch bitte auch mal sagen, welche Aufgaben er denn streichen möchte, welche Agentur er nicht mehr haben möchte, welche Aufgaben er nicht mehr beansprucht von der Europäischen Union. Aber mehr Aufgaben zu geben und anschließend eine geringere Finanzierung – das kann nicht funktionieren. Den Klimawandel bewältigen wollen, aber gleichzeitig nicht in Wissenschaft und Forschung hineingehen, kann auch nicht funktionieren. Der Just Transition Fund kann nicht alles lösen. Ich bitte die Mitgliedstaaten, endlich wegzugehen von der nationalen Brille und sich klar mit den europäischen Perspektiven auseinanderzusetzen und mit den Aufgaben, die vor uns stehen.
                  

Eric Andrieu (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, parce qu'on combine de moins en moins de budget avec de plus en plus d'attentes, on obtient de plus en plus de déception et de moins en moins d'Europe. Voici la situation dans laquelle nous sommes, alors qu'il faudrait davantage d'Europe pour amener plus d'efficacité, plus de cohésion et améliorer le quotidien des citoyens européens.
                  

                     Mais pour faire plus d'Europe, nous avons besoin d'investir dans cette Europe. Or force est de constater que c'est l'inverse qui est en train de se produire. Le pacte vert européen et le mécanisme pour une transition juste dont on attend tant de choses sont sabordés dès le départ, et avec eux la politique de cohésion et la future politique agricole commune, qu'il nous faudra réformer à l'aune du réchauffement climatique. Oui, car le réchauffement planétaire est bien là, bien réel, et le pacte vert doit être une réelle opportunité pour changer profondément le modèle économique.
                  

                     Dans ce contexte, il est déterminant d'associer l'agenda des ressources propres à celui du pacte vert. L'Europe doit se donner les moyens de se réformer, mais je constate que, malgré le soutien de la Commission dans ce combat, le Conseil n'est pas à la hauteur de la tâche de l'intérêt général, l'intérêt général se trouvant souvent subordonné aux intérêts particuliers. Alors j'en appelle à la présidence du Conseil. L'heure n'est plus à l'égoïsme, ni à faire la somme des intérêts particuliers, ni aux retouches cosmétiques ou à de petites mesures qui ne règlent que les petits problèmes de conscience. L'heure est à une vraie ambition européenne. Il y a des actions concrètes pour redresser la barre et se donner les moyens. Et ces moyens, c'est d'abord obtenir un cadre financier et un budget à la hauteur de cette ambition.
                  

                     Mesdames et Messieurs les membres du Conseil, arrêtez de jouer les petits bras! À ce niveau de pouvoir et eu égard aux attentes légitimes des citoyens européens comme à l'urgence de la situation, ce n'est plus acceptable – c'est même aujourd'hui irresponsable.
                  

Ondřej Knotek (Renew). – Paní předsedající, dovolte mi konstatovat, že doposud předložené návrhy finančního rámce neodpovídají představám velké části občanů. A to se prosím musí změnit.
                  

                     17 zemí EU se řadí do skupiny, která prosazuje zachování financování politiky soudržnosti a zemědělství ve stávající výši. Nemůžeme souhlasit s tím, že by méně rozvinuté země v příštím období měly čerpat méně finančních prostředků, než je tomu doposud. Je také nepřijatelné, aby investice do koheze, infrastruktury a zemědělství klesaly a zároveň centrální programy byly navyšovány, a to dost zásadně. Je důležité, aby si členské státy do značné míry mohly samy rozhodovat, na co peníze použijí.
                  

                     Evropská komise musí více naslouchat potřebám členských států a měla by co nejméně určovat jejich priority. 17 států EU chce právě kohezi, investice včetně investic do základní infrastruktury. Toto prosím nesmí být přehlíženo.
                  

Joachim Kuhs (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Ich wundere mich etwas über den Ton der Debatte, denn das Thema lautet ja eigentlich: Vorbereitung der Sondertagung des Europäischen Rates am 20. Februar zum Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen. Aber was tun wir hier? Wir beschädigen regelrecht den maßgeblichen Beteiligten hier, den Rat, indem wir uns darüber beklagen, dass Herr Michel nicht da ist. Ich weiß nicht, ob das dem Ergebnis zuträglich ist, auch den Verhandlungen zuträglich ist. Ich glaube, wir müssen einfach zurückkommen zu dem, was wir eigentlich wollen, was wir wirklich wollen. Und da geht es eindeutig darum, dass wir nur einen begrenzten Rahmen haben, nur begrenzte Gelder, die müssen wir nutzen. Hören wir doch endlich auf, jetzt dem Spatz in der Hand nachzujagen – oder uns mit dem nicht zufriedenzugeben, der Taube auf dem Dach nachzujagen. Begnügen wir uns mit dem Spatz in der Hand und lassen wir doch den Rat jetzt entscheiden, was passiert. Die 1,7 % oder 1,11 % sind doch wirklich genug.
                  

Petra De Sutter (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, the next seven years will be crucial. They will determine how our children will live on this planet. Our societies have to undergo a digital and ecological transition in a socially fair way, and we need sufficient funds for this.
The EU budget is more than a membership fee. It is the mirror of our political ambitions. Therefore, a massive investment boost is needed without necessarily increasing Member States' resources. We shouldn't be afraid to go and get own resources from plastic polluters, carbon emissions, big financial transactions, and a fair share from multinationals and kerosene because, if we don't find additional money to realise the ambitions of the Green Deal, citizens will feel it. They will see fewer infrastructure works happening in their region or have fewer opportunities to get reskilled after they have lost their jobs. If we want our citizens to embrace the European project, this must be reflected in our budget.

Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). – Voorzitter, de meerjarenbegroting is duidelijk uit het lood geslagen, dat hebben we gezien. De Britten gaan eruit en de begroting gaat ineens weer enorm omhoog. Nederland is sinds 2000 de grootste nettobetaler per hoofd van de bevolking. En nu wordt die bijdrage zelfs nog vergroot met 62 %, tot 13 miljard bruto. Dat is een enorm bedrag. Dat betekent 1 600 euro per jaar per huishouden in Nederland. Dat is onbetaalbaar.
                  

                     Dan vraag ik me af: waar zijn de leden van de CDA en de VVD om op te komen voor die Nederlandse burger? Ik heb hier de hele ochtend gezeten en niemand gezien. Ik zal eventjes mijn bril erbij pakken om te kijken waar ze zijn. Daar zit er één. Heeft u al gesproken, mevrouw, want u zit daar nu als een pudding?
                  

                     Laat ik het dus duidelijk maken, en laat ik dan opkomen voor de Nederlandse burger. Ik zeg: premier Rutte, gebruik uw veto. Toon moed, zoals Oostenrijk doet, en zeg eindelijk een keer nee, en spoel deze begroting door de wc.
                  

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, à mesa do Conselho Europeu os mal chamados ‘contribuintes líquidos do orçamento’ que, com mais propriedade, deveriam ser chamados ‘beneficiários líquidos da integração’, sabem que o tempo corre a seu favor. Jogam com a pressão do atraso nas verbas da coesão e com o prejuízo que tal causaria aos países que mais dependem dessas verbas para tornarem inevitável uma proposta que é, na verdade, inaceitável. Ora, se é inaceitável, ela não pode ser inevitável.
                  

                     Para os países da coesão este é o momento de virar o jogo, lembrar aos que se recusam a dar a justa contribuição para o orçamento que uma integração que só produz desigualdade e divergência está condenada a não ter futuro. Lembrar que, se a política de coesão não foi suficiente para travar a divergência no passado, então ela precisa de ser reforçada e não enfraquecida. Denunciar que as ditas ‘novas prioridades’ do orçamento são uma forma de os países mais ricos lá irem buscar mais dinheiro.
                  

                     Para os países da coesão este é o momento de perceberem que, no dia em que decidirem afirmar a sua dignidade e a sua soberania, terão muito mais a ganhar do que aquilo que lhes possa vir do orçamento.
                  

Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, gospođo von der Leyen, govoreći ovdje o financiranju i financijskim politikama ne mogu ne reći kako se financira politika zaštite okoliša u Hrvatskoj, odnosno usmjerit ću se na sustav gospodarenja otpadom.
                  

                     Mi u Hrvatskoj imamo u planu napraviti 11 centara za gospodarenje otpadom, od kojih su dva već napravljena, Marišćina i Kaštijun, i od njih nismo dobili ništa osim zagađenja i velikog poskupljenja računa. Sad forsirate još ovih drugih devet. Zašto dolazi do tih kapitalnih promašaja? Prvo je pogrešna zajednička okolišna politika. Uzmimo u obzir samo Njemačku i Hrvatsku. Hrvatska ima svega 75 stanovnika na kilometar kvadratni, Njemačka 230. Tu je isto velika razlika u dohotku. Ne možemo mi platiti što vi možete. Na kraju krajeva i ne trebamo, imamo neke svoje specifičnosti. Tu je također korupcija, sve se kod nas radi naopako. Umjesto da se reciklira koliko se može, radi se kao da se ništa ne reciklira. Centri su predimenzionirani, naravno preplaćeni su, jer je poanta da se izvuče što više novaca za klijente hrvatskog establišmenta. Krajnji proizvod će biti RDF koji nećemo imati kome prodati. Sve to prelit će se na račune stanovnika koji idu u nebo i na taj način se prazni Hrvatska. Ono što se nije postiglo u Domovinskom ratu, prazni se Hrvatska preko računa skupih.
                  

Janusz Lewandowski (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Historia podobno się nie powtarza, ale w przypadku WRF powtarza się w sposób niekorzystny dla Parlamentu Europejskiego. Od czasu przedłożenia projektu Komisji, czyli od maja 2018 roku, Parlament jest w bardzo niewygodnej wait and see position i słusznie nie negocjuje dalej projektów sektorowych, dlatego że trudno jest rozmawiać o regułach, jeśli nie zna się liczb. Budżet to są liczby, a nie deklaracje.
                  

                     Teraz wszystko jest w rękach przewodniczącego Michela. Jest dzisiaj nieobecny, więc nie dowiemy się, czy jego spotkania z liderami państw członkowskich, zwane w budżetowym slangu confessionals, doprowadziły do zbliżenia stanowiska czy nie. Jeżeli doprowadziły, to jakieś szanse powodzenia ma nadzwyczajny szczyt 20 lutego i nowy negotiating box, ale ja pamiętam, że nigdy nie udawało się osiągnąć porozumienia za pierwszym razem, więc tego się dzisiaj nie dowiemy.
                  

                     Wiemy natomiast jedno: opóźnienie jest większe niż kiedykolwiek. Perspektywa 2014-2020 została uzgodniona między rządami 8 lutego, a z Parlamentem w czerwcu. Ten kalendarz wydaje się mało realny w tym roku. Jednak najgorszy scenariusz to długotrwały przetarg pomiędzy instytucjami. Tego ludzie nie lubią, to buduje zły wizerunek w Unii Europejskiej, bo beneficjenci chcą mieć przewidywalność inwestowania. To jest największa zaleta budżetu europejskiego.
                  

Pierre Larrouturou (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, ‘whatever it takes’: en 2012, Mario Draghi explique que la banque centrale est prête à faire tout ce qui sera nécessaire pour sauver la zone euro. Et la Banque centrale va mettre 2 600 milliards sur la table. 2 600 milliards d'euros en quatre ans pour sauver la zone euro. Et pour sauver le climat, on va mettre combien?
                  

                     Sauver la monnaie unique, évidemment, c'était très important, mais sauver notre planète unique, sauver notre humanité unique, n'est-ce pas encore plus important? Sommes-nous prêts, nous aussi, à faire, whatever it takes, tout ce qui sera nécessaire pour réussir le pacte vert, une transition juste?
                  

                     La Commission elle-même dit qu'il manque chaque année entre 300 milliards et 500 milliards d'euros pour réussir le pacte vert. Il manque chaque année entre 300 et 500 milliards d'euros et, pour le moment, ce qui est concret, c'est un fonds pour une transition juste avec 7 milliards sur sept ans.
                  

                     La solution serait de développer les ressources propres pour avoir un budget ‘climat’ très ambitieux, sans demander un euro aux familles modestes ou aux États membres. Quand j'étais petit, l'impôt sur les bénéfices était à 45 % en Europe. Aujourd'hui, l'impôt sur les bénéfices est tombé à 20 %, alors que les dividendes explosent. Il est temps d'avancer sur les ressources propres. Un vrai pacte vert ou du greenwashing: c'est dans les mois qui viennent que ça se décide.
                  

Jérémy Decerle (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, ceux qui savent que je suis non seulement français, mais aussi agriculteur et ancien représentant agricole, ne s'étonneront pas que j'insiste sur l'enjeu capital que représente le budget de la politique agricole commune. Je crois pourtant que c'est dans l'intérêt de toute l'Europe que je m'exprime.
                  

                     Que pour financer les nouvelles ambitions législatives de l'Union européenne, on soit tenté de faire des coupes dans les politiques historiques, je peux l'imaginer. Ce serait pourtant une grave erreur, pour trois raisons simples. Toutes les grandes puissances agricoles mondiales soutiennent fortement leur agriculture et nous avons la responsabilité d'être, nous aussi, à la hauteur. La transition agroécologique en cours, que le pacte vert accompagnera, ne peut être couronnée de succès sans une PAC qui s'en donne les moyens. Du budget de la PAC dépendent aussi, je le rappelle, la qualité et la diversité de notre alimentation, l'équilibre de nos territoires ruraux, et aussi le maintien d'agriculteurs nombreux.
                  

                     Ce ne sont pas de petits enjeux. Le budget de la PAC ne doit pas baisser. Je vous remercie de m'avoir écouté; je vous remercierai encore plus de m'avoir entendu.
                  

Ivan David (ID). – Paní předsedající, Hospodářský a měnový výbor Evropského parlamentu je nespokojen s nízkým ekonomickým růstem v eurozóně, jen 1,1 %.
                  

                     Očekával bych tedy řadu opatření, aby EU tolik v růstu nezaostávala za Čínou a Spojenými státy. Ale co navrhuje EU? Věnovat 40 % rozpočtu na chimérický projekt Green deal, který životnímu prostředí nepomůže a hospodářství uškodí. Přechodem na elektromobilitu a obnovitelné zdroje se Evropská komise chystá rozvrátit energetiku a dopravu současně, a tím snížit konkurenceschopnost Evropy. Pak ať projevuje uspokojení nad stagnací nebo spíše úpadkem.
                  

                     Snaha přímo z Bruselu podporovat nikým nevolené nátlakové skupiny, zvané neziskové organizace, ukazuje na postoj k demokracii. Místo vlastních obyvatel má být podpořena migrace. Snížit se mají výdaje na zemědělství a venkov. V roce 2004 po vstupu nových členských zemí slíbila vyrovnání evropských dotací na zemědělství do roku 2013, dosud se tak nestalo. Jak dlouho má ještě trvat taková politika, než přivolá spravedlivý hněv občanů?
                  

Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE). – Gerbiama pirmininke, noriu paraginti visus atsitraukti nuo skaičių. Sprendžiant dėl daugiametės finansinės perspektyvos svarbiausia yra tikslai. Ar mes nebesieksime, kad visuose regionuose gyventojams būtų užtikrintas geras gyvenimo lygis? Žiūrint į skaičius atrodo, kad taip, nes sanglauda karpoma labai ženkliai. Ar mes toleruosime, kad kai kurie žemdirbiai yra laikomi antrarūšiais? Atrodo, kad taip, nes Komisijos siūlyme nėra tiesioginių išmokų suvienodinimo. Ar mums svarbiausi atskirų valstybių, o ne bendri tikslai? Ir šis klausimas yra susijęs su diskusijomis dėl valstybių narių įnašo dydžio į bendrąjį biudžetą.
                  

                     Sutinku, kad Europos Sąjunga turi naujų iššūkių, bet naujus iššūkius ir reikia finansuoti naujais pinigais. Nes atimti finansavimą iš konkrečių sričių galima tik tada, kai bendrai sutariama, kad jų vykdyti jau nėra prasmės.
                  

Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca, Panie Komisarzu! Zaproponowane przez poprzednią Komisję cięcia w unijnym budżecie na dwie najważniejsze polityki, spójności o 10% i WPR o 15%, zostały właśnie odrzucone w stanowisku przyjętym na początku lutego w Portugalii przez 17 krajów z grupy przyjaciół spójności. Konieczne jest więc zwiększenie budżetu zarówno przez podniesienie składek członkowskich, jak i likwidację istniejących rabatów, a być może również uruchomienie nowych źródeł dochodów własnych.
                  

                     Kompromis w Radzie w tym zakresie jest możliwy, ale pod warunkiem, że odejdziemy od negocjacji opartych na konstrukcji ‘płatnicy netto kontra beneficjenci netto’, a weźmiemy również pod uwagę korzyści poszczególnych krajów unijnych wynikające z uczestnictwa we wspólnym rynku, a także przepływy kapitałowe. Płatnicy netto z reguły korzystają bardzo mocno z udziału we wspólnym rynku. Na przykład Niemcy wpłacają 27 miliardów euro składki rocznie, a korzyści ze wspólnego rynku wynoszą aż 210 miliardów rocznie. Ponadto kraje Europy Zachodniej osiągają inne korzyści z rozszerzenia Unii. Jedną z nich są dywidendy i odsetki od kapitałów. Tylko wzięcie pod uwagę tych wszystkich przepływów daje moim zdaniem możliwość racjonalnej rozmowy o kształcie przyszłego budżetu i szansę na porozumienie.
                  

Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, kolegice i kolege, uspješna Europa nove generacije moguća je jedino još snažnijim ulaganjima i u poduzetništvo i u istraživanje, razvoj, mlade i obrazovanje. Moramo osigurati kvalitetnu prilagodbu našeg kontinenta za digitalnu revoluciju, ali isto tako i pripremiti se na ubrzanu utrku u primjeni novih tehnologija sa sve snažnijim globalnim konkurentima.
                  

                     Istodobno, sljedeći sedmogodišnji proračun Europske unije mora nastaviti smanjivati ekonomske i društvene razlike koje nažalost još uvijek postoje između država članica, budući da je upravo to jedan od ključnih ciljeva koji je upisan i u samim temeljima Europske unije. To je i razlog zbog kojeg i Ugovor o funkcioniranju Europske unije izričito naglašava da se posebna pozornost poklanja regijama koje su izložene ozbiljnim demografskim poteškoćama, kao i područjima zahvaćenim industrijskom tranzicijom.
                  

                     Ne možemo ignorirati negativne demografske trendove koji ugrožavaju razvoj velikog dijela Europe. Vrijeme je da europski proračun prepozna da je i radi kohezije, ali i radi prave ravnopravnosti svih europskih građana, potrebno i europskim instrumentima još snažnije podržati demografski ugrožene dijelove Europe.
                  

Simona Bonafè (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la prossima settimana il Consiglio europeo speciale affronta un tema dirimente: di quali risorse potrà disporre l'Unione europea dal 2021 al 2027 per far fronte alle nuove sfide che abbiamo davanti e dare ai cittadini europei una società più sostenibile ambientalmente, più giusta, più sicura, più moderna.
                  

                     Il Parlamento ha chiesto un bilancio adeguato. Fino a ora la risposta dei governi è stata insufficiente. Da una parte assegniamo nuovi compiti e responsabilità all'Europa, a cui i governi non possono far fronte da soli, ma poi teniamo ben stretti i cordoni della borsa. Come dire: fare di più ma senza risorse. La ricetta perfetta per permettere di continuare a usare il progetto europeo come il migliore dei capri espiatori per le cose che non vanno.
                  

                     Qui colleghi non c'è in ballo un bilancio ma la credibilità stessa dell'Unione. Allora chiediamo alla Presidenza del Consiglio di portare ai capi di Stato e di governo il messaggio di quest'Aula. Ci aspettiamo immediatamente un'inversione di tendenza, basta giocare con il futuro dell'Unione, con il futuro di tutti noi.
                  

Nils Torvalds (Renew). – Fru talman! Vi måste ställa oss frågan: Vilka utmaningar står vi egentligen inför? Den utmaningen låter kanske så här: Vi står inför utmaningen att skapa ett nytt industriellt ekosystem. Detta är alltså inte science fiction, detta är inte Jules Verne, detta är inte Aldous Huxley, detta är inte Isaac Asimov, utan detta är den verklighet vi står inför. Då behöver vi för det första en budget som är Paris-kompatibel, en green deal-budgetram för de kommande åren.
                  

                     Vi behöver dessutom en forskningsbudget som står pall för de utmaningar som vi står inför, och den forskningsbudgeten måste vara i överensstämmelse med medlemsländernas forskningsbudget. Detta är alltså ingen liten uppgift för rådet, men om rådet inte kan lösa det, så står vi där med skammen.
                  

Mara Bizzotto (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vi chiedo: ma voi pensate che gli italiani siano stupidi? Pensate di prendere in giro i cittadini all'infinito? Secondo voi gli italiani dovrebbero subire in silenzio le rapine fatte dall'Europa? Siete completamente fuori strada, cari burocrati europei, perché gli italiani sono stanchi di essere il bancomat d'Europa e di essere derubati ogni anno di miliardi di euro. Tutti noi siamo stanchi di vedere come l'Europa regala i nostri soldi alla Turchia del dittatore islamico Erdogan, o a qualche ONG che ci porta gli immigrati clandestini in casa.
                  

                     È una grande vergogna, ma state preparando anche di peggio! Per i prossimi sette anni siete pronti a mettere una nuova tassa a carico dei nostri cittadini, una tassa che cercate di mascherare con nome di ‘risorse proprie’ e da ultimo ci volete fregare anche con il MES. Fate attenzione, però, la pazienza degli italiani è finita! E noi faremo di tutto per fermare le follie di questa Europa.
                  

Veronika Vrecionová (ECR). – Paní předsedající, já jsem poslankyně Evropského parlamentu z ČR, tedy ze země, která se řadí mezi tzv. přátele koheze. Přesto přese všechno je mi daleko bližší ten původní návrh Evropské komise než verze Evropského parlamentu. Důvod je jednoduchý, vyšší výdaje, se kterými právě Evropský parlament počítá, znamenají vyšší příjmy. Čistí plátci ale nechtějí zvyšovat své příspěvky do společného rozpočtu a navíc jedna z těch silných zemí, Británie, minulý týden odešla.
                  

                     Budou proto dále sílit snahy vytvořit dodatečné vlastní zdroje Evropské unie a slyšíme to v dnešní rozpravě a to já považuji za špatné. Evropská unie není stát, je to mezinárodní organizace vytvořená jednotlivými státy, která by měla jednat dle zadání těchto států. Nelze vůli těchto států obcházet tím, že zdaníme jejich obyvatele přímo. Konkurenceschopnost Evropské unie nezvýšíme dalším přerozdělováním, zvýšíme ji podporou inovací a lepší infrastrukturou. Finální verze by se tak měla podobat té původní verzi Komise.
                  

Niclas Herbst (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Wenn wir auf die Tribüne blicken, dann sehen wir viele junge Menschen, die Hoffnung setzen in Erasmus, in Forschung und Entwicklung, Kampf gegen den Klimawandel. Ich freue mich auch besonders, dass wir viele Soldaten sehen, die bereit sind, ihr Leben zu geben. Denen sind wir eine Antwort schuldig im Bereich Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, und das geht nur mit einem vernünftig ausgestatteten mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen, weil der die Planken setzt. Charles Michel sagt jetzt, er will die Verhandlungsführer am 20. Februar erst aus dem Saal lassen, wenn es eine Lösung gibt. Er darf nicht vergessen, dass er auch uns mit einberechnen muss. Wenn man hört, dass zum Beispiel die Kohäsionsstaaten – also die Staaten, die besonders von Kohäsionspolitik profitieren – mehr Flexibilität beim System der Implementierung bekommen sollen, dann ist das gut, aber es ist keine Lösung für ausreichende Mittel. Wenn wir hören, dass wir als Haushaltsgesetzgeber mehr Flexibilität bekommen sollen, ist das gut, aber es ist kein Ersatz für fehlende Mittel.
                  

                     Es ist jetzt ganz wichtig, dass wir kein Spiel spielen, so nach dem Motto ‘Wir geben euch als Europäischem Parlament zu wenig Mittel für zu viele Aufgaben, und ihr dürft dann am Ende mit Haushaltsflexibilität vielleicht noch darüber entscheiden, wem ihr besonders wehtut’. Wir sitzen hier schon alle zusammen in einem Boot, und ich bitte, das Charles Michel doch auszurichten, falls einer der Kollegen ihn treffen sollte bis zum 20. Februar. Das ist ganz wichtig: Wir sitzen zusammen in einem Boot; und wir müssen jetzt Schritt für Schritt vorangehen, systemische Fragen können wir danach klären. Jetzt ist wirklich die Frage der Ausstattung im Mittelpunkt.
                  

Rovana Plumb (S&D). – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, doamna ministru, sigur, bugetul Uniunii Europene trebuie să fie unul solid și care să reflecte capacitatea noastră de a susține dezvoltările necesare în fiecare dintre statele membre, dar și răspunsul la noile provocări. Mai mult decât atât, cred că el nu trebuie să se rezume doar la un exercițiu matematic, ci să continue proiectele de care avem nevoie.
                  

                     Politica de coeziune – politica de coeziune pentru care Parlamentul European și-a exprimat deja punctul de vedere – nu trebuie să fie redusă sau relocată sub nicio formă ca urmare a apariției noilor inițiative, cum ar fi Fondul pentru o tranziție justă, care, desigur, trebuie să dispună de toate resursele necesare, astfel încât această tranziție să fie echitabilă.
                  

                     Iar, dacă ne referim la domeniul transporturilor, principalul instrument de finanțare, Mecanismul pentru interconectarea Europei, de asemenea, pentru el Parlamentul European și-a exprimat poziția și, de asemenea, el nu trebuie să fie diminuat, pentru că tot ceea ce înseamnă buget este o chestiune de credibilitate a noastră în fața provocărilor, în fața cetățenilor europeni.
                  

Luis Garicano (Renew). – Señora presidenta, Europa se encuentra ahora mismo enfrentada a una crisis existencial. Vemos cómo los partidos populistas crecen en cada elección —ahora mismo acabamos de verlo en Irlanda con el Sinn Féin—. Vemos que, en el caso del crecimiento económico, esta semana todos los datos que hemos tenido son malos: las economías europeas se están parando. Vemos que no tenemos la unión bancaria terminada. Vemos que, realmente, con la salida del Reino Unido perdemos un miembro clave para Europa.
                  

                     Y, en el medio de esta crisis existencial, nos encontramos con un presupuesto que nos tememos pueda ser el más bajo de la historia en proporción al PIB. Tenemos muchísimos retos y no vamos a tener los recursos para hacerles frente. Parte del problema es esta discusión continúa entre contribuyentes netos y los que reciben, que al final no nos permite avanzar.
                  

                     Necesitamos un sistema de recursos propios. Un sistema de recursos propios que nos ayude a resolver los problemas a los que nos enfrentamos: cambio climático y evasión fiscal. Este Parlamento no aprobará un acuerdo de MFP que no haga frente a estos problemas a la vez que resuelve para siempre el problema de la financiación de Europa, que no puede depender de estas negociaciones que siempre nos dejan por debajo de nuestras necesidades.
                  

Dolors Montserrat (PPE). – Señora presidenta, el proyecto europeo no será más fuerte con una Unión Europea más débil. Por ello, no son buenas las noticias que nos llegan de la Comisión y del Consejo a propuesta del marco financiero plurianual.
                  

                     Reducir la PAC, reducir los Fondos de Cohesión o el Fondo Social Europeo es alejar de la Unión a aquellos que más lo necesitan. Los agricultores y ganaderos españoles sufren por las crecientes exigencias —también del Pacto Verde Europeo—, y con una mano les exigen más competitividad pero, con la otra, se pretende reducir la financiación que necesitan, como es la PAC.
                  

                     O, por ejemplo, los jóvenes, que son los más perjudicados en España, alcanzando una tasa de desempleo del 30 %. Por un lado, se les dice que son el futuro de Europa pero, por el otro, pretenden reducir el Fondo Social Europeo, dedicado a la inserción laboral de estos jóvenes. Y, ante el reto digital, la despoblación, la necesidad de fomentar la industria, las pymes y la conectividad de nuestras regiones, es incoherente pretender dejar a nuestras regiones con menos fondos para su desarrollo y para su cohesión.
                  

                     Los Estados miembros juegan un papel fundamental. Por tanto, como delegación española del Partido Popular Europeo, exigimos al Gobierno de Sánchez que no siga de brazos cruzados, que las batallas que no se dan se pierden, y los gobiernos socialistas nos tienen demasiado acostumbrados a volver a España con las manos vacías.
                  

                     Los recortes en Fondos Estructurales, Fondos de Cohesión y fondos agrícolas golpearían especialmente a España y, por tanto, el Partido Popular, vamos a ser firmes, como siempre, en la defensa de los intereses de los sectores productivos y económicos de España. Vamos a dar la batalla.
                  

Erik Bergkvist (S&D). – Fru talman, ledamöter! Detta är ju ändå märkligt. Vi har fantastiska möjligheter. Vi har aldrig haft så fantastiska möjligheter som nu att skapa ett bättre Europa. 70 år av samarbete och gemensamma satsningar har skapat en välfärd, en fredlig utveckling och möjligheter som vi nog aldrig trodde att vi skulle få, och allting tyder på att fortsatt samarbete och fortsatta gemensamma satsningar faktiskt kommer att göra allting ännu bättre.
                  

                     Hotet eller det som ibland kryper upp ur kloakerna är ju rädsla, nationalism, populism. Om vi hemfaller vi till det är det klart att ingenting möjligt. Men om vi tänker bort det ett tag, så är vi faktiskt världens största ekonomi – en enorm välfärdsregion med en teknik som faktiskt gör det möjligt att lösa de utmaningar som vi i dag står inför. Men det måste ske rättvist. Det måste ske med en faktiskt utökad och starkare sammanhållningspolitik. Vi får aldrig hemfalla till utökad nationalism.
                  

                     François Mitterrand sa så här: Nationalism är krig. Krig tillhör det förgångna, men det kan också vara vår framtid. Du är garanten för fred och säkerhet.
                  

Caroline Nagtegaal (Renew). – Voorzitter, de Europese Unie betreedt op dit moment een make-or-breakfase in haar bestaan: gaan we zwichten voor de gevestigde belangen van gisteren, of durven we eindelijk te kiezen voor het gedeelde belang van alle Europeanen van deze toekomst. Als het aan mij ligt, dan wordt dat het laatste. Laat de Unie zich durven focussen op de gezamenlijke uitdagingen waar we voor staan: migratie, veiligheid, infrastructuur, klimaat. Daarvoor kijken Europeanen naar deze Unie en daarvoor willen ze op deze Unie van 27 lidstaten kunnen rekenen.
                  

                     Een automatische reflex voor een hoger budget is bij een kleinere Unie niet op z'n plaats. Kijk nou eens heel goed hoe we het geld beter kunnen besteden en zorg ervoor dat landen met een gelijkwaardig welvaartsniveau ook in gelijke mate kunnen bijdragen aan de Europese begroting. Laten we ons hard maken voor strenge voorwaarden aan die Europese financiering. Is er in een land bijvoorbeeld sprake van fraude of corruptie, of worden de regels rondom democratie en rechtsstaat niet nageleefd, draai dan wat mij betreft de geldkraan dicht. Laten we wegblijven van een discussie tussen Oost en West, Noord en Zuid, maar inzetten op een toekomstbestendig Europa dat past hierbij: Let's make it together.


Tamás Deutsch (PPE). – Elnök Asszony! Először is, a finn kormány ezt nagyon elrontotta. A finn soros elnökség, finoman fogalmazva is, szuboptimális teljesítményének köszönhetően ma messzebb vagyunk a megállapodástól, mintsem a bolgár, a román és az osztrák soros elnökség munkája kapcsán. Nagy a feladata a Tanács állandó elnökének, és nagy a feladata a horvát elnökségnek. A probléma lényege az, hogy a finn soros elnökség munkája kapcsán egy tisztességtelen és igazságtalan, az alapelgondolásában, a logikájában, a rendszerében tisztességtelen és igazságtalan költségvetési javaslat fekszik a Tanács asztalán, és ezen kell majd az állam- és kormányfőknek dolgozniuk.
                  

                     Tisztességtelen és igazságtalan az a megközelítés, függetlenül a hétéves keretköltségvetés főösszegétől, ami a gazdagabb európai uniós tagállamok irányába von el pénzt a szegényebb európai uniós tagállamoktól. Ez képtelenség. Másodsorban, engedjék meg, hogy formabontó legyek, egy költségvetési vita kapcsán beszéljünk végre a számokról is a nagyon fontos, elvek, értékek és politikai kijelentések mellett. Ha a legkisebb költségvetési főösszegre vonatkozó javaslat és a legnagyobb közötti különbséget nézzük, ez háromszázötven milliárd euró, első hallásra nagyon sok pénz. Ez valójában azt jelenti, hogy minden európai uniós polgárnak, havonta mintegy 9 eurót kéne befizetnie a költségvetésbe. Havi 9 euróról beszélünk, azt gondolom, hogy ennyi pénzt az európai jövő megér.
                  

Jens Geier (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Bei den letzten Verhandlungen über den mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen haben die Staats- und Regierungschefs am 8. Februar 2013 eine Einigung gefunden. Dem vorausgegangen war bereits ein erster Gipfel im November 2012, bei dem über den mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen gestritten wurde. Den Rest der Geschichte kennen wir schon: Formal verabschiedet wurde der MFR am 2. Dezember 2013. Erst dann konnten die operationellen Programme geschrieben werden, und durch diese Verzögerung lagen Projektträger auf dem Trockenen, mussten von anderen Stellen gestützt werden.
                  

                     2014 war ein verlorenes Jahr des EU-Haushalts – so hat es der ehemalige Haushaltskommissar Günther Oettinger völlig zu Recht gesagt, denn es kam zu fast keinem Mittelabfluss. Das heißt, wir sind im Grunde heute schon zu spät dran und auf dem besten Weg dahin, 2021 wieder zu einem verlorenen Jahr zu machen. Nach dem Brexit, mit dem Blick auf den Präsidenten im Weißen Haus, angesichts der Klimakatastrophe und dem globalen Ziel, Nachhaltigkeit in allen Politikbereichen herzustellen: Wollen wir uns das wirklich leisten?
                  

                     Und an all diejenigen in den nationalen Haushalten, die auf ihre Haushalte gucken, was ich verstehen kann: Sie sind herzlich eingeladen, auf die Vorschläge dieses Hauses für ein besseres Eigenmittelsystem zu schauen. Ich denke, das könnte eine Lösung sein. Es geht am 20. Februar darum, Handlungsfähigkeit zu zeigen. Wer europäisch denkt, stellt die Lösung der gemeinsamen Aufgaben in den Mittelpunkt. So sollten wir handeln!
                  

Mircea-Gheorghe Hava (PPE). – Doamna președintă, stimați colegi, Uniunea Europeană are nevoie de acces la banii din viitorul CFM cât mai repede, cât mai predictibil și simplificat.
                  

                     130 de miliarde de euro anual este suma cu care statele contribuie la bugetul propus de Comisia Europeană pentru viitoarea perioadă de programare. Conform aceleiași instituții, mai bine de 923 de miliarde de euro se întorc în statele membre din piața unică europeană – un raport fantastic. Este vorba de faptul că la un euro investit se reîntorc nouă euro în țările noastre.
                  

                     Cifre din surse ale Comisiei arată că Belgia, la 4,36 miliarde de euro investiți, recuperează 56,49 de miliarde de euro, Olanda, la 6,85 miliarde de euro, recuperează 84 de miliarde de euro, Austria, care investește 3,84 miliarde de euro, recuperează 35,61 miliarde de euro, Finlanda va contribui cu 2,22 miliarde de euro și va încasa 13,2 miliarde de euro, iar țara mea, România, va contribui cu 2,41 miliarde de euro și va câștiga 16,59 miliarde de euro.
                  

                     Vrem pact ecologic, vrem banii Băncii Europene de Investiții în proiecte de energie curată, vrem bani investiți în decarbonificarea industriilor, vrem Europa superputere digitală, să aprobăm cât mai repede CFM-ul, deoarece de aici pornește totul, de la acordul politic asumat rapid.
                  

Paul Tang (S&D). – Voorzitter, als je de kranten leest, vergeet je het snel, maar eens in de 7 jaar heeft de EU een enorme kans. De enorme kans om antwoorden te vinden op de uitdagingen van deze tijd. De kans om landbouw groener te maken, om Europese treinverbindingen op te zetten of onze wetenschap wereldwijd te laten leiden. De kranten doen echter geen verslag van deze enorme kans, maar van de hoogte van het EU-budget.
                  

                     Meneer Rutte, Mark Rutte, deze oproep is voor u. Ten eerste: geef de bedrijven geen gratis abonnement op de interne markt. Laat niet de burgers, maar de grootste bedrijven betalen. Een kwart miljoen voor de allergrootste bedrijven levert al snel 5 miljard euro op. Ten tweede: focus niet op één komma nul, nul, nul procent. Liever iets meer dan 1 % van ons inkomen dat goed besteed wordt. Kijk niet naar de percentages, maar kies voor de kans.
                  

Othmar Karas (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, meine Damen und Herren! Ich appelliere für mehr Aufrichtigkeit und Ernsthaftigkeit in der Budget-Debatte, denn es geht um unsere Zukunft. Aus diesem Grund startet das Europäische Parlament auch eine Informationsoffensive, weil die große Mehrheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger meint, dass die Mehrheit des Geldes primär in die Verwaltung geht, obwohl 94 % des gesamten Budgets in unseren Regionen, in den Gemeinden ausgegeben werden: für unsere Universitäten, für den ländlichen Raum, für unsere Betriebe, für die Entwicklung der Zukunft. Jeder Euro bewirkt drei Investitionseuros zuhause, weil die Argumentation der meisten Mitgliedstaaten in die Irre führt. Sie verschweigen, dass der Mehrwert der Mitgliedschaft ein Vielfaches größer ist als der Mitgliedsbeitrag. Es gibt keine Nettozahler, weil die Mitgliedstaaten über Prozente statt über Aufgaben, Projekte, Inhalte und den Wert sprechen. Ich halte es für unverantwortlich, dass das Programm von Ursula von der Leyen nicht das nötige Geld bekommt.
                  

                     Ich komme zum Schluss: Wo sind die größten Unterschiede? Bei Bildung, bei Forschung, bei Investitionen in den Green Deal, bei der ländlichen Entwicklung, bei Sicherheit, bei den Eigenmitteln und dem sozialen Zusammenhalt. Lösen Sie die Fesseln, Herr Kommissar und liebe Ratsmitglieder! Legen wir eine Zukunftsanleihe auf – mit den Bürgern – und sorgen wir für ein europäisches Crowdfunding-Modell und Eigenmittel, dann können wir die Lücke schließen.
                  

Βαγγέλης Μεϊμαράκης (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, τα επόμενα χρόνια η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση καλείται να υλοποιήσει το Green Deal, μια εξαιρετικά φιλόδοξη πολιτική. Η επιτυχία αυτής της πολιτικής θα κριθεί από την ικανότητά μας να εξασφαλίσουμε ως νομοθέτες την ίση μετάβαση των κοινωνιών μας στην πράσινη οικονομία. Για να μπορέσει αυτό να υλοποιηθεί χωρίς ανισότητες, δεν επαρκεί η συνεισφορά του 1 % από τους ετήσιους εθνικούς προϋπολογισμούς. Μέχρι τώρα, με το ποσό αυτό η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση υλοποιούσε πολιτικές-ορόσημα όπως η Κοινή Γεωργική Πολιτική και η πολιτική συνοχής και τώρα κάποιοι θέλουν με την ίδια χρηματοδότηση να εφαρμόσει και την πιο φιλόδοξη πολιτική των τελευταίων ετών. Αυτό δεν γίνεται. Νέες πολιτικές απαιτούν νέες χρηματοδοτήσεις. Η πρόταση, λοιπόν, του Κοινοβουλίου για 1,3 % θεωρώ ότι είναι πάρα πολύ λογική. Εξασφαλίζει την υλοποίηση των πολιτικών που δικαιώνει τα οράματα των πολιτών για την Ευρώπη του μέλλοντος χωρίς να περικόπτει τις απαραίτητες χρηματοδοτήσεις για την υλοποίηση της αγροτικής πολιτικής και της πολιτικής συνοχής, και μπορεί —ταυτόχρονα— με τη μεγαλύτερη χρηματοδότηση να εξυπηρετηθούν όλες αυτές οι ανάγκες. Γι' αυτό και δεν είναι υπεύθυνο να γίνονται βαρυσήμαντες εξαγγελίες από τις εθνικές κυβερνήσεις χωρίς αυτές να συνοδεύονται από τολμηρές πρωτοβουλίες και χρηματοδότηση. Η πρόταση του Κοινοβουλίου περιμένουμε —και πρέπει— να γίνει αποδεκτή.
                  

Catch-the-eye procedure


Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, a nossa posição aqui no Parlamento ficou extremamente clara, aliás, inequivocamente, clara. Não aceitamos um quadro financeiro reduzido, onde os cortes que se apresentam são em políticas cruciais para o desenvolvimento económico e social dos nossos países.
                  

                     Não aceito, não aceitamos, cortes que sejam altamente penalizadores para o nosso país, para Portugal. Estamos perante um conjunto de propostas que afetam, claramente, quer a política de coesão, quer a política a política agrícola comum. São setores cruciais para o desenvolvimento dos nossos países. E há duas matérias aqui que eu gostava de deixar claras e que são uma enorme preocupação para os deputados provenientes de três Estados-Membros: Portugal, Espanha e França, que têm as suas regiões ultraperiféricas e que podem ver cortada aqui a possibilidade de desenvolvimento destas regiões. Estamos a falar de questões de pesca, de questões económicas, de questões ligadas ao turismo e que podemos ver em causa perante aquilo que se nos é apresentado.
                  

                     Queremos uma União que olhe para as pessoas, para as suas regiões e que não permita estes cortes.
                  

Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Doamna președintă, în urmă cu aproape doi ani discutam pentru prima dată în Consiliul Uniunii Europene, la vremea aceea eram ministru al afacerilor europene din România, despre bugetul european. Astăzi au trecut aproape doi ani de la acel moment și iată că nu avem nicio soluție, nicio soluție clară, nicio propunere adecvată deși au trecut doi ani și poate ar fi timpul să ne gândim la viitorul Uniunii Europene, pentru că, dacă vrem să construim un viitor, avem nevoie de un buget adecvat și de o contribuție mai mare din partea statelor membre la tot ce înseamnă acest proiect european.
                  

                     Nu există priorități vechi sau priorități noi, așa cum s-a spus greșit mai devreme. Există, pur și simplu, priorități ale cetățenilor europeni la care noi trebuie să răspundem.
                  

                     Avem nevoie de un buget axat pe dezvoltarea Uniunii Europene și asta înseamnă și bani pentru coeziune și bani pentru agricultură și bani pentru cercetare și bani pentru mediu. Toate aceste lucruri pot fi făcute dacă suntem dispuși să luăm decizii astăzi.
                  

                     De aceea, liderii europeni la Consiliul European trebuie să adopte o soluție. Sunt soluțiile pe masă, sunt ideile pe masă, trebuie să le adopte, să-și asume responsabilitatea în a sprijini acest proiect european pe mai departe. Cred că cetățenii europeni se așteaptă de la noi să venim cu un buget adecvat pentru anii care urmează.
                  

Mazaly Aguilar (ECR). – Señora presidente, este debate en sesión plenaria ha evidenciado tres grandes coincidencias al margen de diferencias ideológicas. Todos somos conscientes de la dificultad y complejidad añadida que supone negociar el presupuesto en un contexto post-Brexit, y es por lo que apostamos por un acuerdo rápido, que proporcione seguridad jurídica a los principales sectores de nuestra economía. Y exigimos, más allá de cifras y porcentajes, un presupuesto que refleje las nuevas prioridades de la Unión Europea.
                  

                     El Pacto Verde va a ser el protagonista legislativo en los próximos cinco años. Pero ese Pacto y todas las medidas que se van a derivar del mismo, como, por ejemplo, la estrategia ‘de la granja a la mesa’, solo van a conseguir la adhesión de los ciudadanos europeos si, en lugar de recortar presupuesto y pedir más contribución ambiental, somos capaces de ofrecer a los agricultores el apoyo necesario, no solo para que persigan objetivos ambientales más ambiciosos, sino para que puedan desarrollar una actividad económica rentable.
                  

                     Debemos enfrentarnos al abandono de nuestras zonas rurales y al hartazgo y frustración de nuestros agricultores a través de un presupuesto que no margine los desafíos del mundo rural y su notable contribución a la sostenibilidad.
                  

Mick Wallace (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, if the EU wants to sufficiently fund the Green Deal, clean food production, cohesion and maintain peace, we should take the opportunity presented by the exit of the UK, one of its most militaristic and belligerent members, and we should use the opportunity to move away from the mindless militarisation of Europe.
We should scrap the European Defence Fund, the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and other measures that have been brought forward and propelled by those that have been the victim of corporate capture by the military-industrial complex. Even the European Court of Auditors have said that it is a waste of money.
If we want our farmers to move away from the use of chemicals and pesticides and towards the production of clean food, we must help them to do so. It will cost money. We must stop enriching the bigger farmers that don't need our help and instead fund the farmers that do need our help to produce cleaner food and to survive in the process.
We don't need a bigger budget, but we need a much better budget. And the notion that we are increasing defence spend at the expense of the citizens of Europe is not acceptable.

Ljudmila Novak (PPE). – Gospa predsednica, z manj denarja ne moremo uresničiti več projektov in skupnih nalog. Lahko smo sicer bolj racionalni, lahko varčujemo, preoblikujemo naš proračun, vendar ohraniti moramo vse tisto, kar je dobro, in dobrih projektov v Evropski uniji je veliko.
                  

                     Imamo pa tudi nove potrebne projekte. Skupaj lahko naredimo več, pri podnebni politiki, pri varnostni politiki, na področju raziskav, novih tehnologij, boja proti raku in tako naprej. To so projekti za ljudi.
                  

                     Razmisliti moramo tudi o naših skupnih vrednotah, zakaj smo skupaj. Neto plačnice ne smejo pozabiti na solidarnost in na to, da imajo od tega, da dajo denar manj razvitim, tudi same koristi. Več nemških avtomobilov bo prodano, več bodo prodali v trgovinah Spar ali pa nizozemskih tulipanov. In pa neto prejemnice ne smejo pozabiti, od kod je denar, ker se obnašajo včasih preveč samozadostno in pa tudi ne spoštujejo evropskih pravil.
                  

                     Ne smemo pozabiti na prihodnost, zato moramo imeti dober proračun.
                  

Isabel Carvalhais (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, aquilo que eu vou dizer basicamente já foi dito, mas sinto-me nessa obrigação e é uma obrigação ética.
                  

                     De facto, a Comissão Europeia apresenta-nos um plano de trabalho muito ambicioso para responder aos grandes desafios que a Europa, as nossas sociedades enfrentam, mas é fundamental que nessa resposta não haja sacrifícios de políticas que são absolutamente estruturantes das nossas sociedades. Numa errada dicotomia entre políticas tradicionais e políticas modernas, e falo aqui, em concreto, na necessidade de mantermos ou de reforçarmos as dotações orçamentais de políticas tão importantes como a política agrícola, as pescas, a coesão regional, porque, efetivamente, se não o fizermos os nossos cidadãos não perceberão em que sentido é que pretendemos que o projeto europeu continue a ser um projeto de solidariedade e de coesão.
                  

                     E deixo, então, aqui este meu apelo para que estas políticas estruturantes continuem a ser de forte investimento na União Europeia.
                  

Mauri Pekkarinen (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, lisää rahaa jäsenvaltioilta EU:n budjettiin, tämä on ollut keskustelun selvä viesti. 1,07 prosenttia voi minunkin mielestäni olla vähän liian vähän. Minun toiveeni kuitenkin on, että meillä olisi rohkeutta arvioida myös niitä prioriteetteja, joihin yhteisiä varoja käytetään, samoin kuin työnjakoa EU:n ja jäsenvaltioiden välillä monissa tärkeissä asioissa.
                  

                     Jäsenvaltioilla itselläänkin pitää olla mielestäni nykyistä suurempi vastuu esimerkiksi oman maansa alueellisten kehityserojen tasaamisesta. Eri maiden kehityserot ovat lähentyneet, mutta monien maiden sisällä maan sisäiset kehityserot eivät ole lähentyneet. Näin ollen jäsenvaltioiden pitää omilla toimillaan huolehtia siitä, että EU-rahoja ja omia rahoja käytetään tavalla, joka edistää aitoa alueellista ja tasapainoista kehitystä.
                  

                     Tai tutkimus- ja innovaatiorahoitus: EU:n menestyminen suorastaan edellyttää, että voimavaroja tuntuvasti lisätään. Tässäkin asiassa vastuu on myös jäsenvaltioilla. Monien maiden omat sijoitukset koulutukseen, tutkimukseen ja innovaatioihin ovat aivan liian vähäisiä. Myös jäsenvaltioiden itsensä pitää priorisoida ja sijoittaa sinne, mikä sekä jäsenvaltion itsensä että unionin yhteisen edun kannalta on viisainta.
                  

Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, πιστεύω ότι οφείλουμε να είμαστε ειλικρινείς, τόσο με τους εαυτούς μας όσο και απέναντι στους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες. Εάν είμαστε πραγματικοί ευρωπαϊστές, εάν πραγματικά θέλουμε και διεκδικούμε μια καλύτερη και πιο ισχυρή Ευρώπη, εάν θέλουμε πραγματικά η Ευρώπη να έχει μέλλον και προοπτική και να μπορέσει να χρηματοδοτήσει τα μεγάλα οράματα και τις φιλοδοξίες της, όπως είναι η πράσινη πολιτική, η καταπολέμηση του καρκίνου, ο ευρωπαϊκός στρατός και η ενιαία άμυνα και ασφάλεια, τότε ένας τρόπος υπάρχει· μία προϋπόθεση: να επαυξηθεί ο προϋπολογισμός από το 1 % της συνεισφοράς των χωρών μελών στο 1,3 %. Δεν γίνεται διαφορετικά να έχουμε μεγάλες φιλοδοξίες, μεγάλα οράματα και μεγάλα λόγια. Δεν μπορούν αυτά να χωρέσουν σε έναν προϋπολογισμό όπου τα κράτη συνεισφέρουν μόνον το 1 %. Εγώ στηρίζω τη θέση και την άποψη του αγαπητού προέδρου της ομάδας μου, του Manfred Weber, ότι δεν μπορούν χώρες οι οποίες δεν εφαρμόζουν το κράτος δικαίου και το ευρωπαϊκό και διεθνές δίκαιο να λαμβάνουν έστω και ένα ευρώ από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Πρώτη και καλύτερη που πρέπει να εξαιρεθεί από αυτά τα κονδύλια είναι η Τουρκία, η οποία δεν τα σέβεται και δεν τα εφαρμόζει. Έτσι λοιπόν, τελειώνοντας, εάν θέλουμε αυτή η Ευρώπη να έχει ισχυρό μέλλον, ισχυρή προοπτική και να είμαστε περήφανοι, χρειάζεται ένας ισχυρός προϋπολογισμός που να ανταποκρίνεται στις απαιτήσεις των καιρών.
                  

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, dezbaterea de astăzi evident că ține de viitorul Europei și sigur, este regretabil, s-a spus aici, că lipsește președintele, noul președinte al Consiliul European. Tocmai va avea o ședință cu acest subiect.
                  

                     Dar să revenim la importanța bugetului noului cadru financiar. Doamna președintă a Comisiei ne spunea că trebuie să facem un echilibru între vechile priorități și noile priorități. Din punctul meu de vedere, vechile priorități rămân în actualitate: programul agricol comun, de asemenea, coeziunea nu pot să lipsească chiar dacă adăugăm priorități, cum ar fi, sigur, pactul ecologic. Dar nu putem să nu ținem de acele două priorități – politica agricolă comună și coeziune – pentru că, domnule comisar, se vorbea aici de cei care au contribuții nete.
                  

                     În țara mea, top zece capital, investiții, în toate domeniile, de la bănci, energie, comerț, sunt cei care sunt contributori neți, deci au la dispoziție o piață. Noi trebuie să mergem să ajungem la o adevărată coeziune pentru că doar atunci asigurăm viitorul Europei printr-o solidaritate, printr-o viață mai bună, iar la politica agricolă comună vreau să mai spun ceva, pentru că nu am putut cu întrebarea: dacă nu vom ajunge să avem aceeași subvenție la agricultori, Franța cu România cu Cehia cu Slovacia, nu putem să vorbim de o piață unică.
                  

Γεώργιος Κύρτσος (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το πρόβλημα που αντιμετωπίζουμε είναι ότι οι Βρετανοί έφυγαν από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, αλλά η νοοτροπία τους έμεινε πίσω. Αυτά που έλεγε η Thatcher —‘I want my money back’— και η αρνητική λογική του Cameron έχουν, δυστυχώς, μεγάλη επιρροή στο Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο, ακόμη και μετά το Brexit. Η συνέχιση της βρετανικής μεθόδου δημιουργεί προβλήματα. Εμποδίζει την αποτελεσματική λειτουργία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και εμποδίζει την αποτελεσματική εφαρμογή των αναγκαίων νέων πολιτικών. Κυρίως, όμως, στέλνει ένα μήνυμα παραίτησης σε ό,τι αφορά το κοινό μας ευρωπαϊκό μέλλον. Θεωρώ ότι η πρόταση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου δεν λύνει όλα τα προβλήματα· εγγυάται, όμως, ότι δεν θα ξεφύγουν από τον έλεγχο.
                  

Robert Hajšel (S&D). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, áno, boj s klimatickými zmenami je pravdepodobne budúcou najväčšou prioritou. Netreba však zabúdať, že pribudnutie nových priorít neznamená, že by staršie priority, ako je kohézia, strácali na význame, práve naopak. Občania, obyvatelia našich zaostalejších regiónov očakávajú, že práve pomoc Európskej únie prispeje k tomu, aby úroveň ich regiónov sa zvyšovala. Preto my musíme urobiť všetko preto, aby sme našli nové nástroje na financovanie nových priorít, to znamená nové peniaze zo štátneho rozpočtu, či už by boli dosiahnuté navýšením príspevkov zo strany členských štátov, alebo novými vlastnými zdrojmi, ako je karbonizačná uhlíková daň. Preto treba urobiť tiež všetko preto, aby sme to dobre vedeli odkomunikovať našim občanom. Ja chápem tzv. čistých platiteľov do európskeho rozpočtu, že sa im nechce platiť viac, že je to ťažko komunikovať. Ale treba zdôrazniť aj ich obyvateľom, že aj ich ekonomiky profitujú z našej Európskej únie, pretože nejde iba o rozpočet, ale ide o našu súdržnosť, o našu kohéziu a ide takisto o to, aby sme boli dôveryhodní.
                  

Traian Băsescu (PPE). – Doamna președintă, astăzi am avut o dezbatere care arată cât de departe suntem unii de alții. Mai mult decât atât, constatăm că se lărgește nivelul de ambiții de proiecte noi și se micșorează resursa de finanțare a proiectelor vechi și noi.
                  

                     Cred că suntem într-o situație extrem de curioasă. Soluția corectă este ca atât Consiliul, cât și Comisia să țină cont de punctul de vedere al Parlamentului: o finanțare de 1,3 % pentru a ne putea permite menținerea programelor de coeziune a politicii agricole comune și mai ales, pentru a putea implementa și noile programe extrem de importante.
                  

                     Aș mai face o ultimă observație: este nejustificată reticența contributorilor neți. Ei trebuie să țină cont că statele noi membre le-au dat o piață, trebuie să țină cont de faptul că în momentul de față, spre exemplu, România a pierdut 16 000 de medici și 220 000 de ingineri care sunt în statele net contributoare. Este nedrept să se reducă programele de coeziune.
                  

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, comisario Hahn, le recuerdo como comisario de Política Regional, sensible con las regiones ultraperiféricas y, ahora, comisario de Presupuestos. Lo ha escuchado usted en todos los idiomas y en todos los rincones del espectro de este Parlamento Europeo, incluido el Grupo del que procede usted —el popular— y el grupo del que procedo yo —el socialista—. No es aceptable que, ante las mayores ambiciones, la Unión Europea proponga el marco financiero más tacaño de su historia.
                  

                     De modo que las conclusiones son muy claras. La primera, no se puede hacer más con menos. La segunda, no es admisible que las nuevas políticas, que son necesarias, tengan lugar a costa de las políticas que son la razón de ser de Europa: la política de cohesión; la política regional, que protege a las regiones menos favorecidas y alejadas, como las ultraperiféricas, y a los sectores más desfavorecidos, como los agricultores y los productores. Y la tercera —muy clara—, el Parlamento Europeo tiene la última palabra. Que nadie lo olvide, que nadie lo ignore en esta Cámara.
                  

                     Somos decisivos. Sin este Parlamento Europeo y su aprobación definitiva, no habrá marco financiero. Por tanto, habrá que cambiarlo y hacerlo al alza, satisfaciendo las necesidades planteadas por este Parlamento Europeo en su amplísima mayoría.
                  

                     Porque la alternativa no es simplemente el bloqueo del actual marco financiero, sino la impotencia, la irrelevancia y el desfallecimiento del proyecto europeo.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, the MFF to the European Union is like oil to an engine. Without oil the engine can't function; the better the oil, the more efficient the engine. The same applies to the European Union. Without a budget we can't function; the bigger the budget, the more efficient we can be. So it is appropriate that the House should call upon the Member States, and especially the Prime Ministers, to show some vision and broad-mindedness to ensure that we have the budget to do the things that we can do best in the interests of their own Member States and their own citizens. The evidence is there: the added value, the economies of scale in relation to things like CAP, cohesion, climate change, Erasmus, research and so on. The return to Member States is in the region of three-to-four to one for every euro put in. It's logical. It's sensible. It's in the interest of citizens. All we want is for the Prime Ministers to show genuine broad-mindedness and I'm pleased to say that our Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, has indicated that Ireland is prepared to increase its contributions. But all 27 Member States must do so.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for this very fruitful exchange of views. Discussions on the next MFF, over many months, have underlined how passionate we are about the positive impact of policies on our citizens. We don't agree on all the details, but we see a lot of consensus on our shared priorities. The budget is the policy cast in numbers and it needs to be big enough to meet our ambitions. Yet compromise is needed and, as President Ursula von der Leyen has made clear, time has run out. Next week it is crucial that an agreement is reached. We all want to see an ambitious budget, but we cannot ignore the reality that filling the gap of now being a Union of 27 comes with its challenges.
This is why I would urge you to aim for a budget that can deliver as of day one. This is why it is important to continue working on the sectoral proposals. Moreover, we should also work together towards a better outcome for a budget that is able to deliver on our common Strategic Agenda for Europe by focusing on, first, equipping ourselves with the means to deliver the Green Deal for climate neutrality, and, second, ensuring new own resources are created, for example plastics and ETS to help finance European public goods.
We also look forward to a constructive and productive discussion at the European Council on 20 February and an outcome that's good for Europe. The Union cannot deliver on its ambitions when cuts are in areas where European citizens expect us to do more. Many of you have mentioned examples – climate, borders, digital, Erasmus, defence, you name it – and therefore the Finnish negobox is not yet the finish. Why the urgency? We are already very late, as several speakers have said, even later than 2013, where that delay led to a lost year for many programmes. I am talking about 2014.
Our focus must be on making sure that all the new programmes are up and running by 1 January 2021. Let's avoid delays, let's be positive and let's stay united. We owe this to ourselves and to our institutions, but, most importantly, to our citizens, who expect results. The Commission remains committed to a continuous dialogue and to engage fully to support the forthcoming negotiations.
By the way, regarding the negotiations, I have been asked in the past couple of days and even today by many people if I believe that it is possible or likely to strike a deal next week, meaning that, according to tradition, it is unlikely that only one meeting will be sufficient to get the deal. But I think it's time to break with this tradition and to work for a deal struck in one meeting. I have been travelling to many Member States, participating in many meetings and conferences during the past couple of weeks, and I believe there can be a consensus amongst Member States, even already next week, provided there is some goodwill and energy and – may I say and this is very important – that, in particular, bigger, leading Member States become more active and work for a deal. In that respect, I urge all of you to use your contacts and your networks to put some pressure on the European leaders, your party leaders and your party friends in order to work for a deal which, finally, is in the interest of all of us and enables us to enter into negotiations with the European Parliament. The Commission, and I myself, we will do everything to support all these negotiations.

President. – Thank you Commissioner Hahn, and I hope the goodwill continues.

Nikolina Brnjac,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, to conclude, I wish to thank you for a very useful debate. I have taken good note of your expectations and concerns and I will convey them to President Michel.
It is important that Europe continues developing and its socio-economical gaps are being reduced, meaning that our Treaty-based policies are effective and need to be continued, while also taking into account new challenges outlined in the EU's strategic agenda. Furthermore, one of the biggest EU Member States and budget contributors has left, so we need to find a compromise that will address the budgetary gap while at the same time ensuring sufficient resources to achieve objectives, priorities and challenges arising from the ambitious strategic agenda. We are therefore committed to a balanced, efficient and effective budget in line both with our strategic agenda as well as the citizens' expectations.
I am confident that, in cooperation with you, it will be possible to ensure a smooth transition to the next long-term financial cycle. As soon as our leaders reach agreement in the European Council, the Croatian Presidency will be ready to step up our work with you in order to deliver for our citizens and for the future for our Union.

President. – The debate is closed.


Written statements (Rule 171)



Andrus Ansip (Renew),
kirjalikult. – Kahetsusväärselt on eelarveläbirääkimised jälle kord keskendunud eelarve mahule. Neli liikmesriiki (praeguseks küll kolm) hoiab jäigalt kinni maksimaalselt 1,0 protsendist rahvuslikust kogutulust ja Euroopa Parlament nõuab mahuks 1,3 protsenti RKT-st. Võimalikult suurte rahvuslike ümbrike asemel peaks läbirääkijad keskenduma üleeuroopalistele projektidele, st projektidele, kus koos tegutsemine annab lisaväärtust (taristuprojektid, superarvutite ja kvantarvutite ehitamine, tehisintellekt jne). Pean eelarvekõnelustega kiiret edasiminekut väga oluliseks, hääletasin poolt.
                  

Robert Biedroń (S&D),
na piśmie. – Negocjacje w sprawie wieloletnich ram finansowych na lata 2021-2027 powodują coraz większe tarcia między krajami członkowskim. Unijny budżet osłabiony przez wyjście Wielkiej Brytanii wymaga bardziej solidarnej postawy państw członkowskich. Tradycyjny podział na beneficjentów i płatników netto nie pomoże nam w finansowaniu obecnych i nowych programów. Dopóki nie zrozumiemy, że wszyscy korzystamy ze wspólnego rynku wewnętrznego, dopóty ciężko będzie przekonać wszystkie kraje, by wpłacały więcej niż 1% PKB.
                  

                     W trakcie jednej z niedawnych debat moi koledzy z krajów będących płatnikami netto nie bali się zauważyć, jak bardzo korzystne jest dla gospodarek ich krajów bycie na wspólnym rynku. Ostateczny bilans to nie tylko wpłaty i wpływy do budżetu EU, ale także dochód małych i średnich przedsiębiorców, jak i gigantów gospodarczych korzystających z udogodnień wspólnego rynku.
                  

                     Politykom ciężko przychodzi mowa o podwyżkach, jednak obywatele powinni wiedzieć, że programy takie jak Nowy Zielony Ład nie mają granic, że bez porozumień co do ich finansowania wszyscy tracimy. Traci na tym polska i europejska nauka, studenci, osoby inwestujące i rozwijające start-upy.
                  

                     Inną formą rekompensaty dziury budżetowej powinna być reforma zasobów własnych UE, ale od powołania grupy ds. własnych środków finansowych w 2014 nadal nie widzimy dostatecznego postępu.
                  

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D),
raštu. – Artėja Vadovų Tarybos susitikimas, kuriame pagrindinė tema bus daugiametės finansinės perspektyvos klausimas. Labai tikimės, jog bus pasiekta pažanga derybose ir kad Vadovų Taryba sugebės rasti susitarimą dėl derybinio mandato. Mūsų prioritetai dėl sekančios daugiametės finansinės perspektyvos yra aiškūs – tai užtikrinti tinkamą finansavimą socialinės Europos kūrimui. Suomijos pirmininkavimo metu pateikta derybinė pozicija mūsų netenkina ir ji visiškai neatitinka mūsų patvirtintų prioritetų. Turime nepamiršti, jog būtina skirti finansavimą ir dar nepradėtoms programoms, kaip pavyzdžiui, Europinei vaiko garantijai, kuri bus pateikta tik ateinančiais metais, tačiau dėl finansavimo turi būti susitarta jau dabar, kad ši programa galėtų tinkamai veikti ir kad parama pasiektų skurstančius vaikus. Nesutiksime su finansavimo mažinimu socialiniai sričiai, nes mūsų piliečiai tikisi daug iš Europos, o daugiametė finansinė perspektyva privalo atitikti mūsų piliečių, ypač pačių pažeidžiamiausių, lūkesčius.
                  

Cristian-Silviu Bușoi (PPE),
in writing. – In the light of the budgetary negotiations of the European Council, I stress the importance of establishing a budget proportional with our objectives. The Von der Leyen Commission has an ambitious programme ahead, which requires an ambitious budget. As Chair of the Committee for Industry, Research and Energy of the European Parliament, I am particularly concerned about an eventual cut in the Horizon Europe budget. This instrument is a key factor for the success of the Green Deal and EU's assumed mission to fight cancer. Proper investment in digital research and innovation will be critical for increasing the global competitiveness of Europe's industries while helping them to achieve carbon emissions reductions in line with our climate-neutral objectives. Europe needs to support uptake of innovative technologies in relation to the development of CO2 absorption capacities, develop innovative negative emissions technologies, and enable digital technologies such as artificial intelligence, 5G and supercomputing in order to better design climate and environment policies. These actions cannot be performed without an adequate budget and their financing should not come at the cost of EU cohesion policy, which is crucial for a uniform transition process.

Leszek Miller (S&D),
na piśmie. – Przystępując do negocjacji w sprawie kolejnych wieloletnich ram finansowych na lata 2021-2027, przywódcy państw członkowskich zgromadzeni w Radzie Europejskiej powinni pamiętać, że budżet UE ma zapewnić odpowiedni poziom finansowania ambitnych i prorozwojowych polityk oraz programów unijnych, które zostały przedstawione przez nową Komisję Europejską i zatwierdzone przez Parlament. Szczególnie istotne są w tym zakresie programy socjalne przewidujące pomoc dzieciom zagrożonym ubóstwem, zwalczanie bezrobocia wśród młodzieży, badania i innowacje, transformacja cyfrowa oraz inwestycje środowiskowe i dotyczące zmian klimatycznych (European Green Deal). Odpowiednie finansowanie powinno zostać także utrzymane w dziedzinie polityki spójności i wspólnej polityki rolnej.
                  

                     Kluczowym elementem prowadzonych negocjacji w sprawie WRF 2021-2027 jest także reforma systemu zasobów własnych UE przewidująca ustanowienie dodatkowych źródeł dochodów Unii. Obecnie lwią część budżetu Unii (ok. 70%) stanowią składki płacone przez państwa członkowskie; w konsekwencji ich ostateczna kwota stanowi każdorazowo przedmiot trudnych negocjacji międzyrządowych. Reszta to bezpośrednie wpływy do budżetu UE z ceł, opłat rolnych, opłat wyrównawczych od cukru oraz wpłaty oparte na VAT.
                  

                     Pogłębianie procesu integracji europejskiej wymaga zwiększenia niezależności budżetowej Unii. Dlatego podzielam stanowisko Parlamentu, że dodatkowe źródło zasobów własnych powinny stanowić m.in. dochody ze zniesienia rabatów i korekt oraz opodatkowania działających na jednolitym rynku międzynarodowych przedsiębiorstw mających siedziby w rajach podatkowych lub cyfrowych gigantów spoza Unii.
                  

Romana Tomc (PPE),
pisno. – Pogajanja o tem, kako velik del evropskega kolača si bo zagotovila posamezna država, so v zadnji fazi. Denarja za vse projekte je premalo, zato je tekma za evropski denar zelo trda. Moja država, Slovenija je pri tem v zelo nerodnem položaju, saj v ključnem trenutku nima operativne vlade.
                  

                     Kohezijska sredstva pomenijo pomemben vir za naš razvoj, zanje bi se morali boriti z vsemi močmi, tako kot to delajo druge države. Voditelje držav članic pozivam, naj upoštevajo dejstvo, da je Evropa tako močna, kot je močan njen najšibkejši člen. Vesela pa sem, da ima zadnjo besedo pri odločitvi Evropski parlament.
                  

Henna Virkkunen (PPE),
kirjallinen. – Neuvotteluihin EU:n monivuotisesta budjettikehyksestä on nyt saatava neuvostossa vauhtia. Komission alkuperäinen ehdotus, jossa maatalouden ja aluetukien osuutta oli maltillisesti pienennetty ja resursseja tutkimukseen, koulutukseen ja turvallisuuteen lisätty, antaa hyvät raamit jatkoneuvotteluille.
                  

                     Valitettavasti Suomen puheenjohtajamaana valmistelema neuvoston ehdotus ei vastaa sen enempää komission kuin EU-parlamentinkaan kantaa. Ensinnäkin raami on liian tiukka, 1,07 prosenttia bruttokansantulosta. Lisäksi rahoitusta on karsittu juuri sieltä, missä tulevaisuuden tarpeita on: turvallisuudesta, digitalisaatiosta ja ilmastonmuutoksen torjunnasta.
                  

                     Brexitistä aiheutuva lovi EU-budjetissa on ilman muuta mittava. Osa siitä on katettava jäsenmaiden rahoitusta kasvattamalla, osa säästöillä, mutta myös omien varojen osuutta on jatkossa vahvistettava. Maatalous- ja aluepolitiikan lisäksi uuden budjetin tulee pystyä vastaamaan tulevaisuuden haasteisiin: teollisuuden uudistamiseen ja kestävään kasvuun, erityisesti innovaatioihin, digitalisaatioon, pk-yritysten kasvun tukemiseen ja koulutukseen sekä laajasti turvallisuuspolitiikkaan.
                  

                     Itse nostan esiin erityisesti kaksi vuosien 2021-27 ohjelmaa, joissa olen ollut vastuutehtävissä parlamentissa. Ensinnäkin Verkkojen Eurooppa (CEF), jolla rahoitetaan rajat ylittävää liikenne-, energia- ja digitaalista infrastruktuuria: teollisuusvaliokunnan esittelijänä pidän pöyristyttävänä, että neuvosto esittää ohjelmaan leikkauksia samalla kun sekä Euroopan kilpailukyky, toimivat sisämarkkinat että ilmastonmuutoksen torjunta edellyttävät nopeita, moderneja yhteyksiä. Toiseksi tutkimusohjelma Horisontti, jossa toimin liikennevaliokunnan vastaavana: investointeja Euroopan tieteeseen, tutkimukseen ja innovaatioihin tarvitaan teollisuuden kilpailukyvyn vahvistamiseksi ja globaaleihin haasteisiin vastaamiseksi. EU-parlamentti esittää ohjelman kasvattamista 50 prosentilla. Tästä pidämme kiinni.
                  

Iuliu Winkler (PPE),
în scris. – Consiliul European extraordinar din 20 februarie dedicat bugetului multianual 2021-2027 este primul test relevant al solidarității UE27. Negocierea bugetului multianual al UE este întotdeauna un exercițiu dur, dar niciodată în ultimii 20 de ani tensiunile dintre est și vest, nord și sud nu au fost mai mari decât acum. Transformarea digitală, Pactul ecologic, noile nevoi de securitate și cele din domeniul migrației reprezintă sarcini noi pentru UE27, care trebuie finanțate corespunzător. Viziunea grupului de state adepte ale austerității de a finanța noile provocări pe seama Politicii de coeziune și a PAC este inacceptabilă. Pentru sarcini sporite avem nevoie de un buget majorat, nicidecum de tăieri iraționale. Apropierea UE de cetățean înseamnă și acțiune, nu doar vorbe. În România și în estul Europei, UE este personificată prin trei programe: coeziunea, cu investiții vizibile și în cele mai mici comunități, PAC, care aduce bunăstare pentru milioane de fermieri, și Erasmus+ pentru tineri. Aceste programe nu pot suferi nicio tăiere a bugetului. Salut poziția PPE în Parlamentul European conform căreia prioritatea este mai degrabă un buget solid decât rapiditatea adoptării lui. Voi milita pentru un vot împotriva oricărei propuneri de buget care ar diminua finanțarea Politicii de coeziune și a PAC.
                  

(The sitting was suspended at 11.43)

8.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 12.00)

9.   Composition of committees and delegations

President. – The EPP Group has notified the President of decisions relating to changes to appointments within committees. Those decisions will be set out in the Minutes of today's sitting and shall take effect on the date of this announcement.
Mr Glucksmann, on a point of order.

Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, oui, c'est un rappel au règlement. Je me réfère à l'article 10, paragraphe 4, qui dispose que lors des débats parlementaires, les députés s'abstiennent de tout propos offensant. Or hier, lors du débat sur la Syrie, un député du Rassemblement national, M. Mariani, a exhorté l'Europe à soutenir Bachar El-Assad pour ramener la paix en exterminant les rebelles. Je souligne: en exterminant les rebelles. Non pas les terroristes de l'organisation ‘État islamique’, mais les rebelles. Non pas ‘combattre’, mais ‘exterminer’.
               

                  Cet appel à l'extermination est une offense. Ce langage, caractéristique du fascisme, n'a rien à faire dans cette enceinte. Nous ne pouvons pas laisser les petits télégraphistes de Vladimir Poutine, l'homme qui veut buter ses ennemis jusque dans les chiottes, importer son langage abject dans notre Parlement. Nous pouvons avoir des désaccords profonds, virulents, mais nous ne pouvons pas, dans notre enceinte, tolérer l'apologie de crimes de guerre ou de crimes contre l'humanité.
               

                  Ces propos constituent un discours haineux au sens de l'article 10, paragraphe 4, du règlement et je vous demande de les sanctionner. Cela ne doit pas passer et cela ne passera pas.
               

President. – Mr Glucksmann, thank you for bringing that to our attention. We will indeed look at the transcript and advise the President about this.
Mr Mariani, on a point of order.

Thierry Mariani (ID). – Paradoxalement, je voudrais remercier Raphaël Glucksmann pour son intervention, le dernier mot de mon…
               

(La Présidente retire la parole à l'orateur)


President. – This is not a debate on Mr Glucksmann's intervention. I will continue with the order of our business. That point is now covered. We will move on.
10.   Announcement by the President

President. – I now have to read a statement which will generate the ire of some colleagues, so I will do it in a calm way and please just listen to what I have to say.
I am obliged to remind Members that under the Rules of Procedure, the display of banners and flags is not allowed. I would invite the ushers to ask those Members who have flags to remove them from the desk, or indeed I would invite colleagues to respect the Rules of Procedure as I have just outlined.
11.   Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.

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

11.1.   Conclusion of the EU-Viet Nam Free Trade Agreement (A9-0003/2020 - Geert Bourgeois) (vote)
11.2.   Conclusion of the EU-Viet Nam Free Trade Agreement (Resolution) (A9-0017/2020 - Geert Bourgeois) (vote)
11.3.   EU-Viet Nam Investment Protection Agreement (A9-0002/2020 - Geert Bourgeois) (vote)
11.4.   EU-Viet Nam Investment Protection Agreement (Resolution) (A9-0014/2020 - Geert Bourgeois) (vote)
11.5.   Objection pursuant to Rule 111: Union list of projects of common interest (B9-0091/2020) (vote)
11.6.   Objection pursuant to Rule 112: Lead and its compounds (B9-0089/2020) (vote)
11.7.   An EU strategy to put an end to female genital mutilation around the world (B9-0090/2020, B9-0092/2020) (vote)
11.8.   Automated decision-making processes: Ensuring consumer protection, and free movement of goods and services (B9-0094/2020) (vote)
11.9.   Proposed mandate for negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (B9-0098/2020) (vote)

— Before the vote on paragraph 50:


José Gusmão (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, nós acompanhamos o sentido geral do relatório no que diz respeito à proteção dos direitos dos cidadãos europeus no Reino Unido, mas, como é do conhecimento de certamente todos os deputados, a implementação do que foi acordado com o Reino Unido está a enfrentar um conjunto de problemas na vida quotidiana dos cidadãos europeus que vivem, por vezes há décadas, no Reino Unido em aceder a serviços básicos, celebrar contratos de trabalho ou contratos de arrendamento. E, por isso, elaborámos uma alteração oral que consagra o estatuto automático da regularização da situação desses cidadãos e assegura a entrega de um documento físico que possa comprovar o estatuto de residência desses cidadãos.
                  

                     A alteração é a seguinte: ‘apela à atribuição automática de vistos de residência permanentes a todos os cidadãos europeus a viver no Reino Unido, até 31 de janeiro de 2020. Sublinha a necessidade de que estes vistos incluam um documento físico que prove a sua situação de residência.’ Estas duas frases seriam acrescentadas ao artigo 50.o da resolução.
                  

(Parliament agreed to put the oral amendment to the vote)

11.10.   European Central Bank – Annual report 2018 (A9-0016/2020 - Costas Mavrides) (vote)
11.11.   The illegal trade in companion animals in the EU (B9-0088/2020) (vote)

President. – That concludes the vote.

ELNÖKÖL: LÍVIA JÁRÓKA


alelnök

12.   Explanations of vote
12.1.   Conclusion of the EU-Viet Nam Free Trade Agreement (A9-0003/2020 - Geert Bourgeois)

A szavazáshoz fűzött szóbeli indokolások


Samira Rafaela (Renew). – Madam President, this morning we voted in favour of the agreements with Vietnam. It has not been an easy process but, after due consideration, I have decided to vote in favour of these agreements.
While the situation in Vietnam is still far from ideal, the Vietnamese Government has taken valuable steps in the right direction. The FTA and IPA with Vietnam will not only improve the trade relationship between the EU and Vietnam, it will also create a platform for continuous dialogue on human rights with the Vietnamese that will benefit the people of that country.
Our trading partners should keep human rights and environmental standards to the highest level. I would like to recommend the Commission investigate how the use of a set of objective and transparent criteria would serve as guidance to find trading partners, thus enabling the negotiated FTAs to benefit from broader support amongst all political colours in the EU.

Manon Aubry (GUE/NGL). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, bravo, vous venez de voter un accord de libre-échange avec le Viêt Nam qui piétine l'environnement et les droits humains, dans le seul but de contenter les lobbies qui vous ont abreuvés par ailleurs de champagne.
                  

                     Vous êtes directement responsables d'une catastrophe écologique qui va accroître de 20 à 30 % les transports de biens entre l'Union européenne et le Viêt Nam, accélérer la déforestation, aggraver le développement d'industries polluantes comme le cuir et l'acier. Mais parler de pacte vert avec des trémolos dans la voix ne vous empêche absolument pas de voter un tel accord, climaticide. Vous êtes directement responsables d'un scandale social qui vise à profiter d'une main-d'œuvre exploitée, prise entre le marteau du capitalisme globalisé et l'enclume de l'autoritarisme. Avec en plus un État qui ferme les yeux sur le travail forcé, interdit les syndicats et emprisonne les opposants politiques à tour de bras.
                  

                     Les ONG vous ont alertés, vous ne pouviez pas ignorer l'impact écologique et social désastreux de cet accord. Si vous ne le saviez pas, vous êtes coupables de suivisme. Et si vous le saviez, c'est pire encore: vous êtes coupables de cynisme.
                  

Frances Fitzgerald (PPE). – Madam President, this deal will boost our trade exchanges and will deliver more jobs and growth into this continent. We badly need more jobs for people within Europe and we must support job creation and innovation.
I want to say that I believe that closing the door does not get any closer to improving Vietnam's human rights record or indeed the policies and attitudes on climate change. The UN and some NGOs have already acknowledged the improvements and indeed there is a chapter on workers' rights in the agreement, which is fully compliant with ILO standards. So we want to engage rather than isolate and, of course, we still have to be very cognisant in relation to human rights and climate change and there has to be ongoing monitoring. This is also allowed for. We do need to keep our businesses and get our businesses involved in new regions and countries, and of course this is the way that we spread the standards and the values of the European Union.

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já bych chtěla vysvětlit, proč jsem se zdržela v hlasování o této dohodě o volném obchodu.
                  

                     Já obecně podporuji – a to velmi silně – dohody o volném obchodu, protože vím, že je to velká oboustranná příležitost. Zároveň jsem si také vědoma, že tato dohoda poměrně dobře ošetřuje ta ustanovení, která se týkají standardů práce, pracovního prostředí, životního prostředí, ale bohužel tato dohoda nebyla dostatečně silným impulzem pro vietnamskou vládu, aby propustila alespoň některé politické vězně. Ve Vietnamu je 140 politických vězňů a vietnamská vláda nebyla ochotna udělat toto gesto, kterým by dala jasně najevo, že zlepšení lidských práv myslí vážně.
                  

                     Já nejsem proti této dohodě, hlasovala jsem pro její odložení a nakonec jsem se zdržela právě proto, abychom dali jasně najevo náš jasný postoj k lidským právům ve Vietnamu.
                  

Alexandr Vondra (ECR). – Paní předsedající, já jsem hlasoval pro. Ta hysterie, kterou slyším tamhle naproti, tak mě utvrzuje v tom, že jsem hlasoval správně. Přesto přiznávám, že to nebylo jednoduché zvažování, protože jsem člověk, který si ještě z dob komunismu pamatuje, že hrát to občas s režimem, který lidi zavírá, tvrdě, má smysl. A Vietnam to s lidmi doma hraje tvrdě.
                  

                     Jsem přesvědčen, že volný obchod může pomoci, ale zároveň považuji za důležité naplňovat to, co je v té doprovodné rezoluci, a v tomto smyslu si dovoluji žádat Evropskou komisi, aby ve svých jednáních s Vietnamem problém lidských práv nastolovala a aby nám konečně předložila i ten impact assessment, který jsme bohužel jako podklad k tomuto jednání nedostali.
                  

Manuel Bompard (GUE/NGL). – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, notre Parlement vient d'adopter, pour la première fois depuis l'investiture de la Commission von der Leyen, un accord de libre-échange, celui avec le Viêt Nam.
                  

                     Cet accord est néfaste pour la démocratie, les travailleurs et l'environnement. Néfaste pour la démocratie, parce que cet accord avec un régime autoritaire et répressif consacre le triomphe des tribunaux d'arbitrage qui privilégient systématiquement les multinationales et les actionnaires aux dépens des peuples. Néfaste pour les travailleurs européens – ce sont notamment les deux millions de travailleurs du textile qui subiront de plein fouet le dumping social – et vietnamiens – parce que cet accord renforcera leur exploitation par des multinationales et un gouvernement qui n'ont que faire des conventions de l'OIT, de la liberté syndicale et du droit de grève. Néfaste pour l'environnement, enfin, parce que cet accord ne prévoit aucun mécanisme permettant de s'assurer du respect des objectifs fixés par les accords internationaux sur l'environnement. Sans parler de la hausse des émissions de gaz à effet de serre qui résultera de l'intensification de ces échanges.
                  

                     C'est pourquoi je rejette avec force ce mauvais accord.
                  

Milan Brglez (S&D). – Gospa predsedujoča, vladavina prava ter spoštovanje temeljnih demokratičnih načel in varstva človekovih pravic, vključno s pravicami delavcev, so vrednote, na katerih je utemeljena Evropska unija.
                  

                     V svetu, kjer mednarodno sodelovanje ter spoštovanje pravil vse bolj nadomešča politični pragmatizem in populizem, EU nima boljšega vzvoda za uveljavljanje teh vrednot, kot so trgovinski in investicijski sporazumi s tretjimi državami.
                  

                     Sam sem žal v manjšini evropskih poslank in poslancev, ki je prepričana, da si EU zaradi gospodarskih interesov ali zgolj zato, da spravi problematičen pogajalski dosje z mize, ne sme zatiskati oči pred grobimi kršitvami človekovih pravic ter slabim stanjem demokracije v Vietnamu.
                  

                     Zaradi vsega navedenega sem glasoval proti priporočilom in resolucijam, ki EU kot tretjo najpomembnejšo gospodarsko partnerico Vietnama oddaljujejo od načelnosti pri spoštovanju človekovih pravic. Nenačelnost je pač nekaj, pri čemer ne moremo in ne smemo tekmovati s prvima partnericama Vietnama – ZDA in Kitajsko.
                  

Clare Daly (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, if the situation regarding human rights in Vietnam has improved so much, then how is it that journalist Pham Chi Dung is detained in prison now on anti-state charges for having the audacity of what? Contacting this Parliament and asking us to postpone the vote. Seriously. And for those people who say, ‘oh well, sure, look, if we don't do business with them, how can the situation ever improve?’ that's an affront to the tons of people who've contacted us and begged us to postpone this vote.
It's an outrage that we have betrayed them and that's why I stood by them and voted against this agreement. For that reason and, critically, because we've just shown ourselves up as being an absolute bunch of hypocrites. We passed a resolution on 15 January, regarding the European Green Deal, saying we would only enter trade agreements with strong, binding, enforceable agreements on sustainable development and the Paris Agreement. We've done the complete opposite here. Shame on us.

François-Xavier Bellamy (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, le vote de cet accord a été une question infiniment difficile. Toutes les objections qui viennent d'être évoquées ici ont un sens, bien sûr, et en particulier celles qui concernent l'état des droits de l'homme, très préoccupant, au Viêt Nam.
                  

                     Cependant, nous ne partons pas de rien, nous ne partons pas d'une situation inexistante. Nous échangeons déjà aujourd'hui avec le Viêt Nam, qui est un partenaire commercial majeur de l'Union européenne – très largement au bénéfice du Viêt Nam, excédentaire commercialement par rapport à nous.
                  

                     La vraie question qui nous est posée est donc: faut-il maintenir cet état de fait, ou faut-il tenter d'arrimer le Viêt Nam en le tirant de notre côté pour lui faire adopter, ce qui a été le cas, des objectifs en matière écologique, des objectifs en matière de droits humains et, bien sûr, aussi, en le faisant commercer avec nous, selon des règles qui nous ouvrent ses marchés avec une véritable exigence de réciprocité?
                  

                     Il me semble que cet accord nous permet d'aller dans le bon sens sur ce plan-là, et si nous ne l'avions pas signé, nous aurions risqué de laisser le Viêt Nam partir vers son grand voisin, la Chine. Est-ce vraiment le monde que nous voulons? L'Europe doit-elle renoncer à agir? Je ne le crois pas.
                  

Gilles Lebreton (ID). – Madame la Présidente, j'ai voté contre le projet d'accord de libre-échange avec le Viêt Nam, car j'estime qu'il va avoir des conséquences négatives sur notre économie et sur nos emplois.
                  

                     Le Viêt Nam nous inonde en effet déjà de ses produits à bas coût, comme le prouve le déficit commercial de l'Union européenne, qui s'établissait par rapport à lui à 27 milliards d'euros en 2018. La quasi-suppression des droits de douane que prévoit l'accord va inévitablement aggraver ce déficit. Elle encouragera en outre nos entreprises à se délocaliser vers ce pays. Le Viêt Nam est par ailleurs une dictature communiste qui ne respecte ni les droits de l'homme, ni l'environnement; il est donc hypocrite de prétendre que cet accord va miraculeusement le rendre exemplaire.
                  

                     Force est en définitive de conclure que l'Union européenne a une fois de plus trahi les valeurs qu'elle prétend défendre.
                  

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Madam President, the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement is the first of its kind by the EU with a developing country. Vietnam is not a perfect or easy partner. It has a long way to go with improving human, civil and political rights but, for a developing country, Vietnam has made very ambitious commitments in this deal, an arrangement which will bring opportunities for both European and Vietnamese workers and businesses. With this agreement, Vietnam commits to high-quality rules. On labour rights, for example, it commits to following all core International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions. So this agreement is of great importance, also from a geopolitical point of view. This will enforce its reliance not only on China. The country's Government is, however, now clearly committed to reform. The EU needs to continue. It is not an end to agree on the deal, but we have to continue cooperation and dialogue during the implementation process.

Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Madam President, I supported the resolution today and am supporting a trade deal with Vietnam because I believe that trade agreements offer opportunity to engage on all areas, such as the environment, human rights and social standards. Trade agreements benefit consumers, they benefit companies and they create jobs on both sides. I recognise that Vietnam is not ideal in terms of human rights. Nonetheless, I think the engagement that the European bloc will have in terms of trade – companies engaging at that level and, indeed, individuals – will certainly benefit. I think it's important that we have monitoring in place to ensure the effective implementation of all the commitments that have been made in these negotiations with regard to environmental standards, social standards and human rights. So I support a rules-based trade agreement with Vietnam because I think that's far better than having no rules and no trade. We must recognise that we already do trade with Vietnam as a bloc.

Veronika Vrecionová (ECR). – Paní předsedající, dohodu o volném obchodu a ochraně investic mezi EU a Vietnamem jsem podpořila. V době, kdy řada států zavádí cla a vyhlašuje obchodní války, si myslím, že je to skvělý moment v mezinárodní obchodní politice.
                  

                     Já jako člověk, který vyrůstal v komunistickém Československu, jsem samozřejmě velice zvažovala otázku lidských práv ve Vietnamu. Já situaci tam sleduji a vím, že k porušování lidských práv dochází, že jsou tam političtí vězni, nicméně jsem přesvědčena, že právě touto smlouvou získává EU nástroj, jak na zlepšování stavu lidských práv nebo také životního prostředí tlačit. Dosud jsme takový nástroj v ruce neměli. Věřím, že kromě zlepšení vzájemného obchodu dojde i ke zlepšení v této oblasti.
                  

Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Paní předsedající, já jsem byl zpravodajem obou těchto dohod od roku 2012 do roku 2019 a vzdal jsem se toho zpravodajství po sérii lživých obvinění vůči mé osobě ze strany frakce Zelených, včetně české Pirátské strany a jejich kamarádů v médiích, protože mi bylo jasné, že to bude sloužit jako záminka k odsunutí nebo potopení obou těchto dohod.
                  

                     Proto jsem rád, že se tak nestalo. Jsem rád, že EP obě tyto dohody schválil výraznou solidní většinou, a jsem rád, že si EP uvědomil, že má šanci stanout v čele tažení za volný obchod v době, kdy protekcionismus ve světě narůstá, a že si také uvědomil rostoucí geopolitickou roli Vietnamu v regionu jihovýchodní Asie.
                  

                     Samozřejmě jsem obě tyto smlouvy podpořil a mám z toho opravdu velkou radost, že prošly.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I'm delighted to fully support the Free Trade and Investment Agreement with Vietnam. As the PPE standing rapporteur for the Southeast Asian region and having guided the agreement with Singapore through this House last year, I'm well aware of the enormous potential these agreements have to boost our trade exchanges with this region, bringing positive effects on growth and employment and in terms of a secure investment environment.
The new agreement with Vietnam opens new perspectives, especially with the elimination of 99% of tariffs and non-tariff barriers. For example, it will be much easier for EU exporters of dairy and livestock food products, such as skimmed milk, cheese and meat, like pork and beef, to trade there. Finally, I welcome the huge opportunities for Ireland, in particular, with this agreement and of course in reverse for Vietnam. This is a good agreement and I hope it gets into operation as soon as possible.

Samira Rafaela (Renew). –
(Due to technical issues, Ms Rafaela was asked to repeat her earlier speech) Madam President, this morning we voted in favour of the agreements with Vietnam and it has not been an easy process, but after due consideration, I have decided to vote in favour of these agreements. While the situation in Vietnam is still far from ideal, the Vietnamese Government has made valuable steps in the right direction. The free trade agreement (FTA) and investment protection agreement (IPA) with Vietnam will not only improve the trade relationship between the EU and Vietnam; it will also create a platform for continuous dialogue on human rights with the Vietnamese that will benefit the people of that country. Our trading partners should keep human rights and the environmental standards to the highest level. I would like to recommend that the Commission investigate how the use of a set of objective and transparent criteria could serve as guidance to find trading partners. Therefore, the negotiated FTAs can benefit from broader support amongst all political colours in the EU.
12.2.   Conclusion of the EU-Viet Nam Free Trade Agreement (Resolution) (A9-0017/2020 - Geert Bourgeois)

A szavazáshoz fűzött szóbeli indokolások


Caroline Roose (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, le vote de l'accord de libre-échange avec le Viêt Nam est une très mauvaise nouvelle.
                  

                     Mes collègues ont expliqué hier pourquoi cet accord était en complète contradiction avec la volonté de lutter contre le réchauffement climatique et avec le pacte vert européen. Ils ont aussi expliqué pourquoi il était inconvenable pour les Verts de voter contre cet accord, compte tenu de la situation des droits humains au Viêt Nam, pays autoritaire où même les règles de l'OIT ne sont pas respectées.
                  

                     Nous avons aussi rejeté cet accord en raison de son impact très négatif dans la lutte contre la pêche INN – la pêche illicite, non déclarée et non réglementée. Depuis 2017, le Viêt Nam est sous le coup d'une procédure de ‘carton jaune’ de l'Union européenne pour ne pas avoir respecté ses obligations en matière de lutte contre la pêche illicite. Si le Viêt Nam coopère depuis quelques mois avec l'Union, il n'est toujours pas en conformité avec les conventions internationales sur la pêche illicite. En votant cet accord, le Parlement affaiblit le système de carton jaune et la lutte contre la pêche illicite. Plus encore, l'accord de libre-échange pourrait conduire à des importations de produits issus de la pêche illicite.
                  

                     Il m'était donc impossible de voter en faveur de cet accord.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, skutečně to nebylo jednoduché rozhodování v této věci. Pro nás, kteří pocházíme z bývalých komunistických zemí, uzavírat obchodní dohodu s komunistickou zemí je vzhledem k otázce lidských práv skutečně velmi složité.
                  

                     Já jsem se nakonec rozhodl pro, protože ta pozitiva podle mého názoru převažují. Je samozřejmě lepší obchodovat podle pravidel, podle určitých zajištěných standardů než bez pravidel, bez jakékoli možnosti ovlivnit vnitřní dění v dané zemi a přiznejme si to, že už za současné situace s Vietnamem spolupracujeme.
                  

                     Pevně věřím, že ta obchodní výměna bude mít rostoucí potenciál i při zachování environmentálních standardů, a také doufám, že bude skutečně ctěna ochrana investic, ochrana označení země původu. Všechny ty pozitivní kroky, které byly obsaženy v těchto návrzích. Proto jsem je, byť ne úplně lehkou rukou, podpořil.
                  

Mick Wallace (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, this agreement has a lot in common with many free trade deals before it, like CETA, the Japan and South Korea agreements, and Mercosur. These deals have much the same effect. The scant protections the EU still has in place are routinely undermined in the name of free trade, and the climate, our health and our indigenous industries always suffer.
As the Commission is a revolving-door catastrophe, we see the powers of the corporate sector all over these deals, again and again, with a scant look in for those looking to protect workers' rights and stop this being used as a back door to a further race to the bottom that would devour the planet and ensure that we see climate system breakdown in our lifetime.
This system of unfettered capitalism is locking us into the corrosion of environmental protections and public health standards, and the attached system of globalised trade is sending carbon emissions skyrocketing as we ferry the cheapest (meaning the most exploitative) goods around the planet in order that corporations make buckets of money. There's no such thing as a free trade deal. This system is costing us the Earth.
12.3.   EU-Viet Nam Investment Protection Agreement (A9-0002/2020 - Geert Bourgeois)

A szavazáshoz fűzött szóbeli indokolások


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, tuto dohodu o ochraně investic mezi EU a jejími členskými státy a Vietnamem jsem podpořila. Je to dohoda, která má jiný charakter než ta předchozí. Jedná se o to, že už dnes je EU pátým největším investorem ve Vietnamu. Vietnam je proto důležitým partnerem pro EU a je důležité, aby evropští investoři a jejich investice byli ve Vietnamu chráněni. A tato dohoda stanoví jasná pravidla.
                  

                     Zároveň tyto investice ve Vietnamu umožní vytváření nových pracovních míst a my očekáváme, že Vietnam se tedy bude přibližovat EU nejen ekonomicky, ale právě i v oblasti lidských práv a životní úrovně obyvatelstva. V ČR žije zhruba 60 000 vietnamská komunita a víme, že ta jejich situace není lehká. Věřím, že tato dohoda by mohla motivovat vietnamskou vládu k dalšímu přibližování evropským hodnotám.
                  
12.4.   EU-Viet Nam Investment Protection Agreement (Resolution) (A9-0014/2020 - Geert Bourgeois)

A szavazáshoz fűzött szóbeli indokolások


Thierry Mariani (ID). – Madame la Présidente, je regarde le Viêt Nam avec sympathie et amitié, ayant été député des Français de l'étranger, et notamment de la zone Asie-Pacifique pendant cinq ans. Je connais les souffrances de ce peuple et les efforts qu'il fait pour se redresser. Toutefois, il en va des relations entre les nations comme avec la réalité: il faut travailler avec des données objectives et réussir à établir des relations avec l'ensemble des pays du monde. Enfin, c'est notre conception des relations internationales, en principe, pas celle de l'Union européenne qui brandit la question des droits de l'homme à chaque occasion.
                  

                     J'ai voté contre cet accord, parce qu'il ne bénéficie pas aux Européens, parce qu'il est toujours marqué par une conception idéologique du libre-échange et parce que l'union douanière européenne a cessé depuis longtemps de servir les peuples. Nous ne devons signer aucun accord qui irait contre la relocalisation des activités industrielles en Europe, qui ne donnerait pas aux nôtres avant d'aider au développement des autres. Par ailleurs, nous ne pouvons pas accepter qu'une justice arbitrale privée se substitue aux justices nationales.
                  

                     Voilà les raisons de mon vote sur les textes qui concernaient les accords entre l'Union européenne et le Viêt Nam.
                  
12.5.   Objection pursuant to Rule 111: Union list of projects of common interest (B9-0091/2020)

A szavazáshoz fűzött szóbeli indokolások


Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich habe für die Entschließung gestimmt und damit auch gegen die Liste der Projects of Common Interest. Warum ist das so? Ich will noch einmal deutlich sagen, dass auf dieser Liste circa 50 Gasprojekte gefördert werden sollen – 50 Gasprojekte, und das im Zeitalter des Klimawandels. Es sollen damit Projekte in allen Mitgliedstaaten gefördert werden, die tatsächlich auch umweltschädlich sind.
                  

                     Wenn wir uns das genauer anschauen, dann müssen wir sagen, weder mit dem Klimaabkommen von Paris noch mit anderen Abkommen, die abgeschlossen wurden, ist dies vereinbar. Und es ist auch ein Armutszeugnis, weil damit die Erklärung des Klimanotstandes in der EU, die wir ja hier abgegeben haben – diese Erklärung wird praktisch zum Teufel gejagt. Stattdessen sollen Gelder aus dem europäischen Haushalt für Gas ausgegeben werden, und wir sind in keiner Weise damit einverstanden. Vielmehr brauchen wir Gelder für erneuerbare Energien, zum Beispiel auch für grenzüberschreitende Stromleitungen, die bezahlt werden müssen. Ich denke da zum Beispiel an Solarstrom aus Spanien, der in den Norden der Europäischen Union transportiert werden kann, oder auch smart grids, die tatsächlich gefördert werden müssen. Das wäre wichtig und ist mit dem Bisherigen hier nicht vereinbar.
                  

Manon Aubry (GUE/NGL). – Alors que la Commission européenne vient de présenter en grande pompe son pacte vert, vous venez, chers collègues, de voter une liste d'investissements ironiquement appelés ‘d'intérêt commun’ qui ne comporte pas moins de 32 projets gaziers. Oui, rien que ça.
                  

                     De quel intérêt commun parlez-vous quand vous soutenez le développement d'infrastructures gazières, alors que le gaz représente 20 % des émissions mondiales de CO2? De quel intérêt commun parlez-vous quand vous choisissez de déverser 29 milliards d'euros d'argent public pour financer ces projets climaticides? De quel intérêt commun parlez-vous, enfin, quand ces projets comprendront du gaz issu de la fracturation hydraulique, qui met en danger la planète et la santé des communautés locales? Vous décrédibilisez totalement ce Parlement en applaudissant des deux mains l'état d'urgence climatique, tout en signant un chèque en blanc aux multinationales pollueuses.
                  

                     L'intérêt commun, c'est tout le contraire de ces projets absurdes et inutiles, c'est regarder en face la catastrophe climatique et c'est nous donner une chance d'y répondre, en commençant par laisser les énergies fossiles sous terre.
                  

Silvia Modig (GUE/NGL). – Arvoisa puhemies, äänestin tuota luetteloa vastaan, koska se sisältää useita hankkeita, jotka perustuvat fossiilisiin energialähteisiin. Vaikka maakaasua haluttaisiin ajatella siirtymäkauden vaihtoehtona, on tunnustettava se tosiasia, että nämä investointien elinkaaret voivat olla 40-50 vuotta. Se ei voi olla minkään siirtymäajan pituus.
                  

                     Me emme voi luoda uutta energiainfrastruktuuria, joka perustuu fossiilisiin polttoaineisiin. Se on täysin vastoin Pariisin sopimusta ja täysin vastoin niitä julkilausuttuja ilmastotavoitteita, joita tämä parlamentti on itsellensä ja komissiolle asettanut.
                  

                     Kun nämä hankkeet nyt siirtyvät jatkokäsittelyyn, toivon, että komissio jatkokäsittelyssä tarkastelee näitä hankkeita pitäen mielessään sen, että tämä parlamentti on julistanut ilmastohätätilan, tämä parlamentti on sitoutunut noudattamaan Pariisin sopimusta ja tämä parlamentti on sitoutunut hiilineutraaliin Eurooppaan. Sen takia tästä listasta on poimittava pois ne hankkeet, jotka ovat ristiriidassa ilmastotavoitteiden kanssa.
                  

Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! To bardzo dobra wiadomość. To głosowanie to bardzo dobra wiadomość dla wielu krajów, dlatego że gaz jest bardzo potrzebnym i niezwykle trwałym źródłem energii dla wielu krajów, także krajów postkomunistycznych. I tam trwają inwestycje gazowe, które pomagają wydobyć się tym krajom, krajom postkomunistycznym, z bardzo ociężałych kwestii związanych ze starym systemem energetycznym.
                  

                     Dzięki temu głosowaniu Parlament Europejski pokazał, że można wspólnie porozumieć się w zakresie zrozumienia punktów wyjścia różnych krajów europejskich i odpowiedzialności energetycznej. Dzięki temu głosowaniu w dalszym ciągu będą mogły być finansowane połączenia gazowe między Polską a Czechami, Polską a Słowacją, Polską a Ukrainą, Polską a Norwegią, Baltic Pipe, a systemy gazowe związane z gazem skroplonym będą budowane i będą stanowić o niezależności energetycznej Polski.
                  

Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, protiv sam ove liste projekata jer se na njoj, među ostalim, nalazi LNG terminal u Omišlju na Krku.
                  

                     Kad vi donesete bilo koji dobar projekt u nekorumpiranu zemlju, on će vjerojatno biti dobar. A zamislite sad tek kad loš projekt donesete u korumpiranu zemlju kao što je Hrvatska što se tu tek dešava. Dakle, kod provedbe takvih projekata imamo podmićivanje, preplaćivanje projekata, gušenje struke i znanosti, pogodovanje rođacima. Gleda se po konceptu da ja zaradim sada, a to što će svi drugi dugoročno trpjeti štetu, to me ne zanima. Takav pristup je katastrofalan. Protiv sam svih projekata koji opterećuju hrvatska kućanstva.
                  

                     U Hrvatskoj zbog promašenih sustava gospodarenja otpadom već plaćamo sve veće cijene za smeće i vodu, lijekove i njihove cijene uspoređujemo s najbogatijim zemljama Europe. Imamo skup i spor telekom te smo među najgorima u indeksu digitalne razvijenosti. Benzin nam je cijenom blizak cijeni u Austriji ili Italiji s višestrukim dohodcima. Porezi su jako visoki i sad da još plaćamo promašene Plenkovićeve projekte koji će poskupiti cijenu plina i struje. Ne, hvala!
                  

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, уважаеми колеги, гласувах убедено срещу този доклад, срещу това възражение, защото на това безумие трябва да се сложи някакъв край.
                  

                     Вие гласувате, уважаеми колеги отляво, против атомната енергетика, доказано най-сигурната и най-чистата, гласувате против газовите тръбопроводи, гласувате против въглищната енергетика. С всяко едно ваше действие, вие деиндустриализирате европейските държави, вие изнасяте работни места извън европейския континент. Вие унищожавате възможността на обществата да се издържат, да работят и да имат просперитет, и то предимно тези всичките ви промени засягат държавите в Централна и Източна Европа.
                  

                     Съзнавам вашето желание да правите енергия от виолетки и маргаритки, но ви уверявам, че това няма да се случи. Много е хубаво да си мечтаете за слънчеви паркове, обаче през нощта слънце няма. Много е хубаво да си мислите, че с вятърните перки на Карлсон ще постигнете нещо, само че вятърът е нещо променливо. Затова се радвам, че тук се сложи един прът в колелата на тази политическа лудост, в каквато се превръща така наречената ‘Зелена тема’.
                  

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, tämä PCI-lista, joka on rahoituskelpoisten hankkeiden hakemuslista, josta tänään äänestimme, on osa isompaa kokonaisuutta, osa TEN-E-sääntelyä, jossa odotamme komissiolta pikaisesti parempaa sääntelykehystä.
                  

                     Itse olin Verkkojen Eurooppa (CEF) -neuvottelija tälle tulevalle rahoituskaudelle. Siinä saimme kriteerejä paremmin vastaamaan Euroopan unionin poliittista tahtoa vastata ilmastonmuutoshaasteisiin. Salista ja tämän viikon keskusteluista lähti tänään komissiolle tärkeä viesti, että myös nämä listat on saatava yhteensopiviksi poliittisilta tavoitteiltaan niin, että siirtymä vähähiiliseen talouteen ja vuoden 2050 hiilineutraaliustavoite toteutuu. Itse äänestin tämän listan puolesta, vaikka se ei ole täydellinen, sillä se sisältää myös kolme neljäsosaa sähköverkkojen parantamishankkeita.
                  

                     Minun mielestäni nyt täytyy kiinnittää huomio siihen, että näitä hankkeita haetaan. En tiedä, onko monella mepillä on täällä esimerkkejä hankkeista, jotka ovat jääneet rahoittamatta. Niitä ei olla haettu ja nyt uuteen lainsäädäntöön täytyy saada energiatehokkuus, älyverkot ja muut paljon paremmin mukaan.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I was one of the 443 MEPs who did not support this objection to the 4th PCI list.
I believe the projects on this list are important for the creation of a well-functioning internal energy market in the EU, as I support the ambition of a stable, secure and affordable supply of energy.
Additional investments will, of course, create jobs and growth in the regions concerned. The list of energy projects comes as a package, and I support it as a package. This list contains a number of key projects across the European Union that will help us meet all objectives of the Energy Union.
In Ireland, these include a number of important new projects, including the Celtic Interconnector (Ireland's proposed electricity interconnection with France), additional electricity connections between Ireland and the UK, and the proposed Silvermines renewable hydroelectric power station.
These are all important elements of Ireland's move towards renewable energy and, notably, our objective of reaching 70% renewable electricity by 2030.
While I understand concerns about the inclusion of gas projects, projections show that gas will play an important role in transition by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the power-generating industrial and commercial, residential and transport sectors by replacing more CO2-intensive fossil fuels like coal and oil.
12.6.   An EU strategy to put an end to female genital mutilation around the world (B9-0090/2020, B9-0092/2020)

A szavazáshoz fűzött szóbeli indokolások


Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Madam President, I voted in favour of this resolution, and I also spoke on this particular issue in 2011 when Ireland brought forward legislation to the parliament to ban this insidious barbaric act.
Regardless of culture, religion or creed, this is something that goes against the fundamental principles of bodily integrity and of right to life and a right to health, so from all these perspectives, I welcome the resolution, and I ask the Commission, and I ask Member States in particular across the European Union, to ensure that legislation is robust in national parliaments to address this particular issue, to ensure that there are prosecutions of people who partake in female genital mutilation and encourage it and facilitate it.
Equally, we have to ensure that we have in place support through our health services so that victims – people who have been genitally mutilated – have the confidence to seek support, to seek assistance if they need it in the context of the damage that it does to their health. I commend the motion and I ask national parliaments to endorse it as well in legislation.

Thierry Mariani (ID). – Madame la Présidente, j'ai bien sûr voté pour cette résolution. L'excision est une violence très souvent liée à des conceptions dégradantes et inadmissibles de la femme, ou à certaines sectes islamistes.
                  

                     Une horreur qui a été importée sur le sol européen et qui scandalise nos sociétés, puisqu'elle est associée à une immigration de masse. Inviter des personnes de cultures différentes et s'étonner ensuite qu'elles pratiquent des coutumes différentes est vraiment le lot des naïfs. Cette horreur ne peut pas supporter les a priori idéologiques inscrits dans la résolution commune – il n'y a qu'à dire simplement et clairement notre écœurement devant des pratiques qui abîment la nature humaine.
                  

                     Il convient ensuite de distinguer ce qui choque nos principes universels et ce qui met en danger notre continent. Six cent mille jeunes femmes courent le risque de ces pratiques sur notre continent, une pratique qui jusqu'à présent était ignorée. Pour mettre en œuvre une stratégie européenne de défense et de promotion du mode de vie européen qui refuse toute pratique de ce genre, il convient bien sûr d'en étudier les causes. Et les causes, c'est notre absence de maîtrise dans les origines de l'immigration, notre mise en avant d'un multiculturalisme hors d'âge qui justifie des pratiques de plus en plus révoltantes et, bien sûr, qui justifie que nous ayons voté pour cette résolution.
                  

Anne-Sophie Pelletier (GUE/NGL). – Madame la Présidente, je me réjouis de l'adoption de cette résolution pour laquelle j'ai voté favorablement, évidemment.
                  

                     Après l'adoption de la résolution sur l'adhésion de l'Union européenne à la convention d'Istanbul en novembre 2019, je pense que c'est encore un message fort que nous envoyons concernant les violences faites aux femmes et l'égalité femmes-hommes.
                  

                     Alors que l'ONU avait inscrit parmi ses objectifs de développement durable l'éradication des violences génitales d'ici à 2030, on voit que les mutilations génitales touchent encore 200 millions de jeunes filles et de femmes dans le monde, et qu'en Europe 600 000 femmes y sont exposées.
                  

                     Les mutilations génitales sont une attaque à la chair et à l'esprit de la femme. Cette résolution montre bien que les mutilations génitales féminines sont une manifestation des inégalités entre les femmes et les hommes, et je serai contre ce que dit M. Mariani: nous n'allons pas stigmatiser des religions.
                  

                     à ce titre, il convient donc d'adopter une approche systémique pour lutter contre ce phénomène, qui doit être fondée sur la prévention et l'émancipation économique des femmes.
                  

Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Stanowczo sprzeciwiam się wszelkim formom przemocy wobec kobiet, a zwłaszcza okaleczaniu narządów płciowych. Praktyka ta występuje również w państwach Unii Europejskiej. Jest ona bestialską formą okaleczania, głównie młodych dziewczynek, dlatego głosowałam za tą rezolucją.
                  

                     Niestety niektóre grupy polityczne nie powstrzymały się od promowania swoich ideologicznych pomysłów również i w tej rezolucji. Dlatego nie poparłam większości motywu J. Okaleczanie narządów płciowych można co prawda postawić na równi z przymusowymi małżeństwami, w tym szczególnie małżeństwami dzieci, ale nie da się tego porównać z brakiem kompleksowej edukacji seksualnej. Wątpliwości też budzą zapisy w motywie J, ust. 5 i ust. 21, w których użyto sformułowania ‘zdrowie seksualne i reprodukcyjne’. O ile faktycznie opieka okołoporodowa kobiet okaleczonych wymaga szczególnych starań, to zdecydowanie sprzeciwiamy się rozumieniu tego sformułowania jako dostępu do aborcji. Ponadto nie zgadzam się z ust. 20, który traktuje o ratyfikowaniu przez Unię konwencji stambulskiej.
                  

Christine Anderson (ID). – Frau Präsidentin! Das EU-Parlament hat heute eine Entschließung angenommen, mit der unsere Entschlossenheit zum Ausdruck gebracht werden sollte, weibliche Genitalverstümmelung zu bekämpfen. Leider ist es wieder einmal nichts anderes als reine Symbolpolitik, sind es wieder nur leere Lippenbekenntnisse. Weibliche Genitalverstümmelung bekämpft man nicht, indem man betroffene Reden hält oder sich Sticker an die Brust heftet, gleichzeitig aber – wie hier im Dezember geschehen – meine Initiative abschmettert, mit der ich die Entschließung um die Istanbul-Konvention umfangreich zum Thema ‘Weibliche Genitalverstümmelung’ erweitern wollte. Es hilft auch nichts, wenn man einen priorisierten Asylanspruch für von Genitalverstümmelung betroffene Mädchen schafft. Man schafft damit nur weitere Motive, nun noch mehr Mädchen dieser menschenverachtenden Praxis auszusetzen, indem man sie dann als Ankerkinder nach Europa schicken kann. Es nutzt auch nichts, so zu tun, als hätte dieses grausame Verbrechen nichts mit einer bestimmten Kultur oder einer bestimmten Religion zu tun, denn wir alle wissen: Der Islam ist Frauenverachtung in Reinkultur. Wer das nicht klar benennt, der kann diese Probleme auch nicht lösen, und deswegen sage ich ganz klar: Die weibliche Genitalverstümmelung gehört genauso wenig zu Europa wie der Islam, von wo sie kommt.
                  

Annika Bruna (ID). – Madame la Présidente, 500 000 femmes auraient été victimes de mutilations génitales. Si les mutilations génitales féminines existent en Europe, elles n'ont rien d'européen. On n'en trouve ni dans l'histoire de nos pays, ni dans les traditions, ni dans les exigences religieuses. Il n'en a existé que quelques cas marginaux dans une secte russe du XIXe siècle, encore s'agissait-il d'automutilation.
                  

                     L'excision en Europe est le fait exclusif de populations immigrées qui n'ont pas été assimilées et n'ont pas adopté les valeurs civilisationnelles et les mœurs européennes. Leur développement est la démonstration de la submersion migratoire que nous subissons et de l'absence d'intégration de certaines populations.
                  

                     Si nous pouvons lutter contre cette barbarie dans certains pays extérieurs à l'Union, nous devons le faire dans ces pays et non importer cette problématique en Europe, comme le suggère la convention d'Istanbul. Trente millions de femmes dans le monde sont menacées d'excision. Protégeons-les dans leur pays, mais ne faisons pas des mutilations génitales un motif supplémentaire d'immigration.
                  

Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem samozřejmě podpořil toto usnesení, protože mrzačení ženských pohlavních orgánů je naprosto nepřijatelné, je to zločin proti lidskosti, proti lidským právům.
                  

                     Bylo by dobře, kdyby na základě tohoto usnesení opravdu alespoň v Evropě státy spolu více spolupracovaly a bojovaly proti této trestné činnosti. Kdyby se nám dařilo výrazně snižovat množství těchto zločinů na území Evropy a kdyby toto usnesení nezůstalo pouze u slov na papíru, ale mělo faktický dopad v té rovině, že policie jednotlivých členských států, orgány činné v trestním řízení jednotlivých členských států tuto trestnou činnost budou více vyhledávat a podaří se ji u evropských soudů více odsuzovat.
                  

                     To je asi jediná forma, jak do budoucna tuto ohavnou praxi vymýtit na území EU. Z hlediska třetích zemí, tam je třeba podle mého názoru navazovat ekonomickou podporu státům podle toho, jak přistupují k lidským právům, a tedy ochraně práv žen.
                  

Jessica Stegrud (ECR). – Fru talman! Flickan som ska könsstympas går oftast i lågstadiet. Först får hon sina ben fastbundna. Sedan tar man den ena halvan av ett rakblad och skär av hennes klitoris. Med den andra halvan skär man sedan av blygdläpparna för att därefter sy ihop det som är kvar. Följden är alltid psykiskt trauma, livslånga smärtor och ofta stora problem senare i livet vid förlossning, menstruation och samlag. Ibland är konsekvensen döden.
                  

                     Amnesty International likställer könsstympning med tortyr och anser att förövarna, oavsett var brottet begås, ska ställas inför rätta och straffas.
                  

                     Trots att den första lagen mot könsstympning i Sverige kom redan 1982 har vi nu, 38 år senare, flest stympade kvinnor per capita, och endast tre förövare har blivit dömda. Vi röstar i dag självklart ja till resolutionen men konstaterar återigen att den svenska regeringen har gjort alldeles för lite, alldeles för sent.
                  

Guido Reil (ID). – Frau Präsidentin! Wir haben heute über eine Entschließung zur Genitalverstümmelung abgestimmt. Worüber reden wir da? Wen betrifft es? Es betrifft junge Mädchen, die in der Regel fünf bis 13 Jahre alt sind. Diesen Mädchen wird ohne Betäubung mit einer Rasierklinge die Klitoris entfernt, die äußeren Schamlippen abgeschnitten, die inneren Schamlippen abgeschnitten, und danach werden sie in der Regel zugenäht, von oben nach unten, bis nur noch ein ganz kleines Loch bleibt. An dem Tag, an dem sie verheiratet werden, in ihrer Hochzeitsnacht, werden sie von ihrem Ehemann aufgeschnitten – mit einem Messer.
                  

                     Diese unglaubliche Barbarei mussten 200 Millionen Frauen ertragen – im 21. Jahrhundert, 200 Millionen Frauen. Und wo passiert denn das? Es passiert ihnen in islamischen Ländern; und darüber müssen wir endlich reden und wir müssen uns darüber klar werden: Es passiert in islamischen Ländern. Mit der Zuwanderung ist diese unglaubliche Barbarei auch nach Europa gekommen. 600 000 Frauen sind mittlerweile auch hier betroffen. Wir müssen diesen Wahnsinn endlich beenden.
                  

Frances Fitzgerald (PPE). – Madam President, I support this resolution. I am delighted to see so many people in the European Parliament supporting it. FGM is an act of physical, sexual, and psychological violence and mostly carried out against infants and young girls up to the age of 15 years of age, and of course beyond. There are 200 million worldwide.
It's not something that just happens, for example, on the African continent. People often think of that, although 97% of women in Guinea have undergone FGM, including 45% of girls below 14, and in Ethiopia 65% of women, but of course it is happening in countries around the world. It is happening in Indonesia, Malaysia, South America and so on, and here in Europe. Let's remember that 180 000 young girls, attending our schools, attending our youth clubs and involved in our communities are at risk of FGM in Europe.
We have to take action to make sure that we have zero tolerance. I'm delighted to see across continents – and we saw this in Nairobi at the recent conference – young boys and men working to eliminate FGM. That's also very important. We have to have this comprehensive strategy to end FGM now.

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (ECR). – Señora presidenta, nuestro voto ha sido la abstención. Estamos totalmente en contra de la mutilación genital femenina, pero no puede considerarse solo una forma de discriminar a la mujer. Meterlo en el mismo saco, como propone este documento, es parte del problema. Va mucho más allá. Es una forma de no considerar a la mujer persona, de querer matar su iniciativa, sus deseos, su esencia. Tiene la única intención de convertir a la mujer en una esclava y, aunque este texto lo niegue, sí es una cuestión de religión; es algo completamente cultural; no solamente es de hombre contra mujer, también es de mujer contra mujer, de mujeres contra mujeres.
                  

                     Se ha utilizado este doloroso asunto para movilizarnos en masa hacia la agenda feminista, mientras se blanquea a quienes promueven esta espantosa práctica. En el entorno de los valores occidentales, de los valores cristianos, la mujer nunca ha tenido este tipo de desprotección. Ensalzar estos valores es urgente, es nuestra brújula ante semejante confusión. No puede haber una estrategia de éxito si ignoramos las causas del problema.
                  

Vlad-Marius Botoș (Renew). – Madam President, human beings are not property. Children are not property. We all state very loudly and clearly that we want to make our own choices, especially when we are talking about our own bodies. Four million girls every year are in danger of having that right taken from them. Four million girls between the ages of 1 month and 15 years old are at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation (FGM) for no reason other than that the parents or the grandparents or somebody in the family considers that it is nice to do it, or it is culturally appropriate. There are no health benefits from this procedure, and there are too many health hazards involved – from infection to excessive bleeding, from physical discomfort to sterility and to child death. We cannot allow these practices to go on in Europe. We cannot allow these girls, who have become European, to be taken away in countries where the practices are still in high fashion, to be mutilated. We have to protect their human rights – and not to be mutilated is one very important right of girls, of women. If we want them to become strong, healthy members of our society, if we want them to become protectors of human rights, we have to protect them now, when they need it most. I voted for this resolution, and I think this is a big start.

Veronika Vrecionová (ECR). – Paní předsedající, ženská obřízka je jedním z nejstrašnějších činů, které lze zahrnout do násilí na ženách. Kromě fyzické bolesti souvisí i s mnohaletými psychickými a samozřejmě zdravotními problémy.
                  

                     Je otřesné, že v 21. století je tento čin stále praktikován v několika desítkách zemí světa a každoročně jím projdou desítky až stovky tisíc žen. Dokonce i v EU žije přes 600 000 žen, které podstoupily obřízku, a téměř 200 000 mladých dívek a žen je tímto zákrokem ohroženo.
                  

                     Jestliže chceme chránit ženy a zasazovat se o rovnost pohlaví, tak kroky k ukončení této kruté praktiky pomohou ženám daleko více než mediálně skloňované kvóty na počty žen v politice, případně ve firmách. Samozřejmě jsem tuto rezoluci podpořila.
                  

Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Paní předsedající, myslím, že se všichni shodneme v EP na nutnosti boje proti této nelidské, nehumánní praxi.
                  

                     Já bych v této souvislosti chtěl jen připomenout, že to byla naše frakce Evropských konzervativců a naše poslankyně Assita Kanko ze strany N-VA, kdo jsme navrhli na loňskou Sacharovovu cenu skupinu aktivistek z Keni známou pod názvem The Restorers, která aktivně bojuje jak v Africe, tak jinde ve světě proti této nelidské zvyklosti.
                  

                     Budeme v tom samozřejmě pokračovat, máme nějaké plány. Konkrétně bych i Vás paní místopředsedkyně chtěl pozvat k této aktivitě a brzy obdržíte od nás v této věci nějaký návrh a doufám, že ho podpoříte. Samozřejmě, že jsem tuto rezoluci podpořil.
                  
12.7.   Automated decision-making processes: Ensuring consumer protection and the free movement of goods and services (B9-0094/2020)

A szavazáshoz fűzött szóbeli indokolások


Anne-Sophie Pelletier (GUE/NGL). – Madame la Présidente, j'ai voté en faveur de cette résolution qui va pour moi dans le bon sens, c'est-à-dire la protection de la liberté des données et la protection des consommateurs, et je voudrais ici reconnaître l'engagement de la présidente de la commission IMCO.
                  

                     Vous savez, Rabelais disait: ‘science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme’, et c'est pourquoi il me semble que nous devons rester vigilants sur les technologies liées à l'intelligence artificielle. En effet, ce ne sont pas des algorithmes qui peuvent aujourd'hui gérer des pans entiers de la société et de notre quotidien – je veux penser aux services publics, aux réclamations, aux opérations bancaires –, et c'est pour cela que j'attire votre attention sur deux points où le texte aurait, à mon sens, pu être plus ambitieux en matière de transparence. La transparence est une donnée essentielle pour la confiance de nos concitoyens. Nous pouvons aussi renforcer ce texte en nous assurant que les logiciels ne seront jamais discriminatoires envers les personnes les plus fragiles.
                  

                     Alors, oui à la science, oui au progrès, si et seulement s'ils sont conjugués à l'éthique et à la morale.
                  

Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Głosowałam za przyjęciem rezolucji w sprawie zapewnienia ochrony konsumentów oraz swobodnego przepływu towarów i usług w zakresie zautomatyzowanych procesów decyzyjnych, bowiem uważam, że sztuczna inteligencja stanowi potencjał w zapewnieniu udogodnień dla życia obywateli.
                  

                     Systemy sztucznej inteligencji znajdują zastosowanie w różnych branżach ze względu na swoją zdolność do poprawy wydajności. Są innowacyjne i upraszczają skomplikowane procesy, ale ważne jest, by były bezpieczne dla konsumentów i działały zgodnie z przeznaczeniem. Równie ważne jest to, by regulacje prawne nie były nadmiernie uciążliwe i nie zniechęcały europejskich firm do wdrażania i adaptacji tych rozwiązań. Ta rezolucja jest krokiem w kierunku znalezienia właśnie takiej równowagi.
                  

Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Madam President, the general definition of automated decision making is the process of making a decision by automated means without any human involvement. This decision can be based on factual data as well as on digitally created profiles or inferred data. Let's give examples here: an online decision to award a loan or an ability test in recruitment using pre-programmed algorithms and criteria. There are a number of benefits to such decision making – a quicker and more consistent decision among them – but what about risks, the risk of profiling, misuse of data, limiting consumers' choices. We must be aware of these risks. That is why I voted for the resolution, which calls on the Commission to closely monitor developments in this area.

Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, am votat și eu această rezoluție. Consider că este foarte important să acordăm atenția cuvenită întregului mecanism ce ține de procesele decizionale automatizate și cred că tehnologia ne influențează viața de zi cu zi în sens pozitiv, însă trebuie să ne gândim foarte bine și să găsim mecanismele necesare pentru a reglementa acest proces pentru a proteja consumatorii.
                  

                     În primul rând, inteligența artificială este extrem de importantă și a pătruns în toate domeniile, însă consumatorii finali, în mod special copiii, trebuie protejați. Pentru că transparența este cheia în acest mecanism, consumatorul final trebuie să aibă parte de acces la modul în care inteligența artificială și procesele automatizate ne influențează viața de zi cu zi. De mai multă transparență este, așadar, nevoie, de aceea am susținut această rezoluție.
                  

Mick Wallace (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, the shift towards automated decision-making and artificial intelligence will change the way in which consumer markets and our societies in general function. We need to ensure that people are protected from unfair or discriminatory commercial practices and we need to ensure that these processes are transparent and do not involve profiling. In this respect, auditing of automated decision-making should be carried out by independent third parties. People need to be able to contest these types of decisions. The Commission needs to ensure that the EU safety and liability frameworks are fit for purpose and that market watchdogs and other competent authorities are properly resourced and empowered to act. We need to be extremely wary of the concentration of data in the hands of a few private companies and we need to adhere to the principles of the GDPR, specifically in terms of purpose limitation and privacy by design.

Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Madam President, artificial intelligence makes it possible to process much more data than humans can do in a fraction of the time. It's becoming increasingly common in finance, healthcare, education and the legal system. It's increasingly evolving algorithmic decision systems. In many situations, the impact of the decision on people can be significant, such as access to credit, employment, medical treatment and judicial sentences.
So I was happy to support this resolution, as it urges the Commission to examine whether additional measures are needed in order to guarantee a strong set of rights to protect consumers in AI decision-making; to ensure that consumers are protected from unfair and discriminatory practices, as well as from the risks entailed by AI-driven professional services; to guarantee greater transparency in these processes; and to ensure that only high-quality and non-biased data sets are used in algorithmic decision-making systems. The bottom line is we need to ensure that EU rules on safety and liability for products and services are fit for the digital age.
12.8.   Proposed mandate for negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (B9-0098/2020)

A szavazáshoz fűzött szóbeli indokolások


Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Madam President, just to say at the outset: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important issue, particularly in the context of Ireland itself and the citizens in Northern Ireland, in particular. While this is primarily about a trade deal with the UK and the European Union over the next number of months, it is critically important that Irish citizens are kept at the heart of this particular debate. There are hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens – who are European Union citizens as well – who are now living in Northern Ireland, outside of the European Union. I think that we have to when debating these issues – and I make no apologies for consistently raising the concerns of many Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland, so it must be at the heart of it. The integrity of the Good Friday Agreement must be upheld in any future deal as well.
Finally, professional qualification recognition is something that will have to be to the fore to ensure that people can work on both sides of the border and that professional qualifications are recognised on both sides – in the UK and the European Union – and that is critically important to the free movement of people on the island of Ireland.

Thierry Mariani (ID). – Madame la Présidente, nos collègues britanniques ont donc quitté notre hémicycle. Nous leur devons de bons souvenirs. Nigel Farage symbolisa ainsi longtemps l'excellence produite par l'attachement à une terre et à une identité, contre tous ceux qui rêvent d'un grand vide où les nations devraient se noyer.
                  

                     Alors comment confier un mandat de négociation qui se structurerait sur autre chose qu'une arrogance des institutions européennes et qui éviterait, à l'inverse de la résolution, les enfantillages provocateurs niant la souveraineté de la Grande-Bretagne?
                  

                     En réalité, le comportement des institutions européennes pendant le Brexit est un argument supplémentaire contre toute avancée de leurs prérogatives: incapacité à respecter l'équilibre entre les nations, déséquilibre entre les objectifs et les atouts… Rien n'a été abordé avec le tact et la mesure qui doivent prévaloir dans ce genre de situation. Les débats sur le Brexit étaient une sorte de cour de récréation; les voix les plus inconnues et les moins soutenues dans leur propre pays faisaient la leçon à des personnalités établies en Grande-Bretagne.
                  

                     Voilà où l'arrogance peut par moments nous mener, quand des peuples voulant se faire respecter demandent simplement à être écoutés. Pour ces raisons, je me suis abstenu.
                  

Frances Fitzgerald (PPE). – Madam President, I voted in favour of the resolution establishing the European Parliament's position on the future relationship between the UK and the European Union. Establishing a new trade agreement with the UK must be of the utmost importance to the EU in this period, ensuring that as close and prosperous a relationship as possible can be established. This will of course require commitment from both sides and it's certainly not helped by ambivalent statements that we hear at times from the UK. It will be key for the European Union, but particularly for Ireland and Northern Ireland and I welcome the ambition in this resolution to see such a relationship through a level playing field as part of an economic partnership and I hope that we can work with the UK, to ensure that we have a close and mutually beneficial relationship. I stress mutually beneficial because the UK's trade with the EU is very substantial.
What is even more crucial is the continued preservation of the peace in Northern Ireland. The final agreement cannot in any way jeopardise the peace established by the Good Friday Agreement, and the final future relationship can in no way undo what has been previously agreed to in the Withdrawal Agreement and that will need ongoing monitoring in the months ahead.

Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Po brexicie relacje Unia Europejska – Zjednoczone Królestwo muszą zostać uregulowane. Ta rezolucja zawiera zalecenia Parlamentu Europejskiego dla Komisji do negocjacji w sprawie nowego partnerstwa ze Zjednoczonym Królestwem. Rezolucja obejmuje szeroki zakres polityk skupionych w trzech głównych kategoriach: partnerstwo gospodarcze, konkretne kwestie sektorowe i współpraca tematyczna, a także partnerstwo w zakresie bezpieczeństwa i spraw zagranicznych.
                  

                     Podczas gdy oczywistym jest, że państwo spoza Unii nie może mieć takich samych przywilejów, praw lub korzyści jak państwo członkowskie, to musimy pamiętać, że przyszłe stosunki Wielkiej Brytanii i Unii Europejskiej powinny być możliwie jak najbardziej oparte na współpracy. Wielka Brytania – nawet jeśli jest poza Unią – pozostaje wielkim krajem europejskim związanym z innymi krajami Europy historią, gospodarką czy współpracą w zakresie bezpieczeństwa. W interesie zarówno Unii, jak i Wielkiej Brytanii jest, żeby nasze wzajemne relacje były jak najlepsze. Dlatego głosowałam za przyjęciem tej rezolucji.
                  

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, přestože jsem nesouhlasila s odchodem Velké Británie, tak nezbývá než hlasovat pro mandát, který umožní vznik dohody s Velkou Británií o příští spolupráci, partnerství. Považuji za důležité, že EP v tomto našel velmi širokou shodu napříč politickým spektrem a zeměmi, a to, aby EU v tomto zůstala jednotná. Jsem také velmi ráda, že máme shodu na tom, že tato spolupráce musí být co nejužší.
                  

                     EP bere na vědomí rozhodnutí Spojeného království uzavřít s EU dohodu o volném obchodu a my si samozřejmě dáváme podmínky, aby tyto překážky byly co nejmenší, a budeme požadovat, aby přístup potravinových a zemědělských produktů na vnitřní trh byl podmíněn dodržováním všech vnitřních norem – požadavků na kvalitu, bezpečnost, označování, omezené používání pesticidů atd. EP požaduje zachování práv občanů EU a jejich rodin, které žijí v Británii a pocházejí z EU.
                  

Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem také podpořil tento mandát a považuji za velmi důležité dvě věci v mandátu. Za prvé to, že hovoříme jasně o právech občanů, občanů našich zemí, ale také o právech Britů, o jejich právu na volný pohyb. To je třeba, aby budoucí vztahy jasně potvrdily a aby tedy tyto dohody byly výhodné pro naše občany. Z ČR žije ve Velké Británii 30 000 občanů a naším cílem má být jim poskytnout maximální ochranu a podporu.
                  

                     Vedle toho potom je sama o sobě dohoda o volném obchodu, která musí být nastavena tak, aby pro obě strany, pro exportéry z obou stran byla výhodná. Zkrátka musíme udělat maximum proto, aby export z EU do Velké Británie nebyl brexitem poškozen. Z ČR celá řada firem exportuje do Velké Británie a my musíme udělat vše proto, aby tyto firmy a jejich obchodní zájmy nebyly poškozeny.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem byl nešťastný z brexitu a musím říci, že přeji Velké Británii hodně úspěchů, na druhou stranu tento mandát jsem podpořil, a to z mnoha důvodů.
                  

                     Za prvé, já mám za to, že stále není ještě odvráceno riziko tvrdého brexitu, protože bohužel britský premiér k těm pobrexitovým jednáním přistupuje velmi zvláštním způsobem a myslím si, že není možné tvrdit, že za každou cenu jsme schopni se dohodnout s Velkou Británií na uspořádání obchodních vztahů.
                  

                     Mluvila už o tom kolegyně Šojdrová, je zde celá řada požadavků, na kterých musíme trvat. Je zde celá řada citlivých oblastí, zajištění práv Irské republiky, otázka Severního Irska, zemědělských produktů, naplňování standardů, to jsou věci, které budeme muset sledovat. A myslím, že se nemáme nechat vydírat termínem ukončení těchto vyjednávání, které má být na konci letošního roku, navíc do toho vyjednávání se má zapojit řada regionálních parlamentů. Myslím si, že to je věc, kterou musíme zvážit velmi důkladně, a nemáme se nechat tlačit do kouta.
                  

Manuel Bompard (GUE/NGL). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, le mandat de négociation avec le Royaume-Uni prépare le plus grand accord de libre-échange jamais conclu par l'Union européenne.
                  

                     Bien sûr, comme toujours, ce mandat est enrobé de belles intentions sur le modèle social européen et de vœux pieux sur le respect de nos normes, mais nous ne sommes pas dupes, car derrière le beau vernis, que trouvons-nous? Une obstination dans l'idéologie du libre-échange qui broie les peuples européens et détruit notre écosystème, l'introduction d'un mécanisme d'arbitrage qui usurpe au profit de tribunaux privés la souveraineté des peuples européens, l'attachement au système de quotas d'émissions de gaz à effet de serre – comme si les mécanismes du marché pouvaient répondre à la crise climatique – et l'ambition, enfin, d'une coopération renforcée dans le domaine militaire en partenariat avec l'OTAN, alliance belliciste et périmée.
                  

                     Chers collègues, alors que les Britanniques viennent de quitter l'Union européenne, tout continue donc comme avant. Mais que vous faudra-t-il pour que ce Parlement en tire enfin des leçons?
                  

Илхан Кючюк (Renew). – Г-жо Председател, подкрепих днешната резолюция, защото има нужда от всеобхватно споразумение между Обединеното кралство и Европейския съюз. Мишел Барние трябва да продължи с добрата си работа да намери обща позиция на Европейския съюз, но и да задълбочи отношенията между нас и Обединеното кралство… (председателят прекъсва оратора)


                     Благодаря, г-жо Председател, подкрепих днешната резолюция, защото има нужда от всеобхватно споразумение между Обединеното кралство и Европейския съюз. Намирам я за амбициозна и задълбочена. Нека да си припомним в името на кои цели се случи Брексит. Най-важната измежду тях беше Обединеното кралство да може самостоятелно да подписва така наречените ‘Big Trade Deals’. Точно това предлага и самият Европейски съюз – широкообхватна и справедлива търговска сделка, без мита, без квоти, но и без дъмпинг и занижаване на европейските стандарти.
                  

                     Но премиерът Джонсън иска нещо друго, сделка от канадски тип или дори, чух, от австралийски. В единия случай има ограничения, а в другия важат правилата на Световната търговска организация. Тук е мястото да се каже, каквато и сделка да има между Великобритания и Европейския съюз, страната ще бъде трета за нас. Важно е да продължим сътрудничеството си. Предизвикателствата пред нас ще го налагат все повече и повече.
                  

Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Doamna președintă, ne aflăm în situația în care discutăm deja la trecut despre Marea Britanie, care nu mai este în Uniunea Europeană, însă avem obligația să construim o relație specială cu Marea Britanie.
                  

                     Tocmai de aceea cred că trebuie să privim acest lucru în trei chei. În primul rând: în Marea Britanie există mulți britanici care nu și-au dorit ca Marea Britanie să plece din Uniunea Europeană. În al doilea rând: sunt 3,5 milioane de cetățeni europeni în Regat astăzi și ei nu trebuie să sufere pentru că politicieni populiști au adus Marea Britanie în acest punct. Și, în al treilea rând: toată acțiunea noastră politică trebuie să plece de la premisa că, la un moment dat, Marea Britanie va reveni în Uniunea Europeană.
                  

Milan Brglez (S&D). – Gospa predsedujoča, še vedno obžalujem dejstvo, da je Združeno kraljestvo zapustilo Evropsko unijo. Teža tega odhoda za obe strani se bo šele pokazala, a me veseli, da se je preprečilo izhod brez dogovora.
                  

                     Ne pričakujem enostavnih pogajanj. Vsekakor pa mora biti vanje tesno vpet Evropski parlament, ki kot edina evropska institucija neposredno zastopa evropske državljanke in državljane ter je dolžan poskrbeti za to, da so njihove pravice ustrezno zavarovane.
                  

                     Glasoval sem za resolucijo glede mandata za pogajanja o novem partnerstvu, ker mandat zelo jasno utemeljuje na pravicah in obveznostih, izhajajočih iz prihodnjega partnerstva, ter dejstva, da Združeno kraljestvo ne more uživati enakih prednosti, kot jih je imelo kot članica EU.
                  

                     Zelo pomembno je, da so v resolucijo vključeni najpomembnejši pomisleki, ki so jih odbori Evropskega parlamenta, še zlasti Odbor za zaposlovanje in socialne zadeve, izrazili glede doseženega sporazuma o odstopu.
                  

                     S sprejetjem te resolucije je Evropski parlament določil svoje rdeče črte, ki se jih bo moral držati, ko bo dal svoje mnenje glede sporazuma o novem partnerstvu.
                  

Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Mamy do czynienia z sytuacją bez precedensu. Unia Europejska po brexicie jest organizmem ważnym, ale słabszym, i trzeba rzeczy nazywać po imieniu. Niemniej jednak dzisiaj też jest dzień i rozpoczynamy dyskusję na temat umowy Zjednoczonego Królestwa z Unią Europejską.
                  

                     Życzę Panu Komisarzowi Barnierowi, żeby ta umowa była jak najlepsza, ale przede wszystkim życzę mieszkańcom – i Wielkiej Brytanii, i Unii Europejskiej – dobrych relacji między sobą. To bardzo ważne, żebyśmy umieli zgasić ten pożar i żebyśmy umieli popatrzeć razem w przyszłość. Wielka Brytania jest trwałym elementem – zawsze, w każdej sytuacji, gdy chodzi o bezpieczeństwo. Uważam, że kwestie bezpieczeństwa obywateli Wielkiej Brytanii, Unii Europejskiej i świata powinny być w pierwszym rzędzie przedyskutowane, bo wszyscy potrzebujemy bezpiecznej Europy i bezpiecznego świata.
                  

Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Madam President, the future trade agreement – when and if it is finalised – must have the approval of this Parliament and so I welcome the resolution today that I supported that sets out our priorities and what we see should be included in that agreement. Particularly the Good Friday Agreement and the unique situation that exists on the island of Ireland must be protected. The common travel area between Ireland and the United Kingdom, mentioned by the Commission in setting out their mandate for negotiations, must also be recognised. And a significant trade deal that would be mutually beneficial is needed for both sides. We need to ensure that European companies are not disadvantaged and put at a competitive disadvantage and we need to protect European consumers as well and recognise that this is unique; it's with the sixth largest economy in the world, a former member of the European Union and a close neighbour.

Radosław Sikorski (PPE). – Madam President, I voted for the agreement because it adequately protects our interests. But given what it is and given the British Government's red lines – no customs union, no jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and no freedom of movement – I think this will lead to a barebones agreement on goods. The pyramid of lies peddled by europhobes in Britain is beginning to crash. The British Government is beginning to acknowledge that there will be customs and other checks on the border between us from January next year. Therefore, in the name of freer trade, Britain will be erecting barriers with her biggest trading partner. What a disaster.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I too am pleased to support this important resolution on the draft negotiating mandate. This is a key step towards the opening of negotiations in the future EU-UK relationship.
It is very welcome that the draft reflects the breadth and ambition of the scope of the political declaration for a broad and deep partnership with the UK. It is also important that the effective implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement continues in parallel with the negotiation of the future relationship and that this is reflected in the mandate. There is a continuing focus in the draft mandate on protecting the Good Friday Agreement and the Common Travel Area. Protecting the Good Friday Agreement and maintaining the Common Travel Area in all circumstances continue to be key priorities for Ireland and also, thankfully, for the EU 27. I thank my colleagues for their continued support of Irish priorities and I am hopeful that, with genuine cooperation from the United Kingdom, a good outcome can be reached.
12.9.   European Central Bank – Annual report 2018 (A9-0016/2020 - Costas Mavrides)

A szavazáshoz fűzött szóbeli indokolások


Mick Wallace (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, the Irish Central Bank is still destroying the EUR 31 billion promissory note bonds that resulted from the bank bailout in 2008. The banks in question were eventually liquidated, but the European Central Bank (ECB) still insist that the entire EUR 31 billion be taken out of circulation by the Irish Central Bank. Irish people have suffered a decade of austerity and as head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) at the time, Ms Lagarde was front and centre of this imposition of austerity on Ireland. The eurozone crisis also provided an excuse for the previous head of the ECB, Mr Mario Draghi, to introduce a fiscal compact in 2012. It institutionalised and made permanent what were supposed to be emergency austerity programmes. It accomplished a lifelong neoliberal dream – the complete separation between the democratic process and economic policies. As Germany's Finance Minister said in 2015 elections change nothing, there are rules. The ECB and Ms Lagarde as Managing Director of the IMF, brought Ireland to its knees. I don't recall any ECB annual report in recent years mentioning this. It should never be forgotten. Of course we opposed it.

Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Fru talman! I dag har ni, majoriteten här i Europaparlamentet, flera gånger krävt att Sverige ska införa euron. I årsrapporten för Europeiska centralbanken skriver ni att det är obligatoriskt att anta den gemensamma valutan.
                  

                     Låt mig då få upplysa er om att Sverige hade en folkomröstning om EMU år 2003 där en massiv majoritet röstade emot ett svenskt medlemskap. I dag vill endast en av fem svenskar ha er euro. Vi vill inte gödsla pengar över länder som inte kan ta ansvar för sina egna ekonomier. Vi vill ha den svenska kronan.
                  

                     Vad är det ni inte fattar? Ni kallar er demokrater, men ni agerar som arroganta, odemokratiska översittare utan respekt för folkviljan. Vi må ha haft en svag regering som inte förhandlade fram ett officiellt svenskt undantag, men respektera den svenska folkviljan. Vi vill inte ha euron, och vi kommer att jobba för att rösta fram ett svenskt undantag.
                  

Manon Aubry (GUE/NGL). – Madame la Présidente, il y a quelques mois, tout le monde applaudissait la nomination d'une femme à la tête de la Banque centrale européenne. Mais ne nous y trompons pas: c'est l'arbre qui cache la forêt, tant le sexisme règne encore en maître dans les institutions économiques européennes.
                  

                     à ceux qui en douteraient, j'ai amené ici quelques photos de ceux qui décident aujourd'hui de la gouvernance économique et monétaire de la zone euro. Ici, c'est le directoire de la BCE: deux femmes sur six personnes. Le conseil des gouverneurs de la Banque centrale européenne, encore mieux: deux femmes sur 25 personnes. La liste est encore longue et notre commission aux affaires économiques et monétaires ne fait pas mieux, avec seulement 11 femmes sur 60 membres.
                  

                     Il n'y aurait donc aucune femme assez compétente pour ces postes, comme a osé nous répondre un député de droite dans notre commission? Franchement, ce n'est pas sérieux, et une telle absence de parité est inacceptable. Il est temps que cela change, en prenant des mesures enfin contraignantes.
                  

                     Soyez-en sûrs, les femmes ne se laisseront plus intimider ni marginaliser. Nous avons toute notre place aux manettes de la gouvernance économique européenne et nous comptons bien la prendre.
                  

Clare Daly (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, I was very glad to see Madame Lagarde here yesterday and very disappointed that I didn't get the chance to put these points to her myself, because she is, of course, a household name in Ireland from her role in the IMF and the crushing austerity imposed on the citizens of Ireland. The result of that has been, in effect, a lost decade. The official cost of the bailout was EUR 64.6 billion, but the human cost is still being paid: the welfare cuts, the housing crisis, infant malnutrition, dying family members on hospital trolleys, and a generation of young people who left our shores.
But last weekend the price was paid back by the Irish citizens when Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, the two ruling parties responsible for that austerity, were given an almighty hammering in the election, and I think that is the face of things to come. The neoliberalism at the heart of the ECB is something that will not be tolerated by citizens.

Silvia Modig (GUE/NGL). – Arvoisa puhemies, euroalueen suurin finanssipoliittinen ongelma on kasvu- ja vakaussopimus, joka kurjistaa maita, tekee mahdottomaksi aktiivisen suhdannepolitiikan ja tekee mahdottomaksi panostukset sosiaaliseen hyvinvointiin, joka pidemmän päälle on viisainta talouspolitiikkaa koskaan. Tällä hetkellä se tekee mahdottomaksi myös investoinnit ilmastoon ja siirtymään kohti hiilineutraalia yhteiskuntaa.
                  

                     EKP:llä on aivan sama velvollisuus kuin kaikilla muillakin osallistua ilmastotyöhön, ja se on sen mandaatin puitteissa täysin mahdollista tehdä, koska jos tehtävänanto on pitää yllä hintavakautta, hiiliriski on suuri riski hintavakaudelle.
                  

                     Viime vuosina on tyhjästä luotu miljardeja ja taas miljardeja rahaa, jotka on pumpattu finanssimarkkinoille tukemaan finanssipelureiden aiheuttamia ongelmia. Se sama voima ja se sama rahamäärä pitäisi voida ohjata myös ilmastotyöhön. Yksi keino, joka valitettavasti tänään äänestyksessä hylättiin, on se, että keskuspankki sitoutuisi ostamaan investointipankin vihreitä velkakirjoja. Tämä olisi täysin mandaatin puitteissa, ja on sääli, että parlamentti tämän ehdotuksen hylkäsi, ja siksi äänestin tätä päätöslauselmaa vastaan.
                  
12.10.   The illegal trade in companion animals in the EU (B9-0088/2020)

A szavazáshoz fűzött szóbeli indokolások


Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Madam President, just to say at the outset that I welcome the opportunity to speak on this particular resolution, and I would ask that immediate steps be taken by the Commission to address the issue of illegal trade in cats and dogs, primarily in the context of industrial-scale breeding farms across the European Union whereby animals are incarcerated for years and years and years just to produce puppy dogs and kittens. I believe we have an obligation as a civilised society to, at the very least, ensure there is some form of registration of these particular puppy farms and cat farms, that this trade is registered in some way and that there are regulations governing it.
There's no doubt that there is a large criminal element involved in the smuggling and moving of animals within the European Union. It has public health implications, but most importantly of all it is an animal cruelty issue, it is an animal welfare issue, and the Commission itself must ensure that the internal market governs these particular farms to ensure that there are standards of decency in them.

Clare Daly (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, I am absolutely delighted to be able to support this motion and to really welcome the initiative taken to address the illegal pet trade, which is a phenomenal problem in Ireland, actually, where a number of individuals have been finally brought to court for treating animals so appallingly and for their own private profit. This issue has evoked huge sympathy from the Irish public and grave concern about the lack of enforcement by our regulatory authority. I do think that the motion was very much strengthened by the addition of the amendments calling for mandatory identification and registration, which will be an assist, but also calling on the Commission and Member States to take measures to prohibit breeding and marketing practices that are detrimental to the health and welfare of these animals. This is a great step forward and I'm delighted to be able to support it.

Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Fru talman! Förra året kom lilla Astrid till vår familj – en alldeles bedårande cavalier king charles som var full av kärlek. När vi köpte henne fick vi reda på att hon var importerad till Belgien från Slovakien, och när vi kom till veterinären för en rutinkontroll så berättade de för oss, som var orutinerade hundägare, att det förekommer ett systematiskt fusk.
                  

                     Vad är det då de gör i ursprungsländerna? Vad hade de gjort mot Astrid? De fuskar med födelsedatumen. De tidigarelägger datumen så att valparna kan komma ut på marknaden snabbare. De skiljs från mammorna alldeles för tidigt, långt innan de åtta veckor som krävs för att skapa trygghet för valparna. Det skapar ett livslångt trauma som visar sig i stressbeteende. Valparna vaccineras för tidigt, så att det inte ger tillräckligt skydd. Problemet här är att många oseriösa aktörer, illegala aktörer, kommer undan med det.
                  

                     Jag röstade därför för en europeisk samordning av registrering och identifiering av sällskapsdjur i hopp om att andra djur, andra katter och hundar, ska få en bättre start än vad vår Astrid fick.
                  

Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem velmi rád, že přes 600 poslanců podpořilo návrh usnesení proti nelegálnímu transportu zvířat po Evropě.
                  

                     Je to velmi silný signál, že EP chce tuto hroznou činnost pašeráků a nelegálních chovatelů řešit, a doufám, že EK na základě tohoto usnesení připraví jasná opatření, která zamezí tomu, aby desítky tisíc štěňat a koťat z východní části EU za hrozných podmínek byly transportovány každý rok do západních zemí EU a tam takto prodávány.
                  

                     Je dobře, že má toto usnesení takovou podporu, a vyzývám Komisi, aby toto téma přestala konečně zlehčovat a opravdu začala tomuto tématu věnovat pozornost. Jak jsem včera řekl, žádná členská země tuto otázku sama nemůže vyřešit. Je to evropský problém a děkuji navrhovatelům, že tento návrh předložili.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem tento návrh jako spoluzpravodaj a navrhovatel samozřejmě také podpořil. Jsem velmi rád, že pouze 3 naši kolegové byli proti, jinak tento návrh našel zjevně průřezovou podporu.
                  

                     Rovněž souhlasím s tím, že toto není v ambici a v možnostech řešit pouze izolovaně v jednotlivých členských státech. Toto – nelegální chování, výnosný byznys pro skupinu pašeráků – musí skutečně řešit EK spolu s členskými státy. Ten přeshraniční efekt je tam zcela jednoznačný – trpí zvířata, jsou klamáni spotřebitelé, dochází k nekalé soutěži, je narušován náš vnitřní trh, to jsou všechno negativa, která skutečně volají po akci zejména ze strany EK.
                  

                     Já jsem byl včera trochu zklamán z vystoupení paní komisařky, pevně věřím, že si Komise uvědomí, kolik statisíců spotřebitelů, řekl bych i miliony podvedených rodin, dnes upírají své zraky k EK a pevně věřím, že Komise bude jednat.
                  

Manuel Bompard (GUE/NGL). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, le trafic d'animaux gangrène l'Europe depuis des années. Il est, selon Interpol, le troisième au monde, juste derrière le trafic d'armes et le trafic de drogue. Depuis les années 2000, l'essor des animaleries, des annonces en ligne et des réseaux sociaux, la situation s'aggrave chaque jour un peu plus.
                  

                     D'après l'ONG Four Paws, environ huit millions de chiots sont nécessaires chaque année pour satisfaire la demande européenne en ligne et le marché génère plus d'un milliard d'euros de revenus. Les grands perdants, ce sont les animaux. La plupart sont élevés illégalement et en batterie par des filières organisées, dans des conditions indignes. Ce sont des femelles traitées en machines à reproduire jusqu'à épuisement, ce sont des dizaines de milliers de petits chiots et chatons arrachés bien trop tôt à leur mère, peu ou pas soignés, pas vaccinés, élevés parfois sans égard pour leurs besoins de base avant d'être transportés à travers l'Europe dans des conditions auxquelles certains ne survivent tout simplement pas.
                  

                     Il est plus que temps que nos pays se dotent d'un système d'identification obligatoire et harmonisé pour contrer les trafiquants. Il est plus que temps d'encadrer les ventes d'animaux sur l'internet comme une première étape vers, nous l'espérons, leur interdiction pure et simple. C'est pourquoi j'ai voté pour cette résolution.
                  

Vlad-Marius Botoș (Renew). – Madam President, two weeks ago, I had the pleasure to organise a debate in my hometown of Arad, Romania, regarding this issue, with animal lovers. I am glad to see that pets, our best friends, have come to the attention of the European Union and that today we are voting on a motion on this.
It is time that we stopped the illegal pet trade. Trade in cats and dogs must have at the centre the welfare of the animals and the joy they bring to their new owners, not just financial gain. They become part of our families. They are not just objects to buy. Because of that – because of the role they play in our lives – I think it is time to do much more for them. We cannot stop at regulating the trade. We need to consider the lives of the pets too. There are many dogs and cats that are abandoned when humans do not want them anymore. It is a sad reality and any NGO dealing with abandoned pets can give you many sad details about this ugly side of being a pet. This must be regulated, too.
What do we do with the litters of the dogs that the owners do not want? What do we do with the kittens found in sealed bags, discarded at the side of the road? They are not in the trade market. We have to think of European legislation to protect them, too. These unwanted puppies and kittens also deserve our attention. We should be doing something for them.

Elnök asszony. – Most megadnám a szót Thierry Mariani-nak, aki Glucksmann úrnak még a szavazás előtt elhangzott felszólalására szeretne egy személyes megszólalást.
                  

Thierry Mariani (ID). – Madame la Présidente, j'aurais préféré répondre à cette mise en cause personnelle juste après les propos de M. Glucksmann, mais merci de me donner la parole, même si l'hémicycle est un peu clairsemé.
                  

                     Cela m'aurait permis de m'excuser pour une maladresse que je regrette sincèrement, en ce qui concerne les tout derniers mots de mon intervention d'hier. Comme en témoigne la vidéo, je parlais sous la pression logique du marteau qui signalait la fin de mon temps de parole. Je ne lisais plus mon texte et je regrette sincèrement d'avoir parlé de ‘rebelles’ au lieu de dire ‘l'élimination des terroristes’.
                  

                     Cela dit, ces propos ne sont en rien des propos de haine et je pense en conclusion qu'il est temps de reconnaître qu'il n'y a plus de rebelles depuis longtemps, mais des islamistes dans cette région. Je laisse le dernier mot au rapport de l'ONU qui disait, en juin dernier: ‘Idlib est désormais le plus grand dépotoir de combattants terroristes au monde’.
                  

                     Je vous réitère mes excuses sincères.
                  
13.   Corrections to votes and voting intentions : see Minutes

(Az ülést 14.17-kor felfüggesztik)


PŘEDSEDNICTVÍ: DITA CHARANZOVÁ


místopředsedkyně

14.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 15.03)

15.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes
16.   A social Europe in a Digital world (topical debate)

President. – The next item is the topical debate (Rule 162) on A Social Europe in a Digital World (2020/2550(RSP)).
I would like to inform Members that for this debate there is no catch-the-eye procedure and that no blue cards will be accepted.

Ismail Ertug,
author. – Madam President, first of all, thank you for this opportunity. I guess that digital technologies provide us with a big opportunity of possibilities at our fingertips and never before have people had so many opportunities to learn, to communicate, to participate or to create. Unfortunately, a lot of Europeans still lack the necessary digital understanding and skills in order to fully embrace the opportunities of the digital revolution.
Yesterday, we celebrated the Safer Internet Day, but one day a year might not be enough to stress the importance of media competence and safety. European education systems, therefore, must be modernised across Europe to prevent a digital divide in society. I would like to thank, in particular, the Finnish Presidency at that time for providing European citizens with free access to online courses on artificial intelligence (AI). AI can have enormous benefits for people and society, but we have to put humans – and this is important for us – in first place.
Employment and social policies must keep pace with the digitalisation of our labour markets. We need a social contract for the new world including minimum wages, strengthening collective bargaining and, in particular, the right to disconnect. We need, also, to create fair working conditions for workers, no matter whether offline or online. And we have to tackle the tech giants, their abusive market-dominant power and create a level playing field and taxes should be paid where profits are generated.
The European Union to needs to have a new legal framework on artificial intelligence and robotics, including a guarantee for upholding fundamental rights. The EU Commission will present the White Paper on AI next week. It should tackle this ethical aspect of AI, legal safeguards and liability. The algorithms must be free of bias. AI must not discriminate on the grounds of gender or ethnicity, and we say, ‘No AI without ethics’. Therefore, we urge the European Commission to come forward with a regulatory framework for this. Large sets of data are key for AI applications. They will fuel them.
Cambridge Analytica and Clearview – these companies are the most prominent examples for the invasive use and abuse of their personal data. Voter manipulation and deepfakes, for example, are serious threats to our democracies.
The digital revolution is nothing new, and it has been going on for years, but we constantly need to find new answers to the new technologies. Just a reminder, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), for example, took almost six years from the start until adoption and this shows us that artificial intelligence, surveillance and facial recognition are already rolled out across the European Union and we need to hurry up in structuring them.
It is our duty as the European Parliament and representatives of the people of the European Union to make sure that nobody is left behind. The European digital agenda must be based on our European values and should offer opportunities for everyone.

Nikolina Brnjac,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate today. It is indeed important to reflect on how the Union can, within its competences, help to ensure that an increasingly digitalised Europe remains recognisable as the social Europe we know.
Our social market economy is our competitive advantage globally. We need to defend it but also to adapt it to the changing world. Digitalisation is a broad and cross-cutting transformation process which presents opportunities and risks. It can be an engine for innovation and the creation of new quality jobs. It can increase labour productivity. It can enhance the well-being of workers, thereby also contributing to the reconciliation of work and private life. It can also offer new opportunities to people from vulnerable groups, including persons with disabilities.
As with any change, however, there are also risks which we need to be aware of. The EU stands at the forefront in efforts to ensure that technological developments result in social equitable benefits and in protecting those at risk of falling behind. EU Member States played an important role in the 2019 ILO Declaration on the Future of Work, which they promptly endorsed and promoted.
Today I would like to address three aspects related to digitalisation, which we can already see will have a significant impact on our lives: first, required skills; second, the platform economy; and third, the broader social impact of digitalisation.
On skills: the impact of digitalisation on the labour market is twofold. First, it increases the demand for highly-skilled workers and other workers with the right skills. Second, certain jobs change significantly or even disappear. This risks increasing structural unemployment, creating new inequalities and leading to the polarisation of the labour market due to a loss of intermediate-level jobs. We already observe a skills mismatch today with the skills shortage, notably in ICT but also in related fields like engineering, mathematics, science and technology. In these fields, we also observe a high gender imbalance. This is likely to get worse if we do not react.
To face this, we need to take into account the impact of the digital revolution over the whole human life cycle, from early childhood to old age. No one should be left behind, and well-being is an important factor in this regard. Both women and men are needed to fill the shortage in ICT skills across all occupations and sectors. Education and training systems should systematically prevent and combat stereotypes and discrimination. Collaboration between all stakeholders is vital for the successful management of tomorrow's job requirements. The social partners play a crucial role in this process, helping to maintain the adaptability of the labour force.
Regarding the platform economy, we all struggle to clearly define what is meant by this widely-encompassing term. Digital platforms bring service providers and their customers into direct contact. Many platforms work with people who are formally self-employed but who depend economically and organisationally on the platform. This form of organisation often has a negative impact on the level of pay, social protection, occupational health and safety, the right to paid leave, and other aspects. Effective social dialogue at all levels and a balance in the bargaining power is indispensable for securing a fair and equitable future of work, but it is difficult for platform workers to organise their presentations, as they often do not know each other.
The Council has already addressed a number of issues related to new forms of work. Decent working conditions must be ensured for all, regardless of changes in employment patterns and, where necessary, by adapting the national legislative frameworks. At Union level, a first step has been made with the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions adopted in June last year, which notably protects on-demand workers.
The Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed, adopted by the Council in December, makes explicit reference to platform workers. It recommends that Member States provide access to social protection for all, including the self-employed. The Council also highlighted that social protection policies should be balanced with making work pay policies. In this regard, it is important that people in a non-standard employment relationship can also benefit from collective bargaining.
On a number of occasions, the Council has made it clear that workers in new forms of work should also be adequately protected in terms of occupational health and safety, irrespective of the size of the enterprise or the type and duration of the employment relationship. The Council also stressed the need to ensure an effective implementation and enforcement of EU law on working conditions and health and safety, including for new forms of work. A better understanding of platform work is a prerequisite for defining further policy responses. In this respect, we look forward to the platform work summit organised jointly by the future German Presidency and the Commission in October 2020.
Thirdly, and finally, regarding the social impact, changes related to digitalisation have different impacts on different actors. On one hand, people can organise their work more flexibly and, on the other hand, face-to-face interactions decrease and constant connectivity means that people can never truly disconnect. New job opportunities can be created, for example for rural populations or people with disabilities. Working people have access to better tools to perform their jobs more efficiently. At the same time, employers are provided with better tools to monitor and optimise output efficiency.
To conclude, technological development is inevitable and should be embraced. Fostering the development of new technologies will give us more control over the direction it takes, to make it more ethical and human-centred. As policy-makers, we should be aware of the full picture and make informed decisions, without forgetting that our social market economy remains one of our strongest assets.

Nicolas Schmit,
membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, la transformation numérique va avoir, est déjà en train d'avoir, des répercussions sans précédent sur nos économies, nos sociétés, notre façon de travailler, de communiquer, de consommer.
               

                  La question de l'emploi est sûrement au centre des interrogations. Combien d'emplois vont disparaître, remplacés par des robots? Ce qui est d'ores et déjà certain, c'est que la majorité des emplois vont être transformés. De nouveaux emplois vont apparaître quand d'autres disparaîtront ou connaîtront de profonds bouleversements.
               

                  Il est prévu que l'intelligence artificielle et la robotique créeront à elles seules près de 60 millions d'emplois dans le monde au cours des cinq prochaines années et déjà aujourd'hui, cela a été mentionné, près d'un million d'emplois TIC sont vacants, faute de candidats ayant les bonnes qualifications. C'est d'ailleurs le principal souci de nombreuses entreprises, surtout de PME, qui ne trouvent pas de personnel qualifié. C'est aussi un défi majeur pour nos politiques de l'emploi et de qualification.
               

                  We have acted on the green transition by launching the Just Transition Fund for regions and people most affected by these changes. Likewise, we need to strengthen much more our employment and social policies to anticipate and manage the disruptive changes expected from digitalisation. There are – and it has been already mentioned – a lot of very good opportunities, but there are also risks of widening inequalities and more precariousness. Over 90% of jobs now require some level of digital skills, as does participation in society at large, yet 43% of the EU population have an insufficient level of digital skills and 17% have none at all.
               

                  Next month we will propose a new skills agenda to address the skills challenges through concrete instruments and this challenge is huge because, according to a lot of forecasts, about half of the European workforce, meaning more than 120 million people have to be re-skilled or upskilled.
               

                  So, we have three major aims. The first one is engaging employers to upscale their training provision, and for that purpose, we want to launch a skills pact committing companies, committing the business community to invest in their workforce.
               

                  Second, we have to step up public and private investment in training according to this need I just mentioned. And third, we have to empower people to invest in their own skills and qualifications.
               

                  Many of our initiatives post 2020 will address these challenges linked to digitalisation. The European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) will support projects, such as the creation of e-schools with digitally trained teachers or training unemployed people for ICT jobs. And I'm working on a reinforced Youth Guarantee to provide a much stronger coverage of digital skills.
               

                  Non-standard forms of work are on the rise, and come with flexible but also very often with inadequate working conditions, insufficient access to social protection, decreased coverage by social dialogue and absence of a right to collective representation. This challenges our labour laws and social protection systems and calls for a rethink of existing models to match the needs of old and new work arrangements and ensure decent working conditions, inclusion and high level of social protection. The digitalisation is changing notions of work of employer-employee relationships and of workplaces and it is absolutely indispensable that we create some clarity in this new world of work.
               

                  New technologies also blur the lines between work and private life. This creates new physical and mental health risks and, therefore, the right to disconnect has to be dealt with. The use of data in employment has led to new algorithm-based management and an increased profiling in social protection provision. These can improve productivity but also increase control on individuals and surveillance of workers' performance. It raises questions of protection of personal data; we should pay attention to this in the context of the regulation of artificial intelligence.
               

                  We need accessible and interoperable digital technologies in order to exploit the potential of digitalisation to increase the autonomy of persons with disabilities and to boost their participation in society and the economy. The digital transformation must also be an opportunity in the context of the demographic challenges we face in particular in relation to our aging population and the existing rural and remote areas.
               

                  We also should devote special attention to the gender gap that exists in the digital world. Europe has to be a competitive and innovative player in the digital economy. New initiatives on the Digital Services Act and artificial intelligence will play a key role, while also addressing risks of bias and discrimination.
               

                  On 22 September I'm organising together with Executive Vice-President Vestager, a summit on platform work where we discuss how to improve working and social conditions on online platforms. Beyond this, we have launched the process leading to an action plan on the European Pillar of Social Rights, because the principles of the pillar should also apply fully to the new digital world of work. The pillar frames our social strategy to make sure that the transition towards a digital and climate-neutral society is socially fair and sustainable.
               

Dennis Radtke,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich möchte mich erstmal beim Kollegen Ismail Ertug bedanken, dass er das Thema hier heute auf die Agenda gesetzt hat und damit sozusagen auch nochmal die Verknüpfung der sozialen Dimension und der Diskussion, die wir hier über das soziale Europa führen, mit diesem wichtigen Thema, der Digitalisierung, herstellt. Ganz herzlichen Dank dafür.
               

                  Ich teile vieles von dem, was hier schon vorgetragen worden ist. Bei den Diskussionen, die wir jetzt noch zu führen haben, dürfen wir nicht übersehen, dass wir in den letzten 20 Jahren fundamentale Umwälzungen in der Arbeitswelt innerhalb der Europäischen Union erlebt haben: auf der einen Seite Arbeitsverhältnisse, die sich total verändert haben – Stichwort Arbeit auf Abruf, aber auch crowd worker und click worker –, aber auf der anderen Seite haben wir mittlerweile an vielen Stellen eben auch eine ganz andere Art und Weise zu arbeiten. Wir alle haben diese Geräte in unseren Taschen, und wir alle wissen, wie schwierig es ist, wenn man solche Geräte in der Tasche hat, irgendwann auch mal Feierabend zu haben und irgendwann auch mal abschalten zu können.
               

                  Mir ist ganz wichtig bei den Diskussionen, die wir jetzt führen, dass wir auf der einen Seite die Chancen, aber auch die Risiken ganz nüchtern und sachlich bewerten und schauen, wo wir eingreifen müssen und wo wir unterstützen müssen. Denn für mich ist klar: Egal ob es um Technik geht, ob es um Wirtschaft geht – und die Chancen sind, finde ich, auch gerade zutreffend dargestellt worden –, beides hat eine dienende Funktion dem Menschen gegenüber. Das muss auch das Leitmotiv für unsere politische Arbeit auf diesem Feld sein.
               

Agnes Jongerius,
namens de S&D-Fractie. – Voorzitter, over 10 jaar ziet het werk van mensen er totaal anders uit dankzij digitale technieken die we nu nog niet eens kennen. Dat kan heel veel kansen bieden, maar dan moeten we de veranderingen wel de goede richting op duwen.
               

                  Nu al vragen platformwerknemers, zoals de Uberchauffeurs in Amsterdam, om een eerlijk inkomen. Ze vragen om normale arbeidstijden en ze vragen om invloed op de ratings, want bij één slechte rating – weten zij – zijn zij de sjaak. Zij weten wat het betekent als algoritmes je werk bepalen.
               

                  Het kan ook anders. Daarom moeten we in Europa inzetten op digitalisering waarbij het om mensen draait, met goed werk en met een fatsoenlijk inkomen. We hebben sterke en sociale Europese regels nodig voor de platformeconomie en we willen over die regels heel graag afspraken maken op de Platform Work Summit die aangekondigd is voor 22 september.
               

Dragoș Pîslaru,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, we Europeans believe in democratic values and a citizen-oriented democracy means an inclusive society in which citizens have access to and benefit from the opportunities offered by the EU. We owe this to our citizens. The European Union is well known as a champion of legislation, regulation, directives that have brought positive changes alright, but this time law is not enough. It must be accompanied by concrete action for a bold objective to transform the EU into a champion of innovation in digital. Alas, we are lagging behind. We cannot do this when almost one out of five EU citizens had no digital skills in 2017 and the situation is no different now.
Digital literacy and skills are key pillars of adapting European citizens to a labour market that is constantly transforming and changing our work arrangements. This is the priority, the key priority of today and tomorrow. We need to answer the daily concerns of European citizens by providing them ways of adapting to the new challenges and opportunities to develop new skills and access to the labour market. The question is how, and the best way we can do this is by literally investing in people this time. We need investments that can bring together expertise and capital from the public, private and non-profit sectors together in order to ensure the digital transformation that we want to put forward is paving the way for all citizens to achieve a high level of well-being and overcome inequalities of technological use at EU level. What if we established an EU public-private fund that will invest immediately and massively in digital literacy and skills, based on the principle of social impact investment? We have investEU. We have the private sector recognise the importance of digital education. What do we wait for? The impact is also easy to monitor the measure. I launch hereby, a call for action to invest in digital education for a more competitive and social Europe and thus expanding opportunities provided by digital technology so that the children of today successfully shape the renewed digital Europe of tomorrow.

France Jamet,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, une Europe sociale dans un monde numérique: il est étonnant que tout le monde, ici, ait pris le parti de ne pas parler tout simplement de l'Europe sociale avant d'aborder le monde numérique. Est-ce que cette Europe sociale existe? Je le sais, parce qu'ici tous mes collègues de la commission ‘Emploi et affaires sociales’ sont présents.
               

                  Nous savons, par exemple, que la coordination des systèmes de sécurité sociale est particulièrement difficile et je sais que certains, ici, pensent que la numérisation de nos données serait la panacée. Moi, je dirais qu'effectivement, l'intelligence artificielle et la robotique présentent des risques et qu'il faut absolument adopter un cadre réglementaire. Mais je voudrais vous mettre en garde sur de tels projets qui porteraient gravement atteinte à nos souverainetés nationales. De tels projets où la protection des données est d'autant moins assurée que l'Union européenne a fait l'impasse sur la souveraineté numérique et nous a rendus totalement vulnérables face à la Chine et aux états-Unis. J'ajouterai que le principe du consentement à la collecte des données de nos travailleurs, assurés sociaux ou retraités est gravement remis en question. Cela pourrait dériver vers un flicage systématique, vers un trafic des données à caractère commercial, ou pire.
               

                  Alors oui, nous devons œuvrer et aller vers une coopération entre les États et une numérisation et faire des efforts en ce sens, mais mes chers collègues, nous sommes aujourd'hui confrontés à des défis autrement plus immédiats et plus profonds, comme le dumping social, le dumping fiscal ou les dérives du mondialisme. Avant tout, réglons là l'essentiel, c'est ce que nos compatriotes attendent.
               

Alexandra Geese,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Sie haben das gerade schon kurz angesprochen: Digitale Technologien benachteiligen immer häufiger arme Menschen. Weltweit werden wir alle zunehmend überwacht. Besonders perfide trifft es aber Menschen, die auf Unterstützung der Gesellschaft angewiesen sind. In Europa wurde einem solchen System letzte Woche gerichtlich ein Ende gesetzt – wegen Menschenrechtsverletzungen. Es handelt sich um das niederländische SyRI-System, das vorhersehen soll, bei welchen Sozialhilfeempfängern eine höhere Wahrscheinlichkeit für Betrug besteht. Dazu werden umfassende, sehr persönliche Daten zusammengeführt und mit einem geheimen Algorithmus ohne demokratische Kontrolle analysiert.
               

                  Aber der Sozialstaat heißt doch sozial, weil er für die Menschen da ist, und digitale Systeme, die Menschen demütigen und ausspionieren, haben dort nichts zu suchen. Gegenfrage: Warum ist denn noch niemand auf die Idee gekommen, mal da nachzuschauen, wo dem Staat genau diese großen Summen fehlen, die wir jetzt für Investitionen in digitale Bildung benötigen? Warum nutzen wir künstliche Intelligenz nicht, um Steuerhinterziehung aufzudecken? Die Maßstäbe, die durch ein solches System angelegt werden würden, die brauchen wir jetzt schon dringend.
               

Elżbieta Rafalska,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Ciągle słyszymy, że w sercu gospodarki cyfrowej musi znajdować się człowiek. Jak pogodzić te ambitne wyzwania związane z nowymi technologiami cyfryzacji i poczucie, że to najlepsze rozwiązanie i zmiany są dobre dla pracownika? To, że robotyka i sztuczna inteligencja to szansa na nowe miejsca pracy, to wiemy, ale musimy też dostrzegać ryzyka. Chcemy też, aby były to miejsca pracy wysokiej jakości oferujące nowe formy zatrudnienia i atrakcyjne miejsce zatrudnienia.
               

                  Musimy zadbać o to, by była to szansa dla wszystkich krajów Unii Europejskiej i by wykluczenie cyfrowe nie dotykało Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, krajów będących na dorobku. Unia Europejska musi bardziej wspierać uboższe regiony. Jednak przed tymi zmianami nie ma odwrotu. W gospodarce cyfrowej nie same regulacje, dyrektywy będą rozstrzygające, ale nowa rzeczywistość zawodowa, która będzie gwarantowała ochronę socjalną, dobre warunki pracy i włączenie społeczne.
               

Leila Chaibi,
au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Madame la Présidente, la modernité, ce n'est pas les travailleurs jetables, sous-payés, sans protection sociale. Cela, ça s'appelle le retour au Moyen-âge.
               

                  Partout dans le monde, en Espagne, en Belgique et jusqu'en Californie, la justice arrive à la même conclusion: les plateformes numériques trichent et exploitent les plus précaires. Pour la première fois en France la semaine dernière, Deliveroo a été condamnée pour travail dissimulé. En fait, la justice a reconnu que, sous prétexte de liberté et de flexibilité, Deliveroo fraudait le code du travail, en obligeant ses livreurs à vélo à être de faux indépendants plutôt que de leur donner un contrat de travail.
               

                  Monsieur le Commissaire, à l'extérieur de ce Parlement, dehors, dans les rues de toutes nos villes en Europe, ces nouveaux forçats du numérique nous regardent, ils vous regardent et ils n'en peuvent plus d'attendre. Qu'attendez-vous, qu'attendons-nous pour obliger les plateformes à reconnaître les livreurs, à reconnaître les chauffeurs comme ce qu'ils sont réellement, c'est-à-dire des salariés? Des salariés à qui nous devons garantir les mêmes protections et le même accès à la représentation collective qu'à tous les autres salariés.
               

Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, οι εκτιμήσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης χαρακτηρίζονται από έντονη ανησυχία για νέα ύφεση και κρίση. Σε αυτό το περιβάλλον, παρουσιάζετε σαν λύση —μεταξύ άλλων— την ψηφιοποίηση της οικονομίας.
               

                  Όμως, στα πλαίσια της καπιταλιστικής οικονομίας, αυτές οι καινοτόμες εφαρμογές γίνονται αντικείμενο έντονου ανταγωνισμού μεταξύ ευρωπαϊκών, κινεζικών και αμερικανικών τεχνολογικών κολοσσών, για το ποιος θα προπορευθεί στην κούρσα κερδοφορίας —και με επιδοτήσεις δισεκατομμυρίων ευρώ.
               

                  Αντί οι καινοτόμες εφαρμογές να ανακουφίσουν τους εργαζόμενους και να βελτιώσουν τις συνθήκες εργασίας, θα ρίξουν στην ανεργία χιλιάδες εργαζόμενους —σύμφωνα με τις δικές σας προβλέψεις. Θα τσακιστούν μισθοί και θα διαλυθούν ωράρια, συμβάσεις και ασφαλιστικά δικαιώματα. Αυτή η αξεδιάλυτη αντίφαση είναι ίδιον του συστήματος της εκμετάλλευσης που με ζήλο υπερασπίζεστε και το οποίο υπηρετούν η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και οι κυβερνήσεις της, και στην Ελλάδα τόσο η Νέα Δημοκρατία σήμερα όσο και ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ προηγουμένως.
               

                  Μόνο η εργατική εξουσία και η κεντρικά σχεδιασμένη οικονομία, αξιοποιώντας την επιστημονική και τεχνολογική πρόοδο, είναι αυτή που θα λυτρώσει τους λαούς από τα βάσανα· αυτό είναι το μέλλον της ανθρωπότητας.
               

Sara Skyttedal (PPE). – Madam President, the European Union is a social success and the single market is the main reason for this. Since my own country, Sweden, entered the Union 25 years ago, we have seen an exceptional increase in our GDP which has given us the opportunity to increase our welfare spending. Our real wages have almost doubled and social protection is at an all time high. The same pattern is also visible in newer Member States. So the EU has a role to play in terms of social welfare, partly through legislative proposals but especially by championing a social market economy that makes the Member States prosper. As we enter a new world of work with opportunities and challenges rising in the wake of digitalisation, we must look at what we have done and ask ourselves how we can do the same again. We should strive for social protection and welfare for our citizens. However, if the EU loses its competitiveness in the digital era due to bad regulation there will be no jobs to go to, let alone welfare for our citizens.

Alex Agius Saliba (S&D). – Madam President, yes, digital technologies have changed every aspect of our life, including the existing working and business models and the way we communicate with each other. There are no physical boundaries in the digital world, but there are also no clear rules. A few big companies are setting the new digital values and ethics, shaking up existing rules, raising questions of equal conditions, responsibility, safety and protection of employees. It's time that we delivered a strong social dimension and a safe online environment for our citizens. What is not allowed offline should not be allowed online, especially if it is done to the detriment of the people.
New working models in the digital age must not become a synonym for exploitation and surveillance of workers' performance. One way to address this is through the digital right to disconnect. Just like the eight-hour working day, workers and employees should have a mandatory minimum level of digitally disconnected time per day. The Commission must also examine the new digital risks and consequences for the wellbeing of workers, including the issues of additional working hours.

Sylvie Brunet (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Madame la Secrétaire d'État, chers collègues, je voudrais insister sur deux points.
               

                  Tout d'abord, une des conséquences les plus visibles de la numérisation dans le domaine social et de l'emploi, nous l'avons dit, est l'apparition de nouvelles formes de travail, notamment à travers le développement des plateformes. Ces plateformes recouvrent en pratique des réalités très différentes, ce qui peut rendre plus complexe notre tâche de législateurs. Nous devons trouver le juste équilibre entre l'opportunité de nouvelles perspectives d'emploi et la protection de ces travailleurs, en leur évitant une éventuelle précarisation.
               

                  Je pense, à cet égard, en priorité à leur garantir des conditions de travail décentes, ainsi qu'un accès à la protection sociale – en cas de maladie ou d'accident du travail. Je ne doute pas, Monsieur le Commissaire, que vous allez vous y employer avec détermination. Il nous faut également permettre à ces travailleurs de s'organiser collectivement pour défendre leurs intérêts. Enfin, garantir des possibilités de formation est indispensable pour assurer la qualité de la prestation de services et des perspectives de carrière individuelle.
               

                  Le second point sur lequel je voudrais insister est le très mauvais positionnement de l'Union européenne en matière de compétences numériques, puisque 40 % de notre main-d'œuvre ne dispose actuellement que de compétences numériques faibles, voire nulles. Il me semble qu'il est temps de mettre à jour notre logiciel de formation. Investissons massivement dans les compétences numériques! Il y a urgence, notamment sur la huitième des compétences clés, qui est la compétence numérique. Pourquoi pas un passeport numérique dans l'Union européenne, qui serait visible et sur lequel il faut que nous investissions massivement.
               

Jean-Lin Lacapelle (ID). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, à l'heure de la 5G, certains territoires dans la France périphérique n'ont pas encore accès au monde du numérique. Qu'a fait l'Union européenne? Sur ces sujets comme sur tant d'autres, elle est très en retard et son fonctionnement actuel ne lui permet pas de servir les nations. Retrouver une Europe des nations, qui propose une politique sociale vis-à-vis du monde numérique dans l'intérêt des nations, doit être aujourd'hui une priorité. à l'inverse de l'Union européenne actuelle, qui agit dans une logique de libre-échange toujours moins juste et toujours moins égalitaire.
               

                  L'Europe sociale que nous voulons, c'est une coordination entre les nations européennes et une égalité entre les territoires. Le mondialisme prôné dans cette assemblée, qui concentre toutes ses activités dans quelques métropoles, nous n'en voulons pas, nous n'en voulons plus. Nous opposons à votre ultralibéralisme le juste échange. Nous opposons à votre concentration urbaine le localisme de proximité. Tout cela dans une Europe démocratique et moderne, qui s'appuie sur le numérique pour faire rayonner les peuples et les nations, à défaut de se soumettre à l'Union européenne et à sa Commission.
               

Kim Van Sparrentak (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, the Commission has promised us a more social Europe time and time again, and if we want to deliver on these promises we need to look at the real life effects the digital economy has. Finding an affordable place to live has become nearly impossible in many European cities. Mayors of major cities such as Amsterdam, Prague and Barcelona have declared that short-term rental platform such as Airbnb and Booking are one of the main causes of the housing crisis we are currently in.
Airbnb wasn't set up to let private investors buy dwellings in big cities to turn them into illegal hotels, but we have moved far beyond the initial idea of the airbed and occasional renting out of a spare room, and due to intensive lobbying European market rules are currently protecting the billions these platforms are making, rather than ensuring that people have an affordable house to live in.
We need to make sure that a social Europe will be at the core of our efforts towards a Europe fit for the digital age, and that this isn't an opening, a back door, for the big corporations to undermine a social Europe.

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (ECR). – Señora presidenta, hoy podemos reconocer la importancia que tienen las tecnologías digitales en nuestras vidas, el impacto en nuestro modelo productivo y social.
               

                  Los Estados tendrán que tomar decisiones importantes para preparar esta transición. La digitalización no puede provocar una deshumanización. Nos enfrentamos a un nuevo modelo laboral. Deberíamos impedir que la automatización provoque la desaparición de un elevado número de puestos de trabajo. La formación de jóvenes y trabajadores debe adaptarse con agilidad y flexibilidad a las nuevas profesiones.
               

                  Debemos garantizar una protección real y adecuada a los trabajadores ante estos nuevos retos, a la vez que favorecemos la competitividad de nuestras empresas, sus inversiones y su crecimiento. Tenemos la gran oportunidad de revitalizar las zonas rurales y despobladas mediante el acceso a la digitalización de sus habitantes, para conseguir una mayor cohesión económica, social y territorial.
               

Dino Giarrusso (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, innanzitutto è necessario che nessuno rimanga indietro rispetto alle opportunità offerte dalla rivoluzione digitale. Poiché disparità ci sono, dobbiamo intervenire subito affinché l'Europa digitale sia una chance per ridurre le disparità, non per aumentarle, e questo vale anche per gli imprenditori, non solo per i singoli cittadini. Si sono creati oligopoli che nella tradizione europea per la libera concorrenza vanno regolati, assicurando che i colossi del digitale paghino le tasse ed evitando concentrazioni eccessive e un tipo di concorrenza sleale, penso specialmente al commercio digitale nei confronti dell'economia tradizionale.
               

                  Infine, medicina digitale, agricoltura, informazione: nei prossimi anni dovremmo essere in grado di utilizzare il digitale per tutelare meglio la salute, per implementare la produzione agricola e certificare provenienza e qualità dei nostri prodotti e combattere le fake news, poiché è vero che una bugia in rete può viaggiare più rapidamente, ma altrettanto rapidamente può essere smascherata e abbiamo il dovere di creare strutture e sistemi in grado di farlo in maniera veloce, continua ed efficace.
               

David Casa (PPE). – Sinjura President, it-teknoloġija qed tbiddel il-mod ta' kif naħdmu, kif nistudjaw, kif nitħarrġu. Qed toħloq ukoll tipi ta' xogħlijiet ġodda u l-konnettivitá tagħtina opportunitajiet ġodda, imma tfisser ukoll sfidi ġodda għalina.
               

                  Id-Direttiva tal-bilanċ bejn il-ħajja u x-xogħol li nnegozjajt b'suċċess fil-leġiżlatura li għaddiet tindirizza dan l-iżvilupp kollu. Se tkun aktar faċli għan-nisa li jidħlu u jibqgħu fid-dinja tax-xogħol biex innaqqsu l-qgħad kif ukoll biex innaqqsu d-differenza gravi li għandna fil-pagi u fil-pensjonijiet bejn l-irġiel u n-nisa.
               

                  Jien nilqa' l-impenn tal-Kummissjoni li qed tagħmel l-istrateġija, għaliex qed niffaċċjaw sfidi psikoloġiċi f'dak li għandu x'jaqsam mal-użu tal-mobile phones u l-laptops. Id-dritt magħruf bħala r- ‘right to disconnect’ għandu jkun parti minn dan il-proċess.
               

                  Għal dawn ir-riskji ġodda l-ħaddiema Ewropej għandhom ikunu salvagwardjati u jkollna salvagwardji ġodda. U rridu nkunu aħna fuq quddiem biex nassiguraw li d-drittijiet ikunu aċċessibbli għal kulħadd.
               

Patrizia Toia (S&D). –
(inizio dell'intervento senza microfono) … sarà mantenere nella nuova era digitale di Internet e delle mille applicazioni i valori sociali e democratici europei e dimostrare che il cittadino è il fine di tutto. Questa è la nostra sfida, ma ciò non è scontato. Nuovi strumenti non faranno automaticamente questo salto di qualità. Occorre perciò la politica, la buona politica che orienti e faccia le norme adeguate. Infatti non ci sarà una vera giustizia digitale se i cittadini e i lavoratori non avranno formazione e aggiornamento per le proprie competenze, come ha detto il Commissario, per i nuovi lavori, per i quali dovremmo garantire diritti e condizioni eque di lavoro, penso in particolare ai lavoratori delle piattaforme.
               

                  Non ci sarà giustizia sociale digitale se non fisseremo regole minime di responsabilità legale per quegli operatori online che hanno un potere di mercato e finanziario enorme e preoccupante e che non devono diventare i padroni assoluti dei dati disponibili. Non ci sarà giustizia sociale digitale se i giganti del web non pagheranno le tasse sui profitti fatti in Europa, e qui aspettiamo ancora una decisione del Consiglio.
               

Jordi Cañas (Renew). – Señora presidenta, el 47 % de los empleos actuales probablemente desaparecerá en los próximos 25 años, y el 85 % de los de los empleos del año 2030 todavía no están inventados. Esos son datos —pueden moverse en algunos porcentajes, pero eso es una realidad—.
               

                  La economía digital ofrece oportunidades, pero nos ofrece serios riesgos que ya vivimos, entre ellos la brecha digital, una brecha que es de edad, que es geográfica, que es de género, que es social. Y, ante este crecimiento de la desigualdad, ¿qué podemos hacer? Más Europa social, es decir, más educación, más formación, más protección.
               

                  Eso significa que tenemos que hacer un acercamiento holístico a la problemática. Nos hemos acercado con el Pacto Verde a una voluntad de transformación de nuestro modelo económico. Qué tal si apostamos por un social deal, por un nuevo contrato social que sea capaz de aunar esos cambios y evitar daños colaterales a personas, a millones de ciudadanos europeos que no van a poder, sin ayuda y sin medidas concretas, acogerse a esa transición, a ese cambio, y pueden quedarse atrás. Ese riesgo es un riesgo cierto. Tenemos que hacer lo posible para que no suceda.
               

Guido Reil (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Ich freue mich sehr darüber, dass wir heute über die Folgen der Digitalisierung für ein soziales Europa reden. Die Digitalisierung bringt uns riesige Chancen, aber leider auch große, große Risiken. Wir müssen gewappnet sein, und wir müssen handeln. Wir müssen zum Beispiel in Infrastruktur investieren. Deutschland zum Beispiel hat eines der schlechtesten Mobilfunknetze der Welt. In Frankreich haben 13 Millionen Menschen noch kein Internet. Wir müssen über Bildung reden. Fast die Hälfte der Bevölkerung der EU ist noch nicht mal in der Lage, mit den digitalen Medien umzugehen. Da muss unglaublich viel getan werden. Und was mir besonders Sorgen macht, sind die Rechte der Arbeitnehmer. Ich möchte hier die Plattformarbeit ansprechen. Also es kann nicht sein, dass immer mehr Menschen in Arbeitsverhältnissen leben, in denen sie keine Rechte haben, in denen die Arbeitszeitverordnung nicht gilt, in denen es keine Mitbestimmung gibt, in denen es keinen Kündigungsschutz gibt. Also es gibt viel zu tun, packen wir es an!
               

Raffaele Stancanelli (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Internet in generale da semplice infrastruttura di comunicazione è divenuto un fenomeno di massa d'interesse sociologico. Stiamo vivendo un'era di trasformazione digitale che sta cambiando le nostre abitudini, innegabilmente semplificando la nostra quotidianità ma celando alcuni aspetti che se non monitorati costantemente possono avere ripercussioni negative.
               

                  La semplicità con la quale condividere e rendere accessibile qualsiasi tipo di contenuto è un'arma molto potente per chi vuole approfittare di situazioni poco regolamentate e facilmente manipolabili. Per questo dobbiamo impegnarci in un costante controllo di tutte quelle applicazioni tecnologiche, nonché dei contenuti digitali, che potrebbero mettere in pericolo la libertà individuale. Pertanto, è di vitale importanza che l'ordinamento giuridico predisponga norme chiare che garantiscano la libertà del cittadino per non sacrificarla con mere regole artificiali.
               

Cindy Franssen (PPE). – Voorzitter, de digitale kloof verschuift steeds meer van wie wel of geen internet heeft naar wie er wel of niet mee kan werken. De digitalisering werkt als een speedboot: e-learning, e-banking, e-commerce, e-government, … als we niet achterom kijken, vallen er mensen uit de boot. Wie niet snel genoeg is, haalt hem niet in.
               

                  We denken vaak spontaan aan mensen met lage scholing of een gebrek aan financiële middelen die daardoor de digitale boot missen, en terecht: de digitale kloven zijn zeer uitgesproken en moeilijk te dichten. Maar de uitdagingen gaan nog verder dan dat. Vandaag is mijn garagist een computerspecialist, de jeugdzorgwerker een data-analist. Meer dan negen op de tien nieuwe jobs vragen digitale vaardigheden, maar 40 % van de Europeanen is niet of onvoldoende digitaal geletterd. U heeft de cijfers zelf aangehaald.
               

                  Daarom moet het digitale actieplan van de Europese Commissie investeren in computer- een internetvaardigheden van de mensen en in alternatieven voorzien. Het Europees Sociaal Fonds moet inzetten op digitale opleidingen, ook op onverwachte plaatsen, en we moeten klaarstaan met het Globaliseringsfonds om wie zijn job door digitalisering verliest naar een nieuwe baan te helpen.
               

                  Het Europees Parlement heeft het begrepen. De Commissie duidelijk ook. Hopelijk volgt de Raad ook.
               

Tiemo Wölken (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Wenn wir über die sozialen Aspekte der Digitalisierung sprechen, denken wir im Kontext oft an die Frage: ‘Ist das Internet ein öffentlicher demokratischer Raum?’ Aber es geht eben nicht nur um die Frage der Freiheit im Internet, sondern auch gerade um die Rechte der Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer. Soziale Gerechtigkeit im Internet bedeutet für mich in erster Linie Schutz von digitalen Grundrechten. Und da gibt es einiges, was wir gemeinsam tun können: Wir müssen die digitale Zeitsouveränität der arbeitenden Menschen stärken, mehr Zeit für Familien einräumen; das kann die Digitalisierung machen. Wir müssen digitale Plattformen in die Pflicht nehmen; sie können sich nicht darauf zurückziehen, dass sie keine Verantwortung für die Menschen haben, die für sie arbeiten. Und wir müssen die Gewerkschaften europaweit vernetzen; auch das geht über digitale Kanäle viel besser. Ein digitales Europa ist dann ein soziales Europa, wenn wir die Tarifparteien in der Europäischen Union stärken und nicht nur die Profite der großen Konzerne maximieren, und da haben wir jetzt die Gelegenheit, in dieser Periode in allen Ausschüssen – vom Ausschuss für Beschäftigung und soziale Angelegenheiten über den Ausschuss für Binnenmarkt und Verbraucherschutz bis zum Rechtsausschuss – gemeinsam daran zu arbeiten.
               

Karen Melchior (Renew). – Madam President, the digital world, the internet, has been removing barriers to work and been removing the power of gatekeepers through many decades now. Digitalisation has provided for more opportunities, more power for the individual and more possibilities. It is also the opportunity to specialise, even in rural areas, to create your own job, to seek your own opportunities where it would not have been possible before. This requires, however, that we have a high-quality internet provided in these areas.
That is why we need to extend the network services also in rural areas, so that we provide greater opportunities for the individual to create their own jobs and their own opportunities. We need to remember to embrace the opportunities of digitalisation and not only focus on the challenges, because a digital social Europe is the future and that's what we will be creating together.

Λουκάς Φουρλάς (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, θέλω πρώτα από όλα να ευχαριστήσω και να καλωσορίσω όλους αυτούς τους νέους ανθρώπους που βρίσκονται γύρω μας. Αυτοί είναι το μέλλον της Ευρώπης· γι' αυτούς αγωνιζόμαστε.
               

                  Το θέμα της ψηφιακής μετάβασης είναι σημαντικό, διότι μπορεί να διευκολύνει τις ζωές όλων. Ζητούμενο είναι, μέσα από τις νέες ψηφιακές τεχνολογίες, να απλοποιήσουμε τις διαδικασίες προς όφελος του πολίτη και να διασφαλίσουμε ισότιμη πρόσβαση για όλους και ιδιαίτερα για τα άτομα που κινδυνεύουν από τη φτώχεια και τον κοινωνικό αποκλεισμό. Είναι μια ευκαιρία που δεν πρέπει να χάσουμε, ώστε να εντάξουμε καλύτερα στην αγορά εργασίας και τα άτομα με αναπηρία. Να ανοίξουμε νέες θέσεις εργασίας. Είναι μια ευκαιρία που δεν πρέπει να χάσουμε και για να ενισχύσουμε την υγειονομική περίθαλψη. Τα κράτη μέλη οφείλουν να προωθήσουν πολιτικές που θα καταστήσουν τις δημόσιες υπηρεσίες πιο φιλικές προς τον χρήστη, αντιμετωπίζοντας δυναμικά τη γραφειοκρατία. Οι μισοί πολίτες μας εξακολουθούν να μη διαθέτουν βασικές ψηφιακές δεξιότητες. Αυτό που οφείλουν τα κράτη μέλη είναι να προσαρμόσουν τα εκπαιδευτικά συστήματα στις νέες προκλήσεις, ώστε να μειωθεί το χάσμα που υπάρχει σήμερα στην Ευρώπη.
               

Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru formand! Digitaliseringen rummer mange nye muligheder. Den ældre borger, der falder på gulvet i badeværelset, kan få hjælp ved, at gulvet kalder på hjælp. Eller hvis vi kører i bil, og der er kø, kan vores bil komme uden om køen. Eller vi får mulighed for at få adgang til offentlige services klokken tre om natten. Det er rigtig dejligt, men der er også udfordringer. Vi ved, at rigtig mange arbejdstagere ikke har tilstrækkelige kvalifikationer til dette, og i øvrigt heller ikke tilstrækkelige rettigheder, især hvis de er platformsarbejdere. Det skal vi gøre noget ved. Vi skal også sikre, at borgerne ikke får invaderet deres privatliv i takt med, at vi genererer stadig flere data. Og så skal vi i øvrigt sikre os, at forbrugerne forstår, hvad der ligger til grund for de forbrugsvalg, de bliver stillet over for på nettet. Der er meget, vi skal gøre, men grundlæggende set handler det om, at vi skal indrette vores digitale samfund efter menneskers behov. Det er ikke mennesker, der skal rette sig ind efter det digitale.
               

Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, la pregunta inicial es: ¿Qué es una Europa social? Pues una Europa social, en esencia, es una Europa en la que todos tienen la capacidad de desarrollarse profesionalmente y personalmente, y en la que nadie quede excluido. Esa es la esencia.
               

                  Las tecnologías digitales, precisamente, lo que ofrecen es la posibilidad de que todos puedan cumplir esos objetivos. Ahora bien, ¿qué es lo fundamental para que ello ocurra? Solo hay una respuesta, un concepto, una idea: la formación, la capacitación digital. Hace falta capacitación digital en toda la cadena de valor de la formación. Desde el inicio, los niños, los jóvenes, los que están en las universidades, los que están trabajando, los que no están trabajando y los mayores. ¿Qué hace falta? Hace falta un plan de acción en formación digital que sea contundente, que lo lidere Europa, con objetivos y que sean mesurables. Esto va a ser determinante, señor comisario.
               

Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D). – Señora presidenta, Europa debe prepararse para la revolución digital sin dejar —como se ha dicho— a ninguna persona ni a ningún territorio detrás, ni los rurales, ni los periféricos. La digitalización tiene que beneficiar a todas las personas, contribuir a reducir las desigualdades, mejorar los servicios públicos y crear puestos de trabajo de calidad.
               

                  Sabemos que se van a destruir muchísimos empleos, pero también que se van a generar muchos nuevos, sobre todo, por ejemplo, vinculados a la inteligencia artificial, para la que se espera que se creen 58 millones de puestos de trabajo. Pero precisamente en esos sectores digitales faltan las mujeres. Solamente el 22 % de las personas empleadas en esos sectores —usted lo ha dicho, señor comisario: hay una brecha de género muy importante—, solamente el 22 %, son mujeres.
               

                  Necesitamos invertir en una formación integral y en una cultura digital que apoye el desarrollo de habilidades y de competencias adecuadas, pero no podemos prescindir absolutamente de ningún talento. Los talentos están igualmente repartidos pero las oportunidades no lo están, y tenemos que trabajar precisamente para que esas oportunidades lleguen absolutamente a todas las personas, incluidas también las mujeres.
               

Tom Berendsen (PPE). – Voorzitter, digitalisering biedt volop kansen om onze economie en samenleving te versterken. Efficiëntere productieprocessen, betere en betaalbare zorg, veilig verkeer: met digitalisering ligt het binnen handbereik. Maar bij de toenemende digitalisering van onze samenleving moeten we drie zaken goed in de gaten blijven houden.
               

                  Ten eerste: er mag niemand aan de kant blijven staan. Mensen moeten meekunnen als hun omgeving digitaliseert. Opleiding en omscholing zijn daarbij van groot belang.
               

                  Ten tweede: we mogen niet afhankelijk zijn van andere delen van de wereld voor de ontwikkeling van nieuwe technologie, want we willen technologie op basis van onze normen en waarden. De mens moet centraal staan, niet de techgigant of de overheid die zijn burgers wil onderdrukken.
               

                  Ten derde: technologie moet werken voor mensen. We moeten daarom in de digitale strategie een kader scheppen voor wat we wel en wat we niet willen in onze maatschappij.
               

                  Niemand aan de kant, geen afhankelijkheid van andere delen van de wereld en technologie die werkt voor mensen. Dan kunnen we mensen beschermen en kunnen we profiteren van de kansen die digitalisering biedt voor onze samenleving en onze economie.
               

Marianne Vind (S&D). – Fru formand! Den digitale revolution er hurtigt krøbet ind i alle afkroge af vores liv. To procent af den europæiske befolkning får i dag hovedparten af deres indkomst gennem arbejde på digitale platforme, og antallet er i vækst. Overgangen fra analoge til digitale arbejdsformer udfordrer vores traditionelle arbejdsmarkedslovgivning, f.eks. ved mindsteløn, men også ved kollektive aftaler og organisering. Lønninger på platforme afgøres nemlig ikke gennem kontrakter, men ved hjælp af hemmelige algoritmer. Hvis vi skal forhindre, at det for fremtiden bliver Uber eller Deliveroo, der afgør lønvilkårene for Europas arbejdstagere, så skal vi sikre, at myndighederne får adgang til platformenes algoritmer. Det er bydende nødvendigt for at sikre, at Europa ikke blot bliver et digitalt, men også et socialt Europa.
               

Barbara Thaler (PPE). – Madam President, we heard wonderful speeches earlier so let me boil down the discussion to the essence. As an IT entrepreneur and as a woman, I was more than once on the receiving end of well-intended advice. However, after 15 years, my employees and my company are proving, day by day, that digitalisation is creating jobs and securing jobs.
Needless to say, it also affects very traditional crafts and industries. In my constituency, Tyrol, a carpenter saw these chances, instead of worrying about the risks, and switched the entire production line from analogue to digital. Against all the fearmongering we heard in the past, he did not have to fire his workers. Quite on the contrary, he increased his market share and his workforce. This is the point of view that the economy has and politicians need.

Ibán García Del Blanco (S&D). – Señora presidenta, la digitalización, la implementación de la inteligencia artificial supone una enorme, enorme oportunidad; prácticamente podríamos hablar de un grandísimo salto evolutivo como no ha tenido parangón prácticamente desde la revolución industrial. Pero es evidente también que comporta riesgos, que comporta cambios; y es evidente también que comporta muchos miedos que tienen que ver con el control, que tienen que ver con la pérdida de puestos de trabajo, y hay solo una manera de confrontar esos miedos y subrayar la enorme oportunidad, y así aprovecharla, que es la alfabetización digital.
               

                  La alfabetización. Que es mucho más que dar capacidades digitales, que es mucho más que dar herramientas digitales. Significa una aproximación humanística a la cuestión para democratizar también la implementación de cosas como la inteligencia artificial para que las personas, no solo los expertos, sean conscientes de cuáles son esos riesgos, esas contradicciones, esos valores que están contrapuestos, y así tomar mejores decisiones y de alguna forma ser cada vez una sociedad que va más de la mano y de manera más integrada hacia el futuro. Así que yo lo que les pido a la Comisión y al Consejo es que hagan un esfuerzo en ello, en un proceso participado, abierto, en que puedan subrayar y desentrañar ese arcano para transformarlo en algo comprensible y que pueda ser compartido por todos y todas.
               

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, the digital world offers people a wonderful opportunity now, both in terms of their leisure and work lives. I have seen in my own country towns like Skibbereen developing digital hubs where people can work from, rather than commuting long distances to cities and so forth, and this is a wonderful opportunity. To do that, and also to work from home, you of course need high-speed broadband and that's a priority right across Europe, which I'm pleased our Government at home has prioritised. Working from home or working close to home means that you are cutting down the time you're commuting, you're also cutting down CO2 emissions and you have a better work-life balance.
All that's very positive, but it has been pointed out by psychologists that there can be a negative side, where people can suffer psychologically. I think that has to be addressed, particularly in line with the OECD recommendations for the classification of work and also, I think very importantly, for the development of skills. One think that has emerged is that in Europe, at this minute, there a million jobs lying idle because we don't have the IT skills. A big challenge for us.

Maria Manuel Leitão Marques (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, quando, em 1834, foi aprovada a lei que criou os comboios na Bélgica, um deputado alertou no Parlamento para o medo que os agricultores tinham que lhes expropriassem as terras, que os cocheiros tinham de perder o seu emprego, enfim, até para os rumores de que o leite chegaria em manteiga ao seu destino.
               

                  Parece, portanto, que a transição digital não será pior do que foi a revolução industrial. Mas talvez seja mais exigente.
               

                  Em primeiro lugar, a mudança que provoca é muito mais rápida e não tem fronteiras. Em segundo, é muito mais exigente na alteração das competências. Em terceiro lugar, ocorre em sociedades, felizmente, muito mais atentas do ponto de vista social. E em quarto, não se limita à fábrica, toca as nossas vidas todas, as profissionais e as pessoais.
               

                  Exige, assim, não deixar ninguém para trás, democratizar o conhecimento e garantir uma distribuição equilibrada dos benefícios financeiros e em tempo livre. É preciso que isso seja feito em grande colaboração entre a política social, Senhor Comissário, e a digital. Como se fosse uma peça composta a quatro mãos com a harmonia semelhante a uma sonata de Mozart.
               

Paul Tang (S&D). – Madam President, we will witness an historical moment soon. The Commission will present three digital strategies next week, therefore 2020 could very well be the year that gives birth to the digital counter-revolution.
We must decide what digital dignity means in the future. Do we let companies break into our private lives through targeted personalised ads or will we make the brave decision to kill this business model? We must decide how we use data for us, in the public interest. In the Netherlands, Google software is used in 70% of all primary schools. Do we want Google to determine how our children learn or do we want to use data to learn about our children's learning ourselves? In short, we must decide how to defend or to promote the European way of life in a digital era. Let's work on that.

Nicolas Schmit,
membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, honorables députés, après avoir écouté vos débats, je constate qu'il y a un très large consensus entre vous, à la fois sur la nécessité de continuer à développer l'économie numérique, parce qu'il n'y a pas vraiment d'alternative pour l'Europe à ce développement, et sur la nécessité d'accorder beaucoup d'importance aux différents aspects, aux différents risques que comporte cette économie, cette nouvelle économie – risques sociaux, risques en matière de protection sociale, risques de voir quelques entreprises contrôler les données.
               

                  Il n'y a pas de fatalité entre, d'une part, la promotion de l'économie numérique et, d'autre part, les droits, les protections sociales, les protections en matière de données. Nous ne devons pas simplement subir les développements de la technologie. Nous devons les façonner. Après avoir écouté vos débats, je crois que la Commission est fortement invitée à travailler sur ces deux volets. Il est vrai que nous allons présenter à la fois ce digital agenda et, en même temps, lancer des travaux sur les protections et la garantie des droits.
               

                  J'ai annoncé que la Commission allait réunir une grande conférence sur le travail sur les plateformes. J'espère que le Parlement y participera – et j'en suis sûr, le Parlement y participera – pour qu'effectivement, le modèle européen en matière de technologies numériques soit un exemple. Nous avons déjà donné un exemple avec la protection des données. Hé bien, nous pouvons aussi donner un exemple en matière de protection sociale, de droits sociaux, pour à la fois promouvoir cette économie et la mettre au service de tous.
               

Nikolina Brnjac,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, the principles of equality in the labour market, the role of social partners, the improvement of the health and safety of workers and fair working conditions have been time and again reaffirmed in numerous Council conclusions, Parliament resolutions and in legislation we adopt together.
I am, therefore, confident that the EU is on the right track. What we might be lacking are dedicated strategies to set the framework for addressing digital developments but I understand from the Commission that these proposals will be soon on our table. I look forward to the Commission's proposals and I'm confident that we will continue to have a fruitful and good cooperation with the European Parliament on these important matters.

President. – The debate is closed.


Written statements (Rule 171)



Josianne Cutajar (S&D),
in writing. – The digital revolution we are witnessing entails an endless number of opportunities. I believe that everyone should be able to reap the benefits of this new way to conceive our society, our economy and our daily routine: there is still a long way to go and we need to fight to achieve this result. A still relevant portion of the European population still lacks the basic skills to face this digital challenge; women choosing careers in science and technology are still few; many areas of Europe have not yet bridged the digital divide that reduces their economic potential. We need to be vigilant so that inequalities will not increase. The smart use of data enabling AI applications can be either an ally to improve many aspects of our daily life or a setback in the reduction of disparities. No discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnic or social background should be allowed. The European Parliament is ready to contribute to the upcoming European Data Strategy and to the future AI legislation, but it will be vocal as nobody should be left behind.

Jarosław Duda (PPE),
na piśmie. – Cieszę się, że przewodnicząca Komisji Europejskiej, przedstawiając plan pracy na rok bieżący, podkreśliła, że transformacja cyfrowa, aby była skuteczna i służyła wzrostowi gospodarczemu i rozwojowi Europy, musi uwzględniać interesy wszystkich grup obywateli, być sprawiedliwa i korzystna dla wszystkich.
               

                  Nasze społeczeństwo starzeje się, a w interesie nas wszystkich jest to, aby osoby starsze mogły jak najdłużej pozostawać niezależne, aktywne zawodowo i społecznie. Warto podkreślić, że osoby starsze mają do zaoferowania ogromny potencjał, zarówno w postaci wiedzy, doświadczenia zawodowego i życiowego, zaangażowania obywatelskiego. Są także bardzo ważną grupą konsumentów. Dlatego też planując rozwój Europy cyfrowej, należy wziąć pod uwagę to, aby nowe rozwiązania technologiczne nie przyczyniały się do wykluczania osób starszych, ograniczania ich szans na rynku pracy, samodzielności.
               

                  Usługi, w tym także bankowe, muszą być bardziej przyjazne konsumentom i nie ograniczać swojej oferty wyłącznie do osób sprawnie posługujących się aplikacjami mobilnymi. Nowe technologie i sztuczna inteligencja mogą i powinny służyć wyrównywaniu szans i kompensowaniu deficytów związanych z wiekiem lub niepełnosprawnością. Uważam też, że w nowej agendzie na rzecz umiejętności powinien znaleźć się plan działań na rzecz rozwijania umiejętności cyfrowych dostosowanych do potrzeb grup nieuprzywilejowanych, takich jak osoby starsze, długotrwale bezrobotne, osoby z niepełnosprawnościami oraz osoby, które wcześnie opuściły system edukacji.
               

Ádám Kósa (PPE),
írásban. – A digitalizáció kapcsán gyakran csak azt hangsúlyozzuk, hogy a robotizáció veszélyezteti a munkahelyeket, vagy arról beszélünk, hogy a munkavállalók digitális írástudása alacsony. Ez igaz, ezért nagy hangsúlyt kell helyeznünk a képzésre. Ne feledkezzünk meg azonban arról sem, hogy a digitális világ fejlődése a felhasználóknak anélkül is hozhat kézzelfogható eredményeket, hogy értenék annak működését. Mára megegyezés van abban, hogy a fogyatékossággal élők autonómiáját a megfelelő technológiák javíthatják. Ennek nagyon jó példáját mutatja hazám: Európában egyedülálló, hogy Magyarországon a hallássérült személyek akadálymentesítésen intézhetik ügyeiket a kormányablakoknál, köszönhetően a Siketek és Nagyothallók Országos Szövetsége (SINOSZ) által kifejlesztett KONTAKT online videó-alapú jelnyelvi tolmácsszolgáltatásnak.
               

                  Emellett a Magyar Vakok és Gyengénlátók Országos Szövetsége (MVGYOSZ) gondozásában a látássérültek akadálymentesítését támogató Távszem szolgáltatás is elkészült már. Természetesen nem hallgathatjuk el a magánélettel kapcsolatos kockázatokat sem: az automatikus döntéshozatal alapján félő, hogy a kisebbségek megkülönböztetése beépül az algoritmusokba, mint ahogyan sajnos látunk rossz példát az AI-alapú felvételi eszközöknél vagy a biztosítási vagy pénzügyi szolgáltatásokra való jogosultsági kritériumoknál. Ezeket meg kell előzni, ezért fontos, hogy megfelelő jogszabályi is garanciákat alkossunk. Foglalkoznunk kell a platform munkavállalók helyzetével is: biztosítani kell számukra is a megfelelő szociális védelmet és az a jogot is, hogy kikapcsolják számítógépeiket és pihenjenek.
               

Carlos Zorrinho (S&D),
por escrito. – O Parlamento Europeu tem tido um papel fundamental na definição do enquadramento legislativo para a transição digital e para a transição energética, promovendo uma abordagem articulada e valorizando o impacto social da transformação tecnológica e da modernização dos processos, usando-os como ferramentas de combate às desigualdades e de aumento de oportunidades para os cidadãos europeus.
               

                  A introdução da designada Internet das Coisas, com velocidades e capacidades de processamento e transmissão exponencialmente maiores que as disponíveis até hoje, não é apenas um desafio tecnológico ou económico. Ele é mais do que tudo um desafio político e social. Por isso, o debate hoje promovido pelo Parlamento Europeu sobre a dimensão social da transição justa é muito oportuno.
               

                  Os valores partilhados no mundo analógico devem ser transpostos para o mundo digital, aproveitando a transição para corrigir distorções. Isso pode ser conseguido através de três linhas de ação estruturantes. Usar o património comum de valores e princípios partilhados como a base de uma prática fundada na ética e na prioridade às soluções para os cidadãos, tornar o acesso à Internet de alta qualidade universal e desenvolver redes de qualificação generalizada das populações para lidar com o novo contexto tecnológico, social, económico e político.
               
17.   Gender Equality Strategy (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on Gender Equality Strategy (2020/2515(RSP)).
I remind you that it's possible to request catch-the-eye and blue cards using both the standard registration and the electronic system. Instructions are available at the entrance of the Hemicycle.

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for putting the Gender Equality Strategy on today's agenda. The first months since the start of the Commission mandate I have had the opportunity to meet many of you already. All the exchanges we have had have confirmed that all of us, together, have so much work to do in this area of policy. I am grateful for the support you have shown me and this Commission on many occasions.
The European Union and its citizens need your full support in making Europe an equal place for women and men in all their diversity. Gender equality is a founding principle of the European Union. Europe is a good place to live for many, but it would be an understatement to say that we are still not there yet when it comes to gender equality. Women are still being underpaid compared to men. One in three women in the EU have experienced physical or sexual violence, or both since the age of 15 – and that's millions of women. We cannot accept these appalling inequalities. President von der Leyen, Vice-President Jourová, and the whole College support me and this fight for equality.
Gender equality is a key theme in the mandate of this Commission and the first key milestone will be the launch of the Gender Equality Strategy. The adoption is foreseen for the week of International Women's Day in early March. The strategy will underpin the political commitment to gender equality and support strategic and systematic work for gender equality in the Union and beyond.
We are aiming at an ambitious strategy. In the context of a visible and organised movement opposing progress in women's rights and gender equality which has emerged in recent years in Europe and internationally, it is more important now than ever to restate in the strongest of terms the Commission's continuing commitment to gender equality.
There has been a wide consultation on the strategy, including a public consultation that gathered more than 1 300 responses. As gender equality is a cross-cutting issue, the strategy will strengthen the Commission's dual approach of gender mainstreaming combined with targeted actions on specific topics. We aim to introduce a more systematic approach at an early stage of policy design to include a gender perspective in all EU policy areas. As regards content, we intend to present a positive future-oriented vision for a gender equal Europe – a Europe where women and men, girls and boys, in all their diversity, are free from gender-based violence and gender stereotypes, where they have the opportunity to thrive in the labour market, lead our businesses, politics and participate equally in all sectors.
Important horizontal considerations that will be emphasised in the strategy are challenging gender stereotypes and intersectionality. In terms of topics, the strategy will address the priorities highlighted in the President's political guidelines – increasing women's economic-empowerment by closing the gender pay gap, including by introducing binding pay-transparency measures, getting better gender balance on company boards and improving parents' and carers' work-life balance. We also continue our efforts to combat violence against women. EU accession to the Istanbul Convention therefore remains a priority. If EU accession remains blocked in the Council, despite our joint efforts, we will table legislative proposals to strengthen the Victims' Rights Directive and include or add specific forms of gender-based violence to the list of EU crimes.
We shall also address other important and emerging aspects of gender equality, such as online violence against women or the gender perspective in digitalisation, including an artificial intelligence to avoid bias.
Together with the adoption of the strategy, we will launch a wide-ranging and inclusive consultation process on binding pay transparency measures which we aim to table by the end of the year. I am aware that introducing binding pay-transparency measures can be challenging, and I want to find the right balance for such EU intervention, taking into account the interests of employers, employees and national administrations.
I look forward to hearing your views and discussing with you. I sincerely hope to get your support so we, as the EU, can make the so much needed leap towards a gender equal Europe in a more gender equal world.

Cindy Franssen,
namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, vooreerst wil ik de voltallige Commissie bedanken om gendergelijkheid zo hoog op de Europese agenda te plaatsen. Gendergelijkheid is een van de fundamentele waarden waarop deze Europese Unie is gestoeld. Welnu, een score van 67.4 op de laatste Europese genderindex toont aan dat we er nog lang niet zijn. We vragen dan ook een ambitieuze strategie die sterke stappen vooruitzet.
               

                  Talenten van vrouwen zijn nog steeds een onderbenutte bron van expertise, creativiteit en veranderende kracht. Een allesomvattende genderstrategie stroomlijnt het beleid rond drie belangrijke assen: kansen creëren voor vrouwen, vrouwen aan boord houden in een snel evoluerende wereld – denken we hierbij aan de digitalisering, migratie en klimaatverandering, en we moeten bovendien rekening houden met de nieuwe vormen van arbeid zoals platformwerkers. En ten derde, aandacht hebben voor de kwetsbare positie van vrouwen.
               

                  Daarom moeten we sleutelen aan die nieuwe genderstrategie die de lijnen voor de komende jaren uitzet voor een gendergelijk Europa. Dit betekent concreet het wegwerken van de genderloonkloof en de genderpensioenkloof. Vrouwen economisch versterken en de armoede wegwerken. Het promoten van vrouwelijk ondernemerschap, de strijd tegen geweld op vrouwen, het doorbreken van genderstereotypen en de verdere implementatie van de sociale pijler, met in het bijzonder de richtlijn betreffende het evenwicht tussen werk en privéleven. Het is slechts een greep uit de concrete maatregelen.
               

                  Eén ding is zeker: een Europese Unie die vrouwen de kansen geeft die ze verdienen, zal socialer, veerkrachtiger en sterker zijn.
               

Maria Noichl,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin Dalli, Sie haben uns an Ihrer Seite, wenn es um wirkliche Fortschritte für die Gleichstellung in Europa geht. Zu meiner Vorrednerin möchte ich nur sagen: Frauen sind nicht schwächer, sondern sie werden geschwächt – von Systemen, von Regeln, von Traditionen. Sie werden geschwächt, wir sind nicht schwächer. Aber diese Schwächung kommt von außen.
               

                  Wenn wir jetzt auf die Strategie blicken, die hoffentlich jetzt – nach fünf Jahren Abstinenz – wieder in Europa Einzug hält, dann haben wir ganz klare Forderungen: Wir möchten eine neue, eigenständige, ambitionierte Strategie. Wir möchten eine Strategie mit einem klaren Aktionsplan. Wir möchten klare Fortschritte sehen. Wir wollen keine Rückschritte sehen, und wir wollen vor allen Dingen keine Angriffe auf Frauenrechte. Wir wollen die Chancengleichheit in den Mittelpunkt stellen und alle Formen der Diskriminierung beenden. Und wir wollen es – wie es die Kommissarin auch betont hat – in allen Politikfeldern, nicht nur in Politikfeldern, die uns zugewiesen werden. Wir wollen es im Außenhandel, in der Steuerpolitik, in der Digitalpolitik, in der Umweltpolitik, im Budget, in der Forschung, bei Agrar und so weiter und so fort. Gender Mainstreaming betrifft alle Politikfelder, deshalb wollen wir auf allen Politikfeldern gesehen werden und berücksichtigt werden.
               

                  Ich möchte nicht zu den Hauptthemen – Prävention und Kampf gegen die Gewalt an Frauen – sprechen, ich möchte nicht das Hauptthema Vereinbarkeit von Familie und Beruf oder den Arbeitsmarkt oder die sexuellen Rechte ansprechen. Ich möchte ein ganz anderes Thema in den Mittelpunkt stellen. Dieses Thema, das ich in den Mittelpunkt stellen möchte, ist die Verbindung von Gleichstellung und Demokratie. Und hier, Frau Kommissarin, stehen wir an einem ganz, ganz wichtigen Punkt. Wir fordern, dass es eine Studie gibt, die die Auswirkungen von nationalistischen Politiken auf die Gleichstellungsbewegungen analysiert. Wir fordern, dass der Status der Frauenrechte in allen Mitgliedstaaten immer und immer wieder kontinuierlich untersucht wird. Und wir fordern vor allen Dingen, dass es jährliche Fortschrittsberichte gibt. Gleichstellung hat etwas mit Rechtsstaatlichkeit zu tun, und wer Gleichstellung bricht, muss es als Mitgliedstaat am Kontoauszug merken.
               

Irène Tolleret,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, merci pour votre engagement et votre énergie à mener à bien la mise en place de cette stratégie pour l'égalité. Il est temps.
               

                  Face aux grands bouleversements auxquels le monde et l'Union européenne sont confrontés, il est grand temps que l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes soit une réalité. L'égalité devant la santé, tout d'abord. Dans mon pays, l'avortement a été légalisé en 1974. Pourtant, en 2020, il y a encore des femmes et des hommes dans l'Union européenne qui n'ont pas un accès égal, gratuit, bienveillant à l'avortement et, bien entendu, à l'éducation sexuelle. Car oui, le droit à l'avortement est un sujet de santé et tous les citoyens européens devraient être égaux en ce qui concerne la santé. Les violations des droits de la santé sexuelle et reproductive sont des violations des droits des femmes, ce sont des violations des droits de l'homme, ce sont des violences inadmissibles contre lesquelles nous devons lutter sans merci.
               

                  L'égalité devant les violences, parlons-en! Nous devons les éradiquer, en commençant par les violences économiques et financières. Si hier, nous célébrions les femmes et filles de la science, notre réalité financière, c'est un écart salarial inadmissible entre les hommes et les femmes au travail, qui s'aggrave encore à la retraite. C'est absolument inadmissible. À travail égal, salaire égal! Hommes, femmes, quelles que soient les origines, les handicaps, les convictions: à travail égal, salaire égal. Il est inadmissible que les femmes voient leur retraite handicapée par le fait qu'elles portent des enfants. Le seul être humain qui a eu deux prix Nobel est une femme. Il est inadmissible que les femmes soient sous-représentées dans les filières des STEM. Il faut une égalité de carrière, une égalité d'accès au pouvoir. Cette stratégie, comme vous l'avez bien dit, doit porter des choses concrètes, avoir caractère obligatoire. Nous avons des exemples dans l'Union européenne démontrant que cela ne gêne pas la performance des entreprises.
               

                  Il faut également combattre les violences physiques. La convention d'Istanbul est bloquée? Qu'à cela ne tienne, développons des solutions alternatives. Le Conseil la débloquera. Cela n'empêche pas de mettre en place une directive qui coupe toute forme de violence et harmonise les définitions des différentes formes de violence, en adoptant une approche intersectionnelle.
               

                  Je terminerai en disant que l'on a proposé, avec le pacte Simone Veil, de partir des législations existantes dans tous les pays européens qui participent de l'égalité homme-femme. Mettons-le en place pour tirer la législation européenne vers le haut.
               

PRZEWODNICTWO: EWA KOPACZ


Wiceprzewodnicząca


Przewodnicząca. – Dziękuje Pani Poseł! Przypominam o przestrzeganiu czasu swoich wystąpień. Proszę o zabranie głosu panią Christinę Anderson i jednocześnie pragnę przypomnieć kolegom, że zgodnie z naszym Regulaminem na sali nie można umieszczać flag i symboli. Zwracam się przede wszystkim do Pani Poseł, która za chwilę będzie zabierać głos. Chciałabym zatem prosić posłów, by usunęli chorągiewki, a obsługę sali, by osobiście przypominała o tym kolegom. Bardzo proszę, Pani Poseł!
                  

Christine Anderson,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Ich nehme zur Kenntnis, dass das Sitzungspräsidium furchtbare Angst vor nationalen Flaggen hat, was ich für eine große Schande halte. Ich komme der Aufforderung nach und habe meine Nationalflagge jetzt entfernt.
                  

                     Wir reden aber hier über die EU-Gleichstellungsstrategie. Es gibt bereits die Gleichstellung zwischen den Geschlechtern, wir wurden nämlich alle gleich geboren. Männer und Frauen – es wird auch niemand bestreiten können, dass obwohl Mann und Frau den gleichen Wert haben, sie doch ganz unterschiedliche Neigungen haben, auch Stärken und Schwächen. Männer und Frauen sind unterschiedlichen Herausforderungen ausgesetzt. Anstatt aber Männer für angebliche, teils eingebildete Vorteile verantwortlich zu machen, gar büßen zu lassen, warum konzentriert sich die Kommission nicht darauf, die Harmonie zwischen den Geschlechtern zu fördern? Warum nicht Männer ermutigen, Männer zu sein, und Frauen ermutigen, Frauen zu sein? Ungerechtigkeit am Arbeitsplatz, die entweder Frauen oder Männer begünstigt, sollte die nicht von Nationalstaaten und Unternehmen angegangen werden?
                  

                     Aber nein, es muss das Diktat des Zentralbüros der EU sein. Lassen Sie doch Familien selbst entscheiden, wer den Abwasch macht, die Kinder erzieht, das Geld nach Hause bringt. Ich warte gespannt auf den Tag, an dem die Kommission einen Aktionsplan vorlegt, um das Stillen von Säuglingen zwischen Vater und Mutter gerechter aufzuteilen. Warum wird Frauen eingeredet, sie wären nur dann etwas wert, wenn sie arbeiten gehen? Das ist eine unglaubliche Herabsetzung und Diskriminierung all jener Frauen, die sich ganz bewusst dafür entscheiden, Familienarbeit zu leisten. Aber nein, Sie sind fest entschlossen, Frauen in die Arbeitswelt zu zwingen. Interessant ist aber, dass nach Frauenquoten nur in den Chefetagen gerufen wird. Wo ist die Frauenquote bei Maurern, LKW-Fahrern oder Kanalarbeitern? Hören Sie endlich auf, die Menschen zu bloßen Objekten ihre Gesellschaftsexperimente zu machen. Hören Sie auf, die Menschen umerziehen zu wollen. Hören Sie auf, die Menschen Ihren wahnhaften Vorstellungen von Gesellschaft entsprechend anzupassen. Lassen Sie die Menschen wieder Menschen sein!
                  

Przewodnicząca. – Bardzo dziękuję, Pani Poseł. Dziękuję również za usunięcie flagi. To nie jest kwestia obaw, ale Regulaminu, który obowiązuje nas wszystkich.
                  

Alice Kuhnke,
för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Fru talman! Det som måste vara med i EU:s nya strategi för jämställdhet är som vi hör en lång lista – allt ifrån en jämställdhetssäkrad budget till en feministisk utrikespolitik. Som grön politiker saknar jag emellertid den självklara fokusen på vår tids stora utmaning: klimatet. Alla vi är väl medvetna om att det är kvinnor som drabbas mest och värst av klimatförändringarna på grund av ekonomiska och sociala orättvisor.
                  

                     För att lyckas med Parisavtalet behövs därför en omställning som är jämställd. När Ursula von der Leyen blev vald till ordförande lovade hon att sätta jämställdheten först och främst, högst upp på dagordningen, men när hon presenterade den gröna given, EU:s strategi för klimatomställning, fanns inte ett enda ord om jämställdhet. Kommissionären med ansvar för jämställdhet som har kunskapen och engagemanget för klimaträttvisa, Helena Dalli, hade inte ens fått vara med i arbetet.
                  

                     Därför har jag och den gröna gruppen i samtal med kommissionen och Helena Dalli krävt två saker, nämligen att EU:s gröna giv måste vara jämställd och att klimatomställningen måste vara en självklar del i jämställdhetsstrategin. Vi har nu fått positiva signaler, och jag ser fram emot att fortsätta ett konstruktivt arbete tillsammans med kommissionär Dalli.
                  

Jadwiga Wiśniewska,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Równość jest podstawową wartością Unii Europejskiej, dlatego nowa strategia na rzecz równouprawnienia płci powinna być jednocześnie ambitna i realistyczna. Jaki zatem powinien być jej kształt? Przed nami stoi wiele wyzwań, jak na przykład walka z luką płacową i emerytalną, szeroko pojętą feminizacją biedy. Chciałabym, żebyśmy zaproponowali regulacje prawne, które wzmocnią kobiety łączące pracę zawodową z wychowaniem dzieci, żebyśmy wspierali je w macierzyństwie i docenili nieodpłatną pracę wykonywaną przez kobiety w domu. Musimy również stawić czoła przemocy wobec kobiet, w tym cyberprzemocy, pornografii i handlowi ludźmi. Niestety w Unii Europejskiej nawet małe dziewczynki narażone są na przymusowe małżeństwa i okaleczanie narządów płciowych.
                  

                     Chciałabym również, Pani Komisarz, żeby nowa strategia nie wkraczała w obszar kompetencji państw członkowskich. Niech Parlament szanuje swoją dewizę ‘zjednoczeni w różnorodności’.
                  

Sandra Pereira,
em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Senhora Presidente, qualquer estratégia para a igualdade terá de passar necessariamente pelo combate à pobreza e à exclusão social e terá de contribuir, de forma concreta, para o combate às discriminações no acesso ao trabalho e às diferenças salariais entre mulheres e homens, num quadro em que se exige o aumento geral dos salários e das pensões e da elevação das condições laborais.
                  

                     A defesa e a promoção dos serviços públicos, universais e de qualidade, como a habitação e a justiça e o acesso gratuito à saúde e à educação, é também central para a igualdade.
                  

                     A proteção da maternidade, com licenças pagas a 100% e a proteção na doença são fundamentais para que a estratégia não passe de um rol de boas intenções e para que vá ao encontro de uma verdadeira conciliação entre a vida pessoal, familiar e profissional.
                  

                     Simultaneamente, os Estados devem garantir a implementação dos mecanismos e instrumentos de combate a todos os tipos de violência, seja no contexto familiar, seja no contexto laboral ou outros.
                  

Isabella Adinolfi (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in quest'Aula discutiamo molto della parità di genere e dei diritti della donna. Però diciamoci la verità e ammettiamo che non esiste la parità tra uomo e donna. Nei fatti consentiamo che essa venga svilita e umiliata. Non esiste parità di trattamento, non esiste parità salariale. In Europa in molti paesi la prostituzione è legalizzata e invece di combattere questa piaga sociale si preferisce girarsi dall'altra parte. In Europa esiste ancora la riduzione in schiavitù per molte donne, considerate merce da mettere in vendita. In Europa le donne vengono uccise e sfregiate dagli uomini.
                  

                     Possiamo imporre delle regole, ma sono soltanto un palliativo perché si basano per lo più su sanzioni inflitte a chi le viola. Dobbiamo invece formare le nuove generazioni e qui mi rivolgo alle madri: insegnate il rispetto per le altre persone, insegnate ai vostri figli maschi a essere degli uomini con la U maiuscola e insegnate alle vostre figlie femmine a non dover dipendere da nessuno e a difendere i propri diritti e la propria libertà fisica e morale.
                  

Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – Señora presidenta, hemos acabado la Estrategia europea de igualdad 2016-2019. Afrontamos ahora una nueva Estrategia 2020-2024. Tiene que ser una prioridad para este Parlamento, para la Comisión y para el Consejo avanzar de una manera decidida y con un compromiso firme para hacer lo que exige Europa: la igualdad de todos los ciudadanos. Es una cuestión democrática. No hay democracia sin igualdad. No hay una sociedad próspera y con futuro sin derechos humanos.
                  

                     La igualdad es un derecho humano y por eso tenemos que combatir la brecha salarial, la brecha en las pensiones, apostar por la Directiva que nos anunciaba la comisaria sobre transparencia salarial o la Directiva sobre conciliación. Hay todavía estereotipos que hay que combatir para poder conseguir esa verdadera igualdad. Tampoco hay igualdad en la toma de decisiones, por eso se tendrán que tomar medidas específicas que sean inclusivas y accesibles.
                  

                     Hay violencia de género —las últimas estadísticas nos dicen que dos de cada tres mujeres han sufrido violencia—. Hay que hablar de inteligencia artificial por los temas de ciberacoso y, sobre todo, hay que conseguir que esta Estrategia hable de discapacidad y de mujer. Tiene que tener indicadores de edad, indicadores de discapacidad, indicadores de mujer. Habremos conseguido así estar a la altura de lo que exigen los valores europeos.
                  

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – Gerbiama pirmininke, pirmiausia noriu padėkoti Jums, pone komisare, už aktyvią poziciją dėl to, kad būtų kaip galint greičiau pateikta konkreti lyčių lygybės strategija. Linkiu kuo geriausios sėkmės, kad tikrai Komisijoje Jums pavyktų tą strategiją patvirtinti. Bet mes turime labai aiškią poziciją, kas joje turi atsispindėti. Jau ir mano kolegos minėjo, kad pirmiausia mes turime turėti konkrečias priemones, kaip įveikti smurtą prieš moteris, kaip įgyvendinti Stambulo konvenciją valstybėse narėse. Pagaliau kaip kovoti su moterų skurdu? Kaip įgyvendinti mūsų jau priimtą praeitoje kadencijoje darbo ir šeimos suderinimo direktyvą? Tam reikalingos konkrečios priemonės ir kontrolė valstybėse narėse, kad jos teisingai perkeltų direktyvos nuostatas. Pagaliau, iš tikrųjų, mes turime užtikrinti, kad atlyginimai ir pensijos moterų ir vyrų tikrai nesiskirtų taip baisiai, kaip yra iki šiol. Tam reikalingi konkretūs sprendimai. Linkiu labai sėkmės, kad iš tikrųjų strategija neliktų vien popieriuje, bet būtų rimtai įgyvendinta Europos Sąjungoje.
                  

María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos (Renew). –
(inicio de la intervención fuera de micrófono) … es muy importante esta estrategia de igualdad entre hombres y mujeres y hoy lo es más que nunca, cuando emergen ideologías totalitarias en Europa que —como han hecho siempre—, para acabar con los derechos de todos, comienzan atacando los derechos y libertades de las mujeres.
                  

                     La peor expresión de la desigualdad entre hombres y mujeres es la violencia y la peor expresión de la violencia de género son los asesinatos. Los asesinatos de mujeres no cesan en Europa. Por lo tanto, tenemos que ser claros: estamos estancados en el Convenio de Estambul y debido a los seis países que se niegan a ratificarlo. Pero ellos no pueden paralizarnos. Por lo tanto, en esta estrategia tenemos que avanzar.
                  

                     Y tenemos que avanzar en dos elementos fundamentales. Uno son los datos -señora comisaria, no puede ser que en la Unión Europea no dispongamos de datos-, que sepamos las cifras de la realidad de la violencia en la Unión Europea contra las mujeres. Tenemos datos limitados; tenemos datos que no son homologables. Por lo tanto, según el artículo 11 del Convenio de Estambul, tenemos que avanzar para tener datos homologables que nos digan cuál es la realidad de las cifras de la violencia, para acabar con ella. Y, por lo tanto, junto a los datos, tenemos que dar nombre a esta violencia y el nombre de la violencia se llama un delito, un crimen que debe estar en los Tratados de la Unión Europea.
                  

                     Estoy convencida de que avanzaremos en este camino, y este Parlamento es su socio para ello.
                  

Elena Lizzi (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, sosteniamo l'importanza della parità di genere come valore comune. Se vogliamo essere coerenti, operiamo per promuoverla in tutte le politiche dell'Unione europea, nonché del Parlamento, ma come rivoluzione culturale e non come atto impositivo.
                  

                     Le barriere che impediscono la partecipazione femminile al mondo del lavoro comportano costi di benessere e crescita particolarmente elevati. Rimuovere gli ostacoli è importante. Le ricerche dell'Istituto europeo per l'uguaglianza di genere provano che la parità di genere favorirebbe la crescita economica. Però l'Istituto monetizza anche il ruolo delle donne nella conciliazione famiglia-lavoro?
                  

                     I miglioramenti dell'uguaglianza di genere creerebbero oltre dieci milioni di opportunità di lavoro aggiuntive in Europa e il PIL pro capite crescerebbe di quasi il 10 % entro il 2050. Ma quale equilibrio per le famiglie? La parità di genere dovrà essere promossa anche nell'ambito delle nuove politiche dell'Unione europea – mercato unico digitale, Green Deal e intelligenza artificiale – nelle quali il divario occupazionale è ancora più drammatico.
                  

                     Ora una nuova Commissaria con delega esclusiva alle pari opportunità dovrà cambiare la gestione delle precedenti politiche in materia, anche perché la Corte dei conti europea esaminerà l'integrazione della dimensione di genere nel bilancio dell'Unione europea e, stando a quanto reso pubblico oggi, la relazione di audit sarà diffusa nella primavera del 2021. Allora vedremo quale ricaduta avranno le politiche della Commissione von der Leyen nel mondo delle donne.
                  

Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, it is extremely good news that we will finally have a strategy. Somebody said before that the last strategy came to an end in 2019, and I hope so, because there was no strategy at all in the last mandate. This was extremely shameful, and now we will change that. We will have one, and I hope this will be a truly feminist drive, which is what a lot of people are expecting in the streets
I would also like to urge you to be extremely ambitious in different fields. In the socio-economic area, we are very much looking into the proposals for the tax transparency directive. This is going to be extremely important in the first weeks and months of our legislature. We need to continue working on violence; this stopping of the ratification of the Istanbul Convention is absolutely unacceptable. We have a lot of work to do together here.
I would like also to urge you to focus on the mainstreaming of all the policies of the Commission. This is extremely important. In the different consultations within the services of the different initiatives of the Commission, we want a gender equality footprint there, and this is also your responsibility. So, Commissioner, we stand behind you. Let's make this strategy something different and important for the people.

Andżelika Anna Możdżanowska (ECR). – Szanowna Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! To bardzo dobrze, że pracujemy nad strategią na rzecz równouprawnienia płci. To wyzwanie, z którym musimy się zmierzyć. Mówimy o czwartej rewolucji przemysłowej, o postępie technologicznym, o rewolucji cyfrowej, a dalej nie osiągnęliśmy równouprawnienia w tak ważnym aspekcie jak równouprawnienie płci. Przecież mamy twarde dane. Gdyby do 2030 roku wszystkie państwa świata zlikwidowały zjawisko dyskryminacji ze względu na płeć i zagwarantowały obywatelom równouprawnienie w tym jednym aspekcie, światowe PKB zwiększyłoby się o 6 bilionów dolarów. Przecież i świata, i Europy nie stać na to, żeby zrezygnować z zaangażowania kobiet. Nie stać ani gospodarczo, ani społecznie. I tylko w tych kwestiach, o których dzisiaj mówimy – nie tylko luki płacowej, nie tylko tego, że kobiety są zagrożone ubóstwem (bo różnica w wynagrodzeniu wynosi 16%, a w emeryturze ponad 35%), że są niedostatecznie reprezentowane w parlamentach i rządach, że nadal napotykają na ‘szklany sufit’ w świecie biznesu – musimy na to zwrócić uwagę. Ubóstwo europejskie nie może mieć twarzy kobiety.
                  

Silvia Modig (GUE/NGL). – Arvoisa puhemies, hyvä komissaari, lista asioista, joita toivoisin näkeväni tässä strategiassa on pitkä, mutta nostan esille yhden asian, joka olisi todella tärkeä: seksuaaliterveys. Seksuaaliterveys kuuluu jokaiselle tytölle riippumatta siitä, mikä on uskonto, mikä on kulttuuri, mikä on vallassa oleva politiikka. Se on jokaisen tytön oikeus, ja toivon tulevan strategian ottavan tähän vahvasti kantaa.
                  

                     Matkalla kohti todella oikeasti tasa-arvoista yhteiskuntaa meidän on vahvistettava monia asioita. Yksi niistä on naisten työmarkkina-asema. Naisten asemaan työelämässä vaikuttaa vahvasti hoivavastuu, se kuka kantaa vastuun lapsista, lasten hoivasta. Siihen vaikuttaa se, miten on tarjolla päivähoitoa, miten on tarjolla varhaiskasvatusta, kuinka laadukasta, kuinka saatavilla olevaa. Suomessa hallitus on juuri esittänyt uuden perhevapaamallin, joka kiintiöi vapaat tasan isän ja äidin välillä ja täten parantaa naisten työmarkkina-asemaa, parantaa heidän palkkakehitystään ja vaikuttaa aina sinne eläkkeiden kehittymiseen asti.
                  

Antoni Comín i Oliveres (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, disse Rita Levi Montalcini: ‘Le donne hanno sempre dovuto lottare doppiamente. Hanno sempre dovuto portare due pesi, quello privato e quello sociale. Le donne sono la colonna vertebrale delle società’. Nonostante questo, diciamo noi, o proprio per questo, ci sono molte donne in Europa oggi a cui non sono pienamente garantiti i loro diritti in modo efficace. Dati della Commissione: negli ultimi tre anni la differenza nel tasso di occupazione tra uomini e donne è ancora di un 11%,78% tra gli uomini e 66% tra le donne. E c'è ancora un divario tra la remunerazione maschile e femminile del 16%. Per non parlare della violenza contro le donne.
                  

                     Il cambiamento sociale di cui le donne hanno bisogno per poter vedere pienamente garantiti i loro diritti riguarda tutti noi, donne e uomini. Se noi uomini non cambiamo i nostri ruoli, sia nella sfera pubblica e nel mondo dell'impresa sia nella sfera familiare, sarà impossibile per le donne liberarsi delle situazioni in cui i loro diritti vengono violati così spesso. Cambiare i ruoli, lo dico per esperienza personale. Il femminismo non è una causa delle donne, è una causa di tutta la società.
                  

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Myślę, że wstydem jest, że w XXI wieku kobiety w Europie i na świecie doświadczają tylu nierówności. Cieszę się, Pani Komisarz, że ten temat jest jednym z ważnych priorytetów Komisji Europejskiej. Uważam, że strategia powinna uwzględniać potrzeby i doświadczenia kobiet z różnych środowisk.
                  

                     Myślę o kobietach z obszarów wiejskich i oddalonych, które muszą każdego dnia mierzyć się z utrudnionym dostępem do żłobków, przedszkoli, informacji, opieki zdrowotnej, a na starość muszą mierzyć się z ubóstwem. Myślę o kobietach, które umierają na nowotwory, bo przez utrudniony dostęp do specjalistów zbyt późno rozpoczynają leczenie. Myślę o kobietach, które pomimo lepszego wykształcenia przegrywają walkę o wysoko płatne stanowiska lub otrzymują niższe wynagrodzenie za pracę na tym samym stanowisku. Myślę o kobietach, które doświadczają hejtu, przemocy seksualnej i przemocy domowej, gdyż muszą się mierzyć z wyzwaniami niezależności ekonomicznej. Myślę o kobietach niepełnosprawnych, które codziennie muszą borykać się z barierami.
                  

                     I mam nadzieję, że my, kobiety w Parlamencie Europejskim pomimo wielu różnic będziemy umiały mówić jednym głosem w tym ważnym dla milionów obywatelek Unii Europejskiej temacie.
                  

Predrag Fred Matić (S&D). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, poštovane kolegice i kolege, povjerenice, izražavam veliko zadovoljstvo zbog činjenice da je Europska unija izradom nove strategije rodne ravnopravnosti jasno iskazala svoje prioritete. Ona se donosi u vrijeme kada je važno poduzeti snažne korake kojima bi se zaustavili regresivni pokreti i nazadovanje ženskih prava, a koji šalju poruku da Europska unija danas nije unija ravnopravnosti, solidarnosti i tolerancije.
                  

                     Seksualna i reproduktivna prava jedno su od područja u kojem je došlo do najveće regresije. Uskrata medicinske skrbi zbog osobnih uvjerenja, rodno uvjetovano nasilje, zakonska diskriminacija, manjak seksualne edukacije i druge štetne prakse utemeljene na patrijarhalnim obrascima potkopavaju same temelje europske demokracije.
                  

                     Očekujem da izradom i provedbom nove strategije Europska unija pokaže da nije napustila svoju ulogu progresivnog predvodnika u zaštiti ljudskih prava i da neće posustati pred onima koji nas žele u neka mračna i tužna vremena. To je naša odgovornost i mi na tom ispitu ne smijemo i nećemo pasti.
                  

Katalin Cseh (Renew). – Madam President, I'm very glad to hear that the EU is working on a Gender Equality Strategy: it's very important for me. Let me just highlight one aspect of this very broad and important topic – violence against women. When we talk about violence against women, we usually talk about numbers: one in every three European women, right? I would like to talk about people.

(Speaker holds up a photograph)

For me, she is the face of violence against women. She is Bernadett Orosz, a very brave woman who was brutally assaulted in the privacy of her home by her ex-partner. Afterwards, she was denied proper medical care, she was denied proper police protection, and later on, the Justice Minister of Hungary repeatedly said that ratifying the Istanbul Convention is political hysteria. Well, Bernadett is a brave woman. She has been to the European Parliament; she will be back. She's advocating for protection of females, and I'd like to echo her voice. I'd like to call on the Commission to act upon their promises and to add violence against women to the list of the EU crimes in the Treaty and also for the European Union to join the Istanbul Convention.

Przewodnicząca. – Dziękuję, Pani Poseł, ale proszę o zapoznanie się z Regulaminem i nieużywanie plakatów podczas następnych wystąpień. Jak Pani wie, Regulamin obowiązuje nas wszystkich.
                  

Luisa Regimenti (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la donna è un mistero che costituisce nella storia delle generazioni umane un'opera immensa per la sua missione e per la sua vocazione al servizio dell'umanità e della vita, per il contributo quotidiano fatto di sensibilità, intuizione, dedizione e generosità verso la famiglia e la vita civile, e per l'elaborazione di una cultura in grado di coniugare la ragione con il sentimento, caratteristica propria della femminilità, con la quale la donna arricchisce la comprensione delle cose del mondo e contribuisce alla piena autenticità dei rapporti umani. Costantemente è visibile la propria dignità nelle instancabili battaglie per l'uguaglianza dei diritti della persona e non vi è dubbio che ancora oggi siano molti gli ostacoli che ne impediscono la piena realizzazione.
                  

                     Il crescere dell'emancipazione reale femminile è una questione che non può essere più rinviata. E ciò per tutte quelle donne che silenziosamente, con sacrificio, si impegnano e sperano, pur consapevoli di vivere una realtà ostile complessa, quella stessa realtà che le sottopone a ingiustizie sul merito, a maltrattamenti, e che spesso non riesce a proteggere neppure la loro vita.
                  

                     La violenza e le ingiustizie sulle donne si nutrono di omertà, di stereotipi, di solitudine, di indifferenza, di ignoranza, di sonno delle coscienze. Per questo accogliamo con favore l'iniziativa della Commissione europea di proporre una strategia per la parità di genere, che dovrebbe contenere impegni forti, indicatori chiari e un meccanismo di monitoraggio per rendere responsabili… (la Presidente toglie la parola all'oratrice)


Terry Reintke (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, there is actually a long list of things that I would like to put into this Gender Equality Strategy. I will only focus on two, because I believe they are absolutely crucial. The first one is indeed to have a legal proposal on the gender pay gap. It's long overdue, and maybe we could suggest that it has the title: ‘We only waited 63 – I repeat 63 – years for the EU to make a proposal on the question of pay equality’. I think that would serve the purpose.
The second issue that I believe is absolutely crucial – and colleagues have said this – is to have a directive against gender-based violence. The accession to the Istanbul Convention is not enough. The backlash against women's rights is getting stronger across the European Union, and we need to have a clear position to stand up to that. I really believe that, with Trump in the US, with Putin in Russia and with Bolsonaro in Brazil, the European Union, despite the problems that we have in this union, is still the beacon of hope and freedom for feminists around the world. This gender-equality strategy really is one of the chances that we have to live up to their expectations, and that's why we need to make it a success.

(Applause)


Jessica Stegrud (ECR). – Fru talman! Jag är oerhört tacksam över tidigare nationers kvinnokamp och landvinningar, något som vi svenska kvinnor av i dag skördar frukten av. Kvinnor dominerar till exempel alltmer på universiteten, på chefsnivåer i offentlig sektor och i sociala medier. Jag är därför bekymrad över den bild som fortsatt odlas i jämställdhetens namn – ett narrativ där kvinnor ska ses som offer och där ojämlika utfall oftast förklaras med diskriminering och vita patriarkala strukturer.
                  

                     Det finns fortfarande saker kvar att göra. Risken är dock att den nya strategin siktar fel och i stället för att öka jämställdheten ytterligare snarare skapar privilegier för en ny grupp. Med tvingande åtgärder som könskvotering och delad föräldraledighet är vi dessutom inte bara på väg att ersätta en gammal orättvisa med en ny, utan vi förhandlar bort det som vi också länge kämpat för, nämligen valfrihet och rätten att själva styra våra liv.
                  

Έλενα Κουντουρά (GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κυρία Επίτροπε, για να πετύχει η στρατηγική σας για την ισότητα των φύλων, πρέπει πρωτίστως να φροντίσετε να δεσμευτούν τα κράτη μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης σε ένα νέο πλαίσιο, με κατευθυντήριες γραμμές και υποχρεωτικά συγκεκριμένα μέτρα για την ισότητα των φύλων. Προτείνω δεσμευτική νομοθεσία και, συγκεκριμένα, να κυρωθεί και να εφαρμοστεί χωρίς περιορισμούς η σύμβαση της Κωνσταντινούπολης από όλα τα κράτη μέλη για να καταπολεμηθεί η βία κατά των γυναικών. Χρειάζονται δεσμευτικά μέτρα για τη διαφάνεια των αμοιβών, για να καταπολεμηθεί το χάσμα των αμοιβών μεταξύ των φύλων. Πρέπει να καμφθούν τα εμπόδια για την έγκριση της σχετικής οδηγίας για την ίση εκπροσώπηση των γυναικών σε διοικητικές θέσεις, που έχει παγώσει στο Συμβούλιο από το 2013. Να ληφθούν μέτρα πρόληψης και να θεσπιστούν αποτελεσματικές, διαφανείς και εμπιστευτικές διαδικασίες καταγγελιών και αυστηρές αποτρεπτικές νέες κυρώσεις κατά των δραστών, για την πρόληψη και την καταπολέμηση της παρενόχλησης στον χώρο εργασίας. Τέλος, πρέπει να συμπεριλάβετε ξεχωριστό κεφάλαιο στη στρατηγική για τις γυναίκες όσον αφορά την υγεία, ώστε να μειωθούν οι ανισότητες μεταξύ των φύλων στον τομέα της υγείας.
                  

Daniela Rondinelli (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Unione europea e gli Stati membri sono da anni impegnati nella battaglia per l'uguaglianza di genere, ma fino ad oggi i risultati testimoniano che le politiche poste in essere non sono state sufficienti a superare il danno economico, sociale e culturale generato da queste discriminazioni verso le donne. Il motivo è molto semplice, perché il mondo economico e produttivo non ha mai voluto intervenire in maniera convinta nei luoghi di lavoro dove le discriminazioni trovano una loro sistematica e quotidiana applicazione.
                  

                     È quindi per noi estremamente positiva questa strategia per la parità di genere, purché sia innovativa rispetto ai grandi cambiamenti in atto, come la rivoluzione industriale e digitale che, se non ben gestita, aumenterà sicuramente le disparità tra uomini e donne. Dobbiamo quindi dedicare a questa strategia tutte le risorse e le politiche possibili per porre fine a ogni forma di discriminazione verso le donne nei luoghi di lavoro e nella loro permanenza nei mercati del lavoro. Come istituzioni europee, insieme alla società civile, dobbiamo fare tutto quanto possibile per porre fine una volta per tutte a queste violenze fisiche e psichiche verso le donne.
                  

                     Commissaria Dalli, se la strategia sarà all'altezza di tutte queste sfide, noi la sosterremo e insieme vinceremo queste battaglie che sono di civiltà, ma soprattutto di giustizia sociale.
                  

Maria Walsh (PPE). – Madam President, I welcome the publication of the Gender Equality Strategy. Promoting gender equality needs to be enshrined as a core activity for the EU. Equality between men and women is fundamental to our shared European values and goals. As our society evolves, it is imperative that we enshrine the principle of consent in our shared values.
As many colleagues have already shared right now, violence against women and coercive control are problems that can only be tackled when we face them head on. Not only do we need to put support in place to help women affected, but we also need to address the root causes through education and social development. Women must never feel threatened or coerced over the decisions they make in their lives. Promoting women's equal status in our society is fundamental to creating a vibrant and tolerant union.
Thank you, Commissioner Dalli, for taking the lead on this, for driving it and I also want to acknowledge the many male colleagues that we have in the Chamber right now. Thank you for putting your support behind this because if we don't work together it is going to fall on deaf ears.

Pina Picierno (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, l'Unione europea tra poche settimane avrà una sua strategia per la parità di genere, e questa è una buona notizia, di più, è un'ottima notizia se si tiene conto che nella scorsa legislatura non ne abbiamo avuto una di strategia. Quindi noi accogliamo positivamente, la sosteniamo Commissaria, accogliamo positivamente questa notizia perché l'Europa è certamente la parte del mondo dove le donne godono di maggior diritti e dove la disparità di genere è minore.
                  

                     Ma tanto, troppo, resta ancora da fare. Ce lo raccontano le statistiche, il divario salariale pensionistico, le percentuali residuali, vorrei dire ridicole, delle donne che siedono in posizioni apicali. Ma ce lo raccontano anche drammaticamente l'attualità. I giornali e i social media sono pieni di notizie di discriminazioni, di molestie, di mobbing, di violenza contro le donne e contro le ragazze, che costituiscono un limite insopportabile alla nostra libertà e alla nostra vita.
                  

                     Per questo, Commissaria, noi abbiamo bisogno di misure vincolanti, non di un elenco di buone intenzione. Di misure vincolanti e quindi di una direttiva contro la violenza, di una direttiva che introduca misure vincolanti, per evitare questo dramma di nostre sorelle annichilite prima nell'animo e poi uccise da assassini, che hanno sì un nome e un cognome, ma anche da una cultura patriarcale.
                  

Dragoș Pîslaru (Renew). – Doamna președintă, doamna comisar Dalli, am venit pregătit inițial cu un discurs formal, pe care l-am abandonat pentru a transmite mai degrabă un mesaj emoțional mai direct.
                  

                     Pe toți bărbații care văd încă problema egalității de gen ca fiind ceva minor, marginal, îi invit să se gândească la cum și-ar dori să le fie tratate mamele, surorile și fiicele. Începând cu importanța egalității de șanse până la problema dramatică a violenței verbale sau fizice împotriva femeilor.
                  

                     Ca tată a patru copii, toți băieți, consider că e datoria mea să le transmit valorile de bază și să-i învăț să lupte activ pentru o societate cu drepturi egale și egalitate de șanse între femei și bărbați.
                  

                     Trebuie să internalizăm importanța problemei stereotipurilor și a preconcepțiilor de gen, care încă dezvoltă în Uniunea Europeană atitudini misogine, de desconsiderare față de femei, violență verbală și chiar fizică. E crucial să începem de aici să luptăm, în special noi bărbații, să devenim garanți în lupta împotriva violenței la adresa femeilor. Avem cu toții această obligație. Strategia propusă are exact valoarea pe care i-o vom da prin modul în care fiecare dintre noi vom acționa personal mai departe.
                  

Maximilian Krah (ID). – Frau Präsidentin! Der große amerikanische Präsident Ronald Reagan hat einmal gesagt, die zehn schlimmsten Worte der englischen Sprache seien: ‘Hi, ich komme von der Regierung und bin hier, um Ihnen zu helfen’. Die Frage der Geschlechter zueinander ist eine der intimsten, persönlichsten und individuellsten Angelegenheiten des Menschen. Und die Vorstellung, dass die Europäische Union jetzt mit einer eigenen Strategie meint, da eingreifen zu müssen, ist – unabhängig von der Frage, ob das, was in der Strategie ist, richtig oder falsch ist – immer falsch. Es ist ein Übergriff des Staates in das individuelle Leben, und das gehört sich nicht, das ist illiberal, das ist totalitär. Wir wissen aber – und die Kollegen der Linken haben es ja klargemacht –, dass es hier nur darum geht, den eigenen Entwurf einer Zerstörung der Familie und letztlich einer sozialistischen Umgestaltung des Individuellsten, was wir haben, voranzutreiben. Genau deshalb sind wir dagegen.
                  

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Verts/ALE). – Fru formand! Kære kommissær. Tak for dit oplæg. Det er rigtigt glædeligt at se, at du igen tager opgaven om et ligestillet Europa på dig. Jeg byder i den grad denne strategi velkommen. Det er mit håb, at det med denne strategi er slut med bare at sende tomme signaler til Europas kvinder om, at vi tager deres problemer alvorligt. Det er tid til at sætte handling bag ordene, hvilket jeg ved, du er klar til. Det er særligt vigtigt, at vi med strategien formår at komme ud i alle hjørner af Europa med et løfte om, at den politiske vilje er med kvinderne, og ikke imod dem. Og her mener jeg alle steder i Europa, hvor der ikke er fuldstændig fri adgang til fri abort, alle steder, hvor kvinder ikke er beskyttet mod vold i hjemmet af Istanbul-konventionen, alle steder, hvor chikane på gaden begrænser kvinders adgang til det offentlige rum, og alle steder, hvor kvinder stadig bliver betalt mindre end deres mandlige kolleger for det samme arbejde. Det skal være slut nu – det er uacceptabelt.
                  

                     Kommissionens strategi er et første skridt. Næste skridt må være konkret lovgivning, for det er den eneste måde, vi kan opnå fremskridt. Vi skal ikke være bange for at sanktionere, for de sidste par år er det kun blevet tydeligere, at det er nødvendigt. Europas kvinder kræver handling, og det skal vi levere. Jeg ser frem til at følge vores fælles fremskridt.
                  

Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Madam President, gender equality is a matter of justice to women. Even in the most conservative societies, we see brave women putting the issue of their rights on the public agenda, but their demands are not always turned into policies; change does not always happen. Politicians often pay lip service to gender equality, but fail to recognise the genuine role of women in society, the economy, business and politics.
If Europe wants to achieve its strategic goals, we cannot miss out on the issue of the participation of half of the population. If we want to make the planned conference on the future of Europe a game changer, based on an authentic dialogue with citizens, we have to listen to the perspective of women as citizens. We have to go beyond the European Union and offer our solidarity to women who are out there fighting for equality in their own cultural and national context.
The new strategy presented by the Commission is a good blueprint for action, but it is also a signal that Europe will never give up on human rights and justice. I strongly believe, as a woman and as a Member of this House, that the EU can be the beacon of courage and hope for women.

Robert Biedroń (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Miałem wystąpienie z innej perspektywy, ale po raz kolejny biorę udział w debacie na temat równości kobiet i mężczyzn, w której uczestniczą przede wszystkim kobiety. I nachodzi mnie taka refleksja, że za każdym razem, gdy rozmawiamy na tej sali o wielkich pieniądzach, o bombach, o rakietach, o władzy, to sala debata zdominowana jest przez mężczyzn. A kiedy mówimy o równości, to mówią przede wszystkim kobiety. Gdyby dyskryminacja, przemoc, izolacja, nierówność dotyczyła mężczyzn, jestem przekonany, że ta strategia już dawno zostałaby przyjęta przez Unię Europejską. A przecież mówimy o większości, o większości naszego społeczeństwa. Mówimy o naszych córkach, które są ofiarami przemocy, mówimy o naszych matkach, które zarabiają mniej, mówimy o naszych babkach, które będą miały mniejsze emerytury właśnie dlatego, że przez całe życie zarabiały mniej od mężczyzn. Dlatego apeluję do moich kolegów zarówno na tej sali, jak i w ogóle w polityce, żebyśmy byli solidarni z kobietami, które walczą o swoje prawa, bo dotknie to naszych córek, matek, babek, przyjaciółek i koleżanek.
                  

(Mówca zgodził się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki (art. 171 ust. 8 Regulaminu).)


Niklas Nienaß (Verts/ALE),
blue-card question. – Thank you for this statement. I have one personal question: what do you think men can do to encourage women, and do you think that there's more action needed by men? Do you think that men should step down more, or do you think that woman should improve? What is your personal opinion on this issue? Since we are all politicians, what can you do to increase the number of women politicians in your party as well?

Robert Biedroń (S&D),
blue-card answer. – Yes, since we are men and for hundreds of years we have been promoted, we should always look behind us. So many women every day are left behind, and we as politicians have a responsibility for that. So we as politicians, male politicians, have extra power which we can use to liberate women, to help them become equal – nothing more, nothing less – just equal. This is our obligation.

(Applause)


Michal Šimečka (Renew). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, mne sa zdá, že sme v takej zvláštnej paradoxnej situácii, že na jednej strane vnímame ten mohutný, silnejúci občiansky tlak na rodovú rovnosť a na druhej strane tá situácia v podstate zostáva naďalej alarmujúca v mnohých členských štátoch Európskej únie. Ak špeciálne, keď sa pozrieme na čísla a na ekonomické ukazovatele, tak vlastne v každom sú ženy na tom v porovnaní s mužmi horšie. Majú o 16% nižší plat v rovnakých pozíciách ako kolegovia, sú dvakrát menej zastúpené v riadiacich funkciách ako muži a samozrejme už nehovoriac o problémoch v pracovnom prostredí, ako je diskriminácia, sexuálne obťažovanie, ktoré sa často boja oznámiť. A teraz mne sa zdá, že to už nie je otázka akoby ideológie alebo veľkých debát, ale je otázka základnej spoločenskej spravodlivosti. Ako môžeme tolerovať situáciu, v ktorej polovica občanov Európskej únie nemá rovnaké podmienky a rovnaké šance na život a prácu. Tak ja len dúfam, že tá stratégia, ktorú pripravujete, aspoň trochu pomôže dobehnúť ten silnejúci občiansky tlak aj samotnými politikami.
                  

Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D). – Señora presidenta, estimada comisaria, nos alegramos mucho de que haya una estrategia, de que se presente una estrategia de igualdad de género en esta legislatura; también de que se recojan algunas medidas concretas, como la transparencia salarial. Pero me alegro especialmente de que usted hable de transversalidad de género en relación con el Pacto Verde Europeo o a la inteligencia artificial.
                  

                     Porque, hasta ahora, no ha habido realmente una incorporación de la perspectiva de género en las políticas europeas. Ha habido más bien una política de empleabilidad, a pesar de que mujeres y hombres nos incorporamos de manera muy desigual al mercado de trabajo. Por tanto, mientras realmente no haya una incorporación de la perspectiva de género en las políticas europeas, difícilmente vamos a avanzar, muy especialmente si no lo conseguimos en la política económica, donde brilla y sigue brillando por su ausencia. A veces es simplemente una guinda que se pone en el pastel, pero que no tiene realmente ninguna importancia.
                  

                     Comisaria Dalli, hagamos que realmente tenga importancia. Aquí en el Parlamento Europeo hay una red de incorporación de la perspectiva de género con representantes en todas, absolutamente todas, las comisiones, que vamos a estar muy dispuestas a trabajar con usted y a hacer posible que realmente avancemos en una Europa mucho más igualitaria.
                  

Radka Maxová (Renew). – Paní předsedající, paní komisařko, velmi Vám děkuji, že se věnujete strategii pro rovnost žen a mužů. Mám pocit, že je to těžké portfolio, možná těžší než sestavení víceletého finančního rámce.
                  

                     K tomu, abychom prosadili tuto strategii, budeme potřebovat odblokovat ratifikaci Istanbulské úmluvy. Bohužel, Slovensko včera oznámilo, že chce stáhnout podpis z této ratifikace a že chce odstoupit. S tímto já nesouhlasím a neměli bychom tomu přihlížet jen tak v tichosti.
                  

                     Dále potřebujeme odblokovat antidiskriminační směrnici. Na co bych chtěla upozornit, abychom ve strategii velmi apelovali na dobrý školský systém, na vzdělávání od nejmenších dětí až po vysokoškoláky. Myslím si, že je to velmi důležité, protože bez změny systému vzdělávání a přístupu pedagogů k vysvětlování, že rovnost je vlastně velmi výhodná pro hospodářský růst, pro ekonomiku, nám nic jiného nezbyde.
                  

Zgłoszenia z sali


Frances Fitzgerald (PPE). – Madam President, I would like to thank Commissioner Dalli for coming here today to outline the future Gender Equality Strategy. It's extremely important. It's a very good time. We have the political commitment at the top of the Commission, and hopefully across the Commission. I do want to say to you that I don't believe that you can do this on your own. It is important that every Commissioner looks at these issues, and that gender equality is mainstreamed.
We can diagnose the issues very clearly. You've heard from all my colleagues here today. There are newer issues emerging, but there are very many issues that have been around for quite a long time. We do need to pay attention to climate change, to what's happening in technology, to the economic empowerment of women, and to dealing with the pay gap and the pension gap. But we also have to, for example, look at the budget and the gender-proofing of all of the budget decisions. That's also really important, but we do need binding measures, we need strict implementation, and we need monitoring.

Maria Manuel Leitão Marques (S&D). –
(início da intervenção com o microfone desligado) … a estratégia que vai apresentar, espero que ela tenha medidas concretas, tenha metas e tenha meios, tenha recursos para ser executada, senão será mais um bonito texto que ficará no arquivo da Comissão Europeia.
                  

                     Precisamos de uma estratégia que combata problemas, vença batalhas que já não deviam estar na nossa agenda, como a violência doméstica, e de uma estratégia que olhe para o futuro e combata, por exemplo, a desigualdade na participação em profissões tecnológicas que é, neste momento, muito desequilibrada.
                  

                     Precisamos, também, de que esta estratégia esteja presente em todas as políticas da Comissão Europeia, que discrimine as empresas que têm boas políticas de igualdade na contratação pública ou no acesso aos fundos, e que também seja incluída nos acordos de parceria internacional.
                  

                     Conte connosco se a sua estratégia for ambiciosa. Conte com o nosso apoio. Conte com a nossa crítica também e o nosso contributo.
                  

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, el valor que puede añadir la Unión a las políticas de igualdad pasa por cuatro aportaciones.
                  

                     La primera, exigir unos estándares mínimos en todos los países miembros tanto en políticas contra la discriminación como en tareas de prevención y represión de la desigualdad y especialmente de la violencia de género. Por eso es imprescindible homogeneizar el tratamiento legal de este problema.
                  

                     La segunda, mejorar las estadísticas y los indicadores para mejorar la evaluación de esas políticas.
                  

                     La tercera, asumir que la lucha por la igualdad necesita criterios globales pero actuación en el nivel más próximo a la ciudadanía, lo que requiere incorporar los niveles local y regional a este trabajo.
                  

                     Finalmente, necesitamos mover conciencias, aplicar ideas globales que han funcionado a la tarea de cambiar estereotipos y los tópicos que alimentan la desigualdad y que hay que empezar a cambiar a nivel de cada individuo.
                  

                     Acabamos de declararnos en emergencia climática. Siglos de discriminación, de violencia, de terrorismo doméstico —diez mujeres en seis semanas, solo en mi Estado miembro— deberían animar a una declaración europea de emergencia por la igualdad.
                  

Silvia Sardone (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, se siamo qua a parlare di parità di genere, dovete sapere che nel mio paese, in Italia, solo il 4 % degli amministratori delegati sono donne, nonostante il livello di istruzione sia molto alto.
                  

                     Si è parlato in quest'Aula di differenze salariali, è indubbio, ma io non credo che la soluzione siano le quote. Io non voglio essere definita un panda o un qualcosa da proteggere in quanto donna. Io rivendico il diritto di essere valutata per le mie capacità e per le mie competenze e, se sono più brava di un uomo, di essere pagata di più, non in maniera uguale.
                  

                     Quindi io concludo il mio intervento dicendo che vorrei evitare questa continua campagna degli uomini e delle donne di prevedere delle quote o in qualche modo trattare le donne come se fossero una riserva. Dovremmo invece continuare a portare avanti l'idea delle donne come persone e quindi valutarne davvero le capacità e premiarle nel caso in cui se lo meritano.
                  

Hannah Neumann (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Frau Dalli, ich freue mich sehr, dass wir jetzt mit so viel Energie in diesen Prozess der Strategie starten, und ich freue mich auch, dass unsere Parlamentsentschließung, über die wir morgen abstimmen, eine starke außenpolitische Dimension hat. Denn zum einen macht Solidarität uns Frauen stark, und zum anderen haben wir in so vielen Friedensverhandlungen gesehen, und das ist auch wissenschaftlich bewiesen: Je mehr Frauen am Verhandlungstisch sitzen, umso länger hält der Frieden. Ich finde es gleichzeitig wichtig, dass wir uns auch an unsere eigene Nase fassen. Mir ist es oft wirklich hochnotpeinlich, wenn wir mit EP-Delegationen ins Ausland reisen, und da sind nur Männer; wenn unser Europäischer Auswärtiger Dienst in den Krisenregionen keine einzige Botschaft hat, die von einer Frau geführt wird. Ich würde mich einfach sehr freuen, wenn wir in dieser Strategie nicht nur innenpolitisch rangehen und nicht nur mit dem Finger auf andere zeigen, sondern uns auch wirklich an unsere eigene Nase fassen und unsere eigenen Strukturen da nochmal angucken. Da haben Sie, glaube ich, in uns Grünen eine starke Unterstützerin, aber nicht nur da. Mutig voran! Das wäre sehr schön.
                  

Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, ženama moraju biti dostupne sve prilike koje imaju muškarci. To je temelj ravnopravnosti u društvu, da svi pod istim uvjetima mogu iskoristiti određene životne prilike i voditi živote po vlastitom izboru.
                  

                     No, jednake prilike ne znače nužno i jednake ishode. Osigurati ženama priliku da se bave istim poslovima kao muškarci i da za njih budu jednako plaćene ne znači da će se one u većem broju tim poslovima doista željeti baviti. Različitost u ponašanju u društvenim ulogama i životnim izborima među spolovima nije samo društveno uvjetovana nego i biološki. Eliminacija društveno-političkih barijera neće staviti znak jednakosti između žena i muškaraca zato što oni jednostavno nisu i ne mogu biti isti, ali svakako moraju biti jednakopravni. Oko toga ne smije biti spora.
                  

Clare Daly (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, I think equality for women is a pipe dream unless women have control over their own bodies, and while I very much welcome the progress made in Ireland and Cyprus in other areas in terms of access to abortion, we have to be careful that in some countries there has been an attempt to roll back some of the gains, with conscientious objection being misused, with regressive preconditions being put on women's decisions, and even attempts to ban abortion. I think this is something we must take great care of.
I note that the strategy singles out women who face multiple forms of discrimination such as Roma and migrant women, and I welcome that, but we should really call this out. I mean it is a scandal that we have, in Bulgaria, Roma women segregated in maternity hospitals, not allowed to use toilet facilities or to eat with other women. We need concrete solutions for this, we need legislation outlawing such discrimination, and we need to facilitate women in the best possible way.

Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, οφείλω να πω ότι σε προηγούμενες ομιλίες μου ευχόμουν να μην χρειαστεί να ξανασυζητήσουμε για θέματα ισότητας των δύο φύλων, διότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα μπορούσε να αρθεί στο ύψος των περιστάσεων γι' αυτήν την ισότητα και να την έχει εφαρμόσει μέχρι σήμερα. Θεωρώ προσβολή το γεγονός ότι, εν έτει 2020, στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση —για την οποία υπερηφανευόμαστε· για τον πολιτισμό της, για τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα, για τις αρχές και τις αξίες— συνεχίζουμε να αγωνιζόμαστε για κάτι που έπρεπε να θεωρείται αυτονόητο: για την ισότητα των δύο φύλων. Το συζητάμε σαν στόχο τον οποίον οφείλουμε να κατακτήσουμε, ενώ εδώ και τόσα χρόνια δεν έχει επιτευχθεί.
                  

                     Άρα θεωρώ —και πραγματικά επιβραβεύω την επίτροπο Dalli για τις πρωτοβουλίες της— ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να είναι πρωτοπόρος και πρέπει να λάβει συγκεκριμένα μέτρα, ούτως ώστε να επιβληθεί αυτή η ισότητα με κυρώσεις στις χώρες που δεν την εφαρμόζουν. Να στηριχθεί αυτή η προσπάθεια ακόμη και από τους προϋπολογισμούς και να εγκριθεί —αν γίνεται— σχετική οδηγία από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Ευρώπη χωρίς εξάλειψη της διάκρισης και της βίας κατά των γυναικών δεν νοείται και δεν μπορούμε να είμαστε περήφανοι χωρίς αυτό. Άρα, είναι πρώτος και μοναδικός στόχος να πολεμήσουμε μαζί γι' αυτόν τον σκοπό.
                  

Robert Hajšel (S&D). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, stratégia pre rodovú rovnosť musí byť niečo, čo sa aj do budúcnosti stane veľkou inšpiráciou pre všetky členské štáty, a mal by to byť minimálne politický záväzok pre ne a aspoň v niektorých oblastiach by to malo byť aj právne záväzné.
                  

                     Ja sa pozastavím minimálne na tom, že je nepredstaviteľné a veľmi nespravodlivé, aby ženy mali stále nižšie platy a nižšie dôchodky, ako majú muži, a dokonca aj vo verejnom sektore v rámci štátov Európskej únie. Na tomto musíme naozaj popracovať. Ďalej ja sa zastavujem aj na tom, že zosúladenie rodinného a pracovného života pre ženy, to je veľmi dôležité, aby mali ženy väčší a ľahší prístup pre svoje deti do materských škôl, aby tieto materské školy boli nielen finančne dostupné, ale aby ich bolo aj dostatok kapacitne. No a potom samozrejme ide aj prístup k zdraviu. Boli spomínané aj diskriminácie rómskych žien. S týmto musíme naozaj skoncovať čím skôr. No a samozrejme treba bojovať proti všetkým formám násilia, domáceho násilia, sexuálneho harasmentu na pracovisku a podobných nepríjemných sexuálnych narážok, s ktorými sa stretávajú ženy často ešte aj teraz.
                  

Milan Brglez (S&D). – Gospa predsedujoča! Diskriminacija večine evropskih državljank v vseh sferah družbenega, političnega, gospodarskega in zasebnega življenja ter v vseh starostnih obdobjih ni sprejemljiva in ni v skladu s temeljnimi načeli in določbami pravnega reda Evropske unije.
                  

                     Odpravljanja neenakosti med spoloma se očitno ne lotevamo na pravi način. Ozaveščanje glede neenakosti spolov preko mednarodni dni, kakršni je bil včerajšnji mednarodni dan žensk in deklet v znanosti, ni dovolj.
                  

                     Žal je tudi v tem parlamentu večina zgolj za retorično enakopravnost. Kako naj si drugače razlagamo dejstvo, da poslanke in poslanci LLS in Renew zavrnejo ključne amandmaje v resoluciji za zagotovitev enakega plačila moških in žensk za enako delo.
                  

                     Ali da tako na ravni držav članic kot v naših vrstah primanjkuje politične volje za to, da bi enakost spolov ter načelo zagotavljanja enakega plačila za enako delo bila dela evropskega semestra.
                  

                     To so nujni strukturni ukrepi, brez katerih prihodnja strategija za enakost spolov žal ne bo več kot lep šopek besed za 8. marec, mednarodni dan žensk.
                  

Sylwia Spurek (S&D). – Madam President, I come from Poland, a country in which women are still not properly protected from violence; a country in which women who are living in villages still do not have proper access to health care, in which the burden of childcare is put on women, and only one per cent of men take paternity leave. I come from Poland, a country in which women do not have the right to safe and legal abortion.
The list of issues is long and the situation affects even more women with disabilities, the elderly, LGTBI, Roma women and Muslim women, and it is disgraceful that in the 21st century in the centre of Europe there are women who cannot enjoy their fundamental human rights. The ambition of the European Union should be to ensure unified standards and the highest level of protection of women's human rights in all Member States. It should be the goal of Gender Equality Strategy.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you all for your valid contributions and yes, it's 2020 and we are still discussing the rights of more than half the world's population. We're discussing rights which men take for granted. I really thank you all for the call also for more men to take part in debates regarding gender equality. We all have mothers, some of us have daughters and we are speaking about more than half the population. One of the men here said feminism is not just for women, but for the whole of society. So yes, as has rightly been pointed out, yes, when we are discussing war and armaments, which will kill people like you and me, then many men contribute there. I don't wish for more women to contribute there but less men. I want to all of us to discuss peace but this is the reality, so it's important that we point this out and that we look at gender equality as something for all of us, for all of our societies, for all of Europe, for all the world.
The new Gender Equality Strategy will address the many topics which you have highlighted and what was highlighted in the President's political guidelines. I will set out an ambitious agenda for combating and preventing all forms of violence against women, including online violence. I will present a legislative proposal to ensure better transparency on pay levels in in European businesses and organisations and take other non-legislative measures to close the gender pay gap. I want to finally get to EU rules adopted to ensure progress on gender balance on company boards, because we know that targets work. I want to make sure that the Work-life Balance Directive is implemented in the Member States to help women and men reconcile work and caring responsibilities. Also, I want all major EU policy initiatives to be assessed from a gender lens. I will ensure that the Commission's work on gender mainstreaming is more comprehensive and systematic than has been previously been the case.
We must pay attention to the gender and equality perspective when addressing some of our society's main challenges, such as digitalisation and transition to a greener economy, as was mentioned also here. And yes, we are targeting the feminisation of poverty. The gender gap in poverty is, after all, the result of the many inequalities women and girls face in all spheres of life. I reiterate that I count on the strong support of Parliament because equality for all its citizens is one of the founding values of the EU, and we need to make this a reality, all of us together, for all of our citizens.

Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę.
                  


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 171)



Caterina Chinnici (S&D),
per iscritto. – Il 4 marzo, sarà pubblicata la Strategia europea per il Gender equality (2020-2024) allo scopo di eradicare le inaccettabili discriminazioni che ancora persistono in Europa, tra uomini e donne nel mercato del lavoro, sul piano retributivo, sociale e culturale. L'auspicio è che sia una strategia ambiziosa comprendente misure giuridiche e non, per lottare contro il gender pay gap e il conseguente divario pensionistico, per assicurare parità di genere nelle posizioni di vertice del settore pubblico e privato, e per debellare forme di discriminazione indiretta, causate dalla mancanza di accesso a servizi di assistenza, che permettano di conciliare concretamente vita familiare e professionale, in particolare in presenza di bambini, persone anziane o disabili; carenze che, di fatto, continuano a negare a troppe donne, il libero godimento dei loro diritti. Occorrerà, inoltre, imperativamente prevedere misure più incisive, per impedire che si allunghi la lista dei delitti, spesso annunciati, di cui sono vittime troppe donne. La drammatica portata del fenomeno riguarda ogni Stato membro. Occorrerà pertanto, stabilire che ogni violenza contro le donne sia riconosciuta come reato, ai sensi dell'articolo 83 TFUE, e promuovere quel cambiamento socio-culturale senza il quale, ogni misura normativa non potrà che avere un effetto limitato.
                  

Laura Ferrara (NI),
per iscritto. – La parità di genere è un principio fondante dell'Unione europea, disatteso in tanti settori della vita sociale. Anche in Europa abbiamo donne con diritti limitati, che vivono condizioni di disuguaglianza economica, non adeguatamente rappresentate nei processi decisionali, sottopagate in ambito lavorativo, che subiscono discriminazioni e violenze non solo fisiche ma anche di natura morale e sessuale. Nella nuova strategia per la parità di genere, annunciata dalla Commissione europea, avremo bisogno, oltre alle dichiarazioni di principio, la previsione di strumenti per combattere una duplice battaglia: essa va condotta sia sul piano dei diritti, con misure vincolanti, sia sul piano culturale, principale fonte delle disuguaglianze di genere.
                  

Lívia Járóka (PPE),
in writing. – The phenomenon of sexual exploitation is full of gender inequality. The majority of humans providing sexual services are women and a majority of them are trafficked into the sex industry by male pimps. These women are victims of sexual trafficking and exploitation. Of all the registered victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation in Europe, 95% are female. Unfortunately, Roma are one of the most vulnerable and more affected group. Paternalistic societies are at the core of that. The demand for sexual services is also mostly coming from men. This means there are several types of power imbalances between men and women in the sex industry. These women also suffer emotional and physical abuse. Violence against women is also a part of gender inequality. This gender inequality is a European problem; trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation is a transnational problem. The victims are trafficked across Europe. Human trafficking and sexual exploitation are fuelled by prostitution. The reintegration of victims of human trafficking can be added to the Gender Equality Strategy as well, so as to facilitate and encourage the Member States to support such programmes.
18.   The EU priorities for the 64th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (debate)

Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest debata nad pytaniem wymagającym odpowiedzi ustnej skierowanym do Rady przez Evelyn Regner w imieniu Komisji Praw Kobiet i Równouprawnienia w sprawie priorytetów UE na 64. sesję Komisji ONZ ds. Statusu Kobiet (O-000006/2020 - B9-0005/2020).
               

Evelyn Regner,
Verfasserin. – Frau Präsidentin! Wir feiern das 25-Jahr-Jubiläum eines Dokuments, das so umfassend und klar die Rechte der Frauen zusammenfasst und definiert wie noch nie ein Dokument zuvor. Nach wie vor stellt die Pekinger Erklärung, die bei der 4. Weltfrauenkonferenz in Peking verabschiedet wurde, eines der progressivsten, eines der umfassendsten und am klarsten formulierten Dokumente über die Rechte der Frauen dar, die es gibt. Alle Lebensbereiche sind abgedeckt, die vollständige Gleichstellung von Frauen mit Männern ist gedacht – ob jung oder alt, reich oder arm, ob Frauen, die im Frieden leben, Frauen, die im Krieg leben, das öffentliche sowie das private Leben – umfassend und progressiv haben 1995 alle teilnehmenden Regierungen deklariert: ‘Wir erkennen Frauenrechte als Menschenrechte an.’ Wir haben eine 25 Jahre alte Magna Charta der Frauen, die alle Frauenrechte zu Menschenrechten macht und Frauen in allen Lebensbereichen mit Männern gleichstellt. Die Deklaration enthält umfassende Handlungsanweisungen an alle Regierungen, an NGOs und bezieht sämtliche weitere multi-level stakeholder in die Handlungsvorschläge mit ein. 189 Regierungen haben sich zur Mitarbeit, Umsetzung, Realisierung der Rechte für die Frauen in der Welt verpflichtet, und seitdem wird alle fünf Jahre der Fortschritt überprüft.
               

                  Was ich besonders an der Deklaration hervorheben möchte, ist, dass wir durchwegs von der Machtgleichstellung der Frauen sprechen. ‘Machtgleichstellung’ – was für ein modernes wording. Dass die volle und ausdrückliche Anerkennung und Bekräftigung des Rechts aller Frauen, über alle Aspekte ihrer Gesundheit, insbesondere ihre eigene Fruchtbarkeit, zu bestimmen, eine Grundvoraussetzung ihrer Machtgleichstellung ist; dass der Zugang zu wirtschaftlichen Ressourcen, zu Grund und Boden, Krediten, Wissenschaft und Technologie, Berufsausbildung, Information, Kommunikation und zu den Märkten voll und gleichberechtigt gewährt wird – also ich zitiere daraus.
               

                  25 Jahre nach der Verabschiedung muss jedoch ein schlechtes Urteil gefällt werden. In keinem Land wurde die vollkommene Gleichstellung von Frauen erreicht. Kein Land – nicht einmal die Staaten der Europäischen Union – kann die Selbstbestimmung von Frauen über ihren Körper gewährleisten. Wir als Europäische Union stecken fest, wenn es um die gemeinsamen Maßnahmen zur Gleichstellung von Frauen geht, und dürfen uns nicht als gut dastehende Region rühmen. Die Richtlinie Gender Balance on Boards, die Frauen in Entscheidungsposten stärken soll – seit acht Jahren blockiert. Dieses Jahr hätte sie in ganz Europa vollständig umgesetzt werden sollen. Wir haben keine vollkommene Gleichstellung beim Zugang zu Gütern und Dienstleistungen. Immer noch gibt es Diskriminierung, und Bereiche wie zum Beispiel Werbung sind ausgenommen. Wir haben ganz klar eine europaweit bestehende Diskriminierung beim Verdienst. Selbst nach bereinigten Zahlen sehen wir, dass die Lohn- und Gehaltsschere nach wie vor gewaltig auseinanderklafft. 500 000 junge Frauen, also eine halbe Million Frauen und Mädchen, werden Opfer von weiblicher Genitalverstümmelung – und das nicht irgendwo außerhalb, sondern innerhalb Europas. Diese Beispiele, diese Zahlen sind beschämend für Europa und die meisten Regierungen. Berechtigterweise richte ich meine Kritik an den Rat, an die Regierungen, die verpflichtet sind, die Hälfte ihrer Bevölkerung, nämlich ihre Staatsbürgerinnen, gleichwertig zu vertreten, gleichwertig zu unterstützen und positiv zu fördern, bis eine vollkommene Gleichstellung erreicht ist.
               

                  Traditionelle, kulturelle, religiöse Machismen verhindern nach wie vor und mehr denn je den Abbau von patriarchalen Machtstrukturen und messen Frauen einen geringeren Wert als Mensch zu als Männern. Deshalb müssen wir gerade auch auf europäischer Ebene als Garant für Frauenrechte als Menschenrechte kämpfen. Deshalb dürfen wir nicht zulassen, dass Rückschritte innerhalb der EU in einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten oder als gemeinsamer globaler Akteur in der restlichen Welt geschehen. Ich mahne Sie. Es geht um die Hälfte der Bevölkerung! Negieren Sie die Menschenrechte von Frauen nicht!
               

                  Wir wissen, die Pekinger Erklärung von 1995 bindet die Regierungen nicht verpflichtend, aber wir Frauen in dieser Welt haben damit ein Dokument in der Hand, das internationale Legitimität verschafft. Wir werden nicht loslassen, wir werden kämpfen für einen echten Fortschritt. Das Dokument muss jetzt mit Leben erfüllt werden. Die Vereinten Nationen sind jetzt voll dahinter, in Aktion zu treten. Die UN braucht aber Mitarbeit der Regierungen. Sie richtet action coalitions ein, Engagement – Mexiko und Paris möchte ich erwähnen –, engmaschigere Kontrollen des Fortschritts und der Umsetzung sind notwendig. Hier platziere ich daher meinen Appell an die sehr geehrten Abgeordneten, morgen bei der die Anfrage begleitenden Abstimmung meine zwei Abänderungsanträge zu den action coalitions zu unterstützen.
               

                  Wir im Europäischen Parlament wollen eine starke Beteiligung und ein multilaterales Vorgehen. Die Vereinten Nationen leben von der Zusammenarbeit, dem gemeinsamen Willen, dem gemeinsamen Handeln. Als Europäische Union müssen wir voll dafür eintreten – gemeinsam und in Vielfalt.
               

(Beifall)


Nikolina Brnjac,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, thank you for this opportunity to exchange views on the next session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. I shall also touch on the question of gender equality more broadly. 2020 is a pivotal year for the realisation of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls everywhere. It will also be the year of a series of milestone anniversaries relevant to gender equality. We will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security; the fifth anniversary of the sustainable development goals; and not least, the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.
Gender equality matters to all our citizens. It is not just a women's issue but a social issue and also an economic issue: allowing everyone an equal chance to contribute brings significant benefits in terms of our economic strength. The upcoming session of the Commission on the Status of Women will be dedicated to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. At the next session of the Commission on the Status of Women, we should identify gaps in the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and reconfirm the full validity of the commitments undertaken 25 years ago. We should re-energise international efforts towards gender equality, the full enjoyment of all human rights by all women and girls and their empowerment.
The UN Secretary-General highlighted that process and progress in many areas is lagging behind. This is in particular the case concerning the exposure of women and girls to extreme poverty and violence against women and girls. We also continue to have a gender gap in labour force participation and under-representation in decision-making and a leadership role across all sectors. The EU will set the bar high in all these areas. They should be backed up by substantial financial resources.
When it comes to the negotiation of the political declaration, the EU will demonstrate its strong leadership role on gender equality. The EU's agreed position is rooted in the EU's legal and policy framework and is intended to guide our negotiators in New York. Some of the most critical issues include the following: equality and non-discrimination, sexual and gender-based violence, family and family oriented policies, health, education, social protection, decent work, sexual and reproductive health and rights as per the new European consensus on development, and desegregated data collection. Furthermore, the position paper also includes guiding principles on climate change and information and communication technology. The EU will make every effort to ensure that past achievements are safeguarded and that further progress is achieved on the road to full equality among women and men.
The EU will also strive for a political declaration which recognises women civil society organisations and women human rights defenders. They play a critical role in the promotion, protection and fulfilment of the human rights of all women and girls. The EU will therefore pledge to continue supporting civil society and ensuring a safe and enabling environment for them to operate effectively at local, national, regional and global levels.
As to the EU's political statement at the opening session, we are convinced that the European Parliament and the Council share the same values and interests and the same priorities. We therefore look forward to hearing your suggestions today.
President, honourable Members, on the issue of gender equality more broadly, you rightly underlined in your question for today's debate that gender equality is not a separate domain, but one that cuts across the whole of society and the economy. Progress in this field, therefore, requires the integration of gender equality goals into all relevant strategies and policy goals. In other words, we need gender mainstreaming as well as specific actions. Precisely in this spirit, in its conclusions from December last year, the Council called on the new Commission to adopt a stand-alone, high-level EU gender equality strategy and I'm delighted that the Commission has undertaken to do just that. The Council, furthermore, called for an effective and systematic implementation of gender mainstreaming in all policy areas. The Council also called on the Commission and the Member States to pursue a stronger focus on gender equality within the different phases of the European Semester process.
Finally, a few words about the Council's work programme in the months to come. We of course look forward to the initiatives that the Commission has announced, such as measures relating to pay transparency. Meanwhile, as you are aware, gender equality and non-discrimination is one of the priorities of the Croatian Presidency. We intend to table a set of Council conclusions on the impact of long-term care on work-life balance, as we all know women perform a far greater share of informal care work than men and this limits their ability to participate in the labour market. On 30 January the Croatian Presidency organised a high-level conference on the topic: Participation of women on the labour market – Benefit for society! It's results will be discussed within the UN Commission on the Status of Women. While a lot has been done, there is still a long way to go in order to achieve full equality both within the EU and especially beyond its borders.

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members. Thank you for including the preparation of the UN's 64th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in today's agenda. This is very good timing. The negotiations on the political declaration and the preparation of the EU statements are ongoing, and the aim is that the CSW will start with a strong and action-oriented political declaration focused on the implementation of the existing commitments.
At the same time, we are preparing our side events, which will be melting-pots for good practices and new ideas on how to take the Beijing Agenda forward. This is the strength of the CSW – a place to meet and discuss gender-equality which many actors in the field.
The session will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. We also celebrate the 75th anniversary of the United Nations and the 5th anniversary of the Sustainable Development Goals.
Gender-equality and the empowerment of women and girls is not only a question of justice. It also makes economic sense to ensure that women and men, girls and boys, reach their full potential.
I have read with great interest the report of the UN Secretary-General on the state of play with regard to the situation of women and girls in the world. It is a good, nuanced report based on 167 national reviews and regional review meetings, which took place in various regions across the globe.
While we have seen some progress, we have not advanced as much as we wanted to. Female labour market participation was increasing, but has stagnated over the last five years. Women still carry out a disproportionate share of household work and care. Women's and girls' voices and participation are far from being on an equal footing to those of boys and men.
Women are 25% more likely to live in poverty. Gender stereotypes still determine the paths of women and girls. Gender-based violence is a recurrent issue. Next to this, new issues are emerging like climate-change and digital technologies. We must turn these changes into opportunities. Digitalisation can open doors for women and girls, but can also be misused to silence them.
As the UN Secretary-General highlighted, gender-equality and empowerment of women and girls is crucial to an economically uncertain world with increasing polarisation, environmental threats and conflict. The unequal distribution of power, resources and opportunities perpetuates gender-inequalities.
I welcome very much the input of the European Parliament, including your forthcoming resolution on this topic, and the Parliament's presence during this CSW.
Gender-equality is a priority for the European Commission, both in our internal and external relations and actions. The Commission will present a new gender-equality strategy in March, and still in 2020, launch the third action plan on gender-equality and women's empowerment in external relations.
A stronger, ambitious and holistic approach will address the issues identified globally and for the EU. Our approach will be based on gender-mainstreaming in all policy areas. The task force on equality, with members drawn from all the Commission's services and the European External Action Service, will be fundamental for this.
Next to this, targeted actions on specific gender-equality issues will continue. We will continue to tackle the gender pay-gap and introduce pay transparency measures. We will continue to develop measures to end gender-based violence. We will continue to push for gender-balanced company boards.
I am looking forward to hearing your views and discussing these ideas. Thank you again for putting the CSW on today's agenda.

(Applause)


Frances Fitzgerald,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, I want to welcome the three speeches that we have just heard from Evelyn Regner earlier. These are actually a very clear outline of the priorities that we should be presenting at the UN Conference. The language is right, the words are right, and we can do our best to bring forward what you've heard here today. The priorities that people across this Parliament have outlined: these are the priorities, clearly, that we have to bring to the UN.
What's very clear is that progress has been made, but there are the most extraordinarily serious issues still affecting women around the world. We also have to note that, after the Nairobi Conference on Population and Development, the USA did not sign the statement or the priorities at the end of that conference, and that is very serious. This is, as you said, the 25th anniversary of Hillary Clinton's famous line: ‘women's rights are human rights, and human rights are women's rights’. Hard to believe that it actually needed to be said, but it did, and it accelerated change.
There is much more to do. It is a very important year. It's about acceleration; it's about implementation; it's about targets, and it's also about monitoring. It's also about budgets, and that has to be a particularly important element of the debates in the UN this year. Also, of course, we do have to watch out for attitudes that are still far too prevalent, where we see everyday sexism. That's very important to address as well, in terms of the perception of women, the reporting on women, and so on. That is critical.
Just a final word on quotas: we've heard some criticism of them here today. What does the UN say about quotas? They say they are a temporary, necessary measure. Let's face it, quotas have been operating on the side of men for quite a long time.

Heléne Fritzon,
för S&D-gruppen. – Fru talman, kommissionär Dalli! Förra gången som jag var i New York på FN:s kvinnokommission var det skamligt att EU saknade en jämställdhetsstrategi. Denna gång kan vi som åker dit för att representera parlamentet se till att EU tar ledartröjan globalt när kommissionär Dalli nu kommer att presentera en strategi.
               

                  Att världens kvinnor samlas i FN-skrapan har faktiskt betydelse. Kvinnor bidrar till konfliktlösning och fredsbyggande. Kvinnor främjar en hållbar utveckling, och jag ser fram emot arbetet i kvinnokommissionen. Jag vill driva på för kvinnors rätt till sin egen försörjning, utbildning och jobb. Jag vill ta fajten mot våldet mot kvinnor och flickor och få bort löneklyftan. Vi måste också ha ett jämställdhetsperspektiv i klimatomställningen. Detta är viktigt inte bara för alla kvinnor, alla barn och unga, utan också för alla män.
               

Samira Rafaela,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, women's rights are human rights, and I would love to live in a world where I would not need to stress that women's rights are human rights. Men and women, the previous and the current generation, have worked hard to reach a point where we can advance on these issues. We should not take these rights for granted, and we should not take our democratic European society for granted. Women's rights continue to be heavily challenged, and there are recent trends of an organised backlash against women. We must not yield, but evermore show our commitment and use our voices to create a more social Europe – an inclusive Europe where all have the same equal opportunities, including women.
This motion for a resolution is our commitment to the visionary worldwide agenda of the United Nations for the empowerment of women. As representatives of our European citizens, we know that it is important to put into action our commitment for Agenda 2030. Women need to be on board for everything, gender equality is necessary for sustainable development, and 2020 is the year for the rapid realisation of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. I welcome the Gender-Equality Strategy by Commissioner Dalli, which is due this March.
On 8 March, the world celebrates the advancement of women's rights, but also we review all that still needs to be done. For example, improving the conditions for women in the labour market. The persistent and increasing burden of poverty on women cannot continue, and I urge Members and the Commission to take every single step to make sure women can reach their full potential and have equal access to the labour market and the economic opportunities our European society provides.
Let us continue to use our voices and acknowledge the voice of all women everywhere. Our commitment to participate at the 64th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women shows that we take this seriously.

Christine Anderson,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. Frau Präsidentin! Das EU-Parlament spricht jetzt von seinen Prioritäten für die Tagung der Kommission der Vereinten Nationen für die Rechtsstellung der Frau und will zu der Erkenntnis gelangt sein, dass die Rechte von Frauen nur dadurch gestärkt werden könnten, wenn Abtreibungen endlich als nachträgliches Verhütungsmittel akzeptiert werden; dass Frauen ihre Möglichkeiten nur ausschöpfen können, wenn umfassende LGBTI-Rechte garantiert sind; dass die finanzielle Unabhängigkeit von Frauen nur zu gewährleisten ist, wenn sie darauf verzichten, ihr Leben mit einem Partner zu teilen; dass Frauen nur mittels gesetzlich festgelegter Quoten in Führungspositionen gelangen könnten. Mein Gott – wie anmaßend, lächerlich und sexistisch ist es, zu behaupten, die Frauen kämen ohne die EU nicht vorwärts im Leben!
               

                  Wer die Rechte von Frauen stärken will, der sollte durch einen effizienten Grenzschutz dafür sorgen, dass Frauen nicht zum Freiwild importierter Männergruppen in Europa werden. Eine der größten Errungenschaften einer zivilisierten Gesellschaft besteht in der Befriedung des öffentlichen Raums, und das hatten wir in Europa weitgehend realisiert, und nun opfern wir diese Errungenschaften auf dem Altar von Diversität, Toleranz und Humanität und bezeichnen es gar noch höhnisch als Kulturbereicherung. Als Frau genieße ich in Europa – ebenso wie jeder Mann – Freizügigkeit. Bevor wir also hier in Entschließungen lächerliche Quotenregelungen fordern und damit völlig irrelevante Nebenkriegsschauplätze eröffnen, frage ich: Was unternimmt das EU-Parlament, um uns Frauen vor angeblich Schutzsuchenden zu schützen?
               

PŘEDSEDNICTVÍ: MARCEL KOLAJA


místopředseda


Monika Vana,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Was diese Debatte heute ganz deutlich zeigt, ist, wofür wir uns gemeinsam als Europäisches Parlament, Kommission und Rat vehement im Rahmen der UN mit starker und geeinter Stimme einsetzen müssen, und das ist der Kampf gegen den Backlash, das ist der Kampf gegen die Lächerlichmachung des Kampfes um Gleichstellung, und das ist der Kampf für internationale Gleichstellung für Frauen in allen Bereichen. Die Peking-Erklärung ist der weltweit umfassendste politische Rahmen zur Verwirklichung der Gleichstellung, und 25 Jahre später haben wir als Europäerinnen die Verpflichtung, uns deutlich als globale Pionierinnen im Multilateralismus hervorzuheben und vereint aufzutreten. Wir Europaabgeordnete beziehen klar Stellung mit einer Entschließung, die wir morgen verabschieden werden, und ich hoffe, auch der Rat – und der Rat ist aufgefordert, hier auch klar Stellung zu beziehen und sich zur Aktionsplattform von Peking zu bekennen und die EU als Vorreiterin zur Gleichstellung zu positionieren.
                  

Jadwiga Wiśniewska,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Komisja Praw Kobiet i Równouprawnienia dyskryminuje mniejsze grupy polityczne i odbiera im prawo reprezentowania wyborców na corocznej konferencji Komisji ds. Statusu Kobiet w Nowym Jorku. Naprawdę dobrze się państwo z tym czujecie? Dlatego też na konferencji nie wybrzmi głos kobiet konserwatywnych, które chcą łączyć życie zawodowe z rodzinnym. Kobiet, które małżeństwa i macierzyństwa nie traktują jak przysłowiowej kuli u nogi, która przeszkadza w karierze zawodowej. Nie wybrzmi też głos mówiący o tym, że życie trzeba chronić, że życie jest cudem i że jest ono najwyższą wartością. Za to bardzo mocny będzie głos lewicowo-liberalnych środowisk dążących do uznania aborcji za prawo człowieka i metodę planowania rodziny, jak również dążących do seksualizacji dzieci i manipulowania płciowością. Dlatego wzywam do opamiętania się. Proszę zagłosować zatem za rezolucją, która bez niepotrzebnej ideologii wyraża troskę o przyszłość kobiet. To rezolucja EKR-u.
                  

Eugenia Rodríguez Palop,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor presidente, tampoco el Grupo GUE/NGL estará representado.
                  

                     Señores y señoras del Consejo, presentamos una propuesta de Resolución en la que les hacemos una serie de recomendaciones que consideramos prioritarias para las mujeres en la Unión Europea. Pero lo cierto es que, hasta ahora, no se les ha visto muy animados con la perspectiva de género y el feminismo. El Consejo es el órgano en el que se han frenado las iniciativas más importantes para las mujeres.
                  

                     Por ejemplo, resulta que tenemos una Directiva antidiscriminación que lleva diez años bloqueada en el Consejo. ¿Piensan ustedes hacer algo? El EIGE nos dijo hace poco que caminábamos hacia la igualdad a paso de tortuga y de manera claramente desigual.
                  

                     Resulta también que la Unión Europea no ha ratificado el Convenio de Estambul gracias al boicot de una serie de Estados en el Consejo -el eje de Visegrado y su círculo de influencia y connivencia- y gracias a los mismos lobbies religiosos que han apoyado las campañas antielección en todas las partes del mundo. Unos y otros empeñados en tratar a las mujeres como incubadoras y máquinas reproductoras, esclavas de sus parejas o de sus gobiernos.
                  

                     Son ellos los que han conseguido que en la Unión no se legisle sobre derechos sexuales y reproductivos, aunque este Parlamento reconoció que la denegación de servicios de salud sexual y reproductiva y derechos afines es una forma de violencia contra las mujeres, en línea, por cierto, con el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos.
                  

                     Son ellos los que quieren eliminar la educación en igualdad en las escuelas, y los que criminalizan al colectivo LGTBIQ. No olvidemos que Polonia, Bulgaria, Hungría y Eslovaquia lideran hoy una brutal resistencia contra la llamada ‘ideología de género’.
                  

                     La Unión Europea tampoco ha adoptado una Directiva sobre la violencia de género, porque para algunos Estados y grupos políticos que se sientan en este Pleno esa violencia ni siquiera existe. Hace solo unos meses este Parlamento reconocía que asistimos a una ofensiva visible y organizada a escala mundial y europea contra la igualdad de género y los derechos de las mujeres.
                  

                     El Consejo tendrá que elegir. Espero que elija bien.
                  

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Wniosek z najnowszego raportu przygotowanego przez międzynarodową organizację humanitarną Oxfam na ostatni szczyt w Davos jest jednoznaczny: światowa gospodarka opiera się w dużej mierze na wyzysku kobiet. Okazuje się, że inwestowanie w równość coraz mniej się opłaca, a to dlatego że kobiety i dziewczęta na świecie wykonują ponad 3/4 nieodpłatnej pracy opiekuńczej, czyli 12,5 miliarda darmowych roboczogodzin.
                  

                     Dlatego równość wynagrodzeń, likwidacja barier dla kobiet niepełnosprawnych, przemoc, aktywizacja zawodowa kobiet po 50. roku życia, zmniejszający się udział kobiet w rynku pracy, ubóstwo kobiet, dostęp do rynku pracy i aktywizacja kobiet z terenów wiejskich i oddalonych, wpływ zmian klimatu na ubóstwo, zdrowie fizyczne i psychiczne kobiet to tematy, które na pewno będą poruszane na 64. sesji ONZ, i mam nadzieję, że uda nam się znaleźć skuteczne rozwiązania, a także przyjąć perspektywiczne zobowiązania w deklaracji politycznej.
                  

Maria Manuel Leitão Marques (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, a igualdade de género é uma questão de poder e o poder nunca foi dado, foi sempre conquistado. ‘Serei claro: não se trata de fazer um favor às mulheres. A igualdade de género tem a ver com direitos humanos e é do interesse de todos: homens e mulheres.’ Palavras sábias do Secretário-Geral das Nações Unidas. Cito um homem que sempre foi um militante desta causa, não apenas agora na posição que ocupa.
                  

                     Que prioridades devemos levar às Nações Unidas, vinte cinco anos depois de Pequim?
                  

                     Em primeiro lugar, a luta pelas mulheres que não têm direitos, que não têm direito a estudar, que não têm direito a casar, que não têm direito à sua vida sexual, que não têm direito à sua vida profissional. Essas são aquelas que estão sempre à frente das nossas prioridades.
                  

                     Depois, a prioridade da luta contra a violência, também a nova violência, que ocorre através da Internet e que, mais uma vez, afeta sobretudo mulheres e raparigas.
                  

                     E, depois, as outras desigualdades: aquelas que serão desigualdades no futuro se não as prevenirmos agora, como aquelas que se relacionam com o desequilíbrio das profissões tecnológicas. Creio que temos muito trabalho a fazer. Com o mundo todo, unidos seremos mais fortes.
                  

Chrysoula Zacharopoulou (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, Madame la Ministre, comme vous le savez, le droit à la santé sexuelle et reproductive est la condition fondamentale pour atteindre l'égalité. Malheureusement, ces dernières années, on constate un recul et une remise en cause de ce droit dans le monde entier – et souvent, avec le soutien de grandes nations comme les États-Unis. L'Union européenne perd quant à elle sa crédibilité quand elle ne parle pas d'une seule et même voix. Le sommet de Nairobi pour la conférence des Nations unies sur la population et le développement, en novembre, en est un exemple. J'ai trouvé choquant, inacceptable, que des États membres, la Pologne et la Hongrie, se rangent du côté de ceux qui remettent en cause les droits des femmes.
                  

                     Madame la Commissaire, Madame la Ministre, la nouvelle génération n'a jamais été aussi consciente des inégalités entre les femmes et les hommes. Partout dans le monde, elle fait entendre sa voix: au Chili, en Argentine, au Mexique, en Espagne, en France, en Belgique… Car cette génération ne supporte plus cette injustice. C'est celle-là qu'on appelle la ‘génération égalité’. Alors, que le 25e anniversaire de la déclaration de Pékin soit leur moment! Écoutons ces filles et ces garçons, ces femmes et ces hommes du monde entier qui exigent une société de dignité, une société de justice, une société d'égalité. C'est cela, l'Europe et ses valeurs. C'est pour eux que nous, responsables politiques, nous nous engageons.
                  

Annika Bruna (ID). – Monsieur le Président, il s'agit de définir les priorités de l'Union européenne en matière de condition de la femme.
                  

                     Notre délégation défendra la lutte contre les écarts salariaux à travail égal, contre les cyberviolences, les mariages forcés et les mutilations génitales. Nous plaiderons aussi pour la reconnaissance du travail des mères au foyer et du travail domestique. Évidemment, nous ne voterons pas votre résolution caricaturale, qui remet en cause la souveraineté des États et entend imposer la convention d'Istanbul.
                  

                     Je profite de cette intervention pour pointer un sujet capital, qui est pour vous tabou: le poids de l'islam radical dans les atteintes aux droits des femmes dans le monde, mais aussi en Europe. En France, une jeune fille nommée Mila, harcelée dans son lycée, a critiqué vertement l'islam sur les réseaux sociaux. Elle a reçu plusieurs centaines de milliers de messages agressifs, dont des menaces de mort et de viol. Elle n'a pas pu réintégrer son lycée, sa sécurité n'y étant pas assurée, et a été placée sous protection policière. Après trois semaines de déscolarisation, elle a dû changer d'établissement.
                  

                     Cette jeune fille symbolise le quotidien de milliers de femmes en Europe qui subissent les influences de l'islam radical, propagé par des populations non assimilées. Les féministes, souvent si braillardes, ont été totalement silencieuses sur ce sujet, visiblement tabou pour elles. Notre groupe a demandé un débat sur ce thème lors de cette plénière, mais cela a été refusé. Pourtant, il est grand temps que vous ouvriez les yeux sur le rôle néfaste de l'immigration et de l'islam radical dans les conditions de vie des femmes en Europe.
                  

Diana Riba i Giner (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, señora ministra, vivimos un momento en el cual muchos derechos que dábamos por garantizados ahora vuelven a ponerse en tela de juicio. Una ola de movimientos reaccionarios, a menudo teñidos con tintes xenófobos y misóginos, intenta frenar cualquier avance hacia una sociedad más justa e igualitaria, y esto nos afecta especialmente a nosotras, las mujeres.
                  

                     El sexagésimo cuarto período de sesiones de la Comisión de la Condición Jurídica y Social de la Mujer de las Naciones Unidas es una magnífica oportunidad para que Europa abandere a escala internacional la lucha por los derechos de las mujeres y exija un compromiso férreo con la Plataforma de Acción de Beijing.
                  

                     A día de hoy, muchas de las metas que estableció esta Plataforma siguen siendo solo esto —metas—. Europa debe ser una herramienta útil al mundo que ayude a frenar el retroceso global en materia de derechos de las mujeres y, en este sentido, se puede hacer más y mejor. La ratificación del Convenio de Estambul o la aprobación de la Directiva sobre las cuotas en los consejos de administración siguen encalladas en los Consejos. Les pedimos valentía, determinación y celeridad, y hagamos que las metas sean finalmente logros.
                  

Beata Mazurek (ECR). – Choć minęło 25 lat od Światowej Konferencji w sprawie kobiet, która odbyła się w Pekinie, to ta debata uświadamia nam, że jest jeszcze wiele do zrobienia w kwestii ochrony i wzmocnienia roli kobiet w różnych obszarach. Musimy odpowiedzieć sobie na pytanie, co już udało się zrobić, i jakie kroki należy podjąć, by kobiety na całym świecie przestały borykać się z takimi problemami jak przemoc, szeroko pojęte nierówności ekonomiczne, czy choćby dyskryminacja kobiety jako matki w środowisku zatrudnienia.
                  

                     Może Parlament Europejski powinien wziąć przykład z Polski, w której to różnice w wynagrodzeniach kobiet i mężczyzn są jednymi z najniższych w Europie, a niski wskaźnik przemocy wobec kobiet plasuje Polskę w czołówce najbezpieczniejszych krajów Starego Kontynentu. Jednocześnie mówimy stanowcze ‘nie’ dla postulatów niektórych środowisk, by aborcja była jedną z metod planowania rodziny, oraz by Unia Europejska finansowała organizacje zaangażowane w jej promowanie. Nasuwa się pytanie, co tak naprawdę zamierza zrobić Parlament Europejski w kwestii pełnego poszanowania praw kobiet i równouprawnienia płci. Konkrety, harmonogram działań, jakie są plany na przyszłość?
                  

Cindy Franssen (PPE). – Voorzitter, gendergelijkheid stopt natuurlijk niet bij de grenzen van de Europese Unie. 25 jaar na Peking, naar aanleiding van de vierde Wereldvrouwenconferentie, krijgen vrouwen en meisjes wereldwijd nog steeds niet de kansen die zij verdienen. Gendergelijkheid is meer dan enkel maar strijden voor pariteit in raden van bestuur of voor het doorbreken van het glazen plafond. Het veronderstelt internationale solidariteit met alle vrouwen, uit het noorden, het oosten, het zuiden en het westen.
                  

                     De volgende bijeenkomst in New York dwingt ons tot bijzondere aandacht en politieke actie voor vrouwen in kwetsbare posities, en ik wil kwetsbaar echt wel juist vertaald zien. Dat gaat over vrouwen in armoede, vrouwen als slachtoffers van oorlogsgeweld, uitbuiting van huishoudelijk personeel.
                  

                     Wij moeten als Europese Unie het voortouw nemen en met een krachtige en eenduidige stem spreken, het liefst met een megagrote parlofoon. Ik sluit graag af met een citaat van Michelle Obama:
                  

                     To echo Michelle Obama, when you have worked hard and walked through that doorway of opportunity, you reach back and give other women the same chances that helped you succeed.
                  

Alessandra Moretti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono passati 25 anni dalla Dichiarazione della Piattaforma d'azione di Pechino, ma la discriminazione di genere è ancora purtroppo rimasta. Ancora oggi si chiede com'era vestita una donna che ha subito uno stupro. Ci sono due paesi all'interno dell'Unione europea che non consentono di abortire e Stati membri che non hanno ancora ratificato la Convenzione di Istanbul. In Europa le donne guadagnano il 16 % in meno dei colleghi uomini e viene considerato normale che sia la donna a sacrificare la carriera per i servizi di cura.
                  

                     Per 25 anni ci si è solo riempiti la bocca di propositi. Oggi, alla vigilia della conferenza dell'ONU, chiedo che l'Europa con un'unica voce ribadisca che non accettiamo più questo immobilismo. I diritti sessuali e riproduttivi delle donne devono essere garantiti ovunque, in particolare l'accesso a metodi contraccettivi, a un aborto sicuro e legale, all'assistenza sanitaria e all'educazione nelle scuole. La parità di genere deve essere messa al centro della sfida al cambiamento climatico, perché saranno le donne a soffrirne l'impatto peggiore. Confido in lei, Commissaria, e confido in una donna che guida la Commissione europea.
                  

Mathilde Androuët (ID). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, à votre féminisme petit-bourgeois, je préfère celui du réel. Que comptez-vous faire, non pas pour améliorer la vie des femmes, mais vraiment pour sauver leur vie? Mutilations génitales, viol, violence, harcèlement. Chaque jour, une nouvelle atrocité est commise contre les femmes.
                  

                     Alors de quoi parlerez-vous devant les Nations unies? De ces fois où vous avez demandé à des responsables d'associations pro-migrants de taire des viols, parce que cela faisait le jeu des populistes? De la police anglaise qui refuse des dépôts de plainte contre les gangs pédophiles indo-pakistanais, par crainte des accusations de racisme? De la prostitution d'adolescentes africaines, roumaines ou albanaises, à cause de votre sacro-sainte liberté de circuler? Des féministes qui condamnent une adolescente menacée de mort en France pour injure à l'islam? Je m'interroge. Irez-vous avouer que vous avez laissé la loi des quartiers devenir la seule loi? Que vous avez abandonné les femmes à leurs bourreaux, juste parce qu'ils étaient et sont encore vos électeurs? Je ne vous demande même plus d'être féministes. Les femmes sont pour vous des variables d'ajustement électoral.
                  

                     Juste une chose donc: rappelez-vous que vous êtes Européens et qu'à ce titre, vous devez retrouver le courage de cette civilisation qui a su faire de femmes des saintes, des reines, des ministres, des impératrices ou des chefs de guerre. Devant les Nations unies, souvenez-vous d'où vous venez.
                  

Izabela-Helena Kloc (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! W swoim pytaniu pani Regner stwierdziła, że 25 lat po przyjęciu deklaracji pekińskiej prawa kobiet wciąż nie są w pełni respektowane. Całkowicie się z tym zgadzam, bowiem są kobiety, które nie mają głosu i nie mogą decydować o swojej przyszłości. Są kobiety, których przetrwanie zależy od decyzji ich matek, biorących pod uwagę tylko swoją własną sytuację społeczno-ekonomiczną. Są wreszcie kobiety, które najpierw są okaleczane fizycznie lub chemicznie, a następnie zabijane bez żadnych konsekwencji dla sprawców. Jeśli są Państwo tym przerażeni i oburzeni, to słusznie, bo de facto miliony nienarodzonych dziewcząt są w wyniku aborcji haniebnie odsuwane właśnie od walki o prawa kobiet. Mają one jednak prawo do życia, do posiadania własnego ciała i do wyboru własnej przyszłości. Tego prawa żaden człowiek nie powinien im odbierać, nawet matka. Ruch na rzecz praw kobiet, który nie broni praw wszystkich kobiet i popiera aborcję, jest czystą hipokryzją. Dość zabijania nienarodzonych dzieci. To po prostu jest barbarzyństwo.
                  

Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Mr President, since the Beijing Declaration women's rights have experienced some progress but quite significant backlash also. We haven't been able to make any significant progress at convention level internationally, not to push women more in politics or other leading positions increase the use of quotas and we know that the funding for women's organisations for sexual and reproductive rights has been decreasing globally. So I wholeheartedly look very happily towards the new Commission and its initiative to have the equality programme and hopefully seek the leadership globally to push women's rights and gender rights on the next level on the ongoing negotiations, including proper metering with the SDGs, including gender budgeting, including gender impact assessment of politics and, of course, including the Istanbul Convention and hopefully with Africa strategy some better funding for the female NGOs.

Mónica Silvana González (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, la declaración de Pekín, 25 años después, sigue siendo el indicador para medir la igualdad de género. Pero seamos realistas, en muchos Estados de las Naciones Unidas no se cumple.
                  

                     Las prioridades de la Unión para este 64.o período de sesiones de la Comisión de la Condición Jurídica y Social de la Mujer de las Naciones Unidas son una buena oportunidad para defender con cosas concretas los derechos sexuales y reproductivos de las mujeres y, en concreto, de las mujeres que viven en Latinoamérica, desde la política exterior de la Unión Europea.
                  

                     La desigualdad en Latinoamérica se ensaña con las mujeres. Más allá de la desigualdad solo en cuanto a las condiciones económicas; en concreto, con los derechos básicos, como la vida, la integridad física, la libertad sexual y la salud reproductiva.
                  

                     Latinoamérica y el Caribe soportan las tasas más altas de abortos clandestinos y de muertes por abortos clandestinos. Seis Estados no lo permiten en ninguna condición y veintiuno solo lo hacen si hay riesgo de vida para las mujeres gestantes.
                  

                     La Unión Europea debe seguir apoyando a las organizaciones que defienden un aborto seguro, libre y gratuito. Los pañuelos verdes de la Argentina son una movilización internacional. Al grito de educación para decidir, anticoncepción para no abortar y aborto… (el presidente retira la palabra a la oradora).


Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – Señor presidente, celebramos el vigésimo quinto aniversario de la Cuarta Conferencia Mundial sobre la Mujer, que se celebró en el año 1995 en Pekín. Fue un punto y aparte. Y fue la agenda más visionaria por la igualdad de la mujer a nivel mundial.
                  

                     Los cambios han sido desesperadamente lentos y tenemos que ahora, en las Naciones Unidas —este marzo—, hacer evaluación de esta Conferencia. Han sido lentos porque todavía hay brecha salarial —lo hemos dicho—, brecha en las pensiones, empleo de baja calidad y poco empleo para las mujeres, dificultades en la conciliación, pocas mujeres en los poderes de decisión, violencia de género y un largo etcétera.
                  

                     Por eso tenemos que mantener en las Naciones Unidas, en marzo, una posición común. Tenemos que ser ambiciosos. El año 2020 va a ser un año decisivo. Todos tenemos responsabilidad —no podemos dejar a nadie atrás— y todos la tenemos, no solamente la tenemos a nivel colectivo, sino también a nivel individual. Quiero decirles que la sostenibilidad medioambiental es fundamental para el planeta, pero también la sostenibilidad de la dignidad de la mujer, de la justicia y de la igualdad.
                  

Peter Pollák (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, chudobné ženy sú dnes na okraji spoločnosti. Chcem upriamiť pozornosť aj na zlé postavenie veľkého počtu rómskych žien, ktoré čelia nielen sociálno-ekonomickej marginalizácii, ale mnohým formám nerovnakého prístupu ako napríklad v oblasti zdravotnej starostlivosti. Práve kvôli sociálnemu vylúčeniu, nedostatočnému vzdelaniu, otrasným podmienkam, v ktorých žijú, o skúsenostiach so zdravotnou starostlivosťou často mlčia.
                  

                     V mojej krajine na Slovensku mnohé rómske ženy z chudobných osád nezdieľajú spoločné nemocničné izby s ostatnými ženami. Sú umiestňované do oddelených izieb. Veľakrát musia ženy znášať ponižovanie, zanedbanú starostlivosť, či nepríjemný prístup personálu. V minulosti boli mnohé rómske ženy násilne sterilizované, a to bez vlastného súhlasu.
                  

                     Výbor OSN pre ľudské práva požiadal v roku 2016 slovenskú vládu, aby zriadila nezávislý vyšetrovací orgán a zabezpečila nedobrovoľne sterilizovaným ženám odškodnenie. V novembri minulého roka po 15 rokoch od protizákonnej sterilizácie bola odškodnená jedna poškodená. Musíme hovoriť aj o tom, ako sa správajú naše členské štáty k ženám so sociálne znevýhodneného prostredia, a zabezpečiť im dostatočné postavenie a ochranu. Priority pri zasadnutí komisie OSN musia odzrkadľovať aj problémy týchto žien.
                  

Maria da Graça Carvalho (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Ministra, Comissária, a igualdade entre mulheres e homens é um princípio basilar, consagrado no Tratado da União Europeia e na Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais. Este princípio deve integrar todas as políticas da União, bem como a sua ação externa em todo o mundo. É crucial que alcancemos um resultado positivo na próxima sessão da Comissão da Condição da Mulher das Nações Unidas, assumindo um papel de liderança na aplicação dos direitos das mulheres e raparigas e da igualdade de género.
                  

                     Somos o maior doador de ajuda ao desenvolvimento, facto que nos orgulha. Devemos estar também na linha da frente na emancipação das mulheres, no combate à violência e exclusão, promovendo oportunidades de educação, emprego e empreendedorismo feminino.
                  

                     Faço votos para que se alcance um compromisso ambicioso e que as intenções tenham aplicação prática, materializando a Agenda 2030 e os Objetivos de Desenvolvimento do Milénio.
                  

Catch-the-eye procedure


Tudor Ciuhodaru (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisar, vreau ca această nouă strategie să devină o veritabilă revoluție privind drepturile omului, și nu doar la nivel european, și să fie dublată de măsuri concrete și obligatorii. Susțin ca acest demers să fie concretizat într-o directivă europeană și aș cere acest lucru în plen, dar sunt consternat de numărul mic de parlamentari, mai ales bărbați, cred că sub cinci prezenți în acest moment în sală.
                  

                     Soluția sănătoasă, ușor de pus în practică, ar fi adoptarea cetățeniei unice europene, proiectul meu de suflet, care ar prevedea foarte clar că drepturile și obligațiile sunt aceleași pentru toți. Așa că vă solicit azi să susțineți acest demers.
                  

Silvia Sardone (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, qualche mese fa in Iran è stata condannata una donna avvocato che difendeva il diritto delle donne sue connazionali di non portare il velo. È stata condannata a 33 anni di carcere e 148 frustate.
                  

                     Ma episodi altrettanto gravi accadono anche in Europa. A Milano, nella mia città, l'anno scorso, una ragazza di 15 anni è stata picchiata violentemente dai familiari perché non voleva portare il velo; un'altra ragazza incinta è stata presa a calci nel ventre perdendo il proprio bambino perché faceva caldo e non voleva portare il velo. Anche in Francia vi ricorderete l'episodio delle due donne picchiate perché volevano andare in giro con i pantaloncini corti.
                  

                     Allora, dato che il Parlamento europeo si affretta a definire le priorità per 64a sessione dell'ONU per lo stato delle donne, a me piacerebbe che l'Europa smettesse con questa ipocrisia di voltarsi dall'altra parte, non vedendo che evidentemente determinati atteggiamenti sono comunque collegati anche ad una certa cultura e religione.
                  

Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, razina ravnopravnosti žena koja postoji u zapadnom svijetu nažalost nije prisutna i u drugim kulturno-civilizacijskim krugovima. Europska unija ima priliku u okviru globalnih foruma i međunarodnih organizacija poput UN-a istinski promovirati ženska prava i ravnopravnost spolova.
                  

                     U nekim su kulturama žene u tolikoj mjeri drugorazredne da društvo radi veliki pritisak na trudnice da pobace žensku djecu. U tim je kulturama broj muške djece nesrazmjerno visok i to upravo zbog ovakvog razloga. Djevojčicama ne daju priliku ni da se rode i protiv toga se svim silama moramo boriti.
                  

                     Smatram da jedan od glavnih prioriteta Unije na sjednici Komisije UN-a o statusu žena mora biti borba za život od začeća i zaustavljanje grozne prakse abortiranja djevojčica koja je nažalost raširena u pojedinim kulturama.
                  

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Nikolina Brnjac,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, the EU will approach the 64th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women with a high level of ambition. It will, from an early stage, engage with all countries in an open and constructive spirit. Our ultimate goal is the adoption of a consensual concise and action-oriented political declaration. This should reaffirm the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and outcomes of their review conferences. The overall objective of the EU is to reaffirm the full validity of the international acquis on gender equality, the full enjoyment of all human rights by all women and girls, and their environment.
We are all responsible for making things happen. Each EU institution plays a crucial role. I am proud to say that the Council has consistently played an active part in advancing gender equality in Europe and beyond. We look forward to continued cooperation with the European Parliament in the field of gender equality, and I would like to thank you for being so active in keeping this vital topic high on the EU's agenda.

President. – I have received two motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 132(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 13 February 2020.


Written statements (Rule 171)



Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE),
γραπτώς. – Η ισότητα μεταξύ γυναικών και ανδρών αποτελεί θεμελιώδη αρχή της ΕΕ, που κατοχυρώνεται στη Συνθήκη για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και στον Χάρτη των Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων. Κατά συνέπεια, η ενσωμάτωση της διάστασης του φύλου αποτελεί σημαντικό εργαλείο για την ενσωμάτωση αυτής της αρχής σε όλες τις πολιτικές, τα μέτρα και τις δράσεις της ΕΕ, καθώς και στην εξωτερική της διάσταση. Είναι αδιανόητο να εξακολουθούν να υφίστανται οποιουδήποτε είδους διακρίσεις μεταξύ ανδρών και γυναικών. Άλλωστε, η διασφάλιση της ισότητας των δύο φύλων είναι υπόθεση όλων μας και υπόθεση καθημερινή. Ο αγώνας αυτός πρέπει να διεξάγεται σε κάθε επίπεδο μέχρις ότου η ισότητα ανδρών και γυναικών καταστεί πράξη και βίωμα όλων.
                  
19.   Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes
20.   False and Authentic Documents Online (FADO) system (debate)

President. – The next item is the report by Roberta Metsola, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Council Joint Action No 98/700/JHA, Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council (COM(2018)0631 – C8-0150/2019 – 2018/0330B(COD)) (A9-0022/2019).
I remind you that it is possible to request catch-the-eye and blue cards using both the standard registration and the electronic system. Instructions are available at the entrance of the Hemicycle. Please also be reminded that blue-card questions can be raised only after the speeches on behalf of political groups.

Roberta Metsola,
Rapporteur. – It-triq biex wasalna sa hawn kienet waħda twila, imma wasalna. Meta jkun hemm dokumenti li jiġu ffrodati jimminaw is-sigurtá interna fiż-żona Schengen, li hi żona ta' moviment ħieles mingħajr kontrolli fil-fruntieri.
               

                  Din il-liġi l-ġdida tindirizza din il-problema billi tassigura li jkun hemm tisħiħ ta' kooperazzjoni bejn il-pajjiżi membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea flimkien ma' pajjiżi msieħba, biex jieħdu passi dwar l-awtentiċitá jew il-falsitá tad-dokumenti. B'hekk ikun hemm garanzija ta' sigurtá akbar fil-fruntieri esterni u s-sigurtá taċ-ċittadini li aħna nirrappreżentaw.
               

                  Aħna nafu li l-uniku mod kif nistgħu ngawdu l-benefiċċji li ġġib magħha ż-żona Schengen huwa li ċ-ċittadini tagħna jkollhom fiduċja fl-immaniġġjar tal-fruntieri esterni. U din il-liġi hija strumentali u essenzjali f'dan kollu – il-fruntieri, is-sigurtà u l-ġlieda kontra l-kriminalità.
               

                  Il-liġi l-ġdida se tgħin biex jiġu identifikati u jinqabdu dokumenti li jkunu ġew iffalsifikati. Din il-liġi tipprovdi qafas biex dan isir bla ma jkun hemm telf ta' ħin u dan isir bl-assistenza tal-Frontex li tkun responsabbli wkoll mill-qsim tal-informazzjoni mal-pajjiżi kollha parteċipanti li jkunu megħjuna u infurmati kif jistgħu jaqbdu sitwazzjonijiet fejn ikun hemm falsifikazzjoni ta' dokumenti.
               

                  Il-liġi tiċċara r-rwol tal-Frontex fit-twaqqif tal-FADO. Aħna saħħaħna dak li jaqa' taħt din il-liġi sabiex il-FADO tinkludi iżjed informazzjoni milli tagħmel illum.
               

                  Aħna rridu uniformitá u konsistenza fil-livell ta' informazzjoni li l-FADO jkollha dwar il-ġenwinitá, il-falsitá u l-iffrodar tad-dokumenti u biex l-informazzjoni tkun iċċentralizzata.
               

                  Aħna ridna wkoll li l-Frontex ikollha l-flessibilitá neċessarja biex tistabbilixxi u ttejjeb il-FADO. Assigurajna li l-Aġenzija tfassal dokument ġdid dwar miżuri effettivi biex jiġu identifikati metodi ta' ffalsifikar.
               

                  Naturalment għamilna dak kollu li stajna biex id-data personali tkun konformi mal-liġijiet Ewropej. Ir-riżultat għandu jwassal għal protezzjoni akbar u fl-istess waqt ikun hemm garanzija ta' sigurtá aktar stretta.
               

                  Il-FADO hija essenzjali fil-ġlieda kontra l-falsifikazzjoni partikolarment fil-fruntieri esterni. Il-parteċipazzjoni ta' pajjiżi li mhumiex imsieħba fl-Unjoni Ewropea imma li jipparteċipaw fiż-żona Schengen hija wkoll kruċjali għax fl-aħħar mill-aħħar din ikollha impatt pożittiv fuq is-sigurtá tal-fruntieri esterni. Din tista' tidher bħala sistema teknika wisq, imma hija sistema li naħseb naqblu li hija essenzjali biex tikkomplementa r-riforma tal-fruntieri Ewropej u l-ħarsien tal-istess fruntieri.
               

                  F'dawn in-negozjati aħna għamilna l-almu tagħna biex ir-responsabbiltajiet li jaqgħu taħt dan ir-Regolament jitwessgħu. Dan filwaqt li niżżilna r-responsabbiltajiet speċifiċi tal-Aġenzija u assigurajna li l-ipproċessar tad-data personali mill-Aġenzija u l-Istati Membri jkun konformi mal-liġijiet Ewropej.
               

                  Assigurajna wkoll li l-Parlament ikollu sehem akbar fil-FADO. Fl-aħħar nett jiena nixtieq nirringrazzja lill-Kunsill, lill-Presidenzi Finlandiżi u Kroati, kif ukoll lill-kollegi tiegħi minn kull grupp politiku għall-ħidma kostruttiva ħafna li aħna għamilna. Jiena nħares 'il quddiem lejn dan id-dibattitu li se jsir f'din il-plenarja biex imbagħad nasal biex nikkonkludi wara l-intervent ta' kulħadd.
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for this debate. Our citizens consider security one of their top concerns and expect the EU to deliver. Security and freedom go hand in hand, so we need to create a safe space for all Europeans. Being safe is indispensable to live, enjoy rights, work, study and it is also indispensable for the economy. Every person present in Europe has the individual right to be safe. The 2019 Eurobarometer on attitudes towards cybersecurity published recently shows, however, that two thirds of respondents are concerned about falling victim to identity theft. Moreover, a well-functioning Schengen area of free movement requires a common policy on the EU external borders. We need to effectively monitor and control persons crossing the external borders for the benefit of all of us.
The need to strengthen our internal security and our EU external borders has led to the adoption of a variety of recent legislative acts, for example, the European travel and information and authorisation system, the entry-exit system, the regulation of inter-operability between EU information systems and the new European border and Coast Guard regulation.
Today, we have another example, which is the new false and authentic documents online system: a European image database supporting Member States in the recognition of authentic and false documents. I thank both the European Parliament and the Council for your constructive work on this final compromise that ensures real added value. The new false and authentic documents online system is very useful for border guards when performing border checks. It provides information to Member States' authorities on new forgery methods and new genuine documents in circulation. It contains thousands of descriptions of authentic documents, hundreds of descriptions of false documents, covering more than 30 participating countries, and more than 180 third countries' international organisations. It helps to detect attempts at identity theft for purposes of irregular migration. The final political agreement will further improve the functioning of the false and authentic documents online system by transferring its management to the European Border and Coast Guard Agency.
Security is a top concern for citizens. They expect the EU to deliver in this area as every citizen has the right to feel and be protected. The rise of threats posed by organised crime, terrorism and the drug market are poison to our societies. This is why the Commission has announced a new security union strategy for the second quarter of this year. As part of the strategy, on internal security, there will be a focus on three priority areas: organised crime, which would include drugs, firearms, corruption, trafficking in human beings, terrorism and radicalisation, and fighting crimes in a digital age. Strong borders to support the area of free movement, which is emblematic for our Union, will also be a key element of the new pact on migration, as announced in the political guidelines of President von der Leyen. In this respect, the timely implementation of all EU information systems will be a key objective of our comprehensive approach to migration, focusing on both external borders and security, but equally on strong and resilient internal procedures, stepping up the legal pathways and fostering integration into our societies. I thank you again for your support and look forward to this debate.

Емил Радев,
от името на групата PPE. – Г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, измамата с документи сериозно подкопава вътрешната сигурност и Шенгенското пространство като зона без контрол на вътрешните граници. Използването на фалшиви документи от търсещите по-добър живот в Европа чужди граждани е често срещано, а цената на един такъв документ може да достигне до 5-6 хил. евро.
               

                  Документните измами са един от основните подпомагащи фактори за тероризма и организираната престъпност и са свързани както с контрабандата на наркотици, оръжие и откраднати автомобили, така и с трафика на хора и, особено в последните години, с трафика на мигранти. Нерядко получаването на автентични документи за пътуване се базира на фалшиви документи за легитимация. Именно това прави разкриването им толкова трудно.
               

                  В тази връзка, от ключово значение е да се повиши сигурността на документите за пътуване, издадени в Европейския съюз, включително и свързаната с това инфраструктура за управление на самоличността. От друга страна, сътрудничеството между различните органи трябва да надхвърля дейността по правоприлагането, тъй като се изисква установяване на връзка с органите, които издават документи, както и с международни организации, авиокомпании, корабни компании и други.
               

                  Предвид всичко това ви призовавам да подкрепите предложението за интегриране на системата за фалшиви и автентични документи онлайн в Европейската гранична и брегова охрана, като последна стъпка към завършването на нейната реформа.
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, comisaria Dalli, ¿tienen los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea el derecho y la responsabilidad de controlar quién accede al territorio de libre circulación Schengen? La respuesta es sí. ¿Plantea problemas el crecimiento, la multiplicación de documentos falsos y de fraude de identidad en ese espacio de libre circulación? Una vez más, la respuesta es sí. ¿Es ese un peligro para la seguridad? Sí, en la medida en que pueda dar lugar a criminalidad, blanqueo de dinero procedente de negocios ilícitos o incluso terrorismo. ¿Tiene el Parlamento Europeo algo que decir? La respuesta es sí; lo estamos diciendo.
               

                  Estamos dispuestos a apoyar un instrumento que garantice el almacenamiento, el intercambio y la verificación de los documentos falsos, para combatir el fraude, y estamos dispuestos a confiar en la Agencia Europea de la Guardia de Fronteras y Costas, a la que hemos reforzado con el Reglamento que aprobamos en 2019, para que sea la responsable de compartir esa información de manera segura con los Estados miembros, con la Unión Europea, con las relaciones internacionales y, en definitiva, con todas las entidades que pueden ser relevantes para dar cuenta de la identidad verdadera de las personas que disfrutan de libre circulación en el espacio Schengen.
               

                  Nuestra exigencia es siempre que esto sea compatible con el trabajo que hemos hecho para garantizar la confidencialidad de los datos, los derechos fundamentales. En definitiva, los valores fundacionales de la Unión Europea. Pero es un hecho que tenemos que combatir la inseguridad relativa a las personas que circulan en nuestro espacio Schengen con cuantas herramientas tecnológicas estén disponibles y con la garantía jurídica necesaria.
               

                  Y para eso hemos apoyado también la interoperabilidad de todos esos datos, insistiendo siempre en que todo esto se haga con pleno respeto de los derechos fundamentales consagrados en la Carta.
               

Dragoș Tudorache,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, let me start by thanking the rapporteur, Ms Metsola, for her work. As a new Member of this House working on my first legislative file, I very much appreciated her lead.
Now on substance. Verifying the authenticity of travel documents has been turning for quite some time into a pressure point in the work of border guards, because of time constraints, the tremendous increase in the number of travellers in Europe, and the diversity of travel documents that are being used.
Furthermore, the sophistication of forgery techniques has been a constant challenge for our law enforcement officials. The new FADO system has already been in use for some time, serving these needs. What we are now doing, and this is very important, is to bring it from the intergovernmental into the Community method by adding it to the list of instruments entrusted to the EBCGA (European Border and Coast Guard Agency) as part of the enlarged mandates that we decided to give last year.
This means increased accountability towards, and scrutiny by, this House, and higher safeguards in the regime applicable to the data contained therein and the measurement of access rights. The protection of personal data was one of the main issues that we had to deal with during the negotiations of this file, and we made sure that the processing of personal data is limited to what is strictly necessary for the purpose of detecting or investigating document fraud.
We also introduced clear rules on accessing the database, with Member States now having an express obligation to determine which authorities competent in the area of document fraud are to have access to the FADO system and their level of access, and then to notify the Commission and the Agency. The Commission, upon request, will now have to transmit this information to this House.
The negotiated text complements the reform of the EBCGA and will ensure better protection of the Union's external borders and more efficient law enforcement. I therefore encourage my fellow MEPs to support this text.

Annalisa Tardino,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio la collega Metsola per il lavoro svolto. Negli ultimi anni abbiamo assistito ad un aumento notevole delle frodi documentali nello spazio Schengen, realizzate sia attraverso la falsificazione di documenti autentici che l'utilizzo di documenti contraffatti.
               

                  Il presente provvedimento ci consentirà di inquadrare la gestione del sistema relativo ai documenti falsi e autentici online, cosiddetto FADO, all'interno di Frontex, il cui modello di gestione è ormai obsoleto. L'esigenza di difesa e sicurezza che i nostri cittadini ci chiedono ci impone di garantire un livello di allerta contro i documenti falsi molto alto, poiché strumenti criminali idonei ad un riutilizzo per reati diversi, tra cui il riciclaggio di denaro e il terrorismo, ma soprattutto l'immigrazione clandestina. Infatti, documenti contraffatti sono stati spesso usati dai richiedenti asilo che cercavano di entrare in Europa.
               

                  Si tratta di condotte che non possiamo tollerare e che vanno fermate. Diventa quindi essenziale fornire alla polizia, alla guardia di frontiera e alle dogane una banca dati più efficiente, capace di consentire una rapida individuazione dei documenti falsificati e un efficace contrasto di questi fenomeni.
               

                  Per questi motivi supportiamo la proposta, nonostante il nostro manifestato dissenso a che alcuni soggetti privati accedano a FADO anche se limitatamente. Seppur contrari alla riforma del regolamento dell'agenzia Frontex, riteniamo oggi prevalente l'importanza che l'uso di FADO riveste nelle attività di contrasto alle frodi portate avanti dalle autorità degli Stati membri.
               

Saskia Bricmont,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, merci pour la bonne collaboration sur ce dossier. C'est un dossier, effectivement, qui est technique, mais qui appelle quand même quelques considérations plus politiques.
               

                  Tout en comprenant les raisons juridiques du changement de base légale, nous regrettons que Frontex se voie confier la gestion de cette base de données. Nous serons évidemment attentifs à ce que cela n'augure pas d'un renforcement du mandat de l'agence – FADO n'est pas un outil de lutte contre les migrations, mais bien un instrument de lutte contre les faux documents de manière générale. Le compromis global est équilibré, notamment par la mise en place de garanties pour que des tierces parties, les compagnies aériennes des États tiers, puissent accéder à la base de données, mais avec un accès toutefois limité. Si la base de données ne contient que peu de données personnelles, il nous semblait toutefois nécessaire de rendre impossible toute identification via les documents dans FADO, ce qui est désormais le cas.
               

                  Enfin, nous suivrons attentivement la publication des différents actes délégués.
               

Jorge Buxadé Villalba,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señor presidente, cada año se detectan miles de documentos falsos en las fronteras exteriores de la Unión Europea. En el año 2018, según Frontex, fueron detectadas 7 000 personas extranjeras que presentaron documentos falsos de viaje en los puntos de cruce de las fronteras exteriores de la Unión. Diversos métodos de falsificación son utilizados como una auténtica herramienta multiusos en la comisión de delitos —blanqueo de capitales, terrorismo— y una llave de entrada ilegal al territorio de la Unión Europea.
               

                  Este hecho pone de manifiesto la gran importancia que la protección de nuestras fronteras y el control migratorio tienen para la seguridad de nuestros nacionales. El Reglamento, el sistema FADO, favorecerá, aprovechando la experiencia de Frontex, un intercambio rápido y eficiente de información, sin perjuicio además de que los Estados miembros puedan desarrollar mejores sistemas para la detención, prevención y persecución de los delitos.
               

                  En este caso, nuestro grupo, preocupado por esa investigación y persecución de los delitos y por el control riguroso de la entrada legal o ilegal de los extranjeros en nuestro territorio, votará a favor, y animamos al resto de la Cámara a que así lo haga.
               

Sira Rego,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor presidente, conviene recordar que durante los años del fascismo en Europa miles de personas se vieron obligadas a utilizar documentos falsificados para huir del horror.
               

                  Conviene recordar nuestra historia, incluso en debates técnicos —aparentemente técnicos— de este tipo para entender el alcance de nuestras medidas. Y es que esta propuesta de Sistema Documentos Auténticos y Falsos en Red, en el contexto de la Europa fortaleza, condena a miles de personas refugiadas a utilizar estos documentos falsos. Incluso contradice en algún aspecto el Convenio de Ginebra, que reconoce que quienes se ven obligados a huir pueden utilizar documentos falsos.
               

                  Por eso, frente a quienes se empeñan en blindar la Europa fortaleza y convertirla en una agencia de deportación masiva, nosotras seguiremos defendiendo los derechos humanos, defendiendo vías legales y seguras de acceso, defendiendo visados humanitarios en origen y defendiendo que se reconozca la figura de refugiadas climáticas.
               

Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Voorzitter, het vervalsen van documenten is een beproefde methode voor criminelen en terroristen om onder de radar te blijven. We zien dat Frontex er jaarlijks al zo'n 7 000 detecteert en dat aantal neemt in het Schengengebied de laatste tijd alleen maar toe. Dat is zorgelijk, want waar valse documenten gebruikt worden, is onze veiligheid in het geding. Het is dan ook cruciaal dat politiemensen en grenswachten in heel Europa de echtheid van documenten uit andere lidstaten kunnen controleren, dat ze op de hoogte zijn van de technische specificaties van die documenten uit andere landen, en dat valse exemplaren die in omloop zijn in de EU ook echt overal bekend zijn.
               

                  Daar zit dan ook echt een Europese meerwaarde: informatie delen tussen lidstaten, ervoor zorgen dat die informatie altijd geüpdatet is en ervoor zorgen dat die informatie 24/7 bereikbaar en beschikbaar is voor iedereen. Dit nieuwe systeem is dan ook een zeer welkom nieuw systeem en hoognodig, want ook op het gebied van veiligheid staan we gezamenlijk sterker dan alleen. Ik feliciteer dan ook Roberta Metsola voor het uitstekende resultaat, samen met haar collega's, en ik kijk ernaar uit om het systeem daadwerkelijk in de praktijk te zien functioneren.
               

Caterina Chinnici (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la lotta ai documenti falsi e alla loro circolazione nello spazio Schengen si pone ormai come una priorità dell'Unione europea nell'ambito della cooperazione fra le autorità di contrasto e nel contrasto alle organizzazioni criminali.
               

                  Per un'efficace azione di contrasto, però, è necessario un costante scambio di informazioni che non deve avvenire solo fra le autorità dei paesi dell'Unione ma anche, con le necessarie cautele sui dati personali, con le istituzioni europee, i paesi terzie gli enti privati, come le compagnie aeree, che possono contribuire al buon funzionamento del sistema FADO.
               

                  Numerose indagini condotte da Europol hanno infatti dimostrato ripetutamente come i documenti falsi siano spesso i mezzi adoperati dalle organizzazioni criminali per commettere altri ben più gravi reati, come la tratta di esseri umani, il traffico di migranti, o addirittura per la preparazione degli attacchi terroristici.
               

                  Per prevenire la commissione di tali reati, quindi, è necessario, fra le altre misure, un maggiore controllo alle frontiere esterne. Si accoglie pertanto con favore il fatto che il regolamento trasferisca la competenza relativa al sistema di gestione dei documenti falsi e autentici al FADO, dal Consiglio a Frontex, così finalmente completando la riforma legislativa di tale agenzia, riforma alla quale tuttavia dovrà far seguito una corretta e completa implementazione per rendere davvero efficaci le norme finora approvate.
               

                  Io ringrazio quindi la collega Metsola per il lavoro svolto e mi auguro che questo provvedimento possa avere il più ampio consenso in questo Parlamento.
               

Nicola Procaccini (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'accordo in votazione ha una natura tecnica, ma ci sono almeno due connotati politici che vorrei sottolineare. Innanzitutto, la frode documentale rappresenta una grave minaccia per tutti quanti noi e la cooperazione fra gli Stati membri che è insita nel sistema FADO rappresenta un successo evidente, uno di quei casi in cui il concetto di ‘più Europa’ viene declinato in modo funzionale e non strumentale.
               

                  Il secondo dato politico, purtroppo molto meno positivo, è riassumibile nella definizione ‘minimizzazione dei dati’. Le limitazioni introdotte per il recupero dei dati personali rappresentano un'occasione mancata per contrastare efficacemente la criminalità organizzata e l'immigrazione irregolare. Per l'ennesima volta la sinistra in questo Parlamento dimostra il proprio scollamento dalla realtà.
               

Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, paní zpravodajko, chtěl bych Vám poděkovat za skvělou práci.
               

                  V roce 2015 jsem byl na hranicích Řecka a Severní Makedonie. Viděl jsem tam 55 druhů syrských pasů, ale ani jeden z těchto pasů nebyl pas skutečný. A to je důležité zdůraznit, že řada lidí sem přicházela na různé falešné pasy, které se vyráběly všude v Evropě. Proto je tato databáze důležitá, i když se to zdá jako technická norma, je velmi důležité ochránit občany EU před lidmi, kteří sem přicházejí na falešné doklady, a je potřeba také dále spolupracovat v odhalování třeba falešných dokladů, které jsou u automobilů a u dalších technických zařízení.
               

                  Je potřeba, abychom s touto databází i nadále pracovali a aby všechny členské státy opravdu tento nástroj náležitě využívaly a snažily se o to, aby v budoucnu byla Evropa maximálně bezpečná.
               

Patryk Jaki (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Fałszowanie dokumentów jest często pierwszym etapem do tworzenia zorganizowanej przestępczości na terenie Unii Europejskiej: prania brudnych pieniędzy, działalności terrorystycznej i innych nowoczesnych odmian działalności przestępczej, również mafijnej. Dlatego to jest bardzo dobry ruch, ruch w dobrym kierunku, aby stworzyć spójny system, zunifikować swoją wiedzę i doświadczenie, aby walczyć z tego typu praktykami. Dlatego należy z przychylnością patrzeć na program FADO.
               

                  Jednocześnie cieszę się, że tym narzędziem będzie dysponował Frontex, który ma bardzo pozytywne i dobre doświadczenia, jeżeli chodzi o bezpieczeństwo całej Unii Europejskiej. Jeżeli Unia Europejska chce być silna i skutecznie konkurować na świecie, musi sobie poradzić z tymi nowymi zagrożeniami, również zagrożeniami terrorystycznymi i zorganizowaną przestępczością.
               

                  Na sam koniec trzeba rzeczywiście podziękować sprawozdawczyni, pani Metsoli, za ciężką pracę nad tym dokumentem.
               

Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kao što smo danas čuli, pitanje sigurnosti je danas jedno od najvažnijih pitanja za građane Europske unije, a kao što znamo, mnoge su prijetnje koje tu postoje, a koje se sastoje od terorizma, organiziranog kriminala i ostalih nezakonitih radnji.
               

                  U tom smislu upravo krivotvorenje dokumenata predstavlja izuzetnu opasnost jer ono omogućava ljudima za koje uopće ne znamo tko su i koji im je identitet da uđu na teritorij Europske unije, a koji mogu biti teroristi, kriminalci ili se baviti sličnim nedopuštenim stvarima. Dakle, ovaj sustav je dobar, omogućava razmjenu informacija o oglednim primjercima isprava i poznatim metodama krivotvorenja između tijela država članica i upravo predstavlja jedan od odgovora na ovo pitanje ugroženosti sigurnosti koja je europskim građanima izuzetno bitna.
               

                  Dakle, podržavam uvođenje i stvaranje ovakve baze podataka, podržavam jačanje sigurnosti schengenskog prostora u koji moja država će nadam se uskoro ući, zahvaljujem kolegici Mezzoli na velikom poslu koji je napravila vezano uz ovo i pozivam da nastavimo raditi na jačanju sigurnosti građana Europske unije.
               

Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, čestitam na početku kolegici Metsoli na odlično odrađenom poslu, pozdrav i gospođi Dalli. Prema podacima Frontexa, kolegice i kolege, tijekom 2019. godine zabilježeno je gotovo 14 200 ilegalnih prelazaka granice na zapadnobalkanskoj ruti na kojoj se nalazi i Republika Hrvatska koja je u FADO sustavu od 2014. Godine 2018. hrvatska granična policija otkrila je 236 krivotvorenih isprava i 60 tuđih isprava, što je povećanje od gotovo 40 % u odnosu na godinu dana ranije.
               

                  Metode izrade krivotvorenih dokumenata sve su sofisticiranije te je potrebna razmjena visokokvalitetnih informacija kako bi se ona otkrila. Pojačan pritisak nezakonitih migracija na vanjskim granicama Europske unije zahtijeva koordinirano i pojačano djelovanje svih snaga uz primjenu suvremene tehničke opreme te razmjenu podataka koje države članice prikupljaju poštujući ljudska prava. Poseban naglasak potrebno je staviti na suradnju među državama članicama.
               

                  Na kraju želim naglasiti da je jedan od prioriteta hrvatskog predsjedanja Europa koja štiti, ključna je riječ sigurnost. Nemojmo dozvoliti da se njome trguje.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamna comisar, sigur că e un subiect foarte important și este bine că avem aici un raport legat de sistemul FADO. Cine își falsifică actele și cine face uzurpare de identitate? Nici într-un caz o persoană care are bune intenții, da? Deci de la bun început cei care falsifică documente vin cu intenția de a face ceva rău, într-un anumit stat, ne putem gândi la criminalitate, terorism.
               

                  Evident că sistemul trebuie îmbunătățit și, așa cum se spunea aici, cu cât sunt mai sofisticate mijloacele prin care pot fi falsificate documentele, cu atât mai mult noi trebuie să venim cu măsuri, cu un sistem de contracarare a acestor falsificări. Și da, miile de persoane care au trecut la graniță cu documente falsificate ne îngrijorează.
               

                  Sigur, țara mea nu este încă în Schengen, sper să fie, însă vorbim aici de toată piața Uniunii Europene, nu numai de zona Schengen, și cred că securitatea cetățenilor, a tuturor cetățenilor europeni, indiferent în ce țară trăiesc, trebuie să o asigurăm noi prin mijloace de protecție – Frontex, sistemul FADO sau alte mijloace prin care putem să descoperim aceste falsuri și să asigurăm securitatea cetățenilor.
               

Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Bardzo popieram ten projekt, który został zaprezentowany. Dziękuję pani sprawozdawczyni za wielką pracę. Uważam, że bezpieczeństwo jest pierwszym wspólnym interesem całej Europy. Także ważne jest to, że poprzez popieranie FADO wzmacniamy Frontex – niezwykle ważną agencję, która ma pracować – coraz lepiej – na rzecz bezpieczeństwa całej Europy.
               

                  Mamy bardzo wiele przykrych doświadczeń, jeśli chodzi o lekceważenie spraw związanych z bezpieczeństwem. W tym przypadku mogę powiedzieć, że – idąc śladem Polski – Unia Europejska buduje swoje bezpieczeństwo. Polska jest bezpiecznym krajem, Europa musi być bezpiecznym miejscem do życia, a ten projekt dobrze i doskonale to wzmacnia.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank Ms Metsola for her work and thank all the honourable Members for this debate.
As I mentioned, the False and Authentic Documents Online (FADO) system will help maintain a high level of security within the Union and strengthen controls at our external borders.
The final political agreement on the Commission proposal provides significant improvements to the current functioning of the system and contributes to the fight against document and identity fraud. It also provides, as mentioned by several honourable Members, robust data protection and fundamental rights safeguards.
In the light of our debate, I look forward to a positive vote on the final compromise.

Roberta Metsola,
Rapporteur. – Segwejt b'attenzjoni l-interventi li saru u nirringrazzja l-appoġġ, nista' ngħid, unanimu f'din il-Kamra, għal din il-liġi. Naħseb li huwa importanti li nisħqu għal darb'oħra dwar xiex qed nitkellmu hawnhekk.
               

                  Il-FADO hija sistema li ġiet maħluqa biex tagħti appoġġ lill-membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea biex ikun hemm qsim ta' informazzjoni mingħajr dewmien ta' dokumenti ġenwini, [dawk] iffalsifikati jew addirittura mbagħbsa.
               

                  L-użu ta' dokumenti ffalsifikati fiż-żona Schengen żdied, kif qalu l-kollegi tiegħi, b'mod konsiderevoli matul is-snin, u speċjalment fl-aħħar snin u għalhekk huwa essenzjali li nieħdu azzjoni. Il-mod kif jiġu ffalsifikati qed jinbidel u għaldaqstant irridu nkunu dejjem pass qabel min għandu intenzjonijiet ħżiena. U b'hekk inkunu nistgħu nassiguraw il-protezzjoni aħjar tal-fruntieri esterni tal-Unjoni Ewropea, inħarsu l-moviment sħiħ tal-persuni, li huwa punt, per prinċipju, fundamentali li għandna u niffaċilitaw il-moviment tan-nies bejn il-fruntieri li jkunu qed iġorru fuqhom dokument ta' identità, vjaġġar jew residenza valida.
               

                  Dan jgħin lill-awtoritajiet biex jidentifikaw dokumenti li huma ffalsifikati b'għodod li jeħtieġu u li ilhom jitolbu sabiex sempliċiment ikunu jistgħu jagħmlu xogħolhom u dan kollu jkollu effett pożittiv li jiġu protetti d-drittijiet tal-persuni li l-identità tagħhom tkun qed sfortunatament tiġi użata miċ-ċrieki kriminali, naturalment mingħajr ma jkunu jafu li qed isir abbuż mill-identità tagħhom.
               

                  Nixtieq nirrispondi wkoll għal intervent partikolari mill-kollegi tiegħi, minn tal-Partit tal-Ħodor; irnexxielna nsibu l-bilanċ bejn il-protezzjoni tad-drittijiet fundamentali u s-sigurtà. Dak li għamilna u ddiskutejna mhuwiex il-bidu u t-tmiem, fejn jidħlu l-ġlieda kontra l-kriminalità, imma dak li qed nagħmlu huma elementi essenzjali meta jiġu magħquda ma' miżuri oħra.
               

                  Jiena, Sur President, nagħlaq dan id-dibattitu billi nappella biex għada ningħaqdu f'din il-Kamra b'appoġġ u nivvutaw favur din il-liġi.
               

President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 13 February 2020.


Written statements (Rule 171)



Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR),
na piśmie. – System FADO to bardzo istotne narzędzie wspierające walkę z nielegalną migracją i wykorzystywaniem fałszywych dokumentów. Jest to internetowy system UE przeznaczony do archiwizacji obrazów, utworzony w celu wspierania szybkiego udostępniania między państwami członkowskimi UE obrazów autentycznych, fałszywych i podrobionych dokumentów.
               

                  Świat przestępczy wykorzystuje dziś coraz nowocześniejsze metody fałszowania dokumentów, a walka z tym procederem stanowi ogromne wyzwanie dla szeregu służb odpowiedzialnych za nasze wspólne bezpieczeństwo. Dlatego system FADO przyczynia się do utrzymania wysokiego poziomu bezpieczeństwa w Unii, ponieważ pomaga policji, straży granicznej, organom celnym i innym organom ścigania w państwach członkowskich w walce z przestępstwami przeciwko wiarygodności dokumentów. Z tego też względu system FADO stanowi ważne narzędzie stosowania dorobku Schengen.
               

                  Wzywamy zatem Komisję do jak najszybszego sfinalizowania prac nad tym systemem, gdyż stanowi on ważne narzędzie w walce z przestępstwami przeciwko wiarygodności dokumentów, w szczególności na granicach zewnętrznych UE, co stanowi ważny element wzmocnienia kontroli granicznej i walki z nielegalną migracją.
               

Ondřej Kovařík (Renew),
in writing. – I will support the Parliament's legislative resolution on the false and authentic documents online system (FADO) because it is outdated and needs to be adjusted for the new TFEU institutional environment. The regulation that is to be adopted repeals the joint action formerly establishing the FADO, and sets up new legal basis for the updated FADO system with information on authentic documents issued by the EU, the Member States and also third parties, as well information on the false versions of such documents. I believe this will improve our fight against document and identity fraud by working together and sharing information between the relevant national authorities and with other actors as well as with the general public.
21.   State of play of the EU's fight against money laundering, in light of the Luanda Leaks (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on the state of play of the EU's fight against money laundering, in light of the Luanda Leaks (2020/2562(RSP)).
I remind you that it is possible to request catch-the-eye and blue cards using both the standard registration and the electronic system. Instructions are available at the entrance of the Hemicycle. Please be reminded that blue-card questions can be raised only after the speeches on behalf of the political groups.

Nikolina Brnjac,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, thank you for inviting the Presidency to contribute to this debate.
Let me start by assuring you that the Council, like the Parliament and the Commission, is fully committed to the fight against money laundering and terrorism financing. Together, we have made substantial progress in this area, including with amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Directive and the Banking Package, the European Banking Authority Regulation and in the Criminal Law Framework.
All these recent rules now need to be implemented and enforced. The speculations raised by the Luanda Leaks case are indeed alarming and damaging if confirmed. Damaging not only to the country in question, which may have been deprived of essential revenues, but also for EU banks if it turns out that not all applicable rules were followed. I understand that related investigations are being undertaken, including in Angola and Portugal, which now need to follow their course.
Last July, the Commission published, at the request of the Council, a post-mortem review of alleged money-laundering cases involving EU banks. In that report, the Commission identified concrete problems with the supervision and enforcement of any anti-money laundering rules across the European Union. And I think it is not excluded that we may now see some of these same issues repeated if, in fact, confirmed.
Looking ahead, however, in spite of the challenges and setbacks, there are also causes for more optimism. Indeed, there is a sense of urgency shared by Parliament, the Commission and the Council, and more than that, I would say that there is also a shared sense of ambition in tackling the big problem that is money laundering.
This brings me to the strategic conclusions that the Council adopted last December. In these conclusions, the Council advised the Commission to look into ways to increase harmonisation in the anti-money laundering area, as well as to consider the possibilities, advantages and disadvantages of establishing an EU supervisory body.
The Council is advising on other fronts as well. For one, we still have the Anti-Money Laundering Action Plan, agreed by Ecofin in December 2018, which is running its course and which we continue to monitor.
Additionally, our Presidency has started a broader discussion on fighting serious and organised crime by tracing its proceeds more effectively.
We stand at an important crossroads from where we have the opportunity to proceed towards an effective regime to counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism. In this sense, I very much look forward to the Commission's upcoming initiatives and proposals and I trust that the Commission will take on board any lessons learned in this last case, the Luanda Leaks, as appropriate.

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the Commission recognises the importance of this debate and welcomes the opportunity to clarify its approach to matters such as those revealed to be at the heart of the Luanda Leaks. We have consistently stressed that better enforcement of anti-money laundering rules across Europe and stronger supervision are essential to increase the resilience of our financial system.
Beyond stability, we need to ensure the integrity of our financial system. It is not a problem of one country. The European Union should have zero tolerance for dirty money. We are willing to apply all of the tools at our disposal and to the fullest capacity. Moreover, we are ready to strengthen them. We will not hesitate to propose changes to the legislative and institutional architecture that supports our fight against money laundering, terrorist financing, as well as tax evasion and avoidance.
Following up on the European Parliament's resolution and the Ecofin conclusions of December, the Commission will adopt a new action plan on anti-money laundering that will seek to improve the enforcement of the rules.
Much has been done in recent years. The fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which should have been transposed by Member States by 10 January, allows greater scrutiny of information around beneficial ownership by civil society, including by the press or civil society organisations and contributing to preserving trust in the integrity of business transactions and of the financial system. The legal framework currently in force seeks to ensure a proper balance between the need to ensure protection of privacy and of personal data and the need for more transparency in financial and economic activities. By establishing accessible registers of beneficial ownership information, the Union has achieved the gold standard worldwide in this respect.
Regrettably, not all the Member States have transposed the fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. Today, the Commission has started infringement procedures against eight Member States which are signalling a complete lack of transposition. However, our real problem is not a lack of rules; it is that the enforcement of rules is done at national level and is uneven from country to country. Recent legislative changes to the mandate of the European supervisory authorities granted new powers to the European Banking Authority to lead, coordinate and monitor the EU Supervisor's fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. This covers the entire financial sector.
The Commission, however, acknowledges that more must be done. There is a need to address structural weaknesses linked to regulatory fragmentation among Member States. This is where European added value lies. The Commission intends to work towards the establishment of a unified, comprehensive anti-money laundering policy, building on existing rules and introducing all necessary improvements. There is scope for harmonising the existing rules. There is need for more information sharing between law enforcement authorities to detect and prosecute criminals and to recover assets. In addition to a more detailed and harmonised set of rules based on regulations rather than on directives, a greater role for the EU in overseeing their implementation is justified. This applies as regards both supervision and coordination of the Financial Intelligence Units.
An EU supervisory body for AML is a must-have, but creating a structure should not be our aim in itself. The body, be it a new one or building on the existing one, has to have a clearly-defined scope, powers and, very importantly, efficient governance. We know that we can count on the support of the European Parliament to bring about a revamped and more efficient supervisory and enforcement architecture. This is our ambition.

Markus Ferber,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, Frau Ratspräsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Die Luanda Leaks zeigen einmal mehr, dass die Europäische Union trotz mittlerweile fünf Anti-Geldwäscherichtlinien nach wie vor erschreckend attraktiv für Geldwäscher ist. Wir müssen uns schon mit der Frage beschäftigen, warum das nach wie vor der Fall ist. Natürlich ist ein großes Problem die schleppende Umsetzung des geltenden Rechts. Frau Kommissarin, ich kann Ihnen da nur zustimmen.
               

                  Die Umsetzungsfrist für die fünfte Richtlinie war vor wenigen Tagen, am 10. Januar. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt haben ganze fünf – fünf! – von siebenundzwanzig Mitgliedstaaten die Richtlinie vollumfänglich umgesetzt, fünfzehn nur teilweise – Frau Ratspräsidentin, auch wenn Sie nicht zuhören, Ihr Land gehört zu diesen fünfzehn –, und der Rest hat die Kommission noch nicht mal über die Umsetzung informiert. Ich begrüße es sehr, dass Sie heute ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen diese Mitgliedstaaten eröffnet haben. Wenn das aber die Art und Weise ist, wie die Mitgliedstaaten in der Praxis gegen Geldwäsche vorgehen, dann sind all die schönen Entschließungen der EU-Finanzminister doch nur Lippenbekenntnisse. Da die Mitgliedstaaten offenbar nicht in der Lage oder willens sind – und jetzt auch nicht zuhören –, effektiv gegen Geldwäsche vorzugehen, müssen wir schon darüber nachdenken, wie wir das Problem auf europäischer Ebene bekämpfen können.
               

                  Thank you very much, President, that you are listening now again.
               

                  Immerhin geht es hier um die Integrität des europäischen Finanzsystems und auch um die Sicherheit unserer Bürgerinnen und Bürger, denn Geldwäsche und organisierte Kriminalität sind unmittelbar miteinander verknüpft. Wir haben mit der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft ein Modell dafür, wie man eine Behörde aufbauen kann, die auch eine europäische Perspektive in strafrechtlichen Fragen einnehmen kann. Und deswegen fordere ich die Mitgliedstaaten wirklich auf, hier mitzuarbeiten, dass wir zu europäischen Verfolgungsbehörden kommen, damit wir dieses Problem dauerhaft in den Griff bekommen. Immer darauf zu warten, bis das letzte EU-Land alles umgesetzt hat, wird nicht ausreichen.
               

Eero Heinäluoma,
S&D-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, olemme jälleen kiitoksen velkaa toimittajille, riippumattomille journalisteille, jotka ovat tehneet arvokkaita paljastuksia kertoessaan, miten todellisuudessa raha liikkuu ja vastoin niitä sääntöjä, jotka meillä on. Erityisen järkyttävää on, että tämä tapahtuu maassa, jossa kolmasosa kansalaisista elää alle kahden dollarin päivätuloilla. Satoja miljoonia, miljardeja on viety maasta pois, ja monet eurooppalaiset konsultit, asianajajat ja lakimiehet ovat avustaneet tässä – jopa viranomaisia on ollut mukana tukemassa tätä toimintaa.
               

                  Ryhmämme on pitkään vaatinut pelisääntöjen tiukentamista, todellista muutosta. Nyt on aihetta sanoa, että tuskin selviämme enää näillä direktiiveillä, joita kansallisesti toimeenpannaan vaihtelevalla tavalla. Tarvitsemme yhtenäistä lainsäädäntöä, ja tähän meitä kehottaa myös finanssimaailma itse. Tämä on myös pankkien toivomus. Joten on muutoksen aika, ja se vaatii myös parempaa valvontaa eurooppalaisella tasolla.
               

Ramona Strugariu,
în numele grupului Renew. – Domnule președinte, nu transpunem complet, corect și la timp directivele europene adoptate pentru combaterea eficientă a spălării de bani. Este o realitate!
               

                  Comisia a început astăzi procedurile de infringement împotriva mai multor state, inclusiv împotriva României pentru că nu a transpus la timp Directiva a cincea. Mai mult decât atât, niciunul dintre statele membre nu a transpus corect și complet cea de-a patra Directivă, pentru care termenul de transpunere era luna iunie 2017.
               

                  Sunt câteva linii de acțiune clare care se desprind, în special, în lumina ultimelor dezvăluiri din scandalul Luanda Leaks. În primul rând, avem nevoie, doamna comisar, de regulamente pentru combaterea spălării de bani. Este o abordare curajoasă, dar absolut necesară. Directivele nu sunt un instrument suficient de puternic. Trebuie schimbată paradigma.
               

                  Apoi trebuie să cunoaștem cu adevărat beneficiarii reali. Transparența este un exercițiu absolut obligatoriu în tot acest proces.
               

                  Lacunele legislative creează situații de mare vulnerabilitate pentru Uniune și pentru statele membre. Este inacceptabil ca una din cele patru mari firme de consultanță europene, care lucrează inclusiv cu instituțiile Uniunii, să ofere consultanță financiară și legală rudelor și camarilei dictatorilor din state terțe pentru a-i ajuta să spele bani, să-și transfere activele în paradisuri fiscale și să evazioneze bugetele statelor în care operează. Răspunsul este legislație Magnitsky, orizontal, la nivel european, așa cum am cerut inclusiv prin scrisoarea trimisă Comisiei în luna decembrie.
               

                  Nu în ultimul rând, trebuie subliniat că jurnaliștii de investigație ne-au demonstrat din nou, prin dezvăluirile din Luanda Leaks, cât de importantă este munca lor pentru lupta împotriva spălării banilor și a corupției. Protecția lor, inclusiv legislativ, trebuie să fie o prioritate absolută a Comisiei și a noastră.
               

Sven Giegold,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Wenn ich mir die öffentliche Debatte nach den Enthüllungen von Luanda Leaks anschaue, dann beschleicht mich wirklich ein ungutes Gefühl. Es scheint mir so, als ob wir uns an solche Steuerskandale langsam gewöhnen. Die Aufregung nimmt ab, es scheint für die Öffentlichkeit, dass die Politik machtlos ist gegenüber einer immer weiter große Geschäfte machenden Steuervermeidungsindustrie für einige Reiche und Mächtige. Aber Politik darf niemals aufhören, gegen Unrecht und gegen Ungerechtigkeit anzugehen, um unserer Demokratie willen, egal wie mächtig die Gegner sind.
               

                  Es ist kein Zufall, dass wir es bei Luanda Leaks wieder mit unserem Mitgliedstaat Portugal zu tun haben. Schon bei den Football Leaks vor einem Jahr stand Portugal im Zentrum eines Korruptionsskandals – und was ist daraus gefolgt? Der Whistleblower, Rui Pinto, sitzt im Gefängnis, aber die wahren Verbrecher wurden nicht verfolgt. Genauso hat Portugal in großem Maße Tausende von golden visa verkauft und in Madeira eine Steueroase aufgebaut. So tritt man das Rechtsempfinden der Menschen mit Füßen, und das können wir als europäische Rechtsgemeinschaft nicht zulassen. Die EU-Kommission muss das europäische Recht in allen Mitgliedstaaten durchsetzen, und sie darf mit Vertragsverletzungsverfahren nicht warten. Sie hat diesem Treiben in Portugal leider auch viel zu lange zugesehen, während eben gleichzeitig große Skandale am Laufen waren – Geld nicht eingezogen wurde, Täter nicht verurteilt wurden.
               

                  Wir haben daher ein Rechtsstaatlichkeitsproblem in Portugal, und die EU-Kommission muss sich dieses Problems schleunigst mit gezielten Vertragsverletzungsverfahren annehmen. Die kommende Revision der Wirtschaftsprüferrichtlinie brauchen wir, um dafür zu sorgen, dass gerade Wirtschaftsprüfer in Zukunft mit schmutzigem Geld keine Geschäfte mehr machen können, so wie es in den Luanda Leaks leider wieder aufgedeckt wurde. Dieses Problem ist noch lange nicht gelöst, wir müssen da dranbleiben.
               

Beata Kempa,
w imieniu grupy ECR – Panie Przewodniczący! Tylko twarde prawo, którego przekroczenie zagrożone jest nieuchronną karą, jest w stanie powstrzymać międzynarodowe grupy przestępcze. Pozwólcie Państwo, że posłużę się polskim przykładem wprowadzenia takich reguł. W ostatnich latach pod wodzą prokuratora generalnego Zbigniewa Ziobry Polska wytoczyła ciężkie działa przeciw praniu brudnych pieniędzy. Dzięki konfiskacie rozszerzonej i uszczelnieniu systemu udało się przejąć i zabezpieczyć w krótkim czasie około 4 miliardów złotych, czyli około miliarda euro. Na polski sukces składa się bezwzględność, odwaga, upór prokuratury i Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości oraz wprowadzenie nowych środków walki z praniem brudnych pieniędzy. Konfiskata rozszerzona, wzmocniona kooperacja w ramach podmiotów międzynarodowych i banków, ograniczenia wobec rajów podatkowych i tzw. podmiotów niechętnych współpracy oraz szybko i bezwzględnie działające służby – to najważniejsze elementy nowej architektury walki ze zorganizowaną przestępczością i praniem brudnych pieniędzy. Istotnym narzędziem staje się wprowadzana, piąta już, dyrektywa w sprawie zwalczania brudnych pieniędzy. To kolejne ważne usprawnienie systemu i wzmocnienie kooperacji w walce z najcięższą przestępczością.
               

José Gusmão,
em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Senhor Presidente, o escândalo dos Luanda Leaks tem, certamente, muitas responsabilidades nacionais, também no meu país, onde, durante muitos anos, a elite económica e a elite política não viu nenhum problema nos negócios de Isabel dos Santos, e colaborou com eles. E tem, também, problemas nacionais noutras jurisdições como a de Malta, que colaborou ativamente com todo o ciclo da lavagem de dinheiro que foi acontecendo.
               

                  Agora, há uma responsabilidade também das instituições europeias em perceber que, se há jurisdições nacionais que estão a facilitar o branqueamento de capitais, a evasão fiscal, a criminalidade financeira, então os restantes membros da União Europeia, e a União Europeia como um todo, têm que impedir que isso aconteça.
               

                  E há o risco de a multiplicação destes escândalos terminar sem responsabilidades e sem consequências para todos os que colaboram na lavagem de dinheiro, sejam eles Estados, sejam eles as empresas de consultoria financeira que a Comissão Europeia contrata para trabalharem para instituições europeias e que estão também envolvidas nestas operações que sabem ser ilegais, e nas instituições financeiras da União Europeia. Se nada disto tem consequências, se no final deste processo a única pessoa que for responsabilizada for o Rui Pinto, que é a pessoa que trouxe estes documentos a público, então a única lição que os cidadãos irão retirar da atuação da União Europeia a é de que, nestes escândalos, só há consequências para aqueles que não cometeram crimes.
               

Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhoras e Senhores Deputados, o branqueamento de capitais é um crime com muitas faces. Tem legitimado fortunas e investimentos, aberto a porta à contaminação de empresas e à viciação da economia. No entanto, o dinheiro lavado não perde a sua origem criminosa. Combatê-lo é mais que um imperativo económico ou de supervisão, é uma questão de Estado de Direito e, não poucas vezes, de defesa dos direitos humanos. Exigem-se respostas determinadas e sólidas.
               

                  Hoje há possíveis processos de infração de Estados-Membros por falha na transposição da 5.a Diretiva no combate ao branqueamento de capitais. Falta determinação e falta solidez, porque cada um dos vinte e sete tem a sua própria abordagem, como a Senhora Comissária bem disse na sua intervenção inicial.
               

                  É na divisão que se encontra a porta entreaberta para o crime. No final de março, a Comissão apresentará o seu plano de ação. Cabe a este Parlamento responder, com ainda maior determinação e solidez, nem que para isso diretivas tenham de passar a regulamentos, e nem que para isso tenhamos de reforçar a supervisão europeia e o Banco Central Europeu, quando os reguladores nacionais continuam a falhar.
               

Caterina Chinnici (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, le rivelazioni dei Luanda Leaks, che coinvolgono anche operatori di alcuni Stati membri, confermano che la lotta al riciclaggio deve rimanere fra le priorità dell'Unione europea.
               

                  Il riciclaggio, insieme a corruzione e frode, rappresenta infatti uno dei mezzi attraverso cui le organizzazioni criminali si radicano sul territorio e penetrano nell'economia ledendo la libertà economica e la libera concorrenza. Ed è il riciclaggio una delle fonti di finanziamento del terrorismo.
               

                  È necessario quindi rafforzare la normativa europea antiriciclaggio ed armonizzare le legislazioni nazionali. Ed è necessario monitorare l'attuazione delle direttive sulla lotta al riciclaggio, anche quella in materia penale. Occorre poi dare all'autorità giudiziaria ed investigativa pieno accesso alle informazioni raccolte dalle FIU e dotare le autorità di contrasto di efficaci poteri di controllo già sul piano amministrativo e di un'adeguata specializzazione, come avviene ad esempio nel mio paese, l'Italia, con la Guardia di Finanza. E tutto questo anche al fine di recuperare i proventi di tali gravi reati che oggi sappiamo avviene solo nella misura dell'1 %.
               

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. FABIO MASSIMO CASTALDO


Vicepresidente


Francisco Guerreiro (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, Luanda Leaks, este escândalo espelha bem como o sistema financeiro, económico e fiscal promove autênticas passadeiras vermelhas de lavagem de dinheiro, corrupção e tráfico de influências.
                  

                     Veja-se o caso gritante e incompreensível do sistema de vistos Gold em Portugal. Em sete anos, este regime de vistos não só pressionou os preços da habitação, tornando-os incomportáveis para a maioria dos cidadãos, como foi um falhanço a nível económico, criando apenas duzentos e treze postos de trabalho e dezasseis empresas.
                  

                     Mas mais, os dados que relacionam os vistos com a entrada de capitais duvidosos são tão evidentes que este próprio Parlamento já recomendou o fim dos vistos Gold em todos os Estados-Membros, recomendação essa a que Portugal fez, e faz, vista grossa.
                  

                     Mas o Luanda Leaks faz também reabrir o tema da proteção dos denunciantes e a garantia da não interferência do sistema político no jornalismo de investigação. É urgente garantir a transposição da Diretiva de 2019, nomeadamente em Portugal, sobre a proteção de denunciantes e garantir que o jornalismo de investigação tem todas as ferramentas para exercer o seu trabalho de guardião da democracia.
                  

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, escândalos fiscais como o Lux Leaks e outros revelaram ao mundo um sistema que promove a opacidade e o anonimato e que permite o branqueamento de capitais. Na reação a tais escândalos a União Europeia mostrou que continua fortemente condicionada pelos interesses das multinacionais e não só. Medidas tidas por elementares para lutar contra o branqueamento de capitais foram travadas e, se alguma coisa mudou, foi para que ficasse tudo na mesma.
                  

                     Quanto a recentes alegações vindas a público, cabe às autoridades dos países envolvidos averiguar a existência de ilicitudes ou ilegalidades e agir em conformidade. Aquilo que estes acontecimentos não podem justificar, em nenhum caso, são atitudes hipócritas e de ingerência de quem aqui vê uma oportunidade para dar força às suas ambições de domínio neocolonial.
                  

                     O combate ao branqueamento de capitais, assim como à evasão e elisão fiscais, continua limitado por um nó que a União Europeia não se mostra interessada em desatar: os paraísos fiscais com os quais a União Europeia convive e é conivente. Continua a ser necessário desatar este nó.
                  

Емил Радев (PPE). – Г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, днес на ниво Европейски съюз сме въвели строги правила, залегнали в Четвъртата и Петата директива за борба с прането на пари и финансирането на тероризма, която трябваше да бъде транспонирана от държавите членки до 10 януари тази година.
                  

                     Но Луандалийкс ясно показват, че не всички държави и банки в Европейския съюз все още са приложили тези правила. Обезпокоителен е фактът, че имаме силно регулиран сектор. Разполагаме с необходимите инструменти за разкриването на всяка потенциално рискова за пране на пари дейност, но въпреки това нищо не се е случило.
                  

                     Виждаме, че през последните години заплахите не идват само отвън, а има фрапиращи случаи на пране на пари вътре в Европейския съюз. По този начин целият финансов пазар на Европейския съюз е изложен на заплаха от страна на престъпници и терористи. Луандалийкс са поредният пример за неприлагането на европейското законодателство и в частност механизмите за установяване на самоличността на клиентите, докладване на подозрителни транзакции, свързани с определени сметки и т.н.
                  

                     В тази връзка Европейската комисия трябва да следи за правилното въвеждане и прилагане на съществуващата правна рамка, и ако е необходимо, да започне процедури за нарушения срещу държавите членки. Благодаря Ви!
                  

Pedro Marques (S&D). – Mr President, with this timely debate we go back to a recurrent concern of this Parliament. These practices harm the European society because relevant parts of our resources are directed to criminal activities. The scope of innovation in financial transactions is enormous. Digital transactions grow every day and become more and more sophisticated. We have to recognise that regulation in actual practices by the authorities have been insufficient. We need coherent regimes of supervision and on the actual definition of illegal practices. We need much more cooperation between the different authorities in Member States. We need to consider an additional role for the European authorities. We need compliance to step up in the institutions, even through the enforcement of public authorities. For all this to happen, we probably have to step up the legislative and regulatory process at European level, considering seriously the possibility of approving a European regulation. Finally, we need people to trust the banks, financial institutions, public authorities. Therefore, this battle is far from won. Let's keep fighting the good fight.

David Casa (PPE). – Il-ħasil tal-flus jibqa' delitt diffiċli biex jiġi skopert u aktar diffiċli biex min jaħsel il-flus, jitressaq il-qorti.
                  

                     Ġurisdizzjonijiet sigrieti jagħmlu minn kollox biex jiffaċilitaw l-attività kriminali. Informazzjoni kruċjali għall-prosekuzzjonijiet mhux qed tingħadda lil min jinvestiga u dan kollu qed iwassal biex il-kriminali jgawdu minn impunità.
                  

                     Naturalment il-ġurnalista Ewropea Daphne Caruana Galizia nqatlet biex ma tibqax tikxef il-korruzzjoni u l-ħasil tal-flus; l-istess korruzzjoni u ħasil tal-flus li saru minn kumpanija rreġistrata fid-Dubai. Minkejja dan kollu, l-Emirati Għarab Magħquda jibqgħu jinsistu li ma jgħaddux informazzjoni importanti, li jfisser li l-ġustizzja ma tistax isseħħ.
                  

                     Għandu jkollna qafas f'postu biex dan it-tip ta' informazzjoni tkun tista' tingħadda kif suppost, anke bejn l-FIAUs fl-Ewropa. Irridu nkunu b'saħħitna biex nassiguraw li pajjiżi terzi jikkooperaw ma' investigazzjonijiet Ewropej dwar il-ħasil tal-flus.
                  

                     Fl-aħħar mill-aħħar, irid ikun hemm konsegwenzi għall-ġurisdizzjonijiet li ma jikkooperawx. Ma jistax ikollna din is-sitwazzjoni u nħalluha għaddejja kif inhi.
                  

Paul Tang (S&D). – Mr President, she took EUR 2 billion from the Angolan people, bought companies at a great discount, and got loans she never repaid. How did Isabel dos Santos become Africa's richest woman? Many say it's corruption, but we only seek money that we can spend, and she did her spending here. Her EUR 50 million superyacht was Dutch; her GBP 30 million mansion is in London. The real enablers of her crimes are those who cleaned her money: bankers from Liechtenstein, tax advisers from Luxembourg, and trust firms in Amsterdam, my hometown.
These enablers roam free, while Rui Pinto, the source behind the Luanda Leaks and the Football Leaks, has already been in prison for one whole year. Is he not a whistle-blower? Doesn't he deserve protection? These are my specific questions to the European Commission.
We need to acknowledge the problem. We need to acknowledge that the problem is also ours, and to protect those that expose these crimes. So let's fight money laundering. Let's gather our resources, European and national. Let's fight.

Othmar Karas (PPE). – Herr Präsident, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! 2 000 Milliarden Euro werden pro Jahr auf der Welt gewaschen. Aber wir brauchen nicht nur auf andere zu sehen; das Problem beginnt nicht außerhalb der Europäischen Union. 110 Milliarden Euro werden innerhalb der Europäischen Union gewaschen – das kommt dem jährlichen EU-Haushalt schon sehr nahe. Es ist daher eine Frage der Glaubwürdigkeit der Rechtsgemeinschaft, es ist eine Frage der Glaubwürdigkeit der europäischen parlamentarischen Demokratie. Es ist haarsträubend, dass es noch immer einen Widerspruch zwischen den eingegangenen Verpflichtungen und deren Umsetzung durch die Mitgliedstaaten gibt; dass es noch immer die Situation gibt, dass die vierte Geldwäscherichtlinie nicht umgesetzt ist, obwohl die fünfte seit Jänner bereits umgesetzt hätte werden sollen; und dass es noch immer einen durchlässigen Fleckerlteppich gibt und wir noch immer eine gemeinsame Geldwäscheaufsicht benötigen, die über den Finanzsektor hinausgeht, eine europäische Finanzpolizei und eine europäische Meldestelle. Machen wir endlich das, was wir seit Jahren versprechen.
                  

Marek Belka (S&D). – Mr President, after discussions connected to the Panama Papers, Paradise Papers, Luxleaks and you name it, here we are again with Luanda Leaks.
Getting into detailed discussions about Ms dos Santos' potential wrongdoings makes little sense now. What we need to look at is own European plate.
Firstly, if Dubai is so often mentioned in the Luanda leaks as a destination country for illicit wealth, why are the United Arab Emirates not on our European blacklist of non-cooperative jurisdictions? I call on the Commission to look into this issue whilst reviewing the lists.
Secondly, if a Portuguese bank and Maltese financial service providers have helped Ms dos Santos is in her actions, where are the loopholes in our fight against tax fraud and against money laundering? This year's anti-money laundering action plan and legislative files on taxation have to address these points. While rightly criticising the wrongdoings of Africa's richest woman, we need to also ask ourselves why in the EU we facilitate such actions.

Procedura ‘catch the eye’
                        


Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Mr President, we all know that the biggest fault of the Anti-money Laundering Directive lies in the Member States; in poor implementation, lacking European powers on European prudential supervision, poor cooperation between financial intelligence units, the limited scope of powers of the Financial Intelligence Unit Platform to set standards. We know that the system is not working, because it's not made to be working.
That is the reason, once again reminded, how ineffective we are. What I do hope is that the Commission would consider seriously chasing the anti-money laundering Directive to be a Regulation and to increase substantially the transparency of the beneficial ownership registers, increase the European prudential supervision, and to really set the system on place to function.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisaria Dalli, bienvenida a este debate contra el blanqueo, que no es el primero, tiene mucha historia, porque antes de Luanda Leaks hubo Lux Leaks y hubo Panamá Leaks, y hubo una comisión de estudio e investigación, de la que fui miembro, que arrojó conclusiones y mandatos de actuación para la Comisión. Por eso hemos pasado de la cuarta a la quinta Directiva contra el blanqueo, que refuerza la transparencia y la identificación de los beneficiarios de las cuentas; porque cada uno de estos casos que acabo de citar empeora el trasfondo de corrupción y tráfico de influencias.
                  

                     El caso Luanda Leaks es paroxístico porque afecta a la mujer más rica de África —la hija del antiguo presidente de Angola—.
                  

                     Pero hay otro mandato: proteger a los whistleblowers —a los denunciantes—, porque es intolerable que haya países que no han traspuesto la Directiva sobre los whistleblowers —entre ellos, Portugal—, y resulta que Rui Pinto, el denunciante, es el que está en la cárcel, cuando quien tenía que estar en la cárcel no es el denunciante, sino los criminales y los delincuentes.
                  

Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Wiele już tutaj zostało powiedziane. Po raz kolejny debatujemy nad aferami, po raz kolejny zastanawiamy się, czy proceder prania brudnych pieniędzy to domena tylko i wyłącznie państw tzw. Trzeciego Świata, czy to tylko Afryka, tanie raje podatkowe. Natomiast dziwnie się składa, że beneficjenci najczęściej te pieniądze albo lokują, albo wydają tutaj – w Europie. Dlatego trzeba powiedzieć wyraźnie: przestępcy dotychczas zawsze są krok przed demokratycznymi państwami prawa i przed służbami, które z tym procederem walczą.
                  

                     Żadne poszczególne państwo nie będzie w stanie poradzić sobie, jeżeli nie będzie pełnej koordynacji. Jesienią ubiegłego roku pojawił się postulat 6 państw, aby tutaj – w Brukseli – powstał jeden urząd do walki z tym procederem. Ja mogę powiedzieć również z własnego doświadczenia, jako były minister spraw wewnętrznych i administracji w rządzie Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, że sukcesy służb, które nadzorowałem, w dużej mierze były sukcesami wynikającymi ze współpracy z innymi służbami, z Europolem, z Interpolem. To jest jedyna droga, która pozwoli nam być krok przed przestępcami.
                  

Milan Uhrík (NI). – Mr President, in many EU Member States, the legislation regarding money laundering is being made increasingly strict, including by restricting the space for casinos and other games. However, this kind of online gambling remains still quite untouchable because it's operated on a global, multinational level, and for a single state it is quite hard to touch it and to control it. My question is: are there any further plans for fighting against this kind of money laundering, this kind of criminality?

Antonius Manders (PPE). – Voorzitter, witwassen gaat de laatste jaren steeds vaker via grote banken in Europa en het wordt tijd dat de bestuurders van die banken een gevangenisstraf krijgen in plaats van een bonus. Dat wil ik toevoegen, heel kort.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, tady jsme svědky mezinárodní zločinecké aktivity a zároveň našich nízkých pravomocí a schopností tuto situaci řešit. Jedná se o zločin bílých límečků, který je velmi sofistikovaný, a já bych chtěl poděkovat samozřejmě novinářům, kteří se podíleli na odkrytí této aktivity, a také oznamovatelům. Ukazuje se, jaké máme výrazné mezery na ochraně oznamovatelů na mezinárodním poli.
                  

                     Zároveň je pro mne šokující, kolik evropských struktur, myšleno tedy těch bankovních nebo svěřenských, bylo zapojeno do zakrývání právě podstaty vyvádění peněz a nelegálních aktivit v rámci Angoly. Co s tím? Máme 5 směrnic, zdá se, že potřebujeme překonat roztříštěnost, potřebujeme lépe implementovat. Je nepochybně nutné příslušné úřady více vybavit kompetencemi a hlavně, podle mého soudu, zajistit zisky. Není možné, aby zisky byly zajišťovány v tak mizivém procentu, jak se ukazuje např. v těch předchozích případech.
                  

(Fine della procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, on behalf of the Commission, I thank the European Parliament for taking the time to debate this topical matter, and for its commitment to further strengthening all our tools to deal with situations such as the one at stake. We need to act upon all these findings, and I am confident that we have already identified the way to ensure that the Union's financial systems' integrity is more effectively protected. We are determined to work with international partners on new threats from innovation and it is critical to already deploy all our efforts to ensure the current legislative framework is applied fully, and correctly. This also includes protection of whistleblowers and to give renewed impetus to the role of the Union in ensuring more effective and coordinated action.

Nikolina Brnjac,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I have followed this debate with great attention, and I have also heard the input from the Commission. I take this opportunity to reaffirm the importance which the Presidency attaches to the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism, and I look forward to our continued work on these matters. The Presidency will remain available for exchanges on the subject as needed.

Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.
                  


Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 171)



Enikő Győri (PPE),
írásban. – Az Európai Bizottság részéről érkeztek olyan javaslatok, miszerint az EU pénzmosás és terrorizmus finanszírozása elleni fellépésének hatékonyabb módja az EU-szintű szabályozás jelentős megerősítése, valamint a felügyeleti funkciók uniós szintre emelése lenne. Aggályosnak tartom a felügyeleti funkciók új EU-szintű intézményekre való áthelyezését, a jelenlegi helyzet ugyanis nem támasztja alá, hogy a megoldást feltétlenül ez jelentené. Ehelyett a nemzeti hatóságok megerősítése és a nemzeti hatóságok közötti fokozottabb együttműködés a célravezető.
                  

                     A nemzeti hatóságok ugyanis képesek kezelni a kihívásokat; ők vannak mindennapi szoros kapcsolatban a bankokkal, biztosítótársaságokkal, ügyvédekkel, valamint részletes és naprakész ismeretekkel rendelkeznek a helyi körülményekről. Egy központi felügyeleti szerv hatékonysága nem érheti el a tagállami intézmények által biztosított hatékonyságot. Bármiféle továbblépésnek a jelenlegi helyzet kiértékeléséből kell kiindulnia, és figyelembe kell vennie a már elfogadottuniós szabályozási elemek gyakorlati működését.
                  

                     Annál is inkább, mert még nincs tapasztalatunk a közelmúltban bevezetett jogszabályok miként működnek a gyakorlatban. Az EU pénzmosás elleni rendszerének továbbfejlesztése természetesen kulcsfontosságú. A továbblépési módozatok között mérlegelni kell azonban a tagállami sajátosságokat figyelembe vevő és a szükséges tagállami mozgásteret továbbra is biztosító megközelítéseket is.
                  
22.   Composition of political groups : see Minutes
23.   Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes
24.   Humanitarian situation of refugees at EU external borders (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulle dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione sulla situazione umanitaria dei rifugiati alle frontiere esterne dell'UE (2020/2523(RSP)).
               

                  Vi ricordo che è possibile presentare le richieste di intervento secondo la procedura ‘catch-the eye’ e di domande ‘cartellino blu’ utilizzando sia il sistema di ‘registrazione standard’ sia il sistema elettronico, che vi invito assolutamente a testare. Le istruzioni sono disponibili all'ingresso del nostro emiciclo.
               

Nikolina Brnjac,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, it is the second time under our Presidency that we have the possibility to discuss in the plenary the humanitarian situation of refugees at our external borders. This shows the importance Parliament attaches to this issue and we fully support it.
Our Presidency is closely monitoring events on all migratory routes and will continue to do so throughout this semester. In 2019, the total number of illegal border crossings at the EU external borders was estimated at 139 000 which is a 6% decrease compared to 2018 and the lowest level in six years. However, while the central and western Mediterranean routes saw a decrease of 40% and 50% respectively compared to 2018, arrivals on the eastern Mediterranean route have increased by 50%.
The situation on the Greek islands is, in particular, a source of concern as we all noted during our last debate in the plenary on 29 January. The number of people present on the Aegean islands reached a peak of over 40 000 migrants. It is the first time since the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement that we have reached such a high number. The Greek government is taking concrete measures to improve the situation. It has announced a new national strategy designed to protect minors who have arrived and who are resident in Greece and it aims to increase the number of transfers to the mainland. In 2019, more than 35 000 migrants have been transferred and these transfers have continued at a fast pace since the beginning of 2020.
Arrivals from the eastern Mediterranean route have direct impact on the flow of migrants in south east Europe. In 2019, there were over 14 000 illegal border crossings on the western Balkan route, which represents 140% increase compared to 2018. Since the beginning of 2020, the pressure on this route has decreased, due also to winter conditions. Nevertheless, this winter the pressure is higher when compared to the previous winter.
Our Presidency will continue to devote much attention to the migratory situation and increasing migration management capacities in the entire western Balkan region, with a particular focus on Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to ensure adequate protection of migrant population where, according to UNHCR, more than 8 000 migrants and refugees are currently present, mainly in the North West. The situation in the country remains challenging, but in the last weeks, there have been some positive developments regarding the increase of adequate reception capacities.
On 3 February, the Croatian Interior Minister Božinović, held a meeting with the new Bosnian Minister of Security, Mr Radončić. The ministers agreed to strengthen the cooperation in several key areas: implementation of accelerated readmission procedures, more intense implementation of mixed border patrols and support of the Republic of Croatia in strengthening the Bosnia-Herzegovina security forces in border control. The ministers also agreed to strengthen the cooperation in combating smuggling networks, which was also a topic of a ministerial debate at the informal meeting of EU interior ministers in Zagreb on 24 January 2020.
Minister Radončić commented that Bosnia-Herzegovina lacks over one thousand border guard for better border control, as well as the 93% of EU funds approved to Bosnia and Herzegovina last year were intended for humanitarian treatment of migrants but only 7% to strengthen security forces. The EU will continue to support Bosnia and Herzegovina in its efforts to guarantee the dignity and safety of all migrants, especially the most vulnerable ones, while at the same time seeking a more permanent and comprehensive solution.
We will also continue to support work with all partners in the Western Balkans. The overreaching goal of our efforts is to ensure that the migration flows at our borders are well managed and migrants' fundamental rights are always respected. We expect the recent measures taken by the Greek government to bring positive change. The new asylum legislation which has recently entered into force in Greece should speed up the streamline of both asylum and return procedures.
The return rate has been very low for far too long. Returns are instrumental in managing the migratory flows. The plan of the Greek government to return 10 000 migrants by the end of 2020 is ambitious but it can be achieved, also with necessary EU support. Effective returns also require the good cooperation of Turkey. To ensure that the situation is well managed, it is also important that our Western Balkan partners enhance their migration management capacities, also in the area of return and particularly assisted voluntary return, conclude readmission agreements with third countries and further align their visa policies. We are ready to assist them in these tasks by all means at our disposal.
On the central Mediterranean route, conditions for migrants in Libya have deteriorated due to security issues arising from the internal conflict in the country. To alleviate the suffering of migrants and detained refugees in Libya, the EU individual Member States have funded UNHCR and International Organisation for Migration (IOM) programmes via EU trust fund for Africa.
IOM is funded to carry out voluntary returns to countries of origin and to provide humanitarian emergency assistance and has done so at an impressive level. UNHCR is funded to evacuate persons of concern to either Niger or Rwanda in view to a settlement in the EU or other receiving countries. These relevant actions require our further support, especially in view of ongoing conflicts in Libya.
To conclude, I would like to stress once again that the humanitarian situation at our external borders is a cause of great concern and we have to work closely together with our neighbouring countries and international organisations to improve it. Let me also express here our appreciation for the work of all humanitarian partners. I will let the Commission further elaborate on the comprehensive assistance the EU provides at our external borders to improve the situation.

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you Minister and honourable Members for this important debate.
The humanitarian situation of refugees at our external borders is of great importance and of concern to us all. The EU promotes the respect of the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, both in the EU and outside of our borders in our neighbourhood.
Any form of violence against refugees and migrants is, needless to say, unacceptable. Respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law must be ensured without exception. Member States must fully comply with these principles when implementing the EU acquis on border management, asylum and return. Pushbacks are not acceptable. Access to asylum procedures and respect for the principle of non-refoulement, in line with the EU Charter, must always be guaranteed.
Member States must have in place the mechanisms needed to prevent pushbacks in the first place. Equally, they need to ensure that they have appropriate mechanisms to guarantee a prompt reply and investigate any alleged pushbacks.
But challenges at external borders are many, and the Commission is in constant contact with Member States and provides them with support, including financial support for training the national border guards to act in conformity with fundamental rights requirements. The Commission is also closely monitoring the situation at external borders and is in contact with Member States regarding allegations of non-compliance with EU law at the external borders. As Guardian of the Treaty, the Commission will take the necessary action where necessary. Moreover, we now have in place a new European Border and Coast Guard Agency with a significantly reinforced mandate and an increased focus on the imperious need to respect fundamental rights.
It is for this reason that a specific Fundamental Rights Strategy has been drawn up by the new European Border and Coast Guard Agency. A fundamental rights officer was appointed to contribute to the Agency's fundamental rights strategy and monitor compliance with fundamental rights. Fundamental rights monitors will also constantly assess the fundamental rights compliance of Frontex operational activities. They will be deployed as part of the joint operations and they will be the eyes and ears of the fundamental rights officer. The Agency must recruit 40 monitors by 5 December of this year.
The new Agency has also set up a complaints mechanism. This mechanism allows any person who is directly affected by the actions of staff involved in the activities of the Agency and who considers himself or herself to have been the subject of a breach of his or her fundamental rights due to those actions, or to any party representing such a person, to submit a complaint in writing to the Agency.
What happens at our external borders affects Europe. This is why the EU has always supported and also always stood at the side of our partners at the external borders as well as at the side of refugees and migrants in those countries. The EU is globally a key actor in providing assistance to refugees worldwide, especially in neighbouring countries, and in supporting third countries in developing their asylum system and their capacities to fight against smuggling. For instance, the EU supports Turkey in its efforts to host more than 4 million refugees. The EUR 6 billion facility for refugees in Turkey has been fully mobilised and clearly produces tangible effects. Over 1.7 million vulnerable refugees benefit from the emergency social safety net, the largest EU humanitarian project ever.
The EU is also supporting more than 500 000 refugees' children to regularly attend school. Our Western Balkan partners have proven to be reliable and strong partners of the EU in managing migration and countering security challenges. However, reception capacities, in particular in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, are stretched to the maximum, and migrants are often living in extremely difficult conditions. Further capacity assistance is needed to help these countries to pursue their efforts to manage migration, addressing the issue of secondary movements in the region and treating migrants in a humane manner.
To support all these actions, the EU provides financial and technical support to the Western Balkans through the regional programmes funded under the Instrument for Pre-Accession so that they increase their capacity to build their national migration management system.
In addition, the EU has recently provided EUR 135 million in additional assistance to Serbia, North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina through the Instrument for Pre-Accession and EUR 32.6 million through the EU humanitarian aid.
In all these actions inside and outside the EU, the protection of the most vulnerable, especially of children and unaccompanied minors, remains a priority for the Commission. The Commission is doing all it can to help Member States to address the situation at our external borders. The dignity and safety of all affected persons needs to be ensured and protected.
A lot has been achieved, but more remains to be done. We need to find a common understanding on how we collectively shape and manage the realities of migration. We must unite around our common values and humanitarian responsibilities and seek to make our society more cohesive and integrated.
I count on your continued support and that of the Council as well.

Емил Радев,
от името на групата PPE. – Г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, известно е, че маршрутът през Западните Балкани е един от основните миграционни пътища към Европа, което го прави и най-натоварения. За съжаление държавите членки на първа линия, като Хърватия, Гърция и други, винаги носят непропорционална тежест, тъй като поради своето географско местоположение те винаги са държавата членка на първо влизане. Свидетелство за това е случващото се както на границата между Хърватия и Босна и Херцеговина, така и на гръцките острови, където притокът на мигранти не намалява.
               

                  Парадоксално е, че макар търсещите убежище да могат да подават молби за международна закрила на официалните гранични пунктове, техният брой е минимален. Вместо това те използват нерегламентирани места за преминаване на границите, често дори използвайки мрежи от контрабандисти, с една единствена цел – да достигнат до Западна Европа.
               

                  В края на 2018 г., вследствие на засилен мигрантски натиск, Европейската комисия отпусна 6,8 млн. евро на Хърватия за подпомагане на управлението на външните граници на Европейския съюз. Това бе направено при пълно спазване на правилата на Европейския съюз, гарантиращи, че всички мерки, прилагани по външните граници на Съюза, са пропорционални и са в пълно съответствие с основните права и законодателството на Европейския съюз в областта на убежището. От началото на 2018 г. помощ в размер на 36 млн. евро е предоставена и на Босна и Херцеговина, за да отговори на непосредствените нужди на мигрантите и търсещите убежище.
               

                  Защитата на външните граници може да бъде постигната единствено в съответствие с правото и международните конвенции, както и зачитането на основните права и достойнството на мигрантите. Държавите членки по външната граница и европейските институции добросъвестно пазят границите ни и прилагат тези правила.
               

Kati Piri,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, the unprecedented peak in refugee arrivals in 2015 exposed the gaps in the EU's policies at our borders, but it is now 2020 and the Member States have had five years to find solutions. And yet, in many places, the situation of refugees at our external borders, instead of improving, continues to deteriorate. We still stand by and watch pregnant women and children losing their lives in the Mediterranean Sea. We still accept thousands of people, including unaccompanied minors, living in camps for years in inhumane conditions, waiting for their asylum procedure to advance. And we still consent to people being forced to return to unsafe countries. Detention centres, illegal push-backs and floating sea fences are not the solutions we are calling for.
I hope the Croatian Presidency will take note of this debate and our concerns on behalf of the European Council. And let's not forget that countries surrounding the EU are still taking in the vast majority of refugees. But also let's not forget that countries who are our neighbours sometimes have their own citizens fleeing from the country, so we must address human rights with countries such as Turkey and Morocco.
In this Parliament we often talk about the European values. They include respect for human dignity and human rights. That also applies to refugees seeking protection.

Malik Azmani,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission and the Council representatives for being here this evening. I think it's high time to get out of the migration deadlock. We owe it to our own citizens to get back into the driver's seat.
In order also to preserve free movement within the Schengen area, we need strong external borders. Awaiting the Commission's New Pact on Asylum and Migration, Renew Europe proposed its own comprehensive approach a few weeks ago: a Renew pack on asylum and migration. To relieve the pressure on EU external borders we need new international partnerships with third countries on migration. That's the only way. Meanwhile, we need a common approach for those asylum seekers still arriving irregularly at EU external borders. We want ‘direct registration upon arrival’ amended to read: security checks; humane reception conditions; a first assessment at a European reception centre between potentially failed asylum applications and those that are not; shared responsibility for those people in need of international protection; shared responsibility and effort to quickly return rejected asylum seekers to safe third countries.
I have high expectations for this new pact on migration and asylum and hope that Renew Europe's concrete proposals will also be taken on board. But I have still two questions: does the Commissioner agree with Renew Europe that the EU must be able to step in when the Member States at external borders cannot or will not deliver? Because that's what we saw in the past. And how will the Commission address unwanted secondary movement of asylum seekers within the EU?

Tom Vandendriessche,
namens de ID-Fractie. – Voorzitter, sinds enkele jaren worden we overspoeld door ongewenste migratie. Maar dit is nog maar het begin. De bevolking van Afrika gaat deze eeuw van 1 naar 4 miljard inwoners. Honderden miljoenen zullen naar Europa komen. Daarom moeten we de grenzen bewaken. Niet uit haat tegenover wie zich buiten onze grenzen bevindt, maar wel uit liefde voor ons eigen volk.
               

                  Linkse activisten en malafide advocaten misbruiken de mensenrechten om migratie te stimuleren en te propageren. Zij willen dat niet-burgers rechten kunnen afdwingen in onze thuislanden. Migratie willen ze verheffen tot een afdwingbaar mensenrecht, met de medewerking van wereldvreemde rechters, voor wie trouwens niemand ooit gestemd heeft.
               

                  Het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens bijvoorbeeld was ooit bedoeld om burgers uit Europese landen te beschermen tegen tirannie. Vandaag echter is het geëvolueerd tot een instrument om een opengrenzenpolitiek door de strot te rammen van onze bevolking. We moeten de migratiecrisis aan onze grenzen oplossen. Dat doen we door economische gelukzoekers zonder pardon terug te sturen. Echte vluchtelingen moeten we opvangen in de regio van herkomst, en vooral moeten we de mensenrechtenverdragen aanpassen aan de realiteit van 2020, zodat ze niet langer misbruikt kunnen worden door de migratielobby.
               

Tineke Strik,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, if we talk about common external borders we also talk about common responsibility, not only for controlling who is coming in, but also how we treat people – if they get access to an asylum procedure, if they are treated with dignity and if the procedures are followed. However, we know that at many borders the rules are not always complied with. Push-backs are widespread in Europe. We know that from reports and judgments, and even tomorrow the Strasbourg Court will come up with a decision on Spain.
Push-backs can also go hand in hand with brutal violence and causing traumas to people, and this is especially the case at the Croatian borders, according to numerous reports and testimonies. During our working visit last weekend, we were shocked by the fact that all actors involved acknowledged this widespread violence and push-backs, but that the Government of Croatia still denies this, and this discrepancy exactly shows that the violence will not stop if the EU continues to shy away and react indifferently.
We can only stick to our rules and values if we care about violations at the borders and if we take steps to ensure compliance. I would therefore urge the Commission to investigate thoroughly the allegations and complaints, and that investigation also needs to be part of the Schengen evaluation.
The Commission informed us that it had financed the monitoring mechanism in Croatia and that this would lead to improvement, but we learned that this money is not spent on monitoring but on border control, and that no monitoring body enters the green area where the push-backs take place. So how seriously does the Commission take these allegations on push-backs? Is it only interested in a smooth Schengen accession or also in banning human rights violations at the border? So I would like to hear from the Commissioner what steps he's going to take instead of monitoring but also ensuring…

(The President cut off the speaker)


Joachim Stanisław Brudziński,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Walka ze źródłowymi przyczynami emigracji jest jednym z kluczowych elementów skutecznego i odpornego na kryzys zarządzania migracjami. A jakie są te źródłowe przyczyny? W sposób oczywisty destabilizacja i wojna w państwach sąsiednich, ale też – trzeba to sobie uczciwie w tym miejscu powiedzieć – skrajnie nieodpowiedzialna, naiwna, często oparta o swoistego rodzaju terroryzm politycznej poprawności naiwność i to słynne ‘Herzlich willkommen’ w 2015 r. Drodzy uchodźcy, przybywajcie! Czekamy tutaj na was! Skutkowało to tym, że bardzo wielu ludzi – rzeczywiście uchodźców – nie znalazło potrzebnej pomocy, bo zostało wypartych przez migrantów ekonomicznych i gospodarczych.
               

                  Dotychczasowy wpływ Unii na procesy występujące w naszym bezpośrednim sąsiedztwie okazał się niewystarczający, a realne zagrożenia nie zostały skutecznie zminimalizowane. Te nierozwiązane problemy poza granicami zewnętrznymi Unii mogą doprowadzić do kolejnego kryzysu migracyjnego, z którym być może będziemy musieli sobie radzić. Tutaj trzeba powiedzieć bardzo wyraźnie: podejmowane przez instytucje unijne działania muszą być spójne, celowe, właściwie skoordynowane, a zaangażowanie państw członkowskich w tych rejonach powinno być wyrazem dobrej woli.
               

Cornelia Ernst,
im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ja, es ist richtig, dass die Grenzpolitik eine europäische ist und nicht einem Mitgliedstaat wie etwa Kroatien angelastet werden kann. Es ist auch richtig, dass die Asyl- und Migrationspolitik einer europäischen Lösung bedarf. Ich kann sogar nachvollziehen, dass Kroatien angesichts der Katastrophe in den griechischen Hotspots verhindern möchte, selbst ein EU-Hotspot-Land zu werden. Aber all das berechtigt die kroatische Grenzpolizei nicht – und darum geht es mir –, Flüchtlinge zu prügeln, zu quälen, Hunde auf sie zu hetzen, sie maskiert mit Waffen zu bedrohen, in den Grenzfluss Richtung Bosnien zu werfen, ihnen Sachen – Geld, Handys, ja sogar Essen – zu stehlen, sie mit offenen Wunden im Wald zurückzulassen und Menschen, die Hilfe gewähren, zu traktieren. Ungelöste europäische Fragen rechtfertigen einen solchen Sadismus gegenüber Flüchtlingen nicht. Folterverbot, non-refoulement, Schutz von Kindern – das sind Abkommen, die auch Kroatien unterschrieben hat. Menschenrechte müssen überall gelten, und bitte schön auch an den Grenzen.
               

Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η κυβέρνηση της Νέας Δημοκρατίας στην Ελλάδα —παίρνοντας την σκυτάλη από τον ΣΥΡΙΖΑ στην ευρωενωσιακή πολιτική καταστολής— χτίζει, με πράξη νομοθετικού περιεχομένου, φυλακές στα ελληνικά νησιά, όπου —με βάση και τη γερμανική πρόταση για το Δουβλίνο— θα συνεχίζει να εγκλωβίζεται ο κύριος όγκος των αιτούντων άσυλο. Στην πλειοψηφία τους θα απελαύνονται, ελάχιστοι θα παίρνουν άσυλο και ακόμα πιο λίγοι θα πηγαίνουν τελικά σε χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Το τι πραγματικά ετοιμάζεται φανερώνεται από τη διεύθυνση επιστροφών που ανακοίνωσε η ελληνική κυβέρνηση, δηλαδή μια φάμπρικα απελάσεων για να γυρίσουν οι πρόσφυγες πίσω στην κόλαση του ιμπεριαλιστικού πολέμου, τον οποίον φουντώνουν η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, οι ΗΠΑ, το ΝΑΤΟ και οι κυβερνήσεις έχοντας τεράστιες ευθύνες. Να ακυρωθεί η υπογραφή της Ελλάδας στη συμφωνία Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-Τουρκίας και στον κανονισμό του Δουβλίνου. Να καταδικαστεί η πολιτική των δολοφονικών πλωτών φραγμάτων-παγίδων, της εμπλοκής και της χρηματοδότησης ΜΚΟ και της ανοχής στη δράση ακροδεξιών ομάδων, που πυροδοτεί εντάσεις στα νησιά, σε μια ούτως ή άλλως πολύ δύσκολη κατάσταση για νησιώτες και πρόσφυγες. Να κλείσουν τα hotspot και να δημιουργηθούν κέντρα φιλοξενίας στην ενδοχώρα για μετάβαση στις χώρες πραγματικού προορισμού.
               

Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, meni je upravo nevjerojatno da ovdje, po ne znam koji put više, moramo slušati laži, neistinite informacije i fake news o tzv. nelegalnim push-backovima od strane Hrvatske.
               

                  Jedini izvor informacija za takve tvrdnje su pristrane nevladine udruge koje imaju svoju političku agendu ocrnjivanja Hrvatske, hrvatske Vlade, kompromitiranja hrvatskog ulaska u Schengen a koje svoje izvore informiranja baziraju isključivo na tvrdnjama samih nelegalnih migranata čiji identitet najčešće uopće nije poznat i za koje uopće ne znamo tko su, koji su pet ili šest puta pokušavali nelegalno prijeći granicu i sada, zato što nisu uspjeli, okolo tužakaju hrvatske vlasti bez ikakvih dokaza. Niti jedan takav slučaj nije utvrđen od strane nadležnih tijela, od strane suda, nadzornih tijela policije, itd.
               

                  Hrvatska nadzire vanjsku granicu Europske unije, bori se protiv vanjskih nelegalnih migracija, čuva 1300 km vanjske granice na kvalitetan način i prošle godine je otkriveno i spriječeno više od 20000 pokušaja nelegalnih prelazaka granice. Također bih istaknuo da je samo prošle godine 995 nelegalnih krijumčara ljudi uhićeno. Možda je to, ta praksa hrvatske policije, ono što nekima ovdje smeta i zbog čega šire ovakve laži i neistine.
               

(Govornik je pristao odgovoriti na pitanje postavljeno podizanjem plave kartice u skladu s člankom 171. stavkom 8. Poslovnika)


Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Ja, ich bin schon erstaunt. Es gibt ja nun eine Menge Nachweise dafür, dass es massenhaft pushbacks gibt, illegale pushbacks an der kroatischen Grenze, und dass nahezu alle Migrantinnen und Migranten, die davon betroffen sind, mindestens drei, vier Mal abgeschoben wurden, und zwar ohne dass sie Asyl begehren konnten. Ist Ihnen das bekannt? Haben Sie davon jemals etwas gehört? Und haben Sie davon gehört, dass viele, viele Flüchtlinge beispielsweise klagen, dass ihnen in schlimmster Art und Weise Gewalt angetan wurde? Haben Sie das immer noch ignoriert oder sind Sie bereit, auch mal anzuerkennen, wie die Realität tatsächlich ist?
               

Tomislav Sokol (PPE),
odgovor na pitanje postavljeno podizanjem plave kartice. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, čuo sam mnogo laži u životu, ali to što tisuću puta ponavljate jednu laž to ju neće učiniti istinom.
               

                  Naravno da osobe koje pokušavaju izigrati sustav azila, koje pokušavaju iskoristiti Hrvatsku kako bi došli na područje drugih država, koji ne dolaze uopće iz ratnih područja nego kao što je rekao i ministar sigurnosti BiH gospodin Radončić, iz zemalja koje uopće nisu ugrožene, koje nisu u ratu, naravno da takvi ljudi koji krše zakone govore neistine. To su vaši izvori informacija a to, takvim ljudima, ja iskreno ne mogu vjerovati. Vi možda možete, ali ja ne.
               

Isabel Santos (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, não podemos ignorar a terrível situação dos refugiados imigrantes em diversas partes do mundo, mas sobretudo às portas da União Europeia como, recentemente, fui testemunha na fronteira entre a Croácia, Estado-Membro da União, e a Bósnia-Herzegovina. Ali tive oportunidade de testemunhar e ouvir os mais dramáticos relatos sobre o tratamento violento, degradante e desumano adotado pela polícia croata no afastamento de pessoas que só buscam uma oportunidade de vida decente, uma busca que resulta, muitas vezes, na sua morte.
               

                  Sobre isto chegaram hoje notícias de uma iniciativa parlamentar para a abertura de um inquérito que muito saúdo e, para não ferir a sensibilidade deste plenário, entregarei à senhora comissária algumas fotografias absolutamente chocantes no final da minha intervenção.
               

                  Na Bósnia pudemos contactar com inúmeros migrantes e refugiados. Entre estes destaco os jovens não acompanhados a viver, como outros, em condições a que ninguém devia ser submetido, muito menos nestas idades. Diversos deles à espera de poderem reunir-se com familiares a viverem na Europa.
               

                  Tudo isto diante do marasmo europeu na assunção de medidas solidárias que permitam retirar estas pessoas do limbo em que se encontram.
               

                  Por isso, pergunto se o novo plano para as migrações, que se anuncia, prevê a instituição de canais legais, expeditos, nomeadamente através de vistos humanitários, mas também de estudo, trabalho e reunificação familiar.
               

                  A nossa inquietude não pode equivaler nem em silêncio nem em inação.
               

(A oradora aceita responder a uma pergunta cartão azul em conformidade com o artigo 171.o, n.o 8, do Regimento)


Sunčana Glavak (PPE),
pitanje koje je podizanjem plave kartice postavio. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kolegice, ja dolazim iz Hrvatske.
               

                  Željela bih vam samo reći da Hrvatska, nažalost, ima stvarna bolna sjećanja. Nakon agresije Srbije na Republiku Hrvatsku imali smo tisuće migranata, stoga, nemojte dvojiti o hrvatskim namjerama i nemojte govoriti o nečemu što ne razumijete i što ne znate. Ja živim u Hrvatskoj a Hrvatska čini sve da postupanje na hrvatskim granicama se odvija u potpunoj usklađenosti s hrvatskim i europskim zakonima te međunarodnim standardima i pravilima. Hrvatska nema žicu i nema barikade, za razliku od ostalih zemalja.
               

Isabel Santos (S&D),
Resposta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                     . – Proteger fronteiras não quer dizer violar o direito internacional, violar os direitos humanos. E se a Croácia quer proteger as suas fronteiras, não violando o direito internacional, nem violando os direitos humanos, porque é que ainda não implementou um mecanismo de monitorização de tudo o que lá está a acontecer? E é necessário que agora o Parlamento aprove um inquérito para que se apure toda a verdade.
               

Maite Pagazaurtundúa (Renew). – Señor presidente, comisaria Dalli, vamos a ver, si yo no me equivoco y la he escuchado bien, usted ha dicho que hacemos todo lo que está en nuestras manos. No, no es cierto. No hacemos todo lo que está en nuestras manos.
               

                  Sabemos que el Reglamento de Dublín no funciona y, sin embargo, el Consejo lo tiene bloqueado. No tenemos una política común de asilo y migración legal, que es la manera de parar toda esta catástrofe. No hacemos todo lo que está en nuestras manos.
               

                  Si no me equivoco, usted dice que hemos conseguido mucho ya. Hemos conseguido que Moria sea un infierno, que Samos, que Kios sean infiernos. En Libia -donde usted dice que nosotros ponemos ayuda para aliviar el sufrimiento-, no vamos a poder aliviar el sufrimiento si no hacemos lo más importante, lo que sí está en nuestra mano, declarar Libia un país no seguro. Eso sí está en nuestra mano.
               

                  ¿Cuándo se va a utilizar todo lo que está en nuestra mano, comisaria Dalli? Los derechos fundamentales no son palabras. Nosotros pisamos moqueta y usted habla de un funcionario de derechos fundamentales que va a tener otros 40 funcionarios. Cuando hay miseria no hay tiempo para estas cosas, señora Dalli.
               

Jordan Bardella (ID). – Monsieur le Président, la fameuse crise des réfugiés qui a débuté en 2015 n'a définitivement rien d'une crise. L'afflux massif de migrants sur le continent européen, en plus d'être continu, est devenu une véritable submersion. En Grèce, les arrivées annuelles ont plus que doublé en deux ans, atteignant le chiffre de 75 000 nouveaux migrants pour l'année 2019. Sur l'île de Samos, leur nombre dépasse celui des habitants. Sans compter la voie d'accès par la frontière continentale avec la Turquie, où le franchissement du modeste fleuve Évros suffit à démontrer l'inefficacité totale de Frontex et l'obsolescence de l'accord de 2016 avec la Turquie.
               

                  Nous pouvons discuter et nous indigner sans fin des conditions dans lesquelles vivent migrants et clandestins, mais c'est traiter les effets du problème au lieu d'en résoudre les causes. Sont responsables de ces drames tous ceux qui, par leurs actes politiques ou par leurs discours, incitent la terre entière à gagner les rivages de l'Europe. éviteront au contraire ces drames tous ceux qui feront le choix d'une politique de dissuasion humaniste, tant par les moyens mis en place aux frontières que par la coupure de l'ensemble des pompes aspirantes dans les pays respectifs.
               

                  En clôturant sa frontière maritime avec la Turquie pour retenir les embarcations clandestines, la Grèce s'engage sur la bonne voie et nous devrions l'aider et l'encourager, plutôt que de la railler.
               

                  Les droits de l'homme affirment que toute personne peut quitter son pays si elle fait l'objet de persécutions, mais ce principe ne doit et ne devra jamais justifier que la vie, le foyer et les pays d'autres hommes soit bouleversés en retour. Soyez assurés que le XXIe siècle sera celui du droit des peuples à disposer d'eux-mêmes et surtout à rester eux-mêmes.
               

Erik Marquardt (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Ich bin in Europa aufgewachsen, und als ich aufwuchs, dachte ich immer, dass Menschenrechtsverletzungen, dass staatliche Willkür, dass humanitäre Krisen etwas sind, was woanders passiert, was nicht in europäischen Mitgliedstaaten passieren kann. Und dann war ich auf Seenotrettungsmission im Mittelmeer und habe festgestellt, dass wir islamistische Milizen dort stärker unterstützen als die Menschen, die vor diesen Milizen fliehen. Und ich war auf Lesbos, habe zwei junge Syrer getroffen, die mich gefragt haben: Warum behandelt uns Europa eigentlich wie Tiere? Ich habe darauf keine Antwort. Und letztes Wochenende war ich auch in Kroatien und in Bosnien und Herzegowina. Es sind mitnichten nur einzelne NGOs, die dort von pushbacks sprechen, sondern es ist auch die EU-Delegation in Bosnien, es ist das UNHCR, es ist Ihr eigener Menschenrechtsbeauftragter in Kroatien, eine staatliche Behörde, die davon ausgeht, dass es dort viele pushbacks gibt. Man sieht doch die Gewalt auch überall.
               

                  Also was passiert eigentlich an den Außengrenzen? Wir haben uns Regeln gegeben, die wir nicht beachten, weil wir andere Interessen haben. Ich glaube, so funktioniert auf Dauer keine wehrhafte Demokratie. Ich glaube an die Europäische Union, aber ich würde gerne noch mehr daran glauben, was wir sind, und nicht an das, was wir in Reden hier sein wollen. Wenn die Kommission das ernst meint, was gesagt wurde, dann geht es jetzt auch darum, zum Beispiel in Kroatien zu zeigen: Wir lassen einen unabhängigen Menschenrechts-Beobachtungsmechanismus dort zu, wir lassen die Leute auch dort an den Außengrenzen mit den border guards, mit den Grenzpolizisten zusammen überwachen, was dort passiert. Es wäre sehr wichtig, dass auch Kroatien zeigt, dass es nichts zu verbergen gibt. Dafür könnte dieser Menschenrechts-Beobachtungsmechanismus helfen. Sie weigern sich aber, den einzurichten.
               

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’ gemäß Artikel 171 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


Željana Zovko (PPE),
blue-card question. – Mr Marquardt, I was a refugee myself during the war in the former Yugoslavia and I worked in a solicitor's office with thousands of refugees from the former Yugoslavia. There's only one way to establish whether the police are doing right or wrong. What you are saying is a lie. It's a blatant lie. Don't abuse real asylum seekers by spreading these lies here, please, because you are going against real asylum seekers and real refugees, and you are using these human tragedies in this place by blaming Croatia for something that it is not doing.
One million one hundred thousand Croats live in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They are Bosnian Serbs and Croats, who were given Croatian passports during the war, and we are protecting them as well.

Erik Marquardt (Verts/ALE),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Ich habe dazu ja schon etwas gesagt. Aber ich frage mich auch immer, was bedeutet es denn, wenn Sie einfach allen vorwerfen, die dort investigativ recherchieren, staatliche Medien zum Beispiel in Deutschland, die herausfinden, dass es pushbacks gibt, die Videoaufnahmen von pushbacks machen … und Sie behaupten, das sind Fake News. Was ist das für ein Verständnis auch von Pressefreiheit? Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, wie es ist, flüchten zu müssen. Aber ich glaube, wenn Sie die Erfahrung selbst gemacht haben, dann täten Sie gut daran, in Bosnien mal mit den Menschen zu reden, mit denen wir da am Wochenende geredet haben, die geschlagen wurden, die wirklich ausgepeitscht wurden und die sich diese Verletzungen wirklich nicht selber zugefügt haben.
               

Εμμανουήλ Φράγκος (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, απευθύνομαι στους Έλληνες που μας βλέπουν από τις τηλεοράσεις, τους υπολογιστές και τα κινητά τους. Απευθύνομαι στους κατοίκους της Σάμου, της Μυτιλήνης, των Διαβατών και της υπόλοιπης Ελλάδας, που έχουν δει τον τόπο τους να μετατρέπεται σε ένα απέραντο χαλιφάτο. Είναι πια δεδομένο πως η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση εξυπηρετεί τα συμφέροντα ατόμων όπως του Soros, που μέσω των MKO και των μουσουλμάνων αποσκοπούν στο να εξαλειφθεί o χριστιανισμός και να γεμίσει με τζαμιά η Ευρώπη.
               

                  Εμείς πρέπει να τιμήσουμε τις αξίες και τις παραδόσεις που κληρονομήσαμε από τους προγόνους μας. Είναι ντροπή η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να χρησιμοποιεί τα χρήματα του Ευρωπαίου φορολογούμενου για να παρέχει δωρεάν διαμονή και διατροφή στους λαθρομετανάστες, τη στιγμή που υπάρχουν Έλληνες που λόγω της οικονομικής κρίσης έχουν φτάσει να κοιμούνται στα αυτοκίνητά τους. Εμείς, η Ελληνική Λύση, απαιτούμε μια Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση χριστιανική που θα έχει στον πυρήνα της τον ιερό θεσμό της οικογένειας και όχι μια Ευρώπη πολυπολιτισμική.
               

(χειροκροτήματα)


Κωνσταντίνος Αρβανίτης (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, καταρχήν, κάποιες ομάδες έχουν χάσει την ουσία της συζήτησης. Σήμερα μιλάμε για τα ευρωπαϊκά σύνορα και πρέπει να τονίσουμε την αξία του πρόσφυγα και την αξία του μετανάστη· είναι άλλες έννοιες. Φεύγουν από τη δικιά τους κόλαση, λοιπόν, από τον πόλεμο και βιώνουν, εδώ στην Ευρώπη, την ευρωπαϊκή κόλαση. Εγώ αυτό καταλαβαίνω. Και, μάλιστα, με νόμιμη κρατική βία: τη βία των αστυνομικών, των συνοριοφυλάκων, την κρατική καταστολή. Στη Σερβία, στη Βοσνία-Ερζεγοβίνη, στην Κροατία, στην Ουγγαρία, στη Ρουμανία. Συμβαίνουν καθημερινά, καταγεγραμμένα, εκατοντάδες περιστατικά βίαιων απωθήσεων. Έχουμε μαρτυρίες, είμαστε εμείς οι ίδιοι αυτόπτες μάρτυρες· έχουν πάει εκπρόσωποι του Κοινοβουλίου. Και όταν εμείς —Σοσιαλιστές, Πράσινοι, αριστεροί βουλευτές, ευρωβουλευτές— δείχνουμε τις εικόνες των κατασπαραγμένων από σκυλιά της αστυνομίας ανθρώπων, οι δύο υπουργοί της Κροατίας λένε ότι είναι fake news. Και το ακούω και εδώ. Αυτό είναι προσβολή για τους βουλευτές· αυτό που κάνετε είναι προσβολή για τις πολιτικές ομάδες. Να ακούτε! Να ακούτε επιτέλους! Είναι ακροδεξιά ρητορική. Σας έχει μείνει μόνο το ID και η Ακροδεξιά. Θέλω επίσης να σας πω ότι στην Ελλάδα τοποθετούνται πλωτά φράγματα. Στα ελληνοτουρκικά σύνορα, εκατοντάδες πεθαίνουν από πνιγμό και από το κρύο. Και θέλω να κάνω μια ερώτηση τελευταία: θα μας πείτε τελικά την πρότασή σας; Όχι έκθεση ιδεών· να μας πείτε ποια είναι η πρότασή σας.
               

Clara Ponsatí Obiols (NI). – Mr President, we cannot look at refugees as an external affair because being a refugee is a defining right for many of us. Many generations of Europeans, including those in my country who escaped the fascist horror of Franco 81 years ago, saved their lives thanks to their refugee status. Today there are refugee children and grandchildren sitting in this Parliament and who knows whether, unfortunately, there are also parents and grandparents of future refugees?
But being a refugee goes hand in hand with being a welcoming host. Europe, the daughter of refugees, must be a safe haven for refugees. Anyone seeking refuge, fleeing from wars, whether wars fought with weapons or with the economy, must feel that Europe is home – not to atone for the sins of colonialism, but to accelerate progress and peace in the world.

Lena Düpont (PPE). – Herr Präsident, werte Kollegen! Bei der vergangenen Plenartagung haben wir über die Lage auf den griechischen Inseln gesprochen. Heute geht es auch um die kroatische Grenze. Für beide Fälle gilt: Unsere Asyl- und Migrationspolitik kann nur funktionieren, wenn sie internationalem und europäischem Recht folgt, wenn sie unsere humanitären Standards aufrechterhält. Gleichzeitig kann sie aber auch nur funktionieren, wenn wir endlich zu einem stringenten und konsequenten GEAS kommen. Der Schutz der Außengrenze ist dafür eine grundlegende Bedingung. Sowohl für Griechenland als auch für Kroatien als auch für alle anderen Staaten mit EU-Außengrenzen muss daher gelten: Wir erwarten und unterstützen die Einhaltung von Regeln, wir lassen euch aber auch nicht allein mit der Verantwortung. Das muss der europäische Ansatz sein. Hier frage ich Rat und Kommission: Wenn uns nicht die Situation auf der Westbalkanroute, die steigenden Zahlen illegaler Grenzübertritte oder die Instabilitäten in Europas Nachbarschaft dazu bringen, ein ambitioniertes und zukunftsfähiges Asyl- und Migrationspaket auf den Weg zu bringen, wenn wir dieses Zeitfenster nicht nutzen, was dann?
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisaria Dalli, violencia, sufrimiento, negación de tratamiento médico, de asistencia jurídica o de información, eso es una violación flagrante no solamente del Derecho internacional humanitario, sino del Derecho europeo. Para empezar, de la Directiva sobre el procedimiento de asilo de 2013.
               

                  Y, por lo tanto, la Comisión tiene la obligación de intervenir donde quiera que sea y donde quiera que se produzcan expulsiones masivas en frontera con flagrante violación del Protocolo n.o 4 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, además del artículo 19 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, que vincula a todos los Estados miembros.
               

                  Dondequiera que se produzca, la Comisión tiene la obligación de incoar expediente de infracción y de asegurar la vinculación del acceso a los fondos europeos al estricto cumplimiento de los estándares de derechos fundamentales de todos los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea, incluido el Fondo de Asilo, Migración e Integración.
               

                  Pero, además, la Comisión tiene que hacer más. La Comisión, por supuesto, tiene que asegurar que no es posible ninguna expulsión ni ningún retorno a un país que no sea seguro, como Libia. Y la Comisión tiene la obligación de abrir, de una vez, canales legales y seguros de acceso a la Unión Europea para que la gente no se vea en la obligación de exponer la propia vida en el empeño. Visados humanitarios, como ha querido y ha ordenado este Parlamento en la pasada legislatura. Esa es la tarea para la presente legislatura, señora comisaria.
               

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la ‘tarjeta azul’ (artículo 171, apartado 8, del Reglamento interno)).


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE),
otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Opakovaně tady z řad socialistické frakce slyším, jak máme být otevření pro humanitární přijetí tisíců uprchlíků. Já souhlasím s tím, že EU musí zůstat bezpečným přístavem pro ty, kteří potřebují pomoc.
               

                  A já vás chci vyzvat: Oslovte socialistického ministra vnitra v ČR, aby přijal 50 nedoprovázených dětí z řeckého uprchlického tábora. Uděláte to? On to totiž odmítá. Je to člen socialistické strany, která odmítá přijmout pouze 50 nedoprovázených dětí.
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D),
respuesta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                     . – Señora Šojdrová, usted ha mencionado en su pregunta a los socialistas en este Parlamento Europeo y al ministro checo. Y yo no he mencionado a ninguna familia política ni a ningún país en concreto. Pero le recuerdo que quien quiera que haya entrado en este Parlamento Europeo lo ha hecho representando a un Estado miembro que se ha vinculado al Tratado de Lisboa, a la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, que reconoce como un derecho fundamental el derecho de asilo y que reconoce que el Derecho internacional humanitario es vinculante para todos los Estados miembros. También para el suyo.
               

                  Y, por tanto, no hay escapatoria. El Derecho humanitario nos vincula enteramente, y eso significa respetar a los demandantes de asilo. Hoy hemos votado el FADO exactamente para controlar mejor el acceso, en las fronteras Schengen, al espacio de libre circulación, pero, una vez que están dentro, tienen enteramente derecho a que sus derechos fundamentales, reconocidos en la Carta, sean protegidos por todos los Estados miembros.
               

Irena Joveva (Renew). – Spoštovani predsedujoči, že leta smo priča poročanju o kratenju človekovih pravic beguncem in migrantom na zunanjih mejah Unije, med drugim, slišali smo že, tudi na hrvaški meji.
               

                  Spredaj, kot predsedujoči Svetu EU, sedijo predstavniki Hrvaške, v dvorani so tudi kolegi iz te države. Vem, kaj bi zdaj najraje spet rekli. Da nič ni res, da ni dokazov…
               

                  Pred enim mesecem je skupina nevladnih organizacij izdala poročilo o dogajanju lani tam. In iz dokumenta je razvidno, da hrvaške oblasti te ljudi pošiljajo nazaj v Bosno in Hercegovino pretepene s palicami, s posledicami strelov z zračnimi pištolami, bose, včasih gole. Na dogajanje opozarjajo tudi hrvaška ombudsmanka, agencije Združenih narodov, celo nekateri hrvaški policisti v svojih anonimnih izpovedih.
               

                  Evropska komisija, še v prejšnji sestavi sicer, pa je storila – kaj? Rekla, da Hrvaška izpolnjuje pogoje za vstop v Schengen. Toliko o tem. Če bo treba, bom šla osebno na teren, ampak čez noč in nenapovedano. Pa vam bom potem, sklepam, lahko svoje posnetke pokazala vsakič, ko boste rekli, kje so dokazi.
               

(Govornica se je strinjala, da sprejme vprašanje, nakazano z dvigom modrega kartončka v skladu s členom 171(8).)


Karlo Ressler (PPE),
pitanje koje je podizanjem plave kartice postavio. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovana kolegice Joveva, jasno je da sve osobe koje žele zatražiti međunarodnu zaštitu to mogu učiniti, jasno, na službenim graničnim prijelazima i uz, normalno, osobne putne dokumente.
               

                  Ja bih vas htio pitati, bez obzira na sve i ove neutemeljene navode koje navodite, zbog čega smatrate da u Hrvatskoj postoji minimalan broj zahtjeva za azil, zbog čega osobe koje žele zatražiti međunarodnu zaštitu, a nalaze se u Bosni i Hercegovini to ne žele napraviti sa svojim dokumentima i to ne žele napraviti na službenim graničnim prijelazima.
               

Irena Joveva (Renew),
Odgovor na vprašanje, postavljeno z dvigom modrega kartončka. – Dragi kolega Ressler, nisem sicer sploh govorila o nobenih minimalnih prošnjah za azil, govorila sem o tem, kaj se dogaja na hrvaški meji, torej na zunanji meji Unije.
               

                  Zdaj vi pravite, da dokazov ni, da so to laži, da nič ni res. Mogoče gledamo druge novice ali slike, pa greva mogoče lahko na kavo pa si pogledava skupaj vse te slike in videoposnetke, ampak kot sem rekla, če bo treba, bom šla sama na mejo.
               

                  Bila sem že na meji kot novinarka, kot političarka bom šla še raje. Zato, ker imam večjo moč soodločanja, in upam, da vam bom potem lahko dokazovala sama, če ne verjamete novinarjem.
               

Hynek Blaško (ID). – Pane předsedající, jako člověku je mi upřímně líto, v jaké situaci se nacházejí tisíce migrantů na vnější hranici EU.
               

                  Jako poslanci této instituce mi však vadí přístup zodpovědných orgánů k řešení problematiky migrace, který vyústil do těchto tristních podmínek. Drtivá většina migrantů pochází ze zemí, kde žádná válka neprobíhá. Je zcela zřejmé, že do Evropy přichází jen a pouze s vidinou snadného života, který je jim nabízen formou štědrých sociálních výhod.
               

                  Nemáme snad svoje problémy se sociální situací některých našich občanů a důchodců? Jakým právem jsou migranti upřednostňováni před lidmi, kteří tady pracují a platí daně? Jakým právem jsou upřednostňováni před důchodci, kteří tady celý život pracovali a platili daně a jejichž důchod se nerovná výhodám těch, které upřednostňujete?
               

                  Uvědomte si už konečně, že celý problém vyvoláváte svojí neuváženou sociální politikou a změňte ji, pak přestanete škodit migrantům i občanům Evropy.
               

Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, two weeks ago we discussed the situation on the Greek islands, and I'm asking myself how much has really changed on the ground since we talked about it. And the answer is: the situation has got worse. We haven't done anything at EU level to make the situation better. Yes, we still give money, but in the end, the idea of creating a floating barrier to stop people even asking for asylum and the overcrowding in the camps is still so bad that people are protesting now – both the local population and the refugees.
So I would ask us to stop the blame game between the Council and the Commission and act on both sides, as much as we can, to improve the situation on the ground. That means, on the Commission side, triggering the Civil Protection Mechanism today, and, on the Council side, actually accepting minors and refugees, who need our help so badly on the ground. Let us actually act today and not tomorrow.

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, уважаеми, чувам, че критикувате Хърватия. Нямате никакви основания да критикувате нито Хърватия, нито Гърция, нито България, защото ние, нашите държави, пазим вас от терористи, от ислямисти, от джихадисти. Защото ние спираме тези, които идват да взривяват европейските градове, и всяка една държава трябва да пази своите граници, и тя е суверенна държава, и нито един от вас не може да иска суверенните държави да пускат терористи на своя територия.
               

                  Но ще ви кажа защо това, което правите, е лицемерие, тежко лицемерие. Защото нито един от вас – тези, които твърдят, че са много загрижени, не е дал личен пример. Вдигнете ръка някой от вас, който е приел в дома си някой афганистански терорист или джихадист, вдигнете ръка. Има ли такъв? Във вашия хол, във вашата спалня, да живее с вашите деца. Чакам, има ли такъв? Не, няма! Тогава недейте, моля ви, да бъдете лицемерни и двулични.
               

Maria Walsh (PPE). – Mr President, I'm surprised that there weren't any blue cards after our colleague there from the ECR. The challenges we face in keeping our borders secure are immense and growing. We've seen an explosion in the numbers of people seeking a better life in the European Union away from violence and poverty and away from climate disasters. The appalling conditions in any of the EU refugee camps, be it in any of the countries we're talking about tonight, are under severe pressure from the people that are most vulnerable and from the people in the European Union who are forgetting to support our brothers and sisters. The conditions are intolerable, and lip service is not supporting or aiding those we need to support. It cannot just be a small number of countries accommodating everybody. It needs Europe's help.
The European project, dare I say, is a victim of its own success. We need to be compassionate to those who are risking their lives to come here, and we also need to find solidarity: the compassion in supporting our Member States who are most seeing the influx of people coming through.
I notice my time is up, and I will say we need a strategic and compassionate solution right now, Commissioner, from the top down. And dare I say, one instant solution we could make is perhaps having this conversation, this much needed dialogue, in the Hemicycle at a time when there's a little bit more than 40 or 50 MEPs discussing it.

Bettina Vollath (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Zweimal war ich persönlich vor Ort. Die humanitäre Situation an der kroatischen EU-Außengrenze zu Bosnien ist unverändert dramatisch, insbesondere die Situation der unbegleiteten Minderjährigen. Die Bevölkerung und die Lokalpolitik vor Ort sind mit der Situation überfordert und fühlen sich zu Recht von der EU verraten, verkauft und im Stich gelassen. Sonntagsreden wie die heute Abend hier von Kommission und Rat helfen uns nicht weiter. Dieses Kopf-in-den-Sand-Stecken schadet der EU viel mehr, als es der Brexit jemals vermag, denn es zerstört die EU-Aufsicht. Sorgen Sie bitte dringend für die notwendige Entschärfung der humanitären Notlage – besonders die Kinder müssen dort herausgeholt werden – und für ein unabhängiges Monitoring für die Vorfälle an dieser Grenze. Schaffen Sie endlich ein gemeinsames europäisches solidarisches Asylsystem ohne Misshandlungen und illegale pushbacks. Es gibt nur auf Basis der Menschenrechte echte Lösungen. Die EU muss endlich professionell handeln, wir verlieren sonst unsere letzte Glaubwürdigkeit.
               

ELNÖKÖL: KLÁRA DOBREV


alelnök


Silvia Sardone (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sugli immigrati, i rifugiati e le loro condizioni nei centri di accoglienza l'Europa è colpevole, ipocrita e vigliacca. Colpevole perché grazie alle politiche di immigrazione senza freni e dell'accoglienza a tutti i costi, di fatto sono arrivati da noi disperati, costretti a sopravvivere nei campi, bivaccare nelle periferie e spesso persino a delinquere.
                  

                     È ipocrita, perché vi stracciate le vesti sulle condizioni degli immigrati, ma poi lasciate soli i paesi del Mediterraneo. Io mi chiedo: perché non sostenete la rotazione dei porti? Perché non fate qualcosa per bloccare gli sbarchi, e quindi anche e soprattutto per bloccare le partenze? È vigliacca perché applaudite qui Carola Rackete e le ONG, ma poi di fatto supportate chi favorisce gli scafisti.
                  

                     L'unico con una visione chiara si chiama Matteo Salvini. Ribadiamo: stop all'immigrazione clandestina, lotta ai trafficanti e fine del business dell'accoglienza!
                  

Elżbieta Kruk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Śledząc liberalne media europejskie można odnieść wrażenie, jakoby kryzys migracyjny zakończył się w roku 2016. W rzeczywistości wciąż trwa i to w dwóch odsłonach: humanitarnej, na granicach zewnętrznych, oraz migracyjnej – wewnątrz Unii. Oficjalne statystyki pokazują, że sytuacja wciąż jest poważna.
                  

                     Oto skutki polityki Unii Europejskiej z 2015 roku, kiedy to otwarto granice wszystkim przybyszom, błędnie lub świadomie klasyfikując ich jako uchodźców, choć w większości byli to emigranci ekonomiczni. Może więc mamy do czynienia z celową inżynierią społeczną, w założeniu której było sprowadzenie do Europy milionów migrantów, by przyśpieszyć koniec państw narodowych i stworzyć nowego człowieka bezideowego, bez narodowej tożsamości i bez chrześcijańskiej wiary. Zamiast bowiem zmienić politykę migracyjną, przemilcza się problem. Unia dysponuje zasobami, potrzebuje jedynie wizji politycznej innej niż zabójcza dla Europy neomarksistowska ideologia.
                  

Nuno Melo (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, uma Europa de fronteiras abertas é um absoluto disparate que só a utopia de uma esquerda muito irresponsável defende neste Parlamento. Não há um único país do mundo onde as fronteiras sejam abertas. Onde quem queira possa entrar dependendo só da sua vontade.
                  

                     A União Europeia não tem, obviamente, de ser diferente. Temos de respeitar quem queira melhorar as suas condições de vida e temos a obrigação de acolher as pessoas com humanismo, mas, para que isso seja possível com recursos tão escassos, tem de haver muito rigor no controlo da entrada das fronteiras externas da União Europeia. E tem de se distinguir o que tem que ser distinguido: uma coisa são refugiados, outra coisa, são migrantes. Aos refugiados aplicam-se tratados e leis diferentes das leis que se aplicam aos migrantes, são realidades diferentes. Quem seja considerado refugiado que foge para salvar a sua vida deve ser acolhido, de acordo com leis ou tratados, mas quem apenas procura trabalho, quem seja migrante, deverá entrar, ou não, dependendo das leis e da vontade de cada país, com respeito pelo princípio da subsidiariedade.
                  

                     Cada país é que sabe dos migrantes que necessita. O acesso descontrolado de migrantes à Europa não é aceitável, põe em risco a segurança das pessoas, o nosso sistema laboral, social e democrático. E o acolhimento dos verdadeiros refugiados, esse sim, deve, obviamente, acontecer.
                  

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta cartão azul em conformidade com o artigo 171.o, n.o 8, do Regimento)


Bettina Vollath (S&D),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . – Sie haben auf die unterschiedliche rechtliche Basis für die Behandlung von Flüchtlingen und Migranten hingewiesen – das ist richtig. Aber eine Frage drängt sich auf: Haben Migranten trotzdem Menschenrechte und Grundrechte, oder gilt das für Migranten nicht, sondern nur für Flüchtlinge?
                  

Nuno Melo (PPE),
Resposta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                        . – A senhora deputada achará que se quiser entrar no Paquistão, na Índia, nos Estados Unidos, no Canadá, onde seja, entra só porque quer? Isso não acontece em nenhum país do mundo e têm direitos humanos. Os países têm o direito de regular os fluxos migratórios, têm direitos humanos e, enquanto humanos, têm também de respeitar as leis dos países. Já se se tratar de um refugiado verdadeiro, de alguém que quer fugir da morte, que quer proteger a sua família, aplicam-se tratados, devem obviamente ser acolhidos. Mas, por isso, são tão importantes os hotspots. Por isso se tem nas fronteiras externas que verificar muito bem quem quer entrar, porque o resto é utopia, palavras bonitas, mas que não resolvem nenhum problema e colocam em risco a sustentabilidade deste projeto comum. E eu gostava que a União Europeia durasse muitos e muitos anos.
                  

Norbert Neuser (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Mir geht es um die Menschen, die bereits aufgenommen worden sind. Wir haben hier eine humanitäre Notlage, und ich beziehe mich besonders auf die Situation auf den griechischen Inseln. Wir brauchen entschlossenes Handeln. Das verlangen die Vereinten Nationen von der EU und von Griechenland. Und es ist eine Blamage für uns gemeinsam, wenn die Vereinten Nationen uns auffordern müssen, dass wir auch entschlossen handeln.
                  

                     Die Situation ist in den letzten zwölf Monaten dramatisch schlimmer geworden, und ich rede hier davon, dass wir insbesondere die Situation der Kinder sehen müssen. Ein Drittel derjenigen, die in Griechenland aufgenommen worden sind, sind Kinder unter zwölf Jahren. Hier ist die hygienische Situation, hier ist die Situation, was Krankheiten betrifft, in Lagern, die total überfüllt sind, katastrophal. Wir brauchen dringend eine gemeinsame Konferenz der EU-Kommission, der Regierungen Griechenlands und Kroatiens als Ratspräsidentschaft und der Vereinten Nationen, um die Situation gerade auf den griechischen Inseln human zu machen.
                  

Teuvo Hakkarainen (ID). – Arvoisa puhemies, kuka meistä haluaa kotinsa täyteen kutsumattomia vieraita, mahdollisia terroristeja? Meillä Suomessa, tuolla pohjoisessa, on tilanne, jossa 35 000 pakolaista tuli pakolaisen nimellä silloin 2015. Sen seurauksena lasten ja nuorten raiskaukset räjähtävät käsiin. Eli kuka valvoo tätä hommaa, kun nämä lapset tulevat? Meillekin tuli Suomeen median mukaan naisia ja lapsia, mutta minä kävin henkilökohtaisesti katsomassa siellä rajalla: 500 henkeä päivässä, minä laskin heidät. Kaikki olivat nuoria miehiä. Illalla media esitti meille, että täältä tuli naisia ja lapsia. Minun silmäni eivät valehtele. Minä luulen, että toimittajilla ja medialla on jonkinlainen linssi päässä. Kuka ottaa vastuun siitä, että tämmöinen laiton siirtolainen veti nuorelta naiselta nyt Suomessa kurkun auki? Kuka näistä ottaa vastuun?
                  

(Puhuja suostui vastaamaan sinisen kortin kysymykseen (työjärjestyksen 171 artiklan 8 kohta)).


Erik Marquardt (Verts/ALE),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . – Sie haben ja gesagt, dass man zu Hause niemanden akzeptieren soll, den man nicht eingeladen hat. Es ist aber zum Beispiel auch so, dass ich Sie hier überhaupt nicht eingeladen habe, wir alle Sie hier nicht eingeladen haben, aber es Ihr gutes Recht ist, hier zu sitzen, weil wir einen Rechtsstaat haben, weil da Wahlen stattfinden, rechtsstaatlich, und Sie gewählt wurden. Und es ist auch so, dass man eben ein Asylsystem hat, wo man Leute nicht einladen muss, sondern wo sie Grundrechte haben. Ich wollte Sie eigentlich fragen, was Sie denn glauben, wer da eigentlich kommt. Denn wir wissen doch, dass es auch viele Probleme auf der Welt gibt, viele Geflüchtete. Würden Sie wirklich sagen, dass die überhaupt keinen Zugang zu rechtsstaatlichen Verfahren haben sollen?
                  

Teuvo Hakkarainen (ID),
vastaus sinisen kortin kysymykseen. – Kysymyshän on ihmiskaupasta. Tällä hetkellä se on samanlaista kuin huumekauppa, ja siinä pyörii jopa suuremmat rahat kuin huumekaupassa. Säännöt ovat myös samanlaiset, niin että oikeusvaltio ei pysty puuttumaan näiden ihmisten tekemiin rikoksiin, jotka eivät itse välitä kenenkään ihmisoikeuksista yhtään mitään.
                  

Traian Băsescu (PPE). – Doamna președintă, Uniunea Europeană are nevoie de migrație, de o migrație controlată. Ceea ce se întâmplă însă înseamnă o migrație necontrolată, înseamnă trafic de ființe umane.
                  

                     Din acest motiv, oamenii care ajung la frontierele Uniunii Europene sunt în pericol din prima clipă când și-au părăsit țara. Au de trecut prin țări de tranzit, unde rețele de crimă organizată îi aduc până la ambarcațiunea pe care se urcă și trec Mediterana.
                  

                     Avem obligația să stopăm procesul de migrație ilegală de la origine. Avem nevoie de acorduri de readmisie, avem nevoie de înțelegeri cu guvernele țărilor de tranzit pentru neutralizarea echipelor de crimă organizată și avem nevoie de flotele militare ale statelor membre care să întoarcă ambarcațiunile cu migranți ilegali înapoi în porturile de plecare. Asta este soluția, altfel, ani de zile vom avea problema migrației ilegale, întrebându-ne ce facem în insulele grecești, ce facem în Croația? Trebuie să punem migrația sub control. … (Președinta a întrerupt oratorul)


Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Frau Präsidentin! Immer und immer wieder debattieren wir in diesem Haus über die ungelöste Migrationskrise. Und warum? Weil sich die EU nach wie vor weigert, die Realitäten an ihren Grenzen anzuerkennen und entsprechend zu reagieren. Wir diskutieren über den Umgang mit sogenannten Flüchtlingen, lassen uns von der Asylindustrie sagen, was menschlich ist und wie wir zu handeln haben. Realitätsfremder geht es nicht mehr. Dabei ist es gar nicht so schwierig, dieses Problem zu lösen. Grenzen abriegeln, jedem Illegalen die Einreise verweigern. Das heißt auch, dass die Boote wieder sicher zu ihrem Ursprungsort zurückgebracht werden. Illegale Migranten müssen zurückgeführt werden, wenn erforderlich mit etwas Druck auf die Herkunftsländer. Verweigert sich ein Land, müssen wirkungsvolle Sanktionen folgen.
                  

                     Wir lassen auf der einen Seite freudig jeden Illegalen ohne Kontrolle ins Land, auf der anderen Seite brauchen Sie neuerdings ein Pflanzengesundheitszeugnis, wenn Sie Pflanzen und Früchte aus dem Urlaub mitbringen. Wie absurd ist denn das? Setzen wir endlich die richtigen Signale! Stellen wir uns endlich unserer Verantwortung für den europäischen Bürger, verhindern wir die zahlreichen Toten im Mittelmeer, verhindern wir den Braindrain in den Herkunftsländern und hören wir endlich auf mit der Gefühlsduselei! Machen wir die Grenzen dicht!
                  

Andor Deli (PPE). – Elnök Asszony! Ez egy nagyon fontos téma. Ugyanakkor van egy szempont, amelyről eddig nem esett szó, és amelyet a baloldali képviselők következetesen kerülnek. Ez pedig az, hogy Bosznia, Szerbia, illetve a görögországi szigetek polgárai hogyan élik meg azt, hogy évek óta migránsok tömegei haladnak át településeiken, lepik el a köztereket, parkokat, foglalják el az üres házakat, hogy sötétedés után a helyi lakosok alig merészkednek ki az utcára. Jómagam Vajdaságból, Szerbia északi részéből származom, így pontosan tudom, milyen kilátástalan a helyzet. 2015-ben a nyomás akkora volt, hogy egyes településeken ellehetetlenedett az életet. A nyugat-balkáni útvonalon most ismét erősödik a nyomás, a közbiztonság pedig a határmenti településeken romlik. Az EU-nak Görögország mellett fokozott segítséget kell nyújtania a nyugat-balkáni tranzitországoknak is. Ezek nem gazdag országok, az erőforrásaik korlátoltak, a helyi lakosok pedig úgy érzik, hogy mindenki csak a migránsok jogaival foglalkozik, őket pedig elfelejtik. Képviseljük végre az európaiak érdekeit is ebben a vitában! Köszönöm.
                  

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, to, čemu čelí EU na hranicích, to je opravdu mimořádná situace. Humanitární situace uprchlíků v některých hotspotech je opravdu katastrofální.
                  

                     Já sama jsem navštívila hotspot Moria a vím, jak tam ti lidé žijí, a přesto se nechtějí vrátit domů. Většina z nich se nemá kam vrátit, zejména tedy syrští uprchlíci. Do pohybu se daly miliony lidí, ať už ze Sýrie, Afriky, Pákistánu, Afghánistánu, a to není běžná situace, na kterou jsme byli připraveni. Musíme říci, že dnes, v roce 2020, je EU připravena lépe, a proto souhlasím s tím, co tady říkají kolegové z Chorvatska, že chorvatská vláda a chorvatské pohraniční síly dělají to, co dělat mají. Oni prostě musí chránit vnější hranici EU.
                  

                     Samozřejmě, chovejme se lidsky. Tady, myslím, že tou hlavní nejohroženější skupinou jsou děti. Nedoprovázené děti, děti s matkami a těm by se mělo pomáhat především.
                  

Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, iznimno teški životni uvjeti migranata, ali isto tako i težak položaj lokalnog stanovništva svjedoče o našoj nespremnosti da se suočimo s migracijama. Potresni prizori koje vidimo i u Grčkoj, ali isto tako i duž jedine kopnene rute prema Europskoj uniji, nisu pitanje samo graničnih država članica, nego zaista cijele Europske unije.
                  

                     Hrvatska je svoje srce i solidarnost dokazala i 1990-ih zbrinuvši preko milijun izbjeglica i prognanika, ali isto tako nasuprot navodima o navodnom nehumanom postupanju prema migrantima, hrvatska policija i za vrijeme ove debate štiti europsku granicu i spašava migrante u po život opasnim situacijama u koje ih dovode trgovci i krijumčari ljudima.
                  

                     Ali isto tako, Hrvatska, niti Europska unija, ne smiju popustiti političkim pritiscima kojima smo svjedočili i u ovoj debati, koji nastoje promijeniti politiku učinkovite zaštite granice od nezakonitih prelazaka, jasno, uz punu zaštitu ljudskog dostojanstva.
                  


                           ‘Catch the eye’ eljárás


Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Señora presidenta, muchísimas gracias por permitir que todos podamos expresarnos en este debate tan importante. Yo creo que ha quedado claro en esta sesión que este es un tema relativo a la defensa de los derechos fundamentales en las fronteras de Europa. Y lo hemos suscitado porque se están violando, no solamente en la frontera entre Croacia y Bosnia Herzegovina, desde luego. Claramente no estamos a la altura de nuestros valores y de nuestras obligaciones legales —como bien han dicho mi compañero Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Kati Piri, Irena Joveva y otros compañeros de grupos—.
                  

                     Entonces, claramente, cuando habla el Consejo de cruces ilegales… Pero, vamos a ver: si una persona se presenta en la frontera y no puede presentar una solicitud de asilo en la frontera, ¿cómo puede usted hablar de un cruce ilegal de la frontera? O, cuando no estamos permitiendo que se presenten solicitudes de asilo en los consulados y en las embajadas, ¿cómo nos llama la atención que la gente se presente en las fronteras exteriores de Europa? Eso es a lo que usted, señora representante del Consejo, nos debe contestar.
                  

Nicolaus Fest (ID). –
(Beginn des Redebeitrags bei ausgeschaltetem Mikro) … reden und die Sachen verschieben sich immer weiter nach hinten. Das ist eine grobe Unzumutbarkeit gegenüber den anderen Abgeordneten hier, die hier noch zu anderen Themen sprechen wollen. Also fangen Sie endlich an, die Sitzung zu leiten und dann auch nach einer Minute Schluss zu machen. So geht es nicht!
                  

Željana Zovko (PPE). – Madam President, as I have already said, this is very emotional for me because I come from Bosnia and Herzegovina and I went through the war. The question of asylum seekers and refugees is a very emotional one, and I will read my speech in order not to get into deeper emotions about the people who are abusing the situation of these poor people.

                     ‘Someone has been asleep in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the past three years’, said the Minister of Security of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Fahrudin Radončić. Last week in Zagreb he requested the assistance of the Republic of Croatia. He mentioned how the migration crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina should no longer be treated as a humanitarian crisis but as a security one. The country urgently needs over 400 extra border guards. Out of EUR 40 million allocated from European aid, only 7% is earmarked for the support of local institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Local institutions have endured most of the pressure since the beginning of the migrant crisis.
The only ones who profit from this crisis are human traffickers. The Croatian police arrested 95 of them only this year. Human traffickers are so present that the Deputy Director of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Bonnie Glick, stated that America will have to cut their assistance to Bosnia and Herzegovina if institutions don't intensify their fight against it. It's a fragile country. Don't play with Bosnia and Herzegovina here. Shame on you.

Pernando Barrena Arza (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, we Members of this Parliament are aware of the fundamental rights violations occurring at the European Union borders and particularly the systematic practice of violent push-backs by Croatian law enforcement authorities. These places in Bosnia and Croatia are critical points as regards compliance with human rights, but highlights could also be made on another borders, like the French-Italian one, or the southern border of Spain, where push-backs also occur very often.
One a month ago a Spanish coastguard returned migrants to Moroccan authorities hours after they landed on Spanish soil. This is a violation of the protections granted by the European Court of Human Rights. It's time to say once again that border control cannot under any circumstance violate current laws on human rights. Furthermore, European authorities and Member States should facilitate the priceless work that NGOs carry out rescuing people in the Mediterranean Sea, like the Basque ship Aita Mari, which rescued 158 people earlier this week.

Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, jedan od četiri prioriteta hrvatskog a predsjedanja Vijećem Europske unije jest Europa koja štiti jačanjem unutarnjem sigurnosti svojih građana te učinkovitijom zaštitom vanjskih granica.
                  

                     Hrvatska zagovara, još jednom ću ponoviti, efikasno i humano upravljanje migracija i migrantskih puteva. Moja zemlja ima najdužu vanjsku granicu Europske unije te unatoč drugačijoj situaciji u našem susjedstvu, hrvatske granice su otvorene, takve će i ostati. Neće biti žica, neće biti barikada.
                  

                     Ovom prilikom želim naglasiti da se postupanje na hrvatskim granicama odvija u potpunoj usklađenosti s hrvatskim i europskim zakonima i još jednom ponavljam, međunarodnim standardima i pravilima. Hrvatska se na dnevnoj bazi suočava s osobama koje ne žele ostati u našoj zemlji, cilj im je zapadna Europa. Moramo biti svjesni činjenice da problem migracija nije pitanje samo jedne države već cijele Unije.
                  

                     Završit ću, naši politički stavovi ne moraju biti isti, kolegice i kolege, ali moraju biti isti oni ljudski. Dakle, želimo zakonite migracije i ljudskost prije svega.
                  

Maria Arena (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, le droit d'asile n'est pas un choix, mais un devoir. Un devoir lié aux conventions internationales relatives au statut des réfugiés, dont le principe fondamental est le non-refoulement et auxquelles les États membres sont parties, y compris la Croatie. Mais c'est aussi l'article 2 du traité sur l'Union européenne, selon lequel l'Union est fondée sur les valeurs de respect de la dignité humaine, de liberté, de démocratie et d'égalité.
                  

                     La gestion des frontières doit donc se faire conformément au traité et aux engagements internationaux. Pourtant, pour limiter le flux migratoire, l'Union européenne et les États membres n'ont pas respecté ce cadre légal et ont de surcroît externalisé la gestion migratoire par des accords bilatéraux avec des pays qui, souvent, ne remplissent pas les conditions suffisantes matérielles, mais aussi légales, pour assurer la protection des migrants. Tous les rapports et les témoignages nous le disent: les conditions ne sont pas respectées.
                  

                     Alors une simple question: pensez-vous que les États membres aujourd'hui sont respectueux de la convention relative au statut des réfugiés? Sinon, que souhaitez-vous faire pour qu'ils le soient? Et enfin, pensez-vous que traiter et sous-traiter la migration à la Turquie, la Bosnie, la Libye, la Mauritanie, le Maroc ou à d'autres règle structurellement le problème de la migration, avec la garantie du respect de nos engagements internationaux?
                  

Γεώργιος Κύρτσος (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, καταρχήν θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή για την προσπάθεια που κάνει υπέρ των προσφύγων και των μεταναστών. Έχουμε φτάσει, όμως, σε ένα οριακό σημείο. Κατά την άποψή μου, πρέπει να αλλάξουν οι κανόνες του Δουβλίνου, για να υπάρξει πιο ανθρώπινη μεταχείριση των προσφύγων και των μεταναστών. Να αλλάξουν δηλαδή οι κανόνες και να μοιραστεί το βάρος· να μην πέφτει όλο το βάρος στις χώρες πρώτης εισόδου. Αντιλαμβάνομαι ότι αυτό είναι πολιτικά δύσκολο, γιατί πολλές χώρες και πολλές κυβερνήσεις είναι σε κατάσταση σοκ μετά την κρίση του 2015-2016, αλλά είναι ο μόνος τρόπος για να έχουμε ένα θετικό αποτέλεσμα. Επίσης, υπάρχει μια πρόταση του Έλληνα πρωθυπουργού για 4.000 ασυνόδευτους ανηλίκους που έχουν εγκλωβιστεί στην Ελλάδα, μήπως μπορέσουμε και τους μοιραστούμε στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Υπάρχει μια πρώτη ανταπόκριση, αλλά θα μπορούσε να είναι και καλύτερη.
                  

Sandra Pereira (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, a mesma União Europeia que se proclama como grande defensora dos direitos humanos alimenta uma das maiores crises humanitárias da atualidade, assim já reconhecida pela ONU.
                  

                     Os mais diversos critérios, seletivos, restritivos e desumanos, são criados para escolher uns e abandonar outros, obrigando-os a permanecerem em autênticos campos de concentração, sobrelotados, em condições desumanas, deploráveis e degradantes.
                  

                     A União Europeia prossegue os esforços para consolidar o conceito da UE fortaleza, promovendo a externalização das suas fronteiras, mesmo que à luz de decadentes e criminosos acordos, como o acordo com a Turquia ou com a Líbia, país destruído pela intervenção direta da União Europeia e das suas potências, entre outras ditas ‘parcerias’, impondo as suas políticas para as migrações a países terceiros, condicionando, inclusive, a ajuda ao desenvolvimento e à implementação de restrições aos fluxos migratórios.
                  

                     Uma vez mais afirmamos que é preciso pôr fim à destabilização, ingerência e agressão sobre países terceiros e cumprir, escrupulosamente, o direito internacional em matéria de migrações.
                  

(‘Catch the eye’ eljárás vége)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you all for your interventions. I take from this debate that the respect for the fundamental rights, including the principle of non-refoulement of all people, is a priority, independently of their status and whether they are inside or outside the EU. I agree with you that there should be no physical violence against migrants and refugees – I guess this is an understatement here – and we should ensure that adequate measures are in place to address the needs of the most vulnerable, notably the children, at all steps of the migratory routes.
Border guards and police should carry out their duties in full respect of fundamental rights – that goes without saying. We have revised our legislation to ensure that safeguards are in place in case of alleged violation of fundamental rights. It is important that these mechanisms play their role.
On our side, the Commission will continue to monitor the compliance of the situation at the borders with EU law. We will continue engaging with our partners and neighbouring countries, notably in the Western Balkans, to provide assistance to migrants in third countries to avoid them falling into the hands of unscrupulous smuggling networks.
Regarding the question posed by you, Mr Azmani, the Commission also considers that the core challenges at our external border are inherently linked with those of the situations Member States have inside the EU. So therefore, these challenges should be addressed jointly. Many of the issues you raised tonight, such as secondary movement, border controls and cooperation with third countries – and, of course, also the humanitarian situation at our border – are key issues that will be addressed in the new pact on migration.
Migration is among the most significant challenges the European Union has faced in recent years. We cannot stay idle to the suffering of the migrants at our borders. We need to find a common understanding on how we collectively shape and manage the realities of migration. We need to work together to address this phenomenon that is here to stay, in full respect of the dignity of the persons involved. We count on your support.

Nikolina Brnjac,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, let me thank you for this debate. There is no doubt that the situation at our external borders must be addressed in an effective and timely manner. As I have already stressed, we are committed to improving reception conditions for migrants, especially those of vulnerable groups.
On a broader note, I would like to reiterate that the Croatian Presidency intends to continue focusing on implementation with regard to the comprehensive approach to migration. We will do our part to ensure coherent action at EU level in terms of more effective control of the EU external borders and increased external action, as well as to address internal aspects.
Regarding the alleged push-backs and the situation at the Croatian-Bosnian border, as you're all aware, I'm here today in my capacity as the Presidency of the EU Council, not nationally. However, I would like to comment on this, because I feel that Croatia has been unjustly portrayed regarding alleged mistreatment of illegal migrants. I can assure you that there is zero tolerance for violence in Croatia. This is strongly underlined by my government in all areas. We take all allegations of police violence against migrants very seriously. Therefore, there is especially no tolerance for unlawful use of coercive measures by the Croatian police against any population, as well as for non-prosecution of any crime or misdemeanour committed by police officers. Every single complaint is carefully investigated by the Croatian Ministry of the Interior. I can assure you that Croatian police respect the fundamental rights, safety and dignity in the treatment of migrants in full compliance with international, EU and national law. Croatia as an EU member has the task, in accordance with the Schengen Border Code and national legislation, of protecting the state border and preventing illegal migration.
Regarding the common European asylum system reform, it remains our common priority to tackle the key issue from a broader perspective and to search for a comprehensive solution to the challenges. Extensive work has been done by the previous presidencies, and it is our intention to continue building on the foundations they set with the new Commission. We will continue working towards the approach with balanced responsibility and solidarity, in line with the European Council's new strategic agenda. The Croatian Presidency hopes this issue will be adequately addressed in the new pact on migration and asylum, and we look forward to its presentation.
Regarding the situation in Greece, it is a positive development that the new Greek Government has adopted a new legislative framework for asylum and related issues like return and reception facilities. It entered into force on 1 January 2020. We look forward to its speedy implementation. An efficient asylum system is key to managing migration flows, as well as for the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement, notably on readmissions.

Elnök asszony. – A vitát lezárom.
                  

                     A szavazásra a viták végén kerül sor.
                  


Írásos nyilatkozatok (171. cikk)



Milan Brglez (S&D),
pisno. – Decembra se je na pragu EU odvijala saga razčlovečenja več kot 1.000 posameznikov v begunskem taborišču Vučjak, na katero sem sam s sopodpisanimi evropskimi poslankami in poslanci opozoril v pismu Komisiji.
                  

                     Pasivnost (tudi evropske) politike od poletja 2019, ko so na tem območju bili začasno naseljeni begunci in migranti, bi se lahko sprevrgla v širšo humanitarno katastrofo s posledicami za regionalno varnost. Ta nevarnost še vedno vztraja, k čemur poleg zapletenih notranjepolitičnih razmer prispevajo tudi sosednje države s prakso onemogočanja dostopa do azilnih postopkov ter z nasilnim izgonom beguncev in migrantov.
                  

                     Komisija ne more biti ravnodušna ob nastajanju trdnjave Evrope, ki se jo brani z grobimi kršitvami človekovih pravic. Nujno je zagotoviti, da države, v prvi vrsti članice EU in (kandidatke za) članice Schengena, vzpostavijo dejansko neodvisne nadzorne mehanizme za nadzor nad izvajanjem mejne kontrole, ki mora vključevati skrben pregled varovanja temeljnih človekovih pravic in svoboščin.
                  

                     Nadaljevati je potrebno z iskanjem rešitve za nadgradnjo dublinskega sistema za skupno in solidarno evropsko azilno politiko. Ne želim si, da bi mehanizem EU za krizno upravljanje moral posredovati v naši soseščini zgolj zaradi neusklajenosti politike držav članic, še zlasti tistih, kjer vladajoča politična elita akumulira svoje volilne glasove na račun človeške stiske.
                  
25.   Better internet for children (debate)

Elnök asszony. – A következő pont a Bizottság nyilatkozata a Jobb internet a gyermekek számára szóló vita (2020/2547(RSP)).
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, our debate today cannot be more topical, as yesterday we celebrated the Safer Internet Day across Europe and the world for the 17th time since its launch in 2004. We want to ensure children and young people grow up to become confident adults, skilled and respected both online and offline. Making the internet safe for children remains a priority. Children are one third of internet users and an estimated 800 million of them use social media.
Let me also recall that one of this Commission's top six political priorities is to build a Europe fit for the digital age, allowing everyone in Europe, including children, to benefit from technology within safe and ethical boundaries. The Commission has been very active on this issue over the years, with actions ranging from funding and coordination with Member States to hard law.
The European strategy for a better internet for children – the big strategy – is our framework for making the internet a trusted place for children and young people. It has been in place since 2012 and has successfully brought together the European Commission, Member States, the ICT industry and civil society to deliver solutions for a better internet for children through coordination, self-regulation and funding. Our policy is rooted in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which all EU Member States are party.
A strong concern with child safety online cuts across EU legislation. The e-Commerce Directive, the directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the general Data Protection Regulation all contain provisions to protect minors online.
As to future plans, the Commission will first of all be working on a comprehensive new strategy on the rights of the child, including their rights online. The strategy should include actions to protect vulnerable children, protect their rights online, foster child-friendly justice and prevent and fight violence. We will also strengthen and modernise rules applicable to digital services in the whole EU through the Digital Services Act. We will start with a broad consultation to make sure we get the balance right and propose measures. We will also work with Member States for the full transposition of the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which includes a new obligation on Member States to ensure that video-sharing platforms put in place specific measures to protect minors from harmful content online. These include mechanisms allowing users to report, flag or rate harmful content, age verification or parental control systems and transparent easy-to-use and effective complaint-handling procedures. The revised Directive also ensures that children's data collected by audiovisual media providers are not process for commercial use, including for profiling and behaviourally-targeted advertising.
Furthermore, we will present a revised digital education action plan to equip children with the skills and competences needed to thrive in this digital age. Through the current Digital Education Action Plan, the Commission is supporting outreach to schools in order to improve online safety, media literacy and digital skills. For example, the Safer Internet for EU campaign reached 30 million Europeans in 2018, and in 2019 the EU Code Week involved 4.2 million people, with 92% of the 72 000 activities taking place in schools. The Commission plans to update the plan, focusing on digital literacy and aiming at equipping young people and adults with the skills they need for life and work in the digital age.
As regards the European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children, the Commission has informally consulted the main stakeholders to assess its relevance and role. These stakeholders include the Safer Internet centres, industry and civil society and Member States. The preliminary feedback is positive. The strategy's four pillars and its holistic approach are still relevant, despite emerging risks such as disinformation, cyberbullying, online hate speech, live streaming of illegal content, and new ways for children to use technology. Any possible update of the strategy will have to be flexible enough to be future-proof as the digital ecosystem continues to evolve, with children and young people among the most ardent and avant-garde users of technology.
Any Commission decision on next steps will take into account the results of the latest big policy map, a study on how the strategy is implemented in Member States, the results of a new European Parliament pilot project supporting cooperation between industry hotlines and Member States' authorities for the swift removal of child sexual abuse material online, and, of course, the work on the new strategy on the rights of the child. What we can already anticipate is that work in this area will continue to keep a fair balance between protection and empowerment measures for children and young people in formal and informal education. I thank you and I look forward to your comments on this.

Ewa Kopacz,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Ponad 90% europejskich nastolatków ma dostęp do internetu w domu i jest to pierwsze pokolenie, które nie pamięta czasów analogowych. Internet jest częścią współczesnego świata dziecka, czy nam, dorosłym się to podoba czy też nie. Dzieci i młodzież coraz rzadziej czerpią rozrywkę i wiedzę z książki, telewizji czy radia. Wszystko, co im potrzebne, jest przecież w telefonie i na tablecie.
               

                  Owszem, daje to ogromne możliwości kreatywnego rozwoju dziecka i nabywania cennych zdolności i umiejętności. Internet może stać się narzędziem wyrównywania szans dla dzieci narażonych na wykluczenie czy dzieci z niepełnosprawnościami. Jednak rozwijający się internet i media społecznościowe niosą ze sobą zagrożenia, na które często nasze dzieci i my rodzice nie jesteśmy przygotowani. Obawiam się bowiem, że rodzice i dzieci pozostawieni są często sami sobie z problemami takimi jak mowa nienawiści czy nękanie w mediach społecznościowych. Dotyczy to zarówno dzieci, które są ofiarami takiego zachowania, jak i tych, które się go dopuszczają. Podobnie jest z rosnącym uzależnieniem młodych ludzi od internetu i gier komputerowych.
               

                  Jako koordynator Parlamentu Europejskiego do spraw praw dzieci liczę na to, że Komisja w ramach planowanych strategii i zmian w istniejących już w przepisach będzie brać pod uwagę nie tylko punkt widzenia przemysłu internetowego i rodziców, ale także potrzeby i obawy zarówno dzieci, jak i młodzieży.
               

Miriam Dalli,
f'isem il-grupp S&D. – Fiż-żmien li kont nagħmel programm ġurnalistiku fuq it-televiżjoni flimkien mat-tim tiegħi, konna investigajna s-sigurtà tat-tfal fuq l-internet.
               

                  Waħda mill-membri tat-tim għamlet tabirruħha li għandha erbatax-il sena u daħlet online f'grupp pubbliku biex tiċċettja, u f'temp ta' ftit sigħat ikkuntattjawha xejn anqas minn tletin raġel ta' kull età. Ħafna minnhom staqsewha biex tiltaqa' magħhom. L-akbar wieħed kellu tmienja u sittin sena. Wara li rrispondiet, tmienja minnhom bagħtulha l-informazzjoni personali tagħhom u fejn għandha tiltaqa' magħhom, u ħamsa minnhom tfaċċaw biex jiltaqgħu ma' tfajla ta' erbatax-il sena, imma ħarbu malli raw il-kameras. Ovvjament ħarbu għaliex kienu jafu li kienu qegħdin jagħmlu ħażin.
               

                  Imma qed insemmi dan il-każ għaliex it-tfal tagħna faċilment jistgħu jispiċċaw f'dawn in-nasbiet mingħajr ma jirrealizzaw. U llum smajna; it-tfal għandhom inklinazzjoni naturali għall-internet. Imma filwaqt li online huma kapaċi aktar minn dawk ikbar minnhom, fir-realtà huma esposti ħafna u ħafna aktar għal riskji kbar. U naf kemm huwa importanti li nfasslu ‘policies’ u kampanji mas- ‘sevice providers’ differenti, sew jekk huma kumpaniji tat-telefonija u anki jekk huma kumpaniji diġitali kbar.
               

                  L-interess tat-tfal għandu jkun ta' kulħadd; tal-ġenituri tagħhom, tas-settur privat u anki l-gvernijiet u anki tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea, għaliex flimkien biss nistgħu verament naħdmu biex naċċertaw li jkollna internet aktar sigur għat-tfal. Għax bl-istess mod kif irridu lit-tfal tagħna jkunu siguri fit-triq u l-iskola, irridu naċċertaw ruħna li uliedna jkunu siguri online ukoll.
               

Yana Toom,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, when this debate was announced, I immediately expressed my interest in taking part in it. During the previous legislation, I was the rapporteur on education in the digital era and also shadow on the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). So I went to do my homework. I was disappointed when I found out that the last time the Commission addressed the issue was in 2011, and since then we have just forgotten the approach which was agreed.
Let me give you an example. Ten years ago, we were against the fragmentation of the market, but, two years ago, we adopted the AVMS with the famous moral development of children to be defined by Member States. The good news is that, in 2019, the Commission announced the creation of a new Expert Group on Safer Internet for Children. So we took only eight years to take the first coordinated steps.
Since then, the group has had three meetings, but we're still far from a solution. Why? I believe we have to take into account at least two important things. First, children grow fast and we have to act accordingly. Ten years for a political decision means one generation at school. Second, we cannot solve systematic problems by projects, but this is exactly what we are doing. We have of course adopted some good directives, which we have already mentioned: combating sexual abuse, xenophobia, hate speech, GDPR, and so on, but this is not enough.
What we need is a comprehensive European approach to the digital education of children, not on a project basis but in each and every school, compulsory, with good teachers, a clear curriculum, an agreed set of criteria and assessment system. But what do we have in practice? Some Member States where 60% of schools do not have an internet connection. What digital education can we speak about? I strongly believe that we have to act, but act quickly and invest proper funds, not just in the meetings or working groups, but in the schools. Otherwise eight years later, it will be the same.

Nicolaus Fest,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Wenn irgendein Unfug am Horizont auftaucht, eines ist sicher: Die EU ist dabei. Studien, aber auch viele Lehrer bestätigen: Die erhöhte Nutzung des Internets führt erstens zur Senkung der Konzentrationsfähigkeit, zweitens zum Abbau sozialer Kompetenzen, drittens zur Verwandlung dünner Kinder in dicke Couch-Potatoes und viertens zum Verlust der Schreibfähigkeit, da diese Technik nur in jungen Jahren durch beständige Übung im Gehirn verankert werden kann. Wir reden hier noch gar nicht über die inhaltlichen Gefahren des Internets, die den Kindern drohen – sei es Ausspähung, Grooming oder die Konfrontation mit Gewalt, Pornografie und Fake News. Die EU sollte daher keineswegs die Nutzung des Internets durch Kinder fördern, denn selbst die angeblich ungefährlichen, zumeist aber unendlich stupiden Spiele führen zu Konzentrationsverlust und nehmen die Zeit für andere schönere, wichtigere Dinge. Die EU sollte sich auch nicht als Erfüllungsgehilfe der Digitalindustrie verstehen, die möglichst früh Zugriff auf immer jüngere Konsumenten haben will. Genauso wie man Kinder vor Alkohol und Pornografie schützt, sollte man sie auch vor solchen Dingen schützen, die sie vor allem verblöden lassen.
               

Marcel Kolaja,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, safe internet for children is vital indeed. Children should feel safe to go online, they should remain curious to discover, to learn, to innovate. However, having looked at the web page of the Safer Internet Day, I discovered with horror that, during the Safer Internet Day, discussions were focused on how artificial intelligence can be used to identify and remove child sexual abuse material.
We, as legislators, are just about to analyse and address the opportunities and the pitfalls of these technologies. Therefore, it seems to be premature indeed to consider AI a silver bullet to solve all problems. And I am glad that education was mentioned by the Commission representative because I believe that future initiatives from the Commission related to safer internet should focus on education and development of technical skills of kids, which should not mean promoting the use of one specific company's tools but encouraging the use of interoperable solutions and free and open-source software.

Anne-Sophie Pelletier,
au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, aujourd'hui, 75 % des enfants en Europe utilisent l'internet. L'internet est un merveilleux outil d'ouverture à autrui et au monde, mais c'est cependant un espace de risques. Vous avez raison, Madame la Commissaire, quand vous dites qu'il faut protéger nos enfants, qui encourent des risques particuliers dus à leur âge. Je me réjouis de la lutte contre la cybercriminalité, ainsi que de la lutte contre les contenus violents, contre le slut shaming concernant les jeunes filles. Vous avez raison.
               

                  Cependant, Madame la Commissaire, dans votre communication, vous regrettez que les jeunes ne fassent que consommer sur l'internet. Vous avez raison, mais j'irai plus loin en parlant de la régulation des contenus publicitaires qui, aujourd'hui, montrent à nos enfants une vision du monde consumériste et particulièrement matérialiste.
               

                  Enfin, Madame la Commissaire, dans votre communication, vous appelez à un numérique pour tous. Vous avez en charge l'amélioration des conditions des personnes en situation de handicap et ce soir, pas un mot! Un zéro pointé sur ce sujet. C'est un acte manqué, Madame, vous auriez dû saisir cette opportunité pour nous parler aussi de l'urgence de créer un numérique inclusif.
               

Μαρία Σπυράκη (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, επίτροπε Dalli, είμαι σίγουρη ότι ξέρετε ότι οι μισοί από τους νέους 11 έως 16 ετών στην Ευρώπη έχουν εκτεθεί σε κάποιον από τους βασικούς κινδύνους του διαδικτύου: cyber bullying, sexting online, grooming ή fake news. Ως πρέσβειρα για το ασφαλές διαδίκτυο για όλους, πραγματοποιώ στην Ελλάδα εκδηλώσεις ενημέρωσης των μαθητών και τους ζητάω να μας δείξουν πώς προστατεύονται όταν μπαίνουν στο διαδίκτυο. Τα αποτελέσματα είναι θεαματικά, τα παιδιά μας είναι υποψιασμένα. Όμως, χρειάζονται βοήθεια και η βοήθεια πρέπει να έρθει από εμάς και πρέπει να έρθει με την επιστράτευση της τεχνολογίας. Όλες οι μελέτες δείχνουν ότι οι εταιρείες που δραστηριοποιούνται στις εφαρμογές του διαδικτύου, είτε αυτές είναι παιχνίδια είτε αυτές είναι μέσα κοινωνικής δικτύωσης, έχουν την τεχνολογική δυνατότητα να εντοπίσουν προβληματικό υλικό στο διαδίκτυο που απευθύνεται σε παιδιά, να εντοπίσουν παρενοχλήσεις και να τις διακόψουν. Νομίζω πως εκεί πρέπει να εστιάσουμε και εκεί πρέπει να δώσουμε έμφαση όσον αφορά τη χρηματοδότησή τους. Ταυτόχρονα, πρέπει να δώσουμε έμφαση στην ενημέρωση των δασκάλων, των γονέων και —τελικά— των παιδιών. Πρέπει να προστατεύσουμε τους ψηφιακούς πολίτες του αύριο.
               

Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, per le giovani generazioni l'ambiente online è uno spazio di vita importante. Può anche essere uno spazio di partecipazione e di emancipazione, come dimostrano ad esempio i ‘Fridays for Future’. Tuttavia, dobbiamo creare le condizioni affinché il mondo online sia sicuro per i ragazzi. Alcuni fenomeni sono in aumento: discriminazioni multiple e abusi online, diffusione di materiale pedopornografico, revenge porn, estorsioni a sfondo sessuale, cyberbullismo.
               

                  Ci troviamo di fronte a pesanti violazioni dei diritti dei minori, che producono traumi gravissimi. Dobbiamo incrementare gli sforzi per la lotta contro questi fenomeni. Possiamo migliorare gli strumenti di prevenzione, alfabetizzazione digitale, educazione all'uso consapevole di Internet, la produzione di contenuti di qualità ai fini dell'intrattenimento. Possiamo rafforzare gli strumenti di individuazione e rimozione del materiale specifico dalla rete e quelli di contrasto attivo.
               

                  Nella scorsa legislatura abbiamo presentato, proprio qui a Strasburgo, una proposta di legge che è stata approvata in Italia proprio sul cyberbullismo, che ritengo sia ancora estremamente rilevante. Dobbiamo quindi scambiarci le migliori pratiche, appunto, e serve una partnership forte fra legislatori, industria e società civile. Serve un focus specifico per la responsabilizzazione di tutti per il contrasto agli abusi. Non possiamo permetterci che sia un'ennesima sfida in cui la realtà rimane un passo avanti al legislatore. Un ambiente online sicuro deve essere per noi una priorità di azione immediata.
               

Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Madam President, in this digital era it is even more important to preserve the rights and dignity of children and protect them from online abuse. The internet is definitely a powerful tool with enormous opportunities, but it also comes with some risks and only with proper safeguards in place can we ensure children's online safety and protect them from hate speech, misleading advertising or cyber-bullying.
Such safeguards can only be achieved with a wide collaboration of all stakeholders such as policymakers and technology companies. However, parents still have the most important safeguarding role as children continue to turn to their parents for help with online issues. We should therefore ensure a safer online environment where children can safely enhance their education, communication and connections.

Alex Agius Saliba (S&D). – Għalkemm l-internet joffri diveri opportunitajiet, dan qiegħed ukoll ipoġġi quddiemna diversi riskji speċjalment għall-aktar persuni vulnerabbli fis-soċjetà tagħna – b'mod speċjali t-tfal.
               

                  Fid-dinja diġitali, it-tfal jistgħu jkunu, anzi huma spiss esposti għal materjal illegali, kontenut perikoluż, imġiba bħal cyber-bullying, fastidju sesswali, pornografija tal-minorenni u vjolenza. Illum it-tfal qed jgħixu f'dinja u realtajiet digitali li jilagħbu rwol importanti ħafna f'ħajjithom, realtajiet bħal dawk illi jirrikrejaw rwieħom, jilagħbu, jitkellmu ma' sħabhom u anki jieħdu formazzjoni edukattiva.
               

                  Fil-preżent għandna diġà għodod li jgħinu lit-tfal tagħna sabiex jaffrontaw riskji f'realtajiet barra mid-dinja digitali. Iżda nistaqsi, għandna l-għodda meħtieġa, il-protezzjoni, l-għarfien u s-salvagwardji sabiex it-tfal ikunu siguri wkoll fuq bażi online?
               

                  Ilkoll kemm aħna għandna responsabilità morali billi nipprovdu dinja diġitali aktar sigura għat-tfal tagħna. Irridu għalhekk li l-Kummissjoni, b'mod urgenti, tirrispondi b'mod effiċjenti u effikaċi għal dawn ir-realtajiet diġitali sabiex id-dinja online tkun waħda aktar sigura għal uliedna.
               

Στέλιος Κυμπουρόπουλος (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ήταν η Παγκόσμια Ημέρα Ασφαλούς Διαδικτύου χθες και ως ψυχίατρος ανησυχώ, κυρία επίτροπε. Μόνο στην Ελλάδα, ένα στα πέντε παιδιά έχει πέσει θύμα διαδικτυακής παρενόχλησης, το 61 % έχει μπει σε ακατάλληλο περιεχόμενο και τα παιδιά είναι εκτεθειμένα σε ρητορική μίσους, σε ψυχολογικές επιθέσεις, σε εκβιασμούς και σε οικονομικές απάτες. Τα μισά παιδιά δηλώνουν ότι αυτό τα έβλαψε ψυχολογικά και τα ώθησε σε κοινωνική απομόνωση. Πολλοί γονείς αφήνουν τα παιδιά με το κινητό στο χέρι. Η εξάρτηση των παιδιών τα κάνει ευάλωτα, επιθετικά και τα απομονώνει.
               

                  Το διαδίκτυο δεν είναι παιχνίδι. Χρειαζόμαστε σύγχρονη παιδεία που θα οχυρώνει τα παιδιά από αυτούς κινδύνους. Πρέπει να εξαναγκάσουμε τους παρόχους και τις εταιρείες λογισμικού να μας εξασφαλίσουν δωρεάν ή —τουλάχιστον— πολύ φθηνό λογισμικό προστασίας των παιδιών. Είναι απαραίτητη η ύπαρξη ενημερωμένων Ευρωπαίων γονέων, που θα μπορούν να καταφύγουν σε μια εύχρηστη και διαθέσιμη ευρωπαϊκή εργαλειοθήκη. Χρειάζεται να γνωστοποιήσουμε τον χρόνο και τον τρόπο της υγιούς χρήσης του διαδικτύου. Πρόκειται για δίκοπο μαχαίρι που οφείλουμε να αξιοποιήσουμε και, ταυτόχρονα, να προστατεύσουμε από τις αρνητικές και επικίνδυνες συνέπειές του.
               


                        ‘Catch the eye’ eljárás


Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Doamna președintă, vrem să construim un internet sigur pentru copiii noștri. Este nevoie de un parteneriat cu furnizorii de internet, cu creatorii de conținut, cu operatorii de rețele sociale pentru a veni cu un set de bune practici, recomandări și soluții concrete pentru a face internetul un spațiu mai sigur și a evita astfel posibilele incidente.
               

                  Un studiu recent realizat în țara mea, în România, arată că unul din trei copii între nouă și șaisprezece ani au fost hărțuiți online și cazurile de cyberbullying semnalate se multiplică, din păcate. Și mai grav, aproape jumătate din cei hărțuiți nu au făcut nimic, crezând că lucrurile se vor rezolva de la sine. Poate de aceea, conform statisticilor, adulții publică uneori pe internet date cu caracter personal despre propriii copii, crezând că mediul online este un spațiu sigur.
               

                  Este nevoie, așa cum a spus și reprezentanta Comisiei Europene, să sprijinim educația digitală, să implicăm actorii relevanți la nivel european, național și local, pe părinți, pe tineri, să implicăm școlile, pentru a preveni astfel de situații.
               

                  Salut astfel inițiativa Comisiei Europene de a face o astfel de comunicare și reiterez convingerea mea că internetul este un spațiu sigur, dacă noi învățăm să-l folosim într-o manieră corespunzătoare.
               

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Jak pokazują badania, w niektórych krajach już dziesięcioletnie dzieci są niezależne cyfrowo i ten wiek stale się obniża. I pewnie tego trendu nie zatrzymamy, chociaż – jak słyszymy od lekarzy, psychologów i psychiatrów – zbyt częste albo wielogodzinne korzystanie z internetu czy z komputerów zabija więzi społeczne, zabija kontakty między rówieśnikami, co jest bardzo negatywne.
               

                  Niemniej ważne jest, abyśmy zrobili wszystko, aby nasze dzieci w świecie wirtualnym, w internecie, były bezpieczne, aby treści były dostosowane do wieku odbiorcy. Niewątpliwie młodzież znajduje ważne i potrzebne informacje w internecie, ale też tam czyha wiele zagrożeń jak hejt, jak pornografia, jak mobbing, jak treści pedofilskie czy znajomości pedofilskie. Dlatego kibicuję takim inicjatywom jak wczorajsza – Dzień Bezpiecznego Internetu, wokół którego organizuje się wiele akcji społecznych, które uświadamiają, jak bezpiecznie korzystać z internetu, jak przeciwdziałać temu wszystkiemu, co stanowi zagrożenie we współczesnym świecie dla naszych dzieci. I kibicuję Komisji Europejskiej, aby podjęła wszystkie działania, aby w tym cyfrowym świecie było jak najmniej zagrożeń.
               

Robert Hajšel (S&D). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, áno, internet, u nás na Slovensku sa hovorí, že internet podobne ako oheň je síce dobrý sluha, ale zlý pán. To znamená, my nemôžeme dovoliť, aby internet kompletne ovládol naše deti. My nemôžeme zameniť naše povinnosti vychovávať a venovať sa deťom tým, že im dáme do ruky smartfón alebo tablet. Naozaj, my musíme urobiť všetko preto, aby internet bol bezpečný pre naše deti a musíme zabrániť tomu, aby všetky dáta o našich deťoch sa nedostávali k sieťam obchodníkov, na účely reklamy a nebodaj k sieťam pedofilov. Je to niečo hrozné, pretože naozaj deti sa často stretávajú aj na internete s rôznymi reklamami, ktoré im ponúkajú sexuálny program, alebo dochádza k sexuálnym kontaktom, zneužívaniu a podobne. My musíme urobiť všetko preto, aby sme spolu s rodičmi, so školou, s vládami členských štátov, ale aj my na úrovni Európskej únie pripravili program pre vzdelávanie, pretože internet vzdelávanie nenahradí. Je to iba nástroj. Ale pokiaľ ide o vzdelávanie, musíme sa mu venovať my a naši rodičia a školy.
               

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, o bezpečný internet pro děti musíme usilovat na evropské i národní úrovni. Nechci a nemusím tady popisovat všechny známé nebezpečné, a přesto stále opakované praktiky, sexuální zneužívání, internetové rizikové výzvy.
               

                  Paní komisařko, souhlasím s Vámi, že implementace revidované směrnice o audiovizuálních službách je celoevropským nástrojem na zlepšení ochrany dětí a my jako poslanci musíme dohlédnout na implementaci v našich národních legislativách. Nejúčinnějším nástrojem je ale prevence. To znamená, že potřebujeme naučit děti chovat se bezpečně a že potřebujeme vzdělané učitele i rodiče, kteří budou děti dobře vést. Tady Vás chci také, paní komisařko, upozornit na řadu velmi zajímavých a účinných programů, které vyvíjí naše univerzity, např. česká Palackého univerzita v Olomouci, která vyvíjí vzdělávací aplikaci pro učitele a rodiče, kteří tak umí rozeznat a omezit tato rizika. Je třeba je využít.
               

Tudor Ciuhodaru (S&D). – Doamna președintă, lumea s-a schimbat, asta poate fi un lucru bun, dar copiii sunt cei mai vulnerabili și asta sigur nu este bine și sunt multiple îngrijorări.
               

                  În primul rând, legate de conținutul internetului, și aici vorbesc despre pedofilie, despre pornografie infantilă, despre hărțuire și șantaj. În al doilea rând, este vorba de durata folosirii acestui internet, pentru că, din păcate, eu sunt în situația de a trata la Spitalul Clinic de Urgență Nicolae Oblu din Iași tot mai mulți copii cu fenomene de dependență de internet sau cu afecțiuni neurologice complicate sau declanșate de utilizarea abuzivă a internetului. Și, în al treilea rând, lucrurile negative se întâmplă deși există multiple legi în acest domeniu.
               

                  Așa că, doamna comisar, vă solicit o abordare integrată, dacă este posibil, legislativă, educațională și tehnologică, pentru ca internetul să devină un loc mai sigur, și chiar vă întreb astăzi care sunt primele trei măsuri pe care le veți lua în acest sens?
               

Sandra Pereira (GUE/NGL). – Na utilização da Internet pelas crianças existem riscos de violação de privacidade, de uso comercial, ou instrumental de perfis, riscos para a saúde, de aparição de fenómenos de dependência e relação falseada com a realidade e com a própria identidade.
               

                  Outros problemas referem-se aos convites de natureza sexual, aos jogos de azar em linha e burlas comerciais, ao ciberassédio e ao sexting, e aos consumos digitais impróprios para a idade, designadamente a publicidade inadequada, a violência, o sexo e outras situações que provoquem medo e ansiedade nas crianças.
               

                  É necessário garantir que as crianças estejam expostas o menos possível a estes perigos. No entanto, temos de referir as nossas reservas relativamente a possíveis medidas que possam ser implementadas e que não devem impor restrições aos direitos de liberdade de expressão e devem respeitar a privacidade e a proteção de dados.
               

                  Também consideramos que este debate não pode ser desligado da importância do serviço público na garantia de um serviço seguro e de acesso universal no combate à exclusão digital.
               

(‘Catch the eye’ eljárás vége)
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I thank you all for your contributions and have taken note of all your comments with regard to the measures which will be taken. I have already mentioned these in my speech before you started commenting on the content of the speech. So, the Commission is also glad to see that this subject remains a high priority and is confident that new measures in this field will receive the support of the European Parliament.
At the same time, the Parliament can count on the full support of the European Commission in advancing child online safety. We are strongly committed to promoting EU leadership in child online safety ,delivering high standards of protection and stimulating appropriate action from the industry. The children of today will be the drivers of tomorrow's European economy. Equipping them with the relevant digital tools is an investment in the future of Europe.
So, I thank you President and I thank you honourable Members for your contribution to this debate and, as I already said, we have taken note of all your contributions.

Elnök asszony. – A vitát lezárom.
               


Írásos nyilatkozatok (171. cikk)



Ioan-Rareș Bogdan (PPE),
în scris. – Să facem internetul mai sigur pentru copiii noștri rămâne o prioritate, mai ales că ei reprezintă o treime dintre utilizatorii de internet. Comisia urmărește să elaboreze o nouă strategie cuprinzătoare privind drepturile copilului, inclusiv drepturile online. Strategia ar trebui să includă acțiuni pentru protejarea copiilor vulnerabili, protejarea drepturilor lor online, dar și prevenirea și combaterea violenței. Un alt pas va fi consolidarea și modernizarea regulilor aplicabile serviciilor digitale din întreaga UE prin Legea privind serviciile digitale. Comisia vrea să colaboreze cu statele membre pentru a avea o transpunere completă a Directivei revizuite privind serviciile de media audiovizuale, care include o nouă obligație pentru statele membre de a se asigura că platformele de video sharing pun în aplicare măsuri specifice de protecție a minorilor de conținutul dăunător online. Vor exista mecanisme care vor permite utilizatorilor să raporteze, să indice conținutul dăunător, verificarea vârstei sau sistemele de control parental și proceduri transparente ușor de utilizat și eficiente de gestionare a reclamațiilor. Este nevoie să sprijinim educația digitală, să implicăm actorii relevanți la nivel european, național și local, pe părinți, pe tineri, să implicăm școlile, pentru a face internetul un spațiu mai sigur și a evita astfel posibilele incidente.
               
26.   Coronavirus: ensuring fundamental rights and a coordinated European response (debate)

Elnök asszony. – A következő pont a Bizottság nyilatkozata a Koronavírus: az alapvető jogok és egy összehangolt európai válasz biztosításáról szóló vita (2020/2565(RSP)).
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, it is more apparent than ever that our greatest challenges, from the rise of antimicrobial resistance and the spread of communicable disease to the climate crisis, are collective ones. The coronavirus outbreak is clear evidence of this, and it highlights the urgent need for close collaboration and coordination across the EU and beyond.
The European Parliament is a crucial partner in these efforts, and I am glad to have an opportunity to discuss the EU's response with you this evening. The Commission has mobilised its services and agencies, notably the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDE), and is working on all fronts to support efforts to tackle the outbreak. This includes ongoing coordination with Member States to share information, funding vaccine research and offering support through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.
I will share some more specific examples of our efforts and some ideas for an improved response, but first I think it is important to salute the commitment of all frontline medical personnel, who are operating in very difficult circumstances. Last week we expressed special condolences for the death of Dr Li Wenliang, who was among the first to warn us about the coronavirus.
A few words on the importance of cross-sectoral coordination at EU and Member State level would be in order here. On 28 January, President von der Leyen triggered the Commission's crisis coordination mechanism. My colleague Commissioner Lenarčič, in his role as the European Emergency Response Coordinator, has convened meetings of the Crisis Coordination Committee with the participation of all relevant services, from health, civil protection, through research to transport, but also development cooperation and communication, to name just a few. He repeatedly emphasised that this challenge requires a joined-up collective effort and using all the tools that we have at our disposal.
Relevant Commission services and the European External Action Service are constantly assessing the situation and deciding on the actions needed for a swift and coordinated response. Consular coordination and cooperation between EU Member States is ongoing in order to address repatriation and other consular needs. Thanks to the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and on the initiative of some Member States, such as France and Germany, hundreds of EU citizens have been repatriated from Hubei province.
Commissioner Kyriakides has been in regular contact with the Ministers of the Member States where cases have been confirmed. Under the cross-border health threat decision, the Commission coordinates with Member States through three key mechanisms: the Early Warning and Response System, the Health Security Committee, and the Communicators' Network. Effective cooperation is key to their success, and I assure you that these mechanisms are active, sharing information and building preparedness and mitigation strategies. At the same time, the Commission has provided EUR 10 million for research on the virus, and the EU-funded PREPARE project has been activated. This will launch clinical trials across a network of 3 000 hospitals and 900 laboratories in 42 countries.
Currently, Member States are implementing a variety of measures at points of entry to the EU. However, we should work with Member States to develop a common position on external borders in line with international recommendations, whilst protecting freedom of movement and the health security of all EU citizens.
We also need to coordinate with key partners like the World Health Organization (WHO). The Commission is planning to mobilise funding to support the WHO's Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan in order to tackle the outbreak, to contain its spread and to foster research and investigation. Capacity reinforcement is especially important in countries with already fragile health systems. Access to personal protective equipment is a critical part of the wider response. The Commission is looking at the needs of Member States in this regard. In parallel, the Commission is reviewing country capacity for quarantine and isolation. Understandably, there are varying levels of capacity across Member States, including around personal protective equipment. Should EU transmission of the virus greatly expand, this may require cross-border solidarity and cooperation.
It is important to contain the outbreak to reduce the risk of it spreading further. In addition to ensuring preparedness in the EU, we need to focus on assisting China. This helps the Chinese, but it also decreases the risk for the rest of the world. The Commission is working closely with China, both at technical and political levels. The EU has already provided 12 tonnes of protective equipment to China. This is a clear sign of our solidarity. We have been in contact with Member States and private companies to identify stocks of protective personal equipment that go beyond EU needs and could be shared with China. Yes, we need to make sure that stocks at national level are sufficient, but we also need to focus on where our support could have the greatest impact by tackling the outbreak at source. We are also looking into setting up a joint working group between EU and Chinese experts on public health aspects of the virus, which regards the potential for indirect consequences of the outbreak. One issue of particular concern is the potential for xenophobia, both online and offline. Discrimination against Asians or persons perceived as Asians or any other race or ethnicity is contrary to EU law. The Commission will not tolerate any racial discrimination in whatever form it takes.
The Commission is in contact with the European Medicines Agency and networks of Member State authorities to assess the situation of the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and of finished medicinal products available for the European pharma industry and the European market. So far, the outbreak is not affecting the availability of medicines in Europe, but obviously we will remain vigilant. However, the outbreak highlights the need to examine the domestic production of APIs and finished medicinal products. This is something that we are currently reflecting on, and it will form part of the pharmaceutical strategy to be launched later this year.
The Commission has mobilised all the assets at its disposal in order to meet this challenge inside and outside the European Union. Our success depends on rapid communication, information sharing, political will and close coordination. All of these efforts are underpinned by European solidarity with all EU citizens and with others who are vulnerable to this virus. I look forward to hearing your views.

Esther de Lange,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, on the eve of the meeting of the ministers of health tomorrow, I think it's only fitting and thank the Commissioner that we are discussing this subject tonight. And let's be clear, there's no need for panic in Europe, but people are quite rightly looking towards their national authorities but also towards the EU for answers. I want to, first of all, compliment the European Commission for their coordination efforts. I've seen previous outbreaks that were less coordinated but here, for example, the initiative taken for the coordinated approach about the repatriation of people deserves our compliments.
But I also want to express a warning. Ministers of health tomorrow will be very inclined to underline that health is a national competence, and they will be right, but people at the moment don't want to talk about the Lisbon Treaty, they want to see solutions. And, therefore, for the EPP, we expect a number of things: first of all a capacity check as to the preparedness of all Member States and I honestly get a bit worried when I hear the Commission say we might have to organise solidarity for the protective equipment in Member States where they have less access. No, we need to do that, actually, now. We need this capacity check. We need a common approach on people entering from the region into the EU, a clear communication strategy that avoids conflicting advice, which we've seen between Member States in the past, cooperate the vaccine – you've said enough about that – but also, that's my last point, up-to-date data. How come, officially, we have data saying Africa has zero cases? That either means they have zero cases, which I find highly unlikely given their contact with China, or they just don't check and that would be a worrying thing for a neighbouring continent like the EU. Therefore, we are, as the EU, as strong as our weakest link, and what the ministers need to do tomorrow is to make sure that there are no weak links at all.

Jytte Guteland,
för S&D-gruppen. – Fru talman! Tack, fru kommissionär, för ditt viktiga inledande på denna debatt.
               

                  Med 40 000 bekräftade fall globalt och mer än 1 100 tragiska dödsfall måste vi ta coronaviruset på fullt allvar. Vi ska vara väl medvetna om att antalet fall i Europa inte har varit så stort, men beredskapen är viktig för att hantera och skydda befolkningen.
               

                  Världshälsoorganisationens arbete för att förstå utbrottet och virusets verkan är oerhört viktigt, då vi ännu inte riktigt vet hur spridningen går till. Därför är jag glad över att du nämner EU:s insatser när det gäller forskning kring viruset. Det tror jag är väldigt avgörande. Likaså är det arbete som olika expertgrupper gör för att identifiera källan av utbrottet mycket viktigt, för att säkerställa att vi kan förhindra liknande utbrott fram över. Vi vet nämligen inte ännu om vi gör tillräckligt, och det är tyvärr omöjligt att veta det tills vi har bättre kunskap om viruset, dess uppkomst och hur det fungerar.
               

                  Jag uppmanar hälsoministrarna i EU:s olika medlemsländer att vara vaksamma och redo att hantera eventuella nya fall samt att sprida all information och hjälpa varandra i detta. Åtgärder för smittskydd är av högsta vikt och måste prioriteras, samtidigt som isolering av personer och karantän m.m. måste ske på ett proportionerligt sätt och inte kränka grundläggande rättigheter. Vi måste också se till att coronaviruset inte bidrar till att misstänkliggöra människor eller leder till att falsk information sprids.
               

                  Med allt detta sagt så är det bra att kommissionen är på hugget, att du, fru kommissionär, är här i dag, att du visar att er beredskap är stor och att vi tillsammans ser till att sprida all den kunskap vi har, satsar på forskningsinsatser och ser till att vi har korrekt information för att kunna skydda medborgarna.
               

Katalin Cseh,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, there is hardly a day that goes by without new breaking news about the coronavirus, and as we are more connected than ever the world is holding its breath anticipating the outbreak of a truly global pandemic. That's the wrong approach, I think. This global attention has a very clear downside: deliberate misinformation; fake news; misleading reporting about the coronavirus are all around us. In Hungary, two people were detained who were spreading fake news in social media about a disease reaching hundreds of thousands of people according to investigators. That's nonsense. And other internationally wide-spread posts claimed that more than 60% of humanity will get infected in the near future.
Let's face it. Europe has not done much to address this issue of the spreading of fake news and hysteria. There is certainly of course a global crisis unfolding, nobody denies that, but in the face of the crisis, Europe must remain calm and composed. This is why we should not ignore the rising misinformation campaigns that spread fearmongering and mistrust. A coordinated European response must include fact-checking and providing regular and credible information to our citizens. We must never forget that their trust is our most precious asset, and misinformation is sometimes even more contagious than the coronavirus.

Reinhard Bütikofer,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, in this crisis we express our solidarity with the Chinese people and, in particular, with the people of Wuhan. We mourn all the victims and we send our condolences to the families of the deceased.
We declare our high esteem for the service of the Chinese frontline medical workers under the very difficult circumstances and high risks, and I want to hail, in particular, the courage and the sacrifice of Dr Li Wenliang and others.
We welcome the fact that the EU and the Member States have shown first responses in offering support to China. We must continue to provide assistance and cooperation wherever possible. This health crisis is not over. That is why we have to make sure that there is a strong and coordinated effort within the EU and, in particular, between the Member States, and in that regard, I fully support what has been said previously by colleagues.
International cooperation more generally is of paramount importance. This is why I want to explicitly emphasise that Taiwan must be fully included in the WHO-led international efforts.
Lastly, there is a deep concern – and I am grateful to the Commissioner that she mentioned it – about the increasing number of reports of anti-Chinese or anti-Asian xenophobia in some countries, including in the EU, in the context of this crisis. This is completely unacceptable. We want to show solidarity, not allow xenophobia and racism. And in that context, we also have to battle against fake news and fearmongering.

Joanna Kopcińska,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Szanowna Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Biorąc pod uwagę rosnącą pilność i potrzebę kompleksowej strategii w odpowiedzi na ewentualny wzrost zachorowań w Europie, mam kilka pytań, które chciałabym skierować do Komisji. Czy Komisja może przedstawić jakieś uwagi na temat jutrzejszego nadzwyczajnego spotkania ministrów zdrowia Unii Europejskiej? Czy Komisja może wyjaśnić, w jaki sposób ECDC, DG Santo oraz chińskie centrum kontroli i zapobiegania chorób koordynują ich reakcje na nowy koronawirus? I czy Komisja może podać datę wydania piątej oceny ryzyka Europejskiego Centrum do spraw Zapobiegania i Kontroli Chorób? Co więcej, czy Komisja może wyjaśnić, w jaki sposób Unia Europejska koordynuje działania z innymi państwami trzecimi? W szczególności, czy rozważa środki awaryjne w przypadku rozprzestrzenienia się wirusa w Afryce, co mogłoby spowodować dodatkowe obciążenia w systemach opieki zdrowotnej państw na tamtym obszarze? Dyrektor generalny Światowej Organizacji Zdrowia stwierdził, że szczepionka może nie być dostępna przez ponad 18 miesięcy. Czy taki harmonogram jest zgodny z obecną oceną Komisji?
               

Miguel Urbán Crespo,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora presidenta, el coronavirus es hoy menos mortífero que una gripe normal, pero la alarma social generada es infinitamente mayor. Los estereotipos y el mal manejo de la información están alimentando la discriminación contra personas asiáticas, en una muestra más de xenofobia e intolerancia.
               

                  El virus no se combate con racismo, sino garantizando el acceso a sistemas de salud públicos, universales y gratuitos, con unas condiciones de vida dignas. El acceso universal a la salud es un derecho fundamental, y aprovechamos también este debate para reclamar que se reviertan las medidas de austeridad y los recortes de los servicios públicos que han atacado la universalidad y la calidad de la atención sanitaria en muchas partes del mundo, pero también aquí, en Europa.
               

                  Es fundamental recordar que en la gestión de este tipo de crisis también se deben respetar estrictamente los derechos humanos. Y, finalmente, exigimos que se adopte un enfoque de tolerancia cero respecto a los ataques racistas contra las personas de origen asiático, porque no hay peor virus que la xenofobia.
               

Ivan Štefanec (PPE). – Madam President, as we know today, there are already more than 1 000 victims of coronavirus and more than 40 000 infected people. Still today, Taiwan is the only country with confirmed cases that has been excluded from the World Health Organisation (WHO) meetings. This not only creates a serious gap in the global health security system, but it also undermines Taiwanese people's fundamental human right to health.
Taiwan is the most important international hub in the western Pacific, and the disease does not know borders. Taiwan is the fourth country successfully isolating the sample of coronavirus. I'm sure that now is the time to work together and to use all the expertise that we can. I therefore ask you, dear colleagues, to support our common call on all the individuals blocking Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organisation. Taiwan should be included in all WHO activities. We can beat this fearful disease only together with people who want to help.

Robert Hajšel (S&D). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, Európska únia musí naozaj zabrániť šíreniu nielen koronavírusu, ale aj šíreniu propagandy, ktorá sa šíri okolo tohoto vírusu na internete a na sociálnych médiách. Európska komisia a kompetenčné orgány musia prijať potrebné opatrenia v potrebnom čase.
               

                  Ja si myslím, doposiaľ čo sa urobilo je dobré, ale nemôžme zaspať, aj keď si myslíme, že prípady rozšírenia koronavírusu sú zatiaľ v Európe izolované. Nemusí tak byť dlho.
               

                  My musíme hlavne zdieľať informácie a informácie musíme aj ďalej komunikovať našim občanom. Ide o to, aby naši ľudia vedeli ako predchádzať, ako sa táto, ako sa tento vírus šíri. Ja teraz sa chcem pozastaviť na jednej veci, a to je predchádzanie. Lebo predchádzanie je vždy lepšie ako liečiť, a bohužiaľ napríklad rúška sú nedostatok rúšok na trhu. Len niektoré rúška sú účinné, a treba povedať a treba to komunikovať občanom, že nákaza sa šíri najmä cez ústa, nos ale aj cez ruky a cez pevné materiály, čiže treba o tom informovať ľudí a hlavne deti v škole. Inak pokiaľ ide o rúška, samozrejme najúčinnejším je protokol FFP3, takže prosím, aby aj Európska komisia v tomto vyvinula úsilie a dostalo sa to, tieto informácie priamo občanom.
               

Véronique Trillet-Lenoir (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, l'émergence du coronavirus nous confirme le caractère mondial des crises sanitaires. Non, les virus ne s'arrêtent pas aux frontières.
               

                  Vous l'avez rappelé, Madame la Commissaire, l'Union européenne a bien joué son rôle de coordination et d'accompagnement des pays membres: recommandations pour les personnels de santé, organisation du rapatriement des ressortissants européens en Chine, financement de la recherche à hauteur de 10 millions d'euros pour trouver de nouveaux médicaments et de nouveaux vaccins.
               

                  Nous avons entendu ces derniers jours des propos très critiques sur le gouvernement chinois. Le moment n'est pas à donner des leçons, ni à instrumentaliser une crise de santé publique pour en faire un sujet politique. Le moment est celui de la solidarité vis-à-vis des populations chinoises et de leurs médecins qui se battent à leurs côtés. Le moment est aussi celui de la main tendue vers les pays, et je pense à l'Afrique, où le système sanitaire est fragile et ne permettra pas de contenir une épidémie.
               

Petra De Sutter (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, no single country or organisation can stop this coronavirus outbreak alone. The EU should closely collaborate with Member States, the WHO, the Chinese Government and other international partners, including Taiwan. The international community should support all efforts to end this outbreak, but human rights should not be a casualty of the coronavirus.
Several international rights groups have signalled that the Chinese Government has been withholding information, suppressing freedom of expression and denying access to food and medicines. On the other hand, elsewhere in the world there is an increase in anti-Chinese or anti-Asian xenophobia and discrimination. International law is very clear that during a time of public health emergency, any restrictions on human rights should be based on legality, necessity, proportionality and grounded in evidence. I count on the EU to protect our health and to protect human rights, within the EU and elsewhere.

Peter Liese (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Auch ich möchte den Betroffenen mein Mitgefühl ausdrücken, vor allen Dingen mein Beileid den Angehörigen der Todesopfer. Auch ich unterstütze, was die Kommissarin gesagt hat – dass wir in Europa zusammenarbeiten müssen. Aber wenn wir den Titel der Debatte ‘Menschenrechte’ sehen, dann müssen wir doch noch einmal deutlich unterstreichen, dass hier eine krasse Verletzung der Meinungsfreiheit zu einer Verschärfung der Krise geführt hat und dass wir außerdem ein großes Problem haben: dass ein Teil der Weltgemeinschaft, nämlich Taiwan, ausgeschlossen ist von den Koordinierungsmaßnahmen – aus ideologischen Gründen. Ich denke, das sollte eine wichtige Botschaft sein: Ideologie darf nicht über Gesundheit stehen. Das muss jetzt auch in China deutlich werden.
               

Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Fru talman, fru kommissionär! Detta är en viktig debatt. Coronaviruset skapar oro i världen. Antalet smittade och döda har ökat kraftigt bara de senaste dygnen. Det är därför av största vikt att vi, kommissionen och medlemsstaterna hela tiden ger våra medborgare korrekt information om viruset och dess risker. Kunskap och forskning är helt avgörande.
               

                  Självklart ska vi också verka för att karantän och isolering för personer med symptom används på ett proportionerligt sätt, så att det inte bryter mot de grundläggande mänskliga rättigheterna. Vi ska fördöma det ökade antalet rasistiska attacker mot personer med asiatiskt utseende.
               

                  Vi måste nu rikta alla åtgärder och insatser på att hindra spridningen såväl i medlemsstaterna som inom EU och globalt. Jag vill tacka kommissionär Dalli för en mycket tydlig ansvarsbeskrivning när det gäller EU:s ansvar i detta arbete.
               

Isabel Wiseler-Lima (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, si la liberté de parole avait été respectée à Wuhan, le coronavirus aurait éventuellement eu une chance d'être contenu.
               

                  Li Wenliang, c'est le nom du docteur qui avait prévenu, déjà en décembre, des risques de ce virus. Or, ce qui s'est passé, c'est que ce médecin s'est vu convoqué par les autorités, s'est vu obligé de garder le secret, et s'est même vu obligé de déclarer qu'il avait porté atteinte à l'ordre public et fait de fausses déclarations. Si les autorités avaient mis la même énergie à contrôler d'un point de vue scientifique les affirmations du médecin, aujourd'hui nous n'en serions probablement pas là. La transparence, qui plus est en matière de santé, doit prévaloir, tout comme le bon sens. Permettons à Taïwan, touché par le coronavirus, de participer à l'OMS.
               

                  Li Wenliang lui-même, atteint par le coronavirus, vient de décéder, la semaine dernière. Il est devenu un héros pour les internautes chinois qui relient son nom à un appel à la liberté d'expression. Des images réalisées autour du coronavirus sont effacées de l'internet. Des gens sont menacés et se retrouvent en prison pour les avoir rendues publiques. La vérité a été cachée au monde. Il y a eu des impacts dramatiques. Tout cela est inacceptable et nous nous devons de le pointer du doigt pour le prévenir à l'avenir.
               

                  Je tiens aussi à remercier profondément tout le personnel médical et scientifique qui travaille sans relâche.
               

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


Véronique Trillet-Lenoir (Renew),
question ‘carton bleu’
                     . – Madame Wiseler-Lima – en français pour ma collègue française –, je voudrais simplement savoir si vous avez lu un ouvrage intitulé La Peste, d'Albert Camus.
               

Isabel Wiseler-Lima (PPE),
réponse ‘carton bleu’
                     . – Oui, absolument, Madame Trillet-Lenoir.
               

                  à la fin de ce livre, une phrase dit que ‘le bacille de la peste ne meurt jamais’ et qu'il faut être très vigilant. Camus faisait référence au fait que la liberté est quelque chose qu'il faut absolument sauvegarder. Il faisait référence à la peste brune, au nazisme, et au fait que nous devons toujours rester vigilants et que les libertés fondamentales sont des libertés que nous devons toujours, toujours, préserver.
               

                  Merci beaucoup, je suis vraiment contente que vous ayez mentionné La Peste.
               

Dolors Montserrat (PPE). – Señora presidenta, la propia China reconoce que hay dificultades y fallos en su respuesta y, por la falta de transparencia de China, sigue la incertidumbre sobre la extensión del brote. Tampoco tenemos información de África. Por lo tanto, se trata de una emergencia de salud pública que está poniendo a prueba a las naciones —la resistencia de las naciones—, las instituciones públicas, privadas, centros de trabajo, escuelas, eventos económicos importantes —como, por ejemplo, el Mobile World Congress de Barcelona, que esta tarde ha sido cancelado por el coronavirus—.
               

                  Los ciudadanos de la Unión nos piden acciones concretas y soluciones europeas. Por tanto, exigimos una única línea de respuesta, coordinada y armonizada con la OMS y con todos los Estados miembros. Necesitamos una estrategia de comunicación conjunta e inmediata que dé tranquilidad y seguridad a todos los europeos, porque solo así combatiremos la desinformación, las fakes news, los estigmas que solo provocan alarmas.
               

                  Yo misma, como ciudadana europea, echo de menos en centros públicos información de cómo podemos prevenir el coronavirus. Por tanto, en el Partido Popular hemos tomado la iniciativa con medidas concretas. La primera, una estrategia de comunicación clara que inspire confianza; cooperar en la investigación de vacunas; disponer de big data, para lo que hemos propuesto un cuestionario para los pasajeros que entren en territorio europeo; y, sobre todo, cooperar con el resto del mundo. Y, por tanto, mañana, exigimos a los ministros de Sanidad y a la comisaria que den una respuesta unida y efectiva a la… (la presidenta retira la palabra a la oradora).
               

Antonio Tajani (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la posizione del Partito popolare europeo è molto chiara. Noi sosteniamo l'azione della Commissione europea, ma chiediamo alla Commissione europea, fin da domani mattina, di fare in modo che ci sia una risposta coordinata da parte di tutti gli Stati membri dell'Unione europea.
               

                  Uniti con le stesse misure si può affrontare un'emergenza che ha drammaticamente colpito la Cina e che non vogliamo che colpisca l'Europa. Ecco perché serve unità, servono misure. Noi abbiamo proposto quella di un questionario che permetta di sapere se coloro che arrivano in Europa hanno trascorso giornate in Cina nelle regioni a più alto contagio. È una proposta concreta che abbiamo fatto alla Commissione. Dobbiamo andare avanti e se vogliamo evitare il panico dobbiamo agire rapidamente e concretamente.
               

                  Ultima cosa: la Cina non ha fatto tutto ciò che doveva e continua a fare non ciò che deve. Sono mancate informazioni, si è iniziato in ritardo. I cinesi sono le prime vittime di un sistema che sta facendo come ha fatto l'Unione Sovietica con la vicenda di Cernobyl. Nascondere le tragedie significa creare danni enormi ai propri cittadini. I cinesi sono le prime vittime del regime comunista cinese.
               


                        ‘Catch the eye’ eljárás


Tudor Ciuhodaru (S&D). – Doamna președintă, la ora când facem această dezbatere, numărul cazurilor a crescut peste o mie de ori față de prima lună și sunt 1 118 decese. Nicio țară nu se poate lupta singură cu un astfel de fenomen, iar, din acest punct de vedere, eu cred că dreptul la sănătate este un drept fundamental pe care trebuie să-l apărăm cu toții, dincolo de orice culoare politică.
               

                  Am fost primul care a cerut în plenul Parlamentului European un plan european integrat de acțiune și mă bucur că o parte dintre aceste măsuri au fost luate, acest sistem de alertă rapidă, activarea mecanismului european de protecție civilă.
               

                  Dar să știți că, atunci când ne aflăm într-o astfel de situație, ar trebui să ne pregătim și de intervenție. Vorbim de țări europene care au sisteme de sănătate inegale, nu avem încă un standard european de calitate în sănătate, iar, în fața unui astfel de fenomen care poate să creeze mari probleme, ar trebui să avem o atitudine unitară.
               

                  Și sper, doamna comisar, ca mâine dimineață să stabiliți acel mod de integrare a sistemului de reacție pe sănătate, chiar dacă este vorba, și poate va fi nevoie, măcar să ne pregătim ca acel corp medical european să intervină. Și, așa cum m-am oferit voluntar când a fost vorba de epidemia de Ebola, eu fiind medic, medic de urgență în Iași, în România, mă ofer voluntar și dacă este nevoie să se intervină într-o astfel de situație. Vă felicit pentru măsurile luate și cred că lucrurile bune trebuie să continue.
               

Clare Daly (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, in Ireland, we have over 2 000 excess winter deaths as a result of fuel poverty and a bad health service, from a population of 4.5 million. This virus has led to the deaths of over a thousand, and while I regret every one of those deaths, we have to maintain a sense of perspective and we have to, as the Commissioner said, let this matter be dealt with by science and in calm, emphasising research, clinical trials, containment and close collaboration.
I have to salute the efforts of the Chinese, who have done their very best to contain this virus in difficult circumstances, and I think all Member States have to reciprocate and redouble their efforts. The Commissioner said Member States have introduced a variety of measures at entry points to the EU. I have to say my own country, Ireland, has been poor in that regard, but I do welcome your points to help China. I think that's really important and to ward against the discrimination that surrounds this issue.

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, paní komisařko, děkuji za Vaši zprávu a souhlasím s mnoha předřečníky. Myslím si, že je potřeba rychlá informovanost a spolupráce.
               

                  O to více je pro mě nepochopitelné, že Čína, která volá po solidaritě a pomoci, tak odmítla pomoc Tchaj-wanu, který nabídl zdravotnické prostředky a pomoc s léčbou. Tchaj-wan je země, která má jeden z nejrozvinutějších zdravotnických systémů. Já souhlasím s kolegy, že musíme prosadit, aby Tchaj-wan měl své zastoupení v orgánech Světové zdravotnické organizace.
               

                  Myslím si, že zdraví má přednost před politikou, a proto chci, paní komisařko, abyste ověřila tuto zprávu, zda je to pravda, že Čína opravdu odmítla tuto pomoc. Chci říci, že my se nebráníme solidaritě, naopak. I v ČR se zvedla vlna solidarity a obyčejní lidé posílají finanční prostředky i materiální pomoc Číně. Zdraví má přednost před politikou.
               

Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Madam President, it was really good to hear that the EU is ready and willing to tackle this dangerous outbreak in cooperation with Member States, of course, and also that the EU is already working with China to help and assist in fighting that. Let me remind you that the EU and China have been strategic partners since 2003. We have already seen some impact on the global economy and growth because of uncertainty, and because China is too important a global player. So if it is internally hit by the disease, it will also have global consequences.
If the EU wants to be a global player and it wants to show global responsibility, it's time to revive that strategic partnership, like Mr Bütikofer rightly pointed out, to better include China within the World Health Organisation (WHO) framework. It should also fight the general anti-Chinese or anti-Asian moods that have been spreading throughout Europe in the last month at least, because they are very dangerous.

Mick Wallace (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, in 2009 the swine flu broke out in the US. It spread to 100 countries and over 10 000 died from it. This year alone in the US, 19 million people got the flu; 10 000 have died, 180 000 have been hospitalised. I actually find it amusing that the manner in which people have used this to try and undermine the Chinese State is a bit scary. If the Chinese have a problem with coronavirus, do you not think that they need our solidarity and our help and our cooperation? They don't need us to panic, they don't need us to kick them around the place because they have a problem. They built a hospital in 10 days. We wouldn't even get the paperwork done in six months because there are so many people wanting a piece of the pie.
The fact that they're not a neoliberal state – they've actually been better fitted than most to actually deal with the crisis. We should be applauding them, and in fairness to the Commission here, they've actually been pretty positive about the Chinese reaction; the WHO have been pretty positive about it – but do you know what? For people in Europe to throw stones at them and to use human rights issues and whatever to actually undermine the Chinese position is pretty sickening. Do you know what? We've a lot to learn from the Chinese.

(‘Catch the eye’ eljárás vége)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I thank you and the honourable Members for an informed and valuable discussion. I have taken note of all of your comments. But, regarding Taiwan vis-à—vis the WHO, we promote practical solutions without formal involvement regarding Taiwan's participation in international frameworks when this is consistent with the One-China policy. With regards to Chinese services, we are in daily contact and we have no reason to doubt the information which they give us.
I also want to put your minds at rest that we are in contact with the African authorities, and that the EU has a cooperation agreement with the Chinese Centre for Disease Control. We are making sure that we are prepared, and therefore no panic, but vigilance.
I appreciate the fact that we share a common objective on this issue to ensure an effective, coherent EU-level response to the coronavirus outbreak. We are working closely with Member States and doing all that we can to ensure that we succeed. However, success also depends on coordination with, and active participation from, all key stakeholders, including the European Parliament. It also depends on political will, which has been demonstrated here today.
The EU Council Presidency, as we have already said, has organised an Extraordinary Health Council, which will be taking place tomorrow. This will provide another important opportunity to enhance our coordination.
Success also requires alignment of preparedness and response measures, including at the EU's external borders. This would support China's efforts to contain the virus and mitigate any further transmission within and into the EU, as well as assisting third countries with weak health systems. In fact, this should be our ultimate goal: to support China and the international response whilst protecting European citizens, and it is possible. We will continue to monitor the situation very closely and take the necessary actions, and we will keep the European Parliament abreast of all the developments.

Elnök asszony. – A vitát berekesztik.
               


Írásos nyilatkozatok (171. cikk)



Manuel Pizarro (S&D),
por escrito. – A ameaça global do coronavírus constitui um teste à eficácia da cooperação interna da UE a nível da saúde. Mas essa cooperação não será suficiente se não for articulada, ao nível da OMS, com todos os países da comunidade internacional afetados, com vista a conter e, a prazo, vencer a epidemia.
               

                  Nesse sentido, a UE deve diligenciar para que Taiwan, onde vivem 23 milhões de pessoas, não continue a ser o único país com casos confirmados de coronavírus excluído das reuniões técnicas da OMS, como tem acontecido desde o início do surto. Essa exclusão é não só inexplicável como irresponsável. No passado, Taiwan pôde participar em reuniões da OMS com o estatuto de observador. A exclusão deste país das reuniões relacionadas com a resposta ao coronavírus é, por isso, ainda mais incompreensível. A inclusão de Taiwan nesses convénios, bem como na 73a Assembleia da OMS a ter lugar proximamente, deve ser objeto de démarches por parte das autoridades europeias. Para além disso, há ainda que averiguar os relatos de discriminação contra asiáticos no espaço europeu no contexto desta epidemia, inadmissíveis à luz dos valores da União.
               
27.   Approval of the minutes of the current sitting: see Minutes
28.   Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes
29.   Closure of the sitting

(Az ülést 22.56-kor rekesztik be.)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)